CAR_Public/150601.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 1, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 108


                            Headlines


ADVENT SOFTWARE: Parties to Class Action Entered Into MOU
AIR CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Halifax Airport Plane Crash
AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE: Judge Narrows Claims in "Jammal" Suit
ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE: Court Rules on Plaintiff's Discovery Bids
ARC OF NORTHWEST INDIANA: Bid to Certify Collective Action Denied

ARKEMA INC: Accused of Sex Discrimination and Pay Inequality
ARS NATIONAL: Class Action Settlement Approved in "Dorrance" Suit
AUDIOEYE INC: Milberg LLP Files Securities Class Action
BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Trims "Dark Pool" Securities Class Action
BERNARD L. MADOFF: "Fox" Complaint Barred by Permanent Injunction

BERNARD L. MADOFF: Petition to Take Madoff's Deposition Denied
BIG LOTS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Awaits Decision
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Residents Included in Stormwater Class Action
BROOKFIELD DTLA: Reached MOU to Settle Preferred Stock Actions
BROWN SHOE: Reserve for Class Action Settlement Pegged at $1.5MM

CADIZ INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CAFEPRESS INC: In Talks to Resolve IPO Class Action
CANNAVEST CORP: Steve Schuck Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
CHAMPLAIN VALLEY: Workers File Wage Class Action in New York
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid Due in Q4 in Naylor Farms Case

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in "Dodson" Case
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Dismissal of "Donelson" Case Sought
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Stop-and-Frisk Policy
CHINA HOUSING: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Shareholder Action
CHIRO ONE: Bid for Attorneys' Fees Granted in Part

COACHELLA: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Payment Plans
COMMERCIAL METALS: Deal with Direct Purchasers Has Final Approval
COMMERCIAL METALS: No Motion Practice in Indirect Purchasers Case
COMPETITOR GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Liebesman's Class Suit Denied
CONN'S INC: To Defend Against S.D. Tex. Securities Class Action

COOPER VISION: Faces "Crose" Suit Over Pricing Conspiracy
CORDISH COS: Settles Wage Class Action for $1 Million
CORIZON HEALTH: Judge Rejects Juveniles' Class Action
EOS PETRO: Class Action Over Dune Merger in Early Stage
EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Reached in Zalicus Case

FIRST RELIANCE: Parties in Jarrell Case in Discovery Process
FITLIFE BRANDS: Ryan et al. v. Gencor Nutrients Sent to C.D. Cal.
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
FORT WAYNE, IN: Faces Class Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
FOUR OAKS: Suit in M.D. North Carolina Stayed Pending Appeal

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Moll Law Group Mulls Zofran Class Action
GYRODYNE COMPANY: Preliminary Conference Adjourned Until Sept.
HOOPER HOLMES: Magistrate Judge Considering Motion to Reconsider
HOOPER HOLMES: Resolves Class Action in California Superior Court
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces "Rothenberg" Class Action in Fla.

INNOVATIVE FOOD: Believes Mediation May Lead to Global Settlement
IXIA: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
JACOB & COMPANY: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration Denied
JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: "Goldfinger" Suit Dismissed

KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Howard" OT Class Action in California
KIMBERLY-CLARK: City of Wyoming, MN Sues Over "Flushable Wipes"
KKR FINANCIAL: Class Action Plaintiffs' Appeal Currently Pending
LAPOLLA INDUSTRIES: Court Dismisses "Markey" Litigation
LINN-BENTON COMMUNITY: Mulls Class Action Over Dropped Degree

LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Class Action Hampers Diesel Spill Probe
LOS ANGELES, CA: Settles Class Action Over Inmate Beatings
LOUISIANA: App. Ct. Remands "Claborne" Suit v. Housing Authority
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action

MISSOURI: Sex Offender Rehabilitation Class Action Trial Begins
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Must Face Class Suit Over HID Ballasts
MODERN PINBALL: Sued for Not Providing ADA Accessible Facilities
MONSANTO CO: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Judge Narrows Claims in Foreclosure Suit

MOVADO GROUP: To Defend Against Class Action in NJ
MVM INC: Judge Declines to Remand "Clee" Class Action
NATIONAL HOCKEY: "Blue" Suit Included in Concussion Injury MDL
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Settle 401(k) Plan Class Action for $140 Million
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Harasses and Terrorizes Parents, Suit Claims

NINE MILE: Coal Miners' Class Action Over Layoffs Settled
NORTHEAST CORRECTIONAL: Judge Narrows Claims in "Montague" Suit
NQ MOBILE: Reached Deal to Settle Claims for $5.1 Million
NYMOX PHARMACEUTICAL: Facing Shareholder Class Action in NJ
ORACLE CORPORATION: Judge Narrows Claim in "Garrison" Suit

ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Milinazzo From Class Suit
OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS: Sued in Washington for Violating FMLA
PACCAR INC: Faces Class Suit in N.J. Alleging Breach of Contract
PALACE HOSPITALITY: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in Mich.
PELLA CORP: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Alexander" Suit

PERSEON CORPORATION: Threatened With Securities Class Action
PHOENIX COMPANIES: Consecutive Trials to Start June 15
PHOTOMEDEX INC: July 20 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
PLASMATECH BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
PLASTIC2OIL INC: Settlement Hearing Held in Class Action

RCI HOSPITALITY: Deal Reached in NY FLSA Case Prior to Trial
RELIABLE RECOVERY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Baker" Suit
ROSS STORES: Class Action Remains Pending as of January 31
SABINE OIL: Appeal Dismissed in Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Case
SABINE OIL: Violated Terms of MOU, Plaintiffs Say

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Simo" Suit Over Orcas' Conditions
SEPHORA USA: Order Denying Cert. of Wage-and-Hour Suit Upheld
SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Discovery Stayed in Securities Case
SKECHERS USA: Removes 17 Suits Arising From Sale of Toning Shoes
SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces "Whitaker" Wage Class Action in Calif.

STATE STREET: Judge Requires Objectors to Post Appeal Bond
SUNRUN INSTALLATION: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
SWISHER HYGIENE: Deal Reached in Securities Suits in Canada
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Airbag-Related Injuries
TERANET INC: Certification of Copyright Class Action Upheld

TESCO CORPORATION: Dispute With Employees in Arbitration
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Provigil Class Action for $512MM
TILLY'S INC: Cert. Briefing to Conclude in July in "Christiansen"
TILLY'S INC: To Defend "Rebolledo" Class Action
TILLY'S INC: Answered Complaint in "Whitten" Class Action

TILLY'S INC: Removed "Ortiz" Case to E.D. California
TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Discovery Held in Preparation of Sept. Trial
TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Expects Approval of Fortegra Case Settlement
TWC ADMINISTRATION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Garcia" Suit
TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Customer Tenders Defense of 35 Class Suits

U.S. BANK: Summary Judgment Upheld in "Biedryck" Foreclosure Suit
UAW: 6th Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Cert. in Union Fees Suit
ULTA SALON: Defending Against Employment Class Action
UNITED STATES: Bid to Nix Class Representatives & Counsel Denied
UNITED STATES: Homeland Security Faces "Mazinda" FOIA Class Suit

UNITED STATES: PTO Faces Suit Over Patent Applications Program
UTI WORLDWIDE: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Angley Class Action
VELOCITY EXPRESS: N.D. Calif. Judge Trims "Flores" Suit
VERTEX ENERGY: United Named as Defendant in Davis et al. Action
VOLTARI CORPORATION: Filed Answering Brief in Class Action Appeal

WAL-MART STORES: Judge Narrows Claims in "Reynolds" Suit
WILLBROS GROUP: "Walters" Class Action at Very Early Stage


                            *********


ADVENT SOFTWARE: Parties to Class Action Entered Into MOU
---------------------------------------------------------
Advent Software, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2015, that the
parties to the consolidated class action entered have into a
memorandum of understanding ("MOU") setting forth the terms of a
settlement of the Consolidated Action.

On February 2, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company,
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("SS&C")
and Arbor Acquisition Corporation, ("Merger Sub") a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of SS&C.

Following the announcement of the proposed merger, three putative
class action complaints challenging the transactions contemplated
by the Merger Agreement were filed by purported Advent
stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Court") against Advent, the Board of Directors, SS&C and
Merger Sub ("Defendants").  The complaints were captioned Chitwood
v. Advent Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 10623-VCL, City of
Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. David Peter F. Hess, Jr., et
al., Case No. 10633-VCL, and Klein v. Advent Software, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10670-VCL.  The complaints were consolidated into a
single action by a February 25, 2015 court order and captioned In
re Advent Software, Inc., C.A. No. 10623-VCL (the "Consolidated
Action").  On February 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint").  The Consolidated Complaint generally alleges, among
other things, that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary
duties to Advent's stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales
process, agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately
compensate Advent stockholders, agreeing to certain deal
protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that the plaintiffs
allege impede or preclude a potential topping bid, and allegedly
failing to disclose material information regarding the proposed
merger.  The Consolidated Complaint also asserts that Advent, SS&C
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Board of Directors' breaches
of fiduciary duties.  The Consolidated Complaint seeks to enjoin
the merger or, alternatively, seeks an award of rescissory or
other compensatory damages in the event it is consummated, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 4, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order
preliminarily enjoining the Advent stockholder vote on the
adoption of the Merger Agreement and approval of the Merger.  The
Court scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for April 10,
2015.

On April 1, 2015, following expedited discovery, the parties to
the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding
("MOU") setting forth the terms of a settlement of the
Consolidated Action.  Pursuant to the MOU, and without admitting
any wrongdoing or that these supplemental disclosures are material
or required to be made, defendants agreed to include in this Form
8-K certain supplemental disclosures demanded by plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action. The MOU further provides that, among other
things, (a) the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action will
withdraw their motion to preliminarily enjoin the shareholder vote
at the Special Meeting; (b) the parties will negotiate a
definitive stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") and will
submit the Stipulation to the Court for review and approval; (c)
the Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the Consolidated
Action with prejudice; (d) the Stipulation will include a release
of defendants of claims relating to, among other things, the
merger and the Merger Agreement; and (e) the settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the merger,
completion of confirmatory discovery, class certification, and
final approval of the settlement by the Court after notice to the
Advent's stockholders. Defendants believe that the allegations and
claims in the Consolidated Action are without merit and, if the
settlement does not receive final approval, intend to defend
against them vigorously. Defendants are entering into the
settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been
asserted to rest. The settlement will not affect the timing of the
merger or the amount or form of consideration to be paid in the
merger.


AIR CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Halifax Airport Plane Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aly Thomson, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed over the March plane crash at the
Halifax airport, alleging that passengers suffered physical and
psychological injuries as a result, a law firm said on April 21.

The statement of claim from MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law
names Air Canada, Nav Canada, the Halifax International Airport
Authority and an unnamed captain and first officer as defendants.
It seeks $12 million in damages for physical and psychological
injuries including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress
disorder and insomnia that it alleges stem from the March 29
crash.

"These injuries and impairments have been accompanied by pain,
suffering, and a loss of enjoyment of life," says the document
filed with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

None of the allegations contained in the lawsuit have been proven
in court.

Air Canada, the Halifax International Airport Authority and Nav
Canada all said they could not comment on April 21 as the matter
is before the courts.

The lawsuit makes a number of claims including that the airport
kept the runway open when it knew or should have known that was
not reasonably safe and that the runway was operating with an
inadequate instrument landing system.  It alleges Nav Canada
instructed the flight crew of Air Canada Flight 624 to land when
it knew or should have known that conditions were unsafe and that
it failed to advise the flight crew that the aircraft's speed,
rate and angle of descent would result in a crash.

The document also alleges that Air Canada failed to ensure
passengers were reasonably safe and that the captain and officer
failed to take reasonable care to avoid the crash.

The Airbus A320 was flying from Toronto when it hit an antenna
array, slammed into the ground about 335 meters short of the
runway and then skidded for another 335 meters before stopping.
All 133 passengers and five crew on board survived, although about
two dozen people were sent to hospital.

The statement of claim says after the plane was evacuated, the
passengers were left standing on the runway in the cold, wind and
snow for about 50 minutes before being picked up by airport
officials.

The Transportation Safety Board is investigating.

MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law said it is also filing a
lawsuit that names 20 individual clients in case the class-action
is not certified.


AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE: Judge Narrows Claims in "Jammal" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donald C. Nugent of the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division ruled on the parties' motions in the case WALID
JAMMAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13 CV 437 (N.D. Ohio)

Walid Jammal, Dana LaRiche Nathan Garrett, Patricia McClain-Evans
and John Vincent filed a complaint against American Family
Insurance Company (Group), American Family Mutual Insurance
Company, American Family Life Insurance Company, American Standard
Insurance Company of Wisconsin, American Family Termination
Benefits Plan, Retirement Plan for Employees of American Family
Insurance Group, American Family 401K Plan, Group Life Plan, Group
Health Plan, Group Dental Plan, Long Term Disability Plan,
American Family Insurance Group Master Retirement Trust, 401K Plan
Administrative Committee, and The Committee of Employee and
District Manager Retirement Plan as Defendants.

Count one of their complaint seeks declaratory judgment affirming
that plaintiffs and purported class members are employees for all
purposes, including but not limited to ERISA; declaring that the
Termination Benefits Plan is an employee benefit plan subject to
ERISA's vesting and benefit accrual provisions; declaring that
certain plan provisions violate ERISA; and, declaring that the
plaintiffs are entitled to reformation of the contracts and
restitution of benefits allegedly withheld by American Family in
violation of ERISA.  Count two seeks injunctive relief prohibiting
defendants from continuing to misclassify its agents as
independent contractors; prohibiting defendants from implementing
benefits plans that do not comply with ERISA; ordering American
Family to comply with ERISA requirements with regard to the
Termination Benefit Plan; and, ordering defendants to recalculate
and pay benefits under the proper calculation of benefits as
provided by ERISA.

Count three is a claim of benefits under ERISA Section
502(a)(1)(B), seeking payments under the Termination Benefit Plan
in accordance with ERISA requirements. Count four seeks
restitution, contract reformation, and actual damages arising from
defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duty arising from their
refusal to recognize that the benefits provided under the
Termination Benefits Plan were vested and non-forfeitable pursuant
to ERISA's requirements, and for failing to follow ERISA accrual
and vesting requirements.

Counts five and six seek damages and injunctive relief based on
defendants failure to provide plaintiffs with health and welfare
benefits offered to other employees, including a retirement plan,
401K plan, group health plan, group dental plan, group life plan,
and long term disability plan, that are offered to those workers
American Family has classified as employees.

Defendants have filed Motions for Summary Judgment challenging the
claims of the four named plaintiffs. Defendants claim that
plaintiffs Garrett, Tuersley, and Jammal, are all barred from
asserting any of their claims under the applicable statutes of
limitations/repose. With regard to Ms. Durachinsky, defendants do
not assert a statute of limitations defense in connection with her
claims under Counts three and five. Defendants also contend that
none of these plaintiffs can be classified as employees, and they
are, therefore, not entitled to any ERISA benefits. Further,
defendants claim that all four of these plaintiffs are barred from
raising the claims in counts one, two, five and six because they
failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. In addition,
defendants allege that plaintiff Jammal is barred by res judicata
from raising any of the state claims because he previously filed
suit against American Family and the case was dismissed with
prejudice following a settlement between the parties.

Judge Nugent granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
for summary judgment as to all claims asserted by plaintiff
Tuersley's claim. Ms. Tuersley is barred from pursuing her claim
for breach of fiduciary duty under count four by the statue of
limitations. All other claims brought on her behalf will proceed
to trial. Defendants' motions for summary judgment as to the
claims for all remaining named plaintiffs are denied. Plaintiffs'
motion on the Statute of Limitations is also denied. A status
hearing was set for May 7, 2015 at 10:30 a.m..

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

Walid Jammal, Plaintiff, represented by Amy E. Keller, Wexler
Wallace, Charles J. Crueger, Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger,
Drew T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Edward A. Wallace,
Wexler Wallace, Erin K. Dickinson, Hansen Reynolds Dickinson
Crueger, Gregory F. Coleman, Law Office of Greg Coleman, Kara A.
Elgersma, Wexler Wallace, Mark E. Silvey, Law Office of Greg
Coleman & Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman

Dana LaRiche, Plaintiff, represented by Amy E. Keller, Wexler
Wallace, Charles J. Crueger, Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger,
Drew T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Edward A. Wallace,
Wexler Wallace, Erin K. Dickinson, Hansen Reynolds Dickinson
Crueger, Gregory F. Coleman, Law Office of Greg Coleman, Kara A.
Elgersma, Wexler Wallace, Mark E. Silvey, Law Office of Greg
Coleman & Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman

Kathleen Tuersley, Plaintiff, represented by Amy E. Keller, Wexler
Wallace, Charles J. Crueger, Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger,
Drew T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Edward A. Wallace,
Wexler Wallace, Erin K. Dickinson, Hansen Reynolds Dickinson
Crueger, Gregory F. Coleman, Law Office of Greg Coleman, Kara A.
Elgersma, Wexler Wallace, Mark E. Silvey, Law Office of Greg
Coleman & Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman

Cinda J. Durachinsky, Plaintiff, represented by Amy E. Keller,
Wexler Wallace, Charles J. Crueger, Hansen Reynolds Dickinson
Crueger, Drew T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Edward A.
Wallace, Wexler Wallace, Erin K. Dickinson, Hansen Reynolds
Dickinson Crueger, Gregory F. Coleman, Law Office of Greg Coleman,
Kara A. Elgersma, Wexler Wallace, Mark E. Silvey, Law Office of
Greg Coleman & Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman

Patricia McClain-Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Amy E. Keller,
Wexler Wallace, Charles J. Crueger, Hansen Reynolds Dickinson
Crueger, Drew T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Edward A.
Wallace, Wexler Wallace, Erin K. Dickinson, Hansen Reynolds
Dickinson Crueger, Gregory F. Coleman, Law Office of Greg Coleman,
Kara A. Elgersma, Wexler Wallace, Mark E. Silvey, Law Office of
Greg Coleman & Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman

John Vincent, Plaintiff, represented by Amy E. Keller, Wexler
Wallace, Charles J. Crueger, Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger,
Drew T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Edward A. Wallace,
Wexler Wallace, Erin K. Dickinson, Hansen Reynolds Dickinson
Crueger, Gregory F. Coleman, Law Office of Greg Coleman, Kara A.
Elgersma, Wexler Wallace, Mark E. Silvey, Law Office of Greg
Coleman & Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Merriman

Nathan Garrett, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Landskroner,
Landskroner Grieco Merriman

American Family Insurance Company, other American Family Insurance
Group, Defendant, represented byGregory V. Mersol, Baker &
Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker & Hostetler & Rodger L.
Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler

American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Gregory V. Mersol, Baker & Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker
& Hostetler & Rodger L. Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler

American Family Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Gregory V. Mersol, Baker & Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker &
Hostetler & Rodger L. Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler

American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Defendant,
represented by Gregory V. Mersol, Baker & Hostetler, Gilbert P.
Brosky, Baker & Hostetler & Rodger L. Eckelberry, Baker &
Hostetler

American Family Termination Benefits Plan, Defendant, represented
by Gregory V. Mersol, Baker & Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker
& Hostetler & Rodger L. Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler

Retirement Plan for Employees of American Family Insurance Group,
Defendant, represented by Gregory V. Mersol, Baker & Hostetler,
Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker & Hostetler & Rodger L. Eckelberry, Baker
& Hostetler

American Family 401K Plan, Defendant, represented by Gregory V.
Mersol, Baker & Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker & Hostetler &
Rodger L. Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler

Group Life Plan, Defendant, represented by Gregory V. Mersol,
Baker & Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker & Hostetler & Rodger
L. Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler

Group Health Plan, Defendant, represented by Gregory V. Mersol,
Baker & Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker & Hostetler & Rodger
L. Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler

Group Dental Plan, Defendant, represented by Gregory V. Mersol,
Baker & Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker & Hostetler & Rodger
L. Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler

Long Term Disability Plan, Defendant, represented by Gregory V.
Mersol, Baker & Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker & Hostetler &
Rodger L. Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler

American Family Insurance Group Master Retirement Trust,
Defendant, represented by Gregory V. Mersol, Baker & Hostetler,
Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker & Hostetler & Rodger L. Eckelberry, Baker
& Hostetler

401K Plan Administrative Committee, Defendant, represented by
Gregory V. Mersol, Baker & Hostetler,Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker &
Hostetler & Rodger L. Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler

The Committee of Employee and District Manager Retirement Plan,
Defendant, represented by Gregory V. Mersol, Baker & Hostetler,
Gilbert P. Brosky, Baker & Hostetler & Rodger L. Eckelberry, Baker
& Hostetler


ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE: Court Rules on Plaintiff's Discovery Bids
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe ruled on the plaintiff's
motions to compel discovery in the case captioned A-W LAND CO.
LLC, VERNON JESSER and MARY JESSER, KENT J. MCDANIEL and DEANNA R.
MCDANIEL, and MARVIN BAY and MILDRED BAY, co-trustees of the Bay
Family Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC, and ANADARKO
LAND COMPANY, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-02293-MSK-MJW.
(D. Colo.).

A class action was brought against the defendants alleging that
the latter's lessees trespassed by using oil and gas drills with a
larger footprint on the surface estate than the defendants were
legally entitled to use.  Plaintiffs filed two motions to compel
discovery over the defendants' objections.

Plaintiffs' first motion concerned their August 9, 2014 discovery
requests, which can be divided into two categories: those for
which the defendants dispute relevance, and those for which the
defendants dispute custody and control over responsive documents.

As to the relevancy objections, Judge Watanabe granted the
plaintiffs' discovery requests upon finding that these were
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

The defendants also objected to the entire set of discovery
requests to the extent they ask the defendants to respond on
behalf of Kerr-McGee, a sister company affiliated with the
defendants but not under their direct legal control. On this
objection, Judge Watanabe found that the plaintiffs failed to meet
the standard of an enforceable practical ability.  There is no
showing that Kerr-McGEe is an agent of the defendants.  He
therefore denied the plaintiffs' motion to the extent it sought to
compel the defendants to produce documents and interrogatory
responses on behalf of Kerr-McGee.

Plaintiffs' second motion concerned their February 5, 2015
discovery requests consisting of two requests for production of
documents.  Judge Watanabe granted this motion, holding that the
defendants failed to establish that the documents the plaintiffs
requested were irrelevant.

A copy of the May 11, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/6CAdQjfrom Leagle.com.

A-W Land Co., LLC, Vernon Jesser, Mary Jesser, Kent J. McDaniel,
Deanna R. McDaniel, and Marvin Bay, and Mildred Bay, Co-Trustees
of the Bay Family Trust, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by George A. Barton,
George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C.,
Thomas R. Rice -- trice@sgrllc.com -- Rice LLC & Stacy Ann
Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C..

Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC, and Anadarko Land Corporation, formerly
known as RME Land Corp., Defendants, represented by Gail L.
Wurtzler -- gail.wurtzler@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs,
LLP, Michael John Gallagher -- mike.gallagher@dgslaw.com -- Davis
Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Kyle Wesley Brenton --
kyle.brenton@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP & Thomas P.
Johnson -- tom.johnson@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP.


ARC OF NORTHWEST INDIANA: Bid to Certify Collective Action Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William C. Lee denied the Motion to Certify as a
Collective Action filed by the plaintiff in the case captioned
MILLIE BRADLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE ARC OF NORTHWEST INDIANA, INC.,
Defendant, CIVIL NO. 2:14CV204. (N.D. Ind.).

Plaintiff Millie Bradley alleged that the defendant, The Arc of
Northwest Indiana ("Arc") violated certain provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Arc allegedly failed to pay minimum
wage (Count I) as well as overtime wage (Count II), both to
Bradley and other employees.  Bradley sought to have Count II
certified as an "opt-in" collective action, and to prosecute Count
II on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.

In his opinion and order dated May 11, 2015 and available at
http://is.gd/8pW6WZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lee denied Bradley's
motion to certify as a collective action.  He held that the two
affidavits submitted by Bradley were clearly insufficient to meet
the "modest factual showing" standard needed to justify a decision
to conditionally certify a class.  Bradley also failed to
establish a company-wide policy which was instituted to deprive
employees of overtime pay. Further, her evidence revealed that any
claims in this matter would be highly individualized and not
appropriate for a collective action.

Millie Bradley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam John Sedia, Rubino Ruman
Crosmer & Polen.

Arc of Northwest Indiana Inc, Defendant, represented by Kathleen
Marie Anderson -- kathleen.anderson@btlaw.com -- Barnes &
Thornburg LLP & Adam Lee Bartrom -- adam.bartrom@btlaw.com --
Barnes & Thornburg LLP.


ARKEMA INC: Accused of Sex Discrimination and Pay Inequality
------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Shaeffer v. Arkema, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-02593-EGS (E.D.
Pa., May 8, 2015) is brought under the Civil Rights Act of l964,
the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 to correct alleged unlawful employment practices,
including sex discrimination and inequality in pay, and to provide
appropriate relief to the Plaintiff, who was adversely affected by
the practices.

Arkemis, Inc. is a duly organized corporate entity that employs
more than 15 employees with its principal place of business
located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edith A. Pearce, Esq.
          THE PEARCE LAW FIRM
          1429 Walnut St., 14th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 557-8686
          Facsimile: (215) 557-7226
          E-mail: eapearce@thepearcelawfirm.com


ARS NATIONAL: Class Action Settlement Approved in "Dorrance" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Malachy E. Mannion granted the parties' request for
final approval of class action settlement in the case captioned
EDWARD DORRANCE, on behalf of plaintiff and two classes,
Plaintiffs, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 3:12-2502 (M.D. Pa.).

On December 14, 2012, an action for damages was brought against
ARS National Services, Inc., seeking redress for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  A joint motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement was
filed on December 17, 2013.  The court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement on September 26,
2014, and again on January 6, 2015 when the terms of the agreement
were modified due to an error in calculating the class size.

The plaintiffs submitted their brief in support of the final
approval of the class action settlement on April 21, 2015, and a
final fairness hearing took place on April 23, 2015.

Judge Mannion found that the necessary legal requirements were
met.  In his May 11, 2015 memorandum which is available at
http://is.gd/6mB2Azfrom Leagle.com, he concluded that:

     -- the court will certify the class for settlement purposes;
        and

     -- the court will grant the plaintiff's motion for final
        approval of class settlement, as well as attorney's fees
        and class representative's fees.

Edward Dorrance, Plaintiff, represented by Carlo Sabatini,
Sabatini Law Firm, LLC, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman, combs,
Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Thomas E. Soule, Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC.

ARS National Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew K.
Stutzman -- astutzman@stradley.com -- Stradley, Ronon, Stevens &
Young, Eric M. Hurwitz -- ehurwitz@stradley.com -- Stradley,
Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP & William T. Mandia --
wmandia@stradley.com -- Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP.


AUDIOEYE INC: Milberg LLP Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Milberg LLP on April 20 disclosed that it has filed a federal
securities class action against AudioEye, Inc. alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona, is on
behalf of purchasers of AudioEye securities between May 5, 2014
and April 1, 2015, inclusive.

Defendants' are alleged to have violated the federal securities
laws, specifically Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) AudioEye's financial statements contained errors
concerning the classification of revenues and expenses; (2) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls over its financial
reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On April 1, 2015, the truth was revealed when AudioEye announced
that its previously issued financial statements for the quarters
ended March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2014 will be restated
due to errors.  Furthermore, AudioEye stated that its preliminary
earnings release issued by the Company on January 12, 2015
relating to the quarter and year ended December 31, 2014 should no
longer be relied upon.  The Company also announced that, Edward
O'Donnell, resigned as the Company's Chief Financial Officer.

As a result of this announcement, the Company's stock fell 22%
during intraday trading on April 1, 2015.

If you purchased AudioEye common stock during the Class Period you
may, no later than June 15, 2015, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a
class member that represents other class members in directing the
litigation.  Your share in any recovery will not be affected by
serving as a lead plaintiff, however, lead plaintiffs make
important decisions that could affect the overall recovery for
class members.  You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to recover
as an absent class member. You may retain Milberg LLP, or other
attorneys, for this action, but do not need to retain counsel to
recover.  If this action is certified as a class action, class
members will be automatically represented by Court-appointed
counsel.

Milberg LLP -- http://www.milberg.com-- has represented
individual and institutional investors for over four decades and
serves as lead counsel in Courts throughout the United States.


BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Trims "Dark Pool" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Conarck, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge didn't toss but did trim a securities class action on
April 24 accusing Barclays PLC and its executives of covering up,
and even encouraging, aggressive high-frequency trading practices
in an off-exchange "dark pool."

In allowing the action to move forward, U.S. District Judge Shira
A. Scheindlin stipulated that general statements made by Barclays
concerning its business practice and risk controls and statements
it made in response to a commissioned report to review business
practices and culture were inactionable as puffery.  Claims
establishing former Barclays PLC Finance Director Christopher
Lucas and current Finance Director Tushar Morzaria as control
persons in the alleged fraud were also tossed aside.

Judge Scheindlin said that the complaint, however, did show that
statements Barclays made about the safety of trading on its
Liquidity Cross, or LX, exchange -- a so-called dark pool or
private trading venue where investors can trade stocks with near
anonymity -- were material to investors, despite the fact that the
dark pool's revenue made up a fraction of the company's overall
revenue, bringing it below a certain threshold for establishing
materiality.

"As alleged, the specific misstatements about LX -- which include
touting its safety while secretly encouraging predatory behavior
-- call into question the integrity of the company as a whole,"
Judge Scheindlin said.

Both sides expressed happiness with the ruling.

Jeremy A. Lieberman of Pomerantz LLP, attorney for plaintiff
investor Barbara Strougo, told Law360 on April 24 that his team is
"very gratified that the court in large part denied defendants'
motion to dismiss."

"We look forward to aggressively litigating this case to pursue a
substantial recovery for the class," Mr. Lieberman said.

Mark Lane, a Barclay's spokesman, also told Law360 that the
company is "pleased that the court dismissed the vast majority of
the allegations in the action."

"The court allowed some of the allegations to proceed, but only
because, at this stage in the litigation, the court accepted the
plaintiffs' allegations as true," Mr. Lane said.  "Barclays
continues to believe that surviving claims are without merit and
looks forward to being able to challenge their accuracy and
establish the lack of harm to any holders of Barclays ADS during
the next stages of the litigation."

The predatory behavior at issue centered on Barclay's "liquidity
profiling," which it claimed allowed it to monitor the "toxicity"
of trading behavior in the dark pool and hold traders accountable
if they were trading aggressively or in a predatory manner,
according to the judge's opinion.

Though Barclays claimed it would refuse access to clients who
engaged in such strategies, high-frequency traders flocked to the
dark pool, and rather than denying them access, Barclays marked
them with safe liquidity profile ratings rather than toxic ones,
the opinion said.  The complaint, which alleges that Barclays knew
its liquidity profiling tool was ineffective, quoted former
employees as saying the framework of the tool was manually
controlled, shoddily applied and functioned as a scam.

The complaint does not allege that any of the individual
defendants other than equities electronic trading head William
White -- including Lucas, Morzaria, former CEO Robert Diamond and
current CEO Antony Jenkins -- knew about the LX product, "much
less that they intended to mislead [American depository share]
holders with regard to that product," Judge Scheindlin said.

However, the complaint adequately pled scienter on behalf of Mr.
White, showing "strong circumstantial evidence of conscious
misbehavior or recklessness," Judge Scheindlin wrote.

"Not only was White the source of many of the allegedly false
allegations about LX, but he was the head of Equities Electronic
Trading at Barclays, 'the driving force behind the company's goal
to be the number one dark pool,' and he 'held himself [out] to the
public as intimately knowledgeable about LX's functions and
purported transparency,'" the judge wrote.

She added that Mr. White had attributed the growth of the dark
pool to Barclays' commitment to transparency in an industry
publication.

Ms. Strougo is represented by Jeremy Lieberman and Emma Gilmore of
Pomerantz LLP.

The defendants are represented by Jeffrey Scott --
scottj@sullcrom.com -- David Braff -- braffd@sullcrom.com --
Matthew Schwartz -- schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- Andrew Reynard
and John J. Hughes III of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

The case is Strougo v. Barclays, case number 1:14-cv-05797, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


BERNARD L. MADOFF: "Fox" Complaint Barred by Permanent Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, In re BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT
SECURITIES LLC, Debtor. ADELE FOX, ET AL., Appellants, v. IRVING
H. PICARD, Appellee, and CAPITAL GROWTH COMPANY, ET AL.,
Intervenors, NO. 14 CV. 6790(JGK) (S.D. N.Y.), district Judge John
G. Koeltl affirmed the bankruptcy court's order enjoining the
appellants from filing their complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Appellants Adele Fox and Susanne Stone Marshall, who each had
invested money in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
("BLMIS"), sought to file a Second Amended Complaint in the
Florida district court alleging new claims against Jeffrey
Picower, an alleged Madoff co-conspirator, and other related
defendants (collectively, the "Picower defendants").  The
bankruptcy court held that the appellants' new claims were barred
by a prior permanent injunction precluding the assertion of claims
that were duplicative or derivative of claims brought by the
Trustee of the BLMIS estate, or that could have been brought by
the Trustee against the Picower defendants.

In affirming the bankruptcy court, Judge Koeltl held that the
appellants have merely repackaged the same facts underlying the
Trustee's claims without any new particularized injuries of the
appellants that are directly traceable to the Picower defendants.
He added that all of the claims in the new complaint
"impermissibly attempt to 'plead around' the bankruptcy court's
injunction barring all 'derivative claims.'

A copy of the May 11, 2015 opinion and order is available at
http://is.gd/6uYhAtfrom Leagle.com.

Susanne Stone Marshall, Adele Fox, Marsha Peshkin, and Russell
Oasis, Appellants, represented by Helen Davis Chaitman --
hchaitman@bplegal.com -- Becker & Poliakoff, P.A, Julie Gorchkova
-- jgorchkova@bplegal.com -- Becker & Poliakoff, LLP, Lance
Gotthoffer, Reed Smith LLP & Peter William Smith --
psmith@becker-poliakoff.com -- Becker & Poliakoff.

Irving H. Picard, Appellee, represented by David J. Sheehan --
dsheehan@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Keith R. Murphy --
kmurphy@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Deborah Hilarie
Renner -- drenner@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostefler LLP & Ferve
Emine Ozturk -- fozturk@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Picower Parties, Appellee, represented by Jennifer Marie Opheim --
jennifer.opheim@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Marcy Ressler
Harris -- marcy.harris@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP &
Michael Yongha Kwon -- michael.kwon@srz.com -- Schulte Roth &
Zabel LLP.


BERNARD L. MADOFF: Petition to Take Madoff's Deposition Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John G. Koeltl denied a petition under
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 27(a) petition in the case captioned SUSANNE STONE
MARSHALL, ET AL., Petitioners, v. BERNARD L. MADOFF, ET AL.,
Respondents, NO. 15 MC. 56 (JGK ) (S.D.N.Y.).

Petitioners Susanne Stone Marshall, Adele Fox, Marsha Peshkin, and
Russell Oasis moved pursuant to Rule 27(a) to take the deposition
of Bernard L. Madoff, who is presently serving a 150-year sentence
for carrying out a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.  Rule 27(a)
authorizes a deposition to perpetuate testimony, under certain
circumstances, before an action is filed.

