CAR_Public/150527.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 105


                            Headlines


A&J IRON: Faces "Vintimilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
A&S FOOD: Recalls Hua Zhi Ying Brand Gourd Candy Due to Sulfites
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Accrued $10MM Loss Contingency Over Case Deal
AFFINION GROUP: Doesn't Know When Court Will Rule on Appeals Bid
AFFINION GROUP: Court Has Yet to Set Hearing on Dismissal Bids

AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Date Yet on Bid to Amend Complaint
AFFINION GROUP: Objects to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation
AFFINION GROUP: No Activity in San Francisco, Calif. Class Action
AMBEV S.A.: To Defend Against Brewers Retail Litigation
AO SMITH: Juni Ruling Potential Game Changer in Asbestos Cases

APOLLO EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Paredes" Class Action
APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces Barton and Abdullah Class Action
APOLLO EDUCATION: 9th Cir. Affirmed Securities Case Dismissal
APOLLO EDUCATION: Teamsters Seeks Preliminary Settlement Approval
APOLLO EDUCATION: Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violations Nixed

APOLLO EDUCATION: "Gonzalez" Plaintiff Drops Class Action
APOLLO EDUCATION: "Saleh" Plaintiff Drops Class Action
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Dist. Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment
ASPEN DENTAL MANAGEMENT: "Treiber" Suit Dismissed

AUDREY KING: Court Severs "Mix" Claims From "Mateer" Case
AURORA PRODUCTS: Recalls Raw Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
AUTOLIV INC: Reaches Additional Antitrust Settlements
BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in FDCPA Case
BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Outstanding FX-Related Actions

BANK OF THE WEST: Settlement in "Bayat" Case Wins Final Approval
BARBIZON SCHOOL: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Parties Agree to Add Potential Class Members
CARRICK'S SERVICE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Rosen Files Securities Class Action

CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Approved Fairness of Settlement
CB FINANCIAL: Oct. 2015 Oral Argument Expected in Appeal
CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Exit From Alternator Defect Class Action
COMCAST CORPORATION: Settlement in "Rouse" FLSA Action Okayed
COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Faces "Clay" Sued Over Failure to OT

COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
COMTRAK LOGISTICS: Calif. Court Sends "Robles" Case to Tennessee
COOPER VISION: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COUPONS.COM INCORPORATED: Faces "Nguyen" Class Action
DWM CONSULTING: Transferred "Lopez" Suit to E.D. Texas

E & J WELL: Faces "Hebert" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Late-Fee Policies
FEDEX CORPORATION: Defendant in Several Wage-and-Hour Cases
FEDEX CORPORATION: Has Accrual for Probable Class Action Losses
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE: "Kirk" Dispute Won't Go to Arbitration

FIVE BELOW: Defending Against Securities Class Action
FORT BEND ISD: Sued for Sending Absentees to Criminal Court
GENERAL MOTORS: Asks Court to Dismiss Religious Leave Class Suit
GOOD SEED: Recalls Soybean and Mung Bean Sprouts Due to Listeria
HESKA CORP: Faces TCPA Complaint in N.D. Illinois

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Humidifiers
HORIZON BROS: Faces "Qirici" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOSPITAL FOOD: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Faces Federal Securities Class Action
IL BELLAGIO: "Falcone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Timm" Action Pending
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Discovery Proceeding in "Marentes" Class Action
ING GROEP: Class-Wide Settlement Reached in Case Against ILIAC
INOGEN INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeals $3-Million Topamax Verdict

KOLBE MILLWORK: Insurers Can't Force Defendants to Switch Counsel
LEHMAN BROTHERS: LBSF's Reply to Motion to Certify Due
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Data Privacy Litigation
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Class Action Still Pending
LIVE BROADBAND: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hoevelman" Suit Says

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Believes Plaintiff's Appeal Has No Merit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Testing Kits
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Accord Reached in Santa Clara, Calif. Suit
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Voss Litigation Granted
MEDBOX INC: Court Extends Time to Respond to Crystal Complaint

MEDBOX INC: Faces "Gutierrez" Class Action in C.D. Cal.
MEDBOX INC: "Donnino" Class Action in Early Stages
MEDICAL TRANSPORT: "Meeker" Case Has Conditional Certification
MIDDLETOWN CAR-G-CAM: Faces "Saldana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Expert Opinion, Class Cert. Bid Orders Entered

NATURAL CREATIONS: Recalls New Zealand Colostrum Products
NESTLE CANADA: Beneful(R) Class Action Over in Canada Begins
NEW YORK HOSPITALITY: Court Rules on Summary Judgment in "Inclan"
NEW YORK TAXI: Court Rules on Reconsideration Bid in "Rothenberg"
NIGHTS OF CABIRIA: Settlement in "Lopez" Case Denied

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Fails in Bid to Toss "Falco" Lawsuit
NNS TRADING: "Jean-Pierre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NOCHES FAIRVIEW: "Vilorio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NONNA RESTAURANT: "Espinosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
OC RAW: Recalls Turkey & Produce Raw Frozen Canine Formulations

ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Facing Paul Parshall Class Action
ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Facing John Solak Class Action
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Charles Pfeiffer Case in Discovery Phase
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: June 24 Hearing in "Beeney" Class Action
PALM ROYALE: "Quintana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

PEOPLES BANCORP: Defending Suit in General Court of Justice
PHOENIX RISING: Faces "Adkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Dudley" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Agrees to Pay $65MM to Settle Lawsuit
PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY: "Magana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

ROSEL HOME: "Cuesta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROYAL BANCSHARES: Case Settlement Remains Subject to Approval
SCORES HOLDING: Has $23,781 Settlement Receivable in Class Action
SIZMEK INC: Court Dismissed Equity Trading Action
SIGNET JEWELERS: Reply to Conditional Certification Motion Due

SIGNET JEWELERS: Oral Argument Held in EEOC Case Appeal
SIGNET JEWELERS: To Defend Against Tapia v. Zale Case
SIGNET JEWELERS: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Zale Case
SMART & FINAL: Settlement in Thompson & Manzo Cases Already Paid
SMITHFIELD FOODS: To Defend Against North Carolina Nuisance Suit

SOCIETE NATIONALE DES CHEMINS: Faces Holocaust Class Action
STATE COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ozier" Suit Claims
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Transferred "Leach" Suit to N.D. Ohio
THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Court Tosses Securities Class Action
THREE R'S: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TOP RANK: Faces "Brady" Suit in S.D. Fla. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces "Brodsky" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over Pacquiao's Injury
TOP RANK: Faces Bobadilla Suit Over Pacquiao's Undisclosed Injury
TOYS "R" US: Received Payment of $12 Million from Settlement
TRAVELERS COMPANIES: "Roppo" Insurance Suit Dismissed

UBER TECH: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in "Goldberg" Okayed
UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Issue TRO to Asylum Seekers
US BANK: Dismissal of "Navarro" Class Action Affirmed
YOUKO TODOU: Faces "Jahm" Investor Class Action

* France Allows Class Actions Against Racism
* Third Circuit Adopts Recovery Scheme for ERISA Attorney Fees


                            *********


A&J IRON: Faces "Vintimilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Vintimilla, on behalf of himself, individually and all
others similarly situated v. A&J Iron Works, Inc. and Rene
Hernandez, Case No. 1:15-cv-02691-SJ-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a crafts decorative and structural
iron and steel shop in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Robert Maguire, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com


A&S FOOD: Recalls Hua Zhi Ying Brand Gourd Candy Due to Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
A&S FOOD TRADING INC at 4425B 1ST AVE, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11232 is
recalling HUA ZHI YING BRAND GOURD CANDY because it contains
undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled HUA ZHI YING BRAND GOURD CANDY is sold in a 250G un-
coded, clear plastic package and was distributed in New York
State. It is a product of China.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of HUA ZHI YING
BRAND GOURD CANDY which did not declare sulfites on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.

Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.
Analysis of HUA ZHI YING GOURD CANDY revealed it contains 33.22mg
per serving.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. Consumers who have purchased HUA ZHI YING BRAND GOURD
CANDY should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 718-369-2648.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Accrued $10MM Loss Contingency Over Case Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Adobe Systems Incorporated accrued a loss contingency of $10.0
million during the first quarter of fiscal 2014 associated with a
class action settlement, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2015, for the quarterly period ended February 27, 2015.

Between May 4, 2011 and July 14, 2011, five putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Santa Clara Superior Court and Alameda
Superior Court in California. On September 12, 2011, the cases
were consolidated into In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation ("HTEAL") pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. In the
consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Adobe, along with
Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, agreed not to
recruit each other's employees in violation of Federal and state
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs claim the alleged agreements suppressed
employee compensation and deprived employees of career
opportunities. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary
damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys fees. All defendants
deny the allegations and that they engaged in any wrongdoing of
any kind. On October 24, 2013, the court certified a class of all
persons who worked in the technical, creative, and/or research and
development fields on a salaried basis in the United States for
one or more of the following: (a) Apple from March 2005 through
December 2009; (b) Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c)
Google from March 2005 through December 2009; (d) Intel from March
2005 through December 2009; (e) Intuit from June 2007 through
December 2009; (f) Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December
2009; or (g) Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009,
excluding retail employees, corporate officers, members of the
boards of directors, and senior executives of all defendants.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2015, the parties reached
another agreement to settle the litigation. On March 2015, the
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The hearing
for final approval is set for July 2015.

"We accrued a loss contingency of $10.0 million associated with
this matter during the first quarter of fiscal 2014. If the
settlement is approved, we expect to incur no additional losses
associated with this matter," the Company said.


AFFINION GROUP: Doesn't Know When Court Will Rule on Appeals Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. does not know when the Court will rule on a
motion seeking interlocutory appellate review, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 19, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2014.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this
lawsuit. On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's
motion. On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a
notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their
motion to compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second
Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court denying
arbitration. While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded
in the district court. There was written discovery and
depositions. Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on
class certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The first
of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company,
Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital
One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo
Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online,
Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People
Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA,
Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second of
those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same
defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert
similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs. On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three
cases. The court also set an initial status conference for May 17,
2012. At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs
file a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the
three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the
class certification briefing schedule that had been set
previously. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint asserting substantially the same
legal claims. The consolidated amended complaint added Priceline,
Orbitz, Chase Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants
and added three new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and
Rakuten as Defendants. On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed
motions seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and
to strike certain portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response
brief was filed on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs
were filed on April 5, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the court held
oral argument on the motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the
court ruled on the motions to dismiss, granting them in part and
denying them in part. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO
claims and claims under the California Automatic Renewal Statute
as to all defendants. The court also dismissed certain named
Plaintiffs as their claims were barred either by the statute of
limitations and/or a prior settlement agreement. Certain
Defendants were also dismissed from the case. The court also
struck certain allegations from the consolidated amended
complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs' class action
allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and Trilegiant, the
court denied the motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims
under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well as certain other
claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to
consolidate that case into the existing set of consolidated cases.
On June 13, 2013, the Court entered an order staying the date for
all Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
Court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the
Court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.

On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions
of the court's order of March 28, 2014.  Briefing on the motion
was completed on June 5, 2014.  The Company does not know when the
Court will rule on that motion.


AFFINION GROUP: Court Has Yet to Set Hearing on Dismissal Bids
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has not yet
scheduled a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
second amended complaint in a class action lawsuit.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violation (the
"Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's
alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On
November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit. On May 15, 2014, the Court heard oral argument on
plaintiff's motion to strike the Company's request for judicial
notice of the plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in
support of the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17,
2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to strike.  The Court,
at the same time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but
reserved until further proceedings the determination as to whether
all of plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those
claims not grounded in fraud are dismissible.  The Court permitted
the plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his complaint and
allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct limited discovery,
to be completed by September 26, 2014, concerning the issues
addressed in its dismissal order. All other discovery is currently
stayed in the case. The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the
Court will set a further motion to dismiss briefing schedule
following the conclusion of this limited discovery. The plaintiff
amended his complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted
limited discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the
parties proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for
the defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015.
The plaintiff's opposition brief is due on March 24, 2015, and the
defendants' reply briefs in response to that opposition are due on
April 24, 2015.  The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the
defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.


AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Date Yet on Bid to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has not yet
decided or scheduled a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for leave
to amend a complaint.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action.
The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business and Professional
Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations
that in connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff,
Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using
information obtained through a data pass process and without
obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name,
address, and contact information, as purportedly required under
Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. On September 25, 2012,
Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
and the Court scheduled a hearing on the motion for January 14,
2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of the enrollment
page and related enrollment and account documents. Plaintiff filed
his opposition on December 12, 2012, and Webloyalty filed its
reply submission on January 7, 2013. Thereafter, on January 10,
2013, the Court cancelled the previously scheduled January 14,
2013 hearing and indicated that it would rule based on the
parties' written submissions without the need for a hearing. On
August 28, 2013, the Court sua sponte dismissed plaintiff's
complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by September 30,
2013. The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30,
2013, adding purported claims under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment, money had and received,
conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2,
2013, the Company moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint.
Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014. On February
6, 2014, the Court indicated that it would review the submissions
and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion without oral argument.
On September 29, 2014, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims
on substantive grounds and/or statute of limitations grounds. The
Court allowed the plaintiff 28 days to file a motion demonstrating
why a further amendment of the complaint would not be futile. On
October 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The
Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. However, the
Court has not yet decided or scheduled a hearing on the
plaintiff's motion.


AFFINION GROUP: Objects to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to
pursue an objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation.

On February 7, 2014 a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and one of its clients in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts alleging, among other things,
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief.
Claims are based on allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and
billed for a package program without plaintiff's proper consent
and knowledge.  On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss. A hearing on that motion was held on July 24, 2014.  On
March 11, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the motion was
referred by the district court judge issued a report and
recommendation granting in part and denying in part the motion to
dismiss.  The magistrate judge granted the motion to dismiss on
the fraud claim, which was dismissed as time-barred, but denied
the remainder of the motion.  By rule, the Company has until March
25, 2015, to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.  Any
objection will be decided by district court judge, and the Company
intends to pursue such an objection.


AFFINION GROUP: No Activity in San Francisco, Calif. Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there has been no
activity in a class action filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California - San Francisco Division.

On May 12, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and one of its clients in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California - San Francisco Division.
The complaint alleges plaintiff was unknowingly enrolled in and
charged for an Identity Theft Protection program.  The defendants
moved to compel individual arbitration of the case or in the
alternative to dismiss the case, and briefing on that motion
concluded on September 26, 2014. On October 31, 2014, the court
granted the Company's motion to compel individual arbitration of
the case. There has been no activity in the matter since that
time.


AMBEV S.A.: To Defend Against Brewers Retail Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Ambev S.A. and Ambev Inc. believe there are strong defenses
against the Brewers Retail Inc. Litigation, the Companies said in
their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2014.

On December 12, 2014, claimants in Canada brought a lawsuit
against the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), Brewers Retail
Inc. (The Beer Store), and the owners of The Beer Store (Molson
Coors Canada, Sleeman Breweries Ltd. and Labatt Breweries of
Canada LP). The lawsuit brought pursuant to the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, seeks,
among other things, to obtain a declaration that the LCBO and The
Beer Store agree with each other to allocate sales, territories,
customers or markets for the supply of beer sold in Ontario since
June 1, 2000 and a declaration that the owners of and The Beer
Store agree to fix a price. The claimants are seeking damages not
exceeding C$1.4 billion (US$1.1 billion) from all the defendants.

"Considering, among other things, that The Beer Store operates
according to the rules established by the Government of Ontario
and that prices at The Beer Store are independently set by each
brewer, we believe that there are strong defenses and,
accordingly, have not recorded any provision in connection with
this lawsuit," the Companies said.


AO SMITH: Juni Ruling Potential Game Changer in Asbestos Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hoenig, writing for Law.com, reports that on April 13,
New York County Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe issued a
bombshell ruling in one of many cases that are part of a special
docket called New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL).  The
decision and order in Juni v. A.O. Smith Water Products1 set aside
a jury verdict totaling $11 million awarded against Ford Motor
Company in favor of a mesothelioma plaintiff, a motor vehicle
mechanic, who died in March 2014.  Eight million dollars was
awarded by the jury for the decedent's pain and suffering from
symptom onset to death.  Three million dollars was awarded for
loss of consortium.  The Juni case was what remained out of three
different NYCAL cases that had been consolidated for trial before
Justice Jaffe. (The author's firm was involved in defending one of
the three consolidated cases.)

Justice Jaffe's opinion enters the fray as a measured study of the
clash between experts' hypotheses, as opposed to accepted "good"
science.  She exposes the tensions between what the experts
claimed and what New York's legal standards require in order to
admit reliable expert testimony.  The result is a breathtaking
rejection of the single-fiber theory.  Such claims are based on
the notion that a "single fiber" of any type of asbestos causes
disease cumulatively and, therefore, becomes a substantial factor
in causing the illness.  Single-fiber advocacy has been rejected
by a growing number of appellate courts outside New York.3

The Juni ruling has potential to be a major game changer in a
large swath of asbestos litigation.  Before reporting on Justice
Jaffe's pivotal ruling, however, let's briefly provide some
background information for context.

Asbestos Claims

Courts have long tried to manage asbestos dockets swollen with
claimants alleging they had asbestosis, lung cancer or
mesothelioma.  A Rand Institute for Civil Justice study in 2005
observed that, through 2002, approximately 730,000 claims had been
filed.  A Congressional Budget Office estimate in August 2005
posited that some 322,000 asbestos bodily injury cases were
pending in state and federal courts.  Early asbestos lawsuits
targeted producers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products,
which numbered in the hundreds (in 1982, about 300 such
companies).  However, as these defendants fell in bankruptcies,
"waves" of new lawsuits spread to companies farther removed from
direct production, and are said recently to number over 8,500
defendants.  One well-known plaintiffs' lawyer described the
litigation as an "endless search for a solvent bystander."

The term "asbestos," derived from the Greek word meaning
"inextinguishable" (reflecting one of its principal
characteristics: fire resistance), is a popular generic
designation but, in reality, there are more than 30 different
minerals of fibrous structure whose physical properties vary.
However, only six principal minerals were deemed of substantial
economic value and these have widely divergent toxicities and risk
factors.  Thus, for example, defect and causation evidence
regarding physical, chemical and toxicological behavior of
disease-causing "amphibole asbestos" (actinolite, amosite,
anthophyllite, crocidolite and tremolite) is not applicable to so-
called "serpentine asbestos" (chrysotile), which was the dominant
form of asbestos used in motor vehicle brakes and in certain
gaskets which defendants and scientists argue is not harmful to
brake workers.

Indeed, epidemiological studies have reported findings showing no
increased risk of mesothelioma among auto mechanics, a world-wide
worker population one would expect to abundantly reflect the
disease if exposure to chrysotile were causal.  Examination of
these studies finds no reliable evidence that working in
automotive repair with friction products causes mesothelioma.
Justice Jaffe's Juni decision mentions 21 such studies yielding no
evidence of an increased risk of developing an asbestos-related
disease from brake workers' exposure to chrysotile.9

Given the challenge posed by such generally accepted science,
certain plaintiffs' experts took to testifying on what has come to
be called the "any exposure" or "any fiber" or "single fiber"
theory of causation.  In a Pennsylvania Supreme Court appeal
involving the reliability of the "any fiber" causation theory, 11
distinguished scientists (none of whom received funding from or
testified as experts for any of the parties in the case) filed an
amicus curiae brief criticizing the methodological errors
committed by the "any exposure" expert, among them: (1) eschewing
the need to consider the dose level of exposure and minimum
threshold of fiber levels; (2) not considering the physical,
chemical and toxicological differences among various types of
asbestos and ignoring overwhelming evidence that chrysotile
asbestos "has far less, and maybe nil, potential to cause lung
cancer and mesothelioma than other types"; (3) rejecting the
generally accepted distinction between general causation and
specific causation and not even establishing general causation for
chrysotile asbestos; (4) suggesting that the "every exposure" and
"cumulative risk" theories are generally accepted when they are
not; and (5) ignoring the large body of toxicological studies that
show chrysotile asbestos is not potent as a cancer-causing
agent.11

Juni Decision

In a nutshell, the facts in Juni were as follows: In the 1960s,
the decedent worked as a mechanic assisting with brake repairs and
replacing clutches on defendant's vehicles as well as gaskets.
This work involved the presence of dust.  Approximately 500
vehicles, mostly defendant's, were serviced at one of the garages
during Arthur Juni's tenure as a mechanic.  In the 1970s, Juni
became a foreman, assisting with brake repairs, gasket
replacements and some clutch jobs.  Juni also repaired his own and
his family's vehicles, twice changing the brakes.

