CAR_Public/150608.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 113


                            Headlines


7447 SOUTH: Faces "Caballero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AARON INC: Computer Spyware Case Suitable for Class Action
ALL-WAYS CONTRACTORS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMERICAN INT'L: To Pay $40MM in Class Action Settlement
AO SMITH: Recalls Oil-Fired Water Heaters Due to Burn Hazard

APEX WIND: Complaint Needs to be Amended to Establish Jurisdiction
ASSET RECOVERY: "Sickman" Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Magness" Suit Over TCPA Violations
BERNARD L. MADOFF: 2nd Cir. Partially Revives Fund Class Action
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls All-terrain Vehicles

BOULDER BRANDS: Facing Investor Class Suit in Colorado
BP PLC: Dutch Lobby Group Takes Legal Action Over Oil Spill
CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves Stipulations in "Coleman" Suit
CANADA: Court Rejects Bid for Collusion Class Action
CELESTICA INC: July 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

CENTURY MORTGAGE: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss "Back" Suit
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
CHRISTMAS ISLAND: Lawyers May Access Center Ahead of Demolition
COLORADO: Pro Se Litigant May Amend Complaint v. Parole Board
COOPER VISION: Faces "Khanna" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing

CYCLING SPORTS: Recalls Mountain Bicycles Due to Injury Hazard
DANOS AND CUROLE: Judge Grants Conditional Cert. in FLSA Suit
DENSO CORP: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Power Window Motors
DEUTER USA: Recalls S1+ Avalanche Transceivers
DL MITCHELL: "Baldock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

EBAY INC: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Green" Privacy Suit
ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Kenmore Elite Slide-In Ranges
ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Kenmore Elite Dual Fuel Ranges
ESPAR INC: Faces Davidson Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
EVERLOOP INC: Swindler Blames Syracuse-Area Financial Advisor

FORCEFIELD ENERGY: June 16 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid
GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls Cohort Folding Knives
GRATUS HOLDING: "Velsher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GREAT STATES CORP: Recalls Electric Lawn Mowers Over Injury Risk
GULLIVER'S TAVERN: "Levi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

HANKYU EXPRESS: 9 Japanese Firms Settle Suit for $100MM
HARDEMAN COUNTY, TN: Inmate's Bid for Counsel, Class Cert. Denied
HARVESTPRO AND SMITH: Truckers Consider Legal Action
HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES: Gas Station Coupons Not Gift Certificates
HEALTH CANADA: June 11 & 12 Hearings on Cert. Bid in Privacy Suit

HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Illegally Sells Subcribers Info, Suit Says
HEWITT MACHINE: Recalls Chain Driven Winches Due to Injury Hazard
HMSHOST CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HTC CORPORATION: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
IESI BETHELEHEM: State to Probe Landfill Odors

IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Alleged FCRPA Violations
INTUIT INC: Sued Over TurboTax Security and Identity Theft
ISORAY INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports

KALDI'S COFFEE: Recalls Disposable Cup Sleeves Due to Fire Hazard
KEANE FRAC: "Stanek" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
KELSEY-HAYES: E.D. Mich. Judge Certifies UAW Case as Class Action
KINGSDOWN INCORPORATED: Sued Over Plan Asset Mismanagement
KMART CORP: N.D. Cal. Judge Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Steinmetz" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
MEDPARTNERS INC: June 30 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
MERCEDEZ BENZ: Aug. 17 Fairness Hearing on "Seifi" Settlement
MICHAELS STORES: 3 FCRA Violations Centralized in NJ
MIDLAND FUNDING: Denied Request for Reconsideration in "Hallmark"

MIRA SUSHI: Faces "Liem" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MULTIBAND CORP: Removed "Holloway" Suit to D. Massachusetts
NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Mason Jar Night Light Products
NASDAQ OMX: Three Law Firms Reach Settlement of Class Claims
NASSAU COUNTY: Court Halts Strip-Search Payment

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Garretson to Negotiate Healthcare Lien Discounts
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Judge Narrows Claim in "Campbell" Suit
NCS MULTISTAGE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Mendez" Suit Claims
NISSAN: Class Action Filed by Altima Owners Over Rust Issue
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Feldman Shepherd Files Train Accident Suit

OCWEN LOAN: Judge Denied Member's Bid for Discovery in "Lee" Suit
OILWELL GUIDANCE: "Barge" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
OXO: Recalls Nest Booster Seats Due to Fall Hazard
PALATINE, IL: 7th Cir. Keeps Judgment in Parking Ticket Suit
PNC N.A.: Faces "King" Suit Over HAMP Eligibility Policies

