CAR_Public/150528.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 106


                            Headlines


AARON'S INC: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to Certify Spyware Class Action
ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss in Actos Case Held
ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Vigorously Against AndroGel(R) Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Sanofi to Indemnify Watson Over Cipro Claims
ACTAVIS PLC: New Trial Date Has Not Been Set in Doryx Litigation

ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Lidoderm(R) Retailer Complaint
ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Opana Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Actavis Defendants
ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Celexa/Lexapro Actions v. Forest
ACTAVIS PLC: Reached Agreement to Settle with Luster Plaintiffs

ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissal of Columbia Labs Litigation Affirmed
ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing in Forest Securities Case Deal
ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing in Furiex Securities Case Deal
AD TELAMERICA: Judge Narrows Claims in "Dinsdale" Suit
ALLMAX NUTRITION: Falsely Marketed Dietary Products, Suit Claims

AMAZON.COM.KYDC LLC: Wins Dismissal of ADA Suit
AMBIT ENERGY: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Class Action Over Mass Firing
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Request for Initial Deal Approval to Be Renewed
AMERICAN REALTY: Investors Update Class Action Complaint
APPLE INC: Judge Allows Artist to Amend Complaint
APPLIED MACHINERY: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ARIZONA: 9th Cir. Rejects Rehearing En Banc Bid in Inmates Case

BALTIC TRADING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Merger
BARCLAYS PLC: Motion to Dismiss "Strougo" Case Partially Granted
BELL CANADA: Faces $750MM Class Action Over Privacy Breach
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Gets More Time to Respond to "Cardoza" Action
BOEING COMPANY: Decision to Remand Case to State Court Vacated

BOS SOLUTIONS: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
CAPITAL ONE: Appeal Period in Interchange Suit Deal Expired
CARNICERIA Y VERDULERIA: Final Fairness Hearing Set for July 31
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Faces "Portis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Suit in California for Trading Through UBS

CHARLESTON RETIREMENT: Sued Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
COUNTRY CLUB HILLS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Property Tax Rebate
CR ENGLAND: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, "Cain" Suit Says
CYAN INC: To Defend Against Stockholder Class Action
DELTA RIGGING: Faces "Shields" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

DELUXE CORP: Summary Judgment Motion in "Graves" Case Denied
DICK'S SPORTING: Sued by Assistant Store Managers Over Unpaid OT
DINO'S FINER: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DNC SERVICES: Fla. Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss "Shamblin" Case
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Bid for Arbitration in "Kitsch" Case Okayed

DU PONT: Court Will Not Compel Corp. Representative to Testify
ENGINEERING NETWORK INT'L: Ruling in Staffing Firm's Suit Flipped
EL DORADO, CA: Suit Against Sheriff's Dept Can't Proceed as Class
ETSY INC: Faces "Altayyar" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
EXPERIAN SERVICES: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Consumers Info

EXXON MOBIL: Judge Denies Plaintiffs' Bid to Enforce Agreement
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Patel" Suit Over Consumers Biometric Info
FARMEDHERE LLC: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Need Not Defend L.A. Lakers, Court Rules
FINANCIAL AMERICAN: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Granted

FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT: Fee Bid in "Spears" Granted in Part
FITBIT INC: Falsely Claims It Can Track Sleeping Time, Suit Says
FLYING FOOD: Faces Wage Class Action in California
FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: To Defend Against All Class Action Claims
GAF MATERIALS: Court Approves Settlement on Defective Shingles

GAUCHO LLC: Faces "Hadel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GLOBAL POWER: Faces "Ream" Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
GRAND FLORIDIAN: Faces "Cordoba" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HAGUE QUALITY: Faces "Bergman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Court Issues Guidelines to Evaluate Deals

HCR MANOR: Ohio Ct. App. Drops Appeal on Interlocutory Judgment
INTERSECTIONS INC: Made Immaterial Payment to Settle Class Action
INTERTHINX INC: Colo. Court Approved Settlement in "Shaw" Action
JACO OIL: Must File Bid for Initial OK of Settlement on July 3
JB HUNT: "Wheat" Suit Transferred to C.D. California

JC CRANBERRY: Joint Motion to Seal Settlement Agreement Denied
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
KINGATE MANAGEMENT: Dist. Court Judgment Vacated, Suit Remanded
KRAFT FOODS: Faces 'Foote" Suit Over Illegal Company Merger
LEE COUNTY, FL: State Immunity Causes Case to be Dismissed

LICHTER GROUP: Judge Allows Amendment in "Malinowski" Suit
LINCOLN TECHNICAL: Judge Denies Bid for Document Production
LOUISIANA BIDCO: Trial Court Judgment Reversed in Suit v. D&O
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Dist. Ct. Judgment in Securities Suit Upheld
MAGNANTE EYE CARE: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

MANDALAY CORP: July 22 Final Approval Hearing Set on Smith Deal
MARRONE BIO: Court Directs Filing of Consolidated Complaint
MARYLAND: Faces Class Action Over Women Pay Disparity
MIAMI, FL: Judge Denies Attorneys' Fees in Homeless Case
MIDLAND FUNDING: Fee Application Partially Granted

MONSANTO CO: Two Mass. Towns Lose in 1st Round of PCB Litigation
MONSEY NEW: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Alleged Gender Discrimination
MORGAN KEEGAN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 9
MOUNTAIN STATES: "Hornaday" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NAILSWAY INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Raises Concerns Over Concussion Deal
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Concussion Injury Settlement Approved
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Settlement in Turner and Wooden Case Okayed
NEBRASKA: Food Stamp Approval Delays May Cost $17 Million
NEVADA PROPERTY: Motions to Certify in Wage & Hour Action Pending

NEVADA PROPERTY: Settlement to be Presented for Initial Approval
NEVADA PROPERTY: Condominium Hotel Litigation in Earliest Stages
NORTH DAKOTA: Mental Health Crisis May Spur Class Action
NYLOK LLC: Court Dismisses Trujillo's Individual Claims
OLD NATIONAL: Denial of Summary Judgment Bid Affirmed in Part

OS INTERIOR: "Marin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PHILIP MORRIS: Court Upheld $5-Mil. Verdict in "Cuculino" Suit
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Investor Class Action for $65MM
PRODIGY DIABETES: Class Cert. Bid in Rhea Drugstore Suit Denied
PULTEGROUP INC: Faces " Schumacher" Suit Over PT Foundation Plans

RADIO CORPORATION: Has Enough Assets to Cover Class Suit Damages
RANBAXY INC: Faces Meijer Suit Over Valcyte and Diovan Drugs
RESONANT INC: Defending Against Paggos Class Action
RESONANT INC: Defending Against Devouassoux Class Action
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Mailing of Class Action Award Begins

RHODE ISLAND: Ruling in Foster Kids' Suit Vacated
RITE AID: Motion to Stay Withdrawn in "Welday" Case
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Court to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in "Ding" Suit
RS PARKING: "Pereira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Accused in California of Drugging Orcas

SFBSC MANAGEMENT: N.D. Cal. Judge Stayed Exotic Dancers' Action
SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Class Action Settlement Wins Preliminary Okay
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: E.D. Pa. Judge Drops Diabetic's Suit
SNCF: Holocaust Victims' Descendants File Class Action
STANFORD UNIVERSITY: US Govt Dismissed From "Phillips" Suit

SUMMIT RESTAURANT: Sued in Cal. Over Reimbursement Policies
SUPREME SERVICE: Suit to be Transferred to E.D. Louisiana
TOP RANK: Faces "Galandak" Suit for Concealing Pacquiao's Injury
TRIPTI INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Samuel" Suit Says
TURNKEY BUSINESS: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages & Damages

UAG FAYETTEVILLE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S: May Intervene in Class Suit
UNILEVER UNITED STATES: "Pardini" Case Stayed
UNION PACIFIC: La. Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in "Ned" Case
UNITED STATES: Settlement in Hunneshagen Trust Case Approved

UNITED STATES: Veterans Court Ruling in "Adeyi" Case Affirmed
UNITED STATES: Bid for Continuance of Sentencing Hearing Granted
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
VERINT SYSTEMS: Court Reviews Summations on Motion to Certify
VIKRANT CONTRACTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

WEBBER SPRINGS: Summary Judgment in "Fleet" Case Affirmed in Part
WELLS FARGO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Banking Products
WELLS FARGO: Wins Dismissal of "Perez" Complaint
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs May Find Substitute Counsel
YELP INC: "Curry" Securities Class Action in N.D. Cal. Dismissed

YP ADVERTISING: Bid to Dismiss FLSA Action Denied


                            *********


AARON'S INC: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to Certify Spyware Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Thompson, writing for GoErie.com, reports that a ruling by
the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given new life to a
long-pending federal lawsuit filed in Erie that alleged nationwide
rental chain Aaron's Inc. and an Aaron's franchisee used spyware
developed by a North East company to secretly capture webcam
photos, screen shots and key strokes of customers.

In March 2014, U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon adopted the
recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter and
ruled against the plaintiffs' request to certify the spyware
complaint as a class-action lawsuit against the Aaron's
defendants.  The decision hinged on Baxter's finding that the
class, as proposed by the plaintiffs, Crystal and Aaron Byrd of
Wyoming, could not be determined with certainty.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said
on April 17 that ruling represented an abuse of discretion and
resulted from a misapplication of the law.  It said there appeared
to be "confusion" in the 3rd Circuit about the court's rulings on
what it called the "simple requirement" for a class to be
ascertainable -- whether the class is defined with reference to
objective criteria and there is a reliable mechanism to determine
if possible members of a class fit the class definition.

"Not surprisingly, defendants in class actions have seized upon
this lack of precision by invoking the ascertainability
requirement with increasing frequency in order to defeat class
certification.  We seek here to dispel any confusion," U.S.
Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote on behalf of the panel.

The case will now return to U.S. District Court in Erie for
further litigation, which could result in its receiving class
certification.

"The Court's ruling provides clear guidance regarding the
certification of class actions," said one of the Byrds' lawyers,
Frederick S. Longer, of Philadelphia, who wrote and argued the
Third Circuit appeal.

"With this ruling, we are pleased to refocus our efforts on
getting the victims of the spyware back into court," Mr. Longer
said.

Andrea S. Hirsch, of Atlanta, another of the plaintiffs' lawyers,
said, "we look forward to the Byrds and other affected consumers
having their class action certified and then having their day in
court."

Aaron's could not be immediately reached for comment.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants conspired to use tracking
spyware developed by a North East company, DesignerWare Inc., to
secretly snap webcam photos and capture the screen shots and
keystrokes of plaintiff Brian Byrd in the mistaken belief that he
and his wife had not finished paying for the computer he was
using.  The software, called PC Rental Agent, was designed to help
rental stores recover stolen equipment.  The plaintiffs said the
software violated privacy and the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act.

The plaintiffs and their team of lawyers want to pursue claims not
only on behalf of the Byrds, but also as a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of more than 800 Aaron's rental customers they say were
similarly spied on between June 2009 and January 2012.

They charge that sensitive personal information -- including legal
documents, medical and financial records, Social Security and
personal identification numbers -- was collected, transmitted and
stored by Aaron's corporate servers.

The long-running case was first filed in Erie in 2011 and
initially included DesignerWare.  The claims against DesignerWare
were suspended in March 2012, when the company filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy protection, according to court records.

In September 2012, DesignerWare entered a consent decree with the
Federal Trade Commission in which it agreed to scale back the
technology.

Aaron's settled a complaint with the FTC in October 2013.  The FTC
charged that Aaron's Inc. enabled its franchisees to violate
consumer protection laws by secretly installing the monitoring
software.  Aaron's neither admitted nor denied the allegations in
the FTC complaint, but the company agreed to modify its use of the
monitoring technology.


ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss in Actos Case Held
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that
oral argument on a motion to dismiss the Actos(R) Litigation was
scheduled for April 27, 2015.

On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court (United Food and Commercial Workers Local
1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltc. Et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9244 and
Crosby Tugs LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., et al.,
S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9250) against Actavis plc and certain of its
affiliates alleging that Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson"
now known as Actavis, Inc.) 2010 patent lawsuit settlement with
Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd. related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone
hydrochloride and metformin "Actos(R)") is unlawful. Several
additional complaints have been filed (Fraternal Order of Police,
Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-0116;
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health &
Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.
Civ. No. 14-0644; A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-
1493; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.
Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1661; Painters District Council
No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.,
et al., N.D.Ill. Civ. No. 14-1601; City of Providence v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 14-125; Minnesota
and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Health Fund
and Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and
Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.
Civ. No. 14-1691; Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1788; New
England Electrical Workers Benefit Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical
Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-2424; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Civ. No. 14-2378; Dennis Kreish v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2137; Man-U Service
Contract Trust Fund and Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare
Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2846).

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations may be filed. Prior to the filing of
the Painters District Council and City of Providence complaints,
plaintiffs in the cases pending in federal court in New York filed
a consolidated class action complaint. Plaintiffs in the Painters
District Council and City of Providence cases subsequently
voluntarily dismissed their complaints in Illinois and Rhode
Island, respectively, and refiled their complaints in the Southern
District of New York where all the cases have been referred to the
same judge.

Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated, amended complaint on May 20,
2014 (In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation, Civ. No. 13-
9244). The amended complaint, asserted on behalf of a putative
class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges an
overall scheme that included Watson improperly delaying the launch
of its generic version of Actos(R) in exchange for substantial
payments from Takeda in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on July 11,
2014. Rather than oppose the motions to dismiss, plaintiffs
amended their complaint on August 22, 2014. Defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on October 10, 2014. Plaintiffs'
oppositions to the motion were filed on December 5, 2014 and
defendants' reply briefs were filed on January 9, 2015. Oral
argument on the motion was scheduled for April 27, 2015.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims alleged. However, these actions, if successful,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Vigorously Against AndroGel(R) Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the
Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the
AndroGel(R) Litigation.

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade
Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC
Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the September 2006 patent
lawsuit settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is
unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote Androgel(R)
for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services
provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable
relief and civil penalties. On February 2 and 3, 2009, three
separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California by
various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes
of similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et. al., v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215);
(Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co.
Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-
0228).

On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private
cases to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On April 21, 2009 the State of California
voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Watson without
prejudice. The Federal Trade Commission and the private plaintiffs
in the Northern District of Georgia filed amended complaints on
May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to
include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of
Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange Book," and sham litigation.
Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of Androgel(R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a
SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-
1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31,
Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ.
No. 09-1856); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ.
No. 09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and
Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et
al., D. MN Civ. No. 09-1168); (Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed
Pharms., Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et
al. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240);
(Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No.
10-1024); (LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ.
No. 10-2883); (Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837). On
April 20, 2009, Watson was dismissed without prejudice from the
Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey.
On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that
district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re:
AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084),
and all currently-pending related actions are presently before
that court. On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all the
consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted Watson's motions to dismiss the complaints, except
the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that include
allegations concerning sham litigation. Final judgment in favor of
the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade Commission's
action on April 21, 2010. On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued
a decision, holding that the settlements between brand and generic
drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to
the generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason"
standard of review and ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme
Court Androgel Decision").

On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police
action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning
conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in
connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA's
"Orange Book," and sham litigation similar to the claims raised in
the direct purchaser actions. On October 28, 2010, the judge
presiding over MDL 2084 entered an order pursuant to which the
LeGrand action, filed on September 10, 2010, was consolidated for
pretrial purposes with the other indirect purchaser class action
as part of MDL 2084 and made subject to the Court's February 22,
2010 order on the motion to dismiss.

In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs and
the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on
June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, including
Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed a motion
for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints. On September
28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of
the defendants on all outstanding claims. The plaintiffs then
appealed. On September 12 and 13, 2013, respectively, the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs and direct purchaser plaintiffs filed motions
with the district court, asking the court for an indicative ruling
that it would vacate its final order on the parties' summary
judgment motions and conduct further proceedings in light of the
Supreme Court Androgel Decision, should the Court of Appeals
remand the case to the district court.

On October 23, 2013, the district court granted the motions. The
court of appeals remanded the case back to the district court
which has granted plaintiffs relief under Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, vacating the ruling from which
plaintiffs appealed. On August 5, 2014 the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Company answered the
amended complaint on September 15, 2014.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Sanofi to Indemnify Watson Over Cipro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that
Sanofi has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its
affiliates in connection with the claims related to the Cipro(R)
Litigation and investigations arising from the conduct and
agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior
to Watson's acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the
defense of these actions.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson and certain Company affiliates including The Rugby Group,
Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints
and motions seeking class certification. Approximately 42 cases
were filed against Watson, Rugby and other Company entities. Many
of these actions have been dismissed. Actions remain pending in
various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and
Florida. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged
in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged
agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby
from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development,
manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin
hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug,
Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.
The action pending in Kansas, which the court previously
terminated administratively, has been reopened.

Plaintiffs' in that case moved for class certification on February
21, 2014; defendants' filed opposition to the class certification
motion on May 23, 2014. Class discovery ended on July 25, 2014 and
plaintiffs filed reply briefs in support of certification on
August 22, 2014. A hearing was held on October 28, 2014 on
defendants' motion for an evidentiary hearing on class discovery
and a hearing on the certification was held on December 15, 2014.

There has been no action in the cases pending in Florida and
Tennessee since 2003. In the action pending in the California
Superior Court for the County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I &
II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the
California Court of Appeal ruled that the majority of the
plaintiffs would be permitted to pursue their claims as a class.
On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was
entered on September 24, 2009. On October 31, 2011, the California
Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.

On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review
in the California Supreme Court. On February 15, 2012, the
California Supreme Court granted review. On September 12, 2012,
the California Supreme Court entered a stay of all proceedings in
the case pending a decision from the United States Supreme Court
in the Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis matter involving
Androgel, described above. The California Supreme Court lifted the
stay on June 26, 2013 following the ruling by the United States
Supreme Court. Plaintiffs and Bayer announced that they have
reached an agreement to settle the claims pending against Bayer
and Bayer has now been dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs are
continuing to pursue claims against the generic defendants,
including Watson and Rugby. The remaining parties submitted letter
briefs to the court regarding the impact of the Supreme Court
Androgel Decision. Response briefs were submitted on February 14,
2014. Amicus briefs were submitted on March 18, 2014 and the
parties filed responses to such briefs on April 24, 2014.

In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and
indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims
and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements
allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of
these actions.


ACTAVIS PLC: New Trial Date Has Not Been Set in Doryx Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that a
new trial date has not been set in Doryx Litigation.

In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a
complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International
Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne
prevented or delayed Mylan's generic competition to Warner
Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of U.S. federal
antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's prospective
economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law. (Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et
al., E.D.Pa. No. 12-cv-03824). In the complaint, Mylan seeks
unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class
actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported
direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed against
Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported indirect purchasers, each
in the same court. On December 5, 2013 an additional complaint was
filed by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132
Health and Welfare Fund and on May 9, 2014, Laborers' Trust Fund
for Northern California filed a complaint each on behalf of
additional groups of purported indirect purchasers. Warner has
moved to dismiss each of these new complaints. In each case the
plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner
Chilcott's Doryx(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and
Mayne's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition
in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages
and/or attorneys' fees. The court consolidated the purported class
actions and the action filed by Mylan and ordered that all the
pending cases proceed on the same schedule.

On February 5, 2013, four retailers, including HEB Grocery,
Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc. and Walgreen Co., filed in the same
court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities
against Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx(R). (Walgreen
Co., Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc. and HEB Grocery Co, LP. v.
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-
00658). On March 28, 2013, another retailer, Rite Aid, filed a
similar complaint in the same court. (Rite Aid Corp. v. Warner
Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-01644).
Both retailer complaints recite similar facts and assert similar
legal claims for relief to those asserted in the related cases
described above. Both retailer complaints have been consolidated
with the cases described above.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne moved to dismiss the claims of Mylan,
the direct purchasers, the indirect purchasers and the retailers.
On November 21, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission filed with the
court an amicus curiae brief supporting the plaintiffs' theory of
relief. On June 12, 2013, the court entered a denial, without
prejudice, of Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motions to dismiss. On
November 13, 2013, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement
in principle to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiff class representatives for $15.0 million.

On February 18, 2014 the court preliminarily approved the
settlement and after a hearing issued a final approval of the
settlement on September 15, 2014. On April 18, 2014, Warner
Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement to settle the claims of
the opt-out direct purchasers for $10.9 million. On May 29, 2014
Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement in principle to
settle the claims of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff class
representatives for $8.0 million. On July 11, 2014, the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion to approve the settlement with
the court and on September 9, 2014 the court, after a hearing,
issued an order preliminarily approving this settlement. After a
final fairness hearing, the indirect purchaser settlement received
final approval on January 28, 2015. Warner Chilcott and Mylan
filed motions for summary judgment on March 10, 2014. On June 2,
2014, the court vacated the trial date. A new trial date has not
been set.


ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Lidoderm(R) Retailer Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the
Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the retailer
complaint related to Lidoderm(R) Litigation.

On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
federal district court (Drogueria Betances, Inc. v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-06542) against
Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson's
2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches,
"Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on behalf of
putative classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges
that Watson improperly delayed launching generic versions of
Lidoderm(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Endo
Pharmaceuticals in violation of federal and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages. Additional lawsuits contain similar
allegations have followed on behalf of putative classes of direct
purchasers (Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-7217; American
Sales Co. LLC, v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn.
Civ. No. 14-0022; Cesar Castillo, Inc. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 14-0569) and suits filed on
behalf of a putative class of end-payer plaintiffs (United Food
and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health
and Welfare Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal.
Civ. No. 13-5257; Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge
31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al.,
N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5280; City of Providence v. Teikoku Pharma
USA, Inc., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-771; Greater Metropolitan
Hotel Employers - Employees Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., D.Minn. Civ. No. 13-3399; Pirelli
Armstrong Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Teikoku Pharma USA,
Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378; Plumbers and Pipefitters
Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA,
Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5938; Philadelphia Federation
of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0057; International Association of
Fire Fighters Local 22 Health & Welfare Fund v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0092; Painters
District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund v. Teikoku Pharma
USA, Inc., et al., C.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0289; Local 17 Hospitality
Benefit Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ.
No. 14-0503; Teamsters Local Union 115 Health and Welfare Fund v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0772;
Roller v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No.
14-0792; Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation
Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378; NECA-
IBEW Welfare Trust v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal.
Civ. No. 14-1141; Allied Services Division Welfare Fund v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-1548; Irene
Kampanis v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No.
14-1562).

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations may be filed. On December 23, 2013,
plaintiffs in the United Food and Commercial Workers action filed
a motion with the JPML to have all the Lidoderm(R) antitrust cases
consolidated in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in
several of the other actions filed objections and argued for
consolidation in districts where their suits were filed. The
motion was heard by the JPML at a hearing on March 27, 2014 and on
April 3, 2014 the JPML consolidated the cases in the Northern
District of California. (In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, N.D.
Cal., MDL No. 14-2521).

An initial case conference was held on May 9, 2014 after which the
court issued a schedule order. Pursuant to that order, on June 13,
2014 the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed amended
and consolidated complaints. The defendants thereafter filed a
joint motion to dismiss on July 28, 2014. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the joint motion on September 8, 2014. Defendants
filed reply briefs on October 14, 2014. Oral argument on the
motion was held on November 5, 2014. The court issued its decision
on November 17, 2014 granting the motion in part but denying it
with respect to the claims under Section 1 the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 19, 2014.

Defendants' responses to the amended complaint were filed on
January 30, 2015. On March 5, 2015, a group of five retailers,
including HEB Grocery, Safeway, Inc., The Kroger Co., Albertson's
LLC and Walgreen Co., filed in the same court a civil antitrust
complaint in their individual capacities regarding Lidoderm(R).
(Walgreen Co., The Kroger Co., Safeway, Inc., HEB Grocery Co, LP.
and Albertson's LLC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., N.D.
Cal. No. 15-cv-1032). The retailer complaint recites similar facts
and asserts similar legal claims for relief to those asserted in
the related cases. The retailer complaint has been consolidated
with the cases.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the
Company intends to defend itself vigorously including in the
appeal of the district court's decision granting the Company's
motion to dismiss related to the Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel
Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., et al., D.N.J., Civ. No. 13-02178, and
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et
al., E.D.Pa., No. 13-01807) against Actavis, Inc. and certain
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement
with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets,
"Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was
an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages.

On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff in New York Hotel Trades withdrew
its complaint and, on April 16, 2013, refiled it in the federal
court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (New York Hotel
Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health
Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa.,
Civ. No. 13-02000). Additional complaints have been filed by
different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class
of end-payors (A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan v.
Warner Chilcott, et al., D.N.J. 13-02456, Fraternal Order of
Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-02014).
Electrical Workers 242 and 294 Health & Welfare Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-2862 and
City of Providence v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al.,
D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-307).

In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed
on behalf of a class of direct payors (American Sales Company, LLC
v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd., Co. et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 12-347
and Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc., v. Warner Chilcott (US),
LLC, et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-133476). On June 18, 2013,
defendants filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") to consolidate these cases in one federal
district court. After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML
issued an order conditionally transferring all related Loestrin(R)
24 cases to the federal court for the District of Rhode Island.
(In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litigation, D.R.I. MDL No. 13-
2472). A preliminary hearing was held on November 4, 2013 after
which an amended, consolidated complaint was filed on December 6,
2013. On February 6, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs' complaints.

Plaintiffs' filed oppositions to the motion on March 24, 2014 and
the Company filed its responses on April 23, 2014. A hearing was
held on June 27, 2014 on the motion to dismiss and on September 4,
2014, the court granted the motion. On October 6, 2014, the direct
purchaser plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the district
court's opinion and on October 20, 2014, they filed a motion for
entry of a final judgment. Also, on October 20, 2014 the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the
court's September 4, 2014 opinion. On November 21, 2014 the
Company moved to stay the opt-out direct purchasers' action. The
Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the
district court's decision granting the Company's motion to
dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Opana Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Actavis Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that
plaintiffs in the Opana Litigation have agreed to voluntarily
dismiss the Actavis defendants from the action without prejudice.

On December 19, 2014, a putative class action was filed in
California state court (Mahaffay v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., et
al., CA Super. Ct. Case No. HG14752254) against Actavis, Inc. and
Actavis South Atlantic LLC alleging, among other things, that
Actavis' 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. related to Opana ER(R) (extended release oxymorphone
hydrochloride tablets) is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on
behalf of a putative class of end payer plaintiffs, generally
alleges that Actavis and Impax improperly delayed launching
generic versions of Opana ER(R) in exchange for substantial
consideration from Endo in violation of CA state antitrust, unfair
competition and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks
damages and other equitable relief. On March 4, 2015, plaintiffs
in this action agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Actavis
defendants from the action without prejudice. The Company
anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or
similar allegations may be filed. However, this action and any
others like it, if successful, could adversely affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Celexa/Lexapro Actions v. Forest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions involving Forest and certain of
its affiliates.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three
federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased
Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have
been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and
Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation." These actions,
two of which were originally filed as putative nationwide class
actions, and one of which is a putative California-wide class
action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R)
for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to
physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).
The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims
under the Missouri and California consumer protection statutes,
respectively, and state common laws.

On February 5, 2013, the district judge overseeing the MDL denied
all plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On February 18,
2013, the plaintiff in the California action filed a petition
seeking leave to appeal this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit. On April 16, 2013, the First Circuit denied
the petition. On April 30, 2013, plaintiffs in the other two
actions filed an Amended Complaint seeking to certify state-wide
class actions in Illinois, Missouri, and New York under those
states' consumer protection statutes.

On January 13, 2014, the district judge denied plaintiffs' motion
with respect to the proposed Illinois and New York classes and
allowed it with respect to the proposed Missouri class. Forest
filed a petition seeking leave to appeal this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 27, 2014. On
March 12, 2014, Forest reached agreement with the MDL plaintiffs
to settle the Missouri class claims, including claim by both
individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or
Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013. In
exchange for a release from class members, Forest will pay $7.65
million into a fund that will cover (1) the settlement benefits
paid to class members, (2) administration costs, (3) incentive
awards to be paid to the representative plaintiffs, and (4)
attorneys' fees and costs. If valid claims are greater than $4.215
million, Forest will pay up to $2.7 million more to pay for the
additional valid claims (the total settlement payment shall not
exceed $10.35 million). The district court judge preliminarily
approved the settlement on March 14, 2014 and issued an order
enjoining all class members and other persons from litigating
claims relating to those covered by the settlement. On September
8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the settlement.

On May 3, 2013, another action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
individuals who purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking
to certify a state-wide class action in California and alleging
that our promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has
been deceptive. This action was transferred to the MDL mentioned
in the preceding paragraph and, on July 29, 2013, Forest moved to
dismiss the complaint. The district court judge granted Forest's
motion to dismiss on March 5, 2014. Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on
March 17, 2014 and filed its appeal brief on July 24, 2014. Forest
filed its opposition brief on August 25, 2014. On February 20,
2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint,
ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted
by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

On November 13, 2013, another action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking to certify a
nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label
marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). This action was
transferred to the MDL, and Forest filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on January 15, 2014. On February 5, 2014, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the complaint and filed a First Amended
Complaint, which, among other things, added claims on behalf of a
Minnesota class of entities and consumers under Minnesota's
consumer protection statutes. Forest filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint on April 9, 2014. A motion hearing was
held on October 1, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the court issued a
ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under Minnesota's Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, but denying the remaining portions of the
motion.

On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by two third-party payors
seeking to certify a nationwide class of persons and entities that
purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes,
and state common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-
label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). This action was
filed as a related action to the action described above in the
preceding paragraph. Forest filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on April 30, 2014. In its December 12, 2014 ruling, the
court granted Forest's motion to dismiss.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington (Civ. No. 14-1339) seeking
to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of
Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa(R)
and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims
under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, alleging that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme
and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions
of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). On October 14, 2014, the court
entered a conditional transfer order to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts where it has
been consolidated with the other actions pending in that court
relating to marketing of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest's
response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these
actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if
any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


ACTAVIS PLC: Reached Agreement to Settle with Luster Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the
company reached an agreement to settle with the Luster plaintiffs
for a payment that is not material to the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are named as defendants in
two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri Circuit
Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, and arising from similar
allegations as those contained in the federal actions described in
the preceding paragraphs. The first action, filed on November 6,
2009 under the caption "St. Louis Labor Healthcare Network et al.
v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is
brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain
purchases of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts
claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri
common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The
Company has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve
this action for payments that are not material to our financial
condition or results of operations. The second action, filed on
July 22, 2009 under the caption "Crawford v. Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," and now known as "Luster v. Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class action on behalf of a
class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric
use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer
protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at
any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but
who do not have a claim for personal injury. On December 9, 2013,
the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was argued
on January 8, 2014. On February 21, 2014, the Company filed a
motion to de-certify the class. Decisions on these motions are
pending. On March 12, 2014, the Company informed the judge of the
MDL Missouri class settlement, including that the federal class
encompasses the members of the certified Missouri class in Luster.
At a status conference on April 2, 2014 the parties agreed that
the action is stayed in light of the injunction contained in the
MDL Preliminary Approval Order.

On January 21, 2015, the company reached an agreement to settle
with the Luster plaintiffs for a payment that is not material to
our financial condition or results of operations. The Company
intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. At
this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have
a material effect on the results of operations or financial
position taken as a whole.


ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissal of Columbia Labs Litigation Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals court issued its ruling affirming
the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended
complaint in the Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On June 8, 2012, Watson and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in a consolidated amended class action complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of Columbia Laboratories' stock
purchasers. The amended complaint generally alleges that between
December 6, 2010 and January 20, 2012, Watson and certain of its
officers, as well as Columbia Laboratories and certain of its
officers, made false and misleading statements regarding the
likelihood of Columbia Laboratories obtaining FDA approval of
Prochieve(R) progesterone gel, Columbia Laboratories'
developmental drug for prevention of preterm birth. Watson
licensed the rights to Prochieve(R) from Columbia Laboratories in
July 2010. The amended complaint further alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the
statistical analysis of the clinical studies performed by Columbia
Laboratories in connection with its pursuit of FDA approval of
Prochieve(R). The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On August 14, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
of the claims in the amended complaint, which the court granted on
June 11, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July
11, 2013. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint on August 9, 2013. On October 21, 2013, the court
granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In
ruling on the motion to dismiss, the court also ruled that if the
plaintiffs seek to further amend the complaint, they must file a
motion within thirty days seeking permission to do so.

On December 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on the
district court's motion to dismiss ruling and filed their opening
appellate brief on March 20, 2014. Respondents' briefs in the
appeal were filed on April 9, 2014. The oral argument on the
appeal was held on December 9, 2014. On March 10, 2015, the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals court issued its ruling affirming the
district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended complaint.

Plaintiffs have ninety days from the entry of the appellate
court's order to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari. If the plaintiffs pursue their claims further and are
successful in having the dismissal reversed, the Company believes
it has substantial meritorious defenses and it intends to defend
itself vigorously. Additionally, the Company maintains insurance
to provide coverage for the claims alleged in the action. However,
litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict
the outcome of this litigation. The action, if successful, or if
insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such
claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing in Forest Securities Case Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that a
fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled on the settlement in
the Forest Laboratories Securities Litigation.