Justice Jaffe analyzed plaintiff's expert testimony. She held that
the reliability of these opinions and the underlying methodologies
were governed by the admissibility standards articulated in Parker
v. Mobil Oil Corp. and Cornell v. 360 W. 51st St. Realty.
Accordingly, she analyzed each decision, specifying the salient
principles.

The basic rules seem simple enough.  If "novel" scientific
evidence is involved, the court applies the Frye "general
acceptance" test to determine "whether the accepted techniques,
when properly performed, generate results accepted as reliable
within the scientific community generally."  If the answer is
"no," the testimony has failed and must be precluded or excluded.
If the answer is "yes," the proponent of the novel scientific
testimony has survived the threshold test but still has to get
past the admissibility "gate."  The proffered scientific evidence
must then meet a second, "foundational reliability" inquiry.

This second admissibility standard applies to all expert
testimony, not just "novel" scientific evidence.  In Parker, the
court said the Frye inquiry is "separate and distinct from the
admissibility question applied to all evidence -- whether there is
a proper foundation -- to determine whether the accepted methods
were appropriately employed in a particular case."  Parker
declared that the focus moves "from the general reliability
concerns of Frye to the specific reliability of the procedures
followed to generate the evidence proffered and whether they
establish a foundation for the reception of evidence at trial."

Dr. Steven Markowitz, an internal and occupational medicine
physician, was presented to establish general causation.  He
testified that all instances of asbestos exposure are "viewed as a
whole," cumulatively contributing to and causing the illness.  He
stated that "every part of that exposure" acts as a contributing
factor.  No exposure may be discounted, no matter how remote the
occurrence, as "it's the cumulative exposure that matters."  He
opined that chrysotile fibers in friction products (e.g., brakes,
clutches and gaskets) can cause mesothelioma.15

Dr. Jacqueline Moline, an expert in internal, occupational and
environmental medicine, was plaintiff's expert on specific
causation.  She testified that decedent's cumulative asbestos
exposures caused his mesothelioma; that it is not possible to
separate out or exclude any particular exposure; and that "all" of
Mr. Juni's asbestos exposures in and around work on brakes and
clutches constituted "substantial contributing factors in causing
his disease." Moline so opined "within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty."  The court listed the items upon which she
based her opinion.  As did Dr. Markowitz, she said that all of
Mr. Juni's exposures "contribute to his cumulative exposure,
whether it's from Company A or Company B."

But New York law required plaintiff to establish some quantifiable
level of exposure.  Dr. Markowitz relied on industrial hygiene
studies, but those involved factory workers who produced friction
products from raw asbestos.  These studies were not probative.
Indeed, Markowitz acknowledged that 21 of 22 epidemiological
studies on workers with friction products "yielded no evidence of
an increased risk of developing an asbestos-related disease."

Dr. Moline conceded that she did not know the amount, duration, or
frequency of plaintiff's exposures to products with asbestos-
containing dust sold or distributed by defendant.  She "could not
and did not establish a dose-response relationship or even
minimally quantify Mr. Juni's exposures."  Yet, Parker requires
such quantification.  The "every single exposure" argument is
"irreconcilable" with the well-recognized scientific requirement
that the "amount, duration and frequency of exposure" be
considered in assessing the sufficiency of an exposure to increase
the risk of developing a disease.  As Parker and Cornell made
clear, "associations" are not enough.  Legal causation involves,
not association, but rather "whether a particular defendant may be
held liable" for causing a person's mesothelioma.

The Court of Appeals in Cornell held even if an expert is using
reliable principles and methods and is extrapolating from reliable
data, a court may still exclude the expert's opinion if "there is
simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the
opinion proffered."  Thus, an opinion connected to existing data
"only by the ipse dixit of the expert" may be excluded.  The
expert's conclusion, too, has to be reliable.  The court observed
that the precept has sometimes been expressed in terms of the
"general foundation inquiry applicable to all evidence."

As noted by Justice Jaffe in Juni, the Court of Appeals in Cornell
held that government reports and public health initiatives were
irrelevant since "standards promulgated by regulatory agencies as
protective measures are inadequate to demonstrate legal
causation."  Further, studies cited by a plaintiff's expert that
merely speak in terms of "risk," "linkage" and "association" of a
toxin with a disease do not prove causation.  Rather, such
testimony departs from the generally accepted methodology for
evaluating epidemiological evidence as reflected in the federal
courts' Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.  Cornell's expert
also did not reliably show specific causation.  An expert must
show that plaintiff was exposed to sufficient "levels" of the
toxin to cause the illness.  Thus, there must be evidence that
plaintiff was exposed to "levels of that agent that are shown to
cause the kind of harm that plaintiff claims to have suffered."

Accordingly, the experts' opinions flunked the Parker and Cornell
admissibility standards.  This proof insufficiency required the
verdict to be set aside and judgment to be entered for defendant.
The court also observed that the Parker and Cornell approach
"conforms with case law in other jurisdictions" that has rejected
the so-called "cumulative exposure theory" and its variant, the
"each and every exposure theory."  Juni is a major development and
provides informative reading even for non-asbestos scenarios
involving scientific evidence.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Paredes" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. continues to defend a class action
alleging unfair and deceptive practices filed by Ashley Paredes,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended February 28, 2015.

On November 13, 2014, Ashley Paredes filed a class action
complaint against University of Phoenix and Apollo Education
Group, Inc. alleging unfair and deceptive business practices in
violation of California law. Captioned Paredes v. The University
of Phoenix, Inc., the action was initially filed in California
Superior Court in San Bernadino County, but was subsequently
removed to Federal District Court in the Central District of
California. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of
the class of individuals who enrolled in the University's
educational programs for Psychology, Education, Nursing, Health
Administration and Criminal Justice, and Technology from November
10, 2011 through November 10, 2014. The complaint alleges that the
University misled class members regarding transferability of
credits earned at the University and by promising or guaranteeing
employment upon completion of studies. The complaint seeks to
recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and other members of the
class.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have
not accrued any liability associated with this action," the
Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces Barton and Abdullah Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc., said, in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that on February 28,
2015, Thomas Barton and Leon Abdullah filed a class action
complaint against University of Phoenix in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint alleges that University of Phoenix violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting plaintiffs on
their cellular telephones using automated dialing technology
without their express written consent. The complaint seeks to
recover damages on behalf of plaintiffs and other members of the
class.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have
not accrued any liability associated with this action," the
Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: 9th Cir. Affirmed Securities Case Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc., said, in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of plaintiffs' securities class action.

On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas
N. Gaer naming us, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles
B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and Gregory J.
Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and misleading
statements regarding our business practices and prospects for
growth. That complaint asserted a putative class period stemming
from December 7, 2009 to August 3, 2010. A substantially similar
complaint was also filed in the same Court by John T. Fitch on
September 23, 2010 making similar allegations against the same
defendants for the same purported class period. Finally, on
October 4, 2010, another purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the same Court by Robert Roth against the
same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C. Bishop and
Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of allegations,
but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007 to August 3,
2010. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. On October 15, 2010, three additional parties filed
motions to consolidate the related actions and be appointed the
lead plaintiff.

On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated
with Gaer and the Court appointed the "Apollo Institutional
Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated
Bank as lead plaintiffs. The case is now entitled, In re Apollo
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-
PHX-JAT. On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V.
Sperling, Joseph L. D'Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B.
Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson,
and William J. Pepicello as defendants. The consolidated complaint
asserts a putative class period of May 21, 2007 to October 13,
2010.

The Company said, "On April 19, 2011, we filed a motion to
dismiss, which was granted on October 27, 2011. On December 6,
2011, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, which alleges similar claims against the same
defendants. On January 9, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On June 22, 2012, the
Court granted our motion to dismiss and entered a judgment in our
favor."

"On July 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 16,
2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an
opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal of plaintiffs'
complaint."


APOLLO EDUCATION: Teamsters Seeks Preliminary Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc., said, in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that plaintiffs in a
Securities Class Action (Teamsters Local 617 Pensions and Welfare
Funds) filed a motion seeking the preliminary approval of the
settlement.

The Company said, "On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617
Pension and Welfare Funds filed a class action complaint
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased our
stock between November 28, 2001 and October 18, 2006. The
complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, is entitled Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds
v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and
alleges that we and certain of our current and former directors
and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
purportedly making misrepresentations concerning our stock option
granting policies and practices and related accounting. The
defendants are Apollo, J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel E. Bachus,
John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales, Hedy F.
Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer Noone,
John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling. On
September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on November 23, 2007, asserting the same legal
claims as the original complaint and adding claims for violations
of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil conspiracy. On
April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint,
which alleges similar claims for alleged securities fraud against
the same defendants."

"On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in
our favor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this
ruling, and the Court denied this motion on April 2, 2012. On
April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. During the pendency
of this appeal, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter and, at the request of the parties, the Ninth
Circuit issued an order staying the appeal on April 30, 2014. On
February 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
preliminary approval of the settlement.

"As of February 28, 2015, we had accrued an immaterial amount
reflecting the agreed upon settlement, which we subsequently paid
in March 2015. We intend to pursue reimbursement of the settlement
amount from our insurance carriers, although the outcome of any
such recovery efforts is uncertain at this point."


APOLLO EDUCATION: Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violations Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc., said, in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that a plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed a class action alleging violations of the
California Labor Code.

On December 24, 2014, Carmin Tandy, who was previously employed as
a faculty member at University of Phoenix, filed a class action
complaint against Apollo Education Group, Inc. and University of
Phoenix alleging violations of the California Labor Code
pertaining to the manner in which University of Phoenix faculty in
California were compensated. Captioned Tandy v. Apollo Education
Group, Inc., et al., the action was initially filed in California
Superior Court in San Diego County, but was subsequently removed
to Federal District Court in the Southern District of California.
On February 25, 2015, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her
complaint.


APOLLO EDUCATION: "Gonzalez" Plaintiff Drops Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc., said, in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that Mundy Gonzalez
filed on September 25, 2014, a class action complaint against
University of Phoenix alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Captioned Gonzalez v. The
University of Phoenix, 3:14-cv-02279, the action was filed in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California. On
February 13, 2015, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint.


APOLLO EDUCATION: "Saleh" Plaintiff Drops Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc., said, in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that a securities
class action complaint was filed on April 24, 2014, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona by Nader Saleh naming
Apollo Education Group, Inc., Gregory W. Cappelli, and Brian L.
Swartz as defendants and asserting a putative class period
stemming from October 19, 2011 to April 1, 2014. The complaint is
entitled Saleh v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., 2:14-cv-00877-SRB
and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, among other complaints. On November 12, 2014,
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint, and the district
court subsequently terminated the case on November 13, 2014.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARIA) announced that the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed the shareholder class action lawsuit filed in late 2013
against the Company and certain of its officers, directors and
underwriters in connection with the events leading up to the
temporary suspension of the marketing and commercial distribution
of Iclusig(R) (ponatinib) on October 31, 2013, and subsequent re-
launch in January 2014 based on revised U.S. prescribing
information and a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

The suit alleged that certain of the Company defendants made a
series of false and misleading statements regarding the safety,
efficacy and commercial prospects of Iclusig. The Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, concluding that the
plaintiffs failed to establish that any such statements violated
the Company's disclosure obligations as asserted in the complaint.

"We are pleased that for the second time in as many weeks, the
Court has granted our motion to dismiss what we believed from the
outset was another meritless lawsuit," said Harvey J. Berger,
M.D., chairman and chief executive officer of ARIAD. "Our
corporate values of integrity and mutual respect are always at the
forefront as we continue to focus on executing our plan for
sustained revenue growth and operational excellence, leading to
anticipated profitability in 2018."

About ARIAD

ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts and Lausanne, Switzerland, is an integrated global
oncology company focused on transforming the lives of cancer
patients with breakthrough medicines. ARIAD is working on new
medicines to advance the treatment of various forms of chronic and
acute leukemia, lung cancer and other difficult-to-treat cancers.
ARIAD utilizes computational and structural approaches to design
small-molecule drugs that overcome resistance to existing cancer
medicines. For additional information, visit http://www.ariad.com/
or follow ARIAD on Twitter (@ARIADPharm).


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Dist. Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, in the case docketed as Bozena Klune v. Ashley
Furniture Industries, Inc., et al., CASE NO. CV 14-3986 PA (FFMX),
granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Plaintiff's claim for failure to indemnify and reimburse
expenditures/losses, Plaintiff's representative claim under the
Unfair Competition Law, as well as the Plaintiff's Private
Attorney General Act claim. The Court, however, denied the motion
as to the Plaintiff's other claims.

On April 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed individual claims and class
claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The claims included: (1)
violations of Cal. Labor Code Sections 96(d), 98.6, 232, 232.5,
and 1102.5(c) (individual); (2) wrongful termination in violation
of public policy or statute (individual); (3) harassment based on
age, sex, national origin/ancestry, medical conditions, and actual
and perceived physical disabilities (individual); (4)
discrimination and retaliation based on age, sex, national
origin/ancestry, medical conditions, and actual and perceived
physical disabilities (individual); (5) failure to accommodate
(individual); (6) failure to engage in interactive process
(individual); (7) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment
(individual); (8) breach of contract (individual); (9) estoppel
(individual); (10) negligent misrepresentation (individual); (11)
assault and battery (individual); (12) defamation (individual);
(13) failure to pay statutorily mandated overtime wages
(individual/class); (14) failure to provide adequate meal periods
or proper compensation in lieu thereof (individual/class); (15)
failure to provide rest periods or proper compensation in lieu
thereof (individual/class); (16) failure to indemnify and
reimburse expenditures and/or losses (individual/class); (17)
waiting time penalties (individual/class); (18) failure to keep
accurate payroll records (individual/class); (19) failure to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements (individual/class); (20)
unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent activity (representative/class);
and (21) Cal. Labor Code Private Attorney General Act
(individual/representative).

The case was removed to the District Court on May 23, 2014. On
September 18, 2014, the District Court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's purely individual
claims (i.e. Plaintiff's claims 1-12) and remanded these claims to
state court.  On October 27, 2014, the Court granted a Motion to
Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations because Plaintiff failed to
timely move for class certification.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff's
remaining claims.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/PSx59jfrom Leagle.com.

I Benjamin Blady -- bblady@benbladylaw.com -- Blady Weinreb Law
Group LLP, Attorney for Plaintiff Bozena Klune.

John Kevin Lilly -- klilly@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC,
Scott M. Lidman -- slidman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC,
Sam Sani -- ssani@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Elizabeth
C. Nguyen -- enguyen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC,
Attorneys for Defendants Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.,
Stoneledge Furniture LLC, and Jag Daswatta.


ASPEN DENTAL MANAGEMENT: "Treiber" Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge David N. Hurd dismissed the amended complaint in
the case captioned CAROL TREIBER; LESLIE TALMAN; LORI SLAUTER;
RODNEY HERRING; PATRICIA HUDDLESTON; CARL DORSEY; IRENE EVERS;
KATHRYN HOVLAND; ISABELLE REALI; GERALDINE LANGFORD; and TROY
FULWOOD, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ASPEN DENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; ADMI
CORPORATION; ADMI HOLDINGS L.P.; ROBERT A. FONTANA; LEONARD GREEN
& PARTNERS; L.P.; GREEN EQUITY INVESTORS V, L.P.; GREEN EQUITY
INVESTORS SIDE V, L.P.; and LGP SMILE COINVEST LLC, Defendants,
NO. 3:12-CV-1565 (N.D. N.Y.).

Judge Hurd, in granting Defendants Aspen and Fontana's Motion to
Dismiss, held that the Plaintiffs were not able to allege "facts
that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that [they have] standing
to sue" and that "They have not "suffered a concrete and
particularized injury" that "is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct."

He concluded that "Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this suit
because they have not alleged they suffered any concrete and
particularized injury. Accordingly, subject matter jurisdiction is
lacking and the Amended Complaint must be dismissed."

A copy of the March 27, 2015 memorandum-decision and order is
available at http://is.gd/Yy0StZfrom Leagle.com.

JEFFREY M. NORTON, ESQ. -- Jnorton@nfllp.com -- RANDOLPH M.
McLAUGHLIN, ESQ. -- RMcLaughlin@nfllp.com -- NEWMAN FERRARA, LLP,
New York, NY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

BRIAN S. COHEN, ESQ. -- brian@cohenlg.com -- COHEN LAW GROUP PC,
New York, NY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

GABRIEL M. NUGENT, ESQ. -- gnugent@hblaw.com -- HISCOCK & BARCLAY
LLP, Syracuse, NY, Attorneys for Defendants Aspen Dental
Management, Inc. & Robert A. Fontana.

DANIEL J. FRENCH, ESQ. -- dfrench@hblaw.com -- FRENCH ALCOTT,
PLLC, Syracuse, NY Attorneys for Defendants Aspen Dental
Management, Inc. & Robert A. Fontana.

GRACIELA M. RODRIGUEZ, ESQ. -- gmrodriguez@kslaw.com -- KING &
SPAULDING LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants Aspen
Dental Management, Inc. & Robert A. Fontana.

JAMES E. BRANDT, ESQ. -- james.brandt@lw.com -- SARAH M.
LIGHTDALE, ESQ. -- sarah.lightdale@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP,
New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendants ADMI Corporation; ADMI
Holdings L.P.; Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.; Green Equity
Investors V, L.P.; Green Equity Investors Side V, L.P.; and LGP
Smile Coinvest LLC.


AUDREY KING: Court Severs "Mix" Claims From "Mateer" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Jack Mateer and Robert Mix are civil detainees proceeding pro se
in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. The complaint purports to proceed on behalf of both Mateer
and Mix and is signed by both.

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng, in an order entered May 11,
2015, held that Plaintiffs' allegations do not provide a basis for
a class action.  Courts have broad discretion regarding the
permissive joinder of parties.  The need for co-plaintiffs to
agree upon and sign all filings becomes impossibly burdensome
where, as here, the proposed co-plaintiffs are civilly detained,
he added.

"Accordingly, Plaintiffs Mateer and Mix shall each proceed
separately on their claims. Mix's claims shall be severed, and a
new action shall be opened for his claims. Mateer shall proceed as
the sole Plaintiff in this action. Each plaintiff shall be solely
responsible for prosecuting his own action," wrote Judge Seng in
his order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/mbTYXU
from Leagle.com.

The case is JACK CALVIN MATEER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AUDREY
KING, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00440-LJO-MJS (PC),
(E.D. Ca.).

Robert Mix, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


AURORA PRODUCTS: Recalls Raw Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Products, Inc. is conducting a voluntary recall of RAW
MACADAMIA NUTS packaged under the Aurora brand label and various
Store brand labels. Products are being recalled because they have
the potential to contain Salmonella which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The product being recalled was distributed to retail stores in:
CT, DC, DE, KY, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VA, WV.

The affected product listed below was produced by Aurora Products,
Inc. The potential for contamination was noted after routine
testing by an outside company contracted by the FDA revealed the
presence of Salmonella in one retail container of Raw Macadamia
product.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Aurora is communicating with stores that have received the
affected products. Stores are being instructed to cease
distribution of this product and to remove it from the store
shelves.

Consumers that have the product listed below are urged to not eat
it and destroy the product or return it to the point of purchase.
Customers with questions can contact Aurora Products, Inc. for
further information at (800)-898-1048 between the hours of 9:00AM
to 5:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.