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Defibaugh" Suit Removed to Md. Dist. Ct.
PRECISION TRADING: Recalls Premium(R) Espresso Makers
PYRAMID OPERATING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standard Act
QEP MIDSTREAM: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement
QUALITY BLOW: Faces "Rucker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

RESTAURANTE EL: Faces "Cardona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RHODE ISLAND: Retirees Invited to Weigh-in on Pension Case Accord
RIG POWER: "Morgan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SANDISK CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. California
SEAWORLD INC: Texas Resident Sues Over Well-Being of Whales

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
SLATER & ZURZ: Ohio Ct. App. Affirms Judgment in "Beck" Suit
SONOMA, CA: Judge Barred Plaintiffs From Filing Amended Complaint
SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS: Judge Narrows Claim in "Garcia" Suit
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Atty. Fees Granted in Right of Way Suit

SQUARE INC: Credit Card Firm Faces Class Suit by Shierkatz
TOP RANK: Faces "Bynum" Suit Over Pacquiao Injury Concealment
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: "Hayes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
TWEEN BRANDS: Sued For Advertising False Merchandise Prices
UAG FAYETTEVILLE: Removed "Fletcher" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas

UBER TECH: Guide-Dog Users' Discrimination Suit May Move Forward
UNIVERSAL PRESSURE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
URS CORPORATION: Sued Over Unlawful Background Check Policies
US BANK: Illegally Collects Post-Judgment Debt Cost, Suit Says
UTI DRILLING: Settles Discrimination Claim for $14.5 Million

UTICA: School District Sued Over Segregation of Refugee Students
VALOR ATHLETICS: Recalls Weight Bench Due to Injury Hazard
VELDOS LLC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Weissmandl" Suit Claims
VIKING RANGE: Recalls Gas Ranges Due to Burn Hazard
VIVINT INC: Recalls Dimming Switch Modules Due to Shock Hazard

VOLARIS AVIATION: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Action
WELLS FARGO: "Hallie" Suit Dismissed for Failure to Opt Out
WESTOWER COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Approves Settlement on Final Basis
WORLD BANK: Sued Over Funding of Coal Plant in India


                            *********


7447 SOUTH: Faces "Caballero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Caballero, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. 7447 South Shore, LLC and Ibrahim M.
Shihadeh, Case No. 1:15-cv-04575 (N.D. Ill., May 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants operate apartment buildings in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AARON INC: Computer Spyware Case Suitable for Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a
couple's spyware claims against computer-rental company Aaron's
are enough to warrant class certification, the 3rd Circuit ruled.

The couple in question, Brian and Crystal Byrd of Wyoming, say
that a franchisee of Aaron's used spyware software installed on
its computers to log Brian's keystrokes and web traffic on a
product he rented.  The spyware even allegedly took pictures of
Brian using the computer's webcam.

Evidence showed that the franchisee, Aspen Way, accessed the
Byrd's computer 347 times over 11 days.

The Byrds seek to represent a class of customers "who leased
and/or purchased one or more computers from Aaron's, Inc., and
their household members, on whose computers DesignerWare's
Detective Mode [the spyware] was installed and activated without
such person's consent on or after January 1, 2007."

Alternatively, they proposed to include customers "who leased
and/or purchased one or more computers from Aaron's, Inc. or an
Aaron's, Inc. franchisee, and their household members, on whose
computers DesignerWare's Detective Mode was installed and
activated without such person's consent on or after January 1,
2007."

The case faced an appellate hearing of the 3rd Circuit earlier
this year after a federal judge handling the case in Pittsburgh
shot down the motion for class certification, based on a
magistrate's finding that the class was defined too broadly and
that its members were not "ascertainable," or objectively
identifiable.

A three-judge panel reversed on April 16, finding that the lower
court misapplied precedent.

"First, the District Court abused its discretion by misstating the
rule governing ascertainability," Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote for
the panel.  "Second, the District Court engrafted an
'underinclusive' requirement that is foreign to our
ascertainability standard.  Third, the District Court made an
errant conclusion of law in finding that an 'overly broad' class
was not ascertainable.  And fourth, the District Court improperly
applied the legal principles from Carrera to the issue of whether
'household members' could be ascertainable."

Published in 2013, Carrera v. Bayer Corp. expanded on some of the
concerns relating to a defendant's "due process right to challenge
the proof used to demonstrate class membership."

Smith emphasized that objective records exist for the plaintiffs
to "readily identify" members of owner or lessee classes.

The District Court itself explained that "Aaron's own records
reveal the computers upon which Detective Mode was activated, as
well as the full identity of the customer who leased or purchased
each of those computers," according to the 45-page lead opinion.