Judge Koeltl denied the petition.  He found that the petitioners
have not satisfied Rule 27(a)(1)(A), and that the petition
appeared to be brought for an improper purpose -- namely, to seek
discovery in order to frame a complaint.

A copy of the May 11, 2015 memorandum opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/BuuRCsfrom Leagle.com.

Susanne Stone Marshall, Adele Fox, Marsha Peshkin, and Russell
Oasis, Petitioners, represented by Helen Davis Chaitman --
hchaitman@bplegal.com -- Becker & Poliakoff, P.A, Julie Gorchkova
-- jgorchkova@bplegal.com -- Becker & Poliakoff, LLP, Lance
Gotthoffer, Reed Smith LLP, Raymond H. Lemisch --
rlemisch@klehr.com -- Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers
& Sean M. Brennecke -- sbrennecke@klehr.com -- Klehr, Harrison,
Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers.

Bernard L. Madoff, Respondent, represented by Marcy Ressler Harris
-- marcy.harris@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.

Barbara Picower, Decisions Incorporated, JA Primary Limited
Partnership, JA Special Limited Partnership, JMP Limited
Partnership, Capital Growth Company, JAB Partnership, JEMW
Partnership, JF Partnership, JFM Investment Companies, JLN
Partnership, Jeffry Picower Special Co., Favorite Funds, Jeffry M.
Picower P.C., The Picower Foundation, and Trust f/b/o Gabrielle H.
Picower, Respondents, represented by Jennifer Marie Opheim --
jennifer.opheim@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Kelly E.
Farnan -- farnan@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Marcy
Ressler Harris, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP & Michael Yongha Kwon --
michael.kwon@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.

Picower Institute for Medical Research, Respondent, represented by
Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Marcy Ressler
Harris, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP & Michael Yongha Kwon, Schulte
Roth & Zabel LLP.

Irving H. Picard, Intervenor, represented by Mary Frances Dugan --
mdugan@ycst.com -- Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Matthew
Lunn -- mlunn@ycst.com -- Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP,
Amy Elizabeth Vanderwal -- avanderwal@bakerlaw.com -- Ropes &
Gray, LLP, Deborah Hilarie Renner -- drenner@bakerlaw.com -- Baker
& Hostefler LLP, Ferve Emine Ozturk -- fozturk@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler LLP, Keith R. Murphy -- kmurphy@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler LLP & Tracy Lynn Cole -- tcole@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler LLP.


BIG LOTS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Awaits Decision
--------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that a motion to dismiss the
putative class action complaint is fully briefed and awaiting a
decision.

The Company said, "On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our
common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This
lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class
action generally alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning our financial performance that were false or
misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April
4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms.
Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to
August 23, 2012. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action complaint, and that motion is fully briefed
and awaiting a decision."


BIRMINGHAM, AL: Residents Included in Stormwater Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Brody, writing for Downtown Publications, reports that
Birmingham residents who have paid the city of Birmingham for
water and sanitary sewage disposal services since June 30, 2013,
have been included in an Oakland County Circuit County suit, Wolf
v. City of Birmingham, which challenges Birmingham's imposition of
stormwater fees as a tax in excess of stormwater disposal charges
imposed by Oakland County.

The plaintiff, Lawrence Wolf of Birmingham, is a water and
sanitary sewer customer who has paid stormwater charges imposed by
the city.  He contends the stormwater charges are not proper user
fees, but taxes wrongfully imposed by the city of Birmingham to
raise revenue in violation of the Michigan Headlee Amendment, and
that he and others similarly charged have been harmed by the
city's collection and retention of the stormwater charges.

He is seeking a judgment from the court against Birmingham which
would order and direct the city to refund all stormwater charges
that he and all those participating in the suit are entitled to.

In his suit, determined in January by Oakland Circuit Court Judge
Leo Bowman that it could be certified as a class action lawsuit,
Mr. Wolf contends that the stormwater charge, which is
incorporated into the sanitary sewage disposal rates charged by
the city, constitutes a tax not authorized by residents in
violation of the Headlee Amendment, and that through the payment
of these charges, the plaintiff and the class are paying the
city's entire cost of stormwater disposal.  He, individually and
on behalf of the class, seeks a refund of all stormwater charges
imposed or received by the city for the year prior to the 2014
filing of the suit and all such charges collected while the action
is pending, or more than $2 million.

The Headlee Tax Limitation Amendment, enacted by Michigan voters
in 1978, limits the amount of tax money local governments can
increase without a vote of the people.

The city denies the plaintiff's claim, and contends they will
prevail in the lawsuit. Birmingham has not filed a counterclaim
against the plaintiff or the class.  City manager Joe Valentine
said there are some charges to residents that are passed through
from Oakland County, "and there is some other stuff," in the
charges.

Mr. Wolf has prevailed in other municipalities where he owns
properties and has filed similar class action lawsuits.  In a suit
against the city of Jackson, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled
in August 2013 that the city's stormwater "fee" is an illegal tax
partly because a public vote was not taken and it violates the
Headlee Amendment, according to the opinion.

In the end of February 2015, the city of Ferndale settled a suit
Mr. Wolf filed against it for $4.5 million, with roughly 13,000
residents receiving a refund for user fees they had paid between
January 2008 and December 2014.

The suit against Birmingham states, "Even after taking into
account payments to the county for its obligations to stormwater
disposal, the city has consistently experienced an operating
profit in its sewer fund as a result of imposing sewer charges
which generate revenue far exceeding the city's actual costs."

The lawsuit estimates in the period of July of 2012 to the end of
June in 2013, the city's sewer fund had net cash "provided by
operating activities of $2.8 million."

Birmingham's combined system flows to the Southeastern Oakland
County Disposal System and the Evergreen Sewage Disposal System,
both owned and maintained by Oakland County.  The county charges
municipalities a flat rate per month who contribute to the county
system for disposal of stormwater overflow.


BROOKFIELD DTLA: Reached MOU to Settle Preferred Stock Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc. said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that
the parties in the Merger-Related Litigation have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding, memorializing the agreement to settle
the Preferred Stock Actions.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger
Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed against
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield DTLA,
Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust
Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the
"Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P.,
and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.
Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"),
and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the
"Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on
April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three
lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-
C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso
Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013,
respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two
lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No.
24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et
al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and
July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock
Actions").

In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by
failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and
ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action further
alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breaches
of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors,
and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust,
Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors. On
June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical,
amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an
amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well as
the Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the SEC on May 21,
2013 is false and/or misleading because it fails to include
certain details of the process leading up to the merger and fails
to provide adequate information concerning MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s financial advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the
Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached
the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG
preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement
that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. On July 15,
2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions filed a joint
amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board
of directors failed to disclose material information regarding
BPO's extension of the tender offer.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
merger has been consummated, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and
the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"), regarding a proposed
settlement of all claims asserted therein. The parties
subsequently entered into a stipulation of settlement dated
November 21, 2013 providing for the release of all asserted
claims, additional disclosures by MPG concerning the merger made
prior to the merger's approval, and the payment, by defendants, of
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $475,000. After a hearing on June 4, 2014, the California
State Court granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
settlement and entered a Final Order and Judgment, awarding
plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount
of $475,000, which was paid by MPG Office LLC on June 18, 2014.
BPO is seeking reimbursement for the settlement payment from MPG's
insurers.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the
Maryland State Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added
additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new
preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred
shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion
concluded on February 28, 2014. At a hearing on June 18, 2014, the
Maryland State Court heard oral arguments on the defendants'
motion to dismiss and reserved judgment on the decision. On
October 21, 2014, the parties sent a joint letter to the Maryland
State Court stating that since the June 18 meeting, the parties
have commenced discussions towards a possible resolution of the
lawsuit, requesting that the court temporarily refrain from
deciding the pending motion to dismiss to facilitate the
discussions, and stating that the parties will report to the court
within 45 days of the October 21 letter regarding the status of
their discussions.

Counsel for the parties have reached an agreement to settle the
Preferred Stock Actions on a class-wide basis and dismiss the case
with prejudice in exchange for the payment of $2.25 per share of
Series A preferred stock of accumulated and unpaid dividends to
holders of record on a record date to be set after final approval
of the settlement by the Maryland State Court, plus any attorneys'
fees awarded by the Maryland State Court to the plaintiffs'
counsel. The dividend will reduce the amount of accumulated and
unpaid dividends on the Series A preferred stock, and the terms of
the Series A preferred stock will otherwise remain unchanged. The
agreement is subject to a number of conditions precedent, further
documentation, and approval of the Maryland State Court, after
notice to the class. The parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") on March 30, 2015 memorializing the
agreement to settle the Preferred Stock Actions, which has been
filed with the Maryland State Court.

While the final outcome with respect to the Preferred Stock
Actions cannot be predicted with certainty, in the opinion of
management after consultation with external legal counsel, any
liability that may arise from such contingencies would not have a
material adverse effect on the financial position, results of
operations or liquidity of Brookfield DTLA.


BROWN SHOE: Reserve for Class Action Settlement Pegged at $1.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brown Shoe Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the reserve for a class
action settlement as of January 31, 2015 is $1.5 million.

The Company said, "During 2014, we signed a settlement agreement
to resolve a putative class action lawsuit involving wage and hour
claims in California for an amount not to exceed $1.5 million. If
approved by the court, under the settlement we will pay a minimum
of $1.0 million in attorneys' fees, costs of administering the
settlement and settlement payments to class members who submit
claims. The ultimate amount paid to resolve the case may exceed
that amount depending on the number of valid claims submitted. In
the event that the settlement is not consummated, the parties will
continue to litigate whether the action should proceed as a class
action with a hearing scheduled for the second quarter of 2015.
The reserve for this matter as of January 31, 2015 is $1.5
million."


CADIZ INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 24
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Cadiz Inc. securities from March 10, 2014 through
April 21, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Cadiz
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Cadiz class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-580.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

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

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Bureau of Land
Management ("BLM") had previously determined that Cadiz Valley
Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project (the "Project")
did not meet a "railroad purpose" as required to use an existing
right-of-way on government land and (ii) the BLM's determination
concerning the Project in conjunction with the 2012 Consolidated
Appropriations Act rendered the project unviable.  When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 23, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-580.htmlor to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


CAFEPRESS INC: In Talks to Resolve IPO Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
CafePress Inc. is negotiating an agreement to resolve a class
action litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On July 10, 2013, a complaint captioned
Desmarais v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-522744 was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo naming as
defendants the Company, certain of our directors, our chief
executive officer, our chief financial officer and certain
underwriters of our IPO. The lawsuit purports to be a class action
on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally
alleges that the registration statement for the IPO contained
materially false or misleading statements. The complaint purports
to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On July 14, 2013 a
similar compliant making substantially identical allegations and
captioned Jinnah v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-522976 was filed in
the same court against the same defendants."

"We are negotiating an agreement to resolve the litigation as of
March 28, 2015. As currently contemplated, the agreement (which is
subject to final documentation and approval) will call for a
payment of $8.0 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of all
claims against us and our officers and directors, of which our
liability insurers will contribute approximately $7.5 million and
we will contribute approximately $0.5 million. Any final agreement
will be subject to negotiation and execution of a formal
settlement agreement, reaching certain agreements with our
liability insurers, and approval by the court. There can be no
assurance that such an agreement will be finalized or that its
final terms will be the same as those currently contemplated. We
and the individual defendants continue to deny all allegations in
the lawsuit."


CANNAVEST CORP: Steve Schuck Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------
CannaVest Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court issued a
ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff and setting an
initial pre-trial conference for April 30, 2015, in a class action
lawsuit.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro
alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares
of the Company's common stock for a total investment of
$15,791.00. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K
and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on
April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended
previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000
were restated to $1,082,375 - reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).
Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent
to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals have
filed a motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the
litigation.

The Court scheduled a hearing on August 14, 2014 to consider the
motions for designation as lead plaintiff.  The other individuals
seeking lead plaintiff designation are: Wayne Chesner; Anamaria
Schelling; Mark Williams; Otilda LaMont; Jane Ish and Steve
Schuck.  After a hearing held on August 14, 2014, the Court took
the matter under submission. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a
ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff and setting an
initial pre-trial conference for April 30, 2015.  The Company has
not yet answered the Complaint but management intends to
vigorously defend the allegations.


CHAMPLAIN VALLEY: Workers File Wage Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Moriarty, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that five current
and former workers at Champlain Valley Specialty of NY Inc.'s
apple processing plant in Oswego have filed a lawsuit alleging the
company does not pay employees for all of the hours they work.

Juan Ramon Marroquin Alas, Marina Baltazar, Clara Estela Fuentes
Lux, Victor Marroquin and Miguel Perez Ortiz alleged in the
lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Syracuse that the company
routinely failed to pay them and other employees for up to two
hours of work each day.

"The plaintiffs goals are very modest, as the company paid them
only minimum wage, but even still it did not pay them for all of
their hard work," attorney Teague Paterson, who is representing
the workers, said in a statement.  "And so we are simply seeking
proper payment for all hours worked and to ensure the company
respects its workers in the future by complying with federal and
state labor law."

They said the company requires workers to report to work at 7:30
a.m. each day but makes them wait up to two hours before apples
are ready for processing.  They were not allowed to leave while
they waited, but the company did not pay them for the time they
spent waiting, they said.

Champlain Valley Specialty uses an electronic system for recording
each employee's work time. However, workers are not allowed to
clock in until the plant is ready to begin processing, the lawsuit
said.  In addition, they said workers are given only a half-hour,
at most, for lunch and sometimes have to work through that time.
Nevertheless, the company always deducts one hour from their pay
for lunch, they said.

A woman who answered the phone at the company late on April 21
afternoon said she knew nothing about the lawsuit and could not
comment.  The lawsuit seeks class-action status.  The workers said
they were suing on behalf of themselves and other workers at the
plant.  They are suing for unpaid wages under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, they said.

Champlain Valley Specialty buys apples grown in New York and
elsewhere, slices them and packages them for sale to schools under
the brand name Grab Apples.  Its biggest customer is the New York
City School District, which serves 850,000 meals each school day,
according to the Workers' Center of Central New York, which
assisted the workers in filing the lawsuit.

The company has been owned by the Dygert family since 2002 and has
seen rapid growth in recent years because of its growing public
school customer base, the Workers' Center said.

The company opened the $4.5 million apple processing plant in 2012
at a former Empire Fresh Cuts onion-packing facility at 8033 State
Route 104 in the town of Oswego.  The facility, which was to
employ 30 to 40 people, received $800,000 in state tax credits.

The company has an estimated annual sales volume of $12.3 million
dollars, the Workers' Center said.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid Due in Q4 in Naylor Farms Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the motion for class
certification is due in the fourth quarter of 2015 in the case,
Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class representative on
behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy,
L.L.C.

The Company said, "On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was
filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma ("Naylor Farms Case") alleging that
we improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid
to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in
the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in
Oklahoma. The purported class includes non-governmental royalty
interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in
Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of
leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive
damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. We have
responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the allegations and
raised arguments and defenses. Discovery is ongoing and
information and documents continue to be exchanged. The class has
not been certified, but the motion for class certification is due
in the fourth quarter of 2015."

"We are not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss
or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Naylor Farms Case
will have on our financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matters, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter.
Plaintiffs in the Naylor Farms Case have indicated, that if the
class is certified, they seek damages in excess of $5 million
which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which
would be comprised of interest. We dispute plaintiffs' claims,
dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action
and are vigorously defending the case."


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in "Dodson" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class has not been
certified and discovery has not yet commenced in the case, Amanda
Dodson, individually and as class representative on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

The Company said, "On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson (the
"Plaintiff"), filed a complaint against us in the District Court
of Mayes County, Oklahoma, ("Dodson Case") with allegation similar
to those asserted in the Naylor Farms case related to post-
production deductions, and include clams for breach of contract,
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other
claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory
damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of
the alleged class.  The alleged class includes non-governmental
royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in
Oklahoma.  We have responded to the Dodson petition, denied the
allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. At this
time, a class has not been certified and discovery has not yet
commenced."

"We are not currently able to estimate a reasonable possible loss
or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Dodson Case will have
on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows
due to the preliminary status of the matters, the complexity and
number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and
uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of
the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the
scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, and the
ultimate potential outcome of the matter. We dispute plaintiffs'
claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class
action and are vigorously defending the case."


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Dismissal of "Donelson" Case Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. has joined in Motions to Dismiss filed by
the Defendants in the case Martha Donelson and John Friend, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was
filed against us, as well as several other operators in Osage
County, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma ("Donelson Case"), alleging claims on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County
land owners and surface lessees. The Plaintiffs assert claims
seeking recovery for trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust
enrichment. Relief sought includes declaring oil and natural gas
leases and drilling permits obtained in Osage County without a
prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing us from all properties
owned by the class members, disgorgement of profits, and
compensatory and punitive damages. We have joined in Motions to
Dismiss filed by the Defendants.  At this time, a class has not
been certified and discovery has yet to begin. As such, we are not
yet able to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss,
if any.  We dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the case
meets the requirements for a class action and are vigorously
defending the case."


CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Stop-and-Frisk Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Meisner, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that the
Chicago Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisk policy
has routinely violated the constitutional rights of mostly
African-Americans who have not committed any crime, according to a
federal lawsuit.  The suit was filed on behalf of six African-
American men from the South and West sides and seeks class-action
status.  The defendants are the city, police Superintendent Garry
McCarthy and 14 unnamed police officers.

The 36-page lawsuit alleged that the "suspicionless" street stops
have led to constitutional abuses including unlawful searches and
seizures as well as excessive force.

According to plaintiff Gregory Davis, police officers stopped him
in July 2014 while he waited in his vehicle on South Stony Island
Avenue for a family member to come out of a Walgreens store.
Officers asked Mr. Davis, 58, why he was sitting there and
demanded his driver's license and insurance information, the
lawsuit alleged.

The officers "looked through the window into Mr. Davis' vehicle
before allowing (him) to return to his nearby home," the lawsuit
alleged. No citations were issued.

Three months later, Mr. Davis was again stopped without probable
cause as he drove through an alley in his Woodlawn neighborhood,
the suit alleged.  The officers in that case took Mr. Davis'
license and registration and made him wait 20 minutes while they
checked his background before letting him go with no charges or
citations.  The suit referenced a March report by the American
Civil Liberties Union that found African-Americans were stopped at
a disproportionately higher rate than Hispanics and whites,
especially in predominantly white neighborhoods.  African-
Americans were subjected to 182,048 stops, 72 percent of all
stops, yet constituted 32 percent of the city's population.

The ACLU said Chicago police keep records of street stops but not
how often officers then go on to frisk the individual.

In all, more than a quarter-million stops took place from May
through August 2014, according to the ACLU, which called the
numbers "shocking" and "a troubling sign" of an illegal policy on
the department's part.  None of those people stopped was arrested.

In a front-page Tribune article detailing the ACLU's findings,
Mr. McCarthy's spokesman, Marty Maloney, said the department
flatly prohibits racial profiling and other bias-based policing.
Over the past three years, he said, the department has improved
training to ensure officers abide by those restrictions.  Maloney
also stressed the department has led a return to community
policing to foster stronger relationships between officers and the
city's communities, calling it "the foundation of our policing
philosophy."

John Holden, a spokesman for the city's Law Department, said
officials were still reviewing the lawsuit Tuesday and had no
comment.  Under the Terry v. Ohio decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1968, police can make stops when they have a reasonable
suspicion that a person has committed or will commit a crime.

The officer must be able to articulate specific facts to justify
the intrusion, according to the ACLU.  Citizens can then be patted
down if officers have a reasonable suspicion they are dangerous or
armed with a weapon.

If Chicago police officers stop a person on the street but don't
make an arrest, they are required to fill out "contact cards" with
the age, address, race, time and location, any distinguishable
marks or tattoos, and the reason for the stop.


CHINA HOUSING: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Shareholder Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the consolidated action without
prejudice against China Housing & Land Development, Inc., the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

CHLN and its directors were named as defendants in four putative
class action lawsuits filed in the District Court, Clark County,
Nevada arising out of a proposed going-private transaction
announced by CHLN on August 25, 2014: Parshall v. China Housing &
Land Development, Inc., Case No. A-14-706514-B; Watson v. China
Housing & Land Development, Inc., Case No. A-14-706538-C;
Cianfroccs v. China Housing & Land Development, Inc., Case No. A-
14-707010-B; and Farkas v. China Housing & Land Development, Inc.,
Case No. A-14-707282-B. Each of these lawsuits alleged that the
directors of CHLN breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with their approval of the going-private transaction and
disclosures made in connection with the transaction, and each
asserted a claim against CHLN for allegedly aiding and abetting
the directors' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The
lawsuits sought an order enjoining CHLN from consummating the
going-private transaction, damages, and attorney's fees. The
lawsuits were consolidated into a single action captioned In re
China Housing & Land Development, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Case No. A-14-706514-B. On November 3, 2014, CHLN announced that
it was terminating the proposed going-private transaction. On
December 11, 2014, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
consolidated action without prejudice. That same day, the Court
entered a stipulated order dismissing without prejudice the claims
asserted in the consolidated action.


CHIRO ONE: Bid for Attorneys' Fees Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division granted in part plaintiffs' petition in
the case MONICA KURGAN and MADELINE DIAZ, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHIRO ONE WELLNESS
CENTERS LLC, MEDULLA LLC, DR. STUART BERNSEN, DR. SAM WANG, JAMIE
HACKET, DR. MARK LAGERKVIST, MONICA POSH, and DR. BRIAN RUTECKI,
Defendants, CV-1899, 11-CV-4723 (N.D. Ill.)

Monica Kurgan and Madeline Diaz were the plaintiffs in Case No.
10-CV-1899, while plaintiffs Wallace and Effort are the ones that
initiated Case No. 11-CV-4723. Both suits are for claims under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois Minimum Wage Law
(IMWL), seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages. Defendant Chiro
One Wellness Centers LLC brought a motion to consolidate the two
cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and to
reassign the Wallace case to the present court based on its
relation to the lower-numbered Kurgan case, in which the same had
been granted

After approximately two years of often-contentious litigation
following the consolidation of the two cases, Wallace and Effort
accepted defendants' Rule 68 offers of judgment, whereby Wallace
and Effort received $60,417.00 and $35,540.37 respectively, plus
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses as determined by the court.
Named plaintiffs Kurgan and Diaz and dozens of opt-in plaintiffs
continue to litigate the collective and class action against
defendants.

Plaintiffs' attorneys now seek to recover fees pursuant to the
fee-shifting provisions in the FLSA and IMWL. Plaintiffs allege
that they are entitled to $317,567.80 in attorneys' fees and
$10,130.94 in costs. Defendants object to plaintiffs' demand,
arguing, that three law firms are attempting to obtain fees on
behalf of Effort and Wallace when in fact only one of these firms
actually represented those plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs'
counsel are improperly seeking fees for their representation of
all plaintiffs, not just Effort and Wallace. Defendants assert
that plaintiffs are only entitled to $54,035.00 in attorneys'
fees, and they offer no opinion regarding costs.

The law firm Stephan Zouras, LLP originally represented plaintiffs
Effort and Wallace prior to the consolidation, and the law firms
Bruckner Burch PLLC and Werman Law Offices, PC represented
Plaintiffs Kurgan and Diaz. All three firms now seek attorneys'
fees on behalf of their consolidated efforts in representing
plaintiffs Effort and Wallace.

Judge Dow granted plaintiffs' petition in part, and plaintiffs'
are awarded $5,065.47 in costs and $188,656.15 in attorneys' fees
for a total award of $193,721.62.

A copy of Judge Dow's memorandum opinion and order dated April 21,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/3Z3cOXfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-419-1008
Facsimile: 312-419-1025

     - and -

James A Jones, Esq.
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza # 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788

Chiro One Wellness Centers LLC, Brian Rutecki, Dr., Mark
Lagerkvist, Dr., Defendants, represented by Eugene Edward Murphy,
Jr. -- gmurphy@mhlitigation.com -- John N. Hourihane, Jr. --
jhourihane@mhlitigation.com -- John H. Scheid --
jscheid@mhlitigation.com -- at Murphy & Hourihane L.L.C.

Medulla LLC, Defendant, represented by:

Robert T. O'Donnell, Esq.
EIDEN & O'DONNELL, LTD.
230 Center Dr Ste 102
Vernon Hills, IL 60061
Telephone: 847-367-2750

     - and -

Jasmina Djordjevic dela Torre, Esq.
1131 Virginia Lane
Wilmette, IL 60091

Service List, represented by:

Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Ryan F Stephan, Esq.
STEPHAN, ZOURAS, LLP
205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312-233-1550
Facsimile: 312-233-1560


COACHELLA: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Payment Plans
-------------------------------------------------------
Bea Karnes, writing for Patch, reports that a proposed class-
action lawsuit alleges the companies behind Coachella and other
music festivals offer ticket payment plans that require would-be
concert goers to forfeit everything they've paid toward the
purchase of tickets if they are more than 10 days late on a single
payment.

The lawsuit was filed on April 23 in Los Angeles Superior Court.
A festival representative could not be immediately reached for
comment.  The complaint states that lead plaintiff Abigail Drake
bought two tickets and a camping pass for the first weekend of the
Coachella Music Festival for $850, using the festival's payment
plan option.

After timely making four payments for a total of about $618,
fraudulent charges appeared on Drake's credit card, causing her
bank to issue a new one, the suit states.  But unknown to Drake,
the next payment on her Coachella payment plan was refused as a
result of the new card number, the suit alleges.  She did not
realize what had happened until she contacted Coachella Festival
management to find out when her festival tickets would be
arriving, the suit states.  She was told that due to the failed
payment, her tickets along with the money paid toward them was
forfeited, the suit states.

Coachella ticket employees then resold Drake's tickets for full
value for the sold-out event, the suit alleges.  The lawsuit seeks
the return of the lost money and an injunction stopping the
alleged forfeiture practice.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Deal with Direct Purchasers Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the court granted
final approval of the settlement agreement with the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs.

The Company said, "on September 18, 2008, we were served with a
purported class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of
Scranton, Pennsylvania, against nine steel manufacturing
companies, including CMC. The lawsuit, filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleged that
the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which steel products were sold in the United States by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. The
lawsuit, which purported to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all parties who purchased steel products directly
from the defendants between January 1, 2005 and September 2008
(collectively, the "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs"), sought treble
damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and
post-judgment interest."

"On March 14, 2014, the Company entered into a final settlement
agreement with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. As part of that
final settlement, in April 2014, the Company paid approximately $4
million to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in consideration for
the full and final release of all claims of the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs. The Company maintains that the claims lacked merit and
that it has full and complete defenses to all of the claims
asserted against it. However, the Company agreed to enter into the
settlement agreement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and
distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation. On October
17, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement."


COMMERCIAL METALS: No Motion Practice in Indirect Purchasers Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that no motion practice
or discovery has taken place in a class action filed by indirect
purchasers.

The Company said, "On September 24, 2008, a case was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of a purported nationwide class of indirect purchasers
naming the same defendants and containing allegations
substantially identical to those of the complaint filed by
Standard Iron Works. The lawsuit sought damages, including
reasonable attorney fees and other amounts recoverable by statute.
Some document production has occurred in the case. Another action
was filed in Tennessee state court on behalf of a purported class
of indirect purchasers in Tennessee naming the same defendants but
seeking recovery for purchases through 2010. The lawsuit sought
damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and
post-judgment interest. The case has been removed to federal court
and was transferred to United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in March 2012. No motion practice or
discovery has taken place. The Company believes that the lawsuits
are without merit and plans to defend them vigorously."


COMPETITOR GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Liebesman's Class Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronnie L. White denied the defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Collective Class Action Complaint in
the case captioned YVETTE JOY LIEBESMAN, individually and On
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMPETITOR
GROUP, INC., Defendant, NO. 4:14-CV-1653 RLW. (E.D. Mo., Eastern
Div.).

Yvette Joy Liebesman filed a suit against Competitor Group, Inc.
("CGI") alleging claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), violations of state minimum wage laws, unjust
enrichment, and fraud in relation to her services during the Rock
'n' Roll Marathon in St. Louis, Missouri which was operated by
CGI.

Judge White denied, without prejudice, CGI's motion to dismiss
Liebesman's FLSA claim.  He held that the court cannot hold as a
matter of law that Liebesman was not an employee of CGI.
Liebesman alleged that she "suffered to work" for CGI and did not
obtain compensation for her efforts.  The factual record must be
developed to determine whether she was an employee or a volunteer
under the economic realities test.

Because the court has denied CGI's motion to dismiss the FLSA
claim at this time, Judge White held that it will also continue to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Liebesman's state law
claims as well. In addition, Judge White believes that Liebesman
has sufficiently alleged her fraud claim.

A copy of the May 11, 2015 memorandum and order is available at
http://is.gd/2fwo83from Leagle.com.

Yvette Joy Liebesman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Derek Y. Brandt --
dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS AND HANLY, LLC & Bryant Kyle
Bass -- kbass@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS AND HANLY, LLC.

Competitor Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Poplstein -- cpoplstein@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN,
LLP, Dennis Michael Childs -- dchilds@cooley.com -- COOLEY, LLP,
Shannon L. Sorrells -- ssorrells@cooley.com -- COOLEY, LLP &
Summer J. Wynn -- swynn@cooley.com -- COOLEY, LLP.


CONN'S INC: To Defend Against S.D. Tex. Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the defendants intend to
vigorously defend against all of the claims in the securities
class action litigation.

The Company said, "Between March 5, 2014 and May 5, 2014, we and
three of our current and former executive officers were sued in
three purported securities class action lawsuits, each filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas. Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects. The
complaints allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and originally sought to certify a class of all persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common
stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put options
between April 3, 2013, and February 19, 2014. The complaints did
not specify the amount of damages sought."

On June 3, 2014, the court consolidated these three cases into a
single, putative class action, In re Conn's, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 4:14-CV-00548, and appointed lead
plaintiffs (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). On July 21,
2014, the lead plaintiffs' filed an amended and consolidated
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). On September 4, 2014, the
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On October 1, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave
to File a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, seeking, among
other things, to extend the class period. On October 15, 2014, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion and on October 29, 2014, the
plaintiffs' filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Second Amended Complaint") with the court. The Second Amended
Complaint seeks to certify a class of all persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or
call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3,
2013 and August 29, 2014. On December 15, 2014, the defendants
filed an amended motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed their
response to our motion to dismiss on January 29, 2015 and on March
2, 2015 the defendants filed their reply to the plaintiffs'
response. The briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss is
complete.

On December 12, 2014 and December 22, 2014, two additional
purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas captioned,
respectively, Eric Pittel, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated against the same defendants named in the
Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 4:14-CV-3548 and Martin K.
Indik, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
against the same defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint,
Case No. 4:14-CV-3660. Each of these lawsuits makes substantially
similar claims to those in the Second Amended Complaint covering
the period from September 2, 2014 through December 9, 2014.

On December 23, 2014, the lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Action filed a motion to consolidate the Pittel and
Indik actions with the Consolidated Securities Action. On January
12, 2015 and January 13, 2015, respectively, Indik and Pittel
filed oppositions to the consolidation of each of their respective
actions into the Consolidated Securities Action. Briefing on the
consolidation of the Indik and Pittel actions is complete. The
court set a hearing on the motion for consolidation for March 31,
2015.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these
claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or
outcome of any of the litigation.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Crose" Suit Over Pricing Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a woman has brought an anti-trust
lawsuit against several major optical suppliers, alleging unfair
trade practices dating to 2013.

Jennifer L. Crose filed a class action complaint against
CooperVision Inc. of Pleasanton, Calif.; Alcon Laboratories Inc.
of Fort Worth; Bausch and Lomb Inc. of Bridgewater, N.J.; Johnson
and Johnson Vision Care Inc. of Jacksonville, Fla.; and ABB/Con-
Cise Optical Group LLC (a.k.a. ABB Optical Group) of Coral
Springs, Fla., in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District
of Louisiana on March 31.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants engaged in conspiratorial
behavior to artificially control the price of contact lenses.
Seeking to represent herself and class members who purchased
contact lenses sold by the defendants collectively, Ms. Crose
alleges that the manufacturers, who allegedly control more than 97
percent of the market, sought to fix, raise, maintain and/or
stabilize the product prices by imposing price floor policies
(PFPs) originating in mid-2013.

PFPs set a minimum price below which no reseller can price the
product.  The complaint says that the first PFP was implemented in
June 2013 and that the defendants have threatened to halt supply
to any reseller that sells lenses below their minimum.

The suit alleges that the defendants intend to impede price
competition between independent eye care professionals and big-box
stores, internet retailers and warehouse clubs that typically
charge less for the contact lens products; and that prices have
increased disproportionately as a result, to the detriment of
consumers.  It cites a July 2014 hearing before a subcommittee of
the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee investigating the practice.

Alleging deprivation of free and open competition, unlawful trade
practices, and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks injunctive
action; actual, compensatory and exemplary damages; pre- and post-
judgment interest; and attorney's fees, expenses and costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Matthew Moreland --
mmoreland@bcnellaw.com -- Kevin Klibert -- kklibert@becnellaw.com
-- Salvadore Christina Jr. and Daniel E. Becnel Jr. --
dbecnel@becnellaw.com -- of the Becnel Law Firm in Reserve, La.

U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana, case no.
2:15-cv-00978-JCZ-MBN.


CORDISH COS: Settles Wage Class Action for $1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
WDRB News reports that businesses linked to the Baltimore-based
Cordish Cos. have agreed to pay just over $1 million to settle a
five-year-old class-action lawsuit in which former employees of
three bars at 4th Street Live say they were forced to work off-
the-clock and pool tips in violation of Kentucky law.

The settlement could benefit about 400 people who worked in roles
such as bartenders and "beer tub girls" at Tengo Sed Cantina,
Hotel nightclub and Angel's Rock Bar between Jan. 30, 2007 and
Jan. 1, 2010, according to documents filed Tuesday in U.S.
District Court in Louisville.

The bars, court records show, were partly owned by the principals
of the Cordish Co. and controlled by Cordish vice president Reed
Cordish.  The Cordish Co. owns and operates 4th Street Live, the
downtown entertainment district that is heavily subsidized by city
and state taxpayers.

While the parties have agreed on terms, lawyers for the Cordish-
affiliated businesses have asked the judge not to approve the
settlement right away.

The bar owners want to wait to see if a recent Kentucky Appeals
Court decision that favors their side will withstand a potential
review by Kentucky Supreme Court.  In February, the appeals court
ruled that Kentucky's wage and hour law does not allow class-
action lawsuits, like the one against the 4th Street Live bars.

If the settlement stands, about $600,000 of the $1 million would
be available to former bartenders, servers, "beer tub girls,"
"shot girls" and security personnel of the nightclubs.  That's an
average of about $1,500 per worker based on the 400-employee
estimate given in court, but the award for each person will be
based on hours worked and calculated by a claims administrator.

(About $257,000 would go to the attorneys who brought the case,
and $140,000 to the six former employees who were named plaintiffs
and representatives of the class).