AURORA BRANDED PRODUCT

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    6 - 55852 -     12/10/15 - 12/30/15
NUTS           Plastic    00083 - 0
               Cup

PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCT

  --- Private Label Products That Use Store Branded Labeling
      Include: Belmont Market, Citarella, Ernest & Klein, Gourmet
      Garage, Harvest Co - Op Market, Le District, Lees, Palmers
      Market, Walter Stewart, Whole Food Market and Wild By
      Nature.

Belmont Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    6 - 55852 -     12/12/15 - 12/26/15
NUTS           Plastic    00083 - 0
               Cup

Citarella Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    1 - 50209 -     12/30/15
NUTS           Plastic    12050 - 1
               Cup

Ernest Klein Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    6 - 55852 -     12/26/15 - 1/8/16
NUTS           Plastic    00083 - 0
               Cup

Gourmet Garage Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    7 - 90845 -     12/17/15 - 12/30/15
NUTS           Plastic    05025 - 3
               Cup

Harvest Co - Op Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    6 - 55852 -     1/9/16
NUTS           Plastic    00083 - 0
               Cup


Le District Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    6 - 55852 -     12/19/15
NUTS           Plastic    00083 - 0
               Cup

Lees Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    6 - 55852 -     12/12/15
NUTS           Plastic    00083 - 0
               Cup

Palmers Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    6 - 55852 -     1/8/16
NUTS           Plastic    00083 - 0
               Cup

Walter Stewart Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    6 - 55852 -     12/11/15
NUTS           Plastic    00083 - 0
               Cup

Whole Foods Market Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    6 - 55852 -     12/10/15 - 1/6/16
NUTS           Plastic    00083 - 0
               Cup

Wild By Nature Brand Products

  AFFECTED     PACKAGE    UPC CODE        BEST IF USED BY
  PRODUCE      SIZE       --------        DATE or DATE CODE RANGE
  -------      -------                    -----------------------
MACADAMIA      8.0 oz.    6 - 55852 -     12/10/15 - 12/30/15
NUTS           Plastic    70083 - 0
               Cup


AUTOLIV INC: Reaches Additional Antitrust Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. (NYSE: ALV and SSE: ALIVsdb) on March 25, 2015
announced that it has reached agreements regarding additional
settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers' global
(including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims which were not
covered by its earlier U.S. direct purchaser antitrust class
action settlement. The total amount of these additional
settlements is $81 million. The effect on Autoliv's first quarter
2015 reported operating income is expected to be around $77
million.

In entering into these settlements, Autoliv does not admit any
liability and is settling for the purpose of avoiding the
uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of potential litigation
or other adversarial proceedings and in the interest of
maintaining positive relationships with its customers.

As noted in its Annual Report filed with the SEC, Autoliv is still
subject to ongoing antitrust investigations and civil litigation.

Autoliv, Inc., the worldwide leader in automotive safety systems,
develops and manufactures automotive safety systems for all major
automotive manufacturers in the world. Together with its joint
ventures, Autoliv has more than 80 facilities with more than
60,000 employees in 28 countries. In addition, the Company has ten
technical centers in nine countries around the world, with 21 test
tracks, more than any other automotive safety supplier. Sales in
2014 amounted to US $9.2 billion. The Company's shares are listed
on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: ALV) and its Swedish
Depository Receipts on the OMX Nordic Exchange in Stockholm
(ALIVsdb). For more information about Autoliv, please visit our
company website at http://www.autoliv.com/


BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in FDCPA Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the
case docketed as DALE KAYMARK, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated current and former homeowners in Pennsylvania,
Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C., NO.
14-1816, reversed the District Court's order dismissing some
claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., against Udren. However, it affirmed
the dismissal of all other claims.  A copy of the Opinion of the
Court filed on April 7, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/unDuGc
from Leagle.com.

Circuit Judge Fisher concluded that appellant "Kaymark has
sufficiently pled that the disputed fees constituted actionable
misrepresentation" under the FDCPA.

Counsel for Appellant Dale Kaymark:

     Jonathan R. Burns, Esq.
     Michael P. Malakoff, Esq
     MALAKOFF, DOYLE & FINBERG
     437 Grant Street, Suite 200
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     E-mail: jburns@watkinsmcneilly.com

Counsel for Appellee Bank of America, N.A.:

     Thomas L. Allen, Esq.
     Nellie E. Hestin, Esq.
     REED SMITH
     225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
     E-mail: tallen@reedsmith.com
             nhestin@reedsmith.com

     Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
     Andrew J. Soven, Esq.
     REED SMITH
     1717 Arch Street
     Three Logan Square, Suite 3100
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     E-mail: asoven@reedsmith.com

Counsel for Appellee Udren Law Offices, P.C.:

     Jonathan J. Bart, Esq.
     WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER
     Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 910
     Philadelphia, PA 19102,
     E-mail: jbart@wilentz.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Outstanding FX-Related Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (NYSE: BK) announced on
March 19, 2015 that it has resolved substantially all of the
foreign exchange (FX)-related actions currently pending against
the company.

The company has reached a series of settlement agreements with the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the New York Attorney General
(NYAG), the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and private customer class actions.
Collectively, these settlements fully resolve the lawsuits and
enforcement matters pursued by these parties relating to certain
of the standing instruction FX services that BNY Mellon provided
to its custody clients prior to early 2012.

"We are pleased to put these legacy FX matters behind us, which is
in the best interest of our company and our constituents. We
continue to improve our product offerings to ensure they are
meeting client demand and positioning clients to succeed in an
increasingly complex financial environment," the company said.

The company has agreed to pay a total of $714 million to resolve
these matters, subject to required approvals. The total settlement
amount is fully covered by pre-existing legal reserves. The DOJ
and NYAG will each receive $167.5 million. The Department of Labor
will receive $14 million and the Securities and Exchange
Commission, with which the company has reached a settlement in
principle, will receive $30 million. The company has agreed to pay
$335 million to settle the customer class action litigation.

BNY Mellon is a global investments company dedicated to helping
its clients manage and service their financial assets throughout
the investment lifecycle. Whether providing financial services for
institutions, corporations or individual investors, BNY Mellon
delivers informed investment management and investment services in
35 countries and more than 100 markets. As of Dec. 31, 2014, BNY
Mellon had $28.5 trillion in assets under custody and/or
administration, and $1.7 trillion in assets under management. BNY
Mellon can act as a single point of contact for clients looking to
create, trade, hold, manage, service, distribute or restructure
investments. BNY Mellon is the corporate brand of The Bank of New
York Mellon Corporation (NYSE: BK). Additional information is
available on www.bnymellon.com, or follow us on Twitter
@BNYMellon.


BANK OF THE WEST: Settlement in "Bayat" Case Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned YOUNUS BAYAT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF
THE WEST, Defendant, NO. C-13-2376 EMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge
Edward M. Chen issued an order:

     -- granting final approval to the proposed class action
        settlement;

     -- granting class counsel $455,224.50 in attorney's fees; and

     -- granting the request for $2,000 incentive awards for the
        named plaintiffs.

Judge Chen stated that the following factors favored approval of
the class settlement: (1) strength of the Plaintiffs' case; (2)
the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further
litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status
throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5)
the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the
proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the
presence of a governmental participant; (8) the reaction of the
class members of the proposed settlement. He concluded that based
on the aforementioned factors, "the settlement, although not
producing an 'outstanding' result, is fair, reasonable, and
adequate."

Judge Chen granted the class counsel with $455,224.50 in
attorneys' fees, and the request for $2,000 incentive awards for
the named plaintiffs.

A copy of the April 15, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/hzOXPOfrom Leagle.com.

Younus Bayat, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson --
dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Jonathan David Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com , Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein LLP, Matthew Ryan Wilson, Meyer Wilson Co., LPA &
Nicole Diane Sugnet -- nsugnet@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP.

Mohammed Ereikat, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan David Selbin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Bank of the West, Defendant, represented by Lisa Marie Simonetti
-- lsimonetti@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price LLP & Kristina A Del
Vecchio -- Kristina@josephandcohen.com -- Joseph & Cohen, P.C.


BARBIZON SCHOOL: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frieda Zeidel, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly
situated individuals v. Barbizon School Of San Francisco, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04116 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2015), seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text message calls
to cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons
injured by its conduct.

Barbizon School of San Francisco, Inc. is an operator of modeling
and acting academies for minors, teens and other young people
located throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 893-7002
      Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
      E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
              emeyers@mcgpc.com
              eturin@mcgpc.com


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Parties Agree to Add Potential Class Members
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey expedited the treatment of a
stipulation and proposed order relating to additional potential
class members in the case captioned BROOKE CARDOZA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
2:13-CV-01820-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.).

On April 10, 2015, Defendants notified Plaintiffs that they had
identified an additional 4,131 current or former Outback
Steakhouse employees -- Additional Potential Class Members --
representing less than 3% of potential class members, whose names
and last known address were inadvertently not previously provided
to Plaintiffs with the prior list of 135,338 current and former
employee that Defendants produced in accordance with the Court's
Orders dated Oct. 24, 2014 and Feb. 5, 2015.  Defendants at the
same time provided Plaintiffs with an Excel spreadsheet containing
the names and last known addresses of the Additional Potential
Class Members. Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants met and
conferred on this issue and the parties agreed to enter into the
stipulation.

Judge Dorsey granted the Parties' request for expedited treatment
of their stipulation and proposed order so that dissemination of
notice to the Additional Potential Class Members can proceed
expeditiously.

Among others, the parties agree that:

     1) The deadline for the Additional Potential Class Members to
complete and return a "Consent to Join Lawsuit" form shall be
extended to July 20, 2015.

     2) The statute of limitations for any Fair Labor Standards
Act claims pursued by the Additional Potential Class Members shall
be tolled for 60 days beyond the applicable statute of limitations
for such claims.

     3) Defendants shall pay to KCC Class Action Services, LLC the
additional incremental cost of sending the Notice to the
Additional Potential Class Members in the sum of $3,621.

A copy of the expedited stipulation and order dated April 14, 2015
is available at http://is.gd/o5SXywfrom Leagle.com.

Don Springmeyer, Esq. -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Justin C.
Jones, Esq. -- jjones@wrslawyers.com -- Bradley Schrager, Esq. --
bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN &
RABKIN, LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for Plaintiff's.

JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC, Timothy J. Becker, Esq. --
tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- Jacob Rusch, Esq. --
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C., Jason J.
Thompson, Esq., Jesse Young, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff.

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Jesse A. Cripps --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Catherine A. Conway, Esq. --
cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Jesse A. Cripps, Esq., Attorneys for
Defendants Bloomin' Brands, Inc.; OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC;
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC; OS Restaurant Services, LLC.


CARRICK'S SERVICE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Quinteros, Benjamin Perez De Leon, and Miguel Arevalo
Figueroa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Carrick's Service Corp. d/b/a Carrick's Service and
Kevin Carrick, Case No. 2:15-cv-02701 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in commerce or in the production of
goods for commerce or in handling, selling or otherwise working on
goods and materials. They maintain a principal place of business
at 62 Josica Drive, Aquebogue, New York 11931.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100
      Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
      E-mail: mm@shulmankessler.com


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Rosen Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of purchasers of Castlight Health, Inc. common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's March 14, 2014
Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Castlight Health investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Castlight Health class action, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-578.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

The lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
backlog was growing due to implementation delays associated with
scalability issues; (ii) the Company was experiencing significant
churn; (iii) the implementation delays and expenses stemming from
the Company's inability to scale it products was a significant
negative impact on its gross margins; and (iv) the deployment of
the Company's technology was not adequately scalable to achieve
revenue growth and costs reduction.  When the true details entered
the market, the suit claims that investors suffered damages.


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Approved Fairness of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2015, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida approved on March 16, 2015, the fairness of the previously
announced settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against the
Company and one of its executive officers. The settlement will
become effective thirty days after entry of the order. As
previously announced by the Company in a Form 8-K filed on
November 4, 2014, under the terms of the settlement, the Company
will pay $3.5 million in return for a settlement and release of
all claims against the defendants, with the settlement amount
being paid by the insurance carrier. There were no opt outs from
the settlement.

In entering into the settlement, the defendants did not admit any
liability, and the defendants continue to deny all of the
allegations against them and maintain the suit had no merit.


CB FINANCIAL: Oct. 2015 Oral Argument Expected in Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
CB Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that oral argument is
expected to be held in October 2015 in a class action appeal.

On April 21, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned Sutton v.
FedFirst Financial Corp., et al., was filed under Case No.
24C14002331, in the Circuit Court in Baltimore City, Maryland (the
"Court"), against the Company, each of FedFirst Financial's
directors, and CB Financial. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the FedFirst Financial directors breached their
fiduciary duties to FedFirst Financial and its stockholders by
agreeing to sell to CB Financial without first taking steps to
ensure that FedFirst Financial stockholders would obtain adequate,
fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances, by
agreeing to terms with CB Financial that benefit themselves and/or
CB Financial without regard for the FedFirst Financial
stockholders and by agreeing to terms with CB Financial that
discourages other bidders. The plaintiff also alleged that CB
Financial aided and abetted the FedFirst Financial directors'
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other
things, an order declaring the Merger Agreement unenforceable and
rescinding and invalidating the Merger Agreement, an order
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, as well as
attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other damages."

"On June 20, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On July 29, 2014 the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint adding an additional claim that the
Form S-4 filed by CB Financial in connection with the merger
contained material misstatements and omissions. On September 22,
2014, the Court dismissed all claims as to all defendants with
prejudice, including claims against FedFirst Financial and its
directors as well as claims against CB Financial. The plaintiff
has appealed the dismissal of the complaint. Oral argument is
expected to be held in October 2015. The Company continues to
believe that the factual allegations in the complaint, as amended,
are without merit."


CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Exit From Alternator Defect Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe, writing for Law360, reports that FCA US LLC, formerly
Chrysler Group LLC, asked an Arkansas federal judge to dismiss a
proposed alternator defect class action against it, arguing the
lead plaintiff hasn't alleged she spent any money to fix the
alternator in her Dodge Charger and, as a result, she cannot prove
she suffered any damages.  Valerie Emmons has not adequately
alleged damages to support her breach of warranty and tort claims,
and that dooms her entire proposed class action, FCA said.


COMCAST CORPORATION: Settlement in "Rouse" FLSA Action Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski granted the plaintiff's
unopposed motions in the case captioned KARIS ROUSE, Plaintiff, v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1115 (E.D.
Pa.).

Judge Sitarksi certified the Rule 23 state law class action and
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action, approved
the proposed settlement agreement in full, awarded Class Counsel
the attorney's fees and costs as requested, and awarded an
enhancement payment to Plaintiff. An implementing order will
follow.

A copy of the April 14, 2015 Memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/vREuKyfrom Leagle.com.

KARIS ROUSE, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL PATRICK MURPHY,
JR., MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC.

COMCAST CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JASON E. REISMAN --
Jreisman@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, JOSEPH J. CENTENO --
joseph.centeno@obermayer.com , OBERMAYER REDMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL
LLP & THERESE GILLESPIE -- terri.gillespie@obermayer.com --
OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP.


COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Faces "Clay" Sued Over Failure to OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Clay & Corie Henderson, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons v. Communications Unlimited Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00748-RWS (E.D. Mo., May 11, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Communications Unlimited Inc. provides cable television and
internet installation services in Missouri, Alabama, Georgia,
Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, and Washington DC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com


COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lonnie Spells, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Communications Unlimited, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-
cv-00747 (E.D. Mo., May 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Communications Unlimited, Inc. performs cable television and
internet installation services in Missouri, Alabama, Georgia,
Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, and Washington D.C.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com


COMTRAK LOGISTICS: Calif. Court Sends "Robles" Case to Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, in the case docketed as SALVADOR ROBLES, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMTRAK
LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-00161-JAM-AC, granted the
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue.

Defendant is a major provider of full dray truckload
transportation services across the country.  Robles alleges that
he is a former driver for Defendant who was initially classified
as an independent contractor and later hired as an employee driver
by Defendant.

Plaintiff claims Defendant has misclassified these drivers as
independent contractors in order "to avoid various duties and
obligations owed to employees" under California law.  Plaintiff
alleges that he and the other drivers were made to sign an
"Independent Contractor and Equipment Lease Contract", which
labeled them as independent contractors and primarily discussed
the details of Defendant's "leasing" of the drivers' equipment.

Defendant has moved the Court to transfer venue based on the forum
selection clause included in the "Independent Contractor and
Equipment Lease Contract" entered into by the parties.  Defendant
requests the Court transfer this matter to the District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee.

Plaintiff opposes the motion on a number of grounds. First, he
argues the claims are not "related to" the Contract and therefore
fall outside the scope of the forum selection clause. Second,
Plaintiff contends that even if the clause does apply, it is
unenforceable because: (1) the clause's inclusion in the Contract
was the product of Defendant's coercion and overreaching; (2) the
clause is unreasonable; and (3) enforcement of the clause will
undermine public policy.

District Judge John A. Mendez, in his Order Granting Defendant's
Motion to Transfer Venue, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/hWle68from Leagle.com, granted the Defendant's
Motion which was based on a forum selection clause found within a
written agreement that was entered into by the parties.

Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman & Leslie H Joyner,
Marlin & Saltzman, 29229 Canwood St., Suite 208, 91301 Agoura
Hills, Attorneys for Plaintiff Salvador Robles.

Andrew M. McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Joshua Mark Henderson -- jhenderson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, Thomas Piskorski --tpiskorski@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw,
LLP & Daniel C Kim -- dckim@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw,
Attorneys for Defendant Comtrak Logistics, Inc.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Parker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch
+ Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB Optical
Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-02129-EDL (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose
minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting
them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate
price competition on those products by big box stores, buying
clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from
discounting those products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
      Michael S. Christian, Esq.
      Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 693-0700
      Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
      E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com
              mchristian@zelle.com
              jzahid@zelle.com


COUPONS.COM INCORPORATED: Faces "Nguyen" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Coupons.com Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative stockholder
class action lawsuit was filed on March 11, 2015, against the
Company, the members of its board of directors, certain of its
executive officers and the underwriters of its IPO: Nguyen v.
Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. CGC-15-544654 (California
Superior Court, San Francisco County).

The Company said, "The complaint asserts claims under the
Securities Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased
stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus for our IPO. We intend to defend the litigation
vigorously. Based on information currently available, we have
determined that an amount or range of probable loss is not
reasonably estimable."


DWM CONSULTING: Transferred "Lopez" Suit to E.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled Byron Lopez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DWM Consulting, LLC, Case No.
6:15-cv-00425, was transferred in from the U.S. District Court of
Western District Louisiana (Lafayette) to the U.S. District Court
of Eastern District of Texas (Sherman). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00332-RC-CMC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.  The Plaintiff contends that DWM Consulting violated
state law by failing to pay employees overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
      417 W. University Ave.
      P.O. Box 4325
      Lafayette, LO 70502
      Telephone: (337) 235-5294
      Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
      E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Kerry E. Notestine, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON
      1301 McKinney St, Suite 1900
      Houston, TX 77010
      Telephone: (713) 652-4748
      Facsimile: (713) 951-9212
      E-mail: knotestine@littler.com


E & J WELL: Faces "Hebert" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hebert, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. E & J Well Service, Inc. and Eldon Martin, Case No.
1:15-cv-00997-NYW (D. Colo., May 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40
hours in a workweek.

E & J Well Service, Inc. provides monitoring and maintaining
services to oil and gas wells throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin Bernard Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 West Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Late-Fee Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Homan Razuki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Equity Residential Properties Management Corporation
and EQR-Vantage Pointe Limited Partnership, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01057-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 11, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' illegal late-fee policies of charging 5 percent of the
monthly rent assessed on the fifth day the rent was not paid.