ALL-WAYS CONTRACTORS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Leipolt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. All-Ways Contractors Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00628-RTR
(E.D. Wis., May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

All-Ways Contractors Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation with a
principal place of business located at 15655 W. North Avenue,
Suite 200 in Brookfield, Wisconsin. All-Ways provides landscaping
and related services for its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yingtao Ho, Esq.
      THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM
      1555 N River Center Dr-Ste 202
      PO Box 12993
      Milwaukee, WI 53212
      Telephone: (414) 271-4500
      Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
      E-mail: yh@previant.com


AMERICAN INT'L: To Pay $40MM in Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin at Law360.com reports that American International
Group Inc. will pay $40 million to settle proposed class action
allegations that the insurer's employee pension plans improperly
invested in its own poorly performing stock following the 2008
mortgage crisis, the plaintiffs said on Thursday in New York
federal court.  The settlement would pay beneficiaries of the
plans from August 2007 to May 2009, who according to the motion
seeking preliminary approval are on board with the settlement.
The plaintiffs had been seeking up to $300 million in damages
based on the 2007.


AO SMITH: Recalls Oil-Fired Water Heaters Due to Burn Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
A.O. Smith Corp., of Milwaukee, Wis., announced a voluntary recall
of about 250 John Wood oil-fired water heaters. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The water heater's combustion chamber can be misaligned and heat
the exterior walls of the water heater instead of the water.
Combustible material near the outside of the water heater can
catch fire, posing fire and burn hazards.

This recall involves John Wood brand 50 and 70 gallon oil-fired
water heaters. The 50 gallon water heaters have model number JW517
and serial numbers from 1349A021678 through 1503A016643. The 70
gallon water heaters have model number JW717 and serial numbers
from 1421M001517 through 436M000040. The water heaters are gray
with "John Wood" printed in blue and white near the top.  The
model number, size and serial numbers are printed on the rating
plate near the top of the tank. Only oil-fired water heaters are
included in this recall.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Wzq8HI

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at John Wood sales representatives to plumbers and consumers from
January 2014 through March 2015 for about $1,500 to $2,500.

Consumers should immediately turn off and stop using the recalled
water heaters and contact A.O. Smith for a free inspection and
free replacement of misaligned water heaters.


APEX WIND: Complaint Needs to be Amended to Establish Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the Western District of
Oklahoma directed plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint in
the case TERRA WALKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APEX WIND
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-14-914-D (W.D.
Okla.)

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on August 27, 2014, and
identified therein 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A) as the basis
for the court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendants challenged the sufficiency of plaintiffs' class action
allegations and the court determined those allegations were
deficient. The court, however, granted Plaintiffs leave to amend
to cure the deficiencies. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
and omitted the class action allegations. The amended complaint
alleges that "Plaintiffs are all Oklahoma citizens while
Defendants are all citizens of another state", purporting to rely
on 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) as the basis for diversity
jurisdiction. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Judge DeGiusti said that the factual record is insufficient to
establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction based on
diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).

A copy of Judge DeGiusti's order dated April 8, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/LiFuZrfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:
Dallas L Dale Strimple, Esq.
AAMODT LAW FIRM
1723 S Boston Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74119
Telephone: 918-347-6169

Apex Wind Construction LLC, Defendant, represented by J Todd
Woolery -- todd.woolery@mcafeetaft.com -- Jodi C Cole --
jodi.cole@mcafeetaft.com -- Patrick L Stein --
patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com -- Timothy J Bomhoff --
tim.bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com -- at McAfee & Taft-OKC

Apex Clean Energy Inc, Defendant, represented by J Todd Woolery,
McAfee & Taft-OKC, Jodi C Cole, McAfee & Taft-OKC, Patrick L
Stein, McAfee & Taft-OKC & Timothy J Bomhoff, McAfee & Taft-OKC

Apex Clean Energy Holdings LLC, Kingfisher Wind LLC, Kingfisher
Wind Land Holdings LLC, Kingfisher Transmission LLC, Campbell
Creek Wind LLC, Campbell Creek Wind Transmission LLC, Defendants,
represented by J Todd Woolery, McAfee & Taft-OKC, Jodi C Cole,
McAfee & Taft-OKC, Patrick L Stein, McAfee & Taft-OKC & Timothy J
Bomhoff, McAfee & Taft-OKC

Kingfisher Wind Land Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by
Clayton D Ketter -- cdketter@phillipsmurrah.com -- Thomas G Wolfe
-- tgwolfe@phillipsmurrah.com -- at Phillips Murrah PC


ASSET RECOVERY: "Sickman" Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendant's motion to transfer
venue of the case, ROBERT SICKMAN, on behalf of plaintiff and the
class members described below, Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, NO. 14 C 9748 (N.D. Ill.)