In February and March 2014, nine putative stockholder class
actions were brought against Forest, Forest's directors, Actavis
plc, and certain of Actavis's affiliates. Four actions were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery and have been consolidated under
the caption "In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation" (the "Delaware Action"). Five actions were filed in
New York State Supreme Court and have been consolidated under the
caption "Turberg v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al." (the "New
York Action"). On April 4 and May 5, 2014, respectively, the
Delaware and New York plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints in their respective jurisdictions. The amended
complaints seek, among other remedies, to enjoin Actavis's
proposed acquisition of Forest or damages in the event the
transaction closes. The complaints generally allege, among other
things, that the members of the Forest Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Forest for inadequate
consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process, and that the
disclosure document fails to disclose allegedly material
information about the transaction. The complaints also allege that
Actavis, and certain of its affiliates, aided and abetted these
alleged breaches. On May 28, 2014, the defendants reached an
agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and
the New York Action regarding a settlement of both Actions, and
that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding
pursuant to which Forest agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed transaction with Actavis,
which are contained in a Form 8-K filed May 28, 2014. The parties
entered into a definitive stipulation of settlement on February 6,
2015 that remains subject to customary conditions, including court
approval. A fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled.

If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed
transaction, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith, including in the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus. There can be no assurance that the Delaware
Court of Chancery will approve the proposed settlement. If the
proposed settlement is not approved, the proposed settlement may
be terminated. At this time, the Company does not believe losses,
if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations
or financial position taken as a whole.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing in Furiex Securities Case Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that a
fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled on the settlement in
the Furiex Securities Litigation.

In May 2014, four putative stockholder class actions were brought
against Forest, Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Furiex"), and
Furiex's board of directors. Two actions were brought in the
Delaware Court of Chancery under the captions "Steven Kollman v.
Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." and "Donald Powell v. Furiex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." (the "Delaware Actions"). Two
actions were brought in North Carolina state court under the
captions "Walter Nakatsukasa v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al." and "Christopher Shinneman v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al." (the "North Carolina Actions"). These actions alleged, among
other things, that the members of the Furiex Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Furiex for
inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process.
These actions also alleged that Forest aided and abetted these
alleged breaches. These actions sought class certification, to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of Furiex, and an award of
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other
costs. The Kollman and Nakatsukasa actions also sought recission
of the acquisition and unspecified recissory damages if the
acquisition was completed.

On June 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions and the North Carolina
Actions regarding a settlement of all four actions, and that
agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, Furiex agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed transaction with us, which are
contained in a Form DEFA14A filed June 23, 2014.

On January 15, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement which is subject to court approval. A fairness hearing
has not yet been scheduled. If the settlement is finally approved
by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all four
actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the proposed transaction and any disclosure made in
connection therewith. There can be no assurance that the North
Carolina state court will approve the settlement. In such event,
the proposed settlement may be terminated. At this time, the
Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material
effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as
a whole.


AD TELAMERICA: Judge Narrows Claims in "Dinsdale" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane J. Boyle of the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss in the case JUSTIN DINSDALE, and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AD TELAMERICA INCORPORATED,
d/b/a Yellow Pages and d/b/a Yellow Pages Directories, and BARBARA
J. SOMMER, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-3427-B (N.D. Tex.)

Defendants were sued by the United States Postal Service (USPS)
and the Texas Attorney General's Office for deceptive mailings and
solicitations. Both lawsuits resulted in consent orders being
entered against defendants, in which defendants agreed to cease
making certain representations.

Justin Dinsdale purchased a listing in defendants' Yellow Pages
Directories to advertise his business in 2012. On March 13, 2013,
Dinsdale filed a class action in federal court on behalf of
himself and other purchasers of Ad TelAmerica's Yellow Pages
Directories advertising service, asserting claims for (1) common
law fraud, (2) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, (3) false representations under 39 U.S.C. Section 3005; (4)
fraud and related activity in connection with access devices under
18 U.S.C. Section 1029; (5) money had and received; and (6) unjust
enrichment against defendants Ad TelAmerica and Barbara J. Sommer.
Dinsdale alleges that defendants deceptively and fraudulently
solicit customers around the country by mailing them a final
notice of payment for the service of listing their businesses in
the Yellow Pages Directories, despite the fact that defendants
neither publish nor are affiliated with the Yellow Pages.

Dinsdale claims that defendants continue to engage in deceptive
and fraudulent practices, in violation of the terms of the
agreements reached with the State and USPS, causing damage to
plaintiff and others similarly situated.

Plaintiff's case was transferred from the Southern District of
Texas, Brownsville Division to the present court. Thereafter, on
October 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Judge Boyle granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss.

A copy of Judge's memorandum opinion and order dated April 17,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/ThZhDlfrom Leagle.com

Justin Dinsdale, Plaintiff, represented by:
Omar Weaver Rosales, Esq.
The Rosales Law Firm LLC
1400 Montana Avenue
El Paso, TX 79902
Telephone: 915-219-5516
Facsimile: 915-542-0878

Defendants, represented by C Brenton Kugler --
brent.kugler@solidcounsel.com -- Charlene Cantrell Koonce --
charlene.koonce@solidcounsel.com -- at Scheef & Stone LLP


ALLMAX NUTRITION: Falsely Marketed Dietary Products, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Allmax Nutrition, Inc. and HBS International Corp.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00744-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal., May 14, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all who purchased the dietary supplement
Allmax Nutrition Isoflex from the Defendants, that were falsely
marketed that it contains the free-form amino acids L-Arginine and
L-Taurine.

Allmax Nutrition, Inc. is a Canadian corporation with its
principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario. Allmax is a
supplier of bodybuilding and sports nutrition supplements in the
United States and Canada.

HBS International Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allmax and
distributes Allmax's line of products in the United States and
Canada for purchase at a variety of retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Paul Kerkorian, SBN 148825
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      434 West Alexandrine #101
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 303-3472
      E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

         - and -

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com


AMAZON.COM.KYDC LLC: Wins Dismissal of ADA Suit
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge David L. Bunning of the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, in Lexington granted defendants'
motion in the case JULIAN SHULMAN, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM.KYDC,
LLC, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5-DLB-REW (ED. Ky.)

On February 8, 2008, Amazon.com.kydc, LLC (Amazon Ky.) offered
Julian Shulman employment as a Warehouse Associate at their LEX1
fulfillment center in Lexington, Kentucky. The offer letter stated
that Shulman would be an employee-at-will, so he or Amazon Ky.
could terminate the relationship at any time for any reason, with
or without cause. The letter set forth the terms of employment,
which superseded any previous discussions or offers of employment.
Shulman accepted employment with Amazon.com under the terms set
forth in the letter on February 11, 2008.

Shulman suffered osteoarthritis prompting him to sought treatment
from Dr. Nicole Freels at Lexington Podiatry. Shulman's site
safety team instructed him to submit an updated RMI no later than
April 21, 2011 in order to request an extension of his leave or to
return to work.  Shulman asked Amazon Ky. to extend his FMLA leave
to the full 12 weeks because his condition had not yet
substantially improved. Amazon Ky. would only consider his request
only if Shulman will accompany it with updated medical
documentation.

Once Shulman provided the updated RMI, Amazon Ky. approved him for
a reduced work schedule. After further prompting from Amazon Ky.,
Shulman finally provided the updated RMI. After resuming work,
Shulman asked Amy Derheim, a member of the Leave of Absence and
Accommodations Team, to accommodate his disability by allowing him
to work a full ten hour shift but take a ten minute break every
hour. She told him that Amazon would be willing to consider the
proposed accommodation if he provided supporting medical
documentation. Shulman never provided the requested documents to
Amazon. After returning to work, Shulman received coaching twice.
Shulman failed to meet productivity standards for the week of June
19, 2011 to June 26, 2011. On July 13, 2011, Amazon Ky. terminated
his employment.

On March 29, 2012, Shulman filed a Notice of Charge of
Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). The EEOC dismissed the claim, closed the file and notified
Shulman of his right to sue on September 12, 2012. Shulman then
filed a lawsuit against Amazon Ky., its corporate parent company,
Amazon.com, Inc. and John Does 1-25 in Fayette Circuit Court. The
Amazon defendants promptly removed the case to federal court.

Defendants move for summary judgment on Shulman's claim for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA). The defendants argue that
Shulman failed to establish a prima facie case of disability
discrimination because his osteoarthritis does not constitute a
disability within the meaning of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008
(ADAAA). Alternatively, the Amazon defendants contend that
Shulman's claim fails the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting test
because he cannot prove that his performance-based termination was
a pretext for discrimination. The defendants then argue that
summary judgment is appropriate on Shulman's breach of implied-in-
fact contract and class action claims because the record is devoid
of supporting evidence.

Judge Bunning granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Bunning's memorandum opinion and order dated April
20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Bw4DyIfrom Leagle.com

Julian Shulman, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by Susan C. Sears -- ssears@littler.com --
J. Andrew Inman -- jinman@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson PSC


AMBIT ENERGY: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Paul Post, writing for The Record, reports that area residents say
a Texas company scammed them by offering discounted electric rates
that skyrocketed a year or two later without their knowledge.

Dallas-based Ambit Energy says consumers were told via mail that
their fixed-rate savings plan would expire, and that they'd pay a
higher variable rate, unless they contacted the company.  But
residents say no letter was ever received and asked why the burden
was on them not to "choose" a higher rate.

"That's crazy," said John Lundgren of Salem, a retired teacher.
"No other company makes you contact them to let them know you want
the lower rate.  That's bogus. I got burned."

Mr. Lundgren said he was charged 18-20 cents per kilowatt hour on
a recent bill, when New York State Gas & Electric Company was
charging its customers 8 cents,

Mr. Lundgren is not alone is his frustration and anger.

On March 26, an Illinois law firm filed a fourth class-action suit
against Ambit.  Others originated in New York, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey.  The latter accuses Ambit of violating the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act and four counts of violating the New York
Business Law.

In 2014 alone, the New York Public Service Commission received 450
complaints about Ambit, primarily from people whose guaranteed
savings plan was rolled over to a plan that did not guarantee
savings at the end of the contract term.

As a result of a PSC investigation, Ambit has agreed to provide
rebates to customers who were charged higher-than-expected rates.
Also, the company has agreed to start sending letters in April to
all variable-rate customers in New York, letting them know they
can switch to the guaranteed rate and receive a 2 percent savings.

Ambit, founded in 2006, services 14 states including New York and
the District of Columbia, which all have deregulated energy
markets.  Ambit is one of many alternative energy service
companies, known as ESCOs, that have sprung up to compete with
large utilities.  They typically offer one- or two-year fixed rate
contracts that promise to save consumers money. Previously, Ambit
renewed such plans automatically.  More recently, the company
began requiring customers to make online renewals themselves.
Those that didn't began getting bills based on variable rates,
sometimes double or triple what they were paying.

Larry LaFountain of Gansevoort says he's been marketing Ambit for
six years and has 1,610 customers in 13 states, with 116 other
marketers under him.

"Every customer that comes on board gets a free website to go on
to see their usage and rates," he said.

But Mr. LaFountain said he, too, learned Ambit's policy of
changing fixed rates to variable rates the hard way. He said he
joined Ambit in October 2010. In December 2011 his bill shot up to
more than $600.

"I called the company and they said, 'You forgot to check your
guaranteed savings box on your website,' " he said.

After contacting Ambit, Mr. LaFountain said he began getting the
lower rate again on the next billing cycle.  But some residents
say they haven't been able to contact the company or get a
response.  The more customers that Ambit marketers get, the more
commission they earn.  Marketers who bring on at least 15 new
customers are eligible for free energy, and may also qualify for
prizes such as free cruises.

"It's a pyramid scheme," said Jim Comstock of Wilton.  He said he
recently dropped Ambit after paying at least $1,000 more than he
would have with National Grid.

Mr. Comstock recently filed a complaint with the Public Service
Commission and like many residents, he said Ambit didn't tell him
he had to indicate his preference for the continued fixed-rate
savings plan.  In a March 13 to Comstock, Tracey Brock of the
PSC's Office of Consumer Services said Ambit provided the PSC with
a copy of the letter it sent Comstock.

"We consider this renewal letter reasonable proof that the company
sent it to you," Brock told Comstock. "Should you have reasonable
proof that you did not receive this letter, please provide us with
this information so we may further investigate your case. My re-
review of your case has determined that you were billed correctly
and no refund is warranted."

But Mr. Comstock said, "How do I prove I never got a letter that
wasn't received?"

"That's the scam," he said.  "If it was legal there wouldn't be
all these class-action suits.  These companies came in when the
state deregulated.  The government allowed this to happen."

More recently, Ambit has agreed to recalculate bills for customers
that contacted the PSC during 2014 and 2015 and to give rebates,
based on what they should have been charged, to customers that
filed a complaint saying they did not receive a renewal letter.
The company says it will also take steps to improve communication
with customers that are rolling off the guaranteed rate.

In a blog posting, Ambit National Consultant Shawn Cornett
defended the company's renewal policy change, from automatic to
manual, which he said was done in part because of complications
sending out letters to consumers, sometimes involving lengthy
delays.

"Does Ambit make more money by not auto-renewing the guaranteed
savings? Yes, of course they do because they are not sending out
savings guarantee checks to those people (who don't renew),"
Cornett said.  "Many customers were harshly reminded of their
failing to renew their guaranteed savings plan. . . . The
change/transition to renewing guaranteed savings has and will
continue to be tough.  But again, it's not difficult to renew.
It's just something that's not been required before."

Washington County dairyman Brent Petteys said he thought Ambit's
fixed-rate plan would give him some control over his energy
prices.

"We're already dependent on the federal government setting the
price of milk," he said.  "We have no control over that."  After
failing to realize his plan had been changed, he said his high
energy-usage farm was charged $32,000 more than it would have been
otherwise.

"It affects your bottom line when you're paying double," he said.

Customers who believe they were wrongly billed by Ambit must file
a complaint with the PSC.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Class Action Over Mass Firing
-----------------------------------------------------
Hermandad Mexicana on April 18 disclosed that clothing
manufacturer American Apparel has been sued by workers after an
Easter week mass firing.  The complaint filed on April 16 by the
fired employees of the multi-million dollar fashion upstart
charges that American Apparel failed to comply with the WARN Act
that prohibits surprise mass firings by companies that have more
than 100 employees.  American Apparel claims to have more than
10,000 workers.

The charges in the complaint describe a scenario where long time
employees were discharged without even a single full day's warning
and forced to sign releases without time to seek legal advice.

"I was told that I had to sign a release immediately or I would
not receive any severance at all," said Dominga Valencia, a fired
long time worker.  "I stood there worried about how I would be
able to feed my family without the severance."

The actions described in the labor complaint stand in stark
contrast to the promise of a "sweat free workplace" touted by
American Apparel to its mostly urban fan base.

The clothing manufacturer has taken a cold tone to its American
workforce since being taken over by billionaire Wall St. Hedge
fund manager Standard General.  Standard General recently took a
major stake in Radio Shack before the electronic retailer was led
to bankruptcy and began the firing thousands of American workers.

"American Apparel promised its workers and its customers that it
would be an ethical employer," said Nativo Lopez of Hermandad
Mexicana. "The only thing sweat free at American Apparel is the
way that management regards labor law.  Its Wall St. owners say
'we need to dump workers now' and its management responds 'no
sweat.'"


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a
trial date for individual merchant actions has not been set, and
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the individual merchant
actions is pending.

In 2010, the Department of Justice, along with Attorneys General
from Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii (Hawaii has since withdrawn its
claim), Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah and Vermont filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against American
Express, MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa, Inc.,
alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The complaint alleges that the defendants' policies prohibiting
merchants from steering a customer to use another network's card,
another type of card or another method of payment ("anti-steering"
and "non-discrimination" rules and contractual provisions) violate
the antitrust laws. The complaint seeks a judgment permanently
enjoining the defendants from enforcing their anti-steering and
non-discrimination rules and contractual provisions. The complaint
does not seek monetary damages.

The DOJ matter was coordinated pre-trial with individual and
putative class actions pending in the Eastern District of New York
against American Express brought by merchants alleging that the
"anti-steering" provisions in its merchant acceptance agreements
with the plaintiffs violate federal antitrust laws. As alleged by
the plaintiffs, these provisions prevent merchants from steering
consumers or offering consumers incentives to use alternative
forms of payment when consumers wish to use an American Express-
branded card. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.
Arbitration proceedings raising similar claims also have been
filed.

In July 2004, American Express was named as a defendant in a
putative class action captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American
Express Company, et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an
unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of American
Express' charge cards and credit cards in violation of various
state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in these actions seek
injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.

In December 2013, American Express announced a proposed settlement
of the Marcus case and the putative class actions challenging
American Express' "anti-steering" or non-discrimination
provisions. The settlement, which provides for certain injunctive
relief for the proposed classes, received preliminary approval in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. The final approval hearing was held on September 17, 2014
and American Express is awaiting decision.

A non-jury trial in the DOJ matter concluded on August 18, 2014.
Closing arguments were held on October 9, 2014 following
submission of post-trial proposed findings and briefs. On February
19, 2015, the trial court found that the challenged provisions
were anticompetitive and will now determine the scope of the
remedy when it enters judgment in the case. American Express
intends to vigorously pursue an appeal of the decision and
judgment. A trial date for the individual merchant actions has not
been set. Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the
individual merchant actions is pending.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that
Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their claims in the
case, Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express
Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank.

In July 2004, a purported class action complaint, Ross, et al. v.
American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services
and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that American Express conspired with Visa, MasterCard and
Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency conversion rates
and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their
cardholder agreements. The suit seeks injunctive relief and
unspecified damages. The class is defined as "all Visa, MasterCard
and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used cards issued
by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American Express Card Members
are not part of the class. The settlement of the claims asserted
on behalf of the damage class concerning foreign currency
conversion rates was approved in 2012. On April 10, 2014,
following a trial of the claims asserted by the injunction class
concerning cardholder arbitration clauses, the Court dismissed
plaintiffs' claims and granted judgment in favor of American
Express. Plaintiffs have appealed.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Request for Initial Deal Approval to Be Renewed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that
parties in the case Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB
and American Express Centurion Bank, are responding to the Court's
questions regarding the class notice and claims processes and the
request for preliminary approval will be renewed.

In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al.
v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a
class of California American Express Card Members whose interest
rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009
or otherwise increased. On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
amended nationwide complaint and an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a settlement of the claims alleged in that
complaint. The settlement provides for certain relief to class
members, attorneys' fees and costs of up to $6 million. On
September 22, 2014, the motion for preliminary approval was denied
without prejudice to renew. The parties are responding to the
Court's questions regarding the class notice and claims processes
and the request for preliminary approval will be renewed.


AMERICAN REALTY: Investors Update Class Action Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
Linda Sandler, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that behind the
accounting errors that knocked $4 billion off American Realty
Capital Properties Inc.'s market value was a hidden scheme that
generated more than $900 million in managers' fees and bonuses,
investors said in a lawsuit against the company.

Ex-Chairman Nicholas Schorsch turned a small real estate
investment trust into a massive engine of payments for himself and
cronies, adding $20 billion of assets in two years and charging
for services rendered by 47 entities he controlled, according to
court documents.

As American Realty Capital Properties, or ARCP, grew, Mr. Schorsch
was in line for $94 million in incentives over five years, on top
of $28 million in potential 2014 compensation.

In their class action, begun in January, teachers' pension funds
that lost money on American Realty shares accused managers of
manipulating cash-flow data to inflate the stock for takeovers.
Those deals were "designed" to generate fees for the executives
and didn't deliver the promised benefits to the REIT or its
shareholders, the funds said.

"This complex and opaque web of interrelated companies is
permeated with conflicts of interest and was used to transfer
hundreds of millions of dollars to Schorsch-controlled entities in
connection with the acquisitions," they said, pointing to $55
million in fees from two big deals alone.

Mr. Schorsch didn't return messages seeking comment on the
allegations.  John Bacon, an American Realty spokesman, declined
to comment.

$917 Million

The updated complaint, filed April 17 in Manhattan federal court,
adds details on American Realty's deals with other Schorsch
entities, tracing the movement of $917 million in fees to insiders
and their affiliates.

ARCP was charged $510 million in deal-related commissions and
fees, $63 million for advice, and assorted sums for public
relations work, "services relating to office supplies" and
furniture, much of which had no record of being received,
according to the complaint.

The chairman's acquisitions quickly made American Realty, started
in December 2010, the biggest U.S. owner of single-tenant
buildings such as drugstores, banks and Red Lobster restaurants.
The U.S. Justice Department, Securities and Exchange Commission
and state investigators in Massachusetts are probing American
Realty's accounting errors and coverups, the Phoenix-based company
said in a March regulatory filing.

October Report

American Realty said in October that it inflated cash flow and
wrote down assets by $406 million in the fourth quarter, mostly
tied to an earlier takeover.  A deal to sell its Cole Capital
unit's broker-dealer to a Schorsch firm fell apart after American
Realty disclosed the concealed accounting errors, sticking it with
a $309 million writedown.

After the October report, ARCP's top five executives and most
directors resigned or were fired.

Mr. Schorsch has resigned and ARCP says it's putting its house in
order, ending deals with the web of companies he controlled. It
said in March that some payments to Schorsch entities "warrant
scrutiny" and the compensation committee should only have approved
$120 million of a $222 million incentive plan, keyed to the
company's growth.

The investors say there was "a multi-year long accounting fraud
that ultimately required ARCP to admit that it had falsified its
reported operating performance and/or financial statements for
every reporting period since it went public in 2011."

'Accounting Tricks'

Their scheme had been "breathtaking in both its breadth and
magnitude" -- "a collage of accounting tricks" designed to inflate
cash flow and "line senior insiders' pocketbooks," investors said.
Recurring expenses were classified as one-time costs, while
executives delayed reporting many expenses, used so-called
goodwill from acquisitions as a "slush fund" to absorb losses on
property sales and devised unusual metrics to swell their bonuses
by $100 million, the investors said in their complaint, citing a
report by ARCP's accountants.

The fraudulent accounting was necessary to oil the fee engine,
investors said: American Realty was borrowing money for
acquisitions so it had to show good numbers, and it was using cash
and stock for the acquisitions so the stock had to be propped up
by rigging the numbers.

'Overvalued' Securities

In the investors' words, the deals were "predicated on the use of
ARCP securities that were overvalued as a result of defendants'
misconduct."

Complaining of misleading registration statements, investors are
also suing underwriters of bonds and stock, including Morgan
Stanley.  Mary Claire Delaney, a Morgan Stanley spokeswoman,
declined to comment.

American Realty has dropped to less than $10 from its 2014 peak of
almost $15.  Led by TIAA-CREF, the investors want compensation and
damages.

Darren Robbins, the lawyer handling the lawsuit, has experience
with accounting maneuvers.  He wrested $7.3 billion for Enron
Corp. investors, mostly from banks that settled allegations of
engineering sham transactions to keep debt off Enron's balance
sheet.

The case is In re American Realty Capital Properties Inc.
Litigation, 15-mc-00040, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (Manhattan).


APPLE INC: Judge Allows Artist to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, of the Southern District of
New York granted plaintiff's motion in the case NORMAN BLAGMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., GOOGLE, INC.,
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, EMUSIC.COM INC., THE ORCHARD ENTERPRISES,
INC., ORCHARD ENTERPRISES NY, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, persons
and entities whose identities are unknown to plaintiff but who
have performed and participated in the unlawful acts alleged
herein, Defendants, NO. 12 CIV 5453 (ALC)(JCF)(S.D.N.Y.)

Defendants the Orchard Enterprises, Inc., and Orchard Enterprises
NY, Inc. (Orchard) are aggregators, who acquire digital
distribution rights from record labels and upload the digital
recordings to online music stores. They act as the middlemen
between the retailer and the record labels.

Defendants Apple, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Google, Inc., Microsoft
Corp., and eMusic.com Inc. are digital music retailers who own and
operate the largest digital music retail stores in the world. They
sell the music online.

The plaintiff Norman Blagman is a composer of songs who alleges
that the defendants, without acquiring the necessary licenses or
permissions, have all imported, exported, reproduced, distributed,
and sold digital recordings of certain compositions for which he
owns the copyright. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the
defendants in which the same has been amended twice in the course
of the proceeding.

Plaintiff moves again to amend his complaint as he tends to narrow
the class definition and damages claimed. The proposed third
amended complaint purportedly limits the class by eliminating 11
record companies identified in Exhibits A and B to the second
amended complaint and by excluding owners of works registered
after December 31, 1997 so that all included works will be
governed by the Copyright Act of 1909 rather than the Copyright
Act of 1976. In addition, it provides more detailed allegations
concerning the identity of the aggregators that the retailer
defendants have contracted with to obtain infringing musical works
and of 104 specific record label names used to market these
infringing works for sale in the retailer defendants' online music
stores.

The proposed class thus comprises the legal and/or beneficial
owners of all or part of at least one musical composition
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to January 1,
1998, and embodied on a phonorecord that was reproduced,
distributed, sold, imported, or exported by at least one of the
Retailer Defendants during the Class Period and that was supplied
to the Retailer Defendant, directly or through one or more
intermediaries, by one of the aggregators listed on the
Aggregator-Label List annexed as Exhibit A on behalf of a
corresponding label listed on Exhibit A.

Magistrate Judge Francis granted plaintiff's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Francis's memorandum and order dated April 20,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/YElAcRfrom Leagle.com

Matthew T. Schwartz, Esq.
Brians Levenson, Esq.
Schwartz & Ponterio, PLLC
134 W. 29th Street, Suite 1006
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: 917-338-3879
Facsimile: 212-714-1264

Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq. -- jsolotaroff@gslawny.com -- Oren
Giskan, Esq. -- ogiskan@gslawny.com -- at Giskan, Solotaroff &
Anderson, LLP

Michael J. Boni, Esq. -- MBoni@bonizack.com -- John E. Sindoni,
Esq. -- at Boni & Zack LLC

Kenneth L. Steinthal, Esq. -- ksteinthal@kslaw.com -- Joseph R.
Wetzel, Jr., Esq. -- jwetzel@kslaw.com -- at King & Spalding LLP

A. John P. Mancini, Esq. -- jmancini@mayerbrown.com -- Alison L.
Stillman, Esq. -- astillman@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP

Gabrielle Levin, Esq. -- glevin@gibsondunn.com -- Gail E. Lees,
Esq. -- glees@gibsondunn.com -- Scott A. Edelman, Esq. --
sedelman@gibsondunn.co -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP


APPLIED MACHINERY: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Applied Machinery Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-01282
(S.D. Tex., May 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Applied Machinery Corporation designs, manufactures and sells a
full line of drilling equipment, including drilling rigs, and
provides related services to its customers in the oilfield
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002-1637
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
              melissa@mooreandassociates.net


ARIZONA: 9th Cir. Rejects Rehearing En Banc Bid in Inmates Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit denies rehearing
en banc of the case Victor Antonio Parsons; Shawn Jensen; Steve
Swartz; Dustin Brislan; Sonia Rodriguez; CHRISTINA District of
Arizona, Verduzco; Jackie Thomas; Phoenix Jeremy Smith; Robert
Carrasco GAMEZ, Jr.; Maryanne Chisholm; Desiree Licci; Joseph
Hefner; Order Joshua Polson; Charlotte Wells; Arizona Center for
Disability LAW, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Charles L. Ryan and
Richard PRATT, Defendants-Appellants, NO. 13-16396 (9th Cir.)

Thirteen inmates in custody throughout the Arizona prison system
brought a class action suit under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure against senior officials in the Arizona Department
of Corrections (ADC). They alleged that through its various system
wide practices and policies regarding prisoners' medical, dental,
and mental health care, the ADC is deliberately indifferent to the
resulting significant injury and substantial risk of serious harm
to all prisoners in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The
prisoners identified ten such practices, including inadequate
staffing, outright denials of care, lack of emergency treatment,
failure to stock and provide critical medication, grossly
substandard dental care, and failure to provide therapy and
psychiatric medication to mentally ill inmates. Plaintiffs moved
to certify a class consisting of all approximately 33,000
prisoners in the ten ADC prisons.

The district court concluded that Rule 23(a)'s threshold
requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation were each met, and certified a class of all
33,000 prisoners. Defendants appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirms
the district court's certification of the class.

A petition for rehearing en banc was made and the panel voted to
deny the petition, but the petition was subsequently withdrawn. A
judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter in banc.

The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the
nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's order dated April 21, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/YA06jlfrom Leagle.com

The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Stephen
Reinhardt, John T. Noonan, Jr. and Paul J. Watford.


BALTIC TRADING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd J. Biederman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Baltic Trading Limited, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-03711-RJS (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties, specifically by
facilitating the acquisition of Baltic Trading by Genco for
inadequate consideration and through a flawed process.

Baltic Trading Limited is a Marshall Islands shipping company with
its principal executive offices located at 299 Park Avenue, 12th
Floor, New York, New York 10171.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      488 Madison Avenue, Eight Floor
      New York, NY
      Telephone: (212) 501-9000
      Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
      E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com


BARCLAYS PLC: Motion to Dismiss "Strougo" Case Partially Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, in its April 24, 2015 Opinion and Order, in the case
docketed as BARBARA STROUGO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS
CAPITAL INC., ROBERT DIAMOND, ANTONY JENKINS, CHRISTOPHER LUCAS,
TUSHAR MORZARIA, and WILLIAM WHITE, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-5797
(SAS), partially granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs.

District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin granted defendants' motion
solely to the extant that the section 20(a) claims are dismissed
as to Individual Defendants and Finance Directors Christopher
Lucas and Tushar Morzaria. The motion was otherwise denied, except
insofar as the alleged misstatements regarding Barclay's general
business practices and risk controls, as well as the Salz report,
which were deemed inactionable. The Plaintiffs were not permitted
to seek damages based on the June 27 Telegraph article.

The Plaintiffs were directed to amend their Complaint within 30
days and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion. A
conference was scheduled on May 5, 2015

A copy of Judge Scheindlin's April 24, 2015 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/ADNSMNfrom Leagle.com.

Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Emma
Gilmore, Esq. -- egilmore@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, New York,
New York, for Plaintiffs.

Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, Chicago, Illinois Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com --
Esq., David H. Braff, Esq. -- braffd@sullcrom.com -- Matthew A.
Schwartz, Esq. -- schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- Andrew H.
Reynard, Esq. -- reynarda@sullcrom.com -- John J. Hughes, III,
Esq. -- hughesj@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York,
New York, for Defendants.


BELL CANADA: Faces $750MM Class Action Over Privacy Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a $750-million national class-
action lawsuit has been filed against Bell Canada over alleged
breaches of privacy arising from its recently discontinued target
ads program.  The suit against subsidiaries of Bell alleges that
the defendants used the program to track, collect and sell the
sensitive account and internet browsing information of their
customers to advertisers.  It seeks $750 million in damages for
breach of privacy, breach of contract and breach of the
Telecommunications Act.

A similar lawsuit has also been launched in Quebec, counsel for
the plaintiffs, Charney Lawyers and Sutts, Strosberg LLP, said in
a statement issued on April 16.

Bell issued a statement saying it would not comment on the
allegations contained in the lawsuit, which have not been proven
in court.  Although Bell has already cancelled the program, the
company has indicated it plans to reintroduce it in the future and
might expand it to include landline use and TV viewers.  However,
it has said it would seek explicit customer consent through an
opt-in approach. By building consumer profiles, such programs
allow advertisers to tailor or target ads to specific consumers.

The suit, against Bell Mobility Inc. and Bell Canada Inc. on
behalf of Bell Mobility and Virgin Mobile customers, targeted what
Bell labelled as its "relevant ads program," which was launched in
November 2013.

'Unprecedented' amount of complaints

Following Bell's announcement of the program, the federal privacy
commissioner began an investigation due to "an unprecedented
volume of complaints," the statement from the lawyers said.

On April 7, the commissioner said it had found that Bell violated
the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Documents Act because it did not adequately disclose the nature of
the information and customers were not given the option to
properly consent to the use of their information for the program.

According to the report, customers were automatically included in
the program unless they specifically opted out -- something
113,000 Bell customers decided to do.  However, the privacy
commissioner said Bell should not assume because customers didn't
opt out that they were consenting to having vast amounts of their
personal information used in this way.

In addition to cancelling the program, Bell said earlier that it
would delete all customer profiles created under it.  However, in
addition to damages, the lawsuit seeks the appointment of an
expert to "oversee and confirm the destruction of the personal
information," the statement from the plaintiffs' lawyers said.

"The Relevant Ads program was a misguided attempt by a Canadian
telecommunications company to generate advertising revenue," said
Ted Charney of Charney Lawyers. "If allowed to proceed, it
constitutes a threat to the core privacy rights of all Canadians."

Lawyer David Robins of Sutts, Strosberg said that through the
class action "the plaintiff seeks to hold Bell accountable and
stop other providers from selling customers' personal information
without informed consent."