The Defendants own and operate a residential rental property
located at 1281 9th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
      Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
      Mei-Ying M. Imanaka, Esq.
      NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
      225 Broadway, 19th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 325-0492
      Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
      E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
              atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
              mimanaka@nicholaslaw.org


FEDEX CORPORATION: Defendant in Several Wage-and-Hour Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation is a defendant in a number of lawsuits
containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour
violations, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that
they were forced to work "off the clock," were not paid overtime
or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or
both.

"We do not believe that a material loss is reasonably possible
with respect to any of these matters," the Company said.


FEDEX CORPORATION: Has Accrual for Probable Class Action Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that during the first
quarter of 2015, the Company established an accrual for the
estimated probable losses in the Oregon and California class
action cases.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 25 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December
13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all
outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the
owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee).

"In sum, the court ruled on our summary judgment motions and
entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of
the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as
class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases
were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states," the Company
said. "The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20
cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in
January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not
make a determination with respect to the correctness of the
district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to
the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit were stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme
Court."

"On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20
factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas
Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class
members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was
subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both
parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete
the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made
recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19
cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground has
requested that each of those cases be separately briefed given the
potential differences in the applicable state law from that in
Kansas. During the second quarter of 2015, we established an
accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case that
was required to be recognized pursuant to applicable accounting
standards. This amount was immaterial.

"The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three
of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received
court approval. One of the cases is on appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and one is currently pending in
the Eastern District of Arkansas. Two cases in Oregon and one in
California were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
where the court reversed the district court decisions and held
that the plaintiffs in California and Oregon were employees as a
matter of law and remanded the cases to their respective district
courts for further proceedings.

"During the first quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for
the estimated probable losses in the Oregon and California cases
that were required to be recognized pursuant to applicable
accounting standards. These amounts were immaterial. Material
exposure above the accrued amounts, however, is reasonably
possible, and accordingly we have undertaken a process to attempt
to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses based on
currently available information relating to the cases. This
process has included attempting to evaluate what facts may arise
in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may
render and how these facts and rulings might impact FedEx Ground's
loss. For a number of reasons, we are not currently able to
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of the
amounts accrued. The number and identities of plaintiffs in these
lawsuits are uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of
full-time drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify
based on whatever criteria may be established. In addition, the
parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages,
which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be
dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which
has yet to be produced in the cases. Further, the range of
potential losses could be impacted substantially by future rulings
by the courts, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx
Ground's defenses, and on evidentiary issues.

"With respect to the matters that are pending outside of
California and Oregon, it is reasonably possible that potential
loss in some of these lawsuits or changes to the independent
contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be
material.

"We have undertaken a process to attempt to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss based on currently available information
relating to these cases. Similar to our analysis of loss
contingency in the California and Oregon cases, this process has
included attempting to evaluate what facts may arise in the course
of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how
these facts and rulings might impact FedEx Ground's loss. As a
consequence of many of the same factors described above, as well
as others that are specific to these cases, we are not currently
able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. We do not
believe that a material loss is probable in these matters.

"In addition, we are defending contractor-model cases that are not
or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation. These cases
are in varying stages of litigation, and we do not expect to incur
a material loss in any of these matters.

"Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's
independent contractors, could, among other things, entitle
certain of our owner-operators and their drivers to the
reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-
hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit
liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the
independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in
certain jurisdictions. We believe that FedEx Ground's owner-
operators are properly classified as independent contractors and
that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the
company's independent contractors."


FIRST AMERICAN TITLE: "Kirk" Dispute Won't Go to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals, Second District, Division Five,
in the case docketed as PATRICK KIRK, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AND FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
COMPANY, Defendants and Appellants, NO. B252238, affirmed the
trial court's denial of Defendants' joint motion to compel
arbitration of claims of members of certain subclasses of persons
who had utilized the escrow services of defendant First American
Title Company (FATCO).

Justice Goodman, in his Decision on April 7, 2015, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/649DaFfrom Leagle.com, ruled that
the Defendants' arguments lacked factual basis and were not
convincing.

Dentons US LLP, Ronald D. Kent -- ronald.kent@dentons.com --
ronald.kent@dentons.com --  Michael J. Duvall --
michael.duvall@dentons.com -- Sonia Martin --
sonia.martin@dentons.com -- and David Simonton --
david.simonton@dentons.com -- for Defendants and Appellants.

The Bernheim Law Firm, Steven J. Bernheim --
B@thebernheimlawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent.


FIVE BELOW: Defending Against Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Five Below, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that a putative class action
was filed on January 9, 2015, against Five Below, Inc. and certain
of the Company's current and former senior officers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's investors who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between June 5,
2014 and December 4, 2014.

The Company said, "The complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in
connection with various public statements made by us. In addition,
on February 25, 2015, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed
on behalf of Five Below, as nominal defendant, asserting claims
against certain of our directors in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island. The complaint in this
action alleges various violations of state law, including breach
of fiduciary duties, arising from the alleged federal securities
violations asserted in the securities class action. We intend to
vigorously defend against these actions, which we believe to be
without merit. The potential impact of these actions, which seek
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, is uncertain."


FORT BEND ISD: Sued for Sending Absentees to Criminal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Cooper at Courthouse News Service reports that the Fort Bend
County Independent School District unlawfully sends its frequently
absent students to criminal court, a class action claims.

Calling it a "mischievous intermingling of two governmental
entities," the May 6 complaint accuses Fort Bend's school district
of operating an automated program to mass-produce citations that
summon over 4,000 students annually to appear before the county
truancy court.  There, the students face class-C misdemeanor
charges and before "a magistrate called a judge" and an "unlawful
and biased tribunal," lead plaintiff Verakisha Roach claims.

"As this (complaint) will show, everything involved allowed for
this intertwined and reckless system to operate to incriminate our
young people in a manner completely outside the bounds of Texas
law, ushering in violations of the Texas and United States
Constitution," the complaint states.

Roach's suit, filed on behalf of her minor son, comes just over a
week after the school district suspended its program amid public
scrutiny and calls for the U.S. Department of Justice to
investigate area truancy laws.

The department has already opened an investigation of Dallas
County's truancy court, upon which the Fort Bend court is based.

Fort Bend ISD allows up to 10 unexcused absences in a six-month
period, and state law allows the district broad discretion in what
it considers an excused or unexcused absence, which it tracks with
an automated system, the complaint states.

If a student or parent refuses to or cannot take part in the
district's truancy diversion program, the district allegedly
prints and mails the student a citation.

Roach says the citations, summoning students to Fort Bend Truancy
Court for "failure to attend school," all bear a "mass produced,
electronic" signature from Fort Bend ISD's police officer, Rafael
Rincon.

One of three "attendance specialists" allegedly attaches a notary
stamp and mails the citation through regular U.S. mail.

The district makes little effort to investigate habitual absences,
the complaint alleges, in part because the attendance departments
at many of the district's schools are greatly understaffed.

Even when the district has investigated and discovered unique
situations that explain a student's frequent absences, the
district has sometimes chosen to send the student to court anyway,
Roach says.

"Many times, even with knowledge of these unique situations, Fort
Bend ISD has simply thrown many of these students into the adult
criminal justice system without the benefit of legal counsel under
the guise of the stated 'we must follow the law' mantra and even
with a complete recognition that a student's involuntary absence
situation just 'breaks their hearts,'" the complaint states.

Fort Bend's district produced a "mind-boggling" number of truancy
filings during its peak, according to the complaint, which tallies
that number at approximately 8,500 for the 2008-09 school year.

The cases overwhelmed the docket of Fort Bend's county justice of
the peace for Precinct 3, which has original jurisdiction over
truancy cases, the complaint says.

Using Dallas County's truancy court as a model, Fort Bend ISD
established its own court and immediately treated the court as an
independent criminal court even though it is only allowed
magistrate activities, Roach says.  She adds that students
appearing in Fort Bend Truancy Court are not referred to the
justice court unless they plead not guilty.

The class alleges that the county, its school district and its
truancy court staffers lack authority to issue citations or levy
criminal charges against minors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deron R. Harrington, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DERON R. HARRINGTON
          5777 Sienna Parkway, Suite 400
          Missouri City, TX 77459
          Telephone: (281) 606-2200
          Facsimile: (281) 606-2202
          E-mail: deron@deronharrington.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Asks Court to Dismiss Religious Leave Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that General Motors
workers cannot sue as a class for unpaid religious leave because
they are individually of different religions, the company said in
a motion filed May 5.

The filing is the latest chapter in a class action filed against
the automotive giant in Fort Worth Federal Court in March.  In
their complaint, lead plaintiffs James Robinson III and Chris
Scruggs, electricians at General Motors' Arlington, Texas plant,
claim that starting in 2013, the company stopped allowing unpaid
days off to observe religious holidays.

"This denial occurs despite the availability of volunteer
replacements and less than de minimus cost to General Motors," the
complaint stated.  "The actions of General Motors violate Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

The motion General Motors filed May 5 argues the plaintiffs "rest
on unavoidable individualized" claims.

"Plaintiffs' religious-discrimination claims necessarily rely on
discrete evaluations of each leave request and GM's specific
responses thereto, and thus they do not lend themselves to a class
action," the 20-page motion states.  "Furthermore, Plaintiffs seek
lost wages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages -- all of
which require individual-specific facts and analysis.  Because
these individualized issues commonly arise in Title VII cases,
courts have routinely held that discrimination cases such as
plaintiffs' do not qualify for class relief under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23."

The company says membership in the proposed class "is not based on
objective criteria" but on an individual "merits determination"
that failed to meet Rule 23.

It also argues the plaintiffs have failed to meet the "significant
burden of articulating a common question" whose determination will
resolve a central issue to the validity of each claim "in one
stroke."

"The face of the complaint demonstrates that plaintiffs have not
met this burden, and no amount of discovery or fishing for such
commonality will cure this defect," the motion states.  "The
specific allegations of Robinson and Scruggs highlight the lack of
commonality in plaintiffs' proposed class. Robinson and Scruggs
are members of different religions, likely with different holy
days.  Accordingly, the court will have to engage in
individualized analyses just to determine whether GM properly
accommodated Robinson's and Scruggs' divergent unpaid-leave
requests."

GM says a class action is "not a superior method" for adjudicating
the case, that individual class members have a "strong incentive"
to file their own lawsuits.

Robinson and Scruggs declined to comment May 7 on General Motors'
motion to dismiss.

"We plan to file our motion for class certification soon," said
Dallas attorney Eric Dama.


GOOD SEED: Recalls Soybean and Mung Bean Sprouts Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------------------
Good Seed Inc. of Springfield, VA is recalling all packages of
soybean sprouts and mung bean sprouts because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections to
individuals with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The following products are being recalled by the firm.

  --- 1-lb bags of soybean sprouts in clear plastic bags labeled
      "GOODSEED Soy Bean Sprouts" "Keep Refrigerated" with a UPC
      Code of "21111 10035" produced on or after April 1, 2015.
  --- 2-lb bags of soybean sprouts in clear plastic bags labeled
      "GOODSEED Soy Bean Sprouts" "Keep Refrigerated" with a UPC
      Code of "21112 58772" produced on or after April 1, 2015.
  --- 10-lb bags of soybean sprouts in black plastic bags labeled
      with a sticker "GOODSEED Soy Bean Sprouts" produced on or
      after April 1, 2015.
  --- 1-lb bags of mung bean sprouts in clear plastic bags
      labeled "GOODSEED Mung Bean Sprouts" "Keep Refrigerated"
      with a UPC code of "21111 20136" produced on or after April
      1, 2015.
  --- 2-lb bags of mung bean sprouts in clear plastic bags
      labeled "GOODSEED Mung Bean Sprouts" "Keep Refrigerated"
      with a UPC code of "21111 25871" produced on or after April
      1, 2015.
  --- 10-lb bags of mung bean sprouts in clear plastic bags
      labeled with a sticker "GOODSEED Mung Bean Sprouts"
       produced on or after April 1, 2015.

These items were distributed to retail stores in Virginia,
Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina.

The contamination was discovered after sampling by the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Food Safety
Program and subsequent analysis by the Virginia Division of
Consolidated Laboratory Services revealed the presence of Listeria
monocytogenes in the product.

Individuals who purchased soybean sprouts and mung bean sprouts,
distributed by Good Seed Inc. should return the product to the
place of sale for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company directly at 703-
392-0075 or the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Food Safety Program at 804-786-1006.


HESKA CORP: Faces TCPA Complaint in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on March 12, 2015, a
complaint was filed against the Company in the United States
District Court Northern District of Illinois alleging its
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, as a
class action.

"Even if meritless, these disputes may require significant
expenditures on our part and could entail a significant
distraction to members of our management team or other key
employees. We may have to use legal means to collect payment for
goods shipped to third parties. A legal dispute leading to an
unfavorable ruling or settlement could have significant material
adverse consequences on our business," the Company said.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Humidifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Record reports that two Morristown, N.J., men
have filed a class action lawsuit against the maker of a brand of
humidifiers, alleging breach of warranty.

Robert Burke and Mark Riley are suing Honeywell International in a
lawsuit filed April 13 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  According to the lawsuit, Honeywell has
made and sold TrueSTEAM humidifiers since 2008, and that the
humidifiers "are defectively designed and manufactured such that
they fail prematurely," specifically that their "interior
components become caked with mineral deposits and scaling," often
shortly after installation and only minimal use.

Due to this alleged defectiveness, the lawsuit states, "plaintiffs
and class members have incurred costs for repairing and replacing
the defective humidifiers, as well as damages to property other
than the humidifiers."

The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $5 million, plus costs.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Charles E. Schaffer.


HORIZON BROS: Faces "Qirici" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Qirici, Adrian Pitalua Ochoa, Javier Rivadeneyra, Jose
Alvarez, Preston Walema, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and all who have filed or will file consent to
suit forms in this case v. Horizon Bros. Painting Corp. and Ded
Gjolaj, Case No. 2:15-cv-02603-GP (E.D. Pa., May 11, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Horizon Bros. Painting Corp. is a painting contractor that does
business within the State of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carson Gabriel Campbell, Esq.
      SPEAR WILDERMAN PC
      230 S Broad St Ste 1400
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 732-0101
      E-mail: ccampbell@spearwilderman.com


HOSPITAL FOOD: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gaudencio Garcia, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Hospital Food Service, Corp., d/b/a Le
Coffee Shop, and Roger Desmond, Case No. 1:15-cv-02698 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Le Coffee Shop and located at 150
55th Street, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Faces Federal Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a federal
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
all persons or entities that purchased the American Depository
Shares of iDreamSky Technology Limited.  The class period is
between August 8, 2014 and March 13, 2015, inclusive, including
those investors who acquired iDreamSky ADSs pursuant or traceable
to its initial public offering commenced on or about August 7,
2014.

Wolf Haldenstein encourages all shareholders who suffered losses
on iDreamSky securities purchased within the Class Period and/or
on the IPO to contact us immediately at (800) 575-0735 or email
classmember@whafh.com.

The complaint alleges that iDreamSky failed to disclose that the
company had overstated its ability to monetize its user base and
effectively integrate its distribution channels. On March 13,
2015, after the market closed, iDreamSky lowered its revenue
guidance for fourth quarter 2014 approximately by $9.9 million to
approximately $53 million. According to the company, the revision
of fourth quarter guidance was the result of the delay of a
popular game, launched on one of the company's distribution
platforms, and lower than anticipated revenues from another game
being launched simultaneously as other hit games on the same
distribution platform.

Following this surprising news, American Depositary Shares of
iDreamSky fell $3.60, or over 33%, to close at $7.22 per share.

If you purchased iDreamSky American Depository Shares during the
Class Period, you may, no later than June 1, 2015, request that
the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation.  Any member of the
purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in
New York, Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of
this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been
repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to
major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com.  All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to the "iDreamSky Investigation."


IL BELLAGIO: "Falcone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Falcone, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Il Bellagio, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-80600-DMM (S.D. Fla., May
11, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Il Bellagio, Inc. owns and operates restaurant in West Palm Beach,
Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Karl Auerbach, Esq.
      ANIDJAR AUERBACH LAW
      5521 N. University Drive, Suite 204
      Coral Springs, FL 33067
      Telephone: (954) 906-8228
      Facsimile: (844) 270-6948
      E-mail: info@aalawllc.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Timm" Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's and
the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment on the remaining
claims in the Timm class action are currently pending.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc, et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty. The action seeks the payment of two
quarterly dividends for the Preferred B and C holders, the
unwinding of the consents and reinstatement of the cumulative
dividend on the Preferred B and C stock, and the election of two
directors by the Preferred B and C holders. The action also seeks
punitive damages and legal expenses. The court, on January 28,
2013, dismissed all individual director and officer defendants
from the case and further dismissed the Second, Third and Fifth
causes of action. The remaining causes of action against the
Company allege the Preferred B holders did not approve amendments
to its Articles Supplementary and the holders thereof seek to
recover two quarters of dividends and to elect two members to the
Board of Directors of the Company. On November 27, 2013, the court
denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the court's January
28, 2013 order. The Company and the Plaintiffs have filed a motion
for summary judgment on the remaining claims and motions are
currently pending.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Discovery Proceeding in "Marentes" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is
currently proceeding in the Marentes class action.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed entitled
Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain
loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair
business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the
fees charged are improper. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and
prejudgment interest. On August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant
and on October 2, 2012, the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., without prejudice. On December 27, 2012, the court
granted IFC's motion to dismiss and on May 23, 2014, the court of
appeals reversed the dismissal. Discovery is currently proceeding
in this matter.


ING GROEP: Class-Wide Settlement Reached in Case Against ILIAC
--------------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an administrator of an
ERISA plan has filed a lawsuit seeking to represent a class of
ERISA plan administrators claiming that an ING subsidiary
('ILIAC') has breached certain of its ERISA duties. On April 11,
2014, the parties submitted to the court a motion for preliminary
approval of a class-wide settlement agreement under which ILIAC,
without admitting liability, would make a payment to the class and
adopt certain changes in its disclosure practices.


INOGEN INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Inogen,
Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Central District of California, and
docketed under 15-cv-02026, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Inogen securities between
November 12, 2014 and March 11, 2015, inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Inogen securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 12, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at --
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Inogen is a medical technology company that develops,
manufactures, and markets portable oxygen concentrators, which
deliver supplemental oxygen therapy to patients suffering from
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other respiratory
conditions.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
information about the accuracy of Inogen's financial statements
and the effectiveness of Inogen's disclosure controls and
procedures.  Furthermore, Inogen failed to disclose material
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting, and
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

After trading closed on March 11, 2015, the Company announced that
management discovered potential violations of its internal
accounting policies, which prompted an internal investigation
conducted by the Audit Committee and independent advisors.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $4.24 per share, or over
11%, from its previous closing price to close at $33.10 per share
on March 12, 2015, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and San Diego, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions.


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeals $3-Million Topamax Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligence, reports that
Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals has appealed
a $3 million verdict awarded to a mother whose child was born with
cleft lip and palate after she had taken the anti-seizure
medication Topamax during pregnancy.

In an opinion responding to the appeal, Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas Judge Ramy I. Djerassi said Janssen's claims did not
merit reversal, and furthermore, Janssen waived all nine of its
issues on appeal because of failing to properly file its appellate
papers.

"Defendant Janssen has waived all issues on appeal for failure to
comply in good faith with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
1925 by filing a multi-page, multi-paragraph statement that defies
a court order redirecting that appellant should not file a
statement that is 'redundant, frivolous, or so lengthy as to
defeat the purpose of the rule,'" Judge Djerassi said.

The judge added that Janssen's statement was "egregious" in its
breadth and length.

"Here, Janssen's 1925(b) statement is over five pages single-
spaced with 13 paragraphs containing 35 argumentative, repetitive,
multi-issue claims in narrative form," Judge Djerassi said.  "Each
paragraph of the 1925(b) statement contains multiple claims and
lack of conciseness substantially affected this court's ability to
organize and prepare this opinion."

But although the appeal was waived, Judge Djerassi said the court
did its best to address the issues raised on appeal, which
included claims of federal pre-emption and insufficient evidence,
to name a few.