The plaintiff Robert Sickman is a resident of San Antonio Texas,
while defendant Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a debt collector
as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCPA), with principal
place of business in Des Plaines, Illinois.

Plaintiff filed a one-count first amended putative class action
complaint against the defendant alleging a violation of FDCP, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that on or about
February 7, 2014, defendant mailed him a letter, seeking to
collect an alleged debt incurred for personal, family, or
household purposes.

According to plaintiff, in violation of section 1692f(8) of the
FDCPA, the envelope containing the letter displayed through a
transparent window the account number assigned to plaintiff and
defendant's name. Plaintiff alleges that defendant sent similar
letters and envelopes to a class of approximately 40 other
individuals residing in Texas.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), defendant filed a motion to
transfer venue from the present court to the Western District of
Texas.

Judge Gettleman granted defendant's motion and the venue is
transferred to the Western District of Texas.

A copy of Judge Gettleman' memorandum opinion and order dated
April 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/AIUdfgfrom
Leagle.com.

Robert Sickmann, Plaintiff, represented by:

Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
THOMASSON LAW, LLC
101 Hudson Street 21st Floor
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Telephone: 201-479-9969
Facsimile: 855-479-9969

     - and -

Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
Francis Richard Greene, Esq.
James O. Latturner, Esq.
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312-739-4200
Facsimile: 312-419-0379

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Justin M
Penn -- jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- Raven Elizabeth Burke --
rburke@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Magness" Suit Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Devin Magness, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A. and Walled Lake Credit
Bureau, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02402 (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz,Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


BERNARD L. MADOFF: 2nd Cir. Partially Revives Fund Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Russell-Kraft at Law360.com reports that the Second
Circuit has revived certain portions of a putative class action
brought by investors who allege a group of managers, consultants,
advisers, auditors and administrators mismanaged the funds they
fed into Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.  A three-judge panel for
the appellate court found that a lower court improperly tossed the
entire complaint of 28 class action claims in 2011 when it found
that some of them were precluded by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act, which preempts certain class actions that
bring state law.


BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls All-terrain Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bombardier Recreational Products, of Canada, announced a voluntary
recall of about 12,500 All-terrain vehicles (ATVs)

The youth ATVs fail to meet performance requirements of the
federal ATV standard for maximum unrestricted speed and parking
brakes, posing a crash hazard.

This recall is for model year 2008 through 2015 Can-Am Mini DS
ATVs. The recalled vehicles are youth model ATVs and have engines
sizes of 70 cubic centimeters and 90 cubic centimeters. They were
sold in the colors black and yellow. "Can-Am DS" and the engine
size is on both sides of the vehicle's fairing. "Can-Am" appears
in white letters on both sides of the seat.

Model year 2008 through 2014 DS 70 ATVs fail to meet requirements
pertaining to the unrestricted maximum speed of the vehicle. Model
year 2008 through 2015 DS 70 and DS 90 ATVs fail to meet
requirements pertaining to parking brakes.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/W3oepT

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Can-Am dealers nationwide from July 2007 through January 2015 for
between $1,800 and $2,800.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ATVs and
contact a BRP dealer to schedule a free repair. BRP is notifying
registered consumers directly.


BOULDER BRANDS: Facing Investor Class Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of
Colorado on behalf of investors who purchased Boulder Brands, Inc.
between December 23, 2013 and October 22, 2014.

The complaint alleges that Boulder Brands failed to disclose that
the Company was having problems with its inventory management and
the integration of recent acquisitions, and that the Company's
ongoing mix shift to lower margin products made its previously
announced margin improvements unattainable.

If you suffered a loss in Boulder Brands you have until June 1,
2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information,
contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email -- vw@wongesq.com --,
by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit
http://docs.wongesq.com/BDBD-Info-Request-Form-691.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.  Attorney advertising.  Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


BP PLC: Dutch Lobby Group Takes Legal Action Over Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dutch News reports that the Dutch investors' lobby group VEB is
taking legal action against British energy giant BP for misleading
Dutch investors in the wake of the 2010 oil disaster in the Gulf
of Mexico.

The organization says the legal action opens up the way to
compensation for Dutch investors because of the 'systematically
incorrect, inadequate and misleading pronouncements' made by BP
about its safety and maintenance programs ahead of the leak.

In addition, the complaint concerns misleading statements from BP
about the size of the leak after it happened, the VEB statement
says.

The leak was caused by a pipeline explosion under BP's Deepwater
Horizon oil platform.  Eleven workers died and millions of liters
of oil leaked into the gulf.  The misleading statements by BP led
the US regulator SEC to fine the company $525 million, the third
highest fine the organization has ever levied, the VEB says.

After the disaster, BP's share price plunged more than 48%.  The
VEB says the share price had been kept artificially high because
of misleading statements about the company's safety program.