Two other groups, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the
Consumer Association of Canada, have filed complaints to the CRTC
against Bell's old program and say they will continue the fight
against any revised initiative.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Gets More Time to Respond to "Cardoza" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey signed on May 8, 2015, a
stipulation and order in the case captioned BROOKE CARDOZA, CODY
C. HANCOCK, MICHAEL YENDES, JEFFERY BROWN, KEVIN CONNELLEY, TREVOR
TULLIS, DENISE GOODLIN, JOSEPH VERRENGIA, AMY WOMACK, VALERIE
GARDNER, ALEX NESBITT, DANIEL GEIGER, RACHEL TALASKO, and WESLEY
MILES, all on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC.; OSI RESTAURANT
PARTNERS, LLC; OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA, LLC; OS RESTAURANT
SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 5 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, CASE
NO. 2:13-CV-01820-JAD-NJK, (D. Nev.) extending the deadline for
plaintiffs to respond to defendants' motion to strike Ohio Class
Action allegations and for defendants to file their reply in
support of motion to strike Ohio Class Action allegations.

The Parties stipulated to extend the time in which Plaintiffs may
respond to Defendants' Motion to Strike Ohio Class, filed on April
22, 2015.

Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1FWZR8kfrom Leagle.com, Plaintiffs'
deadline for filing their Opposition was May 15, 2015.

Defendants' stipulation is conditioned upon the parties' further
joint stipulation to extend the deadline for Defendants to file
their Reply in support of their Motion to Strike to June 1, 2015,
to coincide with the deadline for filing of Defendants' Reply in
support of their Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment.

This is the first request for an extension of time to file a
response.

Don Springmeyer, Esq., Justin C. Jones, Esq., Bradley Schrager,
Esq., WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP, Las Vegas,
Nevada, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC, Timothy J. Becker, Esq. --
tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- (admitted pro hac), Jacob Rusch, Esq.
-- jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- (admitted pro hac), Minneapolis,
Minnesota, SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C., Jason J. Thompson, Esq. --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- (admitted pro hac) Jesse Young, Esq. --
jyoung@sommerspc.com -- (admitted pro hac) Southfield, Michigan,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- San Francisco, CA, JOHN H. COTTON &
ASSOCIATES, John H. Cotton, Esq. -- JHCotton@jhcottonlaw.com --
Las Vegas, NV, COTTON, DRIGGS, WALCH, HOLLEY, WOLOSON & THOMPSON,
F. Thomas Edwards, Esq. -- tedwards@nevadafirm.com -- Las Vegas,
NV, Attorneys for Defendants Bloomin' Brands, Inc.; OSI Restaurant
Partners, LLC; Outback, Steakhouse of Florida, LLC; OS Restaurant,
Services, LLC.


BOEING COMPANY: Decision to Remand Case to State Court Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit vacated a
district court's remand of a class action lawsuit against The
Boeing Company to state court, affirmed the District Court's
determination that Boeing failed to show that Landau Associates
(Landau) was fraudulently joined, and referred the Plaintiffs'
assertion that their action falls within the local controversy
exception to federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(A), to the District Court
for consideration in the first instance.

Jocelyn Allen and others (Plaintiffs) sued Boeing and Landau in a
Washington state court alleging that for over 40 years Boeing
released toxins into the groundwater around its facility in
Auburn, Washington, and that for over a decade Landau had been
negligent in its investigation and remediation of the pollution.
Boeing removed the case to the District Court for the Western
District of Washington claiming federal jurisdiction based on
diversity and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Circuit Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan concluded that "because
Plaintiffs' action does not come within the local single event
exception to federal jurisdiction under CAFA, the district court's
order remanding this case to state court is vacated. The district
court's denial of Boeing's allegation of fraudulent joinder is
affirmed, and accordingly, there is not complete diversity.
Finally, Plaintiffs' assertion that their action comes within the
local controversy exception to federal jurisdiction under CAFA is
referred to the district court for initial consideration."

The case is docketed as JOCELYN ALLEN; LAWRENCE J. ALLEN; VIVIAN
LYNN ALLEN; CAREN BARNES; EMERY BLESSING; HORACE BLINER; ROBERT A.
BLINER; JASON BOGART; BRENDA BRAMMER; BRETNEY A. BROWNFIELD;
DONALD N. CAMPBELL; DEBORAH JEAN CETTOLIN; CAROLE DENISE COGGIN;
ROBERT ALLEN COGGIN; ANGELA COMSTOCK; TIMOTHY EUGENE CONNOR;
CHRISTINE R. COUNCILMAN; DARYL CRAWFORD; SHAWN CREED-WOOLERY;
ANITA DECKER; DANIEL DECKER; KERRI DECKER; SHAWN DECKER; DANIEL
ANDREW DOLLOFF; JACOB DOLLOFF; TONI RAE DOLLOFF; JEFFREY DOSCH;
KARRIE DOSCH; ALVINE DRAYTON; PATRICIA ANN DUKE; JUANITA DUPONT;
DONALD WARREN EDWARDS; TAMMY ELSNER; MICHAEL PATRICK ETHIER; FAY
FARRINGTON; LARRY D. FORD, Sr.; KENNETH MARK FOREMAN; SHERRI LEE
FOREMAN; MICHAEL GESE; AIMEE GREEN; JOSH GREEN; LEE LYNN HARDY;
LISA ANN HARDY; BARRY CURTIS HARMON, II; NICOLE HARMON; DONALD R.
HAUPT; KARI LYN HERNANDEZ; RONALD A. HOLT; BRIAN JONES; MIKISHA D.
JONES; TATIANA JONES; PHYLLIS KAIN; ROBERT KENNICOTT; ANDREY
KINAKH; TONY KINGSADA; MICHELLE KLUSMEYER; SONJA LAPPING; BRITTNEY
LYNN LICKEY; ROBIN LINDY; WAYNE LINDY; ASHLEY LISENBY; PAULLET
LITTLEFIELD; DEIDRE LORENZ; COURTNEY MACISAAC; PAUL MALAVOTTE;
RANDOLPH MALILONG; ANNISSA MANOLOVITZ; LISA MARTIN; MARIE
MCASKILL; JILL A. MENTZER; JOHN L. MENTZER; VICKI L. MILLS; KAREN
MILLSAP; TERRENCE MILLSAP; KYLIE MOREFIELD; ELIZABETH MORGAN; TARA
MOTT; CECILY NEILSEN; ANTHONY B. NOCERA; DIANE C. NOCERA; JESSICA
PARKER; RICHARD PARKER; PATRICIA PLATTNER; MIKE RAMIREZ; LUDMILLA
REDKA; BRIAN REITZ; KATHLEEN RISMOEN; MATTHEW MONTGOMERY ROBERTS;
LURA ELAINE ROBERTSON; JANENE M. ROLLINS; CLAUDE ROUGHT; DAN
RUDOLPH; DEBORAH A. RYAN; RICHARD R. RYAN; STEVE SANBORN; MICHAEL
C. SCOTT; DAVEENE KIM SEARS; GERALD L. SEARS; DARRON SHOOK; LISA
SHOOK; STACIE SIPPO; HAROLD A. SPONBERG; PENNY J. SPONBERG; TRENT
B. TESTERMAN; BERNADETTE J. TRANHOLT; ROBIN L. TRANHOLT; JEFFREY
A. TREKLA; KAREN R. TREKLA; JESSICA A. VAUGHN; GABRIEL WARREN; MAX
WERDEN; TINA WERDEN; STACY WILEY; ANTHONY WILLIAMS; CINDA J.
ZITTERICH; RICKY L. ZITTERICH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE BOEING
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and BOEING
COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES; LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC, a Washington
Corporation; DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 15-35162,

A copy of Judge Callahan's Decision dated April 27, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/03TSAafrom Leagle.com.

Michael Sylvain Paisner, of Renton Washington (argued), Jeffrey M.
Hanson -- JHanson@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle,
Washington, and Michael F. Williams --
michael.williams@kirkland.com -- Peter A. Farrell --
peter.farrell@kirkland.com -- Michael J. Podberesky --
michael.podberesky@kirkland.com -- and Devein A. DeBacker --
devin.debacker@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, of
Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant The Boeing Company.

Robert Finnerty, Thomas V. Giraldi, and David N. Bigelow (argued),
Giraldi/Keese of Los Angeles, California, and Thomas Vertetis,
Pfau Cochran Vertetis of Tacoma, Washington for the plaintiffs-
appellees, Jocelyn Allen, et al.


BOS SOLUTIONS: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Cole, Stephen Tippins, Jeffery Bell, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Bos Solutions, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-01677 (N.D. Tex., May 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice
in connection with recent Mass Layoffs and/or Plant Closings at
the Defendant's Rio Vista, Texas, Mandan, North Dakota and
Midland, Texas sites of employment.

Bos Solutions, Inc. owns and operates an oilfield services company
with its principal place of business located at 1200, 635-8th
Avenue SW, Calgary, AB T2P 3M3.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


CAPITAL ONE: Appeal Period in Interchange Suit Deal Expired
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Funding, LLC and Capital One Bank (USA), National
Association said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the final approval of a
class action settlement was subject to appeal through March 2015.

In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the
"Interchange Lawsuits") against Visa U.S.A., Inc. ("Visa") and
MasterCard International ("MasterCard") and several member banks,
including Capital One Financial Corporation (the "Corporation")
and its subsidiaries, including the Bank, alleging among other
things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level of
interchange fees. The complaints seek injunctive relief and civil
monetary damages, which could be trebled. Separately, a number of
large merchants have asserted similar claims against Visa and
MasterCard only. In October 2005, the class and merchant
Interchange Lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes,
including discovery. In July 2012, the parties executed and filed
with the court a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to resolve
the litigation on certain terms set forth in a settlement
agreement attached to the Memorandum.

The class settlement provides for, among other things, (i)
payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs
totaling approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) a distribution to the
class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of certain
interchange transactions for a period of eight months; and (iii)
modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules regarding point
of sale practices. This agreement is contingent on final court
approval of the class settlement.

In November 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the
class settlement. In December 2013, the court granted final
approval of the proposed class settlement, which was appealed to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2014.

Several merchant plaintiffs have also opted out of the class
settlement, some of which have sued MasterCard, Visa and various
member banks, including the Bank. Relatedly, in December 2013,
individual consumer plaintiffs also filed a proposed national
class action against a number of banks, including the Bank,
alleging that because the banks conspired to fix interchange fees,
consumers were forced to pay more for the fees than appropriate.
The consumer case and virtually all of the opt-out cases were
consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery.

In November 2014, the Court dismissed the proposed consumer class
action. The remaining consolidated cases are in their preliminary
stages, and Visa and MasterCard have settled a number of
individual opt-out cases, requiring non-material payments from all
banks, including the Bank.

As a member of Visa, the Bank has indemnification obligations to
Visa with respect to final judgments and settlements, including
the Interchange Lawsuits. In the first quarter of 2008, Visa
completed an IPO of its stock. With IPO proceeds, Visa established
an escrow account for the benefit of member banks to fund certain
litigation settlements and claims, including the Interchange
Lawsuits. As a result, in the first quarter of 2008, the
Corporation reduced its Visa related indemnification liabilities
of $91 million. The Corporation made an election in accordance
with the accounting guidance for fair value option for financial
assets and liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa,
and the fair value of the guarantee as of December 31, 2014 was
zero.

Separately, in January 2011, the Corporation entered into a
MasterCard Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with
other defendant banks, which apportions between MasterCard and its
member banks the costs and liabilities of any judgment or
settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multidistrict
Litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer
order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two
pending putative class actions against the Bank -- Nancy Mancuso,
et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (E.D. Virginia);
and Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (N.D.
Georgia). A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A. (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred
into the MDL. In August 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleging that the bank breached its
contractual obligations, and violated the Truth in Lending Act
("TILA"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"), the California
False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised interest rates on
certain credit card accounts.

As a result of a settlement in another matter, the California-
based UCL and TILA claims in the MDL are extinguished. The MDL
plaintiffs seek statutory damages, restitution, attorney's fees
and an injunction against future rate increases. In August 2011,
after the completion of fact discovery, the Bank filed a motion
for summary judgment, which was granted in September 2014.
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals in October 2014.

In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") Multidistrict Litigation matter was created as a
result of a transfer order issued by the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("TCPA MDL"), which consolidated
for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois three pending putative class actions
-- Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial Corporation,
et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v. Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois); and Charles C. Patterson
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois)  -- and
several individual lawsuits. In February 2013, the putative class
action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Master Class Action
Complaint and individual lawsuits allege that the Bank and/or
entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by contacting
consumers on their cellular telephones using an automatic
telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice
without first obtaining prior express consent to do so. The
plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent and
willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief.

In June 2014, the parties filed a settlement agreement resolving
all outstanding litigation. The court granted preliminary approval
of the class settlement in July 2014, and granted final approval
in February 2015. The final approval of the class settlement is
subject to appeal through March 2015.


CARNICERIA Y VERDULERIA: Final Fairness Hearing Set for July 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WALTER ORLANDO MANCIA RIVERA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CARNICERIA Y VERDULERIA GUADALAJARA INC.; and SERGIO EVANGELISTA,
Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 13-CV-02309-REB-MJW (D. Colo.),
District Judge Robert E. Blackburn granted the parties' Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) Collective and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) Class Action
Settlement and set the matter for a final fairness hearing.

After having reviewed and considered the motion, the Settlement
and Release Agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants,
the proposed notices, claim forms, and opt-out forms; and the
pertinent portions of the entire record of the case, Judge
Blackburn granted the motion, certified the proposed settlement
cases, granted preliminary approval of the settlement and set the
matter for a final fairness hearing on Friday, July 31, 2015, at
11:00 a.m. (MDT), in the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse
Annex, 901 19th Street, Courtroom A1001, Denver, Colorado 80294.

Vantage Settlement Advisory Group, a Division of Vantage Financial
Group, Inc., is appointed to serve as the Settlement
Administrator.

A copy of the April 9, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/NGlqTsfrom Leagle.com.

Walter Orlando Mancia Rivera, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Neville
Hood, Towards Justice-Denver, Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Andrew
Schmidt Law PLLC & Edward Frank Siegel, Towards Justice.

Carniceria y Verduleria Guadalajara Inc, and Sergio Evangelista,
Defendants, represented by Robert L. Pitler --
RobertLPitler@RPitlerLaw.com -- Pitler and Associates, P.C..


CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Faces "Portis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Portis, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
v. Central Transport, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04234 (N.D. Ill., May
13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Central Transport, Inc. owns and operates a trucking distribution
company with its headquarters located in Warren, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
      55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
      E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Suit in California for Trading Through UBS
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Charles Schwab & Co. executes customers' trades through nonparty
UBS, instead of through the cheapest trader possible.


CHARLESTON RETIREMENT: Sued Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Diana L. Haynes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Charleston Retirement Investors, LLC., and Century
Park Associates, LLC., Case No. 2:15-cv-02003-PMD (D.S.C., May 13,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a senior assisted living and
rehabilitation facility located at 2590 Elms Plantation Blvd,
North Charleston, SC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (800) 385-8160
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

         - and -

      William Clark Tucker, Esq.
      TUCKER LAW FIRM
      690 Berkmar Circle, Suite A
      Charlottesville, VA 22902
      Telephone: (434) 978-0100
      Facsimile: (434) 978-0101
      E-mail: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com


COUNTRY CLUB HILLS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Property Tax Rebate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leora H. Bell, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. City of Country Club Hills, Case No. 1:15-cv-04227
(N.D. Ill., May 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide 25% rebate of the 2010 property taxes to
eligible Country Club Hills residents.

City of Country Club Hills is an Illinois municipal corporation
located in Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              adam@attorneyzim.com
              matt@attorneyzim.com


CR ENGLAND: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, "Cain" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Cain, as an individual, and on behalf of the putative class
v. CR England, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03613 (C.D. Cal., May 13,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide job
applicants and employees with pre-adverse action notice prior to
obtaining employment background check reports or consumer reports.

CR England, Inc. owns and operates a temperature-controlled
transportation services company that conducts business throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devin H. Fok, Esq.
      DHF LAW, P.C.
      234 East Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (310)430-9933
      Facsimile: (818) 484-2023
      E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com

         - and -

      Joshua E. Kim, Esq.
      A NEWWAY OF LIFE RE-ENTRY PROJECT
      9512 S. Central Ave.
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Telephone: (323) 563-3575
      Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
      E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org


CYAN INC: To Defend Against Stockholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Cyan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to defend
against purported stockholder class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On April 1, 2014 a purported stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco, against the Company, the members of our
Board of Directors, our former Chief Financial Officer and the
underwriters of our IPO.  On April 30, 2014 a substantially
similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same
defendants. The two cases have been consolidated under the caption
Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et
al., Case No. CGC-14-539008. The consolidated complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a purported
class consisting of purchasers of our common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for our
IPO, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
In July 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss)
to the consolidated complaint. On October 22, 2014, the court
overruled the demurrer and allowed the case to proceed. We intend
to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on information
currently available, we have determined that the amount of any
possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably
estimable."


DELTA RIGGING: Faces "Shields" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Shields, on behalf of himself and others similarly-
situated v. Delta Rigging & Tools, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01291
(S.D. Tex., May 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Delta Rigging & Tools, Inc. specializes in providing lifting and
rigging products and services to various construction industries
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DELUXE CORP: Summary Judgment Motion in "Graves" Case Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, in its April 27, 2015 Memorandum and
Order, denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant
Deluxe Corporation, in the case docketed as JENNIFER GRAVES,
Plaintiff, v. DELUXE CORPORATION, Defendant, NO. 4:14-CV-1823 RLW.

District Judge Ronnie L. White held that "because the Court is
allowing Graves to conduct discovery and because the Court is
consolidating the Graves and Catlin Actions, the Court will deny
Deluxe's Motion for Summary Judgment, without prejudice."

Deluxe was granted an opportunity to refile its Motion for Summary
Judgment after Plaintiffs have conducted discovery.

Graves alleges that she purchased checks from Deluxe for personal,
family or household purposes and was illegally overcharged a fee
for delivery.  On September 24, 2014, Graves filed a Petition
against Deluxe.

On March 24, 2015, Kay Catlin filed a nationwide class action
Complaint (except for Missouri) against Deluxe, which alleges
claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et
seq. ("ICFA") and consumer protection statutes of other states
(Count I) and for unjust enrichment (Count II).

On March 25, 2015, Plaintiffs Graves and Catlin filed a motion to
consolidate both cases.

A copy of Judge White's April 27, 2015 Memorandum and Order is
available at http://is.gd/BF6fLhfrom Leagle.com.

Kay Catlin, Plaintiff, represented by Richard S. Cornfeld, LAW
OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD, Anthony S. Bruning, LERITZ AND
PLUNKERT, P.C. & Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., LERITZ AND PLUNKERT,
P.C..


DICK'S SPORTING: Sued by Assistant Store Managers Over Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dick's Sporting Goods stiffs
assistant store managers for overtime, a class action claims in
Philadelphia County Court.


DINO'S FINER: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidel Ramirez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Dino's Finer Food and Elvio Mazzei, Case No.
1:15-cv-04290 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 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:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez I, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


DNC SERVICES: Fla. Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss "Shamblin" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied defendant's motion in
the case LORI SHAMBLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OBAMA FOR AMERICA, DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION, and NEW PARTNERS CONSULTING, INC., Defendants, CASE
NO. 8:13-CV-2428-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla.)

Lori Shamblin contends that despite the prohibition of robocalls
to cell phones, and the reminder by the Federal Communications
Commission that such calls are illegal, President Obama's
principal campaign committee, defendant Obama for America, with
the assistance and participation of defendant DNC Services
Corporation and New Partners Consulting, Inc., called voter cell
phones with both auto-dialed and pre-recorded calls urging the
recipients to vote for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential
election. Shamblin alleges that defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by calling voters' cell phones
with auto-dialed calls and pre-recorded messages.

Shamblin further indicates that she had not given defendants her
express consent to call her cell phone with automatically-dialed
or pre-recorded messages. She had never given defendants her
telephone number and, prior to receiving defendants' messages, had
never even heard of Obama for America. Shamblin also asked for
class certification.

New Partners responded by filing an answer and affirmative
defenses. New Partners then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
on September 25, 2014, alleging that it offered Shamblin full
relief under Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. P., which the court denied.

Simultaneously, the court denied without prejudice Shamblin's
amended motion for class certification. Thereafter, New Partners
served Shamblin with a second Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. P., offer of
judgment, and accordingly sought dismissal in a second motion to
dismiss.

The court denied the motion to dismiss and rejected New Partners'
mootness arguments because its offers for judgment only addressed
New Partners' conduct, and did not address Shamblin's requests for
relief against the other defendants.

DNC Services Corp. filed a motion for summary judgment.

Judge Covington denied DNC's motion for summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Covington's order dated April 17, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/lRWbW7from Leagle.com

Lori Shamblin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Quiat --
aquiat@alqpclaw.comc -- at Andrew L. Quiat, P.C.; Jack D. McInnes
-- mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com -- Richard M. Paul, III --
paul@paulmcinnes.com -- at Paul McInnes LLP; Jeffrey M. Paskert --
jpaskert@mpdlegal.com -- at Mills Paskert Divers, PA; Joseph J.
Mellon -- jmellon@mellonlaw.com -- Mary F. Mellon -- at The Mellon
Law Firm

Obama for America, Defendant, represented by Dale Thomas Golden --
dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- at Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC; Debra R.
Bernard -- DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- Elisabeth C. Frost --
EFrost@perkinscoie.com -- Graham M Wilson --
GWilson@perkinscoie.com -- Marc Erik Elias --
MElias@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie, LLP; Gregg Darrow
Thomas -- Rachel E. Fugate -- at Thomas & LoCicero, PL

DNC Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dale Thomas
Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- at Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC;
Debra R. Bernard -- DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- Elisabeth C. Frost
-- EFrost@perkinscoie.com -- Graham M Wilson --
GWilson@perkinscoie.com -- Marc Erik Elias --
MElias@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie, LLP; Gregg Darrow
Thomas -- at Thomas & LoCicero, PL

New Partners Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles
James McHale, Jr. -- cmchale@gsgfirm.com -- Dale Thomas Golden --
dgolden@gsgfirm.com; Gregg Darrow Thomas -- at Thomas & LoCicero,
PL

American Association of Political Consultants, Amicus, represented
by Patrick A. Traber, Allen Dell, PA

Peter J. Grilli, Mediator, represented by Peter John Grilli, Peter
J. Grilli, PA


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Bid for Arbitration in "Kitsch" Case Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, in its April 24, 2015 Order
Granting In Part and Denying In Part Motion To Compel Arbitration,
in the case docketed as ROBERT A. NITSCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-
04062-LHK, granted in part, and denied in part the Joint Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings filed by Defendants
DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm
Ltd., LLC, Pixar, ImageMovers, LLC., Two Pic MC LLC (f/k/a
ImageMovers Digital), Sony Pictures Animation Inc., Sony Pictures
Imageworks Inc., and Blue Sky Studios.

District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration with respect to Plaintiff Robert A. Kitsch's claims
against Defendant DreamWorks arising out of Plaintiff's employment
at DreamWorks and granted a stay only as to these claims.

The Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay
was denied with respect to: (1) Nitsch's claims against DreamWorks
arising out of his employment at Sony Pictures Imageworks; and (2)
Nitsch's claims against the non signatory Defendants the latter's
request to stay these claims.

A copy of Judge Koh's Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part
Motion To Compel Arbitration is available at http://is.gd/b1FAhO
from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Nitsch, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Small
-- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Matthew W Ruan, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Brent W Johnson --
bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner -- jdubner@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Richard L. Grossman,
PILLSBURY & COLEMAN, LLP, Steven Gerald Sklaver --
ssklaver@SusmanGodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP & Steve W. Berman
-- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

David Wentworth, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley A Bede --
ashleyb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D
Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Georgia Cano, Plaintiff, represented by Marc M. Seltzer --
mseltzer@SusmanGodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Ari Nathan
Cherniak -- ari.cherniak@gmail.com -- HammondLaw, PC, Craig Justin
Ackermann -- cja@laborgators.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C.,
Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC,
John Edward Schiltz -- jschiltz@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman
Godfrey LLP, Jordan Lee Talge -- jtalge@susmangodfrey.com --
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw, PC, Kalpana
Srinivasan -- ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey,
Matthew Robert Berry -- mberry@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey
LLP, Polina Pecherskaya, Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP
& Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel
Glen Swanson -- dswanson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Rodney Joseph Stone -- rstone@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher & Shannon Edward Mader -- smader@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP.

Pixar, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn --
ehenn@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall Lannin --
clannin@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Deborah A. Garza --
dgarza@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP & Thomas A. Isaacson
-- tisaacson@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP.

Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn,
Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall Lannin, Covington & Burling
LLP, Deborah A. Garza, Covington and Burling LLP & Thomas A.
Isaacson, Covington & Burling LLP.

The Walt Disney Company, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson
Henn, Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall Lannin, Covington &
Burling LLP, Deborah A. Garza, Covington and Burling LLP & Thomas
A. Isaacson, Covington & Burling LLP.

ImageMovers, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn,
Covington & Burling LLP.

ImageMovers Digital, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn,
Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall Lannin, Covington & Burling
LLP, Deborah A. Garza, Covington and Burling LLP & Thomas A.
Isaacson, Covington & Burling LLP.

Sony Pictures Animation, Defendant, represented by Stephen V.
Bomse -- sbomse@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, David
Mark Goldstein, Esq. -- dgoldstein@orrick.com -- Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Paul Francis Rugani --
prugani@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe.

Sony Pictures Imageworks, Defendant, represented by Stephen V.
Bomse, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, David Mark Goldstein, Esq.,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Paul Francis Rugani, Orrick,
Herrington Sutcliffe.

Blue Sky Studios, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan Bradley
Pitt -- jpitt@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP & William
Faulkner -- wfaulkner@mcmanislaw.com -- McManis Faulkner.


DU PONT: Court Will Not Compel Corp. Representative to Testify
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division denied plaintiffs' motion in
the case entitled IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8
PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL CASES,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-MD-2433 (S.D. Ohio)

In plaintiffs' first motion to compel, plaintiffs sought a court
order compelling DuPont to appear for deposition on a number of
subjects. In discovery order number four, the court discussed the
permissible scope of discovery concerning DuPont's financial
condition. The court declined to compel a DuPont corporate
representative to testify regarding DuPont's financial condition.
In light of plaintiffs' non-speculative claims for punitive
damages, however, the court concluded plaintiff was entitled to
written discovery. In May 2014, following discovery order number
four, DuPont produced the declaration of Justin M. Miller, its
associate general counsel, to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not
object to the sufficiency of DuPont's response to discovery order
number four. Moreover, their forensic economist utilized DuPont's
Form 10-K in preparing his opinions regarding DuPont's financial
condition.

Following unsuccessful mediation, plaintiffs filed the present
motion to compel on January 22, 2015, citing a December 2014
letter DuPont sent to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and
the December 2014 Form 10 DuPont submitted for the new The
Chemours Company, LLC spinoff company.

Plaintiffs sought and obtained reassurance from DuPont that the
information Mr. Miller provided in his declaration remained
accurate. Plaintiffs nevertheless requested the working draft of
the non-public, proposed Separation Agreement between DuPont and
Chemours. DuPont declined to produce any working draft, but
indicated that a final version would be publically available
between late March and early April and that it would provide
plaintiffs with a copy of the agreement.

Plaintiffs argue that DuPont has failed to satisfy its continuing
duty to supplement its discovery responses pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1). Plaintiffs also maintain that
DuPont failed to satisfy its duty to supplement its Rule 26(a)(1)
disclosures, citing Rule 26(a)(1)(iv).

Magistrate Judge Preston Deavers denied plaintiffs' second motion
to compel deposition and production of documents.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Preston Deavers's discovery order dated
March 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/TVzb47from Leagle.com


ENGINEERING NETWORK INT'L: Ruling in Staffing Firm's Suit Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, in its Opinion filed on April 27, 2015, in the case
docketed as TELECOM NETWORK SPECIALISTS, INC., Cross-complainant
and Appellant, v. ENGINEERING NETWORK INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al,
Cross-defendants and Respondents, NO. B250559, reversed the trial
court's judgment in favor of the staffing agencies, concluding
that the staffing agencies failed to demonstrate they are entitled
to judgment on Telecom Network Specialist's (TNS) contract claim.

Justice Laurie D. Zelon reversed the trial court's judgment and
vacated the order awarding Respondents' attorneys fees. The matter
was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial
court was directed, upon remand, to enter an order (1) granting
respondents summary adjudication of TNS's claims from express
indemnity, equitable indemnity and declaratory relief; (2) denying
summary adjudication of TNS's claim for breach of contract; and
(3) denying TNS's motion for summary adjudication.

A copy of Judge Zelon's Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/8RUCdHfrom Leagle.com.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Ronald J. Holland --
rholland@sheppardmullin.com -- Ellen M. Bronchetti --
ebronchetti@sheppardmullin.com -- and Karin Dougan Vogel --
kvogel@sheppardmullin.com -- for Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller --
jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com -- Jeffrey S. Ranen --
jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Lann G. McIntyre --
lann.McIntyre@lewisbrisbois.com -- for Cross-defendant and
Respondent Kineticom, Inc.

Hurt & Berry and Jeffrey W. Hurt for Cross-defendants and
Respondents Ritesync, Inc. and Dataworkforce, L.P.

Young Zinn & Bate, David H. Bate -- dbate@yzblaw.com -- and Harry
A. Zinn -- hzinn@yzblaw.com -- for Cross-defendant and Respondent
Orin USA, Inc.

Armstrong The Law Firm and Richard L. Armstrong for Cross-
defendant and Respondent Datalogix Texas, Inc.

Connor & Sargent and Stephen P. Connor -- derik@cslawfirm.net --
for Cross-defendant and Respondent Engineering Network
International, Inc.

Krafchak & Lynch and Stephanie L. Krafchak for Cross-defendant and
Respondent Multipoint Wireless, LLC.


EL DORADO, CA: Suit Against Sheriff's Dept Can't Proceed as Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire severed the plaintiffs' claims in
the case captioned BRIAN SPEARS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EL DORADO
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:15-CV-0165
AC P (E.D. Cal.).

Four plaintiffs, all currently incarcerated either in the
Placerville Jail or in Deuel Vocational Institution, sought to
pursue the case as a pro se civil rights class action challenging
conditions of confinement at the El Dorado County Correctional
Facility.

To the extent that plaintiffs seek to represent one another and
additional inmates, Judge Claire held that pro se plaintiffs may
only represent themselves.  While plaintiffs jointly requested the
appointment of legal counsel, asserting that they are unable to
afford counsel, that they are untrained in the law and have
limited access to the law library, the court held that these
reasons do not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting
the appointment of counsel at this time.  For these reasons, Judge
Claire ordered that plaintiffs' claims be severed.  Each plaintiff
will proceed with his own action and will be solely responsible
for his own action.

A copy of the April 8, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/QVSaqvfrom Leagle.com.


ETSY INC: Faces "Altayyar" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saleh Altayyar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Etsy, Inc., Chad Dickerson, and Kristina Salen, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02785-ARR-RER (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Etsy, Inc. operates online and offline marketplaces to buy and
sell handmade items, vintage goods, and craft supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pvdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLP
      60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, New York 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


EXPERIAN SERVICES: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Consumers Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sue Rodriguez, Deborah Sumlin, Laurie Amagan, Taaliba Warden, Nick
Nichols, Steed Rollins, Debbi Houston, Courtney Dusseau, Vito
Andrisani, Ruth Gabauer, Miranda Taylor, Anthony Anneski, Lori
Joachim, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Experian Services Corp., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03553 (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
deceptive trade practices of selling consumers rights to privacy,
specifically by capturing, tracking and selling consumers'
personal information to third party debt relief partners.

Experian Services Corp. owns and operates an information services
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Kevin Fisher, Esq.
      FISHER & KREKORIAN
      2121 Park Drive
      Los Angeles, CA 90026
      Telephone: (310) 862-1220
      Facsimile: (310) 862-1230
      E-mail: rkf@fkslaw.net


EXXON MOBIL: Judge Denies Plaintiffs' Bid to Enforce Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied plaintiffs' motion in the case CATHERINE M.
BERNARD, ET AL. v. JOSEPH GREFER, ET AL., SECTION "L" (2), CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-887 (E.D. La.)

From 1953 until 1992, Grefer Tract was leased to clean, maintain,
and repair used oil field pipes and equipment. The petitioners are
all present or former residents of Jefferson Parish and have all,
at some point, worked or lived in the area near Grefer Tract.

Plaintiffs allege that the oil field equipment and pipes were and
continued to be contaminated with highly toxic materials,
hazardous, carcinogenic, and poisonous and that this contaminated
the Grefer Tract. Plaintiffs allege that at all times, defendants
knew or should have known that the oil pipes were contaminated and
the contamination was caused by the negligence, wanton conduct,
breach of duty, deceit, and intentional misrepresentation of the
defendants.

The plaintiffs brought claims against 28 defendants but have
settled with most defendants, leaving only two defendants in the
case, ExxonMobil and Intracoastal Tubular, Inc.