The crux of plaintiff Kelly Anderson's case against Janssen is
that the drugmaker failed to warn about the potential dangers of
birth defects posed by Topamax.  Ms. Anderson claimed Janssen
should have changed the classification of the drug from a U.S.
Food and Drug Administration Category C pregnancy drug to Category
D.

Janssen claimed federal law pre-empts negligent failure-to-warn
claims and prevents a drugmaker from changing warning
classifications without FDA approval.  However, Judge Djerassi
said that is not the case.

Federal law does not pre-empt state failure-to-warn claims, Judge
Djerassi said, because it was Janssen's responsibility to provide
an adequate warning, not the FDA's.  Additionally, Judge Djerassi
noted that Janssen repeatedly raised pre-emption issues in other
Topamax cases.

"We hope with this case that Janssen has raised federal pre-
emption for the last time in defense of its brand-name drug
Topamax in state failure-to-warn cases," Judge Djerassi said.

Janssen also claimed there was insufficient evidence to prove
causation.  Specifically, the company argued Anderson did not
prove that her prescribing physician would have canceled
Anderson's prescription for Topamax if the drug was labeled
differently.

"According to her testimony, Topamax warnings actually received by
Dr. [Traci] Purath left her unaware of the full extent of the risk
of cleft lip and palate birth defects associated with Topamax use
by pregnant women.  When she prescribed Topamax to Mrs. Anderson,
Dr. Purath knew the drug was Category C, meaning that some birth
defects had been reported in animal studies but there was no known
birth defect risk of cleft lip and palate in humans," Judge
Djerassi said.  "Ultimately, the jury believed that Janssen failed
to disseminate known test findings in humans associating Topamax
use by pregnant women with direct risk of birth defects."

Another claim that Janssen put forth was that Anderson was
comparatively negligent, even though she took Topamax as the
doctor ordered.

Judge Djerassi said comparative negligence claims usually involve
the doctor, but Janssen did not include Purath at all.

Judge Djerassi added comparative negligence only applies in
extraordinary circumstances and pointed to a Wisconsin court case,
Brown v. Dibbell, of a patient not being held liable for following
his doctor's advice.

"Brown held that a patient is not contributorily negligent for
choosing a viable but risky medical treatment when presented by a
doctor. This is common sense, as patients should not be liable for
trusting their doctors," Judge Djerassi said.  "Failure-to-warn
cases from other jurisdictions agree.  Patients are liable for
contributory negligence only when they ignore their doctor, fail
to report side effects, or otherwise act contrary to prescribing
instructions."

Based on the evidence, Judge Djerassi said there was nothing to
show that Anderson went against her doctor's orders.

Ms. Anderson's attorney, Rosemary Pinto of Feldman & Pinto, did
not return a call seeking comment, nor did Janssen's lawyer,
Kenneth Murphy of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

In an email to The Legal, a Janssen spokesperson said, "What was
released this week was a pro forma response from the trial court,
explaining its rulings from a trial that ended a little over a
year ago.  We have been unable to appeal the verdict until this
response was issued.  We now look forward to raising the legal
rulings from the trial with the appellate court."


KOLBE MILLWORK: Insurers Can't Force Defendants to Switch Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in
the case docketed as MARY HALEY and MICHAEL HALEY, LESLIE BANKS
and JAMES HAL BANKS, ANNIE BUINEWICZ and BRIAN BUINEWICZ, TERRANCE
McIVER AND JEAN ANN McIVER, SUSAN SENYK, CHRISTIAN SENYK, GARY
SAMUELS, PATRICIA SAMUELS, MATTHEW DELLER, RENEE DELLER and MARIE
LOHR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. KOLBE & KOLBE MILLWORK CO., INC., Defendant, and
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Intervenor Defendants, NO. 14-CV-99-BBC.

District Judge Barbara B. Crabb in her April 1, 2015, Opinion and
Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/FNNVQlfrom
Leagle.com, concluded that the insurers were equitably estopped
from forcing the defendant to switch counsel while the lawsuit was
pending since the insurers did not choose the Defendants' counsel
prior to the commencement of the lawsuit and waited to bring this
matter to the court's attention only after several months had
passed.

Dixon R. Gahnz -- dgahnz@lawtoncates.com -- Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
James A. Olson -- jolson@lawtoncates.com -- Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
Joseph J. DePalma -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC, Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com --
Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Susana Cruz Hodge --
scruzhodge@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Bonnie
J. Prober -- bprober@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
Charles J. LaDuca -- charles@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP, Charles E. Schaffer --cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin
Fishbein Sedran & Berman, Daniel M. Cohen -- danielc@cuneolaw.com
-- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, Jill T. Lin, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners, LLP, Katherine W. Van Dyck
-- kvandyck@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, Michael J.
Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners, LLP & Robert K.
Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mary Haley, Michael
Haley,Leslie Banks, James Banks, Annie Buinewicz, Brian Buinewicz,
Gary Samuels, Matthew Deller, Susan Sneak, Terrance McIver, Jean
Ann McIver, Marie Lohr, Renee Deller, Christian Senyk, and
Patricia Samuels.

Gordon Davenport, III -- gdavenport@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner
LLP, Michael D. Leffel -- mleffel@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner,
Susan G. Schellinger -- sschellinger@dkattorneys.com -- Davis &
Kuelthau, S.C., Elizabeth K. Miles -- emiles@dkattorneys.com --
Davis & Kuelthau S.C., Krista J. Sterken -- ksterken@foley.com --
Foley and Lardner, Matthew D. Lee -- mdlee@foley.com -- Foley &
Lardner LLP & Megan Renee Stelljes -- mstelljes@foley.com -- Foley
& Lardner LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Kolbe and Kolbe Millwork
Co., Inc.

Beth Ann Berger -- BethAnn.Berger@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Danita Lea Davis --
dld@merlolaw.com -- Merlo Kanofsky & Gregg & Machalinski Ltd. &
Jeffrey Alan Goldwater -- jeffrey.Goldwater@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Attorneys for Intervenor
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and Counter Defendant Fireman's
Fund Insurance Company.

Michael Raymond Gregg, Merlo Kanofsky & Gregg, Ltd. & Danita Lea
Davis, Merlo Kanofsky & Gregg & Machalinski Ltd, Attorneys for
Intervenor United States Fire Insurance Company and Counter
Defendant United States Fire Insurance Company

Gordon Davenport, III, Foley & Lardner LLP, Michael D. Leffel,
Foley & Lardner, Susan G. Schellinger, Davis & Kuelthau, S.C.,
Elizabeth K. Miles, Davis & Kuelthau s.c., Krista J. Sterken,
Foley and Lardner & Matthew D. Lee, Foley & Lardner LLP, Attorneys
for Counter Claimants Kolbe and Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc., Kolbe
and Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: LBSF's Reply to Motion to Certify Due
------------------------------------------------------
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Plan Trust said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
26, 2015, that among the actions filed by Lehman Brothers Special
Financing Inc. ("LBSF") was a defendants class action entitled
LBSF v. Bank of America National Association et al, in which
various indenture trustees and noteholders were named, the latter
as representatives of a class of noteholders who received
distributions from the relevant trusts (the "Distributed Deals
action"). On July 14, 2014 the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order
in the Distributed Deals action lifting the stay in that action
and providing for the action to proceed in specific phases. The
July 14 Order directed that Phase I of the action is to be devoted
exclusively to the motion for class certification, followed by
Phase II, which is to encompass motions to dismiss pursuant to
FRCP 12(b) and/or the filing of answers to the Complaint. Merits
discovery, dispositive motions and trial are to take place during
Phase III, as directed by the July 14 Order. On October 27, 2014
LBSF filed its Motion to Certify Defendant Class in the
Distributed Deals action; the defendants filed their opposition to
LBSF's motion on January 30, 2015. LBSF's reply was due on March
31, 2015.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Data Privacy Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2015, that the
Company filed a motion to dismiss in January 2015 in a data
privacy litigation.

On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern
District Court of California, related to the same theft of
computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations
of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other
claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
claims, and filed a motion to dismiss in January 2015.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2015, that an
appeal in a securities class action remains pending.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint named as
defendants the Company, its chief financial officer, two former
chief executive officers, a former group president, and the former
program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from
April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The consolidated
securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations
that the Company and individual defendants made misleading
statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating
income, and internal controls in connection with disclosures
relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover
from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified
amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying
Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs have moved
to vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint. On September
2014, the District Court denied plaintiff's motions. The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 30, 2014 to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the
appeal remains pending.


LIVE BROADBAND: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hoevelman" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hoevelman, on behalf of himself and others similarly-
situated v. Live Broadband Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-016250-B (N.D.
Tex., May 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

Live Broadband Inc. is in the business of satellite installments
and live broadband services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
              forester@l-b-law.com


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Believes Plaintiff's Appeal Has No Merit
-------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. believes there is no merit to the appeal
by the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended February
1, 2015.

The Company said, "On July 2, 2013, plaintiff Houssam Alkhoury
filed a putative shareholder class action entitled Alkhoury v.
lululemon athletica inc., et al., No. 13-CV-4596 (S.D.N.Y.)
against lululemon, a certain director and a certain officer of
ours (collectively, "Defendants"). On October 1, 2013, the Court
appointed Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund as Lead
Plaintiff and on November 1, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a proposed class
of purchasers of lululemon stock between September 7, 2012 through
June 11, 2013 (the "Complaint"). In its Complaint, Lead Plaintiff
asserted causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Defendants based on
certain public disclosures made by us relating to lululemon's
product quality and the March 2013 sheer Luon issue. On January
15, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on behalf of a proposed class
of purchasers of lululemon stock between September 7, 2012 through
January 10, 2014. In its Amended Complaint, Lead Plaintiff added
new claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain of lululemon's public
disclosures related to our ongoing quality control improvements
and the impact of those improvements on our financial results. On
April 18, 2014, the Court dismissed all of Lead Plaintiff's claims
for failure to state a claim. Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal of this decision and filed its appeal brief on August 1,
2014. We filed a reply on October 23, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a
further reply on November 6, 2014, and a hearing has been
scheduled for May 8, 2015. We believe there is no merit to the
appeal."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Testing Kits
--------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that the
ongoing woes at Lumber Liquidators continues with yet another
Lumber Liquidators formaldehyde lawsuit filed at the end of March
in the state of California.  This lawsuit, however, differs
slightly from previous lawsuits filed alleging an unsafe level of
formaldehyde in the company's imported composite flooring, but
instead relates to the testing kits provided and ostensibly
designed to monitor formaldehyde levels in the flooring.

Lumber Liquidators had been doing a booming business vending
inexpensive composite flooring imported from China.  And while
sales are still healthy according to a recent Q1 performance
report by the corporation, sales took a hit last month following
the airing of a 60 Minutes investigation that found evidence of
unsafe levels of formaldehyde in the flooring.  While it is a
normal practice to use formaldehyde in the manufacture of
composite flooring, it can be done safely with formaldehyde levels
in glue held to a minimum, levels further mitigated by entrapment
within the flooring.

The 60 Minutes investigative unit, however, found that it's more
expensive to manufacture flooring with lower levels of
formaldehyde.  A less-expensive manufacturing process utilizes a
more liberal use of formaldehyde in the glue mixture.  During its
investigation, 60 Minutes traveled to the manufacturing facility
in China and was told by an insider that while formaldehyde could
be mitigated with a more expensive manufacturing process, Lumber
Liquidators had opted for less expensive manufacturing.  There
were also allegations of incorrect labeling.

When faced with the allegations, principals of Lumber Liquidators
indicated they had no knowledge of the mislabeling, or of the
seriously high levels of formaldehyde in their products, and
pledged to investigate forthrightly.  60 Minutes, meanwhile, took
various samples of the flooring to independent labs, with the vast
majority finding levels of formaldehyde escaping from the flooring
that were beyond safe limits.

The most recent Lumber Liquidators lawsuit, filed late in San
Francisco, alleges that the home testing kits provided by Lumber
Liquidators to worried homeowners concerned about formaldehyde
levels, were "bogus," according to a summary of the lawsuit
published in The Virginia Gazette (4/3/15).

The lawsuit claims the home testing kits, provided free by Lumber
Liquidators, were "inherently unreliable" and "designed to under-
report" the true levels of formaldehyde in the composite flooring.
The class-action lawsuit, filed March 31 in US District Court,
Northern District of California, represents plaintiffs from
California, as well as Florida and Michigan.  It is the fifth such
class-action lawsuit alleging major problems with the formaldehyde
levels in the best-selling composite flooring.

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

However, the Lumber Liquidators formaldehyde lawsuit involving the
home testing kits, alleges the third party from whom Lumber
Liquidators sourced the home testing kits, is not an independent
entity but rather was being compensated by Lumber Liquidators

Net sales reported by Lumber Liquidators in the first quarter of
2015 were $260 million, an increase of 5.6 percent from the first
quarter of 2014. However, the company went on to say that the "60
Minutes" piece had an impact, with net sales in March at $89.4
million, a decrease of 12.8 percent in comparison to March 2014.

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

Lumber Liquidators' products have proven popular due to the price
point and the overall popularity of composite flooring. Products
are sold as safe for consumer use.  However, health and safety
advocates concerned with high levels of formaldehyde escaping from
the flooring in an enclosed area, such as a home or a single room,
point out a health risk that becomes exacerbated when the
formaldehyde is not properly vented or dispersed.


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Accord Reached in Santa Clara, Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A
Amendment No. 1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 25, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the Company and all other parties to a class action
lawsuit entered into an agreement which, if consummated, will
settle the litigation.

On May 30, 2014, a class action lawsuit was commenced in Santa
Clara County Superior Court, State of California, on behalf of
Cadillac Partners and others similarly situated, naming as
defendants, MabVax Therapeutics, the Company and the company's
directors, Hudson Bay Capital Management LP, Bio IP Ventures LLC,
Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., and Hudson Bay IP Opportunities
Master Fund LP. The suit alleged the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary
duties, in connection with the Company's Merger with MabVax
Therapeutics. In support of their purported claims, the plaintiff
alleged, among other things, that the Company's board has
historically failed to fulfill its fiduciary duty to its
stockholders, and claiming with respect to the Series B Private
Placement and the Merger, the such transactions involved an
inadequate sales process and included preclusive deal protection
devices, and that the Company's board of directors would receive
personal benefits not available to its public stockholders as a
result of the Merger. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the Merger
and obtain damages as well as attorneys' and expert fees and
costs.

On June 29, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement (the "Settlement"), pursuant to which the Company
agreed to file with the SEC certain supplemental disclosures in
connection with the Merger. The Settlement is subject to certain
confirmatory discovery to be undertaken by the plaintiff and to
the parties' agreement on the payment of the plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 16, 2014, the Company and all other parties to the
litigation entered into an agreement which, if consummated, will
settle the litigation (the "Proposed Settlement"). Among many
other terms, under the Proposed Settlement the Company and all
defendants will receive a broad release of any and all claims
pertaining to the Series B Private Placement, the Merger, the
prior disclosure and a wide variety of other matters. The Proposed
Settlement also calls for the parties to ask the court to, among
other things, enter orders enjoining other stockholders from
bringing similar actions, certifying the putative settlement
class, and approving the Proposed Settlement as a fair, final, and
binding resolution of the litigation. Under the Proposed
Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have expressly
denied the allegations of the complaint and denied engaging in any
other misconduct, nor will any of them make any payment or in any
respect amend the negotiated terms of the since-consummated Series
B Private Placement and Merger. Finally, under the Proposed
Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have not agreed
to pay any legal fees, or reimburse any expenses, allegedly
incurred by the plaintiffs who filed the complaint; instead, the
Company expects that counsel for those plaintiffs will present any
such disputed claim for legal fees and expenses to the court for
resolution.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Voss Litigation Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the District Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Voss Litigation with
leave to amend and the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without
prejudice.

On April 7, 2014, Lee Voss ("Voss") filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders and derivative claims ostensibly on behalf of the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division. This action was
consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints from
Sebastiano D'Arrigo and James and Marie DiBiase. The complaint
alleged that certain officers and directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company
to engage in the purported willful infringement of certain patents
asserted against it in litigation by CMU and by failing to
institute adequate internal controls, resulting in an adverse
verdict, and alleged unjust enrichment and a breach of the duty of
honest services by three of the Company's officers. The Company
was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint requested damages
and restitution in unspecified amounts, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, and the costs and fees of bringing the action.
The Company and the defendant officers and directors filed a
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on September
4, 2014. On January 26, 2015, the District Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend and on February
24, 2015, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss without prejudice.


MEDBOX INC: Court Extends Time to Respond to Crystal Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medbox, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Josh Crystal and on
behalf of all others similarly situated against Medbox, Inc., and
certain past and present members of the Board of Directors (Pejman
Medizadeh, Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanskai, Guy Marsala, and
Douglas Mitchell) filed on January 21, 2015 a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California. The
suit alleges that the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding its financial results for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the interim
financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks relief of
compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all
damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On February 12,
2015, the Court issued an Order Extending Time to Respond to
Complaint until such time "any related actions are consolidated, a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed by the Court, lead
plaintiff serves an operative complaint," and other events. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against these suits. Due to
the early stages of the suits the Company in unable to determine
whether the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute is
probable or remote, nor can they reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss, should the outcome be unfavorable.


MEDBOX INC: Faces "Gutierrez" Class Action in C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
Medbox, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Ervin Gutierrez filed on
January 18, 2015, a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. The Company has not
yet been served with this complaint. The suit alleges violations
of federal securities laws through public announcements and
filings that were materially false and misleading when made
because they misrepresented and failed to disclose that the
Company was recognizing revenue in a manner that violated US
Generally Accepted Auditing Principles (GAAP). The plaintiff seeks
relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses
or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against this suit. Due to the
early stages of the suit the Company is unable to determine
whether the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute is
probable or remote, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss, should the outcome be unfavorable.


MEDBOX INC: "Donnino" Class Action in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------
Medbox, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Matthew Donnino filed on
January 29, 2015, a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for Central District of California. The Company has not yet
been served with this compliant. The suit alleges that the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its
financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and
each of the interim financial periods that year. The plaintiff
seeks relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and
expenses or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this suit. Due to
the early stages of the suit the Company is unable to determine
whether the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute is
probable or remote, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss, should the outcome be unfavorable.


MEDICAL TRANSPORT: "Meeker" Case Has Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, E.D. Va., Norfolk Division, in
the case docketed as RANDALL MEEKER A/K/A RANDY MEEKER, et al.,
Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL TRANSPORT, LLC, and SENTARA HEALTHCARE,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-426, granted the Plaintiffs'
request for the Court to certify, conditionally, a collective
class action and to transmit notice to potential class members.

Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard, in his Memorandum Opinion
and Order, dated April 1, 2015, ruled that the "Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that they and other potential class members were
victims of a uniform policy or practice that violated the law."
Consequently, Judge Leonard granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Notice under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and ordered that
the following similarly situated employees in the collective
action be included: "all FLSA non-exempt and/or hourly ambulance
crew employees who were paid wages by Medical Transport, LLC
between August 21, 2011 and the present date and who were
improperly denied overtime pay to which they were entitled under
the FLSA."

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at
http://is.gd/MmdR8Nfrom Leagle.com.

Cindra Myers Dowd, Law Offices of Richard J. Serpe, P. C., James
Harrell Shoemaker, Jr. -- jshoemaker@pwhd.com -- Patten Wornom
Hatten & Diamonstein LC, Jason Eric Messersmith --
jmessersmith@pwhd.com -- Patten Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein LC,
Patricia Ann Melochick -- pmelochick@pwhd.com -- Patten Wornom
Hatten & Diamonstein LC, and Richard James Serpe, Law Offices of
Richard J. Serpe, P. C., Attorneys for Plaintiffs Randall Meeker,
Raymond C. Brown, III, Brian E. Bunn, Marcus Drewry, Michael
Foley, James P. Folsom, Suzanne Grimes, Christopher M. Hampker,
Jennifer Hardy, Gerry Hill, Matthew Hutchison, Tatiana Igbolsingh,
James Kennedy, Krystal Knudsen, Amanda McQuistian, Amber Oneal,
Joyce Peterson, Rebecca Pinto, Lidija Prather, Michael Proctor,
Curt Shelton,  Natalie Smith, and Kenneth R. White.