BP is facing legal action from other BP shareholders in Canada and
the US.  Investors who did not buy their shares in BP via a US
institution have been ruled out of the American class action suit,
hence the VEB's campaign.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves Stipulations in "Coleman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of
California, Sacramento Division approved stipulations reached in
the case RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN
JR., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:90-CV-00520 KJM DAD PC (E.D. Cal.)


On January 30, 2015, the Special Master filed his report, as
required by the Court's April 10, 2014 order on the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR)
implementation of policies and procedures related to Rules
Violation Reports.  The report included four recommendations.

The parties met-and-conferred with the Special Master's team on
February 19, February 27, March 12, March 17, March 23, April 1,
and April 2, 2015, to discuss the Special Master's recommendations
and the RVR process. During the meet-and-confer process, the
parties, in coordination with the Special Master, made several
modifications to CDCR's RVR policies and procedures, in response
to the Special Master's Report.

The first recommendation in the report states: "CDCR shall
immediately end the practice of using inmate workers in any aspect
of the RVR process." The parties have agreed that CDCR will
eliminate the use of inmate workers in the RVR process entirely by
upgrading its Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS). CDCR
will implement this measure within 12 months from the date the
Court approves this Stipulation and Proposed Order, and will make
a good-faith effort to accelerate implementation.

In the interim, CDCR will not use inmate clerks in the RVR process
for inmates who receive RVRs while housed in a Mental Health
Crisis Bed, or in an inpatient program within a CDCR prison which
includes DSH-Stockton, Salinas Valley Psychiatric Program,
Vacaville Psychiatric Program, the San Quentin Psychiatric
Inpatient Program, and the California Institution for Women
Psychiatric Inpatient Program.

Also in the interim, for RVRs issued to any participant in the
Mental Health Services Delivery System, CDCR will not use inmate
clerks to type RVR hearing summaries or RVR dispositions, or file
or otherwise track completed RVRs. CDCR proposes to implement
these interim measures concurrently with the revised RVR policies
outlined above.

The second recommendation in the report states: "CDCR shall devise
an RVR quality improvement process for incorporation into its
Quality Improvement Tool (CQIT) and conduct regular quality
improvement reviews of the RVR process, including but not limited
to the staff training aspects of the RVR process, in all of its
institutions."

CDCR will revise its Continuous Quality Improvement Tool (CQIT) to
include a quality improvement process for RVRs and to conduct
regular RVR reviews.

The third recommendation in the report states: "Within 243 days,
CDCR shall implement, under the guidance of the Special Master,
its program of RVR mandatory initial and ongoing training/re-
training of all clinical and custody staff who are involved in the
RVR process."

CDCR will work with the Special Master to develop and implement
mandatory training on the revised policies and procedures outlined
above, for clinical and custody staff who are involved in the RVR
process. CDCR will implement these policies and procedures, and
training thereon, within the 243 day timeframe recommended by the
Special Master in the report.

The fourth recommendation in the report states: "Following the
243-day period for implementation of the staff training/re-
training program, the Special Master shall conduct a review of
staff training/re-training on the RVR process in all CDCR
institutions, and shall report to the Court on his findings no
later than 90 days after the completion of his review."

The parties agree that the Special Master will review and report
on CDCR's training on the revised policies and procedures.

Judge Mueller approved the stipulations and orders compliance with
its provisions.

A copy of Judge Mueller's stipulated response and order dated May
1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/bXnbPBfrom Leagle.com.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, PATRICK R.
MCKINNEY, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, ELISE OWENS THORN,
CHRISTINE M. CICCOTTI, Deputy Attorneys General, Sacramento, CA,
Attorneys for Defendants

MICHAEL W. BIEN -- mbien@rbgg.com -- at Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld LLP, Attorney for Plaintiffs


CANADA: Court Rejects Bid for Collusion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Peplowski, writing for CJAD, reports that the Supreme Court
of Canada has refused to hear the case of a Montreal man who
wanted to launch a class action lawsuit against a number of
engineering firms named in the Charbonneau Commission as having
taken part in a system of collusion involving municipal contracts.

Erik Charest said the suit would have been on behalf of all
citizens and small business owners who paid property taxes between
January 1998 and December 2010.  Charest had failed in his bid to
seek a class action lawsuit in Superior Court last May.

The decision was upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeal last
November.  The final report of the Charbonneau Commission is due
at the end of November.


CELESTICA INC: July 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Lead Counsel Labaton
Sucharow LLP regarding the In re Celestica Inc. Securities
Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE CELESTICA INC. SEC. LITIG.