Plaintiffs filed a second supplemental amended complaint on
December 23, 2015 and allege, in addition to their personal injury
claims that ExxonMobil and Intracoastal Tubular Co. entered into a
settlement agreement in Dottie Adams et al. v. Joseph Grefer et
al. and that defendants breached that settlement agreement.

ExxonMobil claims that in or around June 2008, plaintiffs' counsel
provided ExxonMobil with a list of an additional 1,000 claimants,
most of whom were not named in the Dottie Adams suit. This list
eventually swelled to over 1,700 claimants, and plaintiffs'
counsel claimed that the claimants were entitled to the terms of
the agreement despite the fact that they were not named plaintiffs
in the Dottie Adams suit. According to ExxonMobil, plaintiffs'
counsel demanded that ExxonMobil pay an additional $4.2 million in
settlement money for these new claimants. Exxon refused to pay and
settle the remainder of the new claimants.

Plaintiffs filed a motion and seek enforcement of the 2008
Agreement. Plaintiffs argue that while executing the agreement,
defendants also processed new claimants. Plaintiffs argue that
ExxonMobil's refusal to pay additional new claimants, and their
objections to plaintiffs' attempts to formally add these new
claimants to the Dottie Adams suit through amended petitions,
renders ExxonMobil estopped from asserting that the plaintiffs did
not meet a condition precedent of actually being named in the
Dottie Adams suit. Plaintiffs claim ExxonMobil therefore acted in
bad faith. Plaintiffs argue that the terms of the agreement only
require plaintiffs to file an amendment, and that any ambiguity
should be construed against ExxonMobil.

Judge Fallon denied plaintiffs' motion to enforce settlement
agreement and will contact the parties to schedule a status
conference to discuss a scheduling order.

A copy of Judge Fallon's order and reasons dated April 20, 205, is
available at http://is.gd/Abq0EFfrom Leagle.com

Catherine M Bernard, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Alvarez A Brown, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess,
Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Mary Louise Butler, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Shirley Ann Chase, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess,
Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Robert Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess,
Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Rivers Davis, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess,
Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Lafabian A. Fluker, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Joseph William Burkess, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Dionne Monique Clofer, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Exxon-Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Glen Marion
Pilie, Adams & Reese, LLP, Donald Cole Massey, Adams & Reese, LLP,
E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Adams & Reese, LLP, John Jerry Glas,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Martin Alan Stern, Adams & Reese,
LLP, Raymond C. Lewis, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Roland M.
Vandenweghe, Jr., Adams & Reese, LLP, Valeria M. Sercovich, Adams
& Reese, LLP & William Everard Wright, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan &
Stiles, LLP

Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Thomas E. Balhoff, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff &
McCollister & Carlton Jones, III, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache,
Balhoff & McCollister

Mobil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Glen Marion Pilie, Adams & Reese, LLP, Donald Cole
Massey, Adams & Reese, LLP, E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Adams & Reese,
LLP,Martin Alan Stern, Adams & Reese, LLP, Roland M. Vandenweghe,
Jr., Adams & Reese, LLP & Valeria M. Sercovich, Adams & Reese, LLP

OFS, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Bruce Colvin,
Kingsmill Riess, LLC, Marguerite Kern Kingsmill, Kingsmill Riess,
LLC & R. A. Osborn, Jr., Osborn & Osborn

Shell Offshore, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary S. Johnson,
Johnson, Gray, McNamara, LLC,Chadwick J. Mollere, Johnson, Gray,
McNamara, LLC, Jill Thompson Losch, Johnson, Gray, McNamara, LLC &
Nichole M. Gray, Johnson Gray McNamara


FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Patel" Suit Over Consumers Biometric Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nimesh Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04265 (N.D. Ill., May
14, 2015), arises from the alleged consumers' privacy rights abuse
of collecting, storing, and using users' biometric identifiers and
biometric information without informed consent.

Facebook, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and
principal executive offices at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California 94025. Facebook operates an online social network.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


FARMEDHERE LLC: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kelly, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Farmedhere, LLC, Mark Thomann, Steve Denenberg, and
Mark Weglarz, Case No. 1:15-cv-04267 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in indoor vertical farming business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank John Andreou, Esq.
      ANDREOU & CASSON, LTD.
      661 West Lake Street, Suite 2 North
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Telephone: (312) 935-2000
      E-mail: fandreou@andreou-casson.com


FEDERAL INSURANCE: Need Not Defend L.A. Lakers, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Insurance Co. had no a duty to defend the Los Angeles
Lakers against a class action accusing it of sending fans unwanted
text messages, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling.

David Emmanuel filed a putative class action in 2012, claiming the
Lakers violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by spamming
him and others with unwanted text messages.  Emmanuel said that
while attending a Lakers game he responded to a solicitation to
send a text message to be posted on the arena scoreboard during
the game.  The Lakers then used his cell phone number to send him
an unsolicited text message, he said.

The court found that Emmanuel had given consent to receive the
text message in question and dismissed with prejudice.  While the
case was on appeal to the 9th Circuit, the parties reached a
settlement.

After the settlement, the Lakers made repeated requests for
Federal Insurance to cover the costs of defending the litigation,
but Federal refused, citing the policy's invasion-of-privacy
exclusion.

The Lakers argued that Emmanuel's suit alleged economic injury and
not damages for invasion of privacy, and noted that Federal's
policy did not contain an express exclusion for claims made under
the TCPA.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found that violations of the TCPA
are rooted in a violation of an individual's privacy interests, so
the policy's privacy exclusion applied to Emmanuel's claims.

"By protecting consumers against the nuisance and annoyance of
unsolicited calls, the TCPA protects consumers against invasions
of privacy.  The nuisance and annoyance violate consumers'
seclusion-based privacy interest," Gee wrote in the April 17
ruling.

The fact that Emmanuel sought only economic and not personal
damages did not strip the allegations of their privacy-based
character, since the economic injury stemmed from the Lakers'
alleged invasion of Emmanuel's and putative class members' privacy
rights through the unsolicited text messages, Gee said.

Furthermore, the dismissal based on Emmanuel's consent to receive
the text did not rule out invasion of privacy as the basis for the
action.  Rather, the ruling was "tantamount to a determination
that there was no invasion of privacy because Emmanuel consented
to receiving the text," Gee said.

Given courts' universal interpretation of TCPA claims as implicit
invasion-of-privacy claims, Federal's invasion of privacy
exclusion encompasses TCPA claims and the Emmanuel complaint fit
within the exclusionary clause.

Gee dismissed the Lakers' complaint with prejudice.

A spokesman for Federal Insurance declined to comment.

The case is Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company,
Case No. 2:14-cv-07743-DMG-SH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


FINANCIAL AMERICAN: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, partially granted, and partially denied
the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendant
Financial American Life Insurance Co., in the case docketed as
SHEELA K. O'DONNELL, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE CO., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1071.

District Judge Gregory L. Frost denied Defendant's request for
judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract claims, and claim for
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. On the other
hand, Judge Frost granted Defendant's request for judgment on
Plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

A copy of Judge Frost's April 23, 2015 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/Nu37I1from Leagle.com.

Sheela K O'Donnell, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Scott
Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider,
LPA, John Michael Snider, Stebelton, Aranda & Snider, Robert Brent
Sherwood -- rsherwood@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider & Todd
B Naylor -- tnaylor@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider, LPA.

Financial American Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Patrick T Lewis -- plewis@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler
LLP, Amy D. Fitts -- afitts@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC,
Lauren E Tucker McCubbin -- ltucker@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli
PC, Lisa A Weixelman -- lweixelman@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC
& Rodger L Eckelberry -- reckelberry@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler.

Financial American Life Insurance Company, Counter Claimant,
represented by Patrick T Lewis, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Amy D.
Fitts, POLSINELLI PC, Lauren E Tucker McCubbin, Polsinelli PC,
Lisa A Weixelman, Polsinelli PC & Rodger L Eckelberry, Baker &
Hostetler.

Sheela K O'Donnell, Counter Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, John Michael Snider,
Stebelton, Aranda & Snider, Robert Brent Sherwood, Goldenberg
Schneider & Todd B Naylor, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA.


FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT: Fee Bid in "Spears" Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California partially granted the Motion for Award of Attorney's
Fees, Costs and Class Representative Service Award filed by
Plaintiff in the case docketed as FELTON A SPEARS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT, Defendant, CASE NO.
5:08-CV-00868-RMW.

District Judge Ronald M. Whyte awarded Plaintiff's counsel with
attorney's fees in the amount of $2,644,983.92 and $2,302,848.02
in expenses and granted a service award in the amount of $4,000.00
to plaintiff Felton A. Spears, Jr. for his services and efforts as
a class representative.

FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC, 429 Forbes Avenue, Allegheny
Building, 17th Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, was held
responsible for allocating the award of Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses between Settlement Class Counsel and Plaintiff's Other
Counsel, as well as for distributing the service award to
Plaintiff.

A copy of Judge Whyte's April 27, 2015 Order Granting in Part
Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Class
Representative Service Award is available at http://is.gd/XieHXY
from Leagle.com.

Felton A Spears, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Lindner
Spielberg, Law Offices of Janet Lindner Spielberg, Joseph N.
Kravec, Jr. -- jkravec@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne &
Kravec, LLC, Michael D. Braun, Braun Law Group, P.C., Ellen Mary
M. Doyle -- edoyle@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec,
LLC, Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback, LLP, Joel R. Hurt -- jhurt@fdpklaw.com --
Feinstein Doyle Payne and Kravec, LLC, Khesraw Karmand --
kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Lynn Lincoln
Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
Matthew J Preusch -- mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, L.L.P., McKean James Evans -- mevans@fdpklaw.com --
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Raymond John Farrow --
rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK, Tana Lin --
tlin@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP & Wyatt A. Lison --
wlison@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC.

Sidney Scholl, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Braun, Braun Law
Group, P.C., Ellen Mary M. Doyle Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec,
LLC, Gretchen Freeman Cappio Keller Rohrback, LLP, Janet Lindner
Spielberg, Law Offices of Janet Lindner Spielberg, Joel R. Hurt,
Feinstein Doyle Payne and Kravec, LLC, Joseph N. Kravec, Jr.,
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Khesraw Karmand, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., McKean
James Evans, Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Raymond John
Farrow, KELLER ROHRBACK, Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP & Wyatt A.
Lison, Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC.

Mr. Juan Bencosme, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Braun,
Braun Law Group, P.C., Janet Lindner Spielberg, Law Offices of
Janet Lindner Spielberg & Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Feinstein Doyle
Payne & Kravec, LLC.

Mrs. Carmen Bencosme, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Braun,
Braun Law Group, P.C., Janet Lindner Spielberg, Law Offices of
Janet Lindner Spielberg, Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Feinstein Doyle
Payne & Kravec, LLC & Raymond John Farrow, KELLER ROHRBACK.

First American Eappraiseit, Defendant, represented by Alvin
Matthew Ashley -- mashley@irell.com -- Irell and Manella, LLP,
John C. Hueston, IRELL & MANELLA LLP, Justin Nathanael Owens --
jowens@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP, Allison Lauren Libeu,
Irell and Manella LLP, Brian Clifton Berggren, Irell and Manella
LLP, Jeffrey Scott Wilkerson, Irell and Manella LLP, John Charles
Hueston, Irell and Manella LLP, Moez Mansoor Kaba, Irell and
Manella LLP & Nathaniel H Lipanovich -- nlipanovich@irell.com --
Irell and Manella LLP.

JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, Objector, represented by
Jenny Lee Merris -- jenny.merris@piblaw.com -- Parker Ibrahim &
Berg LLC, John M. Sorich -- jsorich@alvaradosmith.com -- Alvarado
Smith & Sung-Min Christopher Yoo, AlvaradoSmith.

Mr. Larry Ellis, Objector, represented by Matt Kurilich.


FITBIT INC: Falsely Claims It Can Track Sleeping Time, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that FitBit sells a wearable
wireless device by falsely claiming it can track "how long you
sleep," a class action claims in Federal Court.


FLYING FOOD: Faces Wage Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------
Steve Lopez, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Flying
Food is facing a class action.  Rafael Leon joined fellow
employees in a one-day strike against Flying Food, where he has
worked for two years and makes $10.25 an hour.

Flying Foods' employees allege they are paid less than required
under the city's living-wage ordinance, that they are shorted on
overtime pay, that they sometimes work in puddles of water because
drains are clogged, that the company doesn't always provide
insulated clothing for those who spend hours in food coolers, and
that they must work harder to compensate for equipment and staff
shortages.

Flying Food, by the way, denies the allegations.

For Leon, however, his main grievance is something quite basic.

"We want respect," he said.  "My mom raised me with a higher
standard of respect . . . and taught me to be proud of what you
do, even if it's cleaning toilets or scrubbing floors."

But Mr. Leon said some of his supervisors subject him and others
to verbal abuse and rudely order them around.

"We want to be treated like human beings."

Flying Food spokesperson Courtney Harper said the company -- which
serves Air France, China Airlines and Virgin Australia, to name a
few clients -- is committed to providing "competitive pay and
benefits as well as comfortable and safe working conditions." The
base wage averages $12 an hour, she said, and employee benefits
include vacations, an offer of health insurance and perks
including free cafeteria meals.

Ms. Harper said the company is paying "the required wage to all
employees who are subject to" the living-wage ordinance.  But a
class-action lawsuit against Flying Food contends otherwise.  The
employees are nonunion but are being represented by Unite Here,
which says some of the 300-plus employees are not being paid the
required equivalent of roughly $15 an hour in combined wages and
benefits.


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: To Defend Against All Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francesca's Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against all claims asserted in
a consolidated class action lawsuit.

On September 27, 2013 and November 4, 2013, two purported class
action lawsuits entitled Ortuzar v. Francesca's Holdings Corp., et
al. and West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Francesca's
Holdings Corp., et al. were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws arising from
statements in certain public disclosures regarding the Company's
current and future business and financial condition. On December
19, 2013, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 14,
2014, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint
purportedly on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquired
the Company's publicly traded common stock between July 22, 2011
and September 3, 2013 against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers. The consolidated
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a) (2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly false and misleading
statements in the Company's public disclosures concerning, among
other things, the Company's relationship with certain vendors. The
lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On May 13, 2014
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. That
motion was fully briefed as of August 13, 2014.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
consolidated complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against all claims asserted therein. A reasonable
estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time and, as such, the Company has not
recorded an accrual for any possible loss.


GAF MATERIALS: Court Approves Settlement on Defective Shingles
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Michelle Childs issued a final order approving
the settlement agreement in the case captioned In re Building
Materials Corporation of America Asphalt Roofing Shingle Products
Liability Litigation.  The deal relates to CARROLL THOMPSON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
GAF MATERIALS CORPORATION, Defendant. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF
BLAIRSVILLE, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GAF MATERIALS CORPORATION, Defendant. JOHN
GREEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GAF MATERIALS CORPORATION, Defendant, MDL NO. 8:11-
MN-02000-JMC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:12-CV-00087-JMC., 8:12-CV-00088-
JMC, 8:11-CV-00983-JMC (D.S.C.).

Under the deal, all Settlement Class Members will release and
discharge GAF from claims related to defective Mobile
Timberline(R).

On April 22, 2015, the court conducted a Formal Fairness Hearing
to consider the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Mobile
Class Action Settlement, the Settlement Agreement and all exhibits
thereto, and Mobile Class Counsel's Petition for Reimbursement of
Expenses and Award of Attorney's Fees.

On April 22, 2015, Judge Childs issued a final order and judgment,
available at http://is.gd/Qzznidfrom Leagle.com, granting the
Joint Motion for Final Approval of Mobile Class Action Settlement
and Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses, adopting all defined terms as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

Building Materials Corporation of America Asphalt Roofing Shingle
Products Liability Litigation MDL 2283, In Re, represented by
David Tulchin -- tulchind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell.

Jack Brooks, and Ellen Brooks, Plaintiffs, represented by Shawn M
Raiter -- sraiter@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP, Algernon
Gibson Solomons, III, Speights & Runyan, Daniel Alvah Speights,
Speights and Runyan & Thomas H Pope, III, Pope and Hudgens.

Angela Posey, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson --
brendant@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Shawn M
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Patrick F Madden -- pmadden@bm.net ,
Berger and Montague.

James Morocco, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Michael
M Weinkowitz -- mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran
and Berman.

Sybil McDaniel, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra C Warren,
Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert and
LaDuca LLP, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Daniel M Cohen --
danielc@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP & Melissa W
Wolchansky -- wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen and Associates.

Diane Haner, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Charles J LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com
-- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Christopher Luke Coffin, Pendley
Baudin and Coffin, Mark A Solheim -- msolheim@larsonking.com --
Larson King, LLP, Michael McShane, Alexander Hawes and Audet,
Robert K Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal
Nauen PLLP & Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP.

Kathleen Erickson, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson,
Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, John Gordon Rudd, Jr, Zimmerman
Reed, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Michael M Weinkowitz,
Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman.

Tina Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Gary E Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- Mason
Law Firm, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Jordan Lucas Chaikin,
Parker Waichman.

First Baptist Church of Blairsville, Plaintiff, represented by
Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & John A. Dickerson, McClure
Ramsay Dickerson & Escoe.

John Green, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Algernon Gibson Solomons, III, Speights & Runyan, Daniel
Alvah Speights, Speights and Runyan, Edward J. Peterson, III --
epeterson@srbp.com -- Stichter, Riedel, Blain & Prosser, PA &
Thomas H Pope, III, Pope and Hudgens.

Michael Ragan, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, John Gordon Rudd, Jr, Zimmerman Reed,
Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Charles E Schaffer --
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman.

Richard Godfrey, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M Raiter, Larson
King, LLP, Daniel K Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson &
Mason LLP, Donna F Solen -- dsolen@masonlawdc.com -- Mason Law
Firm, Gary E Mason -- gmason@masonlawdc.com -- Mason Law Firm,
James C Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLC, Jordan Lucas
Chaikin, Parker Waichman, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah LLC & Scott C Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com
-- Whitfield Bryson and Mason.

Thomas Byrd, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP, C Dorian
Britt, Tatlow Gump Faiella LLC & Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Parker
Waichman.

Susan D Ashley, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson,
Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Dennis Craig Reich, Reich Binstock &
Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP.

GAF Materials Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anna H Fee --
feean@sullcrom.com , Sullivan and Cromwell, Childs Cantey Thrasher
-- cthrasher@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan White and Boyd, David
Tulchin -- tulchind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell, Gray
Thomas Culbreath -- gculbreath@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan White
and Boyd, Kathleen S McArthur -- mcarthurk@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & Sara Miro -- miros@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell.

Building Materials Corporation of America, Defendant, represented
by Gray Thomas Culbreath, Gallivan White and Boyd, Arthur Gerald
Boylan, Leonard Street and Deinard, PA, David Glenn Barger --
bargerd@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, David R Crosby,
Leonard Street and Deinard, PA, David Tulchin, Sullivan and
Cromwell & Gavin J Rooney -- grooney@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein
Sandler.


GAUCHO LLC: Faces "Hadel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Hadel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Gaucho, LLC, Samba Brands Management, 7th & Barrow LLC, Avenue
Spoon Inc., Shimon Bokovza, Danielle Billera, and Matthew Johnson,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03706-PKC (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 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 Sushi Samba restaurants in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Esq.
      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com
              jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com


GLOBAL POWER: Faces "Ream" Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ream, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Global Power Equipment Group Inc., Luis Manuel
Ramirez, Raymond K. Guba, and Terence J. Cryan, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01679-M (N.D. Tex., May 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a comprehensive provider of
custom engineered equipment, and modification and maintenance
services for customers in the energy, infrastructure and process
and industrial segments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
      PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP, LLP
      2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 252-1888
      Facsimile: (214) 252-1889
      E-mail: dean@paynemitchell.com

         - and -

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com


GRAND FLORIDIAN: Faces "Cordoba" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jhonny Alberto Preciado Cordoba, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Grand Floridian Estate Realty LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-21818-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Grand Floridian Estate Realty LLC owns and operates a real estate
company regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HAGUE QUALITY: Faces "Bergman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Bergman, and John Prochazka, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated v. Hague Quality Water of
Kansas City, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09070 (D. Kan., May 13, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay field service
technician employees overtime compensation.

Hague Quality Water of Kansas City, Inc. is a water treatment
manufacturer that does business in the State of Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond A. Dake, Esq.
      SIRO SMITH DICKSON, PC
      1621 Baltimore Avenue
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 471-4881
      Facsimile: (816) 471-4883
      E-mail: rdake@sirosmithdickson.com


HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Court Issues Guidelines to Evaluate Deals
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California gave notice of the factors that the Court would
consider in evaluating any proposed class settlement in the case
docketed as ERESA CLEMENS, JORDAN SIMENSEN, and ADRIA DESPRES,
individuals, for themselves and all members of the putative class,
and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") Plaintiffs, v. HAIR CLUB FOR MEN,
LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, NO. C 15-01431 WHA.

In addition to reminding counsels to review the Procedural
Guidance for Class Action Settlements, District Judge William
Aslup also enumerated the following substantive and timing factors
that he would consider in granting preliminary and/or final
approval to a proposed class settlement: (1) Adequacy of
presentation; (2) Due diligence; (3) Cost-benefit for absent class
members; (4) The release; (5) Expansion of the class; (6)
Reversion; (7) Claim procedure; (8) Attorney's Fees; (9) Dwindling
or minimal assets; (10) Timing of proposed settlement; (11) A
right to opt out is not a cure-all; (12) Incentive payment; and
(13) Notice to class members.

A copy of the Judge Aslup's April 23, 2015 Notice Regarding
Factors To Be Evaluated For Any Proposed Class Settlement is
available at http://is.gd/jz72f3from Leagle.com.

Teresa Clemens, Plaintiff, represented by John Michael Bickford,
R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris
Law Firm, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & R. Rex
Parris, R. Rex Parris Law Firm.

Jordan Simensen, Plaintiff, represented by John Michael Bickford,
R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris
Law Firm, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & R. Rex
Parris, R. Rex Parris Law Firm.

Adria Despres, Plaintiff, represented by John Michael Bickford, R.
Rex Parris Law Firm, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law
Firm, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & R. Rex Parris,
R. Rex Parris Law Firm.

Hair Club for Men, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew More
McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Justin
Taylor Curley -- jcurley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


HCR MANOR: Ohio Ct. App. Drops Appeal on Interlocutory Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Arlene Singer of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth
District, Wood County, dismissed an appeal in the case Martin
Forbush, individually and on behalf of the wrongful death
beneficiaries of Thomas Forbush, Jr., Appellee, v. HCR Manor Care,
Inc., et al. Appellants, C.A. NO. WD-14-071 (Ohio Ct. App.)

Martin Forbush, individually and as executor of the estate of
Thomas Forbush, Jr., brought a wrongful death action on June 17,
2014, against appellant, HCR ManorCare, Inc., which operates
nursing homes, including Heartland of Perrysburg, HCR Manor Care
Services, Inc., Heartland Employment Services, LLC, Heartland of
Perrysburg OH, LLC, and Lisa Chalk, NHA. Forbush alleged that
appellants held themselves out to be able to adequately care for
Forbush Jr., but in fact did not provide him with the necessary
care and, as a result, Forbush Jr. died. Appellees alleged claims
of negligence of the corporate defendants and unknown individual
defendants; violation of nursing home contractual obligations,
statutes, or regulations by unknown nursing home employees which
resulted in non-lethal and lethal injuries; medical malpractice;
fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; and intentionally creating and
covering up dangerous conditions that existed at the home.

The defendants answered, denying the allegations and asserting
that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement and
that the complaint should be stayed pending arbitration pursuant
to R.C. 2711.02. R.C. 2711.02(C). Defendants moved to stay the
action pending arbitration.  Appellee opposed the motion arguing
that a wrongful death beneficiary is not a party to the agreement
and, therefore, is not required to arbitrate.

On September 9, 2014, the trial court denied the motion to stay
the case and compel arbitration until after the parties engaged in
discovery. Appellants filed an immediate appeal from the judgment.
Appellee argues on appeal that the judgment appealed was not a
final, appealable order.

Judge Singer agreed with appellee and ordered the case to be
dismissed.

A copy of Judge Singer's decision and judgment dated April 17,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/tDOnGufrom Leagle.com

For Appellee:

Michael J. Fuller, Jr., Esq.
D. Bryant Chaffin, Esq.
Amy Quezon, Esq.
A. Lance Reins, Esq.
John R. Cummings, Esq.
McHUGH FULLER LAW GROUP
97 Elias Whiddon Road
Hattiesburg, MS 39402
Telephone: 601-261-2220
Facsimile: 601-261-2481

Robert M. Anspach -- ranspach@anspachlaw.com -- Mark D. Meeks --
mmeeks@anspachlaw.com -- Charles D. Rittenhouse --
crittenhouse@anspachlaw.com -- at ANSPACH LAW, for appellants.

The Ohio Court of Appeals panel consists of Presiding Judge
Stephen A. Yarbrough and Judges Arlene Singer and Thomas J. Oswik.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Made Immaterial Payment to Settle Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections Inc. made an immaterial payment to settle a class
action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

In September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
Illinois in Cook County Circuit Court against Intersections Inc.,
Intersections Insurance Services Inc., and Ocwen Financial
Corporation, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The case was removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On
October 30, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation voluntarily
dismissing, without prejudice, Intersections Inc. from the case.
On November 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC. On November 27, 2013, Intersections Insurance
Services Inc. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC jointly filed a Motion
to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations. On March 5, 2014, the
motion was granted in part, and denied in part.

"All parties entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to
which we made an immaterial payment, and the case was dismissed in
December 2014," the Company said.


INTERTHINX INC: Colo. Court Approved Settlement in "Shaw" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted Plaintiffs' unopposed Motions for (1) Approval of
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards, and (2) Final
Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement in the case
docketed as CELESTE SHAW; JUDITH VERHEECKE; SHABNAM SHEILA
DEHDASHTIAN; MEDHAT GAREEB; and DEJAN NAGL on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERTHINX,
INC., a California Corporation; and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-01229-
REB-NYW.

District Judge Robert E. Blackburn, in granting the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action
Settlement, held that: (1)the settlement was fairly and honestly
negotiated; (2) serious questions of law and fact exist, placing
the ultimate outcome of litigation in doubt; (3) the value of an
immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future
relief, as well as protracted and expensive litigation; (4) the
judgment of the parties confirms the settlement is reasonable; and
(5) the notice to the class members was sufficient.

The granting of Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorney's
Fees, Expenses and Incentive Awards was granted by Judge Blackburn
was supported by the 12 factors identified by the Fifth Circuit in
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.
1974), also known as the Johnson factors.

After nearly two years of contentious litigation in three separate
lawsuits, named plaintiffs Celeste Shaw, Judith Verheecke, Shabnam
Sheila Dehdashtian, Medhat Gareeb, and Dejan Nagl ("Named
Plaintiffs") and class counsel from Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Rowdy
Meeks Legal Group, LLC, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, and The
Spivak Law Firm ("Class Counsel") obtained a settlement of this
class/collective action that creates a common fund worth up to $6
million, plus employer's share of employment taxes.

Named Plaintiffs and Defendants Interthinx, Inc., and Verisk
Analytics, Inc. ("Defendants"), memorialized the settlement in a
Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release, filed with the court
on November 4, 2014.

The Settlement specifically resolves wage and hour claims of four
proposed settlement classes of Auditors and Underwriters ("AUs")
employed by Interthinx: (a) those employed in Colorado between May
9, 2010, and June 30, 2014 ("Colorado Class"); (b) those employed
in California between June 28, 2009, and June 30, 2014
("California Class"); (c) those employed in Missouri between May
9, 2010, and June 30, 2014 ("Missouri Class"); and (d) those
employed in any other state between May 9, 2010, and June 30,
2014, and who are not members of the California, Colorado, or
Missouri Classes ("FLSA Class").

A copy of Judge Blackburn's April 21, 2015 Order Granting
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class and
Collective Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Attorney's Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards is
available at http://is.gd/tfIIwjfrom Leagle.com.

Celeste Shaw, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn,
Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Andrew Edward Swan, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC,
Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm, David Glenn Spivak,
Spivak Law Firm, Jessica Lee Riggin -- jriggin@rhdtlaw.com  Rukin
Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, Paul Forrest Lewis, Lewis Kuhn Swan
PC, Steven M. Tindall -- stindall@rhdtlaw.com -- Rukin Hyland
Doria & Tindall LLP & Rowdy Byron Meeks --
rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com -- Rowdy Meeks Legal Group, LLC.

Judith Verheecke, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn,
Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm,
David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm, Jessica Lee Riggin, Rukin
Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, Paul Forrest Lewis, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC
& Steven M. Tindall, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP.

Shabnam Sheila Dehdashtian, Plaintiff, represented by Michael
Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh,
Spivak Law Firm & David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm.

Dejan Nagl, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis
Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm & David
Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm.

Medhat Gareeb, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn,
Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm &
David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm.

Verisk Analytics Inc, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Anthony
Murray -- nicholas.Murray@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C.,
Angela Quiles Nevarez -- angela.Nevarez@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis, P.C., Leila Nourani --
leila.Nourani@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLP, Nicky Jatana
-- JatanaN@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLP & Peter Francis
Munger -- peter.munger@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C..

Interthinx Inc, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Anthony Murray,
Jackson Lewis, P.C., Angela Quiles Nevarez, Jackson Lewis, P.C.,
Leila Nourani, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Nicky Jatana, Jackson Lewis,
LLP & Peter Francis Munger, Jackson Lewis, P.C..


JACO OIL: Must File Bid for Initial OK of Settlement on July 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston signed on May 14, 2015, a
notice of settlement and stipulation extending the deadline to
file dispositional documents pursuant to Local Rule 160 in the
case captioned LINDA DE SANTOS an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACO OIL COMPANY,
a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00738-JLT, (E.D. Cal.).

The parties in the case have agreed to the terms of a settlement
that would resolve this matter in its entirety, pending Court
approval. The parties have executed a Memorandum of Understanding
as of May 13, 2015, and anticipate circulating and executing a
long form settlement agreement within approximately one to two
weeks.

Plaintiff will then prepare and file a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. Therefore, the parties
stipulated that the 21-day deadline for filing dispositional
documents be extended from June 3, 2015 to June 12, 2015.

Accordingly, the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1HvAGo8from Leagle.com, provides that:

1. The request for preliminary approval of class settlement must
   be filed no later than July 3, 2015;

2. All pending deadlines, dates and hearings are vacated.

Linda De Santos, Plaintiff, represented by Shane Carson Stafford
-- sstafford@ssbfirm.com -- Shanberg, Stafford and Bartz LLP.

Jaco Oil Company, Defendant, represented by David Cooper --
dcooper@kleinlaw.com -- Klein Denatale Goldner & Connie M. Parker
-- cparker@kleinlaw.com -- Klein Denatale Goldner Cooper Rosenlieb
& Kimball, LLP.

Ross E. Shanberg, Shane C. Stafford, Aaron A. Bartz, SHANBERG,
STAFFORD & BARTZ, LLP, Irvine, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff
LINDA DE SANTOS, and all others similarly situated.

David J. Cooper, Connie M. Parker, COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL
LLP, Attorneys for Defendants, JACO OIL COMPANY, FASTRIP, FOOD
STORES, INC., FASTRIP, FOOD STORES OF FRESNO, INC., FASTRIP
FINANCIAL, LP, INSTANT STORAGE, LLC, BROOKE UTILITIES, INC.,
WHOLESALE FUELS, INC.


JB HUNT: "Wheat" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti granted the parties' stipulation to
transfer to the Central District of California, the case captioned
DARNETTA WHEAT, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-05431-SC (N.D. Cal.).

A putative employment class action was filed on behalf of truck
drivers employed by J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. ("JBH").  The
complaint alleged various violations by JBH of state and federal
law arising out of its failure to pay wages and to reimburse
employees for medical and physical examinations they were required
to undergo.

The suit was originally filed in Alameda County Superior Court,
but was later removed to federal court.  The parties thereafter
requested that the court transfer venue to the Central District of
California.

In finding that the transfer of venue to the Central District of
California is appropriate, Judge Conti held that the case
satisfies all three requirements for a transfer of venue: (1) the
propriety of venue in the transferor district, (2) whether the
action could have been brought in the transferee district, and (3)
whether the transfer will serve the interests of justice and
convenience of the parties and witnesses.

In his April 15, 2015 order available at http://is.gd/sxt1RHfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Conti noted that the defendant is subject to
personal jurisdiction in California, and a substantial part of the
events giving rise to plaintiff's claims took place in the Central
District.  He also found that documents relevant to the lawsuit
are kept in JBH's office in South Gate, California, located in the
Central District, and that JBH's employees and managers
responsible for enjorcing JBH's employment policies in California
are also there.

Darnetta Wheat, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie Joyner, Marlin and
Saltzman LLP, Christina A Humphrey, Marlin and Saltzman LLP &
Stanley D Saltzman, Marlin and Saltzman LLP.

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Defendant,
represented by Sophia Behnia -- sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC & Keith A Jacoby -- kjacoby@litter.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC.


JC CRANBERRY: Joint Motion to Seal Settlement Agreement Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark R. Hornak denied the Joint Motion to Seal in
the case captioned JUSTIN WEISMANTLE, et al, Plaintiffs, v. AMMAR
JALI, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-01087 (W.D.
Pa.).