James Harrell Shoemaker, Jr., Patten Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein
LC, Attorney for Plaintiffs Joseph R. Zeske and Matthew Tanner.

William McCardell -- wfurr@wilsav.com -- Furr, Willcox & Savage
PC, Phillip Henry Hucles -- phucles@wilsav.com -- Willcox & Savage
PC & Stephanie Novak Gilbert -- sgilbert@wilsav.com -- Willcox &
Savage PC, Attorneys for Defendants Medical Transport, LLC and
Sentara Healthcare.


MIDDLETOWN CAR-G-CAM: Faces "Saldana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
May Saldana, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated persons v. Middletown Car-G-Cam Uni Corp., et
al., Case No. 7:15-cv-03651-NSR (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Middletown Car-G-Cam Uni Corp. owns and operates a chain of 13
hair salons in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Burkett McInturff III, Esq.
      Steven Lance Wittels, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. WITTELS, P.C.
      18 Half Mile Road
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 319-9945
      Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
      E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com
              slw@wittelslaw.com

         - and -

      Tiasha Palikovic, Esq.
      WITTELS LAW P.C.
      18 Half Mile Road
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (212) 506-2677
      Facsimile: (212) 849-5677
      E-mail: tpalikovic@mayerbrown.com


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Expert Opinion, Class Cert. Bid Orders Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin issued on May 14, 2015, a
couple of opinion and orders in the cases captioned THOMAS
LAUMANN, ROBERT SILVER, GARRETT TRAUB, and DAVID DILLON,
representing themselves and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, et al., Defendants. MARC
LERNER, DEREK RASMUSSEN, and GARRETT TRAUB, representing
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE
OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, et al., Defendants, NOS. 12-CV-
1817 (SAS), 12-CV-3704 (SAS), (S.D.N.Y.).

These cases challenge restraints in the market for baseball and
hockey broadcasting. The essence of plaintiffs' argument is that
the leagues -- Major League Baseball ("MLB") and the National
Hockey League ("NHL") -- have conspired with regional sports
networks ("RSNs"), who produce broadcasts for individual teams, as
well as multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs"), who
sell broadcasts to consumers, to maintain a system of "territorial
exclusivity" that limits viewing options and inflates prices.

The first opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1FSKjSWfrom Leagle.com, addresses the admissibility
of the damages model proffered by plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Roger
Noll. For the purpose of that task, the important background is
that RSNs are currently prohibited -- by league-wide agreement --
from broadcasting their content to baseball and hockey fans who
live outside an RSN's home team territory. Consequently, if a fan
of an out-of-market team wishes to watch that team's games, she is
forced to buy an out-of-market package ("OMP") that contains
broadcasts of all games in the league.

Plaintiffs believe that this arrangement reflects an unlawful
restraint of trade, and that if the league-wide agreement
preventing out-of-market RSN distribution were eliminated, fans of
out-of-market teams would be able to subscribe to "a la carte
channels," which would carry broadcasts only of the subscriber's
preferred team  --  at a lower price than the OMP. For example, a
Yankees fan living in Iowa now has to purchase an OMP if she wants
to watch a season's worth of Yankees' games -- whereas in the but-
for world envisioned by plaintiffs ("BFW"), the same fan would
have the option of purchasing an OMP or getting an a la carte
subscription from the Yankees' RSN.

According to plaintiffs, the absence of a la carte options in the
actual world has insulated the OMPs from competition, allowing the
leagues, the RSNs, and the MVPDs to command super-competitive
subscription fees -- leading to overcharge. The purpose of Dr.
Noll's model is to model the extent of that overcharge, by
comparing the price of OMPs in the actual world to the projected
price of OMPs in the BFW, once the territorial restraints are
lifted, and the supply chain is reconfigured accordingly.
Defendants have moved pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence ("FRE") to exclude Dr. Noll's expert opinions, alleging
that his model suffers from numerous methodological flaws that
render his opinions unreliable as a matter of law.

Judge Scheindlin granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion saying "the damages model submitted by
plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Roger Noll, must be excluded as unreliable
under Daubert."

"I conclude that Dr. Noll's expert opinions on forecasting demand
in the BFW must be excluded. And because a structural model is
only as reliable as its component parts, Dr. Noll's model cannot
be admitted to calculate damages on plaintiffs' theory of
overcharge. . .  the actual data on which Dr. Noll relies to
extrapolate consumer demand in the BFW is simply too sparse to
survive defendants' challenge under FRE 702 and Daubert," Judge
Scheindlin concluded, adding that "Dr. Noll's Supply Side
analysis, extracted from the damages model, survives scrutiny
under Rule 702. Some or all of Dr. Noll's assumptions about the
Supply Side may end up being unconvincing -- which would weaken
plaintiffs' case on the merits. But that issue must be resolved by
a fact-finder. It would be inappropriate for the Court to exclude
Dr. Noll's Supply Side analysis at this stage."

Meanwhile, the other Opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1GzIucpfrom Leagle.com, addresses whether the
litigation may proceed on a class-wide basis. Plaintiffs have
moved to certify two classes -- first, the class of consumers "who
purchased [] 'out-of-market package[s]' . . . online" (the
"Internet Class"), and second, the class of consumers "who
purchased [] 'out-of-market packages' . . . through their
television provider" (the "TV Class").  With respect to both
classes, plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2) as well
as Rule 23(b)(3).

According to Judge Scheindlin, plaintiffs' motion for (b)(2)
certification is granted, and their motion for (b)(3)
certification is denied.


NATURAL CREATIONS: Recalls New Zealand Colostrum Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Natural Creations of Woodbine, IA is recalling a small quantity of
Natural Creations New Zealand Colostrum because the label does not
inform consumers that the product is milk-based. People who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk protein run the risk of
serious allergic reaction if they consume this product. No
illnesses have been reported to date. Natural Creations was
notified of potential risk from contract manufacturer.

New Zealand Colostrum was distributed in AR, GA, IA, ID, IL, KS,
LA, MI, MN, NC, ND, NE, NV, TX, VA, WY principally through retail
stores. The product is packaged in a white plastic container
containing 120 capsules. The affected lot numbers are 1112301 and
3102914. UPC code is 877730001016. Lot number located directly
below the supplement box on the label.

Natural Creations has already notified retailers to stop sale of
the affected lots of the product. Consumers who have purchased
Natural Creations New Zealand Colostrum are urged to return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-877-647-1601 Monday - Friday 7:30-
4:00 CST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm447056.htm


NESTLE CANADA: Beneful(R) Class Action Over in Canada Begins
------------------------------------------------------------
Gnomes National News Service reports that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced against Nestle Canada Inc. (carrying on
business under the name Nestle Purina Petcare Canada) by Colleen
Gendron on behalf of all Canadian pet owners who purchased dry dog
food manufactured and sold by Nestle Canada Inc. under the brand
name Beneful(R).  The claim alleges that this dog food contains
substances that are or can become harmful to dogs, and it is
therefore not fit for canine consumption.

The claim alleges that Beneful(R) dry dog food contains propylene
glycol, and toxins including mycotoxins which can be poisonous to
dogs.  Symptoms of toxin poisoning can include sudden onset of
stomach and related internal bleeding, liver malfunction or
failure, kidney failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight
loss, seizures, and bloat.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven
in court, and it is expected the defendant will deny liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by the law firm Paliare Roland
Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.  Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
is working in co-operation with the San Francisco law firm Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP who are lead counsel in a
similar proposed class action brought on behalf of American pet
owners who fed their dogs Beneful(R) dry dog food.

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP is continuing to collect
information from individuals who believe their pets have exhibited
signs of toxin ingestion after consuming Beneful(R) dry dog food.


NEW YORK HOSPITALITY: Court Rules on Summary Judgment in "Inclan"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled on plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment and the moving defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned LUIS INCLAN, IVAN
KRAUCHANKA, SZILVIA REP, MAME FATOU WADE, and SKANDER SOLTANI, on
behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class,
Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., RAJMAR HOLDINGS,
INC. and RAJU S. MIRCHANDANI, Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 4498 (NRB)
(S.D.N.Y.).

A collective action was filed by former waiters at a Manhattan
restaurant called "Le Bateau Ivre" alleging the defendants'
liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  The restaurant is operated by
defendant New York Hospitality Group, Inc. ("NYHG"), a corporation
wholly owned by defendant Raju S. Mirchandani.  Mirchandani is
also the sole owner of defendant Rajmar Holdings, Inc. ("RHI"), a
separate entity with no relation to the restaurant and no
employees in common with NYHG.

In granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment, as well as Mirchandani and RHI's motion
for summary judgment, the court held that:

     (1) plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid minimum wages under the
FLSA and the NYLL, without a tip credit allowance;

     (2) plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid overtime wages under
the FLSA and the NYLL, without a tip credit allowance;

     (3) plaintiffs Inclan and Soltani are each entitled to
statutory damages for improper tip notice credit under the Wage
Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA") of $50 per work week, from February
1, 2012, through the termination of their employment;

     (4) plaintiffs are each entitled to statutory damages for
improper pay statements under the WTPA of $100 per work week, from
April 9, 2011, through the end of each plaintiff's employment, not
to exceed $2,500 per plaintiff;

     (5) plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid spread-of-hours
premiums under the NYLL where applicable;

     (6) plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages under the
FLSA or NYLL, as applicable, but not to be awarded cumulatively;

     (7) defendants NYHG and Mirchandani will be held jointly and
severally liable for damages under both the FLSA and the NYLL; and

     (8) the claims against defendant RHI are dismissed.

A copy of the March 26, 2015 memorandum and order is available at
http://is.gd/exME6ofrom Leagle.com.

Luis Inclan, Ivan Krauchanka, Mame Fatou Wade, Szilvia Rep, and
Skander Soltani, Plaintiffs, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig,
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

Dith Paul Pheakdei, Johanna Fabre, and Carlos Duran, Plaintiffs,
represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

Lombardi & Salerno, Movant, represented by Laure Salerno --
Laure@LombardiSalerno.com -- Lombardi & Salerno PLLC.

New York Hospitality Group, Inc., Raju S. Mirchandani, and Rajmar
Holdings, Inc., Defendants, represented by Evan Edward Richards --
erichards@ballonstoll.com -- Ballon, Stoll, Bader and Nadler,
Marshall Benjamin Bellovin -- mbellovin@ballonstoll.com -- Ballon,
Stoll, Bader and Nadler & Rudy Artin Dermesropian, Ballon, Stoll,
Bader and Nadler.


NEW YORK TAXI: Court Rules on Reconsideration Bid in "Rothenberg"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sidney H. Stein ruled on the parties' motions for
reconsideration in the case captioned SAUL ROTHENBERG, EBRAHIM
ABOOD, TOBBY KOMBO, KONSTANTINOS KA TSIGIANNIS, BOUBACAR DOUMBIA,
ROBERT DYCE, and MOUSTACH ALI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW DAUS, DIANE
McGRATH-McKECHNIE, JOSEPH ECKSTEIN, ELIZABETH BONINA, THOMAS
COYNE, THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, and THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants, NO. 08-CV-567 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.)

A putative class action was brought by former drivers of taxicabs
and for-hire vehicles against the City of New York and various
officials of the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission (the
"TLC") for violations of their Fourteenth Amendment right to due
process based on the revocation of their licenses by the TLC.

On July 31, 2014, the court granted partial summary judgment to
defendants and to plaintiffs, and concluded that a genuine dispute
of material facts exists as to whether plaintiffs' adjudications
took place before biased TLC tribunals.  The parties cross-moved
for reconsideration of the court's determination.

In a March 27, 2015 opinion and order available at
http://is.gd/VXRoejfrom Leagle.com, Judge Stein:

-- granted defendants' motion for reconsideration insofar as he
   finds that (1) the individual defendants are entitled to
   qualified immunity for their actions and (2) there is a
   factual question as to whether the drug test plaintiffs
   received notice of the specific drug found in their drug tests
   prior to their fitness hearings

-- granted summary judgment in favor of the individual
   defendants, dismissing them from this litigation

-- denied summary judgment to the drug test plaintiffs on the
   issue of the adequacy of the hearing notice to drug test
   plaintiffs

-- otherwise denied defendants' motion for reconsideration

-- denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, as plaintiffs
   have failed to identify any new factual matters or changes in
   controlling law that warrant consideration

-- denied plaintiffs' request to re-depose Marc Hardekopf, the
   lead TLC prosecutor, because he has already been deposed twice
   and plaintiffs have presented no valid reason to depose him
   yet again.

Saul Rothenberg, Ebrahim Abood, Tobby Kombo, Konstantinos
Katsigiannis, Boubacar Doumbia, Robert Dyce, and Moustach Ali,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Lee Ackman --
d.ackman@comcast.net -- Norman H Siegel, Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans
LLP.

The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, and The City of
New York, Defendants, represented by Amy J. Weinblatt, NYC Law
Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel & Jerald Horowitz,
New York City Law Department.


NIGHTS OF CABIRIA: Settlement in "Lopez" Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in the case docketed as FERMIN LOPEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NIGHTS OF CABIRIA, LLC, etc., et al., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-1274
(LAK), denied the parties' joint request for approval of a
proposed settlement.

District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, in his Memorandum Opinion dated
March 30, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/9Szdb2from Leagle.com, states that the denial of the
joint request was due to the following reasons: (1) the parties
did not provide the Court with all the necessary information; (2)
the confidentiality provisions were incompatible within the
purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (3) the language of the
proposed releases was impossibly overbroad; and (4) the
application for attorney's fees was inadequate.

The three named plaintiffs in this case -- Fermin Lopez, Cesar
Melo, and Armando Ajtun -- were employed as tipped delivery
workers at defendants' restaurant, which operated as "Two Boots
Pizza," in the East Village.  Notwithstanding their designation as
tipped delivery workers, plaintiffs allege that they spent a
"considerable part of their work day" performing non-tipped, non-
delivery duties without due compensation.  They bring this suit to
enforce their alleged rights under the FLSA and the New York Labor
Law.  Plaintiffs claim principally that defendants failed to pay
their requisite minimum and overtime wages, that they did not
receive "spread of hours" pay as required by the NYLL, and that
they were compensated improperly at the "tip credit" rate in light
of their allegedly substantial non-tipped duties.  The suit
purports to be a collective action under the FLSA and a class
action under state law, although no request for class
certification or collective action status has been made.

The settlement would discontinue the lawsuit in exchange for a
payment of $27,500.  Plaintiffs' counsel would retain either
$11,000 or $12,000 as its fee, the precise amount being unclear
because counsel's submission refers to two different fee amounts
on successive pages.  Whichever figure is correct, counsel's
proposed fee is between 40% and 43.6% of the total settlement
payment. Of the remaining settlement funds, $2,000 would "be paid
directly to the Plaintiffs as wages, while the remainder of the
settlement amount will be paid by check to Plaintiffs' attorneys,"
who would then "distribute $14,500 of that additional amount to
the Plaintiffs themselves."

Michael Antonio Faillace -- michael@Faillacelaw.com -- MICHAEL
FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C, Attorney for Plaintiffs.

Alexander Wilde Leonard -- aleonard@foxrothschild.com --
Carolyn Diane Richmond -- crichmond@foxrothschild.com -- FOX
ROTHSCHILD, LLP (NYC), Attorneys for Defendants.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Fails in Bid to Toss "Falco" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California denied two Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint in the case docketed as KOBE FALCO, individually, and on
behalf of a class similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD, a Japanese
Company, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 13-00686 DDP (MANX).

District Judge Dean D. Pregerson, in his Order Denying Defendant's
Motions to Dismiss Under Rules 12(B)(2) and 12(B)(6), a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/ewxwM4from Leagle.com, denied
the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, one for lack of jurisdiction
and the other for failure to state a claim. Judge Pregerson
concludes that "taken as a whole, the factors weigh in favor of
finding that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over NML is
reasonable in this case." Furthermore, he states that the
allegations made by the Plaintiffs "are sufficiently particular to
allege an obligation to disclose and therefore to state a claim
under the statutes."

The Plaintiffs purchased four Nissan vehicles between 2005 and
2007 that shared in common a particular kind of timing chain
system, which they allege was prone to failure and put consumers
at risk.  They bring this action under various California and
Washington consumer protection statutes on behalf of themselves
and others similar situated.

Mark P. Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron and Budd PC,
Natasha Mehta, Baron and Budd PC, Roland K. Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron and Budd PC, Cody R Padgett --
cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Dara Tabesh
-- dara.tabesh@ecotechlaw.com -- Erotech Law Group PC, Jordan L
Lurie -- jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Karen Emily Nakon -- KNakon@slpattorney.com -- Strategic Legal
Practices APC, Larry Chae -- Strategic Legal Practices APC,
Michael G Devlin, Strategic Legal Practices, Michael I Miller,
Baron and Budd PC, Payam Shahian, Strategic Legal Practices APC &
Ramtin Shahian, Strategic Legal Practices APC, Attorneys for
Plaintiff Kobe Falco.

Mark P Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Natasha Mehta, Baron and Budd PC,
Roland K Tellis, Baron and Budd PC, Karen Emily Nakon, Strategic
Legal Practices APC, Larry Chae, Strategic Legal Practices APC &
Michael I Miller, Baron and Budd PC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alfredo Padilla, Joel Seguin, and Roberto Galvan.

E. Paul Cauley, Jr. -- paul.cauley@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick
LLP, James L Nelson -- james.nelson@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick
LLP, Jia-Ming Shang -- jiaming.shang@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick
LLP, Nora E Wetzel-- nora.wetzel@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP
and Paul J Riehle -- paul.riehle@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP,
Attorneys for Defendant Nissan North America Inc.

E. Paul Cauley, Jr, Sedgwick LLP & James L Nelson, Sedgwick LLP,
Attorneys for Nissan Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha


NNS TRADING: "Jean-Pierre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Jean-Pierre, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. NNS Trading, Inc., Ilan Shimon, and Dani Shimon, Case
No. 0:15-cv-60974-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 11, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wage compensation,
liquidated damages, and other relief in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an enterprise engaged in the
production of goods for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andres Rivera-Ortiz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES RIVERA-ORTIZ, P.A.
      330 SW 27th Avenue, Suite 608
      Miami, FL 33135
      Telephone: (305) 643-2255
      Facsimile: 643-2256
      E-mail: riveraortizpa@gmail.com


NOCHES FAIRVIEW: "Vilorio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Vilorio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Noches Fairview LLC d/b/a Noches De Colombia and
Carlos Arias, Case No. 2:15-cv-03272 (D.N.J., May 11, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 354
Fairview Avenue, Fairview, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1120
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com


NONNA RESTAURANT: "Espinosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Mateo Espinoza, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Nonna Restaurant Corp. d/b/a ROC Restaurant, Elio
Guaitolini and Rocco Cadolini, Case No. 1:15-cv-03644-WHP
(S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 190-A
Duane Street, New York, NY 10013.7.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OC RAW: Recalls Turkey & Produce Raw Frozen Canine Formulations
---------------------------------------------------------------
OC Raw Dog of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA is voluntarily recalling
2055 lbs. of Turkey & Produce Raw Frozen Canine Formulation,
because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.
An organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems. Salmonella can affect animals eating the
products and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated
pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their
hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces
exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these
signs after having contact with this product should contact their
healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some animals will have
only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy animals can be carriers and infect other animals
or humans. If your animals have consumed the recalled product and
have these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

This voluntary recall is limited to Turkey & Produce Raw Frozen
Canine Formulations that were packaged into 6.5 lb. Doggie Dozen
Patties and 5 lb. Bulk Bags with the lot number 1511 and use by
date of 10/8/15.  These products were distributed in Minnesota,
Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Colorado and sold to consumers through
independent pet specialty retailers.