The former employees claim they were forced to perform unpaid work
promoting the venues, setting up and cleaning up, and attending
mandatory meetings, and that they were illegally forced to pool
and share their tips.  For example, they were expected to go to
other bars, concerts and hotels and pass out flyers promoting the
bars and to call potential customers and try to sell them a "happy
hour" party, according to the lawsuit.

The companies behind the bars do not admit any wrong-doing in the
settlement.  Kenyon Meyer, a Louisville attorney representing the
defendants, did not immediately return a call for comment.

As WDRB reported in 2013, another Cordish-affiliated bar at 4th
Street Live -- the Sports & Social Club -- has also run into
trouble with unpaid wages.

The plaintiffs in the 2010 class-action suit are William Whitlock,
David Skyrm, Kristin Moore, Holly Goodman, Gary Muncy and Michael
Brown.  They were primarily represented by Michele Henry of Craig
Henry PLC.

The defendants are FSL Management LLC, FSH Management LLC, Cordish
Operating Ventures LLC, and Entertainment Consulting Services LLC.


CORIZON HEALTH: Judge Rejects Juveniles' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Steven D. Merryday of the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, entered a judgment against the plaintiffs
in the case CHANDA HUGHES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GRADY JUDD, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 8:12-CV-568-T-23MAP (M.D. Fla.)

Chanda Hughes and several other juveniles sued Grady Judd, in his
capacity as Sheriff of Polk County, Florida and Corizon Health,
Inc., a health care provider retained by the Sheriff, for
violating juveniles' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment during
the juveniles' detention at the Central County Jail in Bartow,
Polk County, Florida.

The operative third amended complaint alleges five counts for
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Count one alleges a
constitutional violation based on the sheriff's allegedly failing
to provide the juveniles in detention with rehabilitative
services. Count two alleges a constitutional violation based on
the sheriff's alleged failure to protect the plaintiffs from harm,
the sheriff's alleged application to the plaintiffs of unlawful
force, the sheriff's alleged subjection of the plaintiffs to
unreasonable restraints, and the sheriff's alleged creation of
dangerously violent conditions of confinement. Count three alleges
a constitutional violation based on the sheriff's alleged
placement of juveniles on suicide watch into punitive isolation
without penological justification and based on the sheriff's
alleged deliberate indifference to the mental health needs of
juveniles in detention. Count four alleges a constitutional
violation based on the sheriff's and Corizon's alleged failure to
provide the plaintiffs necessary mental health treatment, the
alleged subjection of the plaintiffs to punitive, harmful
conditions of confinement, and the alleged deliberate indifference
to serious medical needs. Count five alleges a constitutional
violation based on the sheriff's and Corizon's subjection of the
plaintiffs to isolation in a disproportionately punitive manner
with deliberate indifference.

The third amended complaint concludes with a demand for class
certification, for a declaration of the unconstitutionality of the
defendants' conduct, for temporary and permanent injunctive
relief, and for an award of an attorney's fee and statutory costs.


Judge Merryday entered a judgment for the defendants and against
the plaintiffs on Counts I through V since the plaintiffs failed
to prove that either the sheriff or Corizon was deliberately
indifferent to any substantial risk of serious harm.

A copy of Judge Merryday's conclusions of law and findings of
facts dated April 16, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Ve4evU
from Leagle.com

Chanda Hughes, Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Hayden, Berger
Singerman, LLP, Joseph Peter Rindone, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Maria
V Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsi Haskell,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Steven M. Chasin, Baker & McKenzie,
LLP, Tania Galloni, Southern Poverty Law Center, Jody E. Owens,
II, Southern Poverty Law Center & Manoj Gorantla Govindaiah,
RAICES

Lisa Jobe, Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Hayden, Berger
Singerman, LLP, Joseph Peter Rindone, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Maria
V Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsi Haskell,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Steven M. Chasin, Baker & McKenzie,
LLP, Tania Galloni, Southern Poverty Law Center, Jody E. Owens,
II, Southern Poverty Law Center & Manoj Gorantla Govindaiah,
RAICES

Amy Gage, Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Hayden, Berger
Singerman, LLP, Joseph Peter Rindone, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Maria
V Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsi Haskell,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Steven M. Chasin, Baker & McKenzie,
LLP, Tania Galloni, Southern Poverty Law Center, Jody E. Owens,
II, Southern Poverty Law Center & Manoj Gorantla Govindaiah,
RAICES

Crystal Cuyler, Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Hayden, Berger
Singerman, LLP, Joseph Peter Rindone, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Maria
V Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsi Haskell,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Steven M. Chasin, Baker & McKenzie,
LLP, Tania Galloni, Southern Poverty Law Center, Jody E. Owens,
II, Southern Poverty Law Center & Manoj Gorantla Govindaiah,
RAICES

Michelle Minor, Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Hayden, Berger
Singerman, LLP, Joseph Peter Rindone, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Maria
V Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsi Haskell,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Steven M. Chasin, Baker & McKenzie,
LLP, Tania Galloni, Southern Poverty Law Center, Jody E. Owens,
II, Southern Poverty Law Center & Manoj Gorantla Govindaiah,
RAICES

Nikeyta Matthews, Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Hayden,
Berger Singerman, LLP, Joseph Peter Rindone, Baker & McKenzie,
LLP, Maria V Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsi
Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, Steven M. Chasin, Baker &
McKenzie, LLP, Jody E. Owens, II, Southern Poverty Law Center,
Manoj Gorantla Govindaiah, RAICES & Tania Galloni, Southern
Poverty Law Center

Franky Jean-Pierre, Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Hayden,
Berger Singerman, LLP, Joseph Peter Rindone, Baker & McKenzie,
LLP, Maria V Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, Miriam Fahsi
Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, Steven M. Chasin, Baker &
McKenzie, LLP, Jody E. Owens, II, Southern Poverty Law Center &
Manoj Gorantla Govindaiah, RAICES

Terrica Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Hayden, Berger
Singerman, LLP

Terrica Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Peter Rindone,
Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Maria V Morris, Southern Poverty Law
Center, Miriam Fahsi Haskell, Southern Poverty Law Center, Steven
M. Chasin, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Tania Galloni, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Jody E. Owens, II, Southern Poverty Law Center & Manoj
Gorantla Govindaiah, RAICES

Grady Judd, Defendant, represented by Hank B. Campbell, Valenti,
Campbell, Trohn, Tamayo & Aranda, PA, Jonathan Barnet Trohn,
Valenti, Campbell, Trohn, Tamayo & Aranda, PA, Robert J. Aranda,
Valenti, Campbell, Trohn, Tamayo & Aranda, PA, Jennifer Megan
Vasquez, Valenti, Campbell, Trohn, Tamayo & Aranda, PA & William
Thompson McKinley, William McKinley Law, P.A.

Corizon Health, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeanelle G.
Bronson, Grower, Ketcham, Rutherford, Bronson, Eide & Telan, PA,
Patrick H. Telan, Grower, Ketcham, Rutherford, Bronson, Eide &
Telan, PA,Ramon Vazquez, Grower, Ketcham, Rutherford, Bronson,
Eide & Telan, PA, Jennifer L. Phillips, Grower, Ketcham,
Rutherford, Bronson, Eide & Telan, PA & Philip J. Wallace, Grower,
Ketcham, Rutherford, Bronson, Eide & Telan, PA

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


EOS PETRO: Class Action Over Dune Merger in Early Stage
-------------------------------------------------------
Eos Petro, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action over
the Dune Merger Agreement is in early stage of the litigation.

In response to the announcement of the Dune Merger Agreement, the
Company has been named in a class action complaint filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Civil Action No.
10177-VCL, originally filed on September 29, 2014 and subsequently
amended on October 17, 2014.  The complaint names Dune Energy,
Inc., ("Dune"), along with each of the directors of Dune's board,
as well as the Company and Eos Delaware.  The complaint alleges
that the directors of Dune's board breached their fiduciary duties
to Dune's public stockholders, and that Dune, the Company and Eos
Delaware aided and abetted Dune's board's breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent
injunction, enjoining all defendants from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the transactions contemplated in the Dune
Merger Agreement, and in the event that the aforementioned
transactions close, rescission of the transactions or awarding of
rescissory damages, as well as an award of plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and costs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing on its part, or
on the part of Eos Delaware, and will vigorously defend against
such claims in connection with the complaint.  Given the early
stage of the litigation, however, at this time the Company is
unable to form a professional judgment that an unfavorable outcome
is either probable or remote, and it is not possible to assess
whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will or will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company.


EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Reached in Zalicus Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a settlement has
been reached in the Zalicus Shareholder Litigation.

Between April 28, 2014 and May 2, 2014, three putative class
action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in
the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior
Court, Suffolk County (the "Massachusetts Court"), against
Zalicus, EB Sub, Inc. the members of Zalicus' board of directors
and Private Epirus. Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed one
of these actions, Civil A. No. 14-1380. The remaining two actions,
Civ. A. No. 14-1381 and Civ. A. No. 14-1455, were consolidated
into a single action, In re Zalicus Shareholder Litigation, Lead
Civ. A. No. 14-1381 (the "Massachusetts Action"). The
Massachusetts Action alleged that the Zalicus board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties, and that Private Epirus and EB Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted the purported breaches, in connection with
the proposed Merger. The Massachusetts Action sought relief
including, among other things, a declaration that the Merger
Agreement was entered into in breach of fiduciary duties and is
unlawful and unenforceable, an order enjoining defendants from
proceeding with the Merger, an order enjoining defendants from
consummating the Merger unless and until additional procedures are
implemented and all material information in connection with the
proposed Merger is disclosed, rescission of the Merger or any
terms thereof to the extent implemented (or an award of rescissory
damages), compensatory damages and interest, and an award of all
costs of the Massachusetts Action, including reasonable attorneys'
fees and experts' fees.

Between May 1, and May 16, 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court")
against Zalicus, Zalicus' directors, Private Epirus and/or EB Sub,
Inc., Stein v. Zalicus Inc., et al. , No. 9602; Do v. Zalicus,
Inc., et al. , No. 9636; and Mendlowitz, et al. v. Zalicus Inc.,
et al. , No. 9664 (the "Consolidated Action"). On May 23, 2014,
plaintiff Harvey Stein filed a verified amended complaint, and on
May 27, 2014, plaintiff Tuan Do filed a verified amended
complaint. The Consolidated Action alleged that the Zalicus board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties, and Private Epirus
and/or EB Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the purported breaches, in
connection with the proposed Merger. The Consolidated Action
sought relief including, among other things, to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the proposed Merger, to enjoin consummation of
the proposed Merger and rescind the Merger if consummated (or to
award rescissory damages), an award of compensatory damages, and
an award of all costs of the Consolidated Action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On June 6, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed a motion seeking to schedule a preliminary injunction
hearing in advance of the stockholder vote on the proposed Merger,
and seeking expedited discovery in advance of that hearing.
Zalicus, Private Epirus, and the individual defendants opposed the
motion. After a hearing, on June 13, 2014, the Delaware Court
denied plaintiffs' motion.

On October 27, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Massachusetts
Action served us with a motion for voluntary dismissal and an
award of attorney's fees. The motion alleged, as set forth in the
consolidated amended complaint filed in the Massachusetts Action
on May 21, 2014, that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed
with the SEC on May 8, 2014 contained numerous material
misstatements and/or omissions that prevented our shareholders
from being able to evaluate the reasonableness of the Merger.

The Company said, "the motion further alleged that in the Amended
Registration Statement filed on June 4, 2014, we supplemented the
disclosures and addressed the allegedly material misstatements and
omissions contained in the initial Registration Statement, and
that we did so in response to the claims made in the Massachusetts
Action."

"On November 6, 2014, with the Massachusetts Court's entry of a
judgment of dismissal, the Massachusetts Action was closed.

"On November 10, 2014, the parties in the Consolidated Action
submitted a stipulation and proposed order to dismiss the
Consolidated Action and to set a schedule for plaintiffs'
counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorney's fees
and expenses. On November 12, 2014, the Delaware Court entered an
order dismissing the Consolidated Action without prejudice. The
Delaware Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
determining plaintiffs' anticipated application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

"After the Consolidated Action was dismissed, the parties
commenced and engaged in discussions to resolve the amount of
plaintiffs' counsel's application for fees and expenses.

"After negotiations, the parties agreed that we will make a
combined, global fee and expense payment to counsel in both the
Consolidated Action and the Massachusetts Action in the amount of
$400,000, a small percentage of which will be paid by our insurer,
in full satisfaction of plaintiffs' counsel's claim for attorneys'
fees and expenses in the Consolidated Action and the Massachusetts
Action, which the parties memorialized in a stipulation dated
January 13, 2015. The parties requested that the Delaware Court
close the Consolidated Action as a result of the stipulation. The
Delaware Court directed that notice of the resolution of
plaintiffs' counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses be
provided to shareholders. The parties have since issued notice to
shareholders (including via our filing on our Current Report on
March 13, 2015). After expiration of the requisite notice waiting
period, the parties will submit to the Delaware Court a proposed
order verifying that notice has been provided and providing for
the final dismissal and closure of the case. We expect, per the
parties' agreement, that payment of the agreed-to $400,000 fee and
expense amount will be made within ten days of the final dismissal
and closure of the Consolidated Action."


FIRST RELIANCE: Parties in Jarrell Case in Discovery Process
------------------------------------------------------------
First Reliance Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit filed by Gilbert Jarrell are currently
engaged in the discovery process and a mediation of the matter has
been scheduled.

On July 27, 2013, Gilbert Jarrell, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons,
filed a lawsuit in the Florence County Court of Common Pleas, Case
No. 2013-CP-21-1701. The Complaint named the Bank as defendant.
The Complaint alleges that plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons who were clients of the Schurlknight and Rivers Law Firm
("S&R") were defrauded by S&R by settling claims without paying
the plaintiffs their share of the settlement proceeds. Mr.
Schurlknight committed suicide and Mr. Rivers has been indicted by
the United States for mail fraud. S&R maintained its client trust
account(s) with the Bank. The Plaintiffs claim that First Reliance
aided and abetted S&R in the commission of many torts. The causes
of action alleged are: aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent supervision, breach of
contract/third party beneficiary, negligence, and conversion.

While the Bank is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit,
it vehemently denies any wrongdoing or knowledge of any schemes by
S&R to defraud the plaintiffs or any of the other former clients
of S&R. The parties are currently engaged in the discovery process
and a mediation of the matter has been scheduled. The plaintiffs
in their complaint request $6 million in damages and in subsequent
correspondence have claimed damages of $13 million.


FITLIFE BRANDS: Ryan et al. v. Gencor Nutrients Sent to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FitLife Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case Ryan et al. v.
Gencor Nutrients, Inc. et al., has been transferred to the Central
District of California.

On December 31, 2014, various Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of a purported nationwide and sub-class of purchasers,
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Ryan et al. v. Gencor Nutrients,
Inc. et al., Case No.: 4:14-CV-05682.  The lawsuit includes claims
made against the manufacturer and various producers and sellers of
products containing a nutritional supplement known as Testofen,
which is manufactured and sold by Gencor Nutrients, Inc.
("Gencor").  Specifically, the Ryan Plaintiffs allege that various
Defendants have manufactured, marketed and/or sold Testofen, or
nutritional supplements containing Testofen, and in doing so
represented to the public that Testofen had been clinically proven
to increase free testosterone levels.  According to the
Plaintiffs, those claims are false and/or not statistically
proven.  Plaintiffs seek relief under violations of the
Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, breach of
express and implied warranties, and violations of unfair trade
practices in violation of California, Pennsylvania, and Arizona
law.  NDS utilizes Testofen in a limited number of nutritional
supplements it manufactures and sells pursuant to a license
agreement with Gencor.

Recently, this matter was transferred to the Central District of
California due to a similarly filed lawsuit that had previously
been filed and dismissed with prejudice. Counsel for the Ryan
Plaintiffs also filed a Motion with the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to Transfer the Ryan and Camey
matters to the Northern District of California.  NDS plans to
vigorously defend all allegations made by Plaintiffs.


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 21 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against ForceField Energy Inc. and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-
3141, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased ForceField securities between October 16,
2013 and April 15, 2015, inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased ForceField securities
during the Class Period, you have until June 16, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

ForceField is a designer, distributor and licensee of alternative
energy products and solutions.  The Company distributes light
emitting diode ("LED") commercial lighting and fixtures.  It also
uses waste heat from manufacturing source to provide clean
electricity.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) some of the reports issued by
promoters paid by the Company pretended to be independent authors,
did not disclose their compensation, and the content of the
reports were reviewed by ForceField's management prior to
publication; (2) members of its management have a troubling
history with fraudulent companies; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, ForceField's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 20, 2014, Fortune.com published the article, At financial
news sites, stock promoters make inroads.   The article discussed
the role of stock promoters, specifically the DreamTeamGroup, and
how stock promoter's must reveal compensation for these types of
articles.

As a result of this partial disclosure, shares of ForceField fell
$0.53 per share or almost 9% over the next two days to close at
$5.65 per share on March 21, 2014.

On April 15, 2015, SeekingAlpha.com published an article entitled,
Forcefield Energy: Undisclosed Promotions And Management
Connections to Past Fraud, which further revealed Defendants'
undisclosed promotion and control and knowledge over
DreamTeamGroup activities.  The Seeking Alpha article also
disclosed the unscrupulous backgrounds of the Individual
Defendants that they were required, but failed to, disclose in the
Company's SEC filings.

This adverse information caused the price of ForceField stock to
tumble $2.97 per share, or approximately 39%, over the next two
days to close at $4.74 per share on April 16, 2015.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates tis
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


FORT WAYNE, IN: Faces Class Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rietdorf, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated
and Quinnette Oden, on behalf of herself and other similarly-
situated v. City of Fort Wayne, Case No. 1:15-cv-00113-JVB-SLC
(N.D. Ind., May 8, 2015) alleges violations of the Civil Rights
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ilene M. Smith, Esq.
          Rachel Janel Guin-Lowry, Esq.
          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 S Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802
          Telephone: (260) 424-0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424-0712
          E-mail: ismith@myers-law.com
                  rguin@myers-law.com
                  cmyers@myers-law.com


FOUR OAKS: Suit in M.D. North Carolina Stayed Pending Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class action in the
Middle District of North Carolina is stayed pending resolution of
appeal taken by co-defendants.

In October 2013, multiple putative class action lawsuits were
filed in United States district courts across the country against
a number of different banks based on the banks' alleged role in
"payday lending". Four of these lawsuits, filed in the Northern
District of Georgia, the Middle District of North Carolina, the
District of Maryland, and the Southern District of Florida, named
the Bank as one of the defendants.

The lawsuits allege that, by processing Automatic Clearing House
transactions indirectly on behalf of "payday" lenders, the Bank is
illegally participating in an enterprise to collect unlawful debts
and is therefore liable to plaintiffs for damages under the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The
lawsuits also allege a variety of state law claims. The Bank moved
to dismiss each of these lawsuits.

The Georgia action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.
The District of Maryland granted the motion and dismissed the
case; the parties subsequently settled while on appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Of the two
remaining lawsuits, there are no updates to the lawsuit in the
Southern District of Florida, which, has been stayed pending
arbitration of the plaintiff's claims against the Bank's co-
defendants. The Middle District of North Carolina granted the
motion in part and denied it in part; the case is stayed pending
resolution of appeal taken by co-defendants.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Moll Law Group Mulls Zofran Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago law firm said on April 24 it was considering filing the
first nationwide class action lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline
(GSK), the makers of Zofran, a powerful anti-nausea drug alleged
to increase the risk of birth defects when used by pregnant women,
particularly during the first trimester.

Moll Law Group -- http://www.molllawgroup.com-- reports that,
based on a federal investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) announced that GSK agreed to plead guilty and pay $3 billion
to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the
company's unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs,
including Zofran.  The law firm notes, however, that this ruling
does not specifically address the severe fetal defects that Zofran
allegedly may cause.

"As early as 1992, GSK began receiving more than 200 reports of
birth defects associated with the use of Zofran by pregnant women,
conditions ranging from congenital heart, orofacial and septal
defects to kidney malformation and even stillbirths," said
attorney Ken Moll of Moll Law Group, which concentrates in product
liability and protecting the rights of consumers.  "We believe the
number of events reported to GSK is only a small fraction of the
actual incidents.  However, in all that time, GSK failed to warn
and never updated Zofran's labeling to disclose that the drug can
cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.

"Despite evidence showing the unreasonable risk of harm to babies
exposed to Zofran prenatally, GSK continued to promote to
obstetrics and gynecology healthcare practitioners, among others,
that Zofran is a safe treatment alternative for morning sickness
in pregnant women," Mr. Moll said.  "In addition, back in 1999,
the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) directed GSK to
immediately cease distribution of its promotional materials about
the drug, a mandate we believe was disregarded.

"The Zofran lawsuit we are considering would focus on such acts
and how GSK failed to protect newborns from serious and life-
threatening medical conditions," Mr. Moll added.  Mr. Moll said
his firm has initiated discussions with women whose babies were
possibly affected through use of Zofran during pregnancy and is
available to talk to others (Moll can be contacted at 312-462-
1700).

According to Mr. Moll, GSK developed Zofran to treat cancer
patients afflicted with severe cases of nausea that resulted from
chemotherapy or radiation treatments.  The FDA approved Zofran for
such use in 1991.

"However, due to the many cases of pregnancy-related nausea, and
the absence then of a prescription medication approved by the FDA
for such a condition, GSK recognized an opportunity to
significantly expand sales of Zofran and proceeded to promote its
off-label use to pregnant women," said Mr. Moll.

A new FDA rule that takes effect this June will help expand the
availability of information about drugs such as Zofran, Mr. Moll
said. The rule will require manufacturers to summarize the risks
of using a drug during pregnancy, offer data to support that
summary, and provide healthcare providers key information to help
them counsel pregnant women about the use of drugs.

"But GSK should be taking measures immediately to comply with this
vital FDA stipulation to prevent further harm and injuries to
newborns," said Mr. Moll.

                       About Moll Law Group

Chicago-based Moll Law Group represents people around the nation
who were severely injured, and families who have lost a loved one,
due to defective products, dangerous prescription drugs, faulty
medical devices or unsafe vehicles.  The firm works with leading
product safety professionals, medical experts and attorneys to
assist in both the representation of clients in personal injury
and wrongful death litigation and in development of injury
prevention information for all consumers, which includes its Legal
News Network (LNN) website -- http://www.legalnewsnetwork.com--
that offers fact-filled videos in a mini-documentary style to
foster awareness of dangerous products and communicate product
safety tips.


GYRODYNE COMPANY: Preliminary Conference Adjourned Until Sept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gyrodyne Company Of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a
preliminary conference in the class action lawsuit has been
adjourned until September 14, 2015.

On July 3, 2014, a purported stockholder of Gyrodyne filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Gyrodyne and members of its
board of directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and against GSD
and Gyrodyne, LLC (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (the "Court"),
captioned Cashstream Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Paul L. Lamb, et al., Index No. 065134/2014
(the "Action"). The plaintiff in the Action alleges that (i) the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties or aided and
abetted the breach of those duties in connection with the Merger
and (ii) Gyrodyne and the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information in
the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The plaintiff in the Action
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger,
and the other transactions relating to the Plan of Liquidation,
requiring corrective disclosures in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and
interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs. On July
17, 2014, the Court signed an Order to Show Cause submitted by the
plaintiff setting a return date of August 5, 2014 on plaintiff's
motion for an order (a) preliminarily enjoining consummation of
the Merger and (b) granting expedited discovery. The plaintiff
subsequently withdrew its motion without prejudice and the Court
scheduled a preliminary conference in the case for October 20,
2014, which has been adjourned until September 14, 2015. The
Defendants believe the lawsuit is without merit.


HOOPER HOLMES: Magistrate Judge Considering Motion to Reconsider
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Magistrate Judge is
considering the Company's Motion to Reconsider an earlier Report
and Recommendation conditionally certifying the class of all
contract examiners from August 16, 2010 to the present.

On May 24, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to pay
overtime compensation to a purported class of certain independent
contractor examiners who, the complaint alleges, should be treated
as employees for purposes of federal law. The complaint seeks an
award of an unspecified amount of allegedly unpaid overtime wages
to certain examiners. The Company filed an answer denying the
substantive allegations therein. As of the date of this filing,
the Magistrate Judge is considering the Company's Motion to
Reconsider an earlier Report and Recommendation conditionally
certifying the class of all contract examiners from August 16,
2010 to the present. If the Magistrate's decision stands, notice
will be sent to contractors who performed work for the Company
within this time period. The claim is not covered by insurance,
and the Company is incurring legal costs to defend the litigation
which are recorded in continuing operations. This matter relates
to the former Portamedic service line for which the Company
retained liability.


HOOPER HOLMES: Resolves Class Action in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a complaint was filed on
July 30, 2013, against the Company in the California Superior
Court, San Bernadino County, on behalf of a putative class of
employees alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to
pay wages and other compensation as required by state law. The
complaint seeks award of an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has denied all of the allegations in the
case and believes them to be without merit. The Company settled
the individual claim with the named plaintiff in July 2014 with
prejudice.  As a part of the settlement, the named plaintiff
agreed to dismiss the class claims, without prejudice.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces "Rothenberg" Class Action in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Conarck, writing for Law360, reports that several top
executives and directors of Imperial Holdings Inc. were hit with a
proposed class action and derivative claims on April 20 in Florida
federal court accusing them of overreaching and breaching
fiduciary duty in enacting a bylaw that restricted future
derivative actions brought by shareholders.

The lawsuit claims, among other things, that Imperial Holding's
directors and officers enacted an illegal bylaw suppressing
shareholder oversight in light of an earlier settlement over
securities class and derivative actions that resulted from a 2011
FBI raid and subsequent settlement over its premium loan financing
activities in violation of fiduciary duty to shareholders.  The
bylaw was also enacted against a backdrop of ongoing
investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
the IRS focused on possible violations of federal securities law
in connection with the company's legacy premium finance business
and its structured settlement businesses, according to the
complaint.

"The bylaw places all-but-insurmountable hurdles before the
courthouse doors and is designed to, and effectively does,
eliminate public shareholders' statutory and common law rights to
commence and prosecute shareholder class and derivative litigation
against them, no matter how egregious the wrongs committed by
defendants," the complaint says.

In adopting the bylaw, officers and directors acted "disloyally
and in bad faith," placing their own interests in avoiding
liability to shareholders over the interests of public
shareholders, the complaint says.  It claims that the executives
were not fully informed by independent advisers of the bylaw's
validity and legality in a breach of the fiduciary duty of due
care.

The bylaw stipulates that current and former shareholders
initiating a derivative action on behalf of the company must
obtain written consent from other shareholders owning at least 3
percent of Imperial Holdings common stock, which amounts to more
than 642,000 shares, according to the complaint.  Because company
insiders and entities associated with them control more than 20
percent of the company's shares, public shareholders would need to
obtain written consents from "well over 3 percent" of non-insider
shareholders in order to seek redress against the company's
insiders, the complaint said.

"By contrast, Imperial Holdings' bylaws provide that a stockholder
who wishes to nominate a director must hold only 1 percent of the
company's outstanding stock," the complaint said.

The bylaw effectively wipes out the "powerful deterrent of the
derivative and securities class action mechanisms," the complaint
said, rendering shareholder and judicial oversight "all but
eliminated."

"Defendants will have a freer hand to engage in wrongful and
unlawful conduct in breach of their fiduciary duties without
exposing themselves to substantial liability, knowing they have
insulated themselves from the laws enacted by Congress and the
state legislature to protect the company and investors from such
misconduct," the complaint said.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment declaring the bylaw invalid
due to its overreach and contradiction with Florida law and public
policy.  It also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction
barring the enforcement of the bylaw.

Additionally, the complaint claims that a form filed with the SEC
failed to disclose an array of material information to investors
about the shareholder advisory vote on the bylaw in violation of
federal securities law.

Finally, the suit includes derivative claims accusing individual
defendants of "aiding, abetting, assisting, fostering and directly
participating in the company's nefarious practice of filing
knowingly falsified and misleading structured settlement petitions
in state courts across the country, which, upon information and
belief, forms at least part of the basis of the ongoing IRS
investigation and was not the subject of prior class or derivative
action."

Defendants engaged in a willful scheme to obtain nonqualified
court orders for structured settlement factoring transactions that
left the company potentially liable for unpaid federal taxes
likely to amount to tens of millions of dollars, the complaint
says.

Plaintiff Harry Rothenberg is represented by Christopher Chagas
Martins, Paul Jeffrey Geller -- PGeller@rgrdlaw.com --
Robert Jeffrey Robbins and Stuart Andrew Davidson --
SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

The case is Rothenberg v. Goldstein et al., case number 9:15-cv-
80505, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


INNOVATIVE FOOD: Believes Mediation May Lead to Global Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Innovative Food Holdings, Inc. believes that mediation may lead to
a global settlement with all existing Plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On June 1, 2012, nine persons, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a Collective and Class Action Complaint
in the New York Federal District Court, Southern District, against
Late Night Express Courier Services, Inc. (FL) ("LNE") and The
Fresh Diet Inc. ("The Fresh Diet") and certain individuals
entitled Hernandez, et al. v. The Fresh Diet Inc., et al., Case
No. 12 CV 4339.  On or about October 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint ("Complaint") adding additional individual
Defendants.  The Complaint seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime wages on behalf of drivers for LNE who delivered meals to
The Fresh Diet customers in the tri-state area.  In an opinion
dated September 29, 2014 ("Opinion"), the District Court Judge
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for Summary Judgment which sought a
holding that all the Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants, as
was Defendants' cross-motion for Summary Judgment seeking a
holding that Plaintiffs were independent contractors, the Court
finding that there were questions of fact that could not be
resolved on motions.  In addition, the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of 109 drivers was denied.  In the same Opinion,
Defendants' motion to decertify the case from 29 potential opt-in
Plaintiffs down to the 9 named Plaintiffs was granted, and the
possible claims of the remaining 20 were dismissed without
prejudice.

On or about February 24, 2015, a second action was filed in the
New York Federal District Court, Southern District, on behalf of 6
(of the 20) additional driver-Plaintiffs entitled Hernandez, et
al. v. The Fresh Diet Inc., et al. 15 CV 1338, containing
essentially the same allegations.  In addition, two of the
Plaintiffs from the Complaint also joined the second lawsuit
asserting claims for retaliation.  The two cases were assigned to
the same Federal Judge (since they are related), but were not
consolidated for discovery or trial.

Prior to the second action and on January 21, 2015, the parties
appeared before a Federal Magistrate Judge for mediation.  The
Magistrate Judge did not succeed in settling the case.  On March
17, 2015, the Federal Judge stayed both cases, and referred both
of them to the Court's mediation program for further mediation
within 60 days.

The Company believes that mediation may lead to a global
settlement with all existing Plaintiffs.  With respect to the
second instituted litigation, inasmuch as the litigation is in its
early phase and discovery has not commenced it is too speculative
to predict an outcome.

"However, we believe we will have available to us many of the same
defenses as in the first litigation and therefore do not believe
that our exposure, if any at all, will likely exceed the amount of
the first litigation, even if additional persons file claims.
Accordingly, given the uncertainty of both of these cases and
given the additional Plaintiffs in the second action, the Company
has recorded a contingent liability of $400,000 representing the
estimated potential amounts payable in the litigations, even
though it is possible that the amount of liability may actually be
less than the reserved amount," the Company said.


IXIA: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ixia said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, that a hearing was scheduled before the court
on the motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action on April 13,
2015.

The Company said, "On November 14, 2013, a purported securities
class action complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor
Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was
filed against us and certain of our current and former officers
and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
recognition of revenues related to its warranty and software
maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and employment
history of the Company's former President and Chief Executive
Officer, Victor Alston. The complaint also alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to
make certain disclosures, regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, including regarding the financial
statements and internal financial controls that were the subject
of the Company's April 2013 restatement of certain of its prior
period financial statements. The complaint alleges that the
Company lacked adequate internal financial controls and issued
materially false and misleading financial statements for the
fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal
quarters ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011,
March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2012. The
complaint, which purports to assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, seeks, on behalf of the purported class,
an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief."

On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead
plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System (the "Oklahoma Group") as lead
plaintiffs.

On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed an amended complaint,
asserting claims against the same defendants under the same legal
theories as were set forth in the initial complaint. The amended
complaint also contains allegations that certain of the individual
defendants increased their trading in the Company's stock during
February, March, April and May of 2011 and during February and
March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to inflate the
Company's reported deferred revenues during the period of February
4, 2011 through April 3, 2013.

On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After briefing and a hearing on October 6,
2014, the court issued an order dismissing the amended complaint
in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the Oklahoma
Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. The Oklahoma
Group thereafter filed an amended complaint, and the named
defendants have moved to dismiss that amended complaint. A hearing
was scheduled before the court on the motions to dismiss on April
13, 2015.

Although the Company denies the material allegations of the
amended complaint and intends to vigorously pursue its defenses,
we are in the very early stages of this litigation, and are unable
to predict the outcome of the case or to estimate the amount of or
potential range of loss with respect to this case. However, the
ultimate disposition of the case could have a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows. No liability has been accrued in the financial
statements related to this matter.


JACOB & COMPANY: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Green v. Jacob & Company Watches, Inc., d/b/a Jacob &
Co, Jacob Arabo an individual, and MG Security Services LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03611-PAC (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015) alleges that the
Plaintiff was the victim of racial discrimination, racial
harassment, and discriminatory retaliation by his employers,
supervisors and others.

Mr. Green is a Black male and a resident of resident of Brooklyn,
New York.  He began employment with the Defendants in December
2011 as a security officer.

Jacob & Company Watches, Inc., doing business as Jacob & Co., is a
domestic or foreign corporation duly organized and existing by
virtue of the laws of the state of New York, with a principal
place of business in New York City.  Jacob Arabo is a
principal/owner of Jacob & Co.  MG Security Services LLC is a New
York limited liability company headquartered in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Garth Foley Esq.
          FOLEY & ASSOCIATES
          110 Wall Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 323-8025
          Facsimile: (212) 943-2300
          E-mail: jgfoley1@aol.com

               - and -

          William E. Green, Esq.
          30 Wall Street, 8th FL
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 709-8025


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration Denied
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dudley H. Bowen denied the defendant's motion to
compel arbitration in the case captioned CHRISTINA BAZEMORE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, NO. CV 314-115 (S.D.
Ga., Dublin Div.)

Christina Bazemore filed a putative consumer class action against
Jefferson Capital System, LLC ("Jefferson Capital"), alleging that
defendant engaged in conduct that violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and constituted unjust
enrichment.

Jefferson Capital contended that Bazemore's claims are subject to
mandatory arbitration by virtue of an arbitration provision in the
Cardholder Agreement.

In his May 11, 2015 order which is available at
http://is.gd/9OgofRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bowen held that
Bazemore's FDCPA claims fall outside the scope of the arbitration
provision.  Hence, the court will not compel arbitration of her
FDCPA claims.

Christina Bazemore, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David E. Hudson --
dhudson@hullbarrett.com -- Hull Barrett, PC & Christopher A.
Cosper -- ccosper@hullbarrett.com -- Hull Barrett, PC.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Lee Delnero -- ddelnero@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods,
LLP,David L. Hartsell -- dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods, LLP & Paul J. Catanese -- pcatanese@mcguirewoods.com
-- McGuireWoods, LLP.


JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: "Goldfinger" Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rudolph T. Randa granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss in the case captioned HOWARD GOLDFINGER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOURNAL
COMMUNICATIONS INC., STEVEN J. SMITH, DEAN H. BLYTHE, DAVID J.
DRURY, JONATHAN NEWCOMB, MARY ELLEN STANEK, OWEN J. SULLIVAN,
JEANETTE TULLY, THE E.W. SCRIPPS COMPANY, SCRIPPS MEDIA, INC.,
DESK SPINCO, INC., SCRIPPS NP OPERATING LLC, DESK NP MERGER CO.,
DESK BC MERGER LLC, BOAT SPINCO, INC., BOAT NP MERGER CO., and
JOURNAL MEDIA GROUP, Defendants, CASE NO. 15-C-12 (E.D. Wis.).

An action was brought by Howard Goldfinger on behalf of common
stockholders of Journal Communications Inc. alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act in connection with the proposed merger
between Journal Communications and the E.W. Scripps Company. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss.  Goldfinger moved for
expedited discovery and to set a briefing schedule on a yet-to-be-
filed motion for preliminary injunction.

Judge Randa held that none of Goldfinger's allegations formed the
basis of an actionable claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.  He also failed to satisfy other aspects of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

In his May 8, 2015 decision and order available at
http://is.gd/mUVUiOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Randa granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss.  Goldfinger's motion for expedited
discovery was denied as moot.

Howard Goldfinger, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Schuyler
-- cschuyler@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP, Erin K Dickinson --
edickinson@hrdclaw.com -- Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC,
Kent A Bronson -- kbronson@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP, Roy Shimon
-- rshimon@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP & Charles J Crueger --
ccrueger@hrdclaw.com -- Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC.

Boat NP Merger Co, Desk BC Merger LLC, Desk NP Merger Co, Desk
Spinco Inc, The EW Scripps Company, Scripps Media Inc, Journal
Media Group Inc, and Scripps NP Operating LLC, Defendants,
represented by Donald K Schott -- don.schott@quarles.com --
Quarles & Brady LLP, Matthew J Splitek, Quarles & Brady LLP &
Jonathan W Hackbarth -- jon.hackbarth@quarles.com -- Quarles &
Brady LLP.

Boat Spinco Inc, David Drury, Dean H Blythe, Jeanette Tully,
Jonathan Newcome, Journal Communications Inc, Mary Ellen Stanek,
Owen J Sullivan, and Steven J Smith, Defendants, represented by
Andrew T Sumner -- andy.sumner@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP,
Brady C Williamson -- bwilliam@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn SC,
Douglas M Poland -- dpoland@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn SC & John
L Latham -- john.latham@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP.

                           *     *     *

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

On January 6, 2015, the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed another
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Howard Goldfinger v.
Journal Communications, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-00012-
JPS)), naming Journal, the Board of Directors of Journal, Scripps,
and the other parties to the master transaction agreement,
including us, as defendants. The plaintiff asserts disclosure
claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as state common law claims for breaches of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.
The complaint seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief
enjoining the transactions and damages. On February 6, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a motion to permit expedited discovery and to set
a briefing scheduling on a future motion for preliminary
injunction. On February 11, 2015, the defendants filed Motions to
Dismiss asking the Court to dismiss the lawsuit, and on February
12, 2015, the defendants filed oppositions to the plaintiff's
expedited discovery motion. Both the plaintiff's expedited
discovery motion and the defendants' Motions to Dismiss are
currently pending.

"The outcome of this lawsuit is uncertain. An adverse judgment for
monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the operations
and liquidity of Journal and Scripps. A preliminary injunction
could delay or jeopardize the completion of the transactions, and
an adverse judgment grating permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the transactions. Journal,
Scripps, and the other defendants named in the lawsuit, including
us, believe the claims asserted are without merit and intend to
continue to vigorously defend against them," Journal Media Group,
Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Howard" OT 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.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: City of Wyoming, MN Sues Over "Flushable Wipes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Ross, writing for Star Tribune, reports that the city of
Wyoming, Minn., is suing six makers of wet wipes, arguing that so-
called "flushable" wipes are clogging plumbing networks and
costing the city big money.

The lawsuit, filed on April 23 in federal court, might be the
first seeking class-action status on behalf of cities grappling
with the disposable cloths that wastewater officials say are
plugging pipes and pumps.

"These flushable wipes do not degrade after flushing," the city of
Wyoming's suit says.  "Rather, the flushable wipes remain intact
long enough to pass through private wastewater drain pipes into
the municipal sewer line, causing clogs and other issues for
municipal and county sewer systems and wastewater treatment
plants, resulting in thousands, if not millions, of dollars of
damages."

But representatives of the industry behind wet wipes argue that
people are flushing cloths that never claimed to be flushable,
such as cheap baby wipes, meant to be bundled in disposable
diapers and thrown in the trash.

That industry has "empathy for the challenges the wastewater
operators are having with nonflushable materials impacting their
systems," said Dave Rousse, president of the Association of
Nonwoven Fabrics Industry, a trade group representing
manufacturers of wipes and other products.  "However, we take
great exception to any effort to blame flushable wipes for the
problems being caused by nonflushable wipes."

Makers of wipes -- including baby, facial and cleaning wipes --
have faced increased criticism as their industry has grown.  In
2014, a New York man sued Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Costco
Wholesale Corp. in federal court with a class-action-styled
complaint that featured "homeowner horror stories" of "flushable"
wipes clogging homes' plumbing.

But until now, cities have not brought forward such a suit, said
Garrett Blanchfield, a partner at Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
in Minneapolis, representing Wyoming, population 7,800.

In its lawsuit, Wyoming is seeking "a declaration that the
defendants' flushable wipes do not degrade and are not sewer
safe," an order that the companies stop advertising them as such,
and the establishment of a fund to compensate cities for the costs
of cleaning and removing wipes from their sewer systems.

"They want to make sure that people know that these things really
aren't flushable," Mr. Blanchfield said.

A spokesman for Kimberly-Clark, one of the companies named in
Wyoming's suit, declined to comment on the litigation. But the
company does "extensive testing" on the wipes it calls
"flushable," said Bob Brand, director of external communications
for the Texas-based company.  They include Kleenex Cottonelle
FreshCare, which it labels with the words "SafeFlush Technology,"
beside an image of a wipe going down a toilet.

"Our wipes do break down," Mr. Brand said.

Across Minnesota and the country, cities have been cautioning
residents not to flush wipes, which have forced them to boost
their monitoring and buy expensive grinders. Wadena, Minn., posted
its warning on Facebook: A wipe labeled flushable "only means they
will fit down the piping within your home."  But down the line,
wipes can catch on joints and tree roots, cities say.  They wind
around pumps at lift stations, which bring wastewater to higher
elevations, get caught in screens and form massive clumps so
common that they earned a nickname: polar bears.

Linda White, who has a house in Wadena County, was struck by
Wadena's warning.

"I think people really do need to be educated on why they should
not be flushing them into the septic systems," she said.  "I was
shocked at how expensive it was to the city of Wadena to take care
of this problem."


KKR FINANCIAL: Class Action Plaintiffs' Appeal Currently Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR Financial Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appeal by class
action plaintiffs in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware is
currently pending.

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, the United States District
Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN,
individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR & Co., and
certain of KKR & Co.'s affiliates in connection with KFN's entry
into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a
subsidiary of KKR & Co. The merger transaction was completed on
April 30, 2014. The actions filed in California state court were
consolidated, and prior to the filing or designation of an
operative complaint for the consolidated action, the consolidated
action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on December 1,
2014. The complaint filed in the California federal court action,
which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on May 6, 2014.

Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated.
On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the
consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss
on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On
November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and the appeal is currently
pending.

The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleges that the
members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties
owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for
inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in
order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN
shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing
preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to
maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders. The
Delaware action also alleges variously that KKR & Co., and certain
of KKR & Co.'s affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties and that KKR & Co. is a controlling
shareholder of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN
and KKR Financial Advisors LLC, and KKR & Co. breached a fiduciary
duty it allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter
into the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware
action includes, among other things, declaratory relief concerning
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and other relief.


LAPOLLA INDUSTRIES: Court Dismisses "Markey" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Lapolla Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has dismissed
the litigation with prejudice, Neil and Kristine Markey, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Lapolla Industries, Inc., Delfino Insulation, et al,
Defendants.

A complaint initially entitled Neil and Kristine Markey,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. Lapolla industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Lapolla International, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Delfino
Insulation Company, Inc., a New York Corporation, Defendants, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York and served on or about October 10, 2012 and amended
last on November 11, 2013.  Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit only
individually, having amended out any request for a class action.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that Lapolla designed,
labeled, distributed, and manufactured spray polyurethane foam
insulation, which created a highly toxic compound when applied as
insulation resulting in exposure to harmful gases. Plaintiffs
sought: actual, compensatory, and punitive damages; injunctive
relief; and attorney fees. Lapolla considered the allegations to
be without merit and vigorously defended the allegations.

On February 4, 2015, the Court dismissed the litigation with
prejudice, per the voluntary request of Plaintiffs upon the advice
of their new counsel and after their original litigation counsel
withdrew citing irreconcilable differences with the Plaintiffs.
The Court retained jurisdiction to address a pending motion for
sanctions filed by Lapolla.  The primary basis for Lapolla's
motion for sanctions is the Plaintiffs' and their original
attorney's filing of the lawsuit without sufficient factual basis
for the claims of personal injury and for failing to comply with
discovery obligations to produce numerous potentially dispositive
documents that Plaintiffs knew existed and their original counsel
either knew or should have known existed.  Lapolla seeks to
recover over $700,000 in legal fees for the defense of the
lawsuit. The final outcome of this litigation cannot be determined
at this time.


LINN-BENTON COMMUNITY: Mulls Class Action Over Dropped Degree
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Lathrop, writing for Democrat-Herald, reports that Doug
Hibbert says he feels a little better about his situation after a
phone call from the Linn-Benton Community College administration,
but he acknowledges that although the school has said it will make
good on his pursuit of a Visual Communications degree, he still
isn't happy.

"It's been a nightmare," said Mr. Hibbert, who's scheduled to walk
with his class at LBCC's graduation in June.  "I've been told that
I will be able to get the degree I worked for, but I'm not sure if
I hadn't applied some pressure that would have happened."

Mr. Hibbert reacted almost immediately when Dave Becker, LBCC dean
of Business, Applied Technology and Industry, told Mr. Hibbert and
his classmates a week ago that the graphic design degree they
believed they'd worked for was in fact never approved by the
school.  The college says a catalog entry last year stating that
the program was indeed part of the curriculum first alerted them
to the problem.  In reality, the school says, the program was
eliminated as part of $3 million in budget cuts in 2013.

Mr. Becker told students that they would be getting the Visual
Communications degree instead, and for three students, including
Mr. Hibbert, there would be a General Studies degree along with a
supporting letter from the president's office stating they had
completed the graphics courses.

"I started thinking class action suit immediately. I had a lot
invested in my time here working for a degree I wasn't going to
get," Mr. Hibbert said.  "I got the call today saying I would get
the degree, but nothing has been set it stone.  I feel better
about it but I'm still in a wait-and-see mode."

Mr. Hibbert, 38, who fits his studies around his own business,
Doug Hibbert Photography in Salem, said he worries about how this
will affect his classmates, especially underclassmen who committed
to the program in good faith.  The school said on April 21 that it
is working to make any student who can complete the credits by end
of next spring eligible to apply for the Visual Communication
degree.

"There are a lot of students still wondering what is going to
happen," Mr. Hibbert said.

Kelle Juddah is one of them. Although she had not declared graphic
arts as a major, she had been working her way through the program
at her own pace while running a business in Corvallis.

"I'm heated about this whole thing," she said.  "I don't think
this was a misunderstanding. Students and teachers are beside
themselves.  I've talked to administrators and got the feeling
they were trying not to answer things and make someone who isn't
here anymore a scapegoat."

She worries about transfer credits for students who may want to
leave and about the time and finances students have already
invested.

"Students have made sacrifices in their lives. I have had clients
adapt their schedules so I could take these classes," Ms. Juddah
said. "Somebody behind the wheel needs to be accountable."

Mr. Hibbert and Ms. Juddah both said students and faculty in the
program have remained professional despite the fact they aren't
getting what they thought they signed up for in the program. Many
students continue to wonder what is going to happen.

"It is an added stress," said Mr. Hibbert, who is married and has
two children, and commutes daily from Salem.  "It's been an
emotional week of sleepless nights and stressful days."

As many students wonder what's going to happen, LBCC tries to
right its ship.  Dale Stowell said that advisors should have made
contact by the end of the week with all of the students involved.
He said students should contact Vice President for Student Affairs
Bruce Clemetsen to find out their options, or set up a meeting
with their advisor.

"This is not a small mistake," Mr. Hibbert said.  "A lot of
students' lives have been hit by this. It can't be taken lightly."

And he hasn't forgotten about the potential class action lawsuit
if things aren't settled favorably. He believes there will be
plenty of student support.

"If we are backed into a corner, I would move forward with it," he
said.  "This is not anywhere near being resolved yet."


LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Class Action Hampers Diesel Spill Probe
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lejtenyi, writing for CJAD News, reports that the mayor of
Longueuil says she very much wants to inform the public about the
investigation into last January's diesel spill that contaminated
drinking water for almost two days. But she says her hands are
tied because of a class action lawsuit.

That has left Caroline St-Hilaire frustrated, she told the Journal
de Montreal.  In an interview with the paper, she said that legal
proceedings in the form of a class-action lawsuit are preventing
her from explaining what went wrong and why.

But the lawyer filing the lawsuit says that excuse is bogus.
Jacky-Eric Salvant says the city's reports into the accident are
administrative and should be made public.  He says people have the
right to know how the spill and why a pipe was left to degrade to
the point where it presented a danger.

Hoever, Yves Theriault, a member of Recours imbuvable, a citizens'
group that opposes the lawsuit, says he sympathizes with
St-Hilaire.

"We want to know what happened at the pumping station, and I think
the people who are bringing this class action are delaying stuff,"
he says.

The class action suit is looking for a hundred dollar compensation
per person affected -- a sum that could reach up to $29-million.

The next court date was set for May 20.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Settles Class Action Over Inmate Beatings
----------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Hernandez, writing for KABC, reports that a class-action
lawsuit over complaints of deputies beating inmates in Los Angeles
County jails has reached a final settlement, and it has already
brought about some reforms with more to follow.

Former inmate Michael Holguin said his clash with deputies began
with his request for a shower.

"I was hit in the head with a flashlight multiple times, had eight
staples in the middle of my head, six stitches over my right eye,"
Holguin described.

The American Civil Liberties Union says Mr. Holguin's case was one
of 70 shocking complaints that spurred the call for jail reforms.

U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson finalized the settlement for
the lawsuit, which was filed in January 2012 by the ACLU on behalf
of inmates who claimed they were beaten by deputies.  As a result
of the settlement, first announced in December, the sheriff's
department said it would overhaul its policies and practices to
curb excessive force and improve the grievance process.

"Sometimes force has to be used, but it is not OK for the
sheriff's department to basically say, 'Force was used, it was
reasonable, done deal,' and that is what was happening. We had
sloppy investigations not designed to get at the truth," said
Peter Eliasberg with the ACLU.

Chief Eric Parra with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department's Custody Division says many reforms are already in
place.  The department is now getting valuable advice.

"They have some great ideas on how to get into better force
prevention, how to get into better force management, how to track
force better, and then they also have a great view with respect to
grievances and how we track grievances and how we should have a
better system," Mr. Parra said.

These reforms come with $77 million from the county to pay for
additional training and overtime. Yet, it could save millions in
potential lawsuits.

The ACLU says out of the 70 complaints registered, there were
three indictments involving 10 deputies.  Three will face trial
later this year.

Mr. Eliasberg said the inmates report a difference in atmosphere
in the jails.

"They don't feel the same level of threat," he said.

"I'm happy, you know, if it doesn't happen to anybody else, great.
Even if it is just one person that doesn't get hurt.  It's a great
thing," Mr. Holguin said.


LOUISIANA: App. Ct. Remands "Claborne" Suit v. Housing Authority
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge James F. McKay, III of the Court of Appeals of
Louisiana, Fourth District ruled on the parties' motions in the
case JANICE CLABORNE AND SHERYL JONES, v. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
NEW ORLEANS, ET AL. JANICE CLABORNE, ET AL., v. THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF NEW ORLEANS, NO. 2014-CA-1050, CONSOLIDATED WITH NO.
2014-C-0898 (La. Ct. App.)

Plaintiffs Janice Claborne and Sheryl Jones filed a class action
petition for certification and damages on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, for damages related to their alleged
exposure to mold while living in housing developments operated by
the defendant Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO). The
plaintiffs timely filed a motion to certify their claims as a
class action.

Defendants raised a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing
that plaintiffs' tort claims were prescribed on the face of the
petition. Plaintiffs opposed the exception, arguing that the
doctrines of contra non valentern and continuing tort applied to
their claims to defeat prescription. Plaintiffs have also asserted
breach of contract claims based on their leases with HANO, arguing
that a ten year liberative prescription period applied. Defendants
objected to the late assertion of breach of contract claims. After
several hearing dates on the exception of prescription, judgment
was rendered on January 17, 2012, granting defendants' exception
of prescription.

Plaintiffs appealed the ruling that granted the exception of
prescription, and the appeals court vacated the judgment and
remanded the matter for further proceedings.

On remand and after taking the matter under advisement,
plaintiffs' motion to certify class was granted. One month after
ruling on class certification, the court overruled defendants'
exception of prescription. Defendants appealed the judgment
granting class certification and seek supervisory review from the
judgment overruling the exception of prescription.

Chief Judge McKay affirmed the granting of plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and granted the writ, vacated the judgment
denying defendants' exception of prescription and remanded the
matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

A copy of Chief Judge McKay's opinion dated April 15, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/kx0WiXfrom Leagle.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees:

     William L. Pratt, Esq.
     Aynsley B. Bourne, Esq.
     320 N. Carrollton Ave., Suite 200
     New Orleans, LA 70119-5111

Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, Odyssey Re (London) Limited
f/k/a, Sphere Drake Insurance, P.L.C.:

     Thomas E. Loehn, Esq.
     BOGGS LOEHN & RODRIGUE
     2324 Severn Ave., Suite 100
     Metairie, LA 70001

          - and -

     Warren A. Forstall, Jr.,
     LAW OFFICES OF WARREN A. FORSTALL, JR.
     320 North Carrollton Avenue, Suite 200
     New Orleans, LA 70119

          - and -

     Darleen M. Jacobs, Esq.
     JACOBS SARRAT & LOVELACE
     823 St. Louis Street
     New Orleans, LA 70112

          - and -

     Robert G. Harvey, Sr., Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. HARVEY, SR., APLC
     600 North Carrollton Avenue
     New Orleans, LA 70119

          - and -

     Chet G. Boudreaux, Esq.
     McKERNAN LAW FIRM
     8710 Jefferson Highway
     Baton Rouge, LA 70809

          - and -

     Neil D. Sweeney, Esq.
     7921 Picardy Ave.
     Baton Rouge, LA 70809

          - and -

     T. Carey Wicker, Esq.
     CAPETELLI & WICKER
     1100 Poydras Street
     2950 Energy Centre
     New Orleans, LA 70163-2950

          - and -

     Gary M. Zwain, Esq.
     Paul J. Verlander, Esq.
     DUPLASS ZWAIN BOURGEOIS PFISTER & WEINSTOCK
     3838 North Causeway Boulevard Suite 2900
     Metairie, LA 70002

Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, Guste Homes Resident Management
Corporation:

     Kim M. Boyle, Esq.
     Brandon E. Davis, Esq.
     Alex H. Glaser, Esq.
     PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
     365 Canal Street Suite 2000
     New Orleans, LA 70130-6534

          - and -

     Warren Horn, Esq.
     HELLER DRAPER PATRICK & HORN, L.L.C.
     650 Poydras Street Suite 2500
     New Orleans, LA 70130-6103

Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, Housing Authority of New Orleans:

     Wayne J. Lee, Esq.
     Lesli D. Harris, Esq.
     STONE PIGMAN WALTHER WITTMANN L.L.C.
     546 Carondelet Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130-3588

Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, Scottsdale Insurance Company:

     Glenn B. Adams, Esq.
     Leandro R. Anea, Esq.
     PORTEOUS HAINKEL & JOHNSON, L.L.P.
     704 Carondelet Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130-3774

          - and -

     Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
     Anders C. Wick, Esq.
     DENTONS US LLP
     233 South Wacker Drive
     Chicago, IL 60611

Attorneys for Defendant/Appellant, Canal Indemnity Company:

     Michael S. Futrell, Esq.
     William P. Connick, Esq.
     Elizabeth O. Clinton, Esq.
     CONNICK AND CONNICK, L.L.C.
     3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 408
     Metairie, LA 70002

Attorney for Defendants/Appellants, BW Cooper Resident Management
Corporation, Guste Homes Resident Management Corporation:

     Dennis J. Phayer, Esq.
     BURGLASS & TANKERSLEY, L.L.C.
     5213 Airline Drive
     Metairie, LA 70001-5602

Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, Penn-American Insurance Company:

     Matthew J. Ungarino, Esq.
     Emile A. Bagneris III, Esq.
     UNGARINO & ECKERT LLC
     Suite 1280, Lakeway Two
     3850 North Causeway Boulevard
     Metairie, LA 70002

Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, Jefferson Insurance Company of
New York:

     Ben L. Mayeaux, Esq.
     NEUNER PATE
     One Petroleum Center, Suite 200
     1001 West Pinhook Road
     Lafayette, LA 70505-2828

The panel of the Louisiana Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,
consists of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III and Judges Daniel L.
Dysart and Sandra Cabrina Jenkins.


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
settlement in a class action lawsuit remains contingent upon a
number of future events, including, without limitation, court
certification of the putative class and entry of a final, non-
appealable order and final judgment approving the settlement.

On May 30, 2014, a putative class action complaint, or the
complaint, was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, State
of California, captioned Cadillac Partners, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Michael M. Wick, et al., or
the litigation. The suit alleged the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary
duties, in connection with the Company's Merger with MabVax
Therapeutics.

The Company said, "The complaint asserts claims concerning the
private placement of our Series B Preferred Stock and transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, each of which were entered
into on May 12, 2014, and is brought against MabVax Holdings,
MabVax Therapeutics, past and current members of our board, and
the investors participating in the private placement transaction."

"On July 16, 2014, MabVax Holdings and all other parties to the
litigation entered into an agreement which, if consummated, will
settle the litigation, or the proposed settlement. Among many
other terms, under the proposed settlement we agreed to provide
the supplemental disclosure filed as definitive additional
materials to the definitive proxy on June 30, 2014, and MabVax
Holdings, MabVax Therapeutics and all defendants will receive a
broad release of any and all claims pertaining to the Series B
Preferred Stock private placement, the Merger, the prior
disclosure and a wide variety of other matters. The proposed
settlement also calls for the parties to ask the court to, among
other things, enter orders enjoining other shareholders from
bringing similar actions, certifying the putative settlement
class, and approving the proposed settlement as a fair, final, and
binding resolution of the litigation. Under the proposed
settlement, MabVax Holdings, MabVax Therapeutics and the other
defendants have expressly denied the allegations of the complaint
and denied engaging in any other misconduct, nor will any of them
make any payment or in any respect amend the negotiated terms of
the since-consummated Series B Preferred Stock private placement
and Merger. Finally, under the proposed settlement, MabVax
Holdings, MabVax Therapeutics and the other defendants have not
agreed to pay any legal fees, or reimburse any expenses, allegedly
incurred by the plaintiffs who filed the complaint; instead,
MabVax Holdings and MabVax Therapeutics expect that counsel for
those plaintiffs will present any such disputed claim for legal
fees and expenses to the court for resolution.

"The proposed settlement remains contingent upon a number of
future events, including, without limitation, court certification
of the putative class and entry of a final, non-appealable order
and final judgment approving the settlement (including the broad
releases and other terms set forth therein)."


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 21 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corporation publicly traded securities during the
period between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015, including
purchasers of MagnaChip common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
MagnaChip's February 6, 2013 follow-on public stock offering.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 21, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/magnachip/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges MagnaChip and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
MagnaChip is a South Korea-based designer and manufacturer of
analog and mixed-signal semiconductor products mainly for high-
volume consumer, computer and communication applications, which
includes smart phones.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, prospects, operations and financial results,
and failed to disclose the inadequacy of its internal controls and
procedures over financial reporting.  Specifically, the Company
failed to disclose that it was improperly recognizing revenues,
resulting in its prior financial statements overstating its
revenues and earnings in 2011, 2012, and the first nine months of
2013.  As a result of defendants' false statements, MagnaChip
securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, with its stock price reaching a high of $23.57 per share
on October 21, 2013, and MagnaChip's controlling shareholder,
Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., was able to sell more than
16.1 million MagnaChip shares in secondary stock offerings and on
the open market during the Class Period at fraud-inflated prices,
receiving $232.675 million in gross proceeds.

Following a January 2014 disclosure that it could not timely file
its annual financial report for fiscal 2013, on March 11, 2014,
MagnaChip announced that it would be restating its 2011, 2012 and
2013 financial results after concluding that it had "incorrectly
recognized revenue on certain transactions," stating it
"expect[ed] that the primary impact of the correction of prior
revenue recognition errors [would] be to recognize revenue on
certain transactions in the periods in which the distributor
ship[ped] the products to the end customer rather than the periods
in which the products [were] shipped to distributors."  Then on
February 12, 2015, after the market closed, MagnaChip filed its
Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013, restating its financial results for fiscal
years 2011, 2012, and the first three quarters of 2013, resulting
in a total reversal of earnings by $142 million, wiping out 55% of
its reported profits for those periods.  The complaint alleges
that as a result of this news, MagnaChip's shares plummeted $7.50
per share to close at $7.52 per share on February 13, 2015, a one-
day decline of nearly 50%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
MagnaChip publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.


MISSOURI: Sex Offender Rehabilitation Class Action Trial Begins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Bogan, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that a
trial started on April 21 in U.S. District Court that will
determine if the treatment at a controversial Missouri Department
of Mental Health program for sexually violent predators is
constitutional.

Seeds for the case were planted in 2009, when a handful of men --
civilly committed against their will to the maximum security Sex
Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services, or SORTS, facility
in Farmington -- wrote out legal claims by hand. They were being
billed by the state for care and treatment that they didn't want
to be a part of at SORTS.

The Eastern District of Missouri eventually assigned the case to a
lead litigator at the Clayton-based law firm Armstrong Teasdale,
who, over time, broadened the case to a class action lawsuit that
alleges SORTS is a prison disguised as a mental health hospital.
The firm says it has since put "millions" of dollars worth of time
into the case.

With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri
and others, plaintiffs' attorneys sought and sifted through about
1 million pages of internal emails, memos and other documents
associated with the SORTS program.

"This is an important case," plaintiffs' attorney Jack Quinn said
during opening statements.  "It's an important day."

Following the lead of other states, the Missouri law seeks to
identify sexual predators nearing the end of their prison
sentences.  It then lays out a process for civil courts to decide
if they need to be locked up further, but in treatment.  The
statute sets no time limit on confinement, saying the treatment
should continue until the risk falls to acceptable levels.

Some states have shown that patients can be moved through
treatment and be released into the community.  But Mr. Quinn
argued that Missouri is "warehousing" people due to poor
management and a politicized legal road to SORTS.

So far, he said, the only way out has been to die.  Since state
lawmakers created the program in 1999, Mr. Quinn told the court,
nobody has been released into the community for successfully
completing treatment at SORTS.

In some cases, the attorney general's office has indefinitely
committed patients to SORTS when Department of Mental Health
experts said they didn't meet the requirements to be in its own
facility.

"Let's be honest, they are shunned by society," Mr. Quinn said of
this particularly egregious group of sex offenders, adding: "We
think that affects their liberty interests."

There are 206 people in the SORTS program. Most live in Farmington
on a red brick campus hemmed in by double fences topped with
spools of razor wire.  The program has been expanded in recent
years to include placement at Fulton State Hospital. About 20
people are added each year, though civil commitment hearings have
been put on hold leading up to the start of the federal trial
here, which is expected to last two weeks.

The Missouri attorney general's office, which is defending the
state, told the court on April 21 that the legality of SORTS is
sound.

The "treatment meets the constitutional requirements, but also
represents the best practices for the treatment of sexually
violent predators," said Philip Sholtz, of the attorney general's
office, during his brief opening statement.  He argued that
sexually violent predators are some of the most difficult patients
for psychiatrists to treat.  He said the field -- a mixture of law
and science -- is still in its infancy and that patients often
resist treatment.

"SORTS faces a monumental task," Mr. Sholtz said.

While there have been questions raised about treatment, he said,
SORTS had been accredited as a hospital.  An annex has been built
in the Farmington facility that's still inside the razor wire but
allows more freedom for people progressing though the program.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the
civil commitment process used by Missouri and 19 other states and
the federal government.  But the process has been hammered by a
barrage of lawsuits and critics, who say it corrupts the concept
of court-ordered mental health treatment.

The Missouri attorney general's office argues that many of the
issues have already been raised.

U.S. District Court Judge E. Richard Webber weighed complaints and
concerns about treatment in a Civil Rights Act case brought by a
SORTS resident, also first written out by hand.  In the 2010
decision, Webber wrote that some treatment at SORTS likely fell
below professional standards but not enough to "shock the
conscience" to be declared constitutionally inadequate.

At the beginning of the case on April 21, Quinn argued that SORTS
hasn't made enough improvements in the past six years.  He
referenced an expert's report that the defense had brought, who
mentioned "systematic difficulties."

The expert, Anita Schlank, wrote in a Feb. 15 report about SORTS:
"While much about the Missouri (sexually violent predator) program
is quite consistent with components of other SVP programs, it is
concerning that in fifteen years no client has been conditionally
released into the community.  This fact has led to a sense of
hopelessness, not only in clients, but also in staff."

She added in the last line of the report: "However, it does not
appear accurate to claim that the program has substantially
departed from accepted standards in the field of residential sex
offender treatment."

Ms. Schlank is expected to testify at the trial being heard by
U.S. District Court Judge Audrey G. Fleissig.


MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Must Face Class Suit Over HID Ballasts
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marianne O. Battani of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division denied defendants' motion to dismiss
in the case entitled IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
In Re: HID Ballasts. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Dealership Action
End-Payor Action, MASTER FILE NO. 12-MD-02311, NO. 2:13-CV-01702,
2:13-CV-01703 (E.D. Mich.)

Automobile Dealership Plaintiffs (ADPs), and End-Payor Plaintiffs
(EPPs), the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs or "IPPs, filed separate
consolidated class action complaints advancing federal and state
law claims based upon their allegations that defendants
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold HID Ballasts in the United
States to numerous Original Equipment Manufacturers, and engaged
in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain
and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and
customers in the United States relative to HID Ballasts.

ADPs include automobile dealers that sell automobiles manufactured
by various Original Equipment Manufacturers. EPPs include
individuals that purchased certain automobiles.

Three of the named defendants have agreed to plead guilty and pay
fines based on their involvement in the HID Ballasts price-fixing
conspiracy in the United States, including Panasonic Corporation,
Stanley Electric Co., and Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Panasonic
Corporation agreed to plead guilty and pay a $45.8 million
criminal fine. In November 2013, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
announced that Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. agreed to plead guilty
and pay a $1.44 million criminal fine for its role in the
conspiracy. In January 2014, the DOJ announced that Koito
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay a $56.6
million criminal fine for its role in the conspiracy.

Although Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (MEC) did not plead
guilty to the same conspiracy, in September 2013, it agreed to
plead guilty for its role in the conspiracy to rig bids and fix
prices of alternators, starters, and ignition coils, and to pay a
$190 million criminal fine. In addition, MEC and its subsidiaries
have pledged to cooperate in the DOJ's automotive parts
investigation. Pursuant to the guilty plea, in exchange for the
cooperation, the DOJ agreed to refrain from criminally prosecuting
MEC and its subsidiaries for price-fixing certain automotive
parts, including HID Ballasts.

IPPs allege that despite a decrease in the demand for automobiles
in the United States, defendants increased the prices for HID
Ballasts. According to IPPs, in a competitive market, falling or
steady demand should not have yielded higher prices for HID
Ballasts.

MEC, together with its subsidiaries, Mitsubishi Electric US
Holdings, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc.,
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended class
action complaints.

Judge Batanni denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Battani's opinion and order dated April 22, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/QLfeiNfrom Leagle.com

HIB Ballasts - Dealership Actions, In Re, represented by Adam T.
Schnatz, The Miller Law Firm, Bernard Persky, Robins Kaplan LLP,
Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., E.
Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Hollis L Salzman, Robins
Kaplan LLP & William Reiss, Robins Kaplan LLP

Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca,John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP,Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Hammett Motor Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Superstore Automotive, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP,Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C.
Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Desert European Motorcars, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca,John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP,Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP,Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Green Team of Clay Center Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca,John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP,Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

McGrath Automotive Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca,John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP,Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Table Rock Automotive, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Archer-Perdue, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C.
Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Bonneville and Son, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Holzhauer Auto and Truck Sales, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP,Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Pitre, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,David F. Hansma, Mantese and
Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C. Kakinuki,
Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman Rossman &
Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Victoria
Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Gerard V.
Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP,Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

SLT Group II, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C.
Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Charles Dahers Commonwealth Motors, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
by Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP,Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Gerard
V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Commonwealth Volkswagen, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca,John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP,Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Commonwealth Nissan, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Ramey Motors, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C.
Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Thornhill Superstore, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Dave Heather Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Central Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, Plaintiff,
represented by Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman &
Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law
Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua
Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn
M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP,Yifei Li, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Capitol Dealerships, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Beck Motors, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C.
Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Stranger Investments, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C.
Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca,Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

John ONeil Johnson Toyota, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca,John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP,Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Landers of Hazelwood, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Little Rock CDJ, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C.
Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Cannon Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Nissan, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman &
Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law
Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua
Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn
M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP,Yifei Li, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca,John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP,Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Hudson Charleston Acquisition, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP,Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Shearer Automotive Enterprises III, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
by Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP,Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Apex Motor Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C.
Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Hudson Gastonia Acquisition, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP,Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

HC Acquisition, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C.
Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Hodges Imported Cars, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Reno Dodge Sales, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, John C.
Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP,
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP &
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

End-Payor Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Marc M. Seltzer,
Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., Steven G. Sklaver - NOT SWORN, Susman
Godfrey L.L.P., Steven N. Williams, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
LLP &Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP

Scotland Car Yard Enterprises, Plaintiff, represented by David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Joshua Paul Lushnat,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter,
Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP

Empire Nissan of Santa Rosa, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David
F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman,Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.,
John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Joshua Paul Lushnat,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter,
Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP

Panama City Automotive Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman,Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese
Assoc., John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office, PC, Joshua Paul
Lushnat, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C. & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP

Rainbow Chevrolet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law
Office, PC,Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman Rossman &
Williamson, P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP & Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

Stoebner Holdings, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, John C. Kakinuki, Kakinuki Law Office,
PC,Joshua Paul Lushnat, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson,
P.C., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP & Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.