A suit was filed by the plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and its
Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") for non-payment of
overtime compensation.  The parties settled the case and asked the
court that they be permitted to file the settlement agreement
under seal on the court's docket.

In denying the parties' Joint Motion to Seal, Judge Hornak held
that the parties' did not state any overriding reason that sealing
and secrecy are required beyond the fact that that is a term of
their deal, although they do say that divulging the terms of the
settlement would create embarrassment as well as the perception of
wrongdoing by the defendants.  The reasons fail to demonstrate a
particularized and significant private interest that overcomes the
public interest as embodied in the presumption of openness when a
federal court is asked to substantively consider the terms of a
Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and then approve it.

A copy of the April 23, 2015 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/E1br7dfrom Leagle.com.

JUSTIN WEISMANTLE, JAMES SAYLOR, JENNIFER MABIN, and AMANDA
WEISMANTLE, Plaintiffs, represented by Ari R. Karpf, Karpf, Karpf
& Cerutti, P.C. & Jeremy M. Cerutti, Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C..

AMMAR JALI, KHURRAN ALI, JC CRANBERRY INC, JC BUTLER INC, JC NEW
CASTLE INC, Defendant, represented by David C. Zimmaro --
david@zimmarolaw.com -- Zimmaro Law Offices.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
class-action overtime pay lawsuit has been filed against Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals, Inc. alleging senior systems administrators
employed by the hospital(s) were purposefully misclassified in
order to escape payment of overtime, as well as the issuance of
meal breaks and other rest periods mandated by California overtime
law and other employment statutes for non-management personnel.

Employees in the state of California who reach an earnings
plateau, or who are working at a management job and thus paid an
annual salary, are usually exempt from overtime pay: the thought
being, a job commanding such a high rate of pay requires, from
time to time, that extra hours should be expected and tolerated as
necessary, without the need for additional compensation.

Some employers, however, have attempted to skirt around this by
incorrectly classifying non-management personnel as exempt, in an
effort to save dollars.

The overtime pay laws class action, filed in California in March,
alleges that Senior Systems Administrators employed by Kaiser
spent the lion's share of their days performing non-managerial
tasks.  Such tasks included, as alleged in court documents, the
repair and replacement of personal computers and servers in Kaiser
call centers, installations of software and operating systems,
password resets and other tasks that are considered by the
plaintiffs to be non-managerial in nature.

It is also alleged in the overtime laws class action that
employees serving as Senior Systems Administrators did not
supervise other employees of Kaiser, which is usually a function
of management personnel and therefore exempt from overtime pay
according to the provisions of California overtime law.

It is sometimes the case that an employer will hire an employee
for a job that is meant to be managerial in nature, and thus would
be exempt from overtime pay.  However, if the majority of tasks
performed by the employee are non-managerial, with no provision or
opportunity to supervise others, then the management profile of
the particular job is suspect.

The lawsuit did not specify what damages are being sought by
plaintiffs in the California overtime law class action.  The
lawsuit also alleges unfair competition, and failure to provide
accurate, itemized statements in accordance with California labor
statutes.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Inc. is a subsidiary of Kaiser
Permanente and boasts 30 wholly owned community hospitals
throughout California, Hawaii and Oregon.  Plaintiffs are seeking
various unspecified damages and a trial by jury.

The overtime pay laws class-action lawsuit is Bernard Howard et al
v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Inc., Case No. 37-2015-00008539-CU-
OE-CTL, filed March 12 and currently pending in the San Diego
County Superior Court for the State of California.


KINGATE MANAGEMENT: Dist. Court Judgment Vacated, Suit Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated
the judgment of the district court in the case captioned IN RE
KINGATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED LITIGATION. CRITERIUM CAPITAL FUNDS
B.V., BBF TRUST, WALL STREET SECURITIES, S.A., BANCA ARNER S.A.,
ALVARO CASTILLO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, EITHAN EPHRATI, ANDBANC, SILVANA WORLDWIDE CORPORATION,
BG VALORES, S.A., JAQUES LAMAC, NITKEY HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellants, LUCIEN GELDZAHLER, Plaintiff-Consolidated
Defendant-Appellant, v. TREMONT (BERMUDA) LIMITED, GRAHAM H. COOK,
JOHN E. EPPS, SANDRA MANZKE, FIM ADVISERS LLP, CHARLES SEBAH,
KEITH R. BISH, CHRISTOPHER WETHERHILL, MICHAEL G. TANNENBAUM,
TREMONT GROUP HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,
Defendant-Appellees, KINGATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED, FIM (USA)
INCORPORATED, CITI HEDGE FUND SERVICES LTD., Defendant-
Consolidated Defendant-Appellees, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS BERMUDA,
CARLO GROSSO, FIM LIMITED, FEDERICO M. CERETTI, Consolidated
Defendant-Appellees, BERNARD L. MADOFF, PHILLIP A. EVANS, MARGARET
EVERY, SHAZIEH SALAHUDDIN, JOHANN WONG, PRESTON M. DAVIS, BANK OF
BERMUDA LIMITED, Defendants, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, ANDORRA BANC
AGRICOL REIG S.A., on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Consolidated Defendants, NO. 11-1397-CV (App.
2d Cir.)

Plaintiffs are individuals and entities, each of which purchased
shares in Kingate Global Fund, Ltd. and/or Kingate Euro Fund, Ltd.
and continued to hold their shares until the exposure in December
2008 of the Ponzi scheme operated by Bernard L. Madoff and Bernard
L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, a broker-dealer founded and
run by Madoff. The Madoff Ponzi scheme resulted in the loss of the
great majority of the Funds' assets. The Complaint asserts a class
action on behalf of all shareholders in the Funds (with the
exception of Defendants and certain affiliates of Defendants) as
of the time Madoff's fraud was exposed.

The Funds are open-ended investment companies organized and
operating in the British Virgin Islands. Defendants are persons
and entities that served in roles affiliated with the Funds,
including officers, directors, and managers of the Funds,
auditors, a consultant, and the Funds' administrator.  The names
and roles of the defendants in connection with the Funds are set
forth in the margin.

Plaintiffs invested in the Funds by purchasing shares. It appears
to be common ground in this appeal that the shares of the Funds
are not "covered securities," as defined by SLUSA, so that if the
applicability of SLUSA depends on the plaintiffs' purchase of
those shares, SLUSA cannot apply. The plaintiffs' expectations,
however, based on the declared intentions of the Funds, was that
the Funds would invest in common stock of Standard & Poors ("S&P")
100 companies, listed on United States exchanges. The latter
securities are "covered securities" under the terms of SLUSA.
The Funds operated as "feeder funds" for BMIS, meaning that the
Funds delegated custody of the investments and all investment
decisions and duties to Madoff and BMIS. Between March 1994 and
December 10, 2008, Kingate Global gave BMIS $963.45 million to
invest for its account. Between May 1, 2000, and December 10,
2008, Kingate Euro gave BMIS $767.44 million of its funds to
invest for its account. During those periods, BMIS provided the
Funds with periodic account statements. The statements purported
to show purchases and sales for the Funds' accounts of "covered
securities" -- common stock of major companies included in the S&P
100 Index, and of options on the S&P 100 Index. According to the
account statements, those investments produced a continuous course
of very substantial profits and growth, so that by November 30,
2008, the Funds' investments with BMIS had grown to a combined
value of over $3 billion.

In December 2008, however, the investments made by BMIS on behalf
of the Funds turned out to be entirely fictitious. BMIS had made
no purchases or sales of securities, and there were no profits or
growth in its customers' accounts. Madoff had used the assets
invested through BMIS either for his personal benefit or for
distribution to account holders who demanded withdrawal of their
investments. The Funds' investments through BMIS, which
represented substantially all of the Funds' assets, were lost to
Madoff's fraud.

Prior to the exposure of Madoff's scheme, the Funds, and the
defendants speaking on their behalf, represented to their
investors that the Funds' assets were being invested by an unnamed
investment advisor, who was realizing substantial growth for the
accounts of the Funds, using a trading strategy that involved
purchasing S&P 100 stocks while concurrently selling call options
and buying put options on the S&P 100 Index.

According to the allegations of the Complaint, in statements to
investors, the Managers undertook obligations to evaluate and
monitor the investment advisor, and the Auditors undertook
obligations to audit the Funds' financial statements in accordance
with established accounting principles. Each falsely represented
to the Funds' investors from time to time (according to the
allegations of the Complaint) that they had performed those
obligations, when in fact they had not. The Administrator
similarly undertook the obligation to determine the Funds' values
and periodically made allegedly false representations to the
Funds' investors of values that accorded with values reported by
BMIS.

The Complaint asserts 28 class action claims, each based on state
common law. Some of the claims are based on false conduct; other
claims are based on breach of other legal duties. The claims
include fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
negligence, gross negligence, breach of contractual obligations,
breach of fiduciary duties, constructive trust, mutual mistake,
unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting various aforementioned
violations. Some of the numbered claims of the Complaint assert
more than one theory of liability.

Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, which
dismissed their state-law class action claims as precluded by the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), and
denied leave to re-plead as futile.

The appellate court disagreed with the proposition that SLUSA's
language suggests a need to dismiss the entire action merely
because one of its claims is precluded.  Consistent with its prior
ruling and that of other circuits, it held that only the claims
covered by SLUSA's terms should be dismissed, and the claims not
within SLUSA's terms should proceed.

The appellate court thus vacated the judgment of the district
court and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

A copy of the April 23, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/rd2EMzfrom Leagle.com.

DAVID A. BARRETT (S. Douglas Bunch -- dbunch@cohenmilstein.com --
Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Lisa M. Mezzetti,
Daniel S. Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Joshua S.
Devore -- jdevore@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, New York, NY; David Boies -- dboies@bsfllp.com --
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY; Stuart H. Singer --
ssinger@bsfllp.com -- Carl E. Goldfarb -- cgoldfarb@bsfllp.com --
James Grippando -- jgrippando@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, on the brief), Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellants.

SETH M. SCHWARTZ -- seth.schwartz@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellees
Tremont (Bermuda) Limited and Tremont Group Holdings, Inc.

HOWARD J. RUBIN -- hrubin@dglaw.com -- (Bruce M. Ginsberg --
bginsberg@dglaw.com -- on the brief), Davis & Gilbert LLP, New
York, NY, for Defendant-Appellees Graham H. Cook, John E. Epps,
and Charles D. Sebah.

CARMINE D. BOCCUZZI -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- (David Y. Livshiz, on
the brief) Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY, for
Defendant-Appellee Citi Hedge Fund Services, Ltd.

SANFORD M. LITVACK -- sandy.litvack@hoganlovells.com -- (Dennis H.
Tracey, III -- dennis.tracey@hoganlovells.com -- Lisa J. Fried --
lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com -- on the brief), Hogan Lovells US
LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee PricewaterhouseCoopers
Bermuda.

JODI A. KLEINICK -- jodikleinick@paulhastings.com -- (Barry G.
Sher -- barrysher@paulhastings.com -- Mor Wetzler --
morwetzler@paulhastings.com -- on the brief), Paul Hastings LLP,
New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellees FIM Advisers LLP, FIM
Limited, FIM (USA), Inc., Carlo Grosso, and Federico H. Ceretti.

John Han -- john.han@kobrekim.com.hk -- Jonathan D. Cogan --
jonathan.cogan@kobrekim.com -- Carrie A. Tendler --
carrie.tendler@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, NY, for
Defendant-Appellee Sandra Manzke.

Peter R. Chaffetz -- peter.chaffetz@chaffetzlindsey.com -- Charles
J. Scibetta -- charles.scibetta@chaffetzlindsey.com -- Erin E.
Valentine -- erin.valentine@chaffetzlindsey.com -- Chaffetz
Lindsey LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellees Kingate
Management Limited and Christopher Wetherhill.

Laura Grossfield Birger -- lbirger@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, New
York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Michael Tannenbaum.

Michael S. Flynn -- michael.flynn@davispolk.com -- Michael P.
Carroll -- michael.carroll@davispolk.com -- James H.R. Windels --
james.windels@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New
York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.


KRAFT FOODS: Faces 'Foote" Suit Over Illegal Company Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Foote, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04236 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the planned
acquisition of the Company by H.J. by means of an unfair process
and for inadequate consideration.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is a consumer packaged goods company which
maintains its principal executive offices at Three Lakes Drive,
Northfield, Illinois, 60093.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman Rifkind, Esq.
      Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
      LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
      351 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 401
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 634-0057
      Facsimile: (312) 634-0059
      E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com
              newton@laskyrifkind.com

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


LEE COUNTY, FL: State Immunity Causes Case to be Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John E. Steele of the Middle District of Florida,
Fort Myers Division, granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the
case KEVIN CALDERONE, an individual, GEORGE SCHWING, an
individual, MICHAEL ZALESKI, an individual, and SELENA LEE, an
individual, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL SCOTT, as the duly elected
Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-519-
FTM-29CM (M.D. Fla.)

Kevin Calderone, George Schwing, Michael Zaleski and Selena Lee
are former employees of the Lee County Sheriff's Office. They
alleged that they performed off-the-clock work for which they were
not compensated. According to plaintiffs, defendant's failure to
compensate them for such work constitutes unjust enrichment and
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida
Minimum Wage Act (FMWA).

Plaintiffs have filed an Amended Collective & Class Action
Complaint, on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, against defendant Michael Scott in his
official capacity as Sheriff of Lee County, Florida.

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' unjust enrichment causes of
action (Counts V and VI) on the basis of Florida state law
sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs respond that the State of Florida
has waived sovereign immunity under the circumstances giving rise
to their unjust enrichment claims.

Judge Steele granted defendant's motion to dismiss counts V and VI
of the amended collective & class action complaint and the same is
dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Steele's opinion and order dated April 16, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/hTIG46from Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq.
YORMAK DISABILITY LAW GROUP
Ft. Myers - Estero
Brooks Executive Suites
9990 Coconut Rd. Ste. 206
Bonita Springs, FL 34135
Telephone: 239-985-9691

Michael Scott, as the duly elected Sheriff of Lee County, Florida,
Defendant, represented by David J. Stefany -- dstefany@anblaw.com
-- Shaina Thorpe -- at Allen, Norton & Blue, PA


LICHTER GROUP: Judge Allows Amendment in "Malinowski" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William D. Quarles, Jr. of the District of
Maryland, Northern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend in the case STEVEN MALINOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE
LICHTER GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. WDQ-14-917 (D.
Md.)

The defendant The Lichter Group, LLC is a Maryland limited
liability company that provides certified public accounting and
business consulting services.

Trojan Horse, Ltd. is a mail transportation contractor, providing
mail services for the U.S. Postal Service under the McNamara-O'
Hara Service Contract Act (SCA). The SCA required Trojan Horse to
establish benefits for the plaintiffs and putative class members
that included pensions on retirement or death or equivalents.
Trojan Horse established the single employer plan, with a Trust
Plan funding and benefit arrangement. Brian Hicks was the plan
administrator and trustee.  Trojan Horse retained Lichter, which
held itself out as experts in performing audits of Employee
Benefit Plans.

Steven Malinowski was employed by Trojan Horse as a
Manager/Supervisor at its Bethpage, New York facility. James E.
Miley, Ray Dotzler, Andrew L. Frantz, and Wayne P. McMillenwere
were employed as Trojan Horse truck drivers. Lichter is a Maryland
limited liability company that provides certified public
accounting and business consulting services.

The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, suing the
defendants for breach of fiduciary and statutory duties under
Employee Retirement Income (ERISA). Lichter moved to dismiss the
complaint, or for summary judgment. On May 16, 2014, Ascensus and
Cambridge Investment moved to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint, which
dismissed all claims against Ascensus and Cambridge Investment and
the breach of fiduciary duty claim against Lichter, and added a
negligent misrepresentation claim against Lichter.

On February 26, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The court granted
plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims against Ascensus and Cambridge
Investment, but denied the addition of an ERISA section 406(a)
claim against Lichter. The court requested briefing on whether it
would have subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state
claim. On March 4, 2015, the plaintiffs briefed the court on its
diversity jurisdiction. Having received the plaintiffs' briefing,
the remainder of the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is
ready for review.

Judge Quarles granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
complaint and Lichter's motion to dismiss the original complaint
is denied as moot.

A copy of Judge Quarles's memorandum opinion dated March 11, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/JzbcwRfrom Leagle.com


LINCOLN TECHNICAL: Judge Denies Bid for Document Production
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach of the District of Nevada denied
plaintiff's motions in the case WENDY GUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. LINCOLN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
2:13-CV-2251-RFB-VCF (D. Nev.)

Plaintiff Wendy Guzman was a former student of Euphoria Institute
of Beauty Arts and Sciences and worked at Euphoria Salon. Guzman
contends that she performed services for Euphoria's paying
customers, which created an employment relationship between her
and the salon. Guzman filed a class action against the Lincoln
Technical Institute for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 206.

The parties are in the midst of discovery. On November 25, 2014,
Guzman deposed Mark DeCola, Euphoria's Rule 30(b)(6)
representative. DeCola admitted that computer records regarding
revenue generated by the putative class are imperfect.

Guzman filed a motion to compel and requested that an order be
made compelling the salon to produce the underlying documents in
order to verify the accuracy of the records. Guzman argues that
the underlying documents are relevant to the salon's de minimis
defense, which lacks any support in the law.

In response, the salon contends that Guzman's discovery request is
overly burdensome and the underlying information is protected by
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. Section
1232g.

On April 7, 2015, Guzman filed a motion to extend time. Guzman
requests an order extending the duration of time for the Nevada
State Board of Cosmetology to comply with a subpoena.

Magistrate Judge Ferenbach denied both motions.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's order dated April 15, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/9rFJt0from Leagle.com

Wendy Guzman, Kayla Resendes, Plaintiffs, represented by:

Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
Leon Greenberg, Esq.
Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
633 S 4th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: 702-383-6085

Danielle Johnson, Johnelle Bergeron, Sharnell Weston, Noorly
Campene, Cierra Giguerre, Fara Iacometta, Plaintiffs, represented
by:

Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
633 S 4th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: 702-383-6085

Defendants represented by Hallie Diethelm Caldarone --
caldaroh@jacksonlewis.com -- Michael C. Stepien --
Michael.Stepien@jacksonlewis.com -- Elayna J Youchah --
YouchahE@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis P.C.


LOUISIANA BIDCO: Trial Court Judgment Reversed in Suit v. D&O
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reversed a
judgment sustaining an exception of prematurity and dismissing an
action against North Louisiana Bidco LLC (NLB).

NLB was organized in 1999 and licensed as a Business Industry
Development Corporation to provide financing to small businesses
in North Louisiana.  Soon after the company was formed, its
members executed a detailed operating agreement.  This agreement
provides, in part, for the management and control of the company;
the agreement named defendants Richard Cloud and James Garner as
the company's managers.  Cloud, his son, and Garner control a
majority ownership interest in NLB.

In September 2013, NLB, Cloud, Garner and two other companies
affiliated with Cloud and Garner were sued by Craig Taylor, Inc.
("CTI"), a company with which these defendants had engaged in
business dealings.  CTI demanded, among other things, a money
judgment against NLB, Cloud and Garner.  CTI's 185-paragraph
petition alleged that Cloud and Garner had engaged in various acts
of self-dealing with NLB as well as fraud and forgery.

On May 2, 2014, 11 members of NLB filed a petition which they
captioned as a derivative action; this action was combined with a
demand for injunctive relief. The defendants in this action
included NLB, Cloud and Garner. Plaintiffs urged that they sought
to enforce NLB's own right to examine the company's "financial and
other" records, an effort that had been thwarted by Cloud and
Garner's refusal to make the records available to them. Plaintiffs
asserted that CTI's allegations of wrongdoing against Cloud and
Garner, along with a $6 million bad debt expense on NLB's 2013
financial statement, were behind their efforts to scrutinize NLB's
records.

In response, NLB, Cloud and Garner raised an exception of
prematurity. They cited the provisions of NLB's operating
agreement requiring members of the LLC to mediate their disputes
and, if mediation failed, to submit disputes to arbitration.

Justice Drew held that "the right of members to view the company's
books and records is fundamentally a question of the rights of the
members vis-a-vis the company and not a dispute between members
and managers even though the managers may be the parties charged
with acting on behalf of the company." "For purposes of the
mediation/arbitration clause, this is not a dispute between
members. In the absence of a genuine dispute between members, the
arbitration clause is not triggered."

Justice Drew reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded
the matter for further proceedings at the Appellee's cost.

The appellate case is docketed as SANCTUARY CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL.
ON BEHALF OF NORTH LOUISIANA BIDCO, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
RICHARD D. CLOUD, JAMES RANDOLPH GARNER, AND NORTH LOUISIANA
BIDCO, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 49,766-CA.

A copy of Justice Drew's April 15, 2015 Judgment is available at
http://is.gd/L6zw1vfrom Leagle.com.

Roger Joseph Naus -- rjnaus@wwmlaw.com -- Michael Allyn Stroud --
astroud@wwmlaw.com -- WIENER, WEISS & MADISON, Counsel for
Appellants, Sanctuary Capital, LLC, J. Bishop Johnston, W. Clinton
Raspberry, Jr., MSC Two, LLC, O. A. Cannon, Jr., Nelson D. Abell,
III, R. Stewart Ewing, Jr., Carolyn W. Perry, Annette Williams
Carroll, Molly Williams, and Clark M. Williams, III, on behalf of
North Louisiana Bidco, LLC.

Charles Herman Heck, Sr., Charles Herman Heck, Jr., HECK LAW FIRM,
LLP, Counsel for Appellee, James Randolph Garner.
Robert Alan Breithaupt, BREITHAUPT, DUNN, DUBOS, SHAFTO, WOLLESON,
L.L.C., Counsel for Appellees, Richard Cloud and Nephos, LLC.
Stephen D. Wheelis, Richard Alan Rozanski, Shawn M. Bordelon,
WHEELIS & ROZANSKI, Counsel for Appellee, North Louisiana Bidco,
LLC.

HENRY A. BIEDENHARN, III, Appellee, In Proper Person.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Dist. Ct. Judgment in Securities Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: LULULEMON SECURITIES LITIGATION. LOUISIANA SHERIFFS'
PENSION & RELIEF FUND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LULULEMON ATHLETICA
INC., DENNIS J. WILSON, CHRISTINE McCORMICK DAY, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 14-1664-CV, Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief
Fund (the Fund) appealed from the District Court's dismissal of
its consolidated class action complaint for failure to state a
claim under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The
Fund alleged that Lululemon Athletica Inc., its founder and former
chairman Dennis Wilson, and its former CEO Christine Day
materially misrepresented to investors the quality of Lululemon's
popular black luon yoga pants and the degree to which Lululemon
implemented controls to prevent or minimize product quality
deficiencies.

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in a summary
order entered May 15, 2015, held that for substantially the
reasons provided by the District Court in its April 18, 2014,
opinion and order, it concludes that the Fund has failed
adequately to plead that any of the statements attributed to the
defendants were materially misleading at the time that they were
made.

"We have considered the Fund's remaining arguments and conclude
that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the
judgment of the District Court is affirmed," ruled the Second
Circuit in its order, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1BnktPGfrom Leagle.com.

ROBERT D. KLAUSNER -- bob@robertdklausner.com -- Klausner,
Kaufman, Jenson & Levinson, Plantation, FL (Hannah G. Ross --
hannah@blbglaw.com -- Jai Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com --
Katherine M. Sinderson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
New York, NY, on the brief), for Appellant.

JOSEPH S. ALLERHAND -- joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- (Caroline
Hickey Zalka -- caroline.zalka@weil.com -- Melanie A. Conroy --
melanie.conroy@weil.com -- Robert S. Ruff III --
robert.ruff@weil.com -- on the brief), Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,
New York, NY, for Lululemon Athletica Inc. and Christine McCormick
Day.

AUDRA J. SOLOWAY -- asoloway@paulweiss.com -- (Michele Hirshman --
mhirshman@paulweiss.com -- Brette Tannenbaum --
btannenbaum@paulweiss.com -- on the brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, for Dennis J. Wilson, for
Appellees.


MAGNANTE EYE CARE: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana dismissed an appeal filed by
Plaintiffs Jeannine Whittington, personal representative of the
Estate of Robert J. Whittington, deceased, and Jeannine
Whittington, in her individual capacity, for lack of jurisdiction,
in the case docketed as Jeannine Whittington, Personal
Representative of the Estate of Robert J. Whittington, Deceased,
and Jeannine Whittington, Individually, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v.
David Magnante, M.D., and Magnante Eye Care, Appellees-Defendants,
NO. 54A05-1411-PL-519.

Senior Judge Sharpnack states that the trial court determined that
the Defendants were not obligated to pay the Plaintiffs for the
deponent's deposition preparation time. This order does not
qualify as an order for the payment of money. As a result, the
Plaintiffs were not entitled to interlocutory review as a matter
of right but were required to pursue a discretionary appeal under
Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B).

A copy of the Judge Sharpnack's April 24, 2015 Decision, is
available at http://is.gd/arjT7Efrom Leagle.com.

James E. Ayers -- sharon@wralaw.com -- Wernle, Ristine & Ayers,
Crawfordsville, Indiana, ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT.

David G. Field -- dfield@schultzpoguelaw.com -- Justin C. Wiler,
Schultz & Pogue, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR
APPELLEES.


MANDALAY CORP: July 22 Final Approval Hearing Set on Smith Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued an order on May 6, 2015,
granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement in
JUDITH SMITH on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MANDALAY CORPORATION, dba Mandalay Bay
Resort & Casino; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02158-APG-VCF, (D. Nev.).

The Settlement Class as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement
is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only.

The Court confirmed Plaintiff Judith Smith as Class Representative
and Thierman Buck, LLP as Class Counsel.

Because of its small size, the Court confirmed that Mandalay Corp.
will serve as administrators for the class.

To facilitate administration of the settlement pending final
approval, the Court enjoined Plaintiffs and all Class Members from
filing or prosecuting any claims, suits or administrative
proceedings (including filing claims with the Nevada Office of the
Labor Commissioner and the U.S. Department of Labor) regarding
claims released by the settlement unless and until such Class
Members have filed valid Requests for Exclusion with the Claims
Administrator and the time for filing exclusions with the Claims
Administrator has elapsed.

The Court orders this schedule for further proceedings:

a. Deadline for Defendant to Submit          May 18, 2015
   Class Member Information to            [10 calendar days after
   Claims Administrator                    Order granting
                                           Preliminary Approval]

b. Deadline for Claims Administrator         May 22, 2015
   to Mail the Notice and the             [15 calendar days after
   Exclusion Form to Class Members         Order granting
                                           Preliminary Approval]

c. Deadline for Class Members to             June 22, 2015
   Postmark Exclusion Forms               [30 calendar days after
                                           mailing of the Notice
                                           and Exclusion Form to
                                           Class Members]

d. Deadline for Receipt by Court and         June 22, 2015
   Counsel of any Objections to           [30 calendar days after
   Settlement Notice and                  mailing of the Exclusion
                                          Form to Class Members]

e. Deadline for Class Counsel to file        July 8, 2015
   Motion for Final Approval of           [15 calendar days before
   Final Settlement, Attorneys'           Approval Hearing]
   Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award

f. Deadline for Class Counsel to File        July 8, 2015
   Declaration from Claims                [15 calendar days before
   Administrator of Due Diligence         Final Approval Hearing]
   and Proof of Mailing


g. Final Fairness Hearing and Final         July 22, 2015
   Approval

h. Deadline for Defendant to deposit        5 days after the Final
   the Net Settlement Amount into an Final  Fairness and Approval
   escrow account set up by the Claims      hearing
   Administrator

i. Deadline for Claims Administrator         August 12, 2015
   to mail the Settlement Awards and      [21 calendar days after
   the Enhancement Awards, and to wire     Effective Date]
   transfer the Attorneys' Fees and Costs
   (if Settlement is Effective)

j. Claims Administrator to File Proof        October 22, 2015
   of Payment of Settlement Awards,       [90 calendar days after
   Enhancement Awards, Attorneys'          Effective Date]
   Fees and Costs (if Settlement
   is Effective)

A copy of the ruling is available at http://bit.ly/1HIsLtdfrom
Leagle.com.

Mark R. Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Joshua D. Buck --
josh@thiermanlaw.com -- THIERMAN BUCK LLP, Reno, Nevada 89511,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Elayna J. Youchah, Esq. -- youchahe@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON
LEWIS LLP, Las Vegas, NV 89169, Attorney for Defendant(s).


MARRONE BIO: Court Directs Filing of Consolidated Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the Eastern District of
California approved the parties' stipulation and order in the case
SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., AND SPECIAL SITUATIONS
CAYMAN FUND, L.P, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC.,
PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, HECTOR
ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG, TIM FOGARTY,
LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD ROMINGER and
SHAUGN STANLEY, Defendants. JOANN N. MARTINELLI, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRONE
BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, and
JAMES B. BOYD, Defendants. PAUL SAUSMAN, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRONE BIO
INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, and
JAMES B. BOYD, Defendants. SUSCHIA CHEN, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRONE BIO
INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, and
JAMES B. BOYD, Defendants. KENT OLDHAM, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRONE BIO
INNOVATIONS, INC., JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, PAMELA G.
MARRONE, RANJEET BHATIA, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH
HUDSON, RICHARD ROMINGER, SEAN SCHICKEDANZ, SHAUGN STANLEY, PIPER
JAFFRAY & CO., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ROTH
CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, and JEFFERIES LLC, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-
2571-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.)

Lead plaintiffs Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special
Situations Cayman Fund, L.P. filed a class action complaint on
November 3, 2014, alleging that defendants engaged in conduct that
violates the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Lead plaintiffs and defendants Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc.
(MBII), Pamela G. Marrone, James B. Boyd, Donald J. Glidewell,
Hector Absi, Elin Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag, Tim
Fogarty, Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard
Rominger, Shaugn Stanley, and Sean Schickedanz, by and through
their respective counsel, stipulated and agreed and subject to the
court's approval, the following concerns (1) the filing of a
consolidated class action complaint (2) the briefing schedule for
any responsive motions and (3) continuing the date by which the
parties must file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) discovery plan.

Judge England approves that lead plaintiffs shall file and serve
the consolidated complaint no later than 30 days after MBII
announces the results of the Financial Statement Review. If MBII
does not announce the results of the Financial Statement Review by
May 13, 2015, lead plaintiffs shall file and serve the
consolidated complaint no later than June 1, 2015. Defendants are
to file and serve any responsive pleadings or motions to dismiss
no later than 45 days after the filing and service of the
consolidated complaint.  If a motion to dismiss is filed, lead
plaintiffs shall file and serve their opposition briefs no later
than 45 days after defendants file and serve their motions to
dismiss. Defendants shall file and serve their replies in further
support of the motions to dismiss no later than 21 days after lead
plaintiffs file and serve their opposition briefs. In the event
defendants' motions to dismiss are denied in whole or in part,
lead plaintiffs and defendants shall meet and confer within 45
days of the court's disposition of defendants' motions to dismiss
to address the discovery-related topics set forth in the court's
order requiring Joint Status Report and will thereafter submit to
the court a Rule 26(f) discovery plan consistent with the Order.

Michael J. McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Lawrence M.
Rolnick -- lrolnick@lowenstein.com -- Steven M. Hecht --
shecht@lowenstein.com -- Thomas E. Redburn, Jr. --
tredburn@lowenstein.com -- at LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP, Counsel for
Lead Plaintiffs Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special
Situations Cayman Fund, L.P

Judson E. Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- Jordan Eth --
jeth@mofo.com -- at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Counsel for
Defendants Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone, James
B. Boyd, Donald J. Glidewell, Elin Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela
Contag, Tim Fogarty, Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman,
Richard Rominger, Shaugn Stanley, and Sean Schickedanz

Jonathan C. Sandler -- jsandler@bhfs.com -- BROWNSTEIN HYATT
FARBER SCHRECK LLP, Counsel for Defendant Hector Absi

A copy of Judge England's stipulation and order dated April 13,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/GD8Dubfrom Leagle.com


MARYLAND: Faces Class Action Over Women Pay Disparity
-----------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Mirabella, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed on April 15
a class action lawsuit against the Maryland Insurance
Administration, alleging wage inequities between male and female
investigators and enforcement officers at the agency since 2009.
The lawsuit claims the agency violated federal law by
discriminating against three female employees and a class of
workers by paying them "at rates less than the rates paid to male
employees in the same establishment for substantially equal work
on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and
responsibility, and which are performed under similar working
conditions."

The insurance administration "strongly disputes the allegations,"
and plans to "vigorously" defend the case, said spokesman Joseph
A. Sviatko III on April 17.


MIAMI, FL: Judge Denies Attorneys' Fees in Homeless Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that counsel for homeless
Miami residents whose class action prompted a landmark 1998
agreement over their treatment by the city told the Eleventh
Circuit on April 17 that a lower court's denial of attorneys' fees
for their work on recent modifications endangers similar civil
rights consent decree cases.