This recall is a result of a routine sampling program by the
Nebraska Department of Food and Agriculture which revealed a
presumptive positive to Salmonella.

OC Raw Dog has ceased the production and distribution of the
product as FDA and the company continues their investigation as to
what caused the problem.

We will be making several changes to our methods of production in
order to further protect the product we so firmly believe in.

If you are in possession of this recalled product please submit a
picture of the package with the lot number to Olivia@ocrawdog.com
for verification of product in the marketplace.  Please return the
product to the retailer where you purchased for a full refund or
replacement product.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-844-215-DOGS
(3647) Monday thru Friday 9am - 5pm PST.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the Food and
Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm447096.htm


ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Facing Paul Parshall Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Oneida Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Paul Parshall (the
"Plantiff") filed on March 3, 2015, a stockholder class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Oneida, against the Company, the directors of the Company and
Community Bank System, Inc. The lawsuit purports to be brought on
behalf of all of the Company's public stockholders, excluding the
directors of the Company. The complaint alleges that the directors
of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders
by failing to take adequate steps to ensure that the Company's
stockholders receive adequate, fair and maximum consideration
under the circumstances and by engineering the merger to the
benefit of themselves and/or Community Bank System, Inc. without
regard to the Company's stockholders. The complaint further
alleges that Community Bank System, Inc. aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors. The
lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company's
stockholders and/or rescission of the proposed merger transaction.


ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Facing John Solak Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Oneida Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that John Solak (the "Second
Plantiff") filed on March 12, 2015, a stockholder class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Oneida, against the Company, the directors of the Company and
Community Bank System, Inc. Similar to the Plantiff's lawsuit, the
Second Plantiff's lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all
of the Company's public stockholders, excluding the directors of
the Company. The complaint alleges that the directors of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders by
failing to take adequate steps to ensure that the Company's
stockholders receive adequate, fair and maximum consideration
under the circumstances and by engineering the merger to the
benefit of themselves and/or Community Bank System, Inc. without
regard to the Company's stockholders. The complaint further
alleges that Community Bank System, Inc. aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors. The
lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company's
stockholders and/or rescission of the proposed merger transaction.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Charles Pfeiffer Case in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company
is currently in the discovery phase of the case, Charles Pfeiffer,
individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs.
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores
Corp., Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No.
1100527.

On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company under California's private attorney general
act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime,
meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other
things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.
The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. As
the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts have
been accrued by the Company as of the date of this report.
Depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be
recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on
the Company's operating results.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: June 24 Hearing in "Beeney" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the hearing
on the plaintiff's motion to certify will now be held on June 24,
2015, in the case Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores
Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case
No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC.

On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.
On February 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a
class with respect to several claims. The Company's opposition to
such motion was filed on June 30, 2014 and the plaintiff's reply
to such opposition was filed on November 4, 2014. The hearing on
the plaintiff's motion will now be held on June 24, 2015. As the
ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts have been
accrued by the Company as of the date of this report. Depending on
the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in
the future which may have a material adverse effect on the
Company's operating results.


PALM ROYALE: "Quintana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rolando Quintana v. Palm Royale Cemetary and Mausoleum, LLC, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00296-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., May 11, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Palm Royale Cemetary and Mausoleum, LLC owns and operates a
cemetery in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
      TODD W. SHULBY, PA
      2800 Weston Rd., Ste. 101
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 530-2236
      Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
      E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


PEOPLES BANCORP: Defending Suit in General Court of Justice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Bank intends to vigorously defend a lawsuit filed against it in
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Lincoln
County, North Carolina.

On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleges
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff seeks to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.  The Court has not acted on
that request.  The Bank has filed, briefed and argued to the Court
a motion for summary judgment.  The Court has not ruled on that
motion.  The Bank continues to believe that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit, including the request that the lawsuit be certified as a
class action.


PHOENIX RISING: Faces "Adkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Adkins, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Phoenix Rising Behavioral Healthcare &
Recovery, Inc., and Lisa Grubbs, Case No. 5:15-cv-00922 (N.D.
Ohio, May 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Phoenix Rising Behavioral Healthcare & Recovery, Inc. is an Ohio
based non-profit corporation that provides behavioral healthcare
to individuals, couples and families.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose II, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ
      10th Floor
      250 East Broad Street
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Dudley" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Dudley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 8:15-cv-01139 -JSM-AEP
(M.D. Fla., May 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive,
personally-identifiable information and personal health
information from data breach.

Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in
Montlake Terrace, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
      5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 413
      Davie, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 889-3359
      Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: Mpascucci@ELPLawyers.com
              JEggnatz@ELPLawyers.com


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Agrees to Pay $65MM to Settle Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rapoport, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP agreed to pay $65 million to
settle class-action litigation over failed brokerage MF Global
Holdings Ltd., a case in which investors claimed PwC botched its
audits of the firm before it collapsed into bankruptcy in 2011.

MF Global shareholders had contended that PwC's audits gave MF
Global a clean bill of health even though the accounting firm knew
or should have known that the firm's financial statements were
erroneous and its internal controls weren't effective.

PwC denied any wrongdoing.  In a statement, the firm said it is
"pleased to resolve this matter and avoid the cost and distraction
of prolonged securities litigation." The firm "stands behind its
audit work and its opinions on MF Global's financial statements,"
PwC said.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, was reached
after the two sides went through a mediation process presided over
by a former federal judge, according to court documents. The
proceeds will be distributed among investors in MF Global
securities.

MF Global filed for bankruptcy in October 2011 after customers
balked at the firm's big, risky bets on European sovereign debt.
About $1.6 billion in customer funds were found to be missing,
though customers have been reimbursed. The firm has agreed to pay
$200 million in civil fines. Jon S. Corzine, MF Global's former
chairman and chief executive and a former New Jersey governor,
still faces civil charges from the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission for failure to supervise.

The lawsuit had said MF Global used customer funds to meet the
increased liquidity demands of the firm's bets on European
sovereign debt. MF Global didn't have sufficient internal controls
to deal with that, a deficiency that PwC ignored, according to the
lawsuit.

PwC was paid a total of more than $23 million in fees for auditing
and other services it provided to MF Global in 2010 and 2011,
according to court documents.

A separate case in which MF Global's bankruptcy-plan administrator
sued PwC in 2014 is still pending. In that case, the administrator
claims that bad accounting advice from PwC helped cause MF
Global's collapse.

The PwC settlement was the second in which a Big Four accounting
firm settled claims about its work for a major securities firm
that later collapsed. Ernst & Young LLP agreed to pay $10 million
to settle allegations from the New York attorney general's office
that it turned a blind eye to problems at its client Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc. before Lehman's 2008 collapse.


PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY: "Magana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mazua Magana, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated
v. Professional Property Management, LLC, Professional Property
Management, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 5:15-cv-00925-
JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal., May 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, and other proper relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants provide real estate management services in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David G. Spivak, Esq.
      Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Esq.
      THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 303
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 499-4730
      Facsimile: (310) 499-4739
      E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
              caroline@spivaklaw.com


ROSEL HOME: "Cuesta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Cuesta, and other similarly situated individuals v. Rosel
Home Equipment Care Inc., Maite Garcia, and Aymee De Leon, Case
No. 1:15-cv-21766 (S.D. Fla., May 11, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a medical supplies and equipment
retail stores in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROYAL BANCSHARES: Case Settlement Remains Subject to Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
proposed settlement of a class action remains subject to Court
approval after notice and a hearing.

In 2012, the former President of Crusader Servicing Corporation
("CSC") and Royal Tax Lien Services, LLC ("RTL"), CSC, RTL and the
Company were named defendants, among others, in a Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey ("Court") on behalf
of a proposed class of taxpayers who became delinquent in paying
their municipal tax obligations.  The Complaint alleged a
conspiracy to rig bids in municipal tax lien auctions.

During 2013, the Company, Royal Bank America ("Royal Bank"), CSC,
and RTL reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs to settle
the litigation for $1.65 million and other terms and conditions,
including an opportunity for members of the proposed settlement
class whose tax liens are currently held by CSC or RTL to redeem
those liens for a one-time cash payment equaling 85% of the
redemption amount by making such payment within 35 days of the
date of written notice.  The proposed settlement class does not
include, and therefore the offer to redeem does not apply to, tax
liens acquired at 0% interest or at a premium.  The settlement is
subject to Court approval after notice and a hearing.  Members of
the proposed settlement class will have an opportunity to object
to the proposed settlement or opt-out.


SCORES HOLDING: Has $23,781 Settlement Receivable in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31,
2014, the settlement receivable in a class action lawsuit is
$23,781.

On September 26, 2011, the Company, Richard Goldring and Elliot
Osher (Goldring and Osher were formerly two of the Company's
principal shareholders) (collectively the "Defendants") and Sari
Diaz et al. (the "Plaintiffs") entered into a Court approved Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement")
relating to a purported class action and collective action on
behalf of all tipped employees filed by Plaintiffs, pursuant to
which Defendants agreed to make a settlement payment of $450,000
to resolve and settle awards to Plaintiffs and related Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees. Additionally, the Defendants agreed to pay the
employer portion of payroll taxes on approximately $300,000 in
distributions, approximately $15,600.

In a settlement payment agreement among the Company, Goldring and
Osher, the Company agreed to advance all of the Defendants'
obligations under the Settlement Agreement and to pay $64,500 of
Goldring's and Osher's legal fees to their designated attorney. In
consideration for the Company's payment of these obligations,
Goldring and Osher agreed, jointly and severally, to pay the
Company $440,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the
unpaid balance of such amount, in 40 equal monthly payments of
$11,965 per month. To secure his obligations under this agreement,
Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of his
interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009 in the
principal amount of $2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring
(the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest in the
Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations under this
settlement payment agreement are paid in full. As of December 31,
2014, the settlement receivable is $23,781.


SIZMEK INC: Court Dismissed Equity Trading Action
-------------------------------------------------
Sizmek Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the court has dismissed the action
Equity Trading v. Scott K. Ginsburg, et al., following a
stipulation.

On January 14, 2014, a purported holder of common stock of Digital
Generation, Inc. ("DG"), Equity Trading ("Plaintiff"), filed a
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, Equity Trading v. Scott K. Ginsburg, et al., No.
050112/2014, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, against DG, all directors of DG, Extreme Reach, Inc.
("Extreme Reach") and Dawn Blackhawk Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Extreme Reach
("Acquisition Sub"), alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the then pending Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of August 12, 2013, by and among Extreme Reach,
Acquisition Sub and DG. The complaint sought an injunction barring
the consummation of the transaction and unspecified monetary
damages.

On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed with the New York state court
a request seeking an order (i) preliminarily enjoining the Merger,
(ii) requiring expedited discovery and (iii) scheduling a post-
discovery hearing to continue the injunction (Plaintiff's
"Request"), and on January 17, 2014, the New York state court
issued an order setting a briefing schedule and a hearing for
January 30, 2014, on Plaintiff's Request.

On January 27, 2014, the defendants removed this action from the
New York state court to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, causing the matter to now be
captioned Equity Trading v. Scott K. Ginsburg, et al., 14 Civ. 499
(RWS) (RLE). The defendants also submitted briefing in opposition
to the Request. At a hearing held on January 30, 2014, the Court
denied Plaintiff's Request.

On February 4, 2014, the Court agreed to a Stipulation for
Extension of Time and Order (the "Scheduling Order"), providing a
proposed briefing schedule. On February 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed
a Motion to Remand the action to the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York. On March 12, 2014, the defendants
stipulated to remand. On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, asserting the same causes of action as the
initial complaint and adding certain additional factual
allegations. On July 18, 2014, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint. On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff
filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss and a cross-motion to
strike exhibits to the motions to dismiss. On October 24, 2014,
the defendants filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss
and an opposition to the cross-motion to strike. On November 14,
2014, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the cross-motion to
strike. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss and cross-motion
to strike took place on February 5, 2015.

On March 13, 2015, Plaintiff and the defendants entered into a
stipulation providing for the action to be discontinued in its
entirety without prejudice, with all of the parties bearing their
own costs. The stipulation was filed with the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York on March 15, 2015, and the
court thereafter dismissed the action.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Reply to Conditional Certification Motion Due
--------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that Sterling Jewelers Inc.
("SJI")'s opposition to a Motion for Conditional Certification of
Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice was
due on May 1, 2015 and Claimants' reply was due on May 15, 2015.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
Sterling Jewelers Inc. ("SJI"), a subsidiary of Signet, in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that
US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to
compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In
June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and
SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification
motion was held in late February 2014.

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The
arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For
Corrective Notice.

SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on
February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015.
Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for
Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment
in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to
Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants'
reply was filed on March 16, 2015. No hearing has been scheduled.

Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of
Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on
March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was due on May 1, 2015 and
Claimants' reply was due on May 15, 2015. SJI filed with the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to
Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3,
2015. Claimants' opposition was due on March 23, 2015 and SJI's
reply was due April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was scheduled for
hearing on April 20, 2015.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Oral Argument Held in EEOC Case Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that oral argument was
scheduled for May 5, 2015, in an appeal related to the lawsuit
filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")
against Sterling Jewelers Inc. ("SJI").

On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District
Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's lawsuit
alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female
retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The
EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-
monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact
discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a
motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which
was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard
oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On
January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report,
Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI's
motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC's claims
in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate
Judge's ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District
Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014
entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12,
2014 the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court
Judge's dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.  The parties have fully briefed the appeal
and oral argument was scheduled for May 5, 2015.

SJI denies the allegations of both parties and has been defending
these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss
or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to
be estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: To Defend Against Tapia v. Zale Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company is
investigating allegations of the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation
matter and intends to vigorously defend its position against them.

Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in
three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale
Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23,
2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on
July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of
California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was
filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include
allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour
labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former
Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits
seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result
of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any
liability, the Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle
the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. The
deadline to opt-out of the proposed settlement was January 26,
2015 and final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9,
2015.

The Company is investigating the underlying allegations of the
Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation matter and intends to vigorously
defend its position against them. Based on information available
at this point, the Company does not anticipate a material impact,
if any, to Signet's consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows for this matter.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Zale Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that a hearing was scheduled
for May 20, 2015, on the motion to dismiss in the litigation
challenging the Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation.

Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the
Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation were filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al.,
C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et
al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp.
et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale
Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v.
Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014
(collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions was brought
by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale
Corporation stockholders.

The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014
(the "Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as
defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors
of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary
of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders
in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger
agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to
an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher
bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation
directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy
statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the
Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors' breaches
of fiduciary duty.

On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of the
merger.

On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the
prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation's
former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a
defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation
directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no
longer names as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company's
merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint seeks, among
other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as
attorneys' and experts' fees. As of February 18, 2015, the
defendants' motions to dismiss were fully submitted and a hearing
was scheduled for May 20, 2015.


SMART & FINAL: Settlement in Thompson & Manzo Cases Already Paid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Smart & Final Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that all settlement payments
in the Thompson and Manzo cases have been paid as of January 2015.

On December 11, 2012, a purported class action was filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court entitled Matthew Thompson vs. Smart & Final
Inc. by a former hourly store employee on behalf of a purported
class of all California hourly store employees alleging various
violations of California wage and hour laws including, among
others, failure to pay for all hours worked, meal and rest break
violations, failure to pay wages properly at termination and non-
compliant wage statements. The plaintiff has also asserted claims
under PAGA. The Company has denied liability for these
allegations.

On June 19, 2013, a purported class action was filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court entitled Raquel Manzo vs. Smart & Final by
a former hourly store employee on behalf of a purported class of
all California hourly store employees alleging various violations
of California wage and hour laws including, among others, improper
calculation of certain overtime rates. The Company has denied
liability for these allegations.

The Thompson and Manzo cases were ordered to be combined for
mediation. Following a mediation held in November 2013, the
various parties to these actions accepted a mediator's proposal to
settle these matters. The proposed settlements require court
approval, which approval was preliminarily granted on April 22,
2014. Final court approval was granted November 18, 2014. The
Company recorded a loss accrual estimate of $3.0 million in its
2013 consolidated financial statements related to these matters.
The final settlement and release agreements were fully executed
and all settlement payments have been paid as of January 2015.


SMITHFIELD FOODS: To Defend Against North Carolina Nuisance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Smithfield Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the Company intends to
defend vigorously the North Carolina Nuisance Litigation.

The Company said, "In August, September and October 2014, 25
complaints were filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina by
515 individual plaintiffs against our wholly owned subsidiary,
Murphy-Brown, alleging causes of action for nuisance and related
claims. The complaints stemmed from the nuisance cases previously
filed in the Superior Court of Wake County. On February 23, 2015,
all 25 complaints were amended and one complaint was severed into
two separate actions. The 26 currently pending complaints were
filed on behalf of 541 plaintiffs and relate to approximately 14
company-owned and 75 contract farms. All 26 complaints include
causes of action for temporary nuisance and negligence and seek
recovery of an unspecified amount of compensatory, special and
punitive damages, as well as unspecified injunctive and equitable
relief. Murphy-Brown is in the process of responding to the
complaints in all 26 cases. The Company believes that the claims
are unfounded and intends to defend the suits vigorously."


SOCIETE NATIONALE DES CHEMINS: Faces Holocaust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News, reports that
France's national railway must pay up for looting the Holocaust
victims Nazis loaded onto cattle cars destined for death camps, a
federal class action said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiffs seek punitive damages for violations of international
law, conversion, and unjust enrichment.  They are represented by
Steven Blonder with Much Shelist.

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

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

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


STATE COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ozier" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Ozier, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. State Collection Service, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00565-LA (E.D. Wis., May 11, 2015), seeks redress for the
Defendant's unlawful debt collection practices in violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

State Collection Service, Inc. is engaged in the business of a
collection agency with its principal place of business located at
2509 S. Stoughton Rd., Madison, WI 53716.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Telephone: (414) 482-8000
      Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
              jblythin@ademilaw.com
              meldridge@ademilaw.com


TCP INTERNATIONAL: Transferred "Leach" Suit to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action entitled Daniel V. Leach, Jr., individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TCP
International Holdings Ltd., Ellis Yan, Brian Catlett, Solomon
Yan, Jurgen Borgt, and Matthias Belz, Case No. 1:15-cv-01631, was
transferred in from the U.S. District Court Southern District of
New York to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio
(Cleveland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
00917 to the proceeding.

The case asserts securities fraud claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LAW
      20th Floor, 600 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com
              jlieberman@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LAW
      Ste. 3505, 10 South LaSalle Street
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184

The Defendant is represented by:

      Judy L. Woods, Esq.
      BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF
      Ste. 2300
      One American Square
      Indianapolis, IN 46282
      Telephone: (317) 632-3232
      Facsimile: (317) 632-2962
      E-mail: jwoods@beneschlaw.com

         - and -

      Steven S. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN & COMPANY
      Ste. 1710
      1001 Lakeside Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 912-5500
      Facsimile: (216) 912-5501
      E-mail: steve.kaufman@kaufman-company.com


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Court Tosses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada has tossed out a securities class-action
lawsuit against Montreal-based drug company Theratechnologies
Inc., in a ruling that some lawyers say could make it harder for
plaintiffs across the country to file this kind of legal action.

Theratechnologies found itself facing allegations that it failed
to properly disclose issues around a new drug, called tesamorelin,
after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked some questions
in 2010 about potential side effects.  Those questions about the
drug, which is meant to reduce excess abdominal fat in HIV
patients, were publicized and Thera's stock tumbled.  The drug
later won FDA approval and the share price recovered.  And Thera
argued that it had already disclosed all of the necessary
information to shareholders about the drug and its clinical
trials, and did not need to issue a press release about the FDA's
questions.

Under most provinces' securities legislation, shareholders who
bought stock on the "secondary market," such as a stock exchange,
need to get special permission from a judge to launch a securities
class action, and must show that their case has a "reasonable
possibility" of success.