Civil Action No.:  07-CV-00312-GBD

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF CELESTICA INC. ON A UNITED STATES STOCK EXCHANGE DURING
THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 27, 2005 AND JANUARY 30, 2007,
INCLUSIVE , AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that New Orleans
Employees' Retirement System and Drywall Acoustic Lathing and
Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves, Lead
Plaintiffs, and the Class, on the one hand, and Celestica, Stephen
W. Delaney, and Anthony P. Puppi, on the other hand, have reached
a proposed Settlement in the above-captioned action in the amount
of $30,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims
in the Action.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable George B. Daniels of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007-1312 at 10:00 a.m. on
July 28, 2015 to, among other things, determine whether: (1) the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated April 17, 2015; (3) the proposed Plan of
Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount and any
interest thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees, Notice and
Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or
expenses approved by the Court should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (4) the application of Class Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses should be
approved.  The Court may change the date of the hearing without
providing another notice.  You do NOT need to attend the
Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
NET SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet received the full Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim
and Release form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting its website:

In re Celestica Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10180
Dublin, OH 43017-3180
(888) 345-0866
www.celesticasecuritieslitigation.com
info@celesticasecuritieslitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the aforementioned documents or
for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to
Class Counsel:

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
James W. Johnson, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
(888) 219-6877
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim postmarked or received no later than September 17, 2015.
If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Proof
of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than July 7,
2015.  If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from
the Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses
must be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice, such that they are received
no later than July 7, 2015 and filed with the Court no later than
July 7, 2015.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE,
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CLASS COUNSEL AT THE ADDRESS
LISTED ABOVE.

DATED: June 1, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


CENTURY MORTGAGE: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss "Back" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Greg N. Stivers of the Western District of Kentucky
denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case NATALIE BACK, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. CENTURY MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-00173-GNH-HBB (W.D. Ky.)

Plaintiffs Natalie Back, John Hishmeh, and Heather Walker filed a
collective and class action complaint alleging that defendant
Century Mortgage Company had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, and the Kentucky Wages and
Hours Act, KRS 337.010-337.994. Plaintiffs allege that Century
failed to pay loan mortgage officers and loan processors overtime
compensation when they had worked in excess of 40 hours in a week,
failed to pay loan mortgage officers minimum wage or greater,
misclassified loan mortgage officers as exempt from provisions of
the FLSA governing minimum wages and overtime compensation, and
failed to record accurately and preserve records of hours worked
by employees.

Century filed a motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions and
motion in the alternative to place the case in abeyance pending
the final ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Perez v.
MBA.

Judge Stivers denied defendant's motion to dismiss.  A copy of
Judge Stivers memorandum opinion and order dated April 28, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/lPgxxZfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Matthew James Baker
911 College St
Bowling Green, KY 42101
Telephone: 270-746-2385

Century Mortgage Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey W.
Kibbey


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
FreshPlaza.com reports that a class action lawsuit was filed
against a large banana company for multiple reasons including the
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California
Unfair Competition Law and false advertising.

The banana company describes itself as socially and
environmentally responsible on their website.  However, at the
Guatemalan plantation, they are spraying pesticides that are
contaminating local water sources and causing illness to the
surrounding communities.

Lincoln Bandlow has experience in a similar case.  Regarding this
case, he said that there will be a battle to prevent class
certification.

Bandlow commented, "One of the things they may say is that the
statements [on the company website] are essentially puffery and
not definitive assertions of environmental impact.  The law on
material omissions is more difficult and sticky."

"They'll have to show that the facts would have made a material
difference in the mind of a reasonable person," he added, "but the
company will argue every consumer's experience is different and
there is not enough commonality of issue."


CHRISTMAS ISLAND: Lawyers May Access Center Ahead of Demolition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Farrell, writing for The Guardian, reports that lawyers for
asylum seekers who were held on Christmas Island are set to gain
unprecedented access to the detention center after a judge ordered
any demolition plans in the island be halted.

Justice Stephen Kaye in the Victorian Supreme Court ordered that
the federal government be restrained from demolishing any
buildings on Christmas Island, after it emerged the government had
planned to knock down some disused detention facilities.

The class action -- which is being led by the law firm Maurice
Blackburn -- has as its lead plaintiff a young girl who was held
in detention and is making a range of claims relating to medical
concerns, the impact of being held in detention and the quality of
care received there.

The lawyers will argue that the federal government breached its
duty of care to the girl and other asylum seekers held in the
center, which caused them serious physical and psychological harm.

A copy of the order made on April 15, seen by Guardian Australia,
granted the asylum seekers' legal team access to the Phosphate
Hill Alternative Place of Detention, Construction Camp Alternative
Place of Detention, the Lilac Alternative Place of Detention and
the Christmas Island Detention Centre.