The attorneys, working in conjunction with the American Civil
Liberties Union on behalf of the plaintiffs, are seeking more than
$476,000 in attorneys' fees for nearly 900 hours of work
negotiating changes to the consent decree sought by the city and
approved as an addendum in 2014.  Without that compensation,
plaintiffs may have trouble finding representation for that degree
of post-consent decree work and embolden governments to try to
change or terminate such agreements, they say.

"We have to look at what the purpose of the attorneys' fee
provision is -- to make sure there are lawyers there to defend
it," plaintiffs counsel Dante P. Trevisani of the Florida Justice
Institute argued to the appeals court.

They hold that their work amounted to a successful defense that
preserved the consent decree for the majority of the class
members, but the district court denied their fee request, finding
that the modification work was not an enforcement and thus they
had waived fees under a provision in the original pact awarding
$900,000 in attorneys' fees to cover "all other matters connected
to this settlement agreement, except enforcement proceedings."

The lower court decision also found that the class could not be
characterized as a prevailing party because the agreement was
reached through nonbinding mediation before the court made a
ruling on the matter.

The plaintiffs say that the Supreme Court and other courts have
defined modification proceedings to fall under enforcement.

"That would be the only reasonable assumption given the state of
the law at the time," Mr. Trevisani said.

Asked why there were separate sections in the consent decree about
modification and enforcement, Mr. Trevisani said that was to
specify the process for making modifications but did not mean the
two issues are mutually exclusive.

The city disagrees.

"They were completely separate and completely different," said
Thomas E. Scott -- thomas.scott@csklegal.com -- of Cole Scott &
Kissane PA, who argued on behalf of the city.

At no time during the modification proceedings were attorneys'
fees mentioned or was the matter described as relating to
enforcement, he said.

"We negotiated a fair result for both sides," Mr. Scott said,
claiming the modifications benefited both the greater public and
the homeless. "The spirit of the agreement . . .  was never in
jeopardy for a minute."

The plaintiffs, however, characterized the changes, which they say
focused on changing the definition of who is homeless,
requirements for available shelter, and the arrest protocol for
police to follow, would have "eviscerated" the protections reached
in the consent decree for 90 percent of the class.

Mr. Trevisani again pointed to existing federal law when U.S.
Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan noted that the consent decree is
completely silent on whether it is necessary for the plaintiffs to
qualify as a prevailing party to obtain attorney fees.

"You're asking us to read a lot into the agreement on the backdrop
of federal law," Judge Jordan responded.  "You can't just sweep in
all of the law that exists elsewhere."

But Mr. Trevisani said that is where the context that the matter
involves a consent decree comes in, because case law says the
plaintiffs are entitled to prevailing status.

According to court documents, the 1998 consent decree reflects the
adoption by Miami of a policy "to protect the constitutional
rights of homeless persons, to prevent arrests and harassment of
these persons, and the destruction of their property."

The decree limited arrests of homeless people and protected their
property rights, and it set up a fund for compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by Maria Kayanan of ACLU Foundation
of Florida Inc. and Dante P. Trevisani of Florida Justice
Institute, Benjamin S. Waxman of Robbins Tunkey Ross Amsel Raben &
Waxman PA, Arthur J. Rosenberg of Florida Legal Services Inc. and
Stephen J. Schnably of University of Miami School of Law working
as Miami ACLU cooperating attorneys.

Miami is represented by Victoria Mendez, John A. Greco, Warren
Bittner and Forrest L. Andrews of the City Attorney's Office and
Thomas E. Scott and Scott A. Cole of Cole Scott & Kissane PA.

The case is Peery et al. v. City of Miami, case number 14-13287,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Fee Application Partially Granted
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
in its April 27, 2015 Ruling Re: Plaintiff's Fee Application in
the case docketed as GARY PALMER, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING,
LLC, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00691 (JCH),
partially granted the motion filed by Plaintiff Gary Palmer for an
award of attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3), in the
amount of $16,140.00, for 40.35 hours at $400 per hour.

District Judge Janet C. Hall held that after taking into
consideration "case-specific variables", she is satisfied that
$400 is a reasonable rate. Aside from reducing the Plaintiff's fee
for a duplicative item, Judge Hall concludes that "while not
detailed, the entries in question 'contain sufficient information
to permit the identification of the general subject matter' of
Attorney Faulkner's time expenditure."

A copy of Judge Hall's April 27, 2015 Ruling Re: Plaintiff's Fee
Application is available at http://is.gd/LYj03Afrom Leagle.com.

Gary Palmer, Plaintiff, represented by Joanne S. Faulkner, Law
Offices of Joanne Faulkner.

Midland Funding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Nicole R
Fernandes, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP,
Stephen P. Brown, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP
& Thomas A. Leghorn, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicole
R Fernandes -- nicole.fernandes@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser,
Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Stephen P. Brown --
stephen.brown@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman
& Dicker, LLP & Thomas A. Leghorn --
thomas.leghorn@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker.


MONSANTO CO: Two Mass. Towns Lose in 1st Round of PCB Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc J. Goldstein, Esq. and Jeanine L.G. Grachuk, Esq. of
Beveridge & Diamond PC Beveridge & Diamond PC, report that two
Massachusetts municipalities are down but not out in their
attempts to hold manufacturers of PCBs responsible for the
environmental effects of PCB-containing products decades later.
In March, the Federal court in Boston issued several opinions
involving claims bought by towns against Monsanto and its
successors Pharmacia Corporation and Solutia, Inc. alleging that
they are responsible for harm caused by the release of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at schools because they
manufactured the PCBs.  These cases raise interesting issues as to
whether a manufacturer should bear responsibility for harm caused
by its products, long after those products enter the stream of
commerce.

In the first case, Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co., the Town of
Westport alleged Monsanto and its successors produced PCBs for use
in transformers, light ballasts, caulks, paints and sealants when
it knew that PCBs had harmful effects on humans.  Congress banned
the manufacture of PCBs in 1979 as part of the Toxic Substances
Control Act, but the products that contained PCBs manufactured
during this period live on.  Westport alleged that it has
identified PCBs in the buildings of its school system.  Based on
theories of breach of implied warranty of merchantability (design
defect and failure to warn), negligence, public and private
nuisance, trespass, and the Massachusetts contamination
remediation statute, M.G.L. c. 21E, Westport claimed that Monsanto
and its successors must address the PCB contamination found in the
schools.

In March, the U.S. District Court addressed Monsanto's motion to
dismiss some of Westport's causes of action:  public nuisance,
trespass, and M.G.L. c. 21E.  First, the court determined that the
defendants were not liable for public nuisance, based on lead and
asbestos cases involving similar claims, because Monsanto had no
power to abate the nuisance once the PCBs were sold.  Second, the
court determined that, the fact, if true, that Monsanto sold PCBs
with the knowledge that they would be made into building materials
was not analogous to negligent entry on the town's land causing
injury.  Finally, under M.G.L. c. 21E, the town alleged that the
Defendants were liable as arrangers, transporters, or as persons
who "otherwise caused" a release of hazardous materials.  The
court dismissed the arranger and transporter claims because no
specific allegations were made supporting these claims.  The court
also dismissed the "otherwise caused" claim because there was no
allegation Monsanto caused the release other otherwise interacted
with the property where the release occurred, other than through
manufacture and sale of PCBs.  Westport's claims of implied
warranty of merchantability, negligence, and private nuisance
remain.

Also in March, the U.S. District Court ruled in the second case,
Town of Lexington v. Pharmacia Corp., in which Lexington attempted
to bring a class action against the same defendants as the
Westport case on behalf of all similarly situated towns for
recovery of environmental remediation costs due to presence of
PCBs in indoor air of schools.  Lexington included claims for
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (design defect
and failure to warn) and violation of the Massachusetts consumer
protection act, M.G.L. c. 93A.  In the first of two opinions in
the case, the court denied Lexington's motion to certify the class
because, among other reasons, the class was overbroad; i.e., it
was not likely limited to school districts impacted by PCBs
manufactured by Monsanto.  In the second opinion, Solutia and
Monsanto moved for summary judgment on the basis that they do no
bear liabilities associated with the manufacture of PCBs due to
various contracts between the defendants.  The court denied
Solutia's motion for summary judgment, determining that Solutia
retained liability via contract. The court reserved its decision
on Monsanto's motion and requested additional briefing.


MONSEY NEW: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Alleged Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Luckey, on behalf of herself and the Class v. Monsey New
Square Trails Corp., Monsey Transportation Corp., Jacob Lunger and
Isaac Lunger, Case No. 1:15-cv-02792 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' systematic pattern or practice of
discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring for the position of
bus driver.

The Defendants operate charter and commuter bus companies doing
business throughout New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MORGAN KEEGAN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey preliminarily approved the
settlement and the plan of allocation and for the provision of
notice in the case captioned JOHN W. CROMEANS, JR., et al,
Plaintiffs, v. MORGAN, KEEGAN & COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-04269-NKL (W.D. Mo.).

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

Judge Laughrey preliminarily approved the Stipulation of
Settlement and Plan of Allocation as being fair, just, reasonable
and adequate as to the Class Members, subject to further
consideration at the Final Approval Hearing, which will be held
before the Court on September 9, 2015. She also approved the
Notice of Settlement of Class Action and the Proof of Claim, as
well as stated the terms and conditions governing the Settlement
of Class Action.

John W. Cromeans, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew P. Campbell --
andy.campbell@campbellguin.com -- Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy &
Gidiere LLC, Caroline Smith Gidiere --
caroline.gidiere@campbellguin.com -- Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy
& Gidiere LLC, J. Timothy Francis, James L. North & Associates,
John C Guin -- john.guin@campbellguin.com -- Campbell, Guin,
Williams, Guy & Gidiere LLC, Richard E. McLeod --
richmcleod@mclaw.com -- The McLeod Law Firm PC & Stephen D.
Wadsworth -- stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com -- Campbell, Guin,
Williams, Guy & Gidiere LLC.

Elkton Bank and Trust Company, and Robert Benisch, Plaintiffs,
represented by Caroline Smith Gidiere, Campbell, Guin, Williams,
Guy & Gidiere LLC, J. Timothy Francis, James L. North &
Associates, John C Guin, Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy & Gidiere
LLC, Richard E. McLeod, The McLeod Law Firm PC & Stephen D.
Wadsworth, Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy & Gidiere LLC.

Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bernard
Suter, Charles W. Hatfield -- chuck.hatfield@stinsonleonard.com --
Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Lisa Bertain -- lisa.bertain@kyl.com
-- Elyse Whitehead -- elyse.whitehead@kyl.com -- Erin M Naeger --
erin.naeger@stinsonleonard.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP &
Jeremy A. Root -- jeremy.root@stinsonleonard.com -- Stinson
Leonard Street LLP.

Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Defendant, represented by Dale C. Doerhoff
-- ddoerhoff@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C.,
Heidi Doerhoff Vollet -- hvollet@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter,
Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C. & Timothy W. Van Ronzelen --
tvanronzelen@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C..

Bank of Cairo & Moberly, Shelter Insurance Company, and Karole
Green, Objectors, represented by Joseph A. Kronawitter --
jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC.

Haulers Insurance Company, Inc., Intervenor, represented by Joseph
A. Kronawitter, Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC.

Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented
by Bernard Suter, Charles W. Hatfield, Stinson Leonard Street LLP,
Lisa Bertain, Elyse Whitehead, Jeremy A. Root, Stinson Leonard
Street LLP


MOUNTAIN STATES: "Hornaday" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Hornaday, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Mountain States Casing Company, LLC, and Timothy
McNear, Case No. 1:15-cv-01011-WJM-KLM (D. Colo., May 13, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oilfield service company
providing casing and other services in Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian David Gonzales, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES
      123 North College Avenue, #200
      Fort Collins, CO 80524
      Telephone: (970) 212-4665
      Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
      E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com


NAILSWAY INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blanca Fernandez and Gloria Marca, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nailsway Inc., Naulo Nails, Inc.,
Nailsmetic Corporation, Nailscure Inc., Sury A. Gurung, Tsering
Angmo, Case No. 1:15-cv-03710-PGG (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 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 nail salons in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Nicholas Filosa, Esq.
      FILOSA LAW FIRM
      111 John Street, Suite 2510
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 256-1780
      Facsimile: (212) 487-9131
      E-mail: gfilosa@filosalaw.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Raises Concerns Over Concussion Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
FoxSports reports that a dissenting plaintiff's attorney told a
federal judge on April 17 that a reworked class-action head-injury
settlement with the NCAA is as bad as the one the same judge
rejected in December -- though other attorneys defended it.

The hearing in U.S. District Court in Chicago, where around ten
similar suits nationwide were consolidated into the one case, was
the first since the new proposed agreement was unveiled.

In giving the first proposal the thumbs-down, Judge John Lee
raised several concerns, including that the $70 million the NCAA
pledged to set aside to test current and former athletes for signs
of brain injury might be too little.

Around 4.4 million former or current athletes who played contact
and non-contact sports in college could apply for the NCAA-funded
testing, which was the core feature of both the original proposal
and in the new one.

Jay Edelson, the dissenting lawyer, said the deal would still
deprive thousands of people of the compensation they deserve.  And
he said drafts of the notices that would go out to former and
current players don't say clearly enough that they'd forfeit their
rights to sue as a collective class if they accept the settlement.
He told the judge, "It's incredible."

But a lead plaintiffs' attorney, Steve Berman, said the new deal
fixes all the flaws highlighted by Judge Lee.  He said new
supporting documents illustrate how the $70 million will be more
than enough.

Judge Lee had also expressed concern that the NCAA had no
mechanism for forcing schools to tighten return-to-play concussion
policies that are called for.  The new deal, Mr. Berman said,
requires that schools adopt the policies within six months or
they'd lose the protection from class-action suits that the deal
confers.

Judge Lee said he will take several weeks to decide on preliminary
approval for the revamped settlement.

Outside the courtroom on April 17, Mr. Edelson told reporters the
proposed settlement gave the false impression that the NCAA was
taking decisive steps to resolve the concussions issue.  "This is
a smoke-screen settlement," he said.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Concussion Injury Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anita B. Brody granted the motion for class
certification and final approval of the settlement in the case
captioned IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, NO.
2:12-MD-02323-AB (E.D. Pa.).

In granting the motion for class certification, Judge Brody found
that the proposed class and subclasses met the requirements of
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) numerosity
(2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of
representation.  She also determined that the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3) were also met: (1) common questions must predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, and (2) class
resolution must be superior to other available methods to
adjudicate the controversy.

Judge Brody also approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e).

The Settlement has three primary components:

     1. An uncapped Monetary Award Fund ("MAF"), overseen by a
Claims Administrator, provides compensation for Retired Players
who submit sufficient proof of Qualifying Diagnoses.

     2. A $75 million Baseline Assessment Program ("BAP") provides
eligible Retired Players with free baseline assessment
examinations of their objective neurological functioning. BAP
funds will also be used to provide BAP Supplemental Benefits,
including counseling and prescription drug benefits, to those who
are impaired but have not deteriorated to the point of receiving a
Qualifying Diagnosis.

   3. An Education Fund will educate Class Members regarding the
NFL Parties' existing CBA Medical and Disability Benefits
programs, and promote safety and injury prevention for football
players of all ages, including youth football players.

Wendell Pritchett and Jo-Ann Verrier are appointed jointly as
Special Master responsible for overseeing, implementing, and
administering the entire Settlement.

A copy of the April 22, 2015 memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/PlnKUUfrom Leagle.com.

IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY
LITIGATION, IN RE: represented by KONSTANTINE KYROS, KYROS LAW &
MICHAEL A. WARNER, THE WARNER LAW FIRM.

PERRY GOLKIN, Special Master, represented by PERRY GOLKIN.

CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, Administrator, represented by ORRAN L. BROWN
-- obrownjr@browngreer.com -- BROWNGREER PLC.

ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC, Movant, represented by BRAD
S. KARP -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP.

BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Amicus, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. WRIGHT -- cwright@hwglaw.com -- WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS
LLP.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Settlement in Turner and Wooden Case Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anita B. Brody certified the Settlement Class and
Subclasses and approved the Settlement Agreement in its entirety
in the case captioned IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS'
CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION; Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
National Football League and NFL Properties, LLC, successor-in-
interest to NFL Properties, Inc., Defendants. THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, NO. 2:12-MD-02323-AB, CIV. ACTION NO. 14-
CV-00029-AB (E.D. Pa.).

Judge Brody found that the Settlement Class satisfies the
applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b).  She also found that the
dissemination of the Settlement Class Notice and the publication
of the Summary Notice were compliant with the Order granting
preliminary approval and satisfied legal requirements.

Judge Brody also found that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

The Court confirmed the appointment of Christopher A. Seeger, Sol
Weiss, Steven C. Marks, Gene Locks, Arnold Levin and Dianne M.
Nast as Class Counsel. In addition the Court confirmed the
appointment of Christopher A. Seeger and Sol Weiss as Co-Lead
Class Counsel, and confirmed the appointments of Arnold Levin and
Dianne M. Nast as Subclass Counsel for Subclasses 1 and 2,
respectively.

The Court confirmed the appointment of The Garretson Resolution
Group, Inc. as the BAP Administrator, BrownGreer PLC as the Claims
Administrator, The Garretson Resolution Group, Inc. as the Lien
Resolution Administrator and Citibank, N.A. as the Trustee, and
confirms that the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over those
appointed.  The appointed Wendell Pritchett and Jo-Ann M. Verrier
as Special Master to perform the duties of the Special Master as
set forth in the Settlement Agreement for a five-year term
commencing from the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement.

The April 22, 2015 final order and judgment is available at
http://is.gd/yfS6y0from Leagle.com.

IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY
LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by KONSTANTINE KYROS, KYROS LAW &
MICHAEL A. WARNER, THE WARNER LAW FIRM.

PERRY GOLKIN, Special Master, represented by PERRY GOLKIN.
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, Adminstrator, represented by ORRAN L. BROWN
-- obrownjr@browngreer.com -- BROWNGREER PLC.

ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC, Movant, represented by BRAD
S. KARP -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP.

BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Amicus, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. WRIGHT -- cwright@hwglaw.com -- WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS
LLP.


NEBRASKA: Food Stamp Approval Delays May Cost $17 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Martha Stoddard, writing for Omaha.com, reports that too many more
delays in approving or denying food stamp applications could cost
Nebraska nearly $17 million a year in federal funds.  But state
officials said on April 17 that they are "absolutely" confident
Nebraska can improve its performance enough to avoid the potential
penalty.

"We're already making great progress," said Jill Schreck, deputy
director of children and family services within the Nebraska
Department of Health and Human Services.

Ms. Schreck oversees AccessNebraska, the problem-plagued call
center system that handles economic assistance.

The system processes applications for several programs, largest of
which is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP,
commonly known as food stamps.

Also on April 17, Gov. Pete Ricketts announced that HHS will begin
reporting key monthly performance measures for AccessNebraska.
He said the online reports will allow the public to track the
administration's progress in fixing the call center system.

"Accountability begins with transparency," Mr. Ricketts said.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned
Nebraska that it needed to get better at processing SNAP
applications on time or risk losing federal dollars for
administering the program.

In a January letter, Regional Administrator Darlene Barnes in
Denver said that Nebraska has not met federal standards "for some
time."  The standards call for states to approve or deny 95
percent of applications by the deadline.  Expedited applications
are to be processed within seven days, and nonexpedited
applications within 30 days.

Nebraska ranked 52nd of 53 states and territories for meeting
processing deadlines in 2013, the most recent information
available.  In that year, the state met processing deadlines for
68 percent of applications, ms. Barnes said.

"(The state's) chronic untimely processing has resulted in
hardship for thousands of needy households across the state," she
said.

Ms. Schreck said that Nebraska already is doing better at
processing SNAP applications on time.

The state's measurements show steady improvement in meeting
deadline since October.  The on-time rate topped 90 percent in
February, according to HHS.

Still, the federal letter represents the latest fallout from
Nebraska's move to the AccessNebraska call center system in 2008.
HHS officials originally touted the system as a way to cut costs
and improve efficiency by making use of technology.  Instead,
AccessNebraska has been plagued by long wait times, lost documents
and delays in needed benefits since its start.  A legislative
investigation last year concluded that the system was "largely a
failure."

Since the system began, the state's ranking for processing SNAP
applications in a timely manner has fallen from the middle of the
pack to the bottom.

Nebraska no longer qualifies for the federal performance bonuses
it once earned for accuracy in processing SNAP applications.
Federal officials have been concerned enough that they hired a
consultant last year to work with Nebraska on fixing
AccessNebraska.

Last year, the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public
Interest filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the state was
unlawfully delaying people from getting needed SNAP benefits.

State Sen. Kathy Campbell of Lincoln, the Health and Human
Services Committee chairwoman, said on April 17 that she had not
seen the recent federal letter.  She called it concerning,
especially in light of previous federal penalties and warnings
concerning HHS programs.

Sen. Heath Mello of Omaha, the Appropriations Committee chairman,
said the letter raises a red flag that more legislative oversight
may be needed to ensure that the state does not lose federal
money.

In the letter, Barnes noted that HHS has reduced its backlog of
applications and laid the foundation for sustained improvements
recently.  But she said the slide in state performance since 2011
indicates long-standing and systemic issues.  The concerns include
"poor organizational communication, staffing, training and
technology."  She said Nebraska must meet improvement benchmarks
to avoid the chance of losing funds.

The state must process 85 percent of applications on time by
September this year, and must achieve a 95 percent on-time rate by
March 2016.

Tony Green, acting children and family services director for HHS,
said he absolutely expects Nebraska to meet those benchmarks.

Ms. Schreck said state officials and AccessNebraska staff have
been working hard to find ways to be more efficient.  She said
several changes have been made since last summer.  Among them was
a period of mandatory overtime, during which employees tackled the
backlog of applications.

Other steps have included:

   -- Employees in the documents imaging center were cross-trained
so they could scan newly submitted documents into the state's
computer system and also link those documents to the electronic
case files.
   -- Those employees also now screen applications to see which
need expedited handling.

   -- The computer system was updated to assign applications to
local office and call center workers, rather than having the
applications wait until a supervisor could assign them.

   -- Tips were gathered from efficient workers and developed into
standard operating procedures for all workers to follow.

   -- A new command center data analyst is working to identify
times of the year when applications and staff absences peak.  The
information will help in planning employee schedules to meet
demand.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Motions to Certify in Wage & Hour Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that motions to certify all
classes of employees in a wage and hour class action lawsuit
remain pending at this time.

During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and/or served with
two separate purported class action lawsuits related to alleged
unpaid compensation for time incurred by CoStars while on Property
for donning and doffing of the CoStars required uniform, alleged
improper rounding of time for hours worked and various other
claims related to alleged unpaid compensation. One of the
purported wage and hour class action lawsuits is pending in the
Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada ("Nevada
State Court"), and one is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada. The discovery period as to liability has
closed in both cases.

In 2014, the plaintiffs' in the Nevada State Court action filed a
motion to certify all proposed classes. Additionally, in June
2014, the plaintiffs' filed various liens against the Property.
The Company has opposed the motion to certify all classes and
filed motions for summary judgment and dismissal. In September
2014, the Nevada State Court ordered the plaintiffs' liens to be
expunged. No decisions on the dispositive motions have been
issued.

With respect to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
actions, during 2014, the Company filed a motion to decertify the
one conditionally certified class and for summary judgment and
dismissal. Plaintiff filed a motion to certify all classes of
employees under the federal rules. All of these motions remain
pending at this time.

The Company said, "During the second quarter of 2013, as part of
an ongoing assessment of our wage and hour cases, we accrued an
estimated loss contingency of $3.0 million (reported as a
corporate operating expense in the condensed consolidated
statement of operations beginning with the June 30, 2013 quarterly
reporting period). A portion of the loss contingency was utilized
in the October 2013 settlement of a third purported wage and hour
class action matter, with subsequent payment occurring during the
first quarter of 2014. We will continue evaluating the adequacy of
this accrual as the cases develop. Specific additional factors
applicable to each case that prevent the Company from providing an
estimate of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued
or range of loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether
class certification will be granted and the scope of any class or
subclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damages
claimed by the purported classes and subclasses asserted in
separate, but overlapping litigation are unspecified or
indeterminate; and (3) the outcome of any future settlement
negotiations, should they occur, as they may apply to limit the
class or eliminate all class claims. Legal fees associated with
the cases are recognized as incurred when the legal services are
rendered, and are, therefore, not recognized as part of the loss
contingency accrual."

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect
to these matters and intends to defend its positions vigorously.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Settlement to be Presented for Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and the
putative class counsel expected a settlement agreement to be
presented for preliminary approval by the United States District
Court on or before May 8, 2015, in the alleged unlawful
taping/recording class action lawsuit.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed during the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2012, in Superior Court in the State of
California against the Company, alleging violation of the
California Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording
of calls. On August 31, 2012, the Company moved the case to U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.
Subsequently, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, to strike the class allegations. On July 15, 2013,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
issued an order denying these motions.

The Company continues to deny all liability to the putative class
members but, at a mediation held on February 20, 2015, the Company
agreed to settle all of the claims against it in this matter for a
total payment of $14.5 million inclusive of all attorneys' fees to
the putative class counsel and all costs of administering the
settlement. The Company and the putative class counsel are
presently negotiating a formal settlement agreement and expect
that agreement to be presented for preliminary approval by the
United States District Court on or before May 8, 2015.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Condominium Hotel Litigation in Earliest Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that certain matters related
to the Condominium Hotel Litigation are in the earliest stages of
proceedings.

The Company was a named defendant in a number of lawsuits and
arbitrations concerning the purchase and sale of condominium hotel
units located within the East and West Towers of the Property. The
thrust of the claims were virtually the same in every matter. The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the project had
materially changed and that delays in the completion of the
Property constituted a material breach by the Company, thus
permitting the plaintiff/purchaser to rescind their contract and
receive a full refund of their earnest money deposit, plus
interest thereon. The Company was represented in each of these
matters by outside legal counsel.

On or about August 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Lenny Spangler v. Nevada
Property 1 LLC, et al., alleging, among other things, that former
class action settlements entered into by the Company with buyers
of condominium hotel units in the project were fraudulently
induced, and seeking to recover all amounts paid to or retained by
the Company in such settlements. During 2014, the plaintiff agreed
to dismiss the case in exchange for a waiver and release by the
Company of its claims for costs related to the lawsuit. A formal
order of dismissal was subsequently entered with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada.

At December 31, 2013, there were two condominium hotel units
remaining under contract at The Cosmopolitan (the "Okada Unit" and
the "Mastej Unit"). During the three months ended March 31, 2014,
the Company prevailed in its efforts to confirm and enforce prior
arbitration awards for each of the Okada Unit and the Mastej Unit.
As such, the applicable earnest money deposits were released to
the Company.

With respect to the Okada Unit, on or about January 3, 2014, a
Notice of Appeal was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court,
appealing the district court's order and judgment granting the
Company's motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award.
That appeal was dismissed by the Nevada Supreme Court on February
2, 2015.

On or about March 3, 2014, a complaint was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Donald Okada v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, et
al., alleging, among other things, that former class action
settlements entered into by the Company with buyers of condominium
hotel units in the project were fraudulently induced thus
permitting the plaintiff to recover the full earnest money deposit
and related attorney fees. During July 2014, the complaint against
the Company was dismissed without prejudice and the plaintiff was
granted leave to file an amended complaint. On or about July 21,
2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
Subsequently, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted the Company's motion to transfer venue of the
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. In
October 2014, the Company submitted a motion in the case to compel
the matter to binding arbitration.

With respect to the Mastej Unit, on or about April 1, 2014, a
Notice of Appeal was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court,
appealing the district court's order and judgment granting the
Company's motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award.
That matter is in the earliest stages of proceedings.


NORTH DAKOTA: Mental Health Crisis May Spur Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlotta McCleary, writing for Grand Forks Herald, reports that
the North Dakota mental health and substance abuse systems are in
crisis, according to Renee Schulte in her report of July 2014.
The report was commissioned by Legislative Management after being
selected by the Legislature for study during the interim.

Schulte gives the bad news by saying that the situation is dire
and that many of the challenges facing the state are self-imposed.

Gov. Jack Dalrymple's recommended budget for the next two years
suggested a reasonable start to begin to address the crisis.

But as his executive budget makes its way through the legislative
process, it appears that support is absent.  Appropriations
committees, both House and Senate, have stripped funding for
critical services including suicide prevention, mobile on-call
crisis services, autism-related services and residential beds for
those in crisis, and employment training services for people with
mental health and substance abuse disorders.

If these actions aren't remedied, the crisis will continue and
worsen across the state.  Many people with mental health disorders
will remain on waiting lists and get no services at all.  Families
and advocates will be left to scramble to find any help to prevent
or address a crisis.  And people will end up homeless, in jail or
institutionalized without available preventive services.

This lack of response also is likely to result in a class action
lawsuit reminiscent of the Arc lawsuit of the 1980s, a caution
given a year ago by Schulte.

There is still time to turn this around. Lawmakers should be
hearing from their constituents that this is not how North Dakota
chooses to treat people with disabilities.  Support these services
that were laid out by the Schulte report and recommended in the
governor's budget.  Legislators requested the report, paid for the
report and ought to take its advice.


NYLOK LLC: Court Dismisses Trujillo's Individual Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Upon considering the stipulation for voluntary dismissal submitted
by the parties in MARIA TRUJILLO, and Members of the General
Public, Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NYLOK LLC, NYLOK
COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO.
SACV13-01637 AG (DFMX), (C.D. Cal.), and pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), District Judge Andrew J.
Guilford issued an order dismissing all individual claims of Maria
Trujillo with prejudice. The Court further dismissed all of the
claims of any absent putative Class Members without prejudice.

A copy of the Court's May 6, 2015 Order is available at
http://bit.ly/1LI0mltfrom Leagle.com.

Timothy J. Donahue -- tdonahue@attorneydonahue.com -- Law Offices
of Timonty J. Donahue, Orange, CA, James M. Trush, Esq. --
jtrush@earthlink.net -- Trush Law Office, APC, Costa Mesa, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARIA TRUJILLO, and Members, of the
General Public, Similarly Situated.


OLD NATIONAL: Denial of Summary Judgment Bid Affirmed in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana, in its April 23, 2015 Decision,
in the case docketed as Old National Bank, Appellant-Defendant, v.
Steven Kelly, Jon A. Cook, and Rebecca F. Cook, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Appellees-Plaintiffs, NO.
82A01-1406-CT-234, affirmed in part, and reversed in part the
trial court's denial of the Bank's motion for summary judgment
upon breach of contract, conversion, and equitable claims of a
certified class of depositors-plaintiffs who were charged
overdraft fees stemming from debit card transactions
("Depositors").

Judge Bailey concluded that "C.F.R. Section 7.4002 authorizes a
bank to charge overdraft fees, but does not authorize banks to
ignore state contract or tort law. Depositors have alleged that
the Bank acted inconsistent with its contractual obligations and
assessed improper overdraft fees. The Bank has not negated
Depositors' state law claim for a breach of a duty of good faith
and fair dealing. However, Depositors' claims for conversion,
unconscionability, and unjust enrichment have been negated." The
case was remanded for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Bailey's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/QBYCNyfrom Leagle.com.

Mark J.R. Merkle -- mmerkle@kdlegal.com -- Marc T. Quigley --
mquigley@kdlegal.com -- Libby Y. Goodknight --
lgoodknight@kdlegal.com -- Kay Dee Baird -- kbaird@kdlegal.com --
Krieg DeVault LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE.

Thomas W. Dinwiddie -- tdinwiddie@woodmclaw.com -- Maureen E. Ward
-- mward@woodmclaw.com -- Wooden & McLaughlin LLP, Indianapolis,
Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE INDIANA BANKERS ASSOCIATION.

Henry J. Price -- hprice@price-law.com -- Joseph N. Williams --
jwilliams@price-law.com -- Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC,
Indianapolis, Indiana, William M. Sweetnam, Sweetnam LLC, Chicago,
Illinois, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT


OS INTERIOR: "Marin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Marin and Ronald Marin, on behalf of themselves
individually and all others similarly situated v. O.S. Interior
Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01292 (S.D. Tex., May 14, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

O.S. Interior Systems, Inc. is engaged in construction and
remodeling business located at 3665 Walnut Bend Lane, Houston,
Texas 77042.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Micah Williams, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES
      810 Highway 6 South, Ste 111
      Houston, TX 77079
      Telephone: (832) 230-4125
      Facsimile: (832) 230-5310
      E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Upheld $5-Mil. Verdict in "Cuculino" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Pickett, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
Florida appeals court upheld a $5 million jury verdict against
cigarette maker Philip Morris in a case brought by a Miami man who
said the company's products caused his coronary heart disease.

Florida's Third District Court of Appeal upheld a Miami-Dade
jury's findings that Antonio Cuculino's coronary heart disease was
caused, at least in part, by smoking cigarettes.

The jury initially awarded Cuculino $12.5 million, but then on to
ascribe 60 percent of the blame for heart disease on the
plaintiff, and 40 percent on Philip Morris, bringing down the ex-
smoker's compensation award to $5 million.

The trial court previously ruled Cuculino could not seek punitive
damages for his claims of negligence and strict liability.