It's a screening mechanism meant to eliminate groundless so-called
"strike suits," common in the United States. Quebec adopted these
amendments to its securities legislation in 2007, after Ontario
brought in its similar secondary-market securities class-action
regime in 2005, which essentially made this kind of case possible.
Since then, courts have been slowly establishing just what the
ground rules should be for this kind of lawsuit.

In the Thera case, lower courts in Quebec had given the go-ahead
to securities class action lawsuit, which was launched on behalf
of shareholders by a numbered holding company that held stock in
the pharmaceutical firm and is owned by an investor named Roger
St-Germain.

But the Supreme Court ruled that to pass this screening test,
plaintiffs must provide "sufficient evidence" to show a "realistic
chance" of success, although this stage of such cases must not
balloon into a miniature trial.

The court said the plaintiffs had not produced evidence that the
FDA's questions about the drug qualified as a "material change" in
Thera's "operations, capital or business," as required under the
province's securities act.

Thera, the court said, had already disclosed the results of
clinical trials, including the potential side effects, and the
plaintiffs did not provide any evidence that the FDA's questions
were anything other than a "routine" part of the drug approval
process.

The Supreme Court is also expected to rule later this year on the
threshold for securities class actions in Ontario, when it issues
a decision in a putative class action against the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Pierre Lefebvre, a Montreal lawyer with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin
LLP who acted for Thera in the case, said the 7-0 decision raises
the bar for plaintiffs both in Quebec and other provinces, because
it confirms that the process of seeking authorization from a court
for this kind of lawsuit is a "real test, a real threshold" and
not just a "speed bump."

Andrea Laing, a lawyer with Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP who
defends corporate clients against class actions but was not
involved in this case, said the decision will see lower courts
apply "more rigour" in ruling on securities class actions.

Lawyer Dimitri Lascaris, a veteran plaintiffs-side securities
class action lawyer with Siskinds LLP who acted for a Quebec
investors' rights group that intervened in the Thera case, agreed
that the case "modestly" raises the bar for plaintiffs. But he
said that bar still remains relatively low and argued that the
case's effect on future Ontario cases was unclear.


THREE R'S: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Three R's, Inc. and Minda Menor, Case No.
1:15-cv-04118 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOP RANK: Faces "Brady" Suit in S.D. Fla. Over Pacquiao's Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Brady, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Top Rank Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-21778-KMM
(S.D. Fla., May 11, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate
result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Egleston, Esq.
      SCOTT EGLESTON, P.A.
      152 N.E.167th Street, Suite 300
      Miami, FL 33162
      Telephone: (305) 892-8088
      Facsimile: (305) 675-3730
      E-mail: scott@eglestonlegal.com
         - and -

     Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
     GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
     440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 683-3400
     Facsimile: (212) 683-3402
     E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-law.com


TOP RANK: Faces "Brodsky" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over Pacquiao's Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brodsky, Marcy Lokietz and Paul Goodman, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Top Rank Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02709 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), is an action
for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to
disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by
Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd
Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Emert, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: memert@bellsouth.net


TOP RANK: Faces Bobadilla Suit Over Pacquiao's Undisclosed Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Genova, writing for Law.com, reports that The "Fight of
the Century" may be over, but the legal bouts are just beginning
for boxers Emmanuel "Manny" Pacquiao and Floyd "Money" Mayweather.

In a putative class-action complaint filed May 6 in New Jersey
federal court "on behalf of all [state] residents who purchased a
'pay-per-view' showing" of the fight," lead plaintiff and
Moorestown resident Victor Bobadilla claims the boxers, along with
their management teams, had prior knowledge of an injury to
Mr. Pacquiao's shoulder, which resulted in a "lackluster" fight
not worth the cost of viewing.

Pacquiao, Mayweather and their teams failed to disclose the injury
information in order to "avoid losing the enormous financial
benefits" from pay-per-view purchases, the suit claims.

Mr. Bobadilla, represented by Stephen DeNittis of DeNittis
Osefchen in Marlton, alleges the actions of the boxers and their
teams violated the New Jersey Fraud Act, and caused unjust
enrichment, disgorgement and implied contract duty of good faith.

The Paquiao-Mayweather fight, in the works for more than five
years, has been widely panned by critics and sports fans alike for
its alleged lack of action.  Mayweather was crowned champion after
12 rounds in a unanimous judges' decision.

But in post-fight interviews, it was uncovered that Pacquiao was
suffering from a torn right rotator cuff, and had fought with the
injury, likening it to fighting with one arm. He had surgery on
the shoulder May 6 in Los Angeles.

The complaint claims that both teams had knowledge of Pacquiao's
bad shoulder, yet led consumers to believe that they were paying
to see a fight between "highly-conditioned, healthy athletes in
peak physical condition."

The suit points to Pacquiao's prefight medical questionnaire from
May 1, in which the boxer and his team checked "No," next to the
question, "Have you had any injury to your shoulders, elbows, or
hands that needed evaluation or examination?"

"The seriousness of this injury cannot be overemphasized,"
especially when it comes to what viewers paid, the suit says.

The complaint claims that there are more than 25,000 potential
class members to be verified through "records maintained by
various defendants, as well as electronic records maintained by
the cable and satellite television providers servicing the homes
owned by the class."

The pay-per-view price for the fight, held May 2 at the MGM Grand
Garden Arena in Las Vegas, was $89.99, with an additional $10.00
tacked on if the purchaser wanted to view it in HD.  Revenue from
the match was projected to top more than $300 million, with both
Pacquiao and Mayweather getting a cut of the profits.

Boxing management firm Top Rank Inc., based in Clark County,
Nevada, named in the suit along with Mayweather Productions LLC,
released a joint statement with Pacquiao's official Team Pacquiao
company on May 4 regarding the alleged secrecy around Pacquiao's
injury.

"During training, Manny Pacquiao suffered a right shoulder injury.
Manny went to see world-class doctors, partners in the prestigious
Kerlan Jobe Orthopedic Clinic, who performed tests and, in
consultation with Manny, his promoter, and his advisors, concluded
that with short rest, treatments and close monitoring, Manny could
train and, on May 2, step into the ring against Floyd Mayweather."

According to the statement, Pacquiao's team requested permission
from the Nevada State Boxing Commission to inject Pacquiao with a
painkiller for the duration of the boxing match.  The request was
denied.

"With the advice of his doctors, Manny still decided to proceed
with the fight.  His shoulder wasn't perfect but it had improved
in training camp," the statement continued.

Mayweather Promotions LLC has remained silent.

New Jersey isn't the only state with disgruntled pay-per-viewers.
Another suit, alleging fraud, has been filed by two fans in
federal court in Nevada, seeking $5 million in damages.

Mr. DeNittis did not respond to a request for comment.

Century City, California-based O'Melveny & Myers attorneys Daniel
Petrocelli and David Marroso, who represented Pacquiao in match-
planning negotiations, did not return emails seeking comment.
Howard Weitzman and Jeremiah Reynolds of Kinsella Weitzman Iser
Kump & Aldisert in Los Angeles, who negotiated on behalf of
Mayweather, also did not respond to requests for comment.


TOYS "R" US: Received Payment of $12 Million from Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us, Inc. received a payment of $12 million from a
settlement in a class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015.

The Company said, "In May 2013, we opted out of the settlement of
a class action lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard alleging
violations of antitrust laws.  In January 2014, we, along with
several other companies, filed a separate lawsuit against Visa and
MasterCard entitled Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. et al. v.
Visa, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, No. 14-00276).  A settlement was reached in
December 2014, and we received a payment of $12 million in January
2015."


TRAVELERS COMPANIES: "Roppo" Insurance Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edmond E. Chang granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case captioned SABRINA ROPPO, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE TRAVELERS
COMPANIES, et al., Defendants, NO. 13 C 05569 (N.D. Ill.).

Judge Chang concluded that Roppo has failed to properly plead her
claims, despite having ample opportunity to properly plead them,
this being her third Amended Complaint. Her claims were dismissed
with prejudice.

In July 2011, Roppo was involved in a car accident with Jeffrey
Block. Block was insured by Defendant Travelers, holding both a
personal automobile insurance policy and an excess umbrella
policy.  Roppo filed a personal-injury action against Block in
state court, and Travelers provided Block with a defense. Roppo
alleges that, during the course of the personal-injury suit,
Travelers and the lawyers it retained for Block failed to disclose
Block's umbrella-insurance policy (this despite the fact that
Travelers' logo actually is an umbrella). After learning about the
excess insurance coverage, Roppo settled the personal-injury
action for an amount in excess of the automobile policy limits.
She then brought this suit against Travelers and the lawyers,
Defendants Jason Hitchings, Roanne Maisel, and Maisel &
Associates, alleging several causes of action: fraudulent
misrepresentation; negligence; violations of the Illinois
Insurance Code; violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA); negligent
misrepresentation; and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Defendants moved to dismiss or,
in the alternative, to strike several paragraphs of Roppo's
complaint.

A copy of the April 16, 2015 memorandum opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/3OFym3from Leagle.com.

Sabrina Roppo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Gene K. Moskowitz -- gkmosk@aol.com --
Gene Moskowitz and Associates, Limited & Kent D. Sinson, Sinson
Law Group, LLC.

Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, and The Travelers
Indemnity Company of America, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey
P. Lennard -- jeffrey.lennard@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Mark
L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Tiffany
L. Amlot -- tiffany.amlot@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.

Jason Hitchings, an individual, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
P. Lennard, Dentons US LLP.

Jason Hitchings, an individual, Defendant, represented by Mark L.
Hanover, Dentons US LLP & Tiffany L. Amlot, Dentons US LLP.

Roanne Maisel, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey P. Lennard,
Dentons US LLP, Mark L. Hanover, Dentons US LLP & Tiffany L.
Amlot, Dentons US LLP.


UBER TECH: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in "Goldberg" Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, in the case docketed as MARK GOLDBERG, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
RASIER, LLC; & HIREASE, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-14264-RGS,
allowed the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

District Judge Richard G. Stearns, in his Memorandum and Order on
Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser LLC's Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/PItxuh
from Leagle.com, finds that "although Goldberg claims the loss of
the opportunity to become a driver for Uber, compliance with the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not guarantee a right to
employment, particularly where the information given to Uber (and
on which it relied) was accurate. While Goldberg provided Uber
with information that he believed to be mitigating (because it was
more complete), nothing in the FCRA required Uber to change its
hiring policies as a result."

In addition, Judge Stearns also states that "the Amended Complaint
contains no factual allegations to support a plausible inference
that Hirease obtained information about Goldberg through 'personal
interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates.'"

Michael T. Marshall, The Marshall Law Firm & Philip J. Gordon,
Gordon Law Group, Attorneys for Plaintiff Mark Goldberg.

Carie A. Torrence -- ctorrence@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
P.C., Rod Fliegel -- rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
P.C. & William J. Simmons -- wsimmons@littler.com -- Littler
Medelson, P.C., Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc.
and Rasier LLC.

Barry J. Miller -- bmiller@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP &
Lauren S. Wachsman -- lwachsman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw,
LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Hirease, LLC.


UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Issue TRO to Asylum Seekers
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on May 7 declined to issue a temporary restraining
order to three mothers being held in immigration custody at a
Texas detention center who claimed their Holy Week hunger strike
led to retaliation, reports Erik de la Garza, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

The lead plaintiffs in the class action suit -- from Latin
American countries and seeking asylum in the United States -- say
in their April 23 lawsuit that they were locked in isolation cells
after beginning a hunger strike to protest their detention and
poor standards at the Karnes County Residential Detention Center
in Karnes City, about 60 miles southeast of San Antonio.

They sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and
the Florida-based operator of the private facility, The Geo Group
Inc., in San Antonio Federal Court.

On May 7, the women asked U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez to
issue an injunction under the First Amendment ordering ICE and the
prison operator to stop retaliating against them and to allow them
to peacefully protest their detention.

According to their lawsuit, approximately 80 mothers detained at
the facility "signed and circulated a petition protesting their
continued detention, decrying sub-standard detention conditions,
and announcing a hunger strike" in late March.

"Plaintiffs and other protesting mothers fed their children
regularly while themselves refusing meals for several days," their
complaint says.  "Plaintiffs then suspended their hunger strike to
give ICE ten days to respond to their petition.  After ICE failed
to respond, plaintiffs and other mothers resumed refusing meals on
April 14."

The women say in their complaint that the hunger strike led to
officials locking them in small isolation cells without
justification.  Officers also resorted to interrogations and
threats to separate the women from their children, according to
the complaint.

"The ICE officials said that mothers on hunger strike would not be
in good health, would not be mentally fit to care for their
children," the complaint says.

"Plaintiffs were scared by these threats.  They believed that ICE
would label them as crazy and send their children to another
detention facility," the women add.

Attorneys for the Justice Department argued in court documents
filed on May 7 that the suit should be dismissed, citing a lack of
jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity and the women's
failure to state a First Amendment claim.

"As non-resident aliens who have not gained admission or entry to
the United States -- and who have not established connections to
the United States -- plaintiffs are not entitled to prevail in a
lawsuit seeking relief for alleged violations of the First
Amendment," DOJ attorneys said in a May 7 filing.

The women say ICE detains over 300 mothers and children at the
Texas facility while their asylum applications wind through the
immigration courts.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trisha Trigilio, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
          727 E. Dean Keeton St.
          Austin, TX 78705
          Telephone: (512) 232-1965

               - and -

          Javier N. Maldonado, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAVIER N. MALDONADO, PC
          2311 Brighton Oaks
          San Antonio, TX 78231
          Telephone: (210) 479-3700


US BANK: Dismissal of "Navarro" Class Action Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals, Second District, Division Two, in
the case docketed as RIGOBERTO NAVARRO et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants
and Respondents, NO. B253632, affirmed the trial court's dismissal
of a putative class action seeking "the injunction of various
foreclosures and eviction proceedings that happened in California
. . . based on the Defendants' routine failure to comply with
statutory prerequisites to foreclosure."

Justice Ashmann-Gerst, in her Decision on April 7, 2015, a copy of
which is available at  http://is.gd/tnJto6from Leagle.com, stated
that because (1) the appellants have forfeited their challenge,
and (2) the demurrer was properly sustained without leave to
amend, the "judgment of dismissal is affirmed" and that the
"Respondents are entitled to recover their costs on appeal."

Law Offices of Motaz M. Gerges and Motaz M. Gerges --
gergeslaw@yahoo.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

K&L Gates and Kevin S. Asfour -- kevin.asfour@klgates.com -- for
Defendants and Respondents U.S. Bank National Association and
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss and Edward A. Treder for
Defendants and Respondents Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss
and Dana J. Seyler.


YOUKO TODOU: Faces "Jahm" Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News, discloses that
internet broadcaster Youku Tudou takes its name from the Chinese
phrase for "what's best and what's cool," but the Beijing-based
company's accounting practices do not live up to its motto, a
federal class action alleges.

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

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

The timeline of the class-action complaint begins a little more
than a year after this acquisition, with the company's announcing
of its first-quarter financial results from 2013.  Since that
time, Youku Tudou put out multiple statements revealed to have
been "materially false and misleading" when the company first
disclosed a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation on
March 19, 2015, the lawsuit claims.

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

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

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

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

The class seeks damages for two alleged securities violations.
It is represented by Matthew Guiney of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP.

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


* France Allows Class Actions Against Racism
--------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the victims of racism and anti-Semitism in
France will be able to join forces in class action lawsuits under
new plans by the government to fight discrimination.

"Racism, anti-Semitism, hatred against Muslims and foreigners,
homophobia, are unbearably on the rise in our country," Prime
Minister Manuel Valls said when announcing the plan, which also
includes campaigns to raise awareness and an increased
surveillance of the Internet.

Class actions, under which a lawsuit is filed on behalf of a large
group of people, are a novelty in France. They have been open to
consumers since last year but were so far not an option for
victims of discrimination.  France has the largest Jewish and
Muslim populations in Europe and both communities have pointed at
an increase in attacks.  The government did not say when the class
actions would enter into force or provide any further details of
how the lawsuits would work.

Valls announced the EUR100 million ($107 million) anti-
discrimination plan just three months after Islamist gunmen killed
17 people including cartoonists and customers of a Jewish
foodstore in three days of attacks in Paris.  Hundreds of
thousands of people marched through the streets of France, amid
calls for more action to reject anti-Semitism and racism.

France's main Jewish organization says anti-Semitic acts have
doubled from 2013 to 2014, while the main Muslim organization
noted a strong increase in anti-Muslim acts in the days that
followed January's attacks.

The far-right National Front, whose founder Jean-Marie Le Pen has
been condemned several times for inciting racial hatred, has
become one of France's most popular parties. ($1 = 0.9287 euros).


* Third Circuit Adopts Recovery Scheme for ERISA Attorney Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for Law.com, reports that litigants
who catalyze the defense to change course in an ERISA case, even
if there is no judgment from the court, can still seek to collect
attorney fees in the Third Circuit.

The appeals court made the ruling in a decision that officially
endorsed for the first time the catalyst theory for attorney fee
recovery in cases brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Buckhannon Board & Care
Home v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources,
which rejected the use of the catalyst theory in cases brought
under the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act, could have been a roadblock, but the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that ERISA is different than
those statutes.

"To begin, the ERISA statute does not limit fee awards to the
prevailing party," Judge Richard L. Nygaard said on behalf of the
three-judge panel.  "The Supreme Court specifically held that a
claimant need not be a 'prevailing party' to be eligible for an
attorney fees award under ERISA," he said, citing to a different
Supreme Court case, Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance from
2010.

Referring to the Buckhannon decision, Judge Nygaard said, "The
Supreme Court explained that a 'prevailing party' must 'secure a
judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree.'"

"We have not yet specifically determined whether, post-Buckhannon,
the catalyst theory of recovery remains available under ERISA.  We
have little difficulty concluding that it does," Judge Nygaard
said.

He noted that four circuits have held, in the wake of Buckhannon,
that the catalyst theory is available under statutes that don't
have prevailing-party requirements. ERISA is one of the statutes
that doesn't reserve attorney fee awards for only prevailing
parties and the Second Circuit, in 2013, extended the catalyst
theory to ERISA cases, specifically.

In the case before the Third Circuit, two individual plaintiffs
and two pharmacies had brought a suit against various insurance
companies that hadn't paid for "blood-clotting-factor products,"
according to the opinion.  After the insurers' motion to dismiss
was denied in the district court, they paid the claims in full.

On appeal the first time, the only issue that the Third Circuit
remanded was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on
the delayed payments.

They sought interest between $1.5 million and $1.8 million under
Maryland law and $68,000 under the federal Treasury bill rate.
After the district court judge indicated that the argument under
Maryland law wasn't likely to prevail, the plaintiffs pursued only
the $68,000 under federal law.

At a pretrial hearing in 2013, the insurers agreed to pay the full
amount, according to the Third Circuit's opinion.

This set the stage for the Third Circuit's ruling on the catalyst
theory of attorney fee recovery in ERISA cases.

The plaintiffs sought just over $349,000 in attorney fees and the
district court denied their motion, holding that they hadn't
achieved "some degree of success on the merits," an allusion to
Hardt, because the court hadn't ruled on the issue; instead, the
parties had agreed.

The plaintiffs "argued to the district court that they achieved a
level of success because, after the hearing in January of 2013 and
after the filing of the amended complaint, the [defendants]
voluntarily changed their position and agreed to pay interest,"
according to Judge Nygaard's opinion.  "In effect, the
[plaintiffs] were pursuing a catalyst theory of recovery.  The
district court acknowledged the applicability of this theory in
ERISA cases (even though we, to date, have not), but denied
recovery because it believed that judicial action of some type was
needed to serve as the catalyst, not the activities of litigation
itself."

The Third Circuit took the opportunity to formally adopt the
applicability of the catalyst theory for attorney fee recovery in
ERISA cases here.

The appeals court reversed the district court's decision.

On the panel with Judge Nygaard were Judges Thomas L. Ambro and
Julio M. Fuentes.


                            *********

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  * * *