The judge ruled that Lilac must not be demolished before May 1, or
until it had been inspected by the plaintiff's lawyers.  The order
said the commonwealth must "take all reasonable steps to
facilitate the solicitors for the plaintiff" to speak to personnel
on the island.  The solicitors cannot disclose any inspection
evidence to people not involved in the trial, and must destroy any
evidence gathered from the inspection on completion of the trial.

The government can appoint two officers to escort them on the
island, and may only decline them access to parts of the centre
where asylum seekers currently live when it would be an
"unreasonable intrusion on the privacy" of the detainees.

Jacob Varghese, a principal at Maurice Blackburn's class action
department, said a trial was set to go ahead in August.

"This is a sad incident in Australian history and it is important
in this case, and important for the nation in some sense, that we
keep a good record of what happens there so we can make sure it
doesn't happen in the future," he said.

"We became concerned that because a lot of people have been moved
off Christmas Island that the government might make a move to make
another use for those facilities, so we wanted to do what we could
to preserve the state of that evidence.

"We're interested in documenting the facilities that are there and
how appropriate they are for children in particular.

"If these centers are demolished it would be very hard to go back
in and create a record of what the conditions were like."

The visit to the detention center was to allow lawyers to survey
the center for four consecutive days.

Serco and International Health and Medical Services have been
joined in the proceedings along with the commonwealth.


COLORADO: Pro Se Litigant May Amend Complaint v. Parole Board
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the District of Colorado
directed plaintiff to amend his complaint in the case MICHAEL L.
THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. STEVE HAGER, Colorado's division of Adult
Parole; WALT PESTERFIELD; BRANDON SCHAFER, Colorado Board of
Parole; RICK RAEMISCH, Colorado's Department of Corrections, Exec.
Dir.; WILSON, Sheriff, Denver Sheriffs Department; BECKY LUCERO,
Former Parole Bd. Dir.; TIM HAND, Former Parole Bd. Dir.; GARY
PACHECO, Community Parole Officer (CPO); MICHELLE ANDERSON, CPO;
WES ALLEN, CPO; MARK YURKEY, CPO; MELISSA GALARDO, CPO Supervisor;
BEVERLY GRAHAM, AVCF Case Manager; MARY CARELSON, Time Computation
Super.; ARISTEDAS ZAVARES, Former Executive Director; RICK
RAEMISCH, Exec. Dir.; JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General; MICHELLE
GELLER, Assistant Attorney General; JOHN/JANE DOE'S, Community
Parole Officer; 2 CPO JOHN DOE'S; FORMER DIV. HEAD JOHN/JANE DOE;
FORMER WARDEN OF DRDC JOHN/JANE DOE; and JOHN/JANE DOE, Former
Denver Sheriff, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-CV-00602-GPG (D.
Colo.)

On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff Michael L. Thompson filed a complaint
and a motion and affidavit for leave to proceed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915. On March 26, 2016, Plaintiff was granted
leave to proceed pursuant to Section 1915.

Magistrate Judge Gallagher finds that the complaint does not meet
the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P.8., and directed plaintiff to
file within 30 days from the date of the order, an amended
complaint and shall obtain the court-approved complaint form at
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov

A copy of Judge Gallagher's order dated April 27, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/igebyOfrom Leagle.com.

Michael L. Thompson, Plaintiff, Pro Se


COOPER VISION: Faces "Khanna" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaurav Khanna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch
+ Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB optical
Group, Case No. 0:15-cv-61084-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose
minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting
them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate
price competition on those products by big box stores, buying
clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from
discounting those products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 515-0123
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com


CYCLING SPORTS: Recalls Mountain Bicycles Due to Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cycling Sports Group Inc., of Wilton, Conn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 160 GT downhill mountain bicycles. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The front wheel hub can break and cause the disc brake system to
fail, posing crash and injury hazards to the consumer.

his recall involves all 2015 model year GT Fury Elite and GT Fury
Expert downhill mountain bicycles. The recalled 2015 Fury Elite
model is white with blue and red accents. The recalled 2015 Fury
Expert model is metallic grey with lime green accents. The
bicycles have front and rear disc brakes and come with rear shock
absorbers and front suspensions. "Fury" is printed on the top
tube, the GT logo is on the down tube and the chainstay. The model
names are printed in small letters on the top tube of the bicycles
near the word Fury.

Cycling Sports Group has received two reports of broken hubs. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/X3agWL

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Authorized GT dealers from November 2014 to March 2015 for between
$3200 and $4400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
return them to the nearest authorized GT dealer to have the
complete front wheel replaced free of charge.