HID Ballasts - Dealership Actions, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn
M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by A. Paul Victor,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Brandon W. Duke, Winston & Strawn LLP, Erica
C. Smilevski, Winston & Strawn LLP, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Jeffrey J. Amato, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP & Mollie C. Richardson, Winston & Strawn LLP

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Brandon W. Duke, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Erica C. Smilevski, Winston & Strawn LLP, Eva W. Cole,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey J. Amato, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Mollie C. Richardson,
Winston & Strawn LLP

Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Abram
J. Ellis, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, David T. Shogren,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, George S. Wang, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, Matthew J. Reilly, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,
Shannon McGovern, Simpson Thacher & Barlett, LLP & Timothy J.
Lowe, McDonald Hopkins PLC

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Abram J.
Ellis, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,David T. Shogren, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, George S. Wang, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP,Matthew J. Reilly, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Shannon
McGovern, Simpson Thacher & Barlett, LLP & Timothy J. Lowe,
McDonald Hopkins PLC

II Stanley Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Abram J. Ellis,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, David T. Shogren, Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett LLP, George S. Wang, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,
Matthew J. Reilly, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Shannon
McGovern, Simpson Thacher & Barlett, LLP & Timothy J. Lowe,
McDonald Hopkins PLC

Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Barbara
Wootton, Arnold and Porter LLP, Brian M. Moore, Dykema Gossett,
Danielle Garten, Arnold & Porter LLP, Franklin R. Liss, Arnold and
Porter LLP, Howard B. Iwrey, Dykema Gossett & Tiana L. Russell,
Arnold and Porter LLP

North American Lighting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian M.
Moore, Dykema Gossett, Danielle Garten, Arnold & Porter LLP &
Howard B. Iwrey, Dykema Gossett

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles
B. Sklarsky, Jenner and Block, Daniel Fenske, Jenner & Block LLP,
Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block LLP, Gary K. August, Zausmer,
Kaufman, August & Caldwell, P.C., Jamie J. Janisch, Zausmer,
Kaufman, August & Caldwell, P.C.,Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block
LLP & Terrence J. Truax, One IBM Plaza

Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Charles B. Sklarsky, Jenner and Block, Daniel
Fenske, Jenner & Block LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block
LLP, Gary K. August, Zausmer, Kaufman, August & Caldwell, P.C.,
Jamie J. Janisch, Zausmer, Kaufman, August & Caldwell, P.C.,
Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP & Terrence J. Truax, One IBM
Plaza

Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Charles B. Sklarsky, Jenner and Block,Daniel Fenske, Jenner &
Block LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block LLP, Gary K. August,
Zausmer, Kaufman, August & Caldwell, P.C., Jamie J. Janisch,
Zausmer, Kaufman, August & Caldwell, P.C.,Michael T. Brody, Jenner
& Block LLP & Terrence J. Truax, One IBM Plaza

Denso Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Smith,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP,David P. Donovan, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, David S. Molot, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr, Kurt G. Kastorf, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, Patrick J. Carome, Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale
and Dorr, LLP & Steven F. Cherry, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP

Denso International America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian
C. Smith, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP, David P.
Donovan, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, David S.
Molot, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Kurt G. Kastorf,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Patrick J. Carome,
Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, Steven F. Cherry,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & Steven M. Zarowny,
Denso International America, Inc.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, interested parties, Interested Party,
represented by Michael S. Smith, Preti Plaherty Beliveau & Pachios
LLP


MODERN PINBALL: Sued for Not Providing ADA Accessible Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Modern Pinball NYC LLC d/b/a
Modern Pinball, a New York for Profit entity, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03649-RWS (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015) alleges that the Defendant
discriminates against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
disabled individuals by failing to provide accessible facilities,
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Modern Pinball NYC LLC doing business as Modern Pinball, is the
operator of a bar and dining establishment located at 362 3rd
Avenue, in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Swanson, writing for Seattle GMO Examiner, reports that on
April 21, a class action lawsuit (Case No: BC 578 942) was filed
in Los Angeles County, California against the Monsanto
corporation.  The suit alleges that Monsanto is guilty of false
advertising by claiming that glyphosate, the active ingredient in
Roundup, targets an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans
or animals.  Monsanto makes this claim to support the contention
that glyphosate is harmless to humans.

In the lawsuit, the argument is made that the targeted enzyme,
EPSP synthase, is found in the microbiota which reside in our
intestines and therefore this enzyme is found in humans and
animals.  It is further stated in the lawsuit that there are many
human and animal health problems associated with the disruption of
our intestinal microbes.

"Because it kills-off our gut bacteria, glyphosate is linked to
stomach and bowel problems, indigestion, ulcers, colitis, gluten
intolerance, sleeplessness, lethargy, depression, Crohn's Disease,
Celiac Disease, allergies, obesity, diabetes, infertility, liver
disease, renal failure, autism, Alzheimer's, endocrine disruption,
and the W.H.O. recently announced glyphosate is 'probably
carcinogenic'."

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World
Health Organization (WHO), in March declared that glyphosate is
Group 2A carcinogen.  The American Cancer Society quickly followed
suit, also listing glyphosate as a Group 2A carcinogen.

An Environmental Protection Agency memo dated October 30, 1991
states that the EPA classified glyphsate as a possible carcinogen
in 1985.  In this 1991 memo, without any justification, this
classification was changed to Not Carcinogenic.  Three scientists
refused to sign, two of whom wrote beside their name: Do Not
Concur.  This document contains data that clearly shows a
statistically significant increase in tumors in laboratory animals
treated with glyphosate.  But because there weren't more tumors in
the group of animals who received a higher dose of glyphosate than
there were in the group that received a lower dose, Monsanto made
the claim that the tumors could not be related to glyphosate.

The April 21 lawsuit may be the beginning of an avalanche.
Earlier in April, Beijing resident Yang Xiao-lu filed a lawsuit
against the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture requesting information
disclosure of the toxicology report submitted to the Chinese
government for glyphosate pesticide registration in China.  The
case has been accepted and the collegiate panel of the court has
informed the plaintiff that, considering that Monsanto is a
stakeholder to the case, they have added Monsanto as an involved
party to the case.  Chinese citizens had previously petitioned the
Ministry of Agriculture for this toxicology report but were
denied.  The Ministry cited "trade secrets" as the reason for
denial.  It is difficult to comprehend how a toxicology report
would contain trade secrets since trade secrets generally
constitute ingredients or a recipe for a compound or manufacturing
procedure.

In the April 21 lawsuit, Monsanto is accused of deliberate
falsification to conceal the fact that glyphosate is harmful to
humans and animals.  "Defendant intentionally misleads consumers
by misrepresenting and concealing the true and correct facts
concerning glyphosate . . ." Attorney T. Matthew Phillips says,
"We are not trying to prove that Roundup is harmful or
carcinogenic, we are merely pointing out that Monsanto is lying
about the enzymes that Roundup targets.  Roundup kills the weeds
in your backyard and the weeds in your stomach."

Judgment is sought against Monsanto to prohibit the company from
continuing to make the claim that glyphosate targets an enzyme not
found in humans and for compensation to the plaintiffs, including
attorney fees.

Residents of California can become members of the class in this
action by contacting T. Matthew Phillips at
tmatthewphillips@aol.com

Mr. Phillips has indicated that he hopes other attorneys in other
states will follow suit.

4/22/2015: Case number was added.

4/23/2015: The lawsuit can be downloaded from
http://www.monsantoclassaction.org/

Residents of California can add their names to the class.
Plaintiffs are soliciting funds to help cover litigation costs:
http://www.gofundme.com/monsantolawsuit

4/25/2015: T. Matthew Phillips will ask the court to compel the
Defendant to reimburse donors, with interest.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Judge Narrows Claims in Foreclosure Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James O. Browning of the District of New Mexico
ruled on the parties' motions in the case BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Plaintiff, v. LAURENCE LISA LEBRETON; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., as Nominee for America's Wholesale
Lender; and FNU LNU, Unknown Tenant (Real Name Unknown),
Defendants, NO. CIV 14-0319-JB/KBM (D.N.M.)

The defendant Laurence Lisa Lebreton executed and delivered to
Countrywide Bank, N.A. an adjustable rate note and mortgages her
property as a security for the note. The note contains a provision
allowing for reasonable attorneys' fees should the mortgage need
to be turned over to an attorney for debt collection. Countrywide
Bank assigned the mortgage to Bank of America (BANA), successor by
merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home
Loans Servicing LP through an assignment of mortgage.

Lebreton defaulted on the note which forced BANA to exercise its
option under the note to accelerate the note's outstanding
balance, and all other amounts due and owing on the note as of the
date of default, and to foreclose the mortgage.

BANA filed its complaint in the First Judicial District Court,
County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico, on January 20, 2012. It
seeks a judgment against Lebreton for the principal amount due,
plus interest at the variable rate of 3.3750% until all principal
and interest are paid, plus such additional sums and amounts as
BANA may have expended in payment for taxes and insurance, if any,
and plus other costs and expenses that BANA has been required to
pay concerning the proceedings, plus an amount to be ascertained
by the court for reasonable attorneys' fees, plus an amount
sufficient to pay all costs of collection in accordance with the
note's provisions through the foreclosure sale date. It also
requests that the court foreclose its mortgage lien and sell the
property, so that the proceeds can be applied to the payment of
the judgment amount. It further asks that the court appoint: (i) a
receiver to take possession of the property and manage it before
the sale; and (ii) a special master to manage the sale itself.
Last, it asks for an Order of Forcible Entry and an order stating
that BOA can, itself, be a purchaser at the special master's sale
of the property.

BANA states that defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration
Services, Inc. claims or may claim an interest in the property
subject to the action pursuant to a Mortgage Line of Credit dated
March 30, 2006, and recorded on March 31, 2006, as document number
1426683 and re-recorded on April 4, 2006, as document number
1427389, in the Santa Fe County Records, but that said interest is
subordinate and inferior to that of plaintiff, and should be
foreclosed. It further states that, to the extent that any claim
of interest or lien of any defendants or other party is determined
by the court to be valid, all such claims are inferior and
subordinate to BANA's lien and interest, and that BANA is entitled
to have its mortgage lien determined to be a first and prior lien
upon the property, superior to the rights of all others.
Before the court are (i) the defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to NMRA 1-012(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), filed
April 25, 2014; (ii) the Verified Motion for a More Definite
Statement and Joinder, filed July 11, 2014; (iii) the Verified
Motion to Strike Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to NMRA 1-
012(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) with Memorandum of Objection,
filed July 11, 2014; (iv) the Notice of Motion and Verified Motion
to Strike Documents 28, 29, 30, 31 BANA's Opposition to Motion to
Strike Et Al, Motion to Dismiss for Promissory Estoppel, Breach of
Contract, Unclean Hands, Rule 7 Violations, Lack of First Hand
Knowledge, filed August 11,; and (v) the Notice of Motion and
Motion to Strike Request for Status Conference as Motion for
Status Conference, filed August 22, 2014.

Judge Browning granted defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to
NMRA 1-012(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), denied the verified
motion for a more definite statement and joinder, denied the
verified motion to strike defendants motion to dismiss pursuant to
NMRA 1-012(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) with memorandum of
objection.

The notice of motion and verified motion to strike Documents 28,
29, 30, 31 BANA's Opposition to Motion to Strike Et Al, Motion to
Dismiss for Promissory Estoppel, Breach of Contract, Unclean
Hands, Rule 7 Violations, Lack of First Hand Knowledge, filed
August 11, 2014, is denied. The requests in the notice of Motion
and Motion to Strike Request for Status Conference as motion for
status conference, filed August 22, 2014, are granted in part and
denied in part. Defendant Lisa Lebreton's Counter Claim, filed
April 3, 2014, is dismissed without prejudice.

A status conference was set for 8:30 a.m. on April 16, 2015.  The
district court directed the parties to submit evidence
establishing a basis for original subject-matter jurisdiction.
Otherwise, the court will remand the case to the First Judicial
District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico.

A copy of Judge Browning's memorandum opinion dated April 20,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/pGOgKOfrom Leagle.com

Attorney for Plaintiff:

David A. Ferrance, Esq.
Rachel Chiado, Esq.
LITTLE & DRANTTEL, PC
7430 Washington St. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109-4561
Telephone: 505-833-3036

     - and -

Jason C. Bousliman, Esq.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP
201 Third St NW, Suite 1950
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: 505-764-5400
Facsimile: 505-764-5480
Email: JBousliman@LRRLaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Laurence Lisa Lebreton

Eric N. Ortiz, Esq.
Joseph C. Gonzales, Esq.
ERIC ORTIZ LAW
1122 Central SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: 505-720-0070
Facsimile: 866-897-9491


MOVADO GROUP: To Defend Against Class Action in NJ
--------------------------------------------------
Movado Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for fiscal
year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend
against a class action, alleging that the Company made false and
misleading statements about the Company's financial performance.

On February 4, 2015, an individual plaintiff filed a complaint
against the Company and several of its officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the
"Complaint") as a purported class action, alleging that between
March 26, 2014 and November 13, 2014, the Company made false and
misleading statements about the Company's financial performance.
The Complaint also claims that these alleged false and misleading
statements resulted in the Company's stock trading at an
artificially high price until November 14, 2014, when the Company
issued a press release preliminarily announcing financial results
and reducing its previous projections, after which the Company's
stock price fell. The Company believes that the Complaint is
meritless and it intends to vigorously defend this matter.

The Company believes that it has valid legal defenses to all of
the matters currently pending against it. These matters are
inherently unpredictable and the resolutions of these matters are
subject to many uncertainties and the outcomes are not predictable
with assurance. Consequently, management is unable to estimate the
ultimate aggregate amount of monetary loss, if any, amounts
covered by insurance or the financial impact that will result from
such matters.


MVM INC: Judge Declines to Remand "Clee" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark L. Wolf of the District of Massachusetts ruled
on the parties' motion in the case ALAN CLEE, Plaintiff, v. MVM,
INC., Defendant, C.A. NO. 13-11829-MLW (D. Mass.)

MVM, Inc. is a federal contractor of security services. MVM
contracted with the government to provide security at Boston's
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, as well as at other federal
installations in Boston and around Massachusetts.

Plaintiff Alan Clee worked as a security officer for MVM between
November 2001 and May 31, 2013, at the JFK building. Clee and MVM
agreed that a collective bargaining agreement will govern their
employment relationship.

Clee asserts that he and his fellow employees were required to
arrive at work 10 to 15 minutes before each shift to have
sufficient time to travel to the locker room, change into uniform,
arm themselves, retrieve log books, and walk to their posts. In
addition, they were required to fill out a sign-in form that asked
for their arrival time as well as their shift time.

Clee filed a class action complaint in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts against and alleges that MVM failed to pay him and
other security guards for the 10 to 15 minutes they were required
to be at work before and after each shift in violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148. His
second claim is for unjust enrichment because he and others were
required to relinquish a portion of their wages.

MVM removed the case to federal court based on complete pre-
emption under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 185 (LMRA), and under the Federal Officer Removal
Statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442. MVM moved to dismiss on the
grounds of complete pre-emption. Clee filed a motion to remand.

Judge Wolf denied plaintiff's motion to remand and allowed
defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of Judge Wolf's memorandum and order dated March 10, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/ZEzWxufrom Leagle.com.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: "Blue" Suit Included in Concussion Injury MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled John Blue v. National Hockey
League, Case No. 8:15-cv-00621, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The Minnesota
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-02294-SRN-JSM to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: National Hockey League Players' Concussion Injury
Litigation, MDL No. 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations against the NHL stemming from injuries resulting from
the long-term effects of concussions while playing professional
hockey in the NHL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Michael Harrison Pearson, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON AND WARSHAW LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                  mpearson@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Howard B. Miller, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 241-2319
          E-mail: hmiller@girardikeese.com

               - and -

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Settle 401(k) Plan Class Action for $140 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that a federal judge in Connecticut has given his final approval
to a $140 million national settlement in a dispute that has been
pending since 2001 between the trustees of five employer-sponsored
401(k) plans and Nationwide Life Insurance.

The plaintiffs in the class action litigation consisted of various
companies which paid Ohio-based Nationwide to administer their
retirement plans.  Nationwide chose which third-party operated
mutual funds would be included in the plans.  But instead of
choosing funds based on investment success, the plaintiffs said
Nationwide chose funds from which it received revenue-sharing
payments.  Some of the funds did not perform well, and the
plaintiffs accused Nationwide of breaching its fiduciary duties
under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

"In other words, the trustees contend that Nationwide engages in a
quid pro quo arrangement with the mutual funds, agreeing to
include their funds as investment options for the plans in
exchange for the revenue-sharing payments," explained U.S.
District Judge Stefan Underhill in court documents.

Additionally, Judge Underhill, who approved the settlement earlier
in April, also awarded the plaintiffs $49 million in attorney
fees.  The plaintiffs' lawyers were led by Marc Stanley of the
Stanley Law Group, headquartered in Dallas, and William Bloss, of
Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport.  Mr. Underhill also
awarded $1.3 million in attorney expenses over the nearly decade-
and-a-half long litigation.

Lawyers involved in the case declined to comment, noting that the
settlement terms precluded them from speaking about it.
Nationwide was defended by Elizabeth Canizares of WilmerHale in
Washington, D.C., and Charles Platt of the firm's New York office.
David Rintoul, of Brown, Paindiris, & Scott's Glastonbury office,
was not involved in the case but focuses on ERISA issues and
authors an ERISA blog.  Mr. Rintoul explained that this litigation
was not between individual investors and Nationwide; instead, the
plaintiffs were the executives who ran the corporate 401(k) plans.
For instance, he said if X,Y,Z machine shop had a 401(k) plan and
arranged with Nationwide to offer it to employees, Nationwide, in
choosing the investment product for the employees, chose which
mutual fund which offered to share the most revenue.

"So it's essentially a kickback," said Mr. Rintoul.  "It creates
the appearance Nationwide was choosing who would give it the best
deal rather than the fiduciary duty of doing what was best for the
plans and ultimately the participants."

Mr. Rintoul said the landscape has changed significantly since
2001 when this case began.  He said there are more requirements
now regarding fee disclosures.

"To some extent, Nationwide addresses an issue [in the settlement]
that shouldn't exist anymore," said Mr. Rintoul.

After the two sides agreed to the $140 million settlement -- which
experts say is the nation's largest in a service provider revenue-
sharing lawsuit -- Judge Underhill appointed an attorney with no
involvement in this case but who specializes in ERISA law, to
evaluate the agreement as a fiduciary for the members of the
class.

In a 12-page memo issued in mid-February, Nicholas Saakvitne, of
Santa Monica, California, gave his blessing on the settlement,
which led to Underhill's early April approval. "I believe that the
settlement is a reasonable and attractive settlement for the
retirement plans, which comprise the members of the settlement
class, and in the best interests of participants and beneficiaries
thereof," wrote Mr. Saakvitne.

Nationwide's Defense

On Aug. 15, 2001, Lou Haddock, as trustee of Flyte, Tool & Die
Inc., a plastic molding company from Bridgeport, filed the initial
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Connecticut.  Once receiving
official class action certification, the plaintiffs represented
all current or former trustees of retirement plans covered by
ERISA that did business with Nationwide.

In the litigation, the plaintiffs claimed that Nationwide's
contractual arrangements with mutual funds and its retention of
revenue-sharing payments violated ERISA.

Nationwide denied violating ERISA.  It argued that the mutual fund
payments it received benefited the plaintiffs and the retirement
plans because the payments were used to reduce administrative fees
paid by the plan and participants and to compensate Nationwide
lawfully and appropriately for its services, according to court
documents.

The litigation continued for 14 years and included six published
opinions regarding various motions.  More than 600 documents were
filed.  While the case was pending, the parties twice tried to
resolve the litigation through mediation with two of the top
independent mediators in the country.  The first time was before
retired Oklahoma U.S. District Judge Layn Phillips in July 2012
and then again in October 2014 with attorney David Geronemus of
JAMS in New York City.  In December 2014, the two sides filed a
motion for Underhill to approve their $140 million settlement.

In addition to the $140 million being paid to the companies that
hired Nationwide to operate its retirement benefits program, the
settlement also requires Nationwide to be more transparent in its
business dealings.  Nationwide must disclose to new and existing
customers information regarding revenue-sharing rates, expense
ratios, separate account fees, maintenance fees and per-
participant fees.

"The settlement of the litigation . . . is approved in all
respects as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best
interests of the class," wrote Judge Underhill.  "The court notes
that no written objections were filed by class members and that no
objector appeared before the court at the settlement hearing."
The $49 million in attorney fees was allocated at the rate of 35
percent of the settlement total.  "As independent fiduciary, I
believe that plaintiff's attorney fees request of $49 million,
comprising slightly more than three times their fees (at normal
hourly rates) incurred to date and anticipated to be incurred to
implement the settlement, is reasonable . . . " Mr. Saakvitne
wrote in his memo to Judge Underhill.


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Harasses and Terrorizes Parents, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tarshay Williams, Individually and on Behalf of I.W., an Infant
Under Eighteen Years of Age v. The City of New York, Nicholas
Benitez, Individually and ACS caseworker, and "JOHN/JANE" Doe,
Individually and as a supervisor, Case No. 1:15-cv-02654-ILG-RML
(E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2015) alleges that the Defendants deprived the
Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights when the Defendants
removed Infant Plaintiff, I.W., from Plaintiff, Tarshay Williams's
custody, care and control, without consent, probable cause, or due
process of law, and detained Infant Plaintiff for a period of
approximately 13 days.

Under the guise of child protection, the Defendants routinely
harass and terrorize those similarly situated to the Plaintiff and
her infant child, violating their fundamental constitutional
rights, the Plaintiffs allege.

Tarshay Williams is a resident of Brooklyn, New York.  She is the
biological mother of I.W.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation, incorporated
pursuant to New York State law.  City's Children's Services,
formerly the Administration for Children's Services, is authorized
by New York State law to investigate complaints of child abuse and
neglect and to offer rehabilitative and preventive services to
children and parent, Children removed from their custodians are in
the legal custody of NYCCS/ACS and its Commissioner.  The
Individual Defendants are officers, employees and agents of the
NYCCS/ACS.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard P. Reyes, esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD P. REYES, P.C.
          305 Broadway, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (917) 572-8487
          Facsimile: (646) 536-8964
          E-mail: richard@richardreyeslaw.com


NINE MILE: Coal Miners' Class Action Over Layoffs Settled
---------------------------------------------------------
Nola Sizemore, writing for Harlandaily.com, reports that after
coal miners filed federal lawsuits against Jim Justice-owned coal
mines located in Wise County, Va., both class action lawsuits have
now been approved by the United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia in Abingdon, Va.

Paul Beers and Andrea Hopkins, of the Roanoke law firm Glenn,
Feldman, Darby and Goodlatte, along with attorney Hugh O'Donnell,
of Norton, brought class action lawsuits under the federal WARN
Act against two affiliates of Southern Coal Corporation.  These
actions arose from layoffs of approximately 155 coal miners by
Southern Coal Corporation affiliates, Nine Mile Mining Inc. and
Virginia Fuel Corporation, in Wise County, Va. in May 2013.

The WARN Act requires larger employers to provide 60 days notice
prior to carrying out a mass layoff or plant closing, which causes
job losses for at least 50 employees at a single site of
employment.

Both cases were resolved with the assistance of U.S. Magistrate
Judge Pamela Meade Sargent, who served as mediator.

Mr. Beers and Ms. Hopkins said one of the class action lawsuits
settled prior to trial was for the amount of $625,000, while the
other case settled for $745,000, for a total recovery of
$1,370,000.  They said both settlements have been approved by the
district court as proposed by the parties after affording class
members an opportunity to file objections.

"None objected," said Mr. Beers.


NORTHEAST CORRECTIONAL: Judge Narrows Claims in "Montague" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leon Jordan of the Eastern District of Tennessee,
in Greenville, ruled on the plaintiffs' motion in the case CHARLES
MONTAGUE, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. DERRICK SCHOFIELD, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-292 (E.D. Tenn.)

On December 10, 2014, the court entered a deficiency order,
observing that not all the listed prisoner plaintiffs had signed
the complaint, that others who had signed the complaint had not
been captioned as plaintiffs, that some had submitted in forma
pauperis motions, that no plaintiff had paid a full filing fee,
and that there were additional problems with the pleadings which
needed to be addressed by the plaintiffs. The court set a 30-day
deadline for correcting all cited deficiencies. The order was
mailed to all prisoners who were identified as plaintiffs in the
complaint.

Twelve inmates who were listed as plaintiffs did not receive the
order. The copies of the order which were mailed to them at the
NECX were returned to the Court by the postal authorities, with
the faces of the envelopes which contained those copies variously
marked as follows, "Not at this Facility," "Return to Sender by
TDOC," "Refused by Inmate," "Will Not Sign," "Unable to Forward,"
"Inactive, or Paroled". Five prisoners, who were named as
plaintiffs, responded to the deficiency order by filing notices
under penalty of perjury, disclaiming that they signed the
complaint, ever desired to be plaintiffs in the lawsuit, or
authorized anyone to include them as plaintiffs. Thirteen
prisoners who had failed to proffer a filing fee or an in forma
pauperis application have responded to the deficiency order by
submitting the paperwork necessary for a pauper determination.

Charles Montague, John Anderson, Gregory Bowman, Ronald Brewer,
Larry Brown, Nikos Burgins, Patrick Champion, L. Churchwell,
Milton Cooper, Carlos Eaton, Orlando Fields, David Lackey, Craig
Majors, Aaron Malone, Leon McKissack, Victor D. McMiller, Sr.,
William Newby, Norman Page, Jose Perez, Baron Pinkney, Samuel
Ramsey, Darrell Swinney,  Kevin Tate, Octavious Taylor, Walter
Webb, Hugh Williams, Ricardo Wiggins, Tony Williams, and Odell
Wisdom are incarcerated at the Northeast Correctional Complex
(NECX) in Mountain City, Tennessee. They alleged that defendants
TDOC Commissioner Schofield and Warden McAllister should have
known that placing rival gang members in the same units and
allowing these rivals to engage in recreation at same time would
lead to gang violence. Plaintiffs are now locked down, due to gang
violence, though they were not issued disciplinary reports and had
nothing to do with gang violence. The complaint is a pro se civil
rights action and proposed class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 and also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as
well as reimbursement of all costs and fees.

Judge Jordan allows plaintiff Montague to amend his complaint
within 20 days from the date of the order to state a claim
entitling him to relief under Section 1983 or the court will
dismiss the case with prejudice. The court also will dismiss the
newly-opened cases of plaintiffs John Anderson, Gregory Bowman,
Ronald Brewer, Larry Brown, Nikos Burgins, L. Churchwell, Milton
Cooper, Carlos Eaton, Orlando Fields, David Lackey, Craig Majors,
Aaron Malone, Leon McKissack, Victor D. McMiller, Sr., William
Newby, Norman Page, Jose Perez, Baron Pinkney, Samuel Ramsey,
Darrell Swinney, Kevin Tate, Octavious Taylor, Walter Webb, Hugh
Williams, Ricardo Wiggins, and  Tony Williams, unless within
twenty (20) days from the date on this order, each plaintiff
amends his complaint to state a claim entitling him to relief
under Section 1983. Finally, the court granted plaintiff Odell
Wisdom's motion to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit, and orders
that his case is dismissed.

A copy of Judge Jordan's memorandum and order dated April 22,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/fJkjq6from Leagle.com

John Anderson, Plaintiff, Pro Se


NQ MOBILE: Reached Deal to Settle Claims for $5.1 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
NQ Mobile Inc. notified the court that the lead plaintiff and the
NQ Defendants in a class action had reached an agreement in
principle to settle the claims against the NQ Defendants for $5.1
million, subject to court approval, the Company said in its Form
20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On October 25, 2013, a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit against our company, Kostuk v. NQ Mobile,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 12712 (D. Mass.), was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. Shortly thereafter, six more putative shareholder
class action suits against our company and certain current and
former directors and officers of our company were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York: Ho v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7608
(S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October 28, 2013); Ghauri v. NQ Mobile, Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7637 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October
29, 2013); Pang v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13
CIV 7685 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October 30, 2013); Hiller v. NQ
Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7713 (S.D.N.Y.)
(filed on October 30, 2013); Gangaramani v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7858 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on November 5,
2013); Martin v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV
8125 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on November 14, 2013)."

"On December 2, 2013, another putative shareholder class action
suit against our company and certain current and former directors
and officers of our company, Hsieh v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 13 CIV 1048 (E.D. Tex.), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On
January 6, 2014, Kostuk v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 13 CIV 12712 (D. Mass.), was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff. On April 9, 2014, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York consolidated the six putative
shareholder class action suits filed in that court under the
caption, In re NQ Mobile, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 13 CIV 7608 (S.D.N.Y.) ("In re NQ Mobile, Inc. Securities
Litigation"), and appointed a lead plaintiff. On May 13, 2014,
Hsieh v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 1048
(E.D. Tex.), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and was accepted by the Southern
District of New York as related to the consolidated putative
shareholder class action, In re NQ Mobile, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

"On July 21, 2014, the lead plaintiff in In re NQ Mobile, Inc.
Securities Litigation filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
(the "Consolidated Complaint") against us, our former co-chief
executive officer Henry Yu Lin, co-chief executive officer Omar
Sharif Khan, chief operating officer and acting chief financial
officer Vincent Wenyong Shi, former chief financial officer Suhai
Ji, former chief financial officer Kian Bin Teo (collectively the
"NQ Defendants"), and our former auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers
ZhongTian LLP and its affiliate, PricewaterhouseCoopers
International Limited. Similar to the previously filed complaints,
the Consolidated Complaint alleges that various press releases,
financial statements and other related disclosures made by our
company during the alleged class period contained material
misstatements and omissions, in violation of the federal
securities laws, and that such press releases, financial
statements and other related disclosures artificially inflated the
value of our company's ADSs. The Consolidated Complaint states
that the lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who
allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading activities
related to our ADSs from March 6, 2013 to July 3, 2014, and,
similar to previous complaints filed in the putative class
actions, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78(b) and
78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5 (2013).

"On March 3, 2015, we notified the court that the lead plaintiff
and the NQ Defendants had reached an agreement in principle to
settle the claims against the NQ Defendants for $5.1 million,
subject to court approval. This will not have a material impact on
our financial statements as it is covered by insurance. We
continue to believe that the cases against the NQ Defendants are
without merit. Should the settlement agreement not be approved or
concluded for any reason, we intend to defend the actions
vigorously."


NYMOX PHARMACEUTICAL: Facing Shareholder Class Action in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation has been served with a class-
action lawsuit by a shareholder," Nymox said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On November 24, 2014, a shareholder of the Corporation, filed a
proposed class action suit in the United States District Court,
District of New Jersey, against the Corporation and the President
and CEO of the Corporation. The motion was heard on January 26,
2015, and was the first procedural step before any class action
could be instituted. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class
action on behalf of all persons, wherever they reside, who
acquired the Corporation's common stock between January 31, 2011
and November 2, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that certain of the
Corporation's disclosures failed to disclose material adverse
facts that raised serious questions as to the ability to achieve
significant results for NX-1207 in Phase 3 trials in light of
difficulty of enrolling candidates, obtaining objective and
measured results, and the placebo effect.

"On March 10, 2015, we were served with a class-action lawsuit,"
Nymox said.  "The Corporation believes that the allegations made
against it in these actions are meritless and will vigorously
defend the matter, although no assurance can be given with respect
to the ultimate outcome of such proceedings. No provision has been
recognized in these financial statements for this matter."


ORACLE CORPORATION: Judge Narrows Claim in "Garrison" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy h. Koh of the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion in the case GREG GARRISON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ORACLE CORPORATION,
Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-04592-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Oracle Corporation (Oracle) is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Redwood Shores, California. Oracle
specializes in developing and marketing computer hardware systems
and enterprise software products, including its own brands of
database management systems.

The plaintiff Greg Garrison worked for Oracle as a senior account
manager from approximately December 2008 to June 2009. Plaintiff
alleges that Oracle conspired with Google Inc. (Google) to enter
into a restricted hiring agreement. According to plaintiff, Oracle
entered into the agreement with the intent and effect of fixing
the compensation of the employees of participating companies at
artificially low levels. Other than the senior executives who
actively managed and enforced the agreement, Oracle employees were
not apprised and did not consent to the restriction on their
mobility of employment.

Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class of Oracle
employees:

"All persons who worked at any time from May 10, 2007 to the
present for Oracle in the United States in any manager level or
above positions for Product, Sales, or General and Administrative
roles, excluding engineers."
Plaintiff asserts four causes of action under the following
statutes: (1) Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;
(2) California's Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
16720 et seq.; (3) California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; and (4) California
Business & Professions Code Section 16600 et seq. ("Section
16600"). Plaintiff seeks damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorney's fees and expenses, and injunctive relief.

After initially answering the complaint on November 10, 2014,
Oracle filed an amended answer on December 1, 2014. On January 5,
2015, Oracle filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Judge Koh granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend.  Judge Koh said
Plaintiff may elect to file an amended complaint curing the
deficiencies identified in the order.

A copy of Judge Koh's order dated April 22, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/pk6qqufrom Leagle.com

Greg Garrison, Plaintiff, represented by Bryce Aaron Dodds --
tskogen@hoguebelonglaw.com -- Tyler Jay Belong --
tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com -- Jeffrey Lee Hogue --
jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com -- at Hogue Belong; David Roger Markham
-- dmarkham@markham-law.com -- Janine Renee Menhennet --
jmenhennet@markham-law.com -- Maggie K Realin -- mrealin@markham-
law.com -- at The Markham Law Firm

Oracle Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel Murray Wall
-- dan.wall@lw.com -- Sarah Meyers Ray -- sarah.ray@lw.com -- at
Latham & Watkins LLP; Deborah Kay Miller -- at Oracle USA, Inc.
Legal Department

Oracle Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Dorian Estelle Daley

Oracle Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elyse Miriam
Greenwald -- elyse.greenwald@lw.com -- at Latham and Watkins LLP
&James C. Maroulis, Oracle Corporation

Google Inc., Interested Party, represented by Anne M Selin --
aselin@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP


ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Milinazzo From Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orthofix International N.V. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that the
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to Alan W.
Milinazzo and denied it with respect to the Company and the other
individual defendants.

The Company said, "On August 14, 2013, a securities class action
complaint against the Company was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York arising out
of the restatement of our prior consolidated financial statements
and the matters described above. The lead plaintiff's complaint,
as amended, purports to bring claims on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between March 2, 2010 and
July 29, 2013. The complaint asserts that the Company and four of
its former executive officers, Alan W. Milinazzo, Robert S.
Vaters, Brian McCollum, and Emily V. Buxton (collectively, the
"Individual Defendants"), violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5") by
making false or misleading statements in or relating to the
Company's financial statements. The complaint further asserts that
the Individual Defendants were liable as control persons under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for any violation by the Company
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act or Rule 10b-5. As relief, the
complaint requests compensatory damages on behalf of the proposed
class and lead plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. On March 6,
2015, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to
Mr. Milinazzo and denied it with respect to the Company and the
other Individual Defendants.


OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS: Sued in Washington for Violating FMLA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Habenicht, a Washington Resident v. Ozburn-Hessey
Logistics, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00732 (W.D. Wash., May 8, 2015)
alleges that OHL violated the Family Medical Leave Act and
retaliated against the Plaintiff for exercising her rights under
the FMLA by threatening her job and later terminating it.

Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC is a Tennessee limited liability
company headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.  OHL is one of the
largest 3PL (third-party logistic) companies in the world,
providing integrated global supply chain management solutions
including transportation, warehousing, customs brokerage, freight
forwarding, and import and export consulting services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Walters, Esq.
          Theresa E. Pruett, Esq.
          REED PRUETT WALTERS PLLC
          10900 NE 4th Street, Suite 400
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Telephone: (425) 688-7620
          E-mail: mwalters@rpwlawfirm.com


PACCAR INC: Faces Class Suit in N.J. Alleging Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Weight Enterprises, Inc. and Rusty Daniel Trucking, Inc., On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Paccar,
Inc., Paccar Engine Company and Peterbilt Motors Company, Case No.
1:15-cv-03256-JBS-AMD (D.N.J., May 11, 2015) is brought over
alleged breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


PALACE HOSPITALITY: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leland Foster, Individually v. Palace Hospitality, Inc., a
Michigan Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-11678-JCO-APP (E.D. Mich.,
May 11, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff was unlawfully denied
full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, and advantages of the property and the businesses
therein on the basis of his disability, due to the Defendant's
property failing to be in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and its accompanying regulations.

Mr. Foster is an Ohio resident and is diagnosed with cerebral
palsy.  He permanently uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Palace Hospitality, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, owns, leases,
leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation known as
Red Roof Inn located in Orion, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR.
          The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center
          4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222
          Toledo, OH 43615
          Telephone: (419) 241-9661
          Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
          E-mail: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net


PELLA CORP: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Alexander" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton of the District of South Carolina,
Charleston Division granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the
case GRETCHEN ALEXANDER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA CORPORATION, Defendants,
NOS 2:14-MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-MN-00540-DCN (D.S.C.)

Gretchen Alexander filed a class action complaint against Pella
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, alleging jurisdiction based on the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Alexander
alleges eight causes of action: (1) violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act (WCPA); (2) negligence; (3) breach of
express warranty; (4) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; (5) fraudulent concealment; (6) unjust
enrichment; (7) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(MMWA); and (8) declaratory relief.

Alexander alleges that the windows she brought from defendant
suffered from various design deficiencies, including a defect in
the design of the sill extrusion and sill nailing fin attachment
as well as a defect in the design of allowing a gap between the
jamb gasket and the sill gasket. According to Alexander, these
defects cause leaks and allow water to be trapped between the
aluminum and the operable wood frame causing damage to the windows
and other property within her home.  Alexander alleges that Pella
was or should have been aware that its windows were defective and
that Pella concealed its knowledge of repeated product defects.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

Judge Norton granted defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice
all of Alexander's causes of action against defendant.  A copy of
Judge Norton's order dated April 21, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/Zwo2oXfrom Leagle.com.

Gretchen Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Gary E Mason, Mason
Law Firm, Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Parker Waichman, Scott A George,
Seeger Weiss, Daniel K Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason
LLP,Matthew E Lee, Whitfield Bryson and Mason & Bradley Jerome
Moore, Stritmatter Kessler Whelan

Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by G Mark Phillips,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, John P. Mandler, Faegre,
Baker Law Firm - Minneapolis Office, Michael Tucker Cole, Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough, Kevin L Morrow, Faegre Baker
Daniels, Mark J Winebrenner, Faegre Baker Daniels & Shane A
Anderson, Faegre Baker Daniels


PERSEON CORPORATION: Threatened With Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Perseon Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
Transition Period from September 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014,
that legal counsel for Perseon received a demand letter dated
October 3, 2014 and a draft complaint from a single shareholder's
legal counsel who threatened a direct, derivative  and securities
class action suit against Perseon, as well as all current and
certain former  directors and  officers.  The unfiled draft
complaint alleges that from November 2010 through October 2014,
BSD  issued various press releases and public statements which
omitted certain material facts related to BSD's revenue and sales,
thereby misrepresenting the true financial condition of BSD.  In
particular, the draft complaint alleges that BSD's press releases
"tout[ed] impressive revenue figures and purported sales" when "in
reality BSD was floundering and unable to cover its operating
costs, including significant executive compensation."  The unfiled
draft complaint also alleges that BSD "chose to issue additional
securities at below-market prices in an effort to fund operating
expenses," rather than "raise capital through debt transactions or
other methods," and that three offerings cited in the draft
complaint  resulted in "the dilution of existing shareholder
positions."

"Our Board of Directors has engaged outside legal counsel
specializing in securities matters and litigation to conduct an
independent investigation of this draft complaint and its
allegations.   Upon completion of their investigation by special
legal counsel, we expect findings and recommendations will be
presented to the Board of Directors for its consideration," the
Company said.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Consecutive Trials to Start June 15
------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Fleisher
Litigation, the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations and the Tiger Capital
Litigation are scheduled for consecutive trials commencing on June
15, 2015.

On November 18, 2011, Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the
"Fleisher Litigation"), on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed suit against Phoenix Life in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (C.A.
No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) challenging
COI rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life in 2010 and 2011,
which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy language
permitting such adjustments. By order dated July 12, 2013, two
separate classes were certified in the Fleisher Litigation; by
subsequent order dated August 26, 2013, the court decertified one
of the classes. The complaint seeks damages for breach of
contract. The class certified in the court's July 12, 2013 order,
as limited by the court's August 26, 2013 order, is limited to
holders of Phoenix Life policies issued in New York subject to New
York law and subject to Phoenix Life's 2011 COI rate adjustment.
By order dated April 29, 2014, the court denied Martin Fleisher's
motion for summary judgment in the Fleisher Litigation in its
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part Phoenix
Life's motion for summary judgment.

Phoenix Life's subsidiary, PHL Variable, has been named as a
defendant in six actions challenging its COI rate adjustments
implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments. Five
cases have been brought against PHL Variable, while one case has
been brought against PHL Variable and Phoenix Life. These six
cases, only one of which is styled as a class action, have been
brought by (1) Tiger Capital LLC (C.A. No. 1:12-cv- 02939-CM-JCF;
U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on March 14, 2012; the
"Tiger Capital Litigation"); (2-5) U.S. Bank National Association,
as securities intermediary for Lima Acquisition LP ((2: C.A. No.
1:12-cv-06811-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on
November 16, 2011; 3: C.A. No. 1:13-cv-01580-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist.
Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on March 8, 2013; collectively, the
"U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations"); (4: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE;
U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint originally filed on March 6,
2013, in the District of Delaware and transferred by order dated
April 22, 2014, to the District of Connecticut; and 5: C.A. No.
3:14-cv-01398-WWE, U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint filed on
September 23, 2014, and amended on October 16, 2014, to add
Phoenix Life as a defendant (collectively the "U.S. Bank Conn.
Litigations")); and (6) SPRR LLC (C.A. No. 1:14-cv-8714; U.S.
Dist. Ct.; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on October 31, 2014; the
"SPRR Litigation"). SPRR LLC filed suit against PHL Variable, on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated, challenging COI
rate adjustments implemented by PHL Variable in 2011.

The Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y.
Litigations were assigned to the same judge as the Fleisher
Litigation, and discovery in these four actions has concluded. By
orders in both U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations dated May 23, 2014, the
court denied U.S. Bank's motions for summary judgment in their
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part PHL
Variable's motions for summary judgment. U.S. Bank moved for
reconsideration of the court's summary judgment decisions in the
U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations, which the court denied by orders dated
June 4, 2014. By order in the Tiger Capital Litigation dated July
23, 2014, the court denied Tiger Capital's motion for summary
judgment in its entirety, while granting in part and denying in
part PHL Variable's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff in the
Tiger Capital Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract.
Plaintiff in the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations and the U.S. Bank
Conn. Litigations seeks damages and attorneys' fees for breach of
contract and other common law and statutory claims. The plaintiff
in the SPRR Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract for a
nationwide class of policyholders.

The Fleisher Litigation, the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations and the
Tiger Capital Litigation are scheduled for consecutive trials
commencing on June 15, 2015.

Complaints to state insurance departments regarding PHL Variable's
COI rate adjustments have also prompted regulatory inquiries or
investigations in several states, with two of such states
(California and Wisconsin) issuing letters directing PHL Variable
to take remedial action in response to complaints by a single
policyholder. PHL Variable disagrees with both states' positions.
On March 23, 2015, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") in
Wisconsin ordered PHL Variable to pay restitution to current and
former owners of seven policies and imposed a fine on PHL Variable
which, in a total amount, does not have a material impact on PHL
Variable's financial position (Office of the Commissioner of
Insurance Case No. 13- C35362). PHL Variable disagrees with the
ALJ's determination and intends to appeal the order.

Phoenix Life and PHL Variable believe that they have meritorious
defenses against all of these lawsuits and regulatory directives
and intend to vigorously defend against them, including by appeal
if necessary. The outcome of these matters is uncertain and any
potential losses cannot be reasonably estimated.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: July 20 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, that the
settlement in a class action lawsuit is subject to final approval
by the Court.  A hearing has been scheduled at 9:30 a.m., on July
20, 2015.

PhotoMedex, Inc. (the "Company"), was served on December 20, 2013,
with a purported shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania against the Company and its two top executives,
Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath,
President and Chief Financial Officer.   The action alleged
various violations of the Federal securities laws between November
7, 2012 and November 14, 2013, including that the Company and its
officers made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose material facts concerning the Company's business.  The
plaintiffs sought class action status for the suit, as well as an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs.
A companion action was brought against the Company and its two
officers in the State of Israel, where the Company's shares are
traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

On March 11, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Court") entered an order
preliminarily approving a proposed settlement in this action.  The
proposed settlement provides a fund of $1.5 million for the
benefit of those persons or entities who purchased securities
issued by the Company during the period November 6, 2012 and
November 5, 2013, inclusive.

The settlement fund will also pay for plaintiffs' counsel's fees
and expenses approved by the Court with respect to the action.
The Company maintains insurance that will help defray the cost of
the proposed settlement, and does not expect the proposed
settlement to have a material impact on its financial results.

The proposed settlement is subject to final approval by the Court.
A hearing has been scheduled at 9:30 a.m., on July 20, 2015 to
determine whether to (i) approve the settlement, (ii) dismiss the
action with prejudice, and (iii) provide for the payment of
plaintiffs' counsel's attorney's fees and expenses, and consider
an application for reimbursement of expenses (including lost
wages) of the lead plaintiff.


PLASMATECH BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plasmatech Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
PlasmaTech Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint in a class action complaint.

Alan Schmidt ("Schmidt"), a former shareholder of Genaera
Corporation ("Genaera"), and a former unitholder of the Genaera
Liquidating Trust (the "Trust"), filed a purported class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in June 2012. The lawsuit named thirty defendants,
including PlasmaTech, MacroChem Corporation, which was acquired by
us in February 2009, Jeffrey Davis, the then-CEO and currently a
director of PlasmaTech, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark Alvino,
both of whom are our directors (the "PlasmaTech Defendants"). With
respect to the PlasmaTech Defendants, the complaint alleged direct
and derivative claims asserting that directors of Genaera and the
Trustee of the Trust breached their fiduciary duties to Genaera,
Genaera's shareholders and the Trust's unitholders in connection
with the licensing and disposition of certain assets, aided and
abetted by numerous defendants including the PlasmaTech
Defendants. Schmidt seeks monetary damages, disgorgement of any
distributions received from the Trust, rescission of sales made by
the Trust, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs. On December 19,
2012, Schmidt filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint")
which asserted substantially the same allegations with respect to
the PlasmaTech Defendants.

On February 4, 2013, the PlasmaTech Defendants moved to dismiss
all claims asserted against them. On August 12, 2013 the court
granted the PlasmaTech Defendants' motions to dismiss and entered
judgment in favor of the PlasmaTech Defendants on all claims. On
August 26, 2013, Schmidt filed a motion for reconsideration. On
September 10, 2013 Schmidt filed a Notice of Appeal with the
District Court. On September 17, 2013, Schmidt filed his appeal
with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Third
Circuit"). On September 25, 2013, the District Court denied
Schmidt's motion for reconsideration. On October 17, 2013, Schmidt
amended his appeal to include the District Court's denial of his
motion for reconsideration.

On March 20, 2014, Schmidt filed his Brief and Joint Appendix. On
May 22, 2014, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed their Oppositions to
Schmidt's Brief. On May 29, 2014, Schmidt was granted an extension
of time until June 23, 2014 to file his Reply Brief and filed his
Reply Brief on that date. The Third Circuit held oral argument on
September 12, 2014. On October 17, 2014, in a split decision, the
Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision holding,
among other things, that the District Court's determination that
the Amended Complaint was time-barred on statute of limitations
grounds was premature. The Third Circuit did not rule upon any of
the other grounds for dismissal advanced in the District Court and
on appeal. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings.

On January 6, 2015, the District Court ordered the parties to file
supplemental briefs on all remaining arguments for dismissal, and
further ordered that a hearing on the motions to dismiss would be
held on February 3, 2015. On January 23, 2015, the PlasmaTech
Defendants filed their Supplemental Brief. At the February 3, 2015
hearing, Schmidt sought and was granted leave to amend his
complaint for a second time. Schmidt filed his Second Amended
Complaint on February 3, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint
asserts substantially the same factual allegations with respect to
the PlasmaTech Defendants, but eliminates all causes of action
against the PlasmaTech Defendants except for aiding and abetting
the Genaera directors' and officers' purported breaches of
fiduciary duties, a claim for "punitive damages" and a claim for
rescission of a settlement agreement between the Trust and the
PlasmaTech Defendants. On March 20, 2015, the PlasmaTech
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

"We intend to continue contesting the claims vigorously," the
Company said.


PLASTIC2OIL INC: Settlement Hearing Held in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Plastic2Oil, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court ordered that a
settlement hearing be held on April 27, 2015, in a class action
lawsuit.

On July 28, 2011, certain of the Company's stockholders filed a
class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") against the Company and
Messrs. John Bordynuik and Ronald C. Baldwin, former officers of
the Company on behalf of purchasers of its securities. In an
amended complaint filed on July 10, 2012, these stockholders
sought to represent such purchasers during the period from August
28, 2009 through January 4, 2012. The original and amended
complaints in that case, filed in federal court in Nevada, allege
that the defendants made false or misleading statements, or both,
and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations and prospects in press releases and filings
made with the SEC. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the
defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose material information, or a combination thereof regarding:
(1) that certain media credits were substantially overvalued; (2)
that the Company improperly accounted for acquisitions; (3) that,
as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and (4)
that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial control.
During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was
appointed in the case and an amended complaint was filed. The
defendants' answer to the amended complaint was filed during the
fourth quarter of 2012.

On August 8, 2013, the Company entered a stipulation agreement
(the "Stipulation Agreement") in potential settlement of the Class
Action. Under the Stipulation Agreement, the Company would agree
to issue shares of its common stock that will comprise a
settlement fund. The number of shares to be issued will be
dependent on the price per share of the Company's common stock
during a period preceding the date of the Court's entry of final
judgment in the case (the "Judgment Date"). If the price of the
Company's common stock is less than $0.50 per share based upon the
average closing price for the 90 trading days preceding the
Judgment Date, the Company would issue 3 million shares of its
common stock. If the price of the Company's common stock is
between $0.50 and $0.70 per share, based upon the same 90-day
average closing price, the Company would issue 2.5 million shares
of its common stock. If the price of the Company's common stock is
more than $0.70 per share based upon the same 90-day average
closing price the Company will issue 1.75 million shares of its
common stock. The shares will not be distributed to class members
in kind. At any time after final approval by the Court, class
counsel would have the option to sell all or any portion of such
shares for the benefit of class members, subject to certain volume
limitations. Plaintiff's counsel's attorneys' fees, subject to
Court approval, would be paid out of the settlement fund. The
Company would also pay settlement-related costs up to a maximum of
$200,000. The plaintiffs and each of the class members who
purchased the Company's common stock during the proposed class
period and alleged they were damaged would be deemed to have fully
released all claims against the Company and other defendants upon
entry of judgment.

On September 10, 2013, that agreement was submitted to the Court,
and class counsel moved for entry of an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement, including the mailing of a settlement
notice that will include, among other things, the general terms of
the settlement, proposed plan of allocation, and terms of
plaintiff's counsel's fee application. On December 18, 2014, the
Court granted that motion, and issued its Order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court ordered that a
settlement hearing be held on April 27, 2015, at which time the
Court will determine whether to give final approval of the
settlement and enter a Final Judgment in accordance therewith. The
Company cannot predict the outcome of the class action litigation
at this time.


RCI HOSPITALITY: Deal Reached in NY FLSA Case Prior to Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (NasdaqGM: RICK)
have entered into an agreement to settle in full a New York based
federal wage and hour class action case. The settlement has been
filed for preliminary court approval. Trial was scheduled to begin
April 27, 2015. Under terms of the agreement:

* RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises,
Inc. will make up to $15 million available to class members and
their attorneys.

* The actual amount paid will be determined based on the number of
class members responding by the end of a three-month notice
period. Final court approval is expected after the three month
notice period.

* Based on the current schedule, an initial payment will be made
in approximately five months, with two subsequent payments of
approximately $1.8 million each being made in annual installments.

Eric Langan, President and CEO of RCI Hospitality, commented, "We
believe it is in the best interest of shareholders to resolve this
case now, to eliminate uncertainty and the ongoing cost of
litigation. Based on response rates seen in other class actions of
this nature, we anticipate that the ultimate amount paid will be
between $9.5 and $12.5 million, but the precise amount will not be
known until the response period ends."

Filed in 2009, the case claimed Rick's Cabaret New York
misclassified entertainers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs
sought minimum wage for the hours they danced and return of
certain fees. Rick's maintained the dancers were properly
classified; amounts earned were well in excess of the minimum wage
and should satisfy any obligations. RCI subsidiaries were
represented by Meister Seelig & Fein.

Since 2009, RCI Hospitality subsidiaries have taken steps to avoid
these types of cases going forward and have been successful in
having such cases dismissed.


RELIABLE RECOVERY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Baker" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Harry Leinenweber of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, ruled on the parties' petitions in the
case KENNETH BAKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. TIMOTHY M. GHIDOTTI, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 11 C 4197 (N.D. Ill.)

Attorneys Irene K. Dymkar, Torreya L. Hamilton, and Kevin T.
Turkcan represented plaintiffs Kenneth, Barbara, Camden, and
Ashley Baker in a suit against defendants the City of Chicago,
Jean M. Lindgren, Jesus Vera, Steven Martin, Dennis P. Walsh,
Timothy M. Ghidotti and Reliable Recovery Services, Inc., for
false arrest, trespass, illegal entry, illegal search, illegal
detention, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution. The court
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on one claim only, and that is Kenneth Baker's claim for
false arrest against defendants Martin, Lindgren and Vera.

Plaintiffs' remaining claims for trespass, illegal entry, illegal
search, illegal detention, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution
went to trial, along with the issue of damages on the false arrest
claim for which the court had already determined liability. On
October 24, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Kenneth
Baker on his malicious prosecution claim, awarding him $5,000.00
in damages. The jury also awarded Kenneth Baker $25,000.00 in
damages on his false arrest claim. For all remaining claims, the
jury found in favor of defendants.

On January 21, 2015, Kenneth Baker filed a petition to recover
attorneys' fees against defendants the City of Chicago, Jean M.
Lindgren, Jesus Vera, Steven Martin, and Dennis P. Walsh.
Plaintiff also seeks to recover costs as the prevailing party
against those defendants as well as defendants Timothy M. Ghidotti
and Reliable Recovery Services, Inc.  Plaintiff seeks a total of
$450,268.00 in attorneys' fees.

Defendants seek costs as the prevailing party against two other
Plaintiffs, Barbara Baker and Camden Baker and moved to strike
plaintiff's attorneys' fees petition.

Judge Leinenweber granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's
petition for fees, in the total amount of $164,395.00 plus
interest assessed at a rate of 3.25% from February 21, 2015 and
denied plaintiff's application for costs. Defendants' application
for costs is granted in part and denied in part, in the total
amount of $6,414.80; and defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's
fee petition is denied.

A copy of Judge Leinenweber's memorandum opinion and order dated
April 24, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/CQENTOfrom
Leagle.com

Kenneth Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Thomas Turkcan, The
Hamilton Law Office, LLC, Torreya Lyn Hamilton, Hamilton Law
Office, LLC & Irene K. Dymkar, Irene K. Dymkar

Barbara Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Thomas Turkcan, The
Hamilton Law Office, LLC, Torreya Lyn Hamilton, Hamilton Law
Office, LLC & Irene K. Dymkar, Irene K. Dymkar

Porsche Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Thomas Turkcan, The
Hamilton Law Office, LLC, Torreya Lyn Hamilton, Hamilton Law
Office, LLC & Irene K. Dymkar, Irene K. Dymkar

Minor A. B., by parent Barbara Baker, Plaintiff, represented by
Kevin Thomas Turkcan, The Hamilton Law Office, LLC, Torreya Lyn
Hamilton, Hamilton Law Office, LLC & Irene K. Dymkar, Irene K.
Dymkar

Camden M. Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Thomas Turkcan,
The Hamilton Law Office, LLC,Torreya Lyn Hamilton, Hamilton Law
Office, LLC & Irene K. Dymkar, Irene K. Dymkar

Timothy M. Ghidotti, Defendant, represented by Timothy J. Young,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP,Alice Ye, SedgwickLP, Ruth E.
Goldwater McCoy, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP & Zoran
Stanoev, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP

Boris Jurkovic, Defendant, represented by Timothy J. Young, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Alice Ye, SedgwickLP, Ruth E.
Goldwater McCoy, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP & Zoran
Stanoev, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP

Reliable Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Timothy J. Young, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Alice Ye,
SedgwickLP, Elizabeth Diane Winiarski, Jones Day, Ruth E.
Goldwater McCoy, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP & Zoran
Stanoev, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP

Jean M. Lindgren, Defendant, represented by Caroline Jane
Fronczak, City of Chicago, Scott J. Jebson, City of Chicago &
Kristin Linn Acuff, City Of Chicago - Department Of Law

Jesus Vera, Defendant, represented by Caroline Jane Fronczak, City
of Chicago, Scott J. Jebson, City of Chicago & Kristin Linn Acuff,
City Of Chicago - Department Of Law

Steven Martin, Defendant, represented by Caroline Jane Fronczak,
City of Chicago, Scott J. Jebson, City of Chicago & Kristin Linn
Acuff, City Of Chicago - Department Of Law

Juan M. Cabrales, Defendant, represented by Caroline Jane
Fronczak, City of Chicago & Kristin Linn Acuff, City Of Chicago -
Department Of Law

Dennis P. Walsh, Defendant, represented by Caroline Jane Fronczak,
City of Chicago, Scott J. Jebson, City of Chicago & Kristin Linn
Acuff, City Of Chicago - Department Of Law

City Of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Caroline Jane Fronczak,
City of Chicago, Scott J. Jebson, City of Chicago & Kristin Linn
Acuff, City Of Chicago - Department Of Law

Michael A. Flores, Defendant, represented by Caroline Jane
Fronczak, City of Chicago & Kristin Linn Acuff, City Of Chicago -
Department Of Law
Gilbert D. Escamilla, Defendant, represented by Caroline Jane
Fronczak, City of Chicago & Kristin Linn Acuff, City Of Chicago -
Department Of Law

Daniel F. Doody, Defendant, represented by Caroline Jane Fronczak,
City of Chicago & Kristin Linn Acuff, City Of Chicago - Department
Of Law


ROSS STORES: Class Action Remains Pending as of January 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that like many California
retailers, the Company has been named in class action lawsuits
alleging violation of wage and hour and other employment laws.
Class action litigation remains pending as of January 31, 2015.


SABINE OIL: Appeal Dismissed in Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal was
dismissed on December 3, 2014, in the case Augenbaum v. Lone Pine
Resources Inc. et al.

This claim was filed on May 25, 2012, as a purported class action
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
against Forest, Lone Pine, certain of Lone Pine's current and
former directors and officers (the "Individual Defendants"), and
certain underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants") of Lone Pine's
initial public offering (the "IPO"), which was completed on June
1, 2011. The class action was subsequently removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleged that Lone Pine's registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the IPO contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts
relating to forest fires that occurred in Northern Alberta in May
2011, the rupture of a third-party oil sales pipeline in Northern
Alberta in April 2011, and the impact of those events on Lone
Pine, that the alleged misstatements or omissions violated Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and that
Lone Pine, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter
Defendants are liable for such violations. (The complaint was
subsequently amended to drop the allegation regarding the forest
fires.) The complaint further alleged that the Underwriter
Defendants offered and sold Lone Pine's securities in violation of
Section 12 (a) (2) of the Securities Act, and the putative class
members sought rescission of the securities purchased in the IPO
that they continued to own and rescissionary damages for
securities that they had sold. Finally, the complaint asserted a
claim against Forest under Section 15 of the Securities Act,
alleging that Forest was a "control person" of Lone Pine at the
time of the IPO. The complaint alleged that the putative class,
which purchased shares of Lone Pine's common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to Lone Pine's registration statement and prospectus,
was damaged when the value of the stock declined in August 2011.

On March 26, 2014, the judge overseeing the lawsuit granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice, for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Plaintiffs
appealed the decision on April 28, 2014, and briefing was
completed on August 5, 2014.  Forest subsequently agreed to a
settlement with the named plaintiff, all of which will be paid by
Lone Pine's insurance carrier.  The appeal was dismissed on
December 3, 2014.


SABINE OIL: Violated Terms of MOU, Plaintiffs Say
-------------------------------------------------
Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs informed
Sabine that they believe Sabine has materially violated the terms
of the memorandum of understanding in the case, Stourbridge
Investments, LLC v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Raul v.
Carroll, et al., Rothenberg v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al.,
Gawlikowski v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Edwards v. Carroll,
et al., Jabri v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Olinatz v. Forest
Oil Corporation, et al.

Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("Sabine O&G"), and Forest Oil Corporation, a New York
corporation, completed the combination of their respective
businesses through a series of transactions whereby certain
indirect equity holders of Sabine O&G contributed the equity
interests in Sabine O&G to Forest Oil Corporation.

Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed
Transactions, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by
Forest Oil shareholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by
the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those
breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with
the proposed Transactions.  By order dated July 8, 2014, the six
New York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the
caption In re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index
No. 651418/2014.  On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated
New York action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint").  The Consolidated Complaint seeks to
certify a plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil
common stock other than the defendants and their affiliates.  The
defendants named in these actions include the directors of Forest
Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D.
Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I.
Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates
(specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC,
Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II
LLC).  The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI
Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are
alleged against that entity.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Transactions
arise out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of
directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and
affiliates of First Reserve Corporation ("First Reserve") acquire
the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an
alleged "three-step merger transaction" that allegedly does not
represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of
Forest Oil.  The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the
proposed Transactions have been improperly restructured to require
only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve
the Combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as
would have been required under the original transaction structure.
The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of
Forest Oil's board, as well as Forest Oil's financial adviser for
the proposed Transactions, are subject to conflicts of interest
that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil's shareholders, that
the defendants have improperly sought to "lock up" the proposed
Transactions with certain inappropriate "deal protection devices"
that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential
transactions with other bidders.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the
directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and
violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a
cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and
abetting the directors' breaches of duty and violations of law,
and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin
consummation of the proposed Transactions or, in the alternative,
rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that
the proposed Transactions are consummated before the lawsuit is
resolved.

In addition to these New York proceedings, one putative class
action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil shareholders in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  That
action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01409-
MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint (the "Olinatz Complaint") on June 13, 2014. The
Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Sabine defendants in connection with the
proposed Transactions, as well as related claims alleging
violations of Section 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements
in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Forest Oil on May
29, 2014, which recommends that Forest Oil shareholders approve
the proposed Transactions.  The Olinatz Complaint names as
defendants Forest Oil and certain of its affiliates (specifically,
Forest Oil Corporation, New Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger
Sub Inc.), the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James
H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll,
Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain
of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine
Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine
Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed
Transactions or, in the alternative, rescission in the event the
proposed Transactions are consummated before the lawsuit is
resolved, as well as imposition of a constructive trust on any
alleged benefits improperly received by defendants.

On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the
Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk
of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to
reopening on good cause shown.

On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a
settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a
memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date.
The settlement, if consummated, will also resolve the Colorado
action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with
Sabine, which are contained in Forest Oil's November 12, 2014 Form
8-K, and Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of
the proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC
will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at
least one additional independent director, as defined in Section
303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a
Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine
Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining
two Sabine Nominees that had not yet been determined was required
to be independent. In connection with the closing of the
Combination, Thomas Chewning, an independent director as defined
in Section 303A.02 of the New York Exchange Listed Company Manual,
was appointed as a Sabine Nominee. The memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval.  In the event the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims or actions that were or could have been brought challenging
any aspect of the proposed combination transaction, the Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger agreement
originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Forest
Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated entities
on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection therewith,
including the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all other matters
that were the subject of the complaint in the New York action,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.  In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties will
negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorney's fees
and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel in
connection with the Actions.  There can be no assurances that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the New York Court will approve the settlement even if the
parties were to enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated.  The parties are presently
negotiating the stipulation of settlement.  At this time, the
Company is unable to guarantee the potential outcome of this
litigation or the ultimate exposure.

On March 13, 2015, plaintiffs informed Sabine that they believe
Sabine has materially violated the terms of the memorandum of
understanding executed on November 11, 2014 by (i) failing to
replace or create a mechanism to replace an independent director
who resigned from the board of directors in January of 2015, and
(ii) making changes to the terms of the merger agreement that were
not necessary or required to facilitate the consummation of the
proposed transaction without first disclosing and permitting
shareholders to vote on the changes.  Sabine disagrees with
plaintiffs and will respond to their letter in due course.  If
plaintiffs prevail in their position concerning the memorandum of
understanding, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Simo" Suit Over Orcas' Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Simo, Joyce Kuhl, and Elaine Browne, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Seaworld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01022-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal.,
May 7, 2015) alleges that SeaWorld conceals the truth about the
conditions and treatment of its captive orcas and attacks without
restraint those who question the continuing business decision to
keep and breed captive orcas.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., is a Delaware publicly traded
company headquartered in Orlando, Florida, with its original,
signature park located in San Diego, California.

SeaWorld is the leading marine life theme park in the world.  Each
SeaWorld theme park showcases killer whales -- Ornicus orca, the
mighty and iconic apex predators of the sea -- in special
amphitheaters called Shamu Stadium that seat thousands.  During
its signature "Shamu Show" and in its massive and ubiquitous
global marketing campaign, SeaWorld states that it "cares for,"
"protects," and even "nurtures" its captive orcas.

The Plaintiffs allege that the deceptive and false illusion
carefully scripted by SeaWorld and created for the public has
concealed not only the mistreatment of these animals, but also
concealed orca behavior that evidences how their captivity at
SeaWorld is harmful to their welfare.

Plaintiff Valerie Simo and the Proposed Classes are represented
by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Shayne C. Stevenson, Esq.
          Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  shaynes@hbsslaw.com
                  robl@hbsslaw.com

Plaintiffs Joyce Kuhl and Elaine Browne and the Proposed Classes
are represented by:

          Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
          626 N.E. First Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 376-7650
          E-mail: psr@rothsteinforjustice.com


SEPHORA USA: Order Denying Cert. of Wage-and-Hour Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Futterman, Esq. and Jaime Touchstone, Esq. of Futterman
Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP, in an article for HR.BLR.com, report
that a former employee sued Sephora U.S.A., Inc., alleging wage
and hour violations, including misclassification and a failure to
pay overtime or provide mandated breaks.  The trial court blocked
the employee's attempt to certify the lawsuit as a class action,
and the California Court of Appeal affirmed.

Because Sephora's employees spent varying amounts of time
performing a multitude of duties, individual issues predominated
among the potential class members, making class resolution
impractical.

Sephora specialist attempts class certification

Eva Mies worked as a "specialist" in one of Sephora's 47
California retail stores.  The stores are run by a "director" and
supported by specialists, who manage the company's "cast members"
(sales associates) and "leads" (lead consultants and sales leads).

According to a 1999 job description, specialists perform sales,
operational, and HR functions, including recruiting, supervising,
and disciplining employees, and ensure adherence to corporate
culture, policies, and client service standards.  Specialists also
occasionally conduct inventories, perform cashier duties, and
assume director responsibilities.

Ms. Mies sued on behalf of Sephora's California-based specialists,
claiming the company improperly classified the specialists as
exempt to avoid paying overtime and providing legally mandated
breaks.  In support of class certification, she pointed to the
specialist job description and other companywide policies
reflecting that specialists spend their time handling systematic
tasks.

Sephora responded that, in practice, specialist duties varied
depending on skill and experience, the size and staffing of each
store, and the management style of the store's director.  Given
the long retail hours, it was common for specialists to manage the
store in place of absent directors.

Sephora asserted that when acting as "director in charge,"
specialists could not simply follow company rules but instead had
to use good judgment when hiring, coaching, or disciplining other
employees or when resolving situations with customers.

The trial court refused to certify Ms. Mies' lawsuit as a class
action.  Despite Sephora's company policies, in practice,
specialists performed a variety of tasks during different periods
of time, making it difficult to determine on a collective basis
whether they were exempt.  The court reasoned that common
questions did not predominate and that individualized inquiries
would be necessary, making class resolution inappropriate.  Ms.
Mies appealed.  The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial
court's order.

California's laws governing employee classification

California's nonexempt workers must be paid overtime and provided
with meal and rest breaks.  To be classified as exempt, workers
must meet minimum salary requirements and perform certain
enumerated duties while customarily and regularly exercising
discretion and independent judgment.

Executive professionals must spend more than 50 percent of work
time involved in business management, customarily and regularly
direct two or more workers, and have the authority to hire or fire
workers or recommend changes in subordinates' job status.

Administrators must spend more than 50 percent of work time on
office or nonmanual work directly related to management policies
or general business operations of the employer or its customers.
This work must be performed while directly assisting another
exempt worker or while performing specialized or technical work
and assignments under only general supervision.

In determining whether a worker is exempt, courts will look
primarily at the work actually performed during the course of the
workweek and the amount of time spent on that work, but they may
also analyze the employer's realistic expectations and the
realistic requirements of the job.  In this case, Sephora asserted
that its specialists were properly classified as exempt executive
or administrative professionals who were not entitled to overtime
or breaks.

Class resolution of specialist claims would be impractical

A class action is appropriate when there is a sufficiently
numerous ascertainable class with a well-defined community of
interest and when it will provide a substantial benefit to
litigants and the courts.  A "community of interest" requires
predominant common questions of law or fact and class
representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class who
can adequately represent the class.  A class action will not be
"certified" if issues specific to each potential class member
predominate over common issues.

Essentially, a court must consider whether the issues the class
presents are such that their resolution in a single proceeding
would be desirable, feasible, efficient, and manageable.  The
answer depends on whether liability under a class proponent's
theory of recovery can be proved with facts common to all members
of the class.