Philip Morris appealed 2014 decision, claiming Cuculino's counsel
made "highly prejudicial and inflammatory" comments during closing
arguments.

Cuculino's counsel asserted the ex-smoker deserved to get paid for
the "job" of "suffering from progressive heart disease." They
later stated, "You know, what is it that's going to be a just and
appropriate figure? Who in their right mind would want to trade
places with Mr. Cuculino and take this job?"

Though Appeals Judge Leslie Rothenberg conceded the statements
were "improper," she ruled the comments did not preclude the
cigarette maker from a fair trial.

Cuculino filed his complaint against Philip Morris in 2013 after
years of battling heart disease.  According to the ruling, he
suffered a heart attack at the age of 49, underwent an angioplasty
the next year and later underwent a quadruple bypass surgery.  In
2013, Cuculino had three stents placed in his arteries.

Cuculino is one of the latest individuals using the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle class action decision to singularly go after
tobacco companies for smoking-related diseases.

The Appellant/Cross-Appellee is represented by:

          Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
          Andrew S. Brenner, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 539-8400
          Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
          E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com
                  abrenner@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          James Daniel Gardner, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-5171
          Facsimile: (305) 358-7470
          E-mail: jgardner@shb.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey J. Michael, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          555 Twelfth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1206
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
          E-mail: Geoffrey.Michael@aporter.com

The Appellee/Cross-Appellant is represented by:

          James L. Ferraro, Esq.
          David A. Jagolinzer, Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
          600 Brickell Ave., 38th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375-0111
          Facsimile: (305) 379-6222

The appellate case is Philip Morris USA, Inc., Appellant/Cross-
Appellee v. Antonio Cuculino, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Case Nos.
3D14-1339 & 3D14-823, in the Third District Court of Appeal, State
of Florida.  The Lower Tribunal case is Antonio Cuculino v. Philip
Morris USA, Inc., Case No. 10-62733, in the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Florida.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Investor Class Action for $65MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that
PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed to pay $65 million in cash to settle
a lawsuit claiming it fraudulently deceived MF Global Holdings Ltd
investors about its auditing of the now-defunct brokerage, which
was run by former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.

The preliminary settlement with investors in MF Global's common
stock, bonds and convertible debt was disclosed in papers filed on
April 17 with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, and requires
court approval.  It resolves class action claims that PwC in 2010
and 2011 falsely certified that it had properly audited MF
Global's financials and internal controls, and knew about or
recklessly disregarded problems that contributed to the
brokerage's Oct. 31, 2011, bankruptcy.

PwC denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.  The lead plaintiffs
are the Virginia Retirement System and the Province of Alberta,
Canada.

"PwC is pleased to resolve this matter and avoid the cost and
distraction of prolonged securities litigation," spokeswoman
Caroline Nolan said.  "The firm stands behind its audit work and
its opinions on MF Global's financial statements."

MF Global filed for Chapter 11 protection as worries mounted about
its $6.3 billion bet on European sovereign debt, credit rating
downgrades, margin calls and news that money from customer
accounts was used to cover liquidity shortfalls.

The April 17 settlement is separate from a $1 billion lawsuit
filed by MF Global's bankruptcy plan administrator that accused
PwC of professional malpractice.  It also does not resolve the
investors' claims against other defendants, which include Mr.
Corzine, other MF Global executives and directors, and various
bank underwriters. Seven underwriters reached a $74 million
settlement in December.

"The securities class action will continue with substantial
exposure as to MF Global's former officers and directors including
Jon Corzine," Salvatore Graziano, a lawyer for the investors, said
in an email.

Mr. Corzine is also a former Goldman Sachs co-chairman.  His
lawyer Andrew Levander was not immediately available for comment.

The case is In re: MF Global Holdings Ltd Securities Litigation,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-07866.


PRODIGY DIABETES: Class Cert. Bid in Rhea Drugstore Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. issued an order denying a motion
for class certification in the case captioned RHEA DRUGSTORE, INC.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. PRODIGY DIABETES CARE, LLC, Defendant, NO. 4:15-CV-
54-DPM, (E.D. Ark.).

According to Judge Marshall, when Rhea Drugstore filed its
complaint five months ago, it moved to certify a class, but stay
any briefing ruling pending discovery. This was a hedge, he said.
The drugstore is following the Seventh Circuit's suggestion in
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (2011), about how to
avoid any mootness question if Prodigy Diabetes Care, LLC, offers
to make this drugstore whole for the unsolicited fax, which didn't
contain the statutorily required opt-out notice. The Court admires
counsel's caution and creativity. But the motion to certify is
denied without prejudice. We'll handle any mootness issue, if and
when it comes, Judge Marshall added.

"The Court declines to let the motion hang fire; it's been five
months since it was filed, for example, and the parties have
suggested doing the real certification briefing starting in
October. That would put resolution of the motion about a year
after filing. This is just too long a delay," Judge Marshall
continued.

With regards Prodigy's request for the Court to stay the whole
case, pointing to its pending FCC petition seeking retroactive
waiver of the rules requiring an opt-out notice on solicited
faxes, the motion is also denied, ruled Judge Marshall, adding
that Rhea Drugstore didn't suffer the same injury as someone who
got an imperfect solicited fax, and therefore the drugstore can't
represent those who did.

"The case will proceed on a claim, and as potential class action,
about the contents of unsolicited faxes. A Final Scheduling Order
will issue," Judge Marshall concluded.

A copy of the Court's May 14, 2015 order is available at
http://bit.ly/1LHVwEKfrom Leagle.com.

Rhea Drugstore Inc, Plaintiff, represented by James Allen Carney,
Jr. -- acarney@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, John
Charles Williams -- jwilliams@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates &
Pulliam, PLLC & Joseph Henry Bates, III -- hbates@cbplaw.com --
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC.

Prodigy Diabetes Care LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher
L. Bernard -- cbernard@worldpatents.com -- Clements Bernard PLLC,
Lawrence A. Baratta, Jr. -- lbaratta@worldpatents.com -- Clements
Bernard PLLC, Matthew Byron Finch -- finch@gill-law.com -- Gill
Ragon Owen P.A. & Danielle M. Whitehouse -- whitehouse@gill-
law.com -- Gill Ragon Owen P.A.


PULTEGROUP INC: Faces " Schumacher" Suit Over PT Foundation Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Schumacher, Vivian Schumacher and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pultegroup, Inc., Entex Homes, Centex Real
Estate Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00944 (C.D. Cal., May 13,
2015), asserts that during the relevant time period, the
Defendants and its agents failed to use a licensed engineer to
engineer the post-tensioned foundations (PT Foundation) plans that
it ultimately used to build a number of its homes.

The Defendants are engaged in residential construction,
specifically the construction and sale of detached and attached
single-family homes and it acquired the land used for the
construction of its homes through the purchase of finished or
partially finished lots and through the purchase of raw land that
needed development.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jerome L. Ringler, Esq.
      Catherine Burke Schmidt, Esq.
      RINGLER SCHMIDT, A LAW CORPORATION
      233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 955-4105
      Facsimile: (310) 955-4106
      E-mail: jlr@ringlerschmidt.com
              cbs@ringlerschmidt.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
      Prescott Littlefield, Esq.
      KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP
      3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Ste. 230
      Glendale, CA91208
      Telephone: (213) 473-1900
      Facsimile: (213) 473-1919
      E-mail: tak@kearneylittlefield.com
              pwl@kearneylittlefield.com

         - and -

      Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
      Mark Uyeno, Esq.
      ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Rd., Ste 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850
      Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
      E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
              muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com


RADIO CORPORATION: Has Enough Assets to Cover Class Suit Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The China Post reports that investment regulators said on April 18
that the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) still has enough
assets in Taiwan to cover the NT$560 million in damages awarded by
a court to its former employees in a landmark class action against
the now-defunct firm.

Officials from the Economics Ministry's Investment Commission said
RCA's paid-in capital alone amounts to more than NT$1 billion.

The officials said the commission has not agreed to let RCA
withdraw its investment from Taiwan, as the lawsuit and matters
concerning the compensation have yet to be completed.

The defendants in the class action -- namely RCA and the companies
that have taken it over -- could still appeal the verdict handed
down by the Taipei District Court on April 16.

The district court, concluding a decade-long lawsuit, ruled in
favor of 445 former RCA workers and their families, determining
that the company exposed the employees to toxic substances by
illegally disposing of chemicals used at a Taoyuan plant.

Many of its former employees have contracted or died of cancer.

"I hope the government can show more concern to laborers," said
one of the lawyers, Lee Ping-hung, representing the RCA employees
in the class action.  "We urge the defendants not to appeal
against the verdict."

Mr. Lee said the RCA case is the only lawsuit he has worked on
since becoming a lawyer in the 2000s.  He was the first ever blind
person to pass the bar exam in Taiwan.  Mr. Lee said he feels
honored to be able to play a part in the RCA case, and he has huge
respect for his seriously ill clients who had to face critical
questioning by the judges during the trial.  He said he was
determined to help the plaintiffs after seeing how RCA and its co-
defendants ignored them.  Mr. Lee was born blind but his parents
managed to raise him as an "ordinary" child, who went on to finish
university education, become a lawyer and also pass the civil
service exam.

The plaintiffs have so far not made an official statement in
response to the verdict, and it remains uncertain whether they
will appeal to the high court.

RCA ran manufacturing operations in Taiwan between 1970 and 1992,
employing thousands of workers at its plants in Taoyuan, Hsinchu
and Yilan.  In 1998, the environmental authorities found that its
former plant site in Taoyuan was seriously contaminated with
chlorinated organic solvents and other toxic chemicals that the
company had illegally dumped into wells it had dug.  The toxic
water then contaminated tap water that workers consumed.

The 7.2-hectare plant site has to this day remained closed and
unusable, despite efforts to clean the land.

RCA was bought by General Electric, and subsequently by Thomson
Consumer Electronics, the U.S. subsidiary of France-based Thomson
Multimedia, which is now called Technicolor SA.


RANBAXY INC: Faces Meijer Suit Over Valcyte and Diovan Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
Meijer, Inc., and Meijer Distribution, Inc., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ranbaxy Inc.,
Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., Ranbaxy U.S.A., Inc., and Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-11828-NMG (D.
Mass., May 12, 2015), is brought on behalf of all direct
purchasers who overpaid for the brand drugs Valcyte
(valganciclovir hydrochloride) and Diovan (valsartan) as a result
of the Defendants' wrongful conduct of delaying or blocking the
generic entry of Valcyte and Diovan in the market.

The Defendants own and operate an international, integrated,
specialty pharmaceutical company based in India.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
      Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
      Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
      Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Telephone: (617) 482-3700
      Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
      E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
              grega@hbsslaw.com
              kristenj@hbsslaw.com
              kristiel@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
      R. Bryce Duke, Esq.
      Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
      HILLIARD &SHADOWEN LLP
      919 Congress Ave., Suite 1325
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (855) 344-3928
      E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
              bryce@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
              matt@Hilliardshadowenlaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
      David P. Germaine, Esq.
      John Bjork, Esq.
      VANEK, VICKERS &MASINI, P.C.
      55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 224-1500
      Facsimile: (312) 224-1510
      E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
              dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
              jbjork@vaneklaw.com


RESONANT INC: Defending Against Paggos Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action
lawsuit was commenced on March 17, 2015, against the Company,
Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned John
Paggos v. Resonant Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-01970-SJO-VBK. The
plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff purports to be acting on
behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the
Company's common stock between August 14, 2014 and February 26,
2015 (the "Paggos Class Period").

"The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants'
allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance,
our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout
the Paggos Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the
amount of damages being sought in the action," the Company said.


RESONANT INC: Defending Against Devouassoux Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action
lawsuit was commenced on March 19, 2015, against the Company,
Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned John
Devouassoux v. Resonant Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-02054-JFW-VBK.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of
purchasers or acquirers of the Company's common stock between
November 6, 2014 and February 26, 2015 (the "Devouassoux Class
Period"). The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the
defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions concerning our financial well-being and prospects, our
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the
Devouassoux Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the
amount of damages being sought in the action.


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Mailing of Class Action Award Begins
----------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the
Company, through the third party claims administrator, has began
mailing the class action award to class members.

On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego
against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the
Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971
by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with
credit cards. On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the
Court, the parties filed a joint statement as to the parties'
agreed-upon claims process for the class members as well as to
other matters related to this proceeding. On September 5, 2014,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs,
and awards, and awarded $9.5 million in fees and costs to
plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court entered judgment on September 29,
2014 and, on November 21, 2014, a class member filed a notice of
appeal from the judgment. As a result of the appeal, the judgment
was stayed until January 10, 2015. The appeal remains pending but
the judgment is enforceable. As a result of these developments,
during fiscal 2014, the Company recorded a $9.5 million charge
related to this matter that was subsequently decreased to
approximately $8 million. The decrease of approximately $1.5
million was based on a revision of estimated class member
response. On March 16, 2015, the Company, through the third party
claims administrator, began mailing the class action award to
class members.


RHODE ISLAND: Ruling in Foster Kids' Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya of the United States Court of
Appeals, First Circuit, vacated the lower court's judgment and
remanded the case of DANNY B., BY NEXT FRIEND GREGORY C. ELLIOTT,
and CASSIE M., BY NEXT FRIEND KYMBERLI IRONS, FOR THEMSELVES AND
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. GINA M.
RAIMONDO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
RHODE ISLAND, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees, NO. 14-1585 (1st
Cir.)

A putative class action was brought on behalf of 10 foster
children in the custody of the Rhode Island Department of
Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). Because the plaintiffs were
minors, the initiators of the suit sought to appear as their next
friends under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.

The complaint designated as defendants, in their official
capacities, a coterie of state officials. It sought certification
of a class of all minor children who were in or might enter DCYF
custody based on a report or suspicion of abuse or neglect.
Invoking 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the complaint prayed for
declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and the putative class. The complaint averred that the
State had failed to comply in various respects with the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 620-
628, 670-679a.

The State moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court
obliged. The court's principal rationale was that the proposed
next friends did not satisfy Rule 17's requirements. Plaintiffs
appealed. The appellate court remanded the case as it concluded
that the initiators were suitable representatives.

On remand the State again move to dismiss the complaint invoking
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court
dismissed as moot the claims of five or more plaintiffs, but
nevertheless it allowed the case to proceed.

The State moved for a protective order aimed at limiting the scope
of discovery. The district judge referred the motion to the
magistrate judge, who allowed the protective order in part. No
separate order was entered delineating the modified scope of
discovery, but the magistrate judge directed the parties to confer
in an attempt to narrow their disputes in light of his decision.
As a result, the plaintiffs provisionally withdrew portions of
their motions to compel.

The plaintiffs appealed the protective order to the district
judge, who upheld it. On February 26, 2013, the plaintiffs renewed
their motion for class certification. They argued that the
district judge's reluctance to decide the class certification
issue was causing substantial prejudice because the claims of ten
plaintiffs already had become moot and several more plaintiffs
would soon age out of DCYF custody. The district judge again
declined to rule on the class certification.

On August 29, 2013, the plaintiffs moved to compel the State to
allow plaintiffs' counsel and the next friends to meet with the
plaintiffs for purposes of trial preparation. The State objected.
At the ensuing hearing, the district judge stated that she viewed
the motion for access as a veiled attempt to obtain fact discovery
beyond the discovery deadline. When the judge asked whether the
named plaintiffs would be called as witnesses, counsel replied
that they could not make that determination without meeting with
their clients. The judge proceeded to deny the motion, effectively
preventing plaintiffs' counsel from speaking with their clients in
advance of trial.

By the time that the trial commenced on November 12, 2013, the
claims of all but two of the named plaintiffs had been rendered
moot through aging or adoption. When the plaintiffs rested, the
State moved for judgment on partial findings. The district judge
took the matter under advisement and, after receiving post-trial
briefing, concluded that the plaintiffs had presented insufficient
evidence to establish that DCYF's policies and customs had either
harmed them or exposed them to an unreasonable risk of harm. The
judge likewise concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to carry
their burden of proof with respect to their statutory causes of
action. Judgment entered, and a timely appeal ensued.

Judge Selya vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the
district court for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Selya's opinion dated April 21, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/PYljesfrom Leagle.com

For Appellants:

William Kapell
Ira Lustbader, Esq.
Children's Rights
330 Seventh Avenue 4th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: 212-683-2210
Facsimile: 212-683-4015

     - and -

John W. Dineen, Esq. -- Jared Bobrow, Esq. --
jared.bobrow@weil.com -- at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Neil F.X. Kelly, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Peter F.
Kilmartin, Attorney General, and Brenda D. Baum, Assistant
Attorney General, were on brief, for appellees.

The First Circuit panel consists of Associate Justice David Souter
and Circuit Judges Bruce M. Selya and Kermit V. Lipez


RITE AID: Motion to Stay Withdrawn in "Welday" Case
---------------------------------------------------
The defendant's motion to stay was withdrawn and the deadline for
the parties' joint status report was set in the case captioned
KEITH WELDAY, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-02439
JAM-EFB, RELATED TO NO: NO. 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-EFB, NO. 2:14-CV-
01957 JAM-EFB;, 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB;, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB;,
2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB;, 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB;, 2:15-CV-00429 JAM-
EFB;, 2:15-CV-00622 JAM-EFB;, 2:15-CV-00623 JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Keith Welday and defendant Rite Aid Corporation
submitted to the court a stipulation to withdraw the motion to
stay previously filed by Rite Aid, and to set the parties'
deadline to file a status report.

In an order dated April 21, 2015 and available at
http://is.gd/VrQ3VGfrom Leagle.com, District Judge John A. Mendez
found good cause and ordered that:

     -- defendant Rite Aid Corporation's motion to stay is
        withdrawn; and

     -- the parties' deadlines to file their joint status report
        was set for May 18, 2015.

MATTHEW RIGHETTI, JOHN GLUGOSKI, MICHAEL RIGHETTI, RIGHETTI
GLUGOSKI, P.C., San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff
Keith Welday.

JEFFREY D. WOHL -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- RISHI N. SHARMA --
rishisharma@paulhastings.com -- PETER A. COOPER --
petercooper@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP, San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Defendant Rite Aid Corporation


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Court to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in "Ding" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court was expected to
appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on or before April 6,
2015, in the case Ding v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
8020.

A putative securities class action captioned Ding v. Roka
Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against Roka
and certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 24,
2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Roka securities pursuant or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO")
during the putative class period, which ran from July 17 through
November 6, 2014.  The complaint asserts claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 and contends that the IPO Registration
Statement was false and misleading, or omitted allegedly material
information, in connection with the Company's statements about its
placement of Atlas instruments and its expectations of future
growth and increased market share, and the Company's alleged
failure to disclose "known trends and uncertainties about the
Company's sales."  The alleged misrepresentations and omissions
purportedly came to light when Roka issued its third-quarter 2014
earnings release on November 6, 2014.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
two applicants filed motions on February 23, 2015 for appointment
as lead plaintiff.  On March 23, 2015, the applicant with the
smaller loss agreed not to oppose the application for lead
plaintiff filed by the applicant with the larger loss. The court
was expected to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on or
before April 6, 2015.  The parties have agreed, with the court's
consent, that defendants need not respond to the pending complaint
and that the parties will submit a proposed schedule for any
amendment of the complaint and for responsive pleadings within ten
days after the court appoints lead plaintiff.


RS PARKING: "Pereira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Pereira, and others similarly- situated v. R.S. Parking and
Valet Services, Inc., and Ronald Sussman, Case No. 0:15-cv-61000-
JIC (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a valet parking services company in
Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
      5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230
      Miami, FL 33126
      Telephone: (305) 403-2000
      Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
      E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Accused in California of Drugging Orcas
---------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld conceals that it keeps killer whales in tiny spaces,
inbreeds them, drugs them and deprives them of food, a class
action claims in California Federal Court, reports Elizabeth
Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Valerie Simo claims she would not have paid
SeaWorld Entertainment for tickets or membership had she known the
truth about orca abuse.  She claims SeaWorld made hundreds of
millions of dollars from its signature "Shamu Show," pushed in a
massive public marketing campaign claiming that the whales and
humans at their parks live in harmony and play together for public
entertainment.

"This illusion masks the ugly truth about the unhealthy and
despairing lives of these whales.  This is a truth that, if known
to the purchasing public at the time families make the decision to
visit SeaWorld, buy a membership, or pay for an 'exclusive park
experience,' would lead them to seek entertainment elsewhere,"
according to the May 7 lawsuit.

Orcas are highly intelligent, family oriented, long-lived and
self-aware, are socially complex with distinct cultural traditions
among varied ecotypes, and roam 100 miles a day in the wild,
according to the complaint.

"Concealed from the public is the impact on these animals of
captivity in a confined space, the forced separation of young
whales from their mothers, the unnatural mixing of whales that do
not have the same culture in small spaces, the forced breeding and
inbreeding of young female whales, the routine use of
pharmaceutical products to unnaturally drug the orcas, the
psychological manipulation and at times food deprivation to which
they are subjected, the deep rake marks on their bodies that
result from incompatibility and cramped conditions, and many other
life-shortening and painful experiences from which they have no
escape," Simo claims.

As a result, according to the 87-page lawsuit, "SeaWorld whales
die many years before they would in the wild."

Orcas in the wild can live roughly as long as human beings, with a
mean life expectancy of 50 years for females and up to a maximum
life span of 90 years, and a mean life of 30 years for males with
a maximum life span of up to 70 years, the complaint states.

But Simo claims that SeaWorld lies to the public that killer
whales live to be about 35 years old and tend to live a lot longer
as captives.

"The vast majority of captive orcas of either sex die before their
early 20s, many still in their early teens," the lawsuit states.

Captive orcas also "wear down and break their teeth on concrete
and metal, and bang their heads into the walls of their pools from
(what humans can only describe as) fear, anxiety, sadness, and a
forced resignation to an unnatural and unreasonably monotonous,
empty, and dangerous life of captivity," according to the
complaint.

In nature, orcas choose their own mates, but at SeaWorld they are
forced to breed on a regular basis, often with their own
relatives, and trainers masturbate males to collect their sperm,
Simo says.  The whales are dosed with powerful drugs, sometimes
for their entire lives, which are necessary because of their
captivity at SeaWorld, according to the complaint.  Simo says the
orcas are given antacids to treat ulcers, antibiotics to treat
infections caused by their conditions of confinement, strong
contraceptives and antipsychotic and psychoactive drugs such as
valium to calm them.

"These drugs are dangerous for the orcas and would never be
consumed in nature -- but in confinement they are additional tools
SeaWorld uses to dominate its captive orcas and keep from public
view the reactions orcas have to confinement," the lawsuit states.

Trainers at SeaWorld also face dangers, as evidenced by
experienced SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau, who was killed in
2010 by Tilikum, an orca taken as a young calf form his family in
the wild.  SeaWorld spread false information implying that
Brancheau was to blame for her own death because she slipped, but
then changed its story to falsely state that the trainer's
ponytail in the water caused the "accident," the lawsuit states.

"Dozens of documented examples of aggression toward trainers were
unearthed during the OSHA investigation following Dawn Brancheau's
death, and were then made part of the public record over
SeaWorld's strong objection.  In truth, several SeaWorld trainers
have been variously hit and knocked unconscious, suffered broken
limbs and ribs, and been grabbed and pulled into the water at
great peril," the lawsuit states.

The OSHA investigation resulted in a citation and imposition of
nominal fines against SeaWorld, decisions that were affirmed on
appeal by the D.C. Circuit.  The investigation also resulted in a
ban on trainer performance in the water with orcas.

Despite this, SeaWorld refuses to acknowledge the aggression of
captive orcas for fear that the public would come to conclude, as
scientists have, that the aggression is a product of the park's
treatment of the whales, Simo claims.

The 2013 documentary "Blackfish," which followed the 32-year
history of Tilikum, revealed that the conditions at SeaWorld are
unnatural and unhealthy for orcas, according to the complaint.

In the wake of "Blackfish," schools canceled longstanding annual
field trips to SeaWorld, popular musicians withdrew from scheduled
performances at the park, and longstanding sponsors and strategic
partners -- such as Southwest Airlines and Taco Bell -- cut ties
with the park, Simo says.

Despite this, those who question the propriety of profiting from
captive orcas are accused of "radicalism" and "extremism" by
SeaWorld, which continues to claim that its whales are treated
well and have "fun" lives in captivity, the complaint states.

Simo and two co-plaintiffs seek to represent consumers who
purchased SeaWorld tickets, memberships or other orca "experience"
products at the San Diego, Orlando and Texas facilities before
they became aware of the park's alleged mistreatment of its
captive whales.  They estimate the class in the millions.  They
seek injunctive relief requiring SeaWorld to stop with its alleged
misleading business practices. According to SeaWorld's Web site,
daily tickets to the three facilities range from $52 to $89.

SeaWorld recently launched a national television and online
advertising campaign aimed at reinforcing "the truth about the
company's commitment to its killer whales," according to its Web
site.  The ad features a veterinarian at SeaWorld Orlando and a
senior member of the park's animal rescue team addressing many
common misperceptions about SeaWorld's whales, including how long
they live and where they come from, according to the Web site.

"We love these animals and do everything in our power to assure
that they're happy and health," Jill Kermes, senior corporate
affairs officer for SeaWorld Entertainment, said in a statement.

SeaWorld also runs the Web site AskSeaWorld.com, which answers
questions about how SeaWorld cares for, displays and educates the
public about its animals.

In response to questions about "Blackfish," SeaWorld called it
animal rights propaganda that is "manipulative and misleading."

The parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment
on the lawsuit.


SFBSC MANAGEMENT: N.D. Cal. Judge Stayed Exotic Dancers' Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, stayed the case of JANE ROE,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. SFBSC MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO.
14-CV-03616-LB (N.D. Cal.)

The plaintiffs are or were exotic dancers of defendant SFBSC, LLC
(BSC) that managed the nightclubs where they worked. Plaintiffs'
suit is a putative collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-19 and a putative class
action under Rule 23.

BSC filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the court denied.
BSC appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

BSC moves to stay all proceedings in the case until the Ninth
Circuit renders its decision while the plaintiffs moves the court
to approve notice under Hoffman-LaRoche v. Sperling, 493 U.S.165
(1989) and asks the court to add Jane Roe 3 as an additional
proposed class representative.

Magistrate Judge Beeler granted BSC's motion to stay the case
pending resolution of its appeal. The court denies the plaintiffs'
motions to send Hoffman-LaRoche notice and to add Jane Roe 3 as a
proposed class representative.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Beeler's order dated April 17, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/6YwYcufrom Leagle.com

Jane Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick --
sgt@tidricklaw.com -- Joel Benjamin Young -- jby@tidricklaw.com --
at The Tidrick Law Firm

Jane Roe Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 Plaintiffs, represented by Steven
Gregory Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com -- at The Tidrick Law Firm

SFBSC Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Melton
-- dmelton@longlevit.com -- Noah Samuel Rosenthal --
nrosenthal@longlevit.com -- Shane Michael Cahill --
scahill@longlevit.com -- at Long & Levit LLP


SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Class Action Settlement Wins Preliminary Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, in its April 22, 2015 Order, granted a Motion For
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
docketed as DON C. BENNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SIMPLEXGRINNELL
LP, Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-01854-JST.

The unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement was filed by proposed class representative Plaintiffs
Darren Scott, Jon Hotzler, Gary Backlund, and Jose Valdez.

District Judge Jon S. Tigar found that the settlement appeared "to
be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations,
has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant
preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the
class, and falls within the range of possible approval."

In deciding the Motion, Judge Tigar:

     (1) granted the parties' request for preliminary approval of
their class action settlement, subject to a revision concerning
settlement administration costs;

     (2) granted the parties' request for certification of the
Rule 23 settlement class (all individuals employed by Defendant
SimplexGrinnell at any time since April 18, 2007, until October
28, 2014, who have performed testing or inspection of fire alarm
or sprinkler systems in California on 'public works,' as defined
in California Labor Code Sections 1720, 1771) for the sole and
limited purpose of implementing the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, subject to the Court's final approval;

     (3) appointed Plaintiffs' counsel, the Fay Law Group,
Beranbaum Menken, and Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho as class
counsel, and Plaintiffs Scott, Hotzler, Backlund, and Valdez as
class representatives;

     (4) preliminarily approved the form and content of the
settlement agreement, and the proposed class notice and estimated
share form, subject to certain revisions;

     (5) approved the selection of Settlement Services, Inc. as
the settlement administrator, and the payment of reasonable
administration costs, which are not to exceed $16,550.00 and will
be paid from the maximum settlement amount.

A copy of the Judge Tigar's April 22, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/CSKjVsfrom Leagle.com.

Don C. Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho --
lho@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E.
Menken -- bmenken@NYemployeelaw.com -- Beranbaum Menken LLP, James
Kan -- jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO,
Jason Rozger -- jrozger@NYemployeelaw.com -- Beranbaum Menken LLP
& Raymond C. Fay -- rfay@faylawdc.com -- Fay Law Group PLLC.

Comerlis Delaney, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein
Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP,
James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO, Jason Rozger,
Beranbaum Menken LLP & Raymond C. Fay, Fay Law Group PLLC.

Gary Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein
Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP,
James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO, Jason Rozger,
Beranbaum Menken LLP & Raymond C. Fay, Fay Law Group PLLC.

Darren Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein
Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP,
James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO, Jason Rozger,
Beranbaum Menken LLP & Raymond C. Fay, Fay Law Group PLLC.

Jon Hotzler, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein
Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP,
James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO & Raymond C. Fay, Fay
Law Group PLLC.

Gary Charles Backlund, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Menken,
Beranbaum Menken LLP & James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO.
Jose D. Valdez, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Menken,
Beranbaum Menken LLP & James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO.

Simplexgrinnell LP, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Blecha Hall
-- carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Jocelyn A. Merced --
jocelyn.merced@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak, and Stewart, P.C. & Robert Raymond Roginson --
robert.roginson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
Stewart PC.


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: E.D. Pa. Judge Drops Diabetic's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
entitled IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO STACI LAURINO, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SMITHKLINE
BEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, MDL NO. 07-MD-01871,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-3683 (E.D. Pa.)

The defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) is the manufacturer of a
drug called Avandia. The plaintiff Staci Laurino had purchased and
used Avandia as early as 2007, which had been prescribed for her
by a licensed physician.

Plaintiff alleged that despite notice of the dangerous
propensities associated with Avandia, GSK engaged in
misrepresentations, and failed to adequately advise consumers and
medical providers of the risks of Avandia, including but not
limited to the increased risk of heart attacks and deaths.
Furthermore, the company omitted material facts concerning
Avandia's risk factors, even though it knew or reasonably should
have known those facts. GSK also promoted Avandia's efficacy when
in fact, Avandia is no more effective than other drugs. GSK
misrepresented, concealed, suppressed and/or omitted material
facts concerning Avandia and the fact that the drug increased the
likelihood of cardiovascular disease.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), which prohibits deceptive
practices. Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint,
arguing that plaintiff lacks standing and has failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.

Judge Rufe granted defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a cause of action and concludes
that to allow any further amendment would be inequitable and
likely futile. The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Rufe's memorandum opinion dated April 16, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/67Fji3from Leagle.com

IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by LAURIA ANN LYNCH-GERMAN, HODAN
DOSTER & GANZER SC & TURNER W. BRANCH, BRANCH LAW FIRM.
PATRICK A. JUNEAU, Special Master, represented by PATRICK A.
JUNEAU, JR.

BRUCE P. MERENSTEIN, Special Master, represented by BRUCE P.
MERENSTEIN, SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS.

ANDREW A. CHIRLS, Administrator, represented by ANDREW A. CHIRLS,
FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC

PLAINTIFFS' STEERING COMMITTEE, Amicus, represented by BILL
ROBINS, III, HEARD ROBINS CLOUD & BLACK, DIANNE M. NAST, NASTLAW
LLC, JASON E. DUNAHOE, HEARD ROBINS CLOUD & BLACK LLP, PAUL R.
KIESEL, KIESEL LAW LLP & TURNER W. BRANCH, BRANCH LAW FIRM


SNCF: Holocaust Victims' Descendants File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Hampton, writing for Agence France-Presse, reports that
descendants of Holocaust victims have filed a US lawsuit claiming
France's national railway seized the property of tens of thousands
of Jews and others sent to Nazi concentration camps.

The class-action suit seeks compensation for the confiscation and
sale of personal property and for third-class train fares billed
to the Nazis even though the victims were packed into cattle cars.

The suit was filed on April 23, on International Holocaust
Remembrance Day, in US federal court in Chicago.

"SNCF committed, conspired to commit and aided and abetted others
who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity," the court
document alleged, using the acronym by which the French railway
company is known.

"Acting with full knowledge, SNCF was complicit in the commission
of genocide."

In a statement to AFP, the SNCF said it "has no comment on the
complaint in the US and has no additional information to provide."

The personal property allegedly seized includes cash, securities,
silver, gold, jewelry, works of art, musical instruments, clothing
and equipment.

The goods were "illegally, improperly and coercively taken from
the ownership or control of an individual during the
deportations," according to the suit.