DANOS AND CUROLE: Judge Grants Conditional Cert. in FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carl J. Barbier of the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted plaintiffs' motions for conditional
certification in the case CASE v. DANOS AND CUROLE MARINE
CONTRACTORS, L.L.C., Section "J" (2), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2775,
NO. C/W 14-2976 (E.D. La.)

Following the B.P. oil spill, Danos and Curole Marine Contractors,
L.L.C. contracted with B.P. to provide various employees,
including Vessel Inspectors and Safety Technicians, to assist with
the clean-up efforts.

Plaintiffs Jason Case and Lisa Bragg asserted that they assisted
in these efforts as a salaried and non-exempt Vessel Inspector and
Safety Technician, respectively. Both plaintiffs allege that Danos
failed to pay them and other similarly situated individuals the
proper overtime wages, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Plaintiffs allege that these groups of workers, the Vessel
Inspectors and Safety Technicians, were working far in excess of
forty hours per week, and that Danos unlawfully deprived them of
proper overtime compensation. As a result, plaintiffs seek unpaid
back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Case filed his complaint on behalf of himself and other Vessel
Inspector employees and former employees similarly situated on
December 8, 2014, while Bragg filed her complaint on behalf of
herself and other Safety Technician employees and former employees
similarly situated on December 30, 2014.

The Court consolidated the matters on January 13, 2015. Both
plaintiffs subsequently filed motions to certify Class, which the
court denied as premature on February 25, 2015.

Plaintiffs then filed motions for conditional certification of the
collective actions and authorization, under court supervision, for
notice to all similarly situated employees who were employed by
Danos. Specifically, plaintiffs request court authorization for:
"(1) defendant to provide plaintiffs with a list of all similarly
situated hourly paid Vessel Inspectors and Safety Technicians
within the last three years; (2) to send the proposed
"Notification" letter to all similarly situated employees
nationwide; and (3) to send the proposed "Notice of Consent to
Join" form, which similarly situated employees can complete, sign,
and file with the court."

Judge Barbier granted the motions for conditional certification
and for order permitting court-supervised notice.  The
conditionally-certified class in Civil Action No. 14-2775 shall be
defined as: "Individuals who were day-rate paid Vessel Inspector
employees at any time during the three years preceding December 8,
2014, and who were subjected to Defendant's practice of failing to
pay full and proper time and one half overtime compensation for
all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek."

The conditionally-certified class in Civil Action No. 14-2976
shall be defined as: "Individuals who were salaried Safety
Technician employees at any time during the three years preceding
December 30, 2014, and who were subjected to Defendant's practice
of failing to pay full and proper time and one half overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a
workweek."

Defendant were given through and including May 18, 2015, to
produce the full names, last known addresses, telephone numbers,
and email addresses of all potential class members, in both paper
and electronic form accessible by Microsoft Office Suite.

A copy of Judge Barbier' order and reasons dated May 4, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/JxTsYrfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Virginia Lynn LoCoco, Esq.
Anthony LoCoco, Esq.
LOCOCO & LOCOCO, PA
10243 Central Avenue
D'Iberville, MS 39540
Telephone: 228-392-3799

     - and -

Andrew Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
188 East Capitol St., Suite 777
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: 601-949-3388

Defendants, represented by Leslie A. Lanusse --
leslie.lanusse@arlaw.com -- Lauren L. Tafaro --
lauren.tafaro@arlaw.com -- at Adams & Reese, LLP


DENSO CORP: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Power Window Motors
-------------------------------------------------------
Ifeoma Adams, et al., and all other similarly situated v. DENSO
Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-11868-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.,
May 22, 2015), asserts that the Defendants entered into an
agreement, combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate the market and customers
in the United States for Power Window Motors.

DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Kariya, Japan. DENSO through its subsidiaries
manufactured, marketed, and sold Power Window Motors that were
purchased throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Adam T. Schnatz, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
      E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
              ats@millerlawpc.com

         - and -

      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: fdamrell@cpmlegal.com
              swilliams@cpmlegal.com
              azapala@cpmlegal.com
              etran@cpmlegal.com

         - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Bernard Persky, Esq.
      William V. Reiss, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
      E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
              BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com
              WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com

         - and -

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
              ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      901 Main Street, Suite 5100
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 754-1900
      Facsimile: (214)754-1933
      E-mail: toxford@susmangodfrey.com


DEUTER USA: Recalls S1+ Avalanche Transceivers
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Deuter USA, of Longmont, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of
about 3,000ORTOVOX S1+ Avalanche Transceiver. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The S1+ hardware can fail, resulting in an inability to transmit a
discoverable signal during an emergency situation, even as the
unit appears to be powered on and functioning properly.

The ORTOVOX S1+ transceiver is used as a beacon to locate an
individual in the event of avalanche burial. The flip