Because misclassification lawsuits typically require an inquiry
into a particular job type and into the work actually done by
workers within that job category, they often involve both common
and individualized issues, and the trial court must determine
which predominate.  The inquiry into a job's requirements and an
employer's expectations likely involves common issues. The inquiry
into what work is actually done, however, can be heavily
individualized.

On appeal, Ms. Mies claimed that Sephora's detailed policies
governed all aspects of store operations and curtailed the
specialists' ability to work independently, thus demonstrating
total uniformity in the work they performed.  Sephora disagreed,
asserting that the nature and level of the tasks performed by
specialists and the time spent on those tasks varied greatly.

The court of appeal agreed with Sephora, observing that even
though there likely would be common questions about whether a
given task involved sufficient discretion or independent judgment
to be exempt, the specialists' proper classification ultimately
would hinge on individualized proof of how each specialist spent
the workday.

Sephora's employment policies alone could not compel class
certification.  To the contrary, courts routinely conclude that an
individualized inquiry is necessary even when the alleged
misclassification involves application of a uniform policy.

In this case, the variance in how the specialists spent their work
time meant that individualized inquiries predominated, making
classwide resolution inappropriate. Mies v. Sephora U.S.A., Inc.
(California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2/2/15,
published 2/26/15).


SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Discovery Stayed in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Shengdatech Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is stayed
pending a decision on Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion in the case In
re ShengdaTech, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw, through lead
counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd L.L.P., filed their third
amended putative class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of ShengdaTech between May 6, 2008 and March 15, 2010,
against (i) the Company, (ii) certain of the Company's former
officers and directors including Messrs. Mudd and Saidman (the
"Independent Directors"), and (iii) the Company's former auditor,
KPMG HK. The Third Amended Complaint arises out of alleged
misrepresentations in the Company's SEC filings and other public
statements made during the class period and asserts a claim
against the Company for the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon.
While Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants in an amount
to be determined at trial, Plaintiffs' concede that any recovery
against the Company under the Plan is limited to available
insurance coverage and proceeds.

On November 25, 2013, the Independent Directors and KPMG HK moved
to dismiss ("Motions to Dismiss") the Third Amended Complaint on
the grounds, among others, that it failed to state cognizable
claims against them. The Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint were fully briefed as of January 13, 2014. On July 1,
2014, the Court denied KPMG HK's Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice to renewal. On August 12, 2014, the Court granted the
Independent Directors' motion to dismiss the Third Amended and
Consolidated Complaint.  On October 24, 2014, Plaintiffs moved
("Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion") for relief from judgment under
Rule 60(b)(1) and (2) and for leave to amend their complaint under
Rule 15(a) and (d) against the Independent Directors.  Defendants
responded to Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion on January 9, 2015.
Plaintiffs' replied in support of their Rule 60(b) Motion on
January 16, 2015. The Court has not yet ruled on the Plaintiffs'
Rule 60(b) Motion.

On January 8, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the
allegations raised against it in the Third Amended Complaint. In
its Answer, the Company denied all material allegations of
wrongdoing against it and raised certain affirmative defenses.

Discovery is stayed pending a decision on Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b)
Motion.  No trial date has been set.


SKECHERS USA: Removes 17 Suits Arising From Sale of Toning Shoes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., et al., is removing 17 lawsuits from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The lawsuits are:

   * Flynn v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 21732-15.
     The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03564-SAS
     to the proceeding;

   * Fazzino v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 21362-2015.  The District Court Clerk assigned
     Case No. 1:15-cv-03582-AJN to the proceeding;

   * Daily v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 21361-2015.
     The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03585-KPF
     to the proceeding;

   * Kuchmak v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 21364-2015.  The District Court Clerk assigned
     Case No. 1:15-cv-03587-PKC to the proceeding;

   * Williams v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 21371-15.  The District Court Clerk assigned
     Case No. 1:15-cv-03561-AT to the proceeding;

   * Shaaf v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 21368-15.
     The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03565-RJS
     to the proceeding;

   * Cicio v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 21358-15.
     The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03567-GBD
     to the proceeding;

   * Newsome v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 21366-15.
     The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03575-RA
     to the proceeding;

   * Haley v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 21363-15.
     The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03566-LTS
     to the proceeding;

   * Rowan v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 21367-15.
     The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03560-VEC
     to the proceeding;

   * Curreri v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 21360-2015.  The District Court Clerk assigned
     Case No. 1:15-cv-03581-RJS to the proceeding;

   * Bevis v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 21354-15.
     The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03562-AT
     to the proceeding;

   * Tegay v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 21369-15.
     The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03580-NRB
     to the proceeding;

   * Culliton v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 21359-15.  The District Court Clerk assigned
     Case No. 1:15-cv-03578-KBF to the proceeding;

   * Ali v. Skechers U.S.A.,Inc., et al., Case No. 21353-15.  The
     District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03563-VM to
     the proceeding;

   * Machado v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 21365-2015.  The District Court Clerk assigned
     Case No. 1:15-cv-03589-JPO to the proceeding; and

   * Versailles v. Skechers, U.S.A. Inc., et al.,
     Case No. 21370-15.  The District Court Clerk assigned
     Case No. 1:15-cv-03584-RA to the proceeding.

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

The cases are part of the multidistrict litigation known as In re:
Skechers Toning Shoe Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:11-
md-02308-TBR-LLK.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andres F. Alonso, Esq.
          David Krangle, Esq.
          ALONSO KRANGLE LLP
          445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 205
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (516) 350-5555
          Facsimile: (516) 350-5554
          E-mail: aalonso@alonsokrangle.com
                  dkrangle@alonsokrangle.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sarah Neesa Young, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER, MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
          1133 Westchester Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 872-7575
          E-mail: sarah.young@wilsonelser.com


SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces "Whitaker" Wage Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Koenig, writing for Law360, reports that a former clerical
employee hit Space Exploration Technologies Corp. with a proposed
class action in California court on April 20, accusing the company
of shorting him overtime and minimum wage pay as well as proper
break periods.

Plaintiff Sebring Whitaker alleged in his complaint that SpaceX
didn't adequately pay him and similar nonexempt employees for
normal and overtime work and didn't adequately provide required
meal and rest breaks.  Mr. Whitaker said that he believes there
are at least 100 current and former nonexempt employees whose
responsibilities included clerical work such as checking and
organizing inventory and production at SpaceX in the last four
years who have been denied proper pay and breaks.

"Plaintiff and class members were required to work off the clock,
work through meal periods and were subject to improper rounding
methods, among other violations that resulted in improper and
unpaid overtime pay," the complaint said.

The complaint alleged that the class of employees was paid at
regular rates during overtime periods instead of time and a half,
wasn't provided with timely meal and rest breaks or had those
breaks interrupted and was forced to perform duties off the clock
and through breaks, thus denying minimum wage pay.

Mr. Whitaker also accused SpaceX of improper record-keeping and
wage reporting on pay stubs.  That alleged conduct could incur a
penalty of up to $4,000 per employee under the California Labor
Code, according to the complaint.

In addition, Mr. Whitaker said that he and other employees such as
him were not given their full earned and unpaid salary when they
left the company.  Moreover, he accused SpaceX of not paying for
necessary expenditures incurred in the course of normal duties.
That included mandating workers to pay for company T-shirts they
were required to wear as part of their uniform and forcing them to
pay for the coffee mugs they used.

The complaint noted that Mr. Whitaker worked at SpaceX at some
point in the last three years, but gave little other information
about his employment.

SpaceX has been the subject of several labor lawsuits during the
last year, including a class action suit accusing it of fostering
a work environment full of racist slurs and discrimination against
certain workers.  In March, a California judge waived the
company's effort to derail another putative class action lawsuit
alleging that hundreds of workers were laid off without receiving
the proper warning or the full amount due in their last paychecks.

In a statement, SpaceX rejected the allegations and promised to
defend itself vigorously in court.

Mr. Whitaker is represented by Ronald W. Makarem, Jean-Paul Le
Clercq and Ivan Moe at Makarem & Associates.

The case is Sebring Whitaker v. Space Exploration Technologies
Corp., case number BC578922, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.


STATE STREET: Judge Requires Objectors to Post Appeal Bond
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George A. O'Toole of the District of Massachusetts
granted plaintiffs' motion in the case TIMOTHY W. HILL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. STATE STREET CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 09-12146-GAO (D. Mass.)

Plaintiffs filed a securities class action suit against the
defendant.  The court has granted preliminary approval of a
settlement of the case.

The settlement hearing originally was scheduled for October 27,
2014, with objections due on October 6, 2014. On September 3,
2014, the parties filed an assented to motion to reschedule the
fairness hearing to November 20, 2014, to allow for sufficient
time between service of the notice and the hearing as required
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Through counsel, Nita and Charles Franz filed objections, a
request for a continuation of the fairness hearing, and a request
to be heard at the hearing on November 4, 2014. The magistrate
judge granted the Franzes' request to the extent that their
counsel was given permission to appear and be heard at the hearing
by telephone, although in the event counsel did not participate
but rather stated that the Franzes' rested upon their written
objections.

The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation on
November 26, 2014 in which she determined that the Franzes'
objections were without merit and recommended that the court
approve the final settlement and award of attorneys' fees. The
Franzes filed objections to the report and recommendation, but the
court overruled those objections and adopted the report and
recommendation in full.

The Franzes subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's
decision. The lead plaintiffs argue that the appeal is without
merit and have moved to require an appeal bond of $75,300.

Judge O'Toole granted lead plaintiffs' motion.

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

Casey J Richard, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Katherine
A Stefanou, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Rebecca E.
Boon, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Michelle H.
Blauner, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro
Haber & Urmy LLP

Marilyn Demory, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Katherine A
Stefanou, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Michael K.
Yarnoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Rebecca E. Boon,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP & Stuart L. Berman,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP

Timothy W Hill, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine A Stefanou,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Peter A. Lagorio, Law
Office of Peter A. Lagorio & Rebecca E. Boon, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman LLP

Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Plaintiff,
represented by Christopher F. Moriarty, Motley Rice LLC, Evan
Berkow, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Gary S. Snitow,
Milberg LLP,John C. Browne, Berstein, Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, Katherine A Stefanou, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP, Lauren A. Ormsbee, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Lori G. Feldman, Milberg LLP, Rebecca E. Boon, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman LLP, Rebecca M. Katz, Motley Rice LLC, Steven B.
Singer, Bernstein, Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Badge
Humphries, Lewis, Babcock & Griffin, L.L.P., Bryan A. Wood, Berman
DeValerio, Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Berman DeValerio, James M.
Hughes, Motley Rice LLC, William H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC &
William S. Norton, Motley Rice LLC

Union Asset Management Holding AG, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher F. Moriarty, Motley Rice LLC,Jeremy P. Robinson,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, John C. Browne,
Berstein, Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Katherine A Stefanou,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Lauren A. Ormsbee,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Lori G. Feldman,
Milberg LLP, Rebecca E. Boon, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP, Rebecca M. Katz, Motley Rice LLC, Steven B. Singer,
Bernstein, Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Badge Humphries,
Lewis, Babcock & Griffin, L.L.P., Bryan A. Wood, Berman DeValerio,
Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Berman DeValerio, James M. Hughes, Motley
Rice LLC, William H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC & William S. Norton,
Motley Rice LLC

Pension Fund Group, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy L. Ehrenberg,
Pyle Rome Ehrenberg, PC, Katherine A Stefanou, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman LLP, Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Abraham, Fruchter &
Twersky, LLP, Rebecca E. Boon, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP & Ximena R. Skovron, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP

Charles F Franz, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F Franz

State Street Bank and Trust Company, Consolidated Defendant,
represented by Andrew S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, Gregory D. Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, James W. Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B.
Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael
J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP, Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP & William H. Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

North America Regional Benefits Committee of State Street
Corporation, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP &William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

State Street Corporation Investment Committee, Consolidated
Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D. Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W. Prendergast, Wilmer Hale
LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts, Wilmer
Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP, Seth Moskowitz,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy J. Perla,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H. Paine,
Wilmer Hale LLP

Jayne Donahue, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

David Gutshenritter, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Richard Logue, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

David O'Leary, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Alison Quirk, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Goldman Sachs & Co, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Stephen
D. Poss, Goodwin Procter, LLP &Daniel P. Roeser, Goodwin Procter
LLP

Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Stephen D. Poss, Goodwin Procter, LLP & Daniel P. Roeser, Goodwin
Procter LLP

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Consolidated Defendant,
represented by Stephen D. Poss, Goodwin Procter, LLP & Daniel P.
Roeser, Goodwin Procter LLP

Dr. Tenley E. Albright, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Andrew S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
Gregory D. Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
James W. Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer
Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H. Paine, Wilmer Hale
LLP

Kennett F. Burnes, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Truman S. Casner, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H. Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Peter Coym, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Nader F. Darehshori, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Amelia C. Fawcett, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Arthur L. Goldstein, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H. Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

David P. Gruber, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Linda A. Hill, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Charles R. Lamantia, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP.

Maureen J. Miskovic, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Richard P. Sergel, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Ronald L. Skates, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Gregory L. Summe, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Diana Chapman Walsh, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

Robert E. Weissman, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP,
John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Timothy
J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & William H.
Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP

State Street Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B.
Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, William H. Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP, Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP & Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Ronald E. Logue, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B. Rudman,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, William H. Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP, Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP &
Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Edward J Resch, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B. Rudman,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, William H. Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP, Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP & Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Pamela D Gormley, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B. Rudman,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, William H. Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP, Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP & Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

James J. Malerba, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B. Rudman,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, William H. Paine, Wilmer Hale LLP, Andrew S.
Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Gregory D.
Chisholm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,James W.
Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP & Seth Moskowitz, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

UBS Securities LLC., Defendant, represented by Stephen D. Poss,
Goodwin Procter, LLP & Daniel P. Roeser, Goodwin Procter LLP.
Ernst & Young LLP, Defendant, represented by Kara E. Fay, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Thomas J. Dougherty, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

David OLeary, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dulberg, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,James W. Prendergast, Wilmer
Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts,
Wilmer Hale LLP & Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP

Kathryn Horgan, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dulberg,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W. Prendergast,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J.
Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP &
Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Charles Cutrell, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dulberg,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,James W. Prendergast,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J.
Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP &
Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Stephen DeSalvo, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dulberg,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W. Prendergast,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J.
Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP &
Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Jayne Donahue, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dulberg, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W. Prendergast, Wilmer
Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts,
Wilmer Hale LLP & Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP

Lee Jones, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dulberg, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,James W. Prendergast, Wilmer
Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP & Timothy J.
Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Anne Tangen, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dulberg, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,James W. Prendergast, Wilmer
Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP & Timothy J.
Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Doreen Rigby, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dulberg, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,James W. Prendergast, Wilmer
Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP & Timothy J.
Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Ross McLellan, Defendant, represented by Martin G. Weinberg,
Martin G. Weinberg, PC, Andrew S. Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, James W. Prendergast, Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey
B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J. Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP,
Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP & Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Jacques Longerstaey, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dulberg,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, James W. Prendergast,
Wilmer Hale LLP, Jeffrey B. Rudman, Wilmer Hale LLP, John J.
Butts, Wilmer Hale LLP, Michael J. Bayer, Wilmer Hale LLP &
Timothy J. Perla, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan, Movant, represented by
Lauren G. Barnes, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John C. Browne,
Berstein, Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Leigh Smith, Milberg
LLP & Melissa H. Nafash, Milberg LLP

National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Pension Fund, Objector,
represented by Irwin B. Schwartz, BLA Schwartz, PC

Nita W Franz, Objector, represented by Christopher T. Cain, Scott
& Cain

Charles F Franz, Objector, represented by Christopher T. Cain,
Scott & Cain


SUNRUN INSTALLATION: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on April 24 disclosed that on
March 11, 2015 it filed a Class Action lawsuit against Sunrun
Installation Services, Inc., on behalf of the company's non-exempt
Field Service Technicians employed in California.  The Complaint
claims that the company failed to pay their Field Service
Technicians the proper amount of overtime wages.  The lawsuit,
Case No. 37-2015-00008350-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the
San Diego County Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the Complaint filed against Sunrun Installation
Services, the company allegedly failed to accurately record and
pay their Field Service Technicians for the actual amount of time
these employees worked, including overtime worked.  The Complaint
claims the solar company failed to include the bonus compensation
as part of the employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of
calculating overtime pay.  By failing to include the bonus
calculation for purposes of calculating overtime pay, the lawsuit
alleges that Sunrun systematically underpaid overtime compensation
to their Field Service Technicians.

Additionally, the Complaint claims that Sunrun avoided paying
their employees for all their time worked by directing its
employees to alter their time records in order to record
fictitious meal periods.  California law requires employers to
provide their non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis with
thirty minute meal periods before the employee works five hours.
The penalty for failing to provide adequate meal breaks is one
hour of pay under the California Labor Code.

Furthermore, the Complaint claims that when Sunrun's employees
worked overtime in the same pay period they earned bonus wages
and/or missed meal breaks, allegedly the company failed to give
these employees complete and accurate wage statements reflecting
the correct overtime rate for overtime worked, including, work
performed in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday and/or forty
(40) hours in any workweek. Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226 provides that
every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an
accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other
things, gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in
effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time
worked at each hourly rate.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a labor law firm that has
offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, Sacramento and San
Francisco.  The firm dedicates its practice to helping employees
fight back against unfair business practices, including violations
of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Deal Reached in Securities Suits in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants in the two
securities class actions pending in Canada agreed to terms of
settlement and executed a settlement agreement resolving all
claims in both securities class actions pending there.

On December 17, 2013, a purported stockholder commenced a putative
securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock on the Toronto Stock Exchange or any other Canadian
trading platforms in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
captioned Edwards v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., CV 13-20282
CP, against the Company, the former CEO and former CFO.  The
action alleges claims under Canadian law for alleged
misrepresentations of the Company's financial position relating to
its business acquisitions.  On February 13, 2014, a Fresh
Statement of Claim and Fresh Notice of Action were filed, adding
an additional named plaintiff.  On March 28, 2014, another
purported stockholder commenced a putative securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock on the
Toronto Stock Exchange or any other Canadian trading platforms in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, captioned Phillips v.
Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., CV 14-00501096-0000, against the
Company, the former CEO, the former CFO and the Company's former
Senior Vice President and Treasurer. The action alleges claims
under Canadian law stemming from the Company's restatement.

Although the Company believed it had meritorious defenses to the
asserted claims in the two securities class actions pending in
Canada, the defendants agreed to terms of settlement and executed
a settlement agreement resolving all claims in both securities
class actions pending there, which was approved by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice by Order dated February 13, 2015 (the
"Canadian Settlement").  The Canadian Settlement provides that
defendants will make a set cash payment totaling $0.7 million,
including legal fees, all from insurance proceeds, to settle all
of the Canadian securities class actions, with full and complete
releases provided to the defendants.  Notice has been given of the
Canadian Settlement.


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Airbag-Related Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Johnson Plaintiff v. Takata Corporation; TK Holdings, Inc..;
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG; BMW of North America, LLC; and BMW
Manufacturing Co., LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-01112-EAK-TBM (M.D. Fla.,
May 7, 2015) alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the
liability producing conduct of Defendants Takata and BMW, the
Plaintiff has suffered a potentially permanent total loss of
vision in her right eye.

Ms. Johnson alleges that the Defendants are all directly
responsible for the injuries she sustained that were caused by the
explosion of the inflator incorporated into the airbag safety
system in the 2005 BMW 325i, in which she was a passenger on
January 1, 2009, that caused the airbag to punch her in the face
causing serious injuries that resulted in the total loss of vision
in her right eye.

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG is a foreign corporation headquartered
in Munich, Germany.  BMW AG designs, manufactures and distributes
BMW vehicles to its wholly owned subsidiary and alter-ego, BMW of
North America, LLC for distribution in the U.S.  BMW of North
America, LLC is a Delaware corporation with a headquarters in
Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  BMW NA is the United States importer
of BMW vehicles.  BMW MFG Co., LLC is part of BMW's global
manufacturing network and is located in Spartanburg, South
Carolina.

Takata Corporation is a foreign for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan.  Takata is a
specialized supplier of automotive safety systems, that designs,
manufactures, assembles, tests, markets, distributes, and sells
vehicle restraint systems to various Original Equipment
Manufacturers, including BMW, in the United States and abroad,
including specifically the airbag incorporated and used by BMW in
its supplemental airbag safety system in the Subject Vehicle.
Takata is a vertically-integrated company and manufactures
component parts in its own facilities, and, then, distributes
same.

TK Holdings Inc. is a Delaware corporation and subsidiary or
operational unit of Takata.  TK Holdings, with its headquarters in
Auburn Hills, Michigan, is in the business of designing,
manufacturing, assembling, testing, promoting, advertising,
distributing and selling vehicle restraint systems to various
OEM's, including BMW, including the airbag incorporated and used
by BMW in its supplemental airbag safety system in the Subject
Vehicle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Henry N. Didier, Jr., Esq.
          DIDIER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1203 North Orange Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32804
          Telephone: (407) 895-3401
          Facsimile: (407) 895-3408
          E-mail: hank@didierlaw.com


TERANET INC: Certification of Copyright Class Action Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chantal Saunders, Esq., Beverley Moore, Esq. and Adrian J. Howard,
Esq. of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that a proposed class proceeding claims that land surveyors
retain copyright in the plans of survey they prepare and register
in Ontario's land registry system and that the provision of copies
of surveys to users of the system infringes the surveyors'
copyright.

The class proceedings judge had refused to certify the action, but
on appeal to the Divisional Court, the action was certified on the
basis of a revised class definition and revised common issues.
Now, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has sided with the Divisional
Court, and the revised litigation plan is adequate and may
proceed.

The case is Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc., 2015 ONCA 248


TESCO CORPORATION: Dispute With Employees in Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
Tesco Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is currently
participating in an arbitration, based on the Company's dispute
resolution process, with 25 current and former employees (the
"Employees") who had worked or are working in various states. The
Employees claim that they are owed unpaid overtime wages including
liquidated damages under the Federal Labor Standards Act and the
applicable state laws of various states, including New Mexico and
Colorado. A three judge panel of arbitrators is deciding this
case. At this point, the parties have not yet begun to do
discovery on, or address, the merits. The parties are litigating
the issue of whether or not a Rule 23 style opt-out class action
is appropriate in this case. That issue is fully briefed but has
not been decided by the arbitrators. Once that issue is resolved,
the parties will begin discovery on the merits and set a final
hearing date.

"At December 31, 2014, we reserved an estimate for potential
exposure in this matter," the Company said.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Provigil Class Action for $512MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd has agreed to pay $512 million to
settle a class action claiming that Cephalon Inc, which Teva
bought in 2011, used anticompetitive settlements to delay generic
versions of its wakefulness drug Provigil.

The settlement is the largest ever to be paid to drug wholesalers
and retailers over allegations of delaying generic drugs,
according to a motion to approve the settlement filed on April 17
in Philadelphia.  The settlement still has to be approved by Judge
Mitchell Goldberg, who is presiding over the case.

The next largest such settlement, reached in 2008, was for $250
million in a case against Abbott Laboratories and its French
partner Fournier Industrie et Sant‚ over the cholesterol drug
TriCor.

Teva spokeswoman Denise Bradley said the company was pleased with
the settlement.

An attorney for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached
for comment.

The lawsuit, filed in 2006 by so-called direct purchasers -- drug
wholesalers and retailers that buy directly from drug companies --
claimed that Cephalon entered into settlements in patent lawsuits
with Israel-based Teva, Mylan Inc and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd to
keep generic versions of Provigil off the market until 2012. The
lawsuit said that the settlements violated federal antitrust law.

Mylan and Ranbaxy, which are also defendants in the case, are not
part of the settlement, according to the April 17 motion.

Teva is still facing claims from health insurers that bought
Provigil from third parties.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission also sued Cephalon, but not
Mylan and Ranbaxy, over the allegedly anticompetitive settlements
in 2008.  A bench trial in that case is scheduled for June.

The FTC has long criticized so-called "pay-for-delay" settlements
in which brand-name drugmakers pay their generic counterparts to
keep drugs off the market.  The agency won a major victory in 2013
when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in FTC v. Actavis that such
settlements may be illegal.

Michael Carrier, a professor at Rutgers Law School who specializes
in pharmaceutical antitrust law, said the size of the April 17
settlement underscored the strength of the drug buyers' case, and,
by extension, the FTC's.

"It's a very significant payment which can be viewed as an
admission of potential liability," he said.

The case is King Drug Company of Florence Inc, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, v. Cephalon Inc et al, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:06-cv-
01797.


TILLY'S INC: Cert. Briefing to Conclude in July in "Christiansen"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that class certification
briefing is currently expected to conclude in July 2015 with a
hearing in August 2015 in the case Kristin Christiansen, Shellie
Smith and Paul Haug, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2013-00139010.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this
matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging
violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which
prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification
information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card
and recording such information, subject to exceptions. In June
2013, the Court granted our motion to strike portions of the
plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
Plaintiffs have amended the complaint and the parties are
proceeding with discovery on class certification issues. Class
certification briefing is currently expected to conclude in July
2015 with a hearing in August 2015. The complaint seeks
certification of a class, unspecified damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees. We intend to defend this case vigorously."


TILLY'S INC: To Defend "Rebolledo" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend vigorously the case, Maria Rebolledo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public vs. Tilly's, Inc.; World of Jeans & Tops, Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-
2012-00616290-CU-OE-CXC.

The Company said, "On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this
matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest
break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among
other things. An amended complaint was filed on February 28, 2013,
to include enforcement of California's private attorney general
act. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. In April 2013, we filed a motion to compel arbitration,
which was denied in May 2013 and affirmed on appeal. In October
2014, we filed an answer to the amended complaint. We intend to
defend this case vigorously."


TILLY'S INC: Answered Complaint in "Whitten" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company answered the
complaint in the class action, Karina Whitten, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc.,
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No, BC
548252.

The Company said, "On June 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative
class action and representative Private Attorney General Act
lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's wage and
hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair
competition law, among other things. The complaint seeks class
certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint on December 3, 2014, removing the expense reimbursement
claim. We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015. We intend to
defend this case vigorously."


TILLY'S INC: Removed "Ortiz" Case to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company removed to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California the case, Herbert Ortiz and Audra Haynes, individually,
and on behalf of the generally public, v. Tilly's Inc., United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case
No, 1:15-CV-00108-MJS.

The Company said, "On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
putative class action and representative Private Attorney General
Act lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of California, County
of Fresno, alleging violations of California's wage and hour, meal
break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition
law, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification,
penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and
costs. On January 21, 2015, We answered the complaint and removed
the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California. We intend to defend this case vigorously."


TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Discovery Held in Preparation of Sept. Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tiptree Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties in Mullins v.
Southern Financial Life Insurance Co., are conducting discovery in
preparation for trial on September 8, 2015.

Tiptree's Fortegra subsidiary is a defendant in Mullins v.
Southern Financial Life Insurance Co., which was filed on February
2, 2006, in the Pike Circuit Court, in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky. A class was certified on June 25, 2010. At issue is the
duration or term of coverage under certain policies. The action
alleges violations of the Consumer Protection Act and certain
insurance statutes, as well as common law fraud. The action seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and interest.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Sanctions on April 5, 2012 in
connection with Fortegra's efforts to locate and gather
certificates and other documents from Fortegra's agents. While the
court did not award sanctions, it did order Fortegra to subpoena
certain records from its agents. Although Fortegra appealed the
order on numerous grounds, the Kentucky Supreme Court ultimately
denied the appeal in April 2014. Consequently, Fortegra has
retained a special master to facilitate the collection of
certificates and other documents from Fortegra's agents. The
parties are currently conducting discovery in preparation for
trial on September 8, 2015.


TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Expects Approval of Fortegra Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tiptree Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company expected the
settlement in the case Fortegra, entitled Stein v. Fortegra
Financial Corporation, et al., to be finally proved at a hearing
on April 20, 2015.

Tiptree and its subsidiaries are defendants in a consolidated
class action in connection with Tiptree's acquisition of Fortegra,
entitled Stein v. Fortegra Financial Corporation, et al., Case No.
16-2014-CA-005825-XXXX-MA in the Circuit Court of the Fourth
Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, State of Florida. The
complaint alleges that the merger consideration was inadequate,
that the members of Fortegra's board of directors breached their
fiduciary obligations to Fortegra's stockholders by approving the
merger agreement and related agreements, engaging in an unfair
sales process and failing to make adequate disclosures to
Fortegra's stockholders, and that the other named defendants aided
and abetted the breach of those duties.

On February 6, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of a
disclosure-only settlement pursuant to which the terms of the
merger agreement remain unchanged, but Fortegra issued additional
supplemental disclosures about the merger to stockholders.  The
Company expected the settlement to be finally proved at a hearing
on April 20, 2015. Tiptree has provided notice to the class as
required.


TWC ADMINISTRATION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Garcia" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge David Alan Ezra of the Western District of
Texas, San Antonio Division, granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion in the case ABBIE GARCIA, BRANDON PONTIOUS, and
ORIN HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TWC ADMINISTRATION, LLC, d/b/a TIME
WARNER CABLE, Defendant, NO. SA: 14-CV-985-DAE (W.D. Tex.)

The plaintiffs worked for the defendant as inbound sales agents in
San Antonio, Texas. Plaintiffs worked eight hours per day with a
one-hour unpaid lunch period, and were paid $10 per hour plus
commissions based on the number of sales made.

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that
TWC's practice of failing to pay plaintiffs the time-and-a-half
rate for hours in excess of 40 per work week violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 207, and that TWC's
practice of failing to pay plaintiffs at the required minimum wage
rate violates the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 206.

Plaintiffs allege that in addition to taking customer calls, they
were required to perform non-sales work such as documenting orders
and customer accounts, following up with customers and addressing
issues related to orders, ensuring that accounts were properly
credited, and staying abreast of current TWC products, services,
promotions, and policies. They further allege that because they
were effectively required to spend the entirety of their shifts on
the phone, they spent a significant amount of time each day
working off the clock and without pay so that they could complete
the required non-sales work.

On December 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a collective action and authorization for notice.

Judge Ezra granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification of a collective action and
authorization for notice.

A copy of Senior District Judge Ezra's order dated April 16, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/WuK0Mkfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Dorian Vandenberg-Rodes, Esq.
Ricardo Jose Prieto, Esq.
Martin A. Shellist, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 832-539-4690
Facsimile: 713-621-0993

TWC Administration LLC, Defendant, represented by Christine Elaine
Reinhard -- creinhard@sr-llp.com -- at Schmoyer Reinhard LLP;
Joseph W. Ozmer -- jozmer@wargofrench.com -- Nathan D. Chapman --
nchapman@wargofrench.com -- at Wargo & French LLP


TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Customer Tenders Defense of 35 Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company provides certain rights of indemnification to its contract
manufacturing customers, one of whom has tendered to the Company
the defense and indemnification of approximately 35 putative class
actions alleging primarily that two products failed to contain
sufficient active ingredients to meet label claims. The Company
has accepted such tenders subject to a reservation of various
rights. The Company believes the allegations, which are
essentially common across all the actions, are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend these cases, but any litigation
involves risk and is inherently unpredictable. If any plaintiff is
successful in certifying a class and thereafter prevailing on the
merits of their complaint, such an adverse result could have a
material adverse effect on the Company. In addition, due to the
nature and scope of the indemnity and defense the Company will
likely need to provide, the legal fees associated with such
indemnification could be significant enough to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's cash flows until such matters are
fully and finally resolved.


U.S. BANK: Summary Judgment Upheld in "Biedryck" Foreclosure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, affirmed
the district court's rendition of summary judgment in favor of the
appellee in the case captioned MARK E. BIEDRYCK, Appellant, v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE,
FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., HOME EQUITY PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-6, Appellee, NO. 01-14-00017-CV (Tex.
App. Ct.).

Mark E. Biedryck challenged the district court's rendition of
summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank, as Trustee for Credit
Suisse, First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., Home Equity Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2005-6 ("U.S. Bank"), in Biedryck's
declaratory-judgment action against U.S. Bank.

Biedryck had previously obtained and later defaulted on a home
equity loan from U.S. Bank against his real property located at
7400 Bellerive in Houston.

Biedryck contended that the district court erred in granting U.S.
Bank summary judgment.  Biedryck first argued that the four-year
limitations period on the power of sale to enforce a real property
lien has expired.  He also argued that the "Loan Modification, and
its closing, are void as a matter of law."

In its May 12, 2015 memorandum opinion available at
http://is.gd/3j1r5kfrom Leagle.com, the appellate court overruled
both issues raised by Biedryck and affirmed the district court's
judgment.


UAW: 6th Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Cert. in Union Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed the
district court's judgment denying class certification to the
plaintiffs in the case captioned CARRIE SCHLAUD; EDWARD J. GROSS;
NORA I. GROSS; PEGGY MASHKE; DIANA ORR, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICK SNYDER, et al.,
Defendants, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA; MICHIGAN COUNCIL 25 OF
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO; CHILD CARE PROVIDERS TOGETHER MICHIGAN, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 12-1105 (6th Cir.).

The named plaintiffs are childcare providers who received
subsidies from the State of Michigan and who objected to having a
portion of these subsidies deducted for purposes of paying fees to
a union that they did not wish to join.  They moved for class
certification but were denied by the district court.  The 6th
Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari which the Supreme Court granted.  The case was remanded
back to the 6th Circuit "for further consideration in light of
Harris v. Quinn."

In an opinion dated May 12, 2015 and available at
http://is.gd/gZdCPffrom Leagle.com, the 6th Circuit held that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Even after Harris,
the plaintiffs continue to fail to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a)(4).  The conflict between the named plaintiffs,
who oppose paying the union an agency fee, and many members of the
proposed class and subclass, who favor paying fees to the union,
means that the named plaintiffs fail to satisfy the requirement
that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class."

ON BRIEF: William L. Messenger, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL

DEFENSE FOUNDATION, Springfield, Virginia, for Appellants.

John M. West, BREDHOFF & KAISER, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.


ULTA SALON: Defending Against Employment Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
1, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the
Company is still defending against putative employment class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain unnamed defendants
in state court in Los Angeles County, California. On April 12,
2012, the Company removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. On August 8, 2013,
the plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class and
the Company opposed the plaintiff's request and is waiting for the
court to issue a decision. The plaintiff and members of the
proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt
hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated various
provisions of the California labor laws and failed to provide
plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal
periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation
and premium pay. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties
as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies
plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter."


UNITED STATES: Bid to Nix Class Representatives & Counsel Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District of Columbia
denied plaintiffs' motion in the case MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TOM VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-3119 (EGS) (D. Colo.)

The plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve a nationwide class action lawsuit that
alleged systemic racial discrimination in the United States
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm Loan Program during the
period from 1981 through 1999.

In crafting the agreement, the parties agreed to terms that would
govern the distribution of the fund in the event that money was
left over after the non-judicial claims process was completed. If
that occurred, the agreement required that the claims
administrator shall direct any leftover funds to the Cy Pres Fund.
The agreement also contained provisions detailing precisely how
the Cy Pres Fund must be distributed for the benefit of Native
American farmers and ranchers.