In a landmark deal, France agreed in December to pay $60 million
to the United States to be shared among American and foreign
nationals deported to Nazi death camps on French trains during
World War II.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Karen Scalin, a Chicago resident
whose grandparents were sent from France on an SNCF train to the
Auschwitz death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland, where they died in
November 1942.

The two other named plaintiffs, Josiane Piquard and Roland
Cherrier, are both French citizens and residents whose relatives
were deported to Auschwitz and died there during the war.

"SNCF's unlawful and torturous conduct as described herein was
done intentionally, maliciously and wantonly, and for the purpose
of obtaining revenues for and maintaining the independence of
SNCF," according to the lawsuit.

"Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to an award of punitive damages
as well as compensatory damages."

And the suit spoke of a "mutually beneficial" relationship between
the 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," it said.

The plaintiffs say the US federal court has jurisdiction over the
matter because the claims arise under international law
enforceable in the Chicago court as federal law.  The suit also
claims that the statute of limitations has not expired, even
though they took place nearly 75 years ago, because the SNCF only
opened some of its archives to the public in 2012.


STANFORD UNIVERSITY: US Govt Dismissed From "Phillips" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the United States' Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, in the case
docketed as BENJAMIN M. PHILLIPS, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY d/b/a STANFORD UNIVERSITY, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-02269-HEA.

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the United
States of America, among others, alleging in their Third Amended
Complaint theories of public nuisance, Count I; battery, Count IV;
and Recklessness, Count V. Presumably, the claims against the
United States are brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2674 ("FTCA").  Defendant United States filed a motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The government
maintains that Plaintiffs' claims fall within the discretionary
function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity.

District Judge Henry Edward Autrey, in granting the Defendant
United States' Motion to Dismiss, concluded that "the Court has
considered the extensive briefing on the issue and has heard
argument of counsel regarding the propriety of dismissal. No
further hearing on the matter is required for the Court to
conclude that the challenged governmental actions fall within the
discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act."

A copy of Judge Autrey's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/HHJcPHfrom Leagle.com.

Benjamin M. Phillips, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce A.
Morrison, BRUCE A. MORRISON, Elkin L. Kistner, BICK AND KISTNER,
PC, Joseph V. Neill, Kevin C. Roberts -- KevinRoberts@rwzlaw.com
-- ROBERTS AND WOOTEN, LLC, Ronnie Glynn Penton, THE PENTON LAW
FIRM & Daniel T. DeFeo, DEFEO AND KOLKER, LLC.

Chester Deans, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce A. Morrison, BRUCE
A. MORRISON, Elkin L. Kistner, BICK AND KISTNER, PC, Joseph V.
Neill, Kevin C. Roberts, ROBERTS AND WOOTEN, LLC, Ronnie Glynn
Penton, THE PENTON LAW FIRM & Daniel T. DeFeo, DEFEO AND KOLKER,
LLC.

Willis Lloyd, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce A. Morrison, BRUCE
A. MORRISON, Elkin L. Kistner, BICK AND KISTNER, PC, Joseph V.
Neill, Kevin C. Roberts, ROBERTS AND WOOTEN, LLC, Ronnie Glynn
Penton, THE PENTON LAW FIRM & Daniel T. DeFeo, DEFEO AND KOLKER,
LLC.

Parsons Government Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dara
D. Mann --dmann@mckennalong.com -- MCKENNA AND LONG, Robert A Roth
-- rroth@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP, Tami L. Azorsky --
tazorsky@mckennalong.com -- MCKENNA AND LONG & Larry D. Hale, HALE
LAW FIRM.

The Leland Stanford Junior University, d/b/a Stanford Univeristy,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Jacobi --
jeffrey.jacobi@pillsburylaw.com -- PILLSBURY AND WINTHROP, LLP &
Sarah G. Flanagan -- sarah.flanagan@pillsburylaw.com -- PILLSBURY
AND WINTHROP, LLP.

United States Army, Defendant, represented by John Adam Bain, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Keri Lane Berman, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. United States of America, Defendant, represented by John
Adam Bain, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Keri Lane Berman, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

United States Department of Defense, Defendant, represented by
John Adam Bain, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Keri Lane Berman,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

The Leland Stanford Junior University, d/b/a Stanford Univeristy,
Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey S. Jacobi, PILLSBURY AND
WINTHROP, LLP & Sarah G. Flanagan, PILLSBURY AND WINTHROP, LLP.


SUMMIT RESTAURANT: Sued in Cal. Over Reimbursement Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Scarry, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Summit Restaurant Group, LLC, Summit Pizza, Inc.,
Summit Restaurants, LLC, Summit Interests, LLC, Summit Fare, LLC,
Arkansas Pizza, Inc. and Summit Pizza West, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01090-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 14, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' flawed method to determine their delivery drivers'
reimbursement rates that provides an unreasonably low rate beneath
any approximation of the expenses they incur.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of Pizza Hut stores in
California, Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
      WATTS GUERRA LLP
      525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 220-8141
      Facsimile: (424) 732-8190
      E-mail: rthompson@wattsguerra.com


SUPREME SERVICE: Suit to be Transferred to E.D. Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos granted the defendant's
unopposed motion seeking the transfer to the Eastern District of
Louisiana of the case captioned BRANDON KERVIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SUPREME SERVICE & SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-102 (S.D. Tex.).

Judge Ramos in Corpus Christi, Texas, held that "majority of the
relevant private and public factors weigh heavily in favor of
transferring this case to the Eastern District of Louisiana for
the convenience of parties and witnesses. Kervin's attorney does
not oppose the transfer."

The Clerk was directed to transfer the case and all filed
materials to the Clerk of the Eastern District of Louisiana.

A copy of the April 7, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/JiBd5Afrom Leagle.com.

Brandon Kervin, Nicholas Ardoin, Aubrey Lee Castille, Jr, Chris
Castoe, Jai Dufrene, Russell Freeman, Joshua Gunn, Mario Moreno,
Jr, Mark Peacock, Alonzo Robles, Jody Stinson, Mark Wallace, Randy
Pruden, John Citizen, Josh Schleben, David Moon, Micah Matlock,
Marc Alan Davidson, Wesley Jared Harper, James Maxey, Cecil
Delaughter, III, Chad Born, Jason Moss, Torrance Hoye, Huey
McCray, Aaron Perkins, Kody Leonard, Dusty E Weidnex, Lamarquis
Brooks, Marcos N Martinez, Demone Thomas, Fidencio DeLeon, Brandon
Hobbs, Todd Burroughs, Oscar Sepulveda, Eduardo Mena, Michael
Billeaudeau, and Brandon Laperouse, Plaintiffs, represented by
William Clifton Alexander, Sico White Hoelscher & Braugh LLP,
Craig M. Sico, Sico, White & Braugh, LLP & Timothy Dean Raub, Raub
Law Firm PC.

John William Byrd, Plaintiff, represented by John William Byrd.

William Scott Owens, Plaintiff, represented by William Scott
Owens.

Jason Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Griffin.

Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Pamela Dawn Williams -- pamela.williams@arlaw.com -- Adams and
Reese LLP.


TOP RANK: Faces "Galandak" Suit for Concealing Pacquiao's Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Galandak, Brian Jarecki, and Lars Olaussen, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Top Rank, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04232 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 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:

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              adam@attorneyzim.com
              matt@attorneyzim.com


TRIPTI INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Samuel" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prabir Samuel v. Tripti Inc. d/b/a Moti Mahal Delux Restaurant,
and Gaura V. Anand, Case No. 1:15-cv-03718 (S.D.N.Y., May 14,
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 Moti Mahal Delux Restaurant in
Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548
      Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


TURNKEY BUSINESS: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages & Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Jeffries v. Turnkey Business Solutions, LLC and Edward J.
Pruse, Case No. 8:15-cv-01159 (M.D. Fla., May 13, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a call center in Pinellas Park,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
      RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
      Suite 230, 7450 Griffin Road
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (866) 344-9243
      Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
      E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


UAG FAYETTEVILLE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest
------------------------------------------------------------
ArkansasOnline reports that a lawsuit filed on April 17 in
Washington County Circuit Court alleges some car dealers and
financing companies in Northwest Arkansas are charging customers
more interest than the law allows.  The suit was filed on behalf
of Natasha Fletcher and names UAG Fayetteville II, doing business
as Honda of Fayetteville, Landers Honda North and Fayetteville
Autoplex, also known as Fayetteville Auto Park. It also names Ally
Financial Inc.


UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S: May Intervene in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court's denial
of a motion for intervention in the case captioned CERTAIN
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NOS.
LLG035083, LLG041386, EQ6564A, EQ6564B, EQ6564C, LCL002222,
EQ6366A, EQ6366B, EQ6366C, EQ6366D, EQ6366E, EQA22264, EQA12036,
LCP001820, LCL003461, LCP002646, LLG034560, LLG040476, LLG045650,
LLG051521, LLG055843, LLG059178, EQA14445, EQA14505, LSP510482,
LSP511933, LSP513021, LSP513885, 05SRT20094, 05SRT20640,
05SRT21188, 05SRT21737, 05SRT20794, CP04265, CP04980, CP05809,
CP06776, CP06159, CP07113, 058204-004, 058204-005, 068204-003,
058170-027, 068170-012, 068170-013, 078170-009, 078170-010,
088170-010, 088170-011, 098170-003, 098170-004, 19618-08, 19618-
09, 19618-10, 19618-11, 19511-08, 19511-09, 19511-10, AND 19511-
11, APPELLANTS, v. DAVID BASS; DONALD HUGHES; LISTON HASEMAN, JR.;
JOHN KIMBROUGH; LEWIS JENKINS TRUCKING, INC.; LEW THOMPSON & SON,
INC.; MOORE VALLEY FARMS, INC.; JEREMY POE; FRANKLIN D. POLLARD
D/B/A THE REGENCY LIMITED; BOBBY AND EARNESTINE POLLINS; ROBBY
SUMMERS; TOMMIE WALKER AUCTION, INC.; ADVADA WARD; LANCE WHITAKER;
AND SHIRLEY WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PLAINTIFF CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES, APPELLEES, NO. CV-14-788 (Ark.).

The Supreme Court of Arkansas agreed with appellants that their
mere use of the shorthand reference ("Certain Underwriters") to
describe the numerous insurers of these policies do not render
them amorphous.  The Supreme Court also held that it is not enough
for appellees to rely on the fact that appellants and the
defendant brokers have the same counsel and similar defenses.  The
appellants' interests, which include proving that they are
approved insurers and that all policies issued are valid, are
ultimately different than the defendant-brokers' interests when
their ultimate goal is to deny any personal liability for premiums
paid to appellants to procure insurance.

This is an appeal from an order of the Saline County Circuit Court
denying a motion by appellants, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
London, to intervene in a class-action suit filed by appellees,
David Bass; Donald Hughes; Liston Haseman, Jr.; John Kimbrough;
Lewis Jenkins Trucking, Inc.; Lew Thompson & Son, Inc.; Moore
Valley Farms, Inc.; Jeremy Poe; Franklin D. Pollard d/b/a The
Regency Limited; Bobby and Earnestine Pollins; Robby Summers;
Tommie Walker Auction, Inc.; Advada Ward; Lance Whitaker; and
Shirley Williams, purchasers of surplus-lines insurance.

Named as defendants were Michael Ellis Alexander, Terry Lynn
Burnett, Dianna Lynn Farish, John Archie Griggs, John Christopher
Hildebrand, James Robert Hill, Stephen Frederick Hoffmann, Michael
Leon Johnson, Stanley Guy Payne, Frances S. Shaddox, Roy Mack
Shaddox, Richard Paul Simon, Russell Ellsworth Short, and Jimmy
Sutterfield, Arkansas licensed surplus-lines-insurance brokers.

A copy of the April 23, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/4NqRgWfrom Leagle.com.

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: David D. Wilson --
wilson@fridayfirm.com -- Clark S. Brewster, PLLC, by: Clark S.
Brewster; and Fields Howell, by: Paul L. Fields, Jr. --
pfields@fieldshowell.com -- and Gregory L. Mast --
gmast@fieldshowell.com -- for appellants.

Ludwig Law Firm, PLC, by: Gene A. Ludwig and Ryan K. Culpepper,
for appellees.


UNILEVER UNITED STATES: "Pardini" Case Stayed
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of California, in its
April 15, 2015 Order Granting Motion to Stay in the case docketed
as KYM PARDINI and CARRIE WOOD, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES,
INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-01675-SC, granted Plaintiffs'
Motion to Stay the case pending the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals' decision in Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

District Judge Samuel Conti concludes "that there will be little
to no damage to Defendant from a stay. By contrast, failing to
stay this case might result in substantial hardship to both
parties and deal a severe blow to judicial economy. Perhaps most
importantly, Jones is very likely to simplify questions of law
that might well be dispositive to class certification in this
case."

Judge Conti granted Plaintiffs' motion to stay this case and gave
the Parties 14 days to file a joint notice of the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Jones with the Court.

A copy of Judge Conti's April 15, 2015 Order Granting Motion to
Stay is available at http://is.gd/6zCZSRfrom Leagle.com.

Kym Pardini, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Lee M. Gordon -- lee@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP & Ureka Ellie Idstrom, The Eureka Law Firm.

Carrie Wood, Plaintiff, represented by Lee M. Gordon, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Unilever United States, Inc., Defendant, represented by William
Lewis Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia
Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Lisa
Ann Wongchenko -- lwongchenko@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


UNION PACIFIC: La. Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in "Ned" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis M. Keaty affirmed the trial court's judgment in the
case captioned GLORIA M. NED, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF
JESSIE JANUARY AND JACQUELINE JANUARY, v. UNION PACIFIC
CORPORATION, ET AL., NO. 14-1310, CONSOLIDATED WITH NOS. 14-1311,
14-1312, 14-1313, AND 14-1314 (La. Ct. App., 3d Cir.).

Judge Keaty held that the trial court was not manifestly erroneous
in dismissing the six Plaintiffs who failed to respond to
discovery. She likewise held that the "Plaintiffs have not shown
any inconsistencies between the commencement of federal and state
prescriptive periods that would warrant federal preemption of
state law. Plaintiffs' reliance on federal preemption law is
without merit, and the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in
this regard."

Judge Keaty, in finding that the Plaintiffs' third assignment of
error was without merit, concluded that "the identification of
records requirement is met since the affiants stated that they
obtained their information used to make their spreadsheets
attached to their affidavit from Plaintiffs' discovery responses
and other related items. The personal familiarity requirement is
further met as the affiants stated that they "personally reviewed"
the Plaintiffs' discovery responses and other related items.
Affiants satisfied both requirements even though only satisfaction
of one Denbury requirement is sufficient for a finding of personal
knowledge."

The fourth assignment of error was likewise found to be without
merit. Judge Keaty stated that "both parties' counsel agreed at
the hearing on Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment
that they attended a previous telephone conference with the trial
court wherein it orally set this shorter deadline. Pursuant to the
foregoing law and jurisprudence, the parties were required to
comply with this shorter, court-ordered deadline."

A copy of the April 15, 2015 decision is available at
http://is.gd/m6ZKI0from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants: Gloria M. Ned, et al.:

     J. Arthur Smith, III, Esq.
     SMITH LAW FIRM
     830 North Street
     Baton Rouge, LA 70802
     Tel: (225) 383-7716

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants: Gloria M. Ned, et al.:

     Leonard Knapp, Esq.
     Attorney at Law
     Post Office Box 1665
     Lake Charles, LA 70602
     Tel: (337) 439-1700

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants: Gloria M. Ned, et al.

     Brian Crawford, Esq.
     CRAWFORD & OGG
     Post Office Box 14600
     Monroe, LA 71207
     Tel: (318) 325-3200

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Union Pacific Corporation Dallas
Stutes:

     David A. Fraser, Esq.
     Pamela L. Courtney, Esq.
     FRASER, WHEELER & BERGSTEDT, L.L.P.
     Post Office Box 4886
     Lake Charles, LA 70606
     Tel: (337) 478-8595

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Union Pacific Corporation Dallas
Stutes:

     H. Alston Johnson, III, Esq.
     Steven J. Levine, Esq.
     Kevin W. Welsh, Esq.
     PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
     Post Office Box 4412
     Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4412
     Tel: (225) 346-0285
     E-mail: alston.johnson@phelps.com
             steve.levine@phelps.com
             kevin.welsh@phelps.com

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Union Pacific Corporation Dallas
Stutes:

     Merrick Walton, Esq.
     Attorney at Law
     3515 Rice Boulevard
     Houston, TX 77005
     Tel: (713) 665-8464
     E-mail: merrickwalton@merrickwalton.com

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: PPG Industries, Inc., A. L.
Greathouse, Tommy G. Brown, W. J. Peard:

     William B. Monk, Esq.
     Allyson E. Champagne, Esq.
     Kathleen T. Deanda, Esq.
     STOCKWELL, SIEVERT, VICCELLIO, CLEMENTS & SHADDOCK, L.L.P.
     Post Office Box 2900
     Lake Charles, LA 70602
     Tel: (337) 436-9491


UNITED STATES: Settlement in Hunneshagen Trust Case Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims approved the settlement
of the class action, HUNNESHAGEN FAMILY TRUST OF JUNE 25, 1999,
Individually, For Itself, and As a Representative of a Class of
Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, NO. 09-504L.

Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams, in approving the parties'
settlement agreement, found that the settlement was fair,
reasonable, and adequate. Judge Williams ordered the parties to
"disburse payments as agreed in the settlement and shall file a
notice of compliance once payment is completed."  The Clerk was
ordered to enter judgment accordingly, and was likewise ordered to
dismiss the claims of Plaintiffs Dorothy Keller, Roberta Grapel,
Scott and June Morrison, Roger Timmons, and Ronald A. White.

A copy of the Judge Williams' April 15, 2015 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/MKrQuEfrom Leagle.com.

HUNNESHAGEN FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiff, represented by John Robert
Sears -- sears@bscr-law.com -- Baker Sterchi Cowden and Rice, LLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by Alison D. Garner --
alison.garner@usdoj.gov -- U.S. Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Veterans Court Ruling in "Adeyi" Case Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
affirmed the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in the case
captioned DAVID ADEYEMI ADEYI, Claimant-Appellant, v. ROBERT A.
McDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee, NO.
2015-7033 (Fed. Cir.).

On September 25, 2014, David Adeyi filed a "petition for
extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus" with the
Veterans Court. R.A. 2. alleging that the Houston regional office
(RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was "violating
various federal laws and the constitutional rights of veterans
. . . by working with a nonprofit organization named The Mission
Continues" in a research program involving Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD).  The Veterans Court denied Mr. Adeyi's petition.

In affirming the Veterans Court's decision, the United States
Court of Appeals held that Mr. Adeyi has not shown a clear legal
right to proceed with a claim for class relief.  As to the alleged
violation of Mr. Adeyi's rights with respect to the processing or
adjudication of his claims for his own disability benefits, the
appellate court also agreed with the Veteran Court's determination
that he can seek relief through the normal appellate process.
Thus, mandamus is unavailable for his claim.  The appellate court
also saw no basis on which they could conclude that the Veterans
Court committed a legal error in finding insufficient delay in his
case to warrant extraordinary relief.  Finally, the appellate
court saw no error in the Veteran Court's conclusion that Mr.
Adeyi's allegations were "vague" and "unsupported" in regard to
his claims that the Houston RO's work with The Mission Continues
is violating the constitutional rights of veterans.

A copy of the April 13, 2015 decision is available at
http://is.gd/UnOaQdfrom Leagle.com.

DAVID ADEYEMI ADEYI, Washington, DC, pro se.

COURTNEY D. ENLOW, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent-appellee. Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT
E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.; MEGHAN D. ALPHONSO,
DAVID J. BARRANS, Office of General Counsel, United States
Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.


UNITED STATES: Bid for Continuance of Sentencing Hearing Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez ordered the continuance of the
sentencing hearing of the case captioned United States of America,
Plaintiff, v. Rachel Siders, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:12-CR-0226 JAM
(E.D. Cal.)

Defendant Rachel Siders requested the continuance of her scheduled
sentencing hearing on June 9, 2015.  Her counsel was preoccupied
with other cases which have prevented him from sitting down with
the defendant and the probation officer to fully prepare for the
sentencing hearing.

The United States' probation officer Nisha Modica agreed to the
continuance.  Plaintiff United States has not responded to the
motion.

Counsel for Defendant is also appellate counsel for Donald M.
Wanland, currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary
Camp, Atwater.  The Opening Brief on appeal for the incarcerated
client was due on April 13, 2015.

Counsel for Defendant is also counsel for Daniel Norcia in a
consumer class action.  The Responding Brief on appeal for Mr.
Norcia was due on April 22, 2015 and counsel had been devoting a
substantial amount of time in preparation of the brief.

Counsel for Defendant is also counsel for Michael Deatrick in an
employment class action of over 25, 000 class members.  The
Mediation Brief for Mr. Deatrick was due April 20, 2015.
Mediation for Mr. Deatrick was to begin on April 22, 2015 and
counsel has been spending substantial time in preparation for the
mediation.

On April 20, 2015, Judge Mendez issued an order for the sentencing
hearing to be continued to August 4, 2015 at 9:15 a.m.

A copy of the Court's order is available at http://is.gd/JPzDSA
from Leagle.com.

PROMETHEUS PARTNERS LLP, EDUARDO G. ROY, San Francisco, CA,
Attorney for Defendant Rachel Siders.


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin H. Sharp of the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case
TRACY MORTON, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, Defendant,
(M.D. Tenn.)

Plaintiff Tracy Morton is one of the 279 employees who lost their
jobs in a mass lay-off executed by defendant The Vanderbilt
University on September 17, 2013.  The parties have tentatively
settled the class action under the Worker Adjustment and
Restraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), 29 U.S.C. Section 2101
et seq.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment while the plaintiff
filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement.
The parties also filed a release and settlement agreement which
discloses that if the court resolves defendant's summary judgment
motion in plaintiff's favor, and thereby determines that the 279
employees who received notification of the elimination of their
positions in September 2013 suffered an employment loss in
September 2013, the parties stipulate that a final judgment should
be entered awarding damages in the aggregate amount of $285,000 to
the class members. They also agree that $135,000 should be awarded
to class counsel as reimbursement for their attorney's fees and
for the litigation expenses they have advanced. Finally, they
agree that defendant shall then be permitted to appeal the court's
final judgment at defendant's choosing.

Judge Sharp denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and
granted plaintiff's motion for settlement approval.

A copy of Judge Sharp's memorandum dated April 17, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/iIs9Nxfrom Leagle.com

Tracy Morton, Plaintiff, represented by:

David W. Garrison, Esq.
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
Scott P. Tift, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
217 2nd Avenue N
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: 615-244-2202

Vanderbilt University, Defendant, represented by William N. Ozier
-- bozier@bassberry.com -- Michael Scott Moschel --
mmoschel@bassberry.com -- at Bass, Berry & Sims; John C. Callison
-- at Office of the General Counsel


VERINT SYSTEMS: Court Reviews Summations on Motion to Certify
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit have filed summations on the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the suit as a class action, which are under consideration
by the District Court.

The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced
by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09)
(the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms.
Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the
grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees
and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options
and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during our previous extended filing delay period. In the
Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages."

"On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for
lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.
On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). In
the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In
the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by
CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do
not specify an amount of damages.  On March 2, 2010, the Katriel
Labor Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based
on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer.

"On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an
uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on
June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms.
Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an
amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse
Limited. Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect
the Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set
aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future
judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this
motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion
was heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal this
ruling in August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014.
Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On
October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution,
in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the
Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public
company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest
in us.

"On February 4, 2013, we completed the CTI Merger. As a result of
the CTI Merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch
District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under
the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse
relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to
CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse for any losses
we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in
connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel
District Action.

"Following an attempt to mediate the dispute, on July 1, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a notice with the District Court informing it
that the mediation process had been unsuccessful. As a result, the
parties recently filed summations on the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the suit as a class action, which are under consideration
by the District Court."


VIKRANT CONTRACTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Velasquez, in his individual capacity and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Vikrant Contracting & Builders, Inc. and
Palwinder "Roman" Singh, Case No. 1:15-cv-02783 (E.D.N.Y., May 13,
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 construction company with
principal place of business is located at 179-36 Hillside Avenue,
Jamaica, NY 11432.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Penn Ueoka Dodson, Esq.
      ANDERSON DODSON, P.C.
      11 Broadway, Suite 615
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 961-7639
      E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com


WEBBER SPRINGS: Summary Judgment in "Fleet" Case Affirmed in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed in part and
reversed in part the circuit court's grant of summary judgment,
and remanded for further proceedings the case captioned JAMES R.
FLEET, JAMILA J. FLEET, AND JAMES LAMPLEY, Defendants Below,
Petitioners, v. WEBBER SPRINGS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff
Below, Respondent, NO. 14-0637 (W.Va. App.).

The court concluded that West Virginia Code Section 38-16-
202(a)(1999)(Repl. Vol. 2011) and West Virginia Code Section 38-
16-201(1999)(Repl. Vol. 2011) authorize a consensual common law
lien against real property and that the unfair debt collection
provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act
do apply to a homeowners association's attempts to collect
delinquent assessments.

A copy of the April 23, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/svF87Wfrom Leagle.com.

Stephen G. Skinner, Anthony J. Delligatti, Skinner Law Firm,
Charles Town, West Virginia, Christopher J. Regan, Jason E.
Causey, Bordas & Bordas, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Attorneys
for the Petitioners.

Susan R. Snowden -- srsnowden@martinandseibert.com -- Jason S.
Murphy -- jsmurphy@martinandseibert.com -- Martin & Seibert, L.C.,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, Tammy Mitchell McWilliams, Trump &
Trump, L.C., Martinsburg, West Virginia, Attorneys for the
Respondent.

Anthony J. Majestro, Powell & Majestro, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Association
for Justice.


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Banking Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shahriar Jabbari, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case
No. 4:15-cv-02159-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' illegal, fraudulent, and deceptive tactics to generate
sales of their banking and financial products by enrolling its
customers in multiple banking accounts and services.

Wells Fargo & Company operates the fourth biggest bank in the
United States, and is the largest bank headquartered in
California.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association with its
primary place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, California 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com


WELLS FARGO: Wins Dismissal of "Perez" Complaint
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss a Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) in the case docketed as MONIQUE PEREZ, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO AND CO., et al., Defendants, NO.

C 14-0989 PJH.

District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton states "the named plaintiffs in
the SAC have not adequately alleged injury in fact and causation
because they have not clearly alleged an employment relationship
between each named plaintiff and a particular defendant, or
alleged facts showing what that particular defendant did to cause
injury to the named plaintiff."

A copy of the Judge Hamilton's April 24, 2015 Order Granting
Motion to Dismiss is available at http://is.gd/YDjogEfrom
Leagle.com.

Monique Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose
Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC &
John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP.

Thaxton Rowe, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose
Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC &
John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP.

Porcelynne Hawthorne, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada,
Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm,
PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP.

Corry A Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada,
Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm,
PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP.

Karla Salazar, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose
Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC &
John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP.

Brian Lynch, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose
Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC &
John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP.

Sezgin Unay, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose
Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC &
John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP.

John Sorocenski, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose
Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC &
John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP.

Brandon Grzan, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose
Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC &
John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP.

Jason L. Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada,
Jose Moises Cedillos, John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez,
LLP & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC.

Sona K. Anand, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose
Moises Cedillos, John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP &
Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC.

Anthony Austin, Plaintiff, represented by John Manuel Padilla,
Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law
Firm, PLLC. Jason M. Otto, Plaintiff, represented by John Manuel
Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills,
Wills Law Firm, PLLC.

Anthony Sosa, Plaintiff, represented by John Manuel Padilla,
Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law
Firm, PLLC.

Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph
Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S.
Lieberman -- jmschauer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jill
Crawley Griset -- jgriset@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP,
Jill Ann Porcaro -- jporcaro@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Richard Lee Alfred -- ralfred@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Timothy Mitchell Watson -- twatson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw,
Kendra Koneman Paul, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Rachel Megan Hoffer --
rhoffer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph
Rowley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S. Lieberman, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, Jill Crawley Griset, McGuireWoods, LLP, Jill Ann Porcaro,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy
Mitchell Watson, Seyfarth Shaw, Kendra Koneman Paul, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP & Rachel Megan Hoffer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

WFC Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christian
Joseph Rowley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S. Lieberman, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, Jill Crawley Griset, McGuireWoods, LLP, Jill Ann
Porcaro, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Timothy Mitchell Watson, Seyfarth Shaw, Kendra Koneman Paul,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Rachel Megan Hoffer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Wachovia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph
Rowley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S. Lieberman, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, Jill Crawley Griset, McGuireWoods, LLP, Jill Ann Porcaro,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy
Mitchell Watson, Seyfarth Shaw, Kendra Koneman Paul, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP & Rachel Megan Hoffer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Wachovia Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph
Rowley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S. Lieberman, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, Jill Crawley Griset, McGuireWoods, LLP, Jill Ann Porcaro,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy
Mitchell Watson, Seyfarth Shaw, Kendra Koneman Paul, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP & Rachel Megan Hoffer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs May Find Substitute Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in a purported class
action lawsuit brought by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin
and others, the court granted the motion by plaintiffs' local New
York counsel for leave to withdraw, gave the plaintiffs 90 days to
find substitute counsel, and stayed the action in the interim.

On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit brought by
former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the "Shanklin
Litigation"), naming as defendants the Company's subsidiaries
Wilhelmina International and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the
"Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties"), was initiated in New York State
Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who
represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by
Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin
Litigation include breach of contract and unjust enrichment and
are alleged to arise out of matters relating to those matters
involved in the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and
reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model
images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin
Litigation include other model management companies, advertising
firms, and certain advertisers.

On March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation
wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the
case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted
therein against the model management defendants, and stating that
the case "may involve matters in the public interest."  The
judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske
Litigation, which dismissed that case.  The Company believes the
claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself and its subsidiaries.

On January 6, 2014, the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for
failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions
to dismiss.  By Decision and Order dated August 11, 2014, the
court denied the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties' motion to dismiss.
The parties were directed to engage in court-ordered mediation,
but during that process, in October 2014, plaintiffs lost their
principal attorney and new lead counsel for plaintiffs has not yet
been identified.

On March 10, 2015, the court granted the motion by plaintiffs'
local New York counsel for leave to withdraw, gave the plaintiffs
90 days to find substitute counsel, and stayed the action in the
interim.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the Wilhelmina
Subsidiary Parties in the event plaintiffs move forward with
substitute counsel.


YELP INC: "Curry" Securities Class Action in N.D. Cal. Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the case captioned JOSEPH
CURRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YELP INC., et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 14-CV-03547-JST (N.D. Cal.).

A securities action was brought against Yelp Inc., its Co-founder
and Chief Executive Jeremy Stoppelman, its Chief Financial Officer
Robert Krolik, and its Chief Operating Officer Geoffrey Donaker,
alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations
about the authenticity of reviews hosted on Yelp's website, and
about whether Yelp manipulated reviews in favor of businesses that
advertised with Yelp.

In granting the motion to dismiss, Judge Tigar held that the
plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity material false or
misleading statements, loss causation, or scienter and therefore
plaintiffs have not stated a claim for relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, either under section 10(b) or 20(a).

A copy of the April 21, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/vlr7h0from Leagle.com.

Joseph Curry, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren Jay
Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, David Conrad Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Frank James Johnson --
FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP & Nathan R.
Hamler -- NathanH@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP.

Mary Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay --
Rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Francis P
McConville, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Michael M.
Goldberg -- mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP.

Yelp Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman, Robert J. Krolik, and Geoffrey
Donaker, Defendants, represented by Gilbert Ross Serota --
Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLC, Marjory Anne
Gentry -- Marjory.Gentry@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP & Ryan
M. Keats -- Ryan.Keats@aporter.com -- Arnold and Porter LLP.

Dru L. Pio, Movant, represented by David E. Azar --
dazar@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP & Charles J. Piven --
piven@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation.

City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement
Trust, Movant, represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Kenneth Joseph Black --
kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


YP ADVERTISING: Bid to Dismiss FLSA Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHRISTOPHER DINKINS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
YP ADVERTISING LP (f/k/a AT&T ADVERTISING SOLUTIONS), ET AL.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-1463-G (N.D. Tex.), Senior
District Judge A. Joe Fish denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims.

The plaintiffs sued YP Advertising LP (f/k/a AT&T Advertising
Solutions) and YP Texas Region Yellow Pages LLC (collectively,
"YP") alleging that YP's practice of charging bank unearned
commissions is unlawful.  YP moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' FLSA
claims for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

In his March 27, 2015 memorandum opinion and order available at
http://is.gd/kccfkxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Fish held that YP
failed to show that the plaintiffs could prove no set of facts in
support of their claims that would entitle them to relief, or that
the court lacks jurisdiction over the case.

Christopher Dinkins, Annette West, and Kevin Lewis, Plaintiffs,
represented by Allen Ryan Vaught -- avaught@baronbudd.com -- Baron
& Budd PC.

YP Advertising, LP, and YP Texas Region Yellow Pages, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Kimberly Rives Miers --
kmiers@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Jonathan Gary Rector --
jrector@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.


                            *********

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  * * *