Nearly three years later, class counsel notified the court that
although the non-judicial claims process had been completed,
approximately $380,000,000 remained unclaimed.  Class counsel
attempts to modify the agreement to address the far-larger-than-
expected excess. Class counsel filed a proposed modification of
the agreement, which the Department of Agriculture does not
oppose. The modification would use the bulk of the Cy Pres Fund to
create a trust with a 20-year life span, which would distribute
the funds to organizations that are deemed to serve Native
American farmers and ranchers. The government and class counsel
have asked the court to approve the modification without directing
notice to the class or holding a fairness hearing pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), on the grounds that the
rule is inapplicable where a modification would not affect a
class's legal rights.

The court began the status hearing by permitting Ms. Keepseagle to
speak. Ms. Keepseagle discussed her opposition to class counsel's
proposed modification and her support for a proposal under which
the cy pres funds would instead be distributed to members of the
class, asked the court for a relief from judgment and to secure
legal representation.

The court held further proceedings in abeyance, and granted Ms.
Keepseagle time to secure legal representation and on February 9,
2015, an attorney appeared on behalf of George and Marilyn
Keepseagle.  The Keepseagles indicated that they requested a
decision on two preliminary motions before any deadline for filing
a motion for relief from judgment.  Although the government and
class counsel preferred to brief all motions simultaneously, the
court granted the Keepseagles's request to brief their preliminary
motions first.

The Keepseagles filed their motions on March 13, 2015. The first
motion seeks a court order removing Porter Holder and Claryca
Mandan as class representatives.  The second motion seeks an order
compelling Class Counsel to produce certain materials.

Judge Sullivan denied both motions.

A copy of Judge Sullivan's memorandum opinion dated April 23,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/Wdp2ZKfrom Leagle.com

MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by Stewart
Douglas Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GEORGE B. KEEPS EAGLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK
LLP, Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C. & David Joseph
Frantz, CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP

LUTHER CRASCO, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JOHN FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GENE CADOTTE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

BASIL ALKIRE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP,Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JEROME K. ALKIRE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LEROY J. AMES, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JAMES ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

SIDNEY BAILEY, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

BARB H. BAKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JAMES L. BAKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DELPHINE BAKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JEFFERSON B. BAKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

KYLE BAKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CAROL T. BALLEW, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CHARLIE BEAR, III, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LEONARD BEAR KING, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK
LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. GOODMAN, JR.
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GEORGE BELL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GEORGE B. BELL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

HARRY BENALLY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CLARICE BENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LEANN BENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CHANNON D. BIGHORN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ERNEST C. BIGHORN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ROGER M. BIRD BEAR, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JAMES BIRDTAIL, III, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

THOMAS BLACK HAWK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GABE E. BLACK MOON, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RONALD C. BROWNOTTER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

KOTY BRUGH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ROBIN BURRITT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP,Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MARGARETT CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MAUREEN E. CARSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

THERESA CHARGING, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GEORGE DUANE CHARGING, Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie
F Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

STANLEY CHARGING, Son, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

KENNETH CHARGING, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

BRENT LONG CHASE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CHARLES CLAMPITT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CLAY CHARLES CLAYMORE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MIKE CLAYMORE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

SAMUEL CLAYMORE, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LEONARD M. COOK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MARVIN COTA, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GLEN CUDMORE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CLAYTON DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CURTIS DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CYNTHIA F. DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LYLE C. DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RHONDA J. DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RICHARD DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

EDWARD S. DANKS, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N. Francis,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK
LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. GOODMAN, JR.
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

EDWARD S. DANKS, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N. Francis,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK
LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. GOODMAN, JR.
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ADELINA DEFENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PALMER DEFENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

STEVE DEFENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LOUIS DUBRAY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ALLEN DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DARREN C. DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ED DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ERNEST LYLE DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP,Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS &
TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

FRANK DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JESS DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LARRY DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MAYNARD J. DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MELVIN R. DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RICHARD R. DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ROMAN DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RONNIE DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..
THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP

THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip L. Fraas,
STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK
LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul
March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW
FIRM, P.C.

DWAYNE J. EAGLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MARSHA ELK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JERRY ROBERT FARLEE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

EDWARD J. FILESTEEL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GLORIA FISCHER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MELISSA R. FISCHER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

TERRANCE FISCHE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

THOMAS W. FISCHER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JOHN LUKE FLYINGHORSE, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP,Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ADRIAN FOOT, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ANTHONY B. FOX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GLEN CHARLES FOX, JR., Estate, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP,Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

EDWARD C. FOX, Son, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PAULA DANKS, Daughter, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

BILLY J. FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ELMER FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JUDY FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JUSTIN FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LOREN FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PAT FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PAUL J. FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PETE E. FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

TERRANCE E. FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

KENNETH L. FREDERICKS, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP,Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ROMEY A. GARREAU, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JAMES J. GARRETT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ZANE GIPP, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JOE GOOD ELK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

KAY GULLICKSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PHYLLIS GUNVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ROMAN GUNVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

WILLIAM WARD GUNVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CASEY ED HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ESTHER M. HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ETHAN HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LELAND HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MERVEL HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

TODD HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CATHERINE HALVER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DAVID J. HANLEY, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ALECIA HANSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

HENRY G. HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JAMES E. HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JOE HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LENORA HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DAVID D. HARRISON, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DAVID HAWLEY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DAVID J. HAWLEY, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

EDGAR HEART, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DORA HELGESON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GENE HELGESON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

KENNETH HELGESON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RAY HELGESON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DANILE HENRY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

FRANK HENRY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DENNIS HUBER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MICHAEL HUBER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MARGIE HUNTS ALONG, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

EDWARD S. IRON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DEIDRE L. IRON CLOUD, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

FAITH IRON CLOUD, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RALPH K. IRON, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JOHN L. JAMES, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RAYMOND JETTY, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JAMES G. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR., Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C. &
Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

MARCIE KAHL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

WADE KEEPSEAGLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ADELLA J. KILLS PRETTY ENEMY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP,Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

TED KNIFE, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

EDITH P. KNIGHT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

STORMY KOSEL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

BARBARA LANDE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JEANNE R. LANDE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PAUL A. LANDE, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PAUL A. LANDE, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ROSS LAWRENCE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DAISY LECOMPTE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

NICK LEINGANG, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ARBY LITTLE SOLDIER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

COBY LITTLE SOLDIER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DALE LITTLE SOLDIER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

NATHAN F. LITTLE SOLDIER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ROSELLA LITTLE SOLDIER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

NEWLYN LITTLE SWALLOW, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ERNEST LIZOTTE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RONNIE LONG, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RICHARD ANTHONY LONG FEATHER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP,Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ADAM T. MANDAN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

KEITH MANDAN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

FLORENCE MATTE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

WARREN MATTE, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

KEN MAXON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

WAYNE E. MAXON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DONALD MCGHEE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PATT MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

FAY A. MOBERG, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CELINA Y.B. MOSSETT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

WILLIAM T. MULLENBERG, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JOAN M. NETTERVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

KURT P. NETTERVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

SAMUEL J. NETTERVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DELLA NO HEART, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GEORGIE H. PARENTEAU, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

WILLIAM P. PEASE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DONNA RAE PETERSEN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JAMES D. PICOTTE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JOHN J. RABBITHEAD, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MICHAEL REDSTONE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ROSELYN SAND, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DARREL H. SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DUANE A. SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

FARRELL SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

HOWARD B. SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RODNEY J. SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

TERRY M. SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

TOM SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

VINA SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

WILLIAM SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ROBERT DARREL SMITH, III, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ROBERT D. SMITH, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GLASCO R. SPRIGGS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DOUG STANGEL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PHILOMENA STONE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RICHARD P. STONE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

FRANK D. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LLOYD THOMPSON, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

SAMANTHA THUNDERHAWK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ALBERT R. TWO BEARS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

KAROL TWO BEARS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

G. PATTY VALANDRA, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ARNOLD WALKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MARTIN WALKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CLIFF WALKING ELK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

SCOTT WALTERS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LORETTA WALTON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

PATRICK WALTON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

STEPHEN WALTON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

T. ED WALTON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MARLENE WHIPPLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

STANLEY WHIPPLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

RICHARD A. WHITE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

FRANK WHITECALFE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR., Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C. &
Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

LARRY D. WHITEMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LYMAN M. YOUNG, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, David Joseph Frantz, CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP,
Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC,Richard L.
Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., Christine E. Webber, COHEN,
MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Michael T. Brody, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Peter Romer-Friedman, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, Ryan K. Harding, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH
VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C. &Victoria S. Nugent, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C.

ALVA ROSE HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

VIRGIL WILKINSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CHARLES WILKINSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

WILBUR D. WILKINSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

DENNIS SNOW, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

ALFRED DRIVER, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

GERALD DRIVER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

LESTER CROWS HEART, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

TOM CROWS HEART, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

EDGAR CROWS HEART, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

SUSAN HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

IVAN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

FRANK WHITE CALFE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JAMES JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

THEODORE LONE FIGHT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

MELVIN J. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.

CLARYCA MANDAN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC & Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Christine E. Webber,
COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Joseph M. Sellers,
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Peter Romer-Friedman, COHEN,
MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL & Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP.
TIMOTHY LABATTE, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Erick G.
Kaardal, MOHRMAN, KAARDAL, & ERICKSON, P.A. & Erick G. Kaardal,
MOHRMAN, KAARDAL, & ERICKSON, P.A.

RHONDA LESMEISTER, 2255, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ANN M. VENEMAN, Defendant, represented by Christine E. Webber,
COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C. & Amy E. Powell, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MIKE JOHANNS, The United States Department of Agriculture,
Defendant, represented by Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Kenneth Elliot Sealls, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Amy E. Powell, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Eric J.
Soskin, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Jean-Michel Voltaire, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

THOMAS J. VILSACK, Defendant, represented by Amy E. Powell, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,Eric J. Soskin, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC & Justin
Michael Sandberg, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CANDACE M. ODOM, Interested Party, Pro Se

PHIL GIVENS, Movant, Pro Se

PHIL GIVENS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C.

RICHARD L. HOWELL, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

JOE BYRD, Chief, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C.

KIP CULLERS, Movant, represented by Christine E. Webber, COHEN,
MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C. & Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C.

CATHY ELLISON, Movant, represented by Christine E. Webber, COHEN,
MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C. & Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C.

CLYDE HINDS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C.

MARY HINDS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C.

LUCILLE HINDS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C.

PAULA HOBBS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C.

VIRGINA ANN HODGE, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

BURNADEAN HUTCHINS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

ALMA HUTCHINS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C.

DALE HUTCHINS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C.

RANDELL G. HUTCHINS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

DICK E. LAY, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C.

BOB J. ROBERTSON, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

BOBBY G. ROBERTSON, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

TANDI M. ROBERTSON, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

HASTINGS SHADE, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C.

LORETTA SHADE, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C.

BILLY D. SIMPSON, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

REX EARL STARR, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C.

ALAN STARR, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C.

MARY MARGARET STARR, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.

JAMES WALTERS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C.

REGENIA WINKLE, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C.

TIMOTHY LABATTE, Movant, represented by Erick G. Kaardal, MOHRMAN,
KAARDAL, & ERICKSON, P.A.

JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION, Movant, represented by Philip Merle
Baker-Shenk, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP & Steven D. Gordon, HOLLAND &
KNIGHT LLP

TERENCE ARPAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DAN BIRD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LEO BIRD, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SAMPSON BIRD, III, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JESS BLACKMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DALE FENNER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EMERALD GRANT, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DALE GRAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BOYD GOURNEAU, P.O. Box 303 Lower Brule, SD 57548 605-730-1986,
Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA
TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TRUMAN LEE HALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TIMOTHY HESSERT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CARMELITA B. HOYT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TED HOYT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MICHAEL B. JANDREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MYRA KNOPFLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WILLIAM LONG TURKEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FRANCIS LORING, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MICHAEL LORING, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ALVIN LUNAK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GALEN MEANS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DONNA RAE PETERSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BIRD SAMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LYLE ST GODDARD, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JUNE B. TATSEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KEITH TATSEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GERALD WHITEMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JAMES D. WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARLA HALL WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RAMONA WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JEROME K. ALKIRE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DONNA ANDERSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARY JANE ANDERSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KIMBERLY MICHELE ANNIS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOHN ARCHAMBEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

STANTON ARCHAMBEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CHRISTOPHER ARPAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROSALYN ARPAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ALBERT ARPAN, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ALBERT C. ARPAN, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

REBECCA AVERY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ANTHONY AFRAID OF HAW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JANICE AFRAID OF HAWK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOHN AFRAID OF HAWK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARLIS AFRAID OF HAWK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TERRI JO AFRAID OF HAWK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

HELEN ALKIRE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BOBBY AMIOTTI, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LYLE ANDERSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

HOLLY BAILEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SIDNEY BAILEY, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SIDNEY BAILEY, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

IRIS BEARHEELS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LELAND BEARHEELS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LORILYNN BEESON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CLARICE BENDER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LE'ANN BENDER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JACQUELINE BIGGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DAN BIRD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SAMPSON BIRD III, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LEO BIRD, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GABE BLACK MOON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JESS BLACKMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

IRA BLUE COAT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

NORMAN BLUE COAT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PHILIP BLUE COAT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JEFFREY BOWKER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARLENE BOWKER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BRUCE BROWNWOIT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DOUGLAS BURGEE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TYRONE CADOTTE, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JENELLE CANYON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PAT CARLOU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MICHAEL CARLOU, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RICHARD CHARGING EAGLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

STEPHANIE CHARGING EAGLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BERTINA CHASE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DALE CHRISTENSEN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MAGDELINE CECILIA CIRCLE EAGLE, Movant, represented by Stewart
Douglas Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BEVERLY CIRCLE EAGLE CLOWN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DENNIS CLAW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARY CLELAND, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CHANCE COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CHARLES COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JAMES COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JO A. COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LISA COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RICHARD COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WAYNE COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TERRY COMEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GERALDINE R. CONDON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CHAD J. CONNOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DUSTIN CONNOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARY ANN CONNOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ANDY C. COOK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GLEN CUDMORE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

NICHOLAS CUMMINGS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BERNARD CUNY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BLANE CUNY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BRYAN CUNY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FRANCIS CUNY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CLEMENTINE DAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BRYAN DEANS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ILENE DECENTI, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PAULMER DEFENDER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SHIRLEY DOG EAGLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

STU DOLPHUS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DONALD DOLPHUS, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BETSY DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CARLYLE DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CLINT DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DARREN DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EDWARD DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FRANK DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

HILDA DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOANN DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PETE DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROBERT DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RONALD DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SAMMI DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

STEPHANIE DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROBIN DUNN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARIE DUNN-CLAYMORE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BERNADINE DUPRIS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EDWARD R. DUPRIS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GARY R. DUPRIS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MIKE FAITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FREDERICK FARLEE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JUDY FARLEE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RITA FARLEE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EDDIE FARMER, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LARRY FASTHORSE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LARSON FASTHORSE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DALE FENNER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FRANCIS FERGUSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GARY FERGUSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LEONARD FERGUSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TERRANCE FISCHER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CODY WAYNE FOOTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LORMAN BLAINE FOOTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MICK FRANK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

HAROLD FRAZIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BARBARA GARNENEZ, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TIMOTHY GARNENEZ, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

E. WAYNE GARREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARION GARROW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GREG GESINGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KEITH GESINGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARY GESINGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

STEVE GESINGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LINDA GHOST BEAR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DIANNE GIESICK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ARDELLA GOOD LEFT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BOYD GOURNEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PATTI GOURNEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EMERALD GRANT, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ALFRED GRASS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CATHY GRAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DALE GRAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARY GROPPER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ALEX GUERRERO, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DUSTIN GUNVILLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GEORGIA A. GUNVILLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROMAN GUNVILLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROMNEY GUNVILLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WILLIAM GUNVILLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

HARLAN GUNVILLE, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ETHAN HALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TRUMAN LEE HALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

NINA HANSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

HENRY HARRISON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MIKE HEATHERSHAW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JAMES HENIO, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TERESA HENIO, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

HOWARD HERMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DELBERT HICKS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

HARVEY HICKS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARVA HICKS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MERLE HICKS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WILLIAM HIGH BEAR SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOHANNA HIGH BEAR, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CODI HIGH ELK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOYCE HILL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ARLAND HODGKISS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PEARL HOLLOW HORN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

VELDON HOLLOW HORN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

VERDELL HORSEHOOKING, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CARMELITA HOYT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TED HOYT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GENE HUNT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JEFF HUNT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FRANK HUNTER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PAUL D. IRON CLOUD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PAUL JOHN IRON CLOUD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PAULETTE IRON CLOUD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JIM JACOBS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TIM JACOBS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WESLEY JACOBS, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOHN JAMES, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FAY JANDREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARTY JANDREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C. & Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MICHAEL JANDREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TIM JANDREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ALBERT JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

IYONNE JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KATHERINE JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LOUIS JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARY JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SANDY JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CAROL JOHNSTON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CHARLES JOHNSTON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ARNOLD JORDAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PAUL JOSEPH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARILYN KARY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JANET KECKLER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EUNICE KEEPSEAGLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DAVID KEESTER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SHARON KELLER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

AH-KOO-EEN-STA-MEE KIPP, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PEGGY KNIFE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RANDALL KNIFE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WENDELL KNIFE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CONNIE KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DEB KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EDITH KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LUCY M. KNIGHT, Movant, represented by
MARK KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

NICK KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PATRICIA KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MYRA KNOPFLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DELEEN KOUGL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WICTOR KROSCH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DALE LA COMPTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOHN LAFFERTY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DELBERT LAMB, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GLORIA LANDREAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SCOTT LANDREAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GLORIA LAUNDREAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JENNY LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JUSTIN LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KIM LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROSS LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TODD JAMES LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WAYDE LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CHERYL LE COMPTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DIXIE LE COMPTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

IVAN LE COMPTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LC LE COMPTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DENISE LEBEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARK LEBEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOSEPH LEBEAU, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOSEPH LEBEAU, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LINDA LEBEAU-GHOST BEAR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

NICK LEINGANG, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BRENDA LEMMON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARCELLINE J. LESMEISTER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RHONDA LESMEISTER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ELDON LESSERT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TIMOTHY LESSERT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GILBERT LIND, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MICHAEL LIVERMOIUT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LILA LONG, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RONNIE LONG, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RICHARD LONG FEATHER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

VIRGINIA LONG FEATHER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WILLIAM LONG TURKEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DELBERT F. LONGBRAKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DELBERT W. LONGBRAKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EMMETT LONGBRAKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JESSE LONGBRAKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FRANCIS LORING, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MICHAEL LORING, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ALVIN LUNAK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TERRY MAIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JANICE MANDAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ANTHONY MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GILBERT L. MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOHNNY MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JULIE MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KIP MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LLOYD MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MATTIE LOU MARSHALL DOAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CLIFFORD MARSHALL III, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CLIFFORD MARSHALL, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KENNETH MARSHALL, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MOLBAY MARTINEZ, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

NITA MARIE MATT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EVRY MAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOHN MAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LENI MAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DONALD MCGHEE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CECIL MEANS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GALEN MEANS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GERMAINE E. MEANS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DUANE MEDNANSKY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JUSTIN MEDNANSKY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

OLETA MEDNANSKY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RICHARD MEDNANSKY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

THEODORE MINER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MICHELLE MITCHELL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARY REEVES MITZEL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SO LON MOCCASIN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DONNIE MOORE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ORIS MORRISON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CHARLES MURPHY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARJORIE BIRD NECKLACE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DAVID NELSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BART NESS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LARRY NESS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DARIN NEWBROUGH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DELLA NO HEART, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TODD O'BRYAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CARMEN O'LEARY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TIM O'LEARY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BRADY O'ROURKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LYLE O'ROURKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TOM O'ROURKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BARBARA JEAN PALCZEWSKI, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DAWN PARKER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BARRY PATENEAUDE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KAREN PEARMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RUSSELL PEARMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DONNA RAE PETERSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DAVID POURIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DELBERT POURIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DONALD POURIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROBERT POURIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WARREN POURIER, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LOLA PRITZKAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CURTIS REAL BIRD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EMMA LU REEVES, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FAYE REEVES, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JIMMY REEVES, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RYAN REICHARDT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROBERT RIDES AT THE DOOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ALOYSIUS H. ROMERO, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ALOYSIUS T. ROMERO, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PHILOMINE FAYE ROUSSEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RICHARD ROUSSEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PAULETTE ROWLEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARILYN SANDLAND, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MICHAEL SANDLAND, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JENNIFER SCHOELERMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CLAUDE SHARP, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DENNIS SHARP, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CLYDE SHARP, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

IAN SHERWOOD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARY SHIRLEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ARTHUR SIEGLOCK, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RAMONA SIMON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROGER SIMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LISA SKYE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARION SKYE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DOUGLAS SKYE, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BERNADETTE SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FLOYD SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GLORIA SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JAE SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

REBEKAH SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RHEA SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SHARON SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TOM SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

VIVIAN SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WARREN SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROBERT D. SMITH, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GERALD SPOTTED TAIL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LYLE ST GODDARD, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RUTH STEELE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CLAUDE SULLY, III, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RICHARD SWAIN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RHONDA RAE TAKES THE KNIFE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JUNE TATSEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KEITH TATSEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ANGELINE TAYLOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BRADLEY TAYLOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JERRY TAYLOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TED TAYLOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DARREL TERKILDSEN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BERNADINE THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FRANK THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RODDY THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TATE THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TRAVIS THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TYLER THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ANDREW TRAVERSIE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CAROL TRAVERSIE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

HUGH DELBERT TRAVERSIE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SHAWN TRAVERSIE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARLENE TRAXINGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TONY TWO BEARS, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RAYMOND USES THE KNIFE, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart
Douglas Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TERI VAN DUSEN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BRENDA VEIT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CAROL VEIT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FRANKIE VEIT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DALE VOCU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TOM VROOMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RUSSELL SCOTT WAGNER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ARNOLD WALKER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARTIN F. WALKER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ANNA WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BEVERLY WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DOLORES WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARIE WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARY WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SAMMIE WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SONNIE WALN-JESSEN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ELAINE WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KELLY WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MORGAN WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RICHARD WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SANDRA WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WADE WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

LARRY WELLS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CARMEN E. WESTON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EVELYN WESTON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FARRELL WESTON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ROBERT WHIPPLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

STANLEY WHIPPLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

WILLIAM WHIPPLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CONNIE WHIRLWINDHORSE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

HELEN WHITE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JAMES WHITE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JAYME A. WHITE EYES, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARIAN WHITE MOUSE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

BURTIS WHITE WOLF, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

KIMBERLY WHITE WOLF, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

SULLIVAN WHITE WOLF, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

FRANCIS WHITECLAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

GERALD WHITEMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

EDWARD WIDOW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

NORRIS WIDOW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

J.D. WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

MARLA HALL WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RAMONA WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

PAUL WILLIAMS, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

JOHN WOODEN KNIFE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

RAYMOND WRIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

TIMOTHY YELLOW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

DEAN YELLOW HAWK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

ALL MOVANTS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C.

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, Amicus, represented by Philip Merle
Baker-Shenk, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP & Steven D. Gordon, HOLLAND &
KNIGHT LLP.

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN INDIAN FARMERS, Amicus, represented by
Keith Bernard Lively, DOYLE, BARLOW & MAZARD PLLC


UNITED STATES: Homeland Security Faces "Mazinda" FOIA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison S. Mazinda, on his behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. United States Department of Homeland
Security, United States Department of Homeland Security, United
States Customs and Border Protection, United States Customs and
Border Protection, United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and
Kamsing V. Lee, in his official capacity as an agent and employee
of a United States government agency, Case No. 1:15-cv-00752-SEB-
TAB (S.D. Ind., May 11, 2015) is brought under the Freedom of
Information Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah L. Moshe, Esq.
          Thomas R. Ruge, Esq.
          LEWIS & KAPPES PC
          One American Square, Suite 2500
          Indianapolis, IN 46282-0003
          Telephone: (317) 639-1210
          Facsimile: (317) 639-4882
          E-mail: smoshe@lewis-kappes.com
                  truge@lewis-kappes.com


UNITED STATES: PTO Faces Suit Over Patent Applications Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling Ryan Davis and Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360,
report that an inventor sued the government on April 24 over the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's controversial and recently
shuttered "sensitive" patent applications program, which he says
delayed patent applications and saddled filers with excessive
costs, in a proposed class action in the Court of Federal Claims.

Inventor Mauro DiDomenico Jr. says his two applications for
patents on video-on-demand technology languished in procedural
limbo for more than 13 years because of the USPTO's Sensitive
Application Warning System, an internal program for flagging
patent applications for extra review if they met certain criteria.

His "eVideo" technology fit at least some of the criteria for
review, including video or music distribution over a phone, a fact
he learned after filing a Freedom of Information Act, according to
the complaint.  As a result of the delay in processing his
applications, Mr. DiDomenico says he has been harmed financially
by having to pay official and attorneys' fees associated with
patent prosecution.

"The SAWS program has burdened and penalized patent applicants'
fundamental rights and protected interests in receiving an
equitable return on the fees they have paid . . . by denying these
applicants reasonable information as might be useful to them in
the prosecution of their patent applications," the complaint says.

Mr. DiDomenico asks the court to certify a class of at least 100
people who have been in a similar situation.  His suit also seeks,
among other things, the fees he and the class paid to the agency
and any reasonable attorney fees paid in the prosecution of their
applications after they were flagged under SAWS.

The mysterious SAWS program was started in 1994 but was first
explained in detail by the USPTO in December in response to a FOIA
request from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP attorneys.

The office had described SAWS as a quality assurance program
designed to ensure that patent applications that may generate
widespread public interest are properly reviewed.  According to
the USPTO, only about 0.04 percent of 1.2 million pending
applications are designated as sensitive. That means that in a
typical month, just over 500 pending cases are deemed sensitive.

A wide range of subject matter is subject to review under the
program, including abortion methods, human cloning, suicide
machines and inventions that appear to violate the laws of
physics, like an anti-gravity device.

More broadly, inventions that "would potentially generate unwanted
media coverage" or have "pioneering scope" may also be subject to
SAWS reviews.  The office said it did not notify applicants when
their application was subject to the program, which may involve
reviews by additional USPTO employees beyond the examiner.

Attorneys decried the program as Kafkaesque and said they were
alarmed by the broad scope of inventions that could fall under the
program.

In March, the patent office shut down SAWS, saying the system "has
only been marginally utilized and provides minimal benefit."

Mr. DiDomenico's suit appears to agree with the office about the
benefit of SAWS, saying the program was unconstitutional and had
no origins in either statute or federal rules.

Mr. DiDomenico is represented by Joseph Zito, Patrick Delaney,
Arthuer Steiner and Phouphanomketh Ditthavong of Ditthavong &
Steiner PC.

The case is Evideo Owners et al. v. U.S., case number 1:15-cv-
00413, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Angley Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that all defendants moved to
dismiss the class action captioned Michael J. Angley, individually
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UTi
Worldwide Inc., Eric W. Kirchner, Richard G. Rodick, Edward G.
Feitzinger and Jeffrey W. Misakian.

The Company said, "On March 17, 2014, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executives
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. As amended on September 5, 2014, the complaint, which
is captioned Michael J. Angley, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. UTi Worldwide Inc.,
Eric W. Kirchner, Richard G. Rodick, Edward G. Feitzinger and
Jeffrey W. Misakian, No. 2:14-cv-02066, generally alleges that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by misstating or
failing to disclose, in certain public statements made and in
filings with the SEC between March 28, 2013 and February 26, 2014,
material facts relating to our liquidity position, financial
condition, financial covenants, financial systems and freight
forwarding operating system. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages and other relief. The company and the individual
defendants deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. All defendants moved to
dismiss on November 4, 2014."


VELOCITY EXPRESS: N.D. Calif. Judge Trims "Flores" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion in the case
PHILLIP FLORES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VELOCITY EXPRESS, LLC, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-05790-JST (N.D. Cal.)

TransForce is a Canadian business that seeks to establish itself
as a leader in the North American transportation and logistics
industry. Dynamex is a transportation services company, competing
in Canada and the USA with a specific focus on same-day logistics
and outsourced transportations services.

A few years before the commencement of the case, a private equity
firm called ComVest acquired Velocity for $22 million. At that
time, Velocity was one of the nation's leading same-day package
and courier delivery companies. In 2012, ComVest offered Velocity
for sale at the price of $42 million. TransForce, Inc., and its
subsidiary, Dynamex Operations East, LLC, agreed to purchase
Velocity for that price.

Immediately after TransForce and Dynamex acquired Velocity,
TransForce Executive Vice-President Brian Kohut sent a memorandum
to all of Velocity's employees, informing them that Velocity would
continue to conduct its business as usual, and asking Velocity
employees to continue to do the same fine job for Velocity Express
that they always have. Dynamex and TransForce began to take over
day-to-day business operations, including transferring customer
accounts to Dynamex's system; hiring and firing Velocity
personnel; and funding Velocity operations, such as paying rent
and leases for Velocity warehouses and equipment.

On November 9, 2012, plaintiffs brought a case as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and as a class
action pursuant to California's Labor Code and Unfair Competition
Law. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Velocity Express
misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors when
they were, in fact, employees. Because of the misclassification,
plaintiffs allege that Velocity Express failed to pay plaintiffs
minimum wages and overtime.

Plaintiffs brought a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to
Successor Liability and Joint Employer Status, asserting that
TransForce or Dynamex should be held liable for Velocity's actions
on two bases. First, plaintiffs alleged that TransForce and
Dynamex are successors to Velocity's business, and second,
plaintiffs contend that TransForce, Dynamex, and Velocity are
joint employers of Velocity's former employees.

Judge Tigar granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment. Judge Tigar granted plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment as to successor liability but denied
plaintiffs' motion as to defendants' joint employer status.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated April 16, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/bvKdENfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq.
Christopher Paul Ridout, Esq.
RIDOUT & LYON, LLP
555 E Ocean Blvd Ste 500
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: 562-216-7380
Facsimile: 562-216-7385

     - and -

Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
33 S. 6th Suite 4530
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 800-279-6386
Facsimile: 612-436-1801

     - and -

Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Jesse L Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: 248-266-2536

Velocity Express, LLC and TransForce, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com
-- Emily Erin O'Connor -- eoconnor@littler.com -- Jessica Xing Yun
Rothenberg -- jrothenberg@littler.com -- Robert G. Hulteng --
rhulteng@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Dynamex Operations East, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew
Michael Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Jessica Xing Yun
Rothenberg -- jrothenberg@littler.com -- Robert G. Hulteng --
rhulteng@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C.


VERTEX ENERGY: United Named as Defendant in Davis et al. Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Vertex Refining LA, LLC,
the wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, the Company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District For the Parish of
Jefferson Louisiana on January 6, 2015.

The Company said, "Pursuant to the lawsuit, Stacy Davis, Becky
Vallee and James A. Block (the "Plaintiffs") made certain
allegations against Vertex Refining LA, LLC, Omega Refining and
the manager of the Marrero, Louisiana facility (the "Defendants").
The claims are structured as class actions relating to certain
operations performed at our newly acquired re-refinery located in
Marrero, Louisiana, including the alleged emission of noxious and
harmful substances. The Plaintiffs allege they are part of a valid
class due to the fact that they live and work near the facility.
The lawsuit relates to alleged actions and inactions related to
the facility between 2012 to present and includes allegations
relating to violations of various Louisiana statutes, allegations
relating to the misrepresentation of information to the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, allegations relating to
violations of hourly permitted emission limits, and alleged
failure to report an un-permitted point-source. The suit seeks
damages for physical and emotional injuries, pain and suffering,
medical expenses and deprivation of the use and enjoyment of
Plaintiff's homes. The Plaintiffs further allege that there are
estimated to be over 1,000 class members to the suit, provided
that the proposed class is yet to be certified."

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations
made in the complaint, provided that at this stage of the
litigation, the Company has no basis of determining whether there
is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims
and/or the potential outcome of the litigation," the Company
added.


VOLTARI CORPORATION: Filed Answering Brief in Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Voltari Corporation has filed its answering brief in the appeal in
a putative securities class action, Voltari said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "We previously announced that Joe Callan filed a
putative securities class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
Motricity between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in
Motricity's initial public offering. Motricity, which was our
predecessor registrant, is now our wholly-owned subsidiary and has
changed its name to Voltari Operating Corp. The defendants in the
case were Motricity, certain of our current and former directors
and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn
P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett
Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner;
and the underwriters in Motricity's initial public offering,
including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation,
Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and
Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The complaint alleged violations
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of our former and current
officers who are named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter
alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and
rescission. A second putative securities class action complaint
was filed by Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also
related to alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead
plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the
Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities
laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011 to
November 14, 2011. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
May 11, 2012 and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2012. On
August 1, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third amended
complaint was filed on April 17, 2013. On May 30, 2013, we filed a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which was granted
by the Court on October 1, 2013. On October 31, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 25, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief and on July 24,
2014 we filed our answering brief."


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Narrows Claims in "Reynolds" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark E. Walker of the Northern District of Florida,
Tallahassee Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss in the case IRA REYNOLDS and
PATRICIA BELL individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 4:14CV381-MW/CAS (N.D. Fla.)

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. produces great value juices in various
flavors, two of these are cranberry and pomegranate.

Plaintiffs Ira Reynolds and Patricia Bell brought state-law claims
individually and on behalf of others against Wal-Mart. The
complaint alleges that despite the flavor, only a small amount of
the product is cranberry or pomegranate juice. The juice is a
blend of juices. The product is 100% juice, just not 100%
cranberry and pomegranate juice.

Plaintiffs say that Wal-Mart is able to sell the product for a
higher price than its apple-flavored juice because consumers
associate various health benefits with pomegranate juice. Had they
known the product was mostly apple and grape juice, Plaintiffs say
they would have bought the cheaper alternative. The proposed class
is persons who purchased Wal-Mart's Great Value cranberry and
pomegranate flavored juice.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing primarily that
the claims are state-law claims that are preempted by federal law
claims.

Judge Walker granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Walker's order dated April 23, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/vzWRa9from Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Andre M Mura, Esq.
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION PC
777 6th Street NW Suite. 520
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: 202-944-2803
Facsimile: 202-965-0920

- and -

Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA
8511 Bull Headley Rd #405
Tallahassee, FL 32312
Telephone: 850-298-4455

WAL-MART STORES INC, Defendant, represented by BARRY RICHARD --
richardb@gtlaw.com -- DAVID E SELLINGER -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com --
JOHN K LONDOT -- londotj@gtlaw.com -- at GREENBERG TRAURIG PA.


WILLBROS GROUP: "Walters" Class Action at Very Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action
lawsuit, Ray Walters v. Willbros Group, Inc. et al, is at a very
early stage.

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 28, 2014
seeking class action status on behalf of the Company's
shareholders and alleging damages on their behalf arising from the
matters that led to the restatement. The defendants in the case,
Ray Walters v. Willbros Group, Inc. et al, are the Company and its
former chief executive officer and current chief financial
officer. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising
out of the restatement of the Company's second quarter 2014
financial statements and seeks undisclosed damages. As this matter
is at a very early stage, the Company is not able at this time to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter. The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


                            *********

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  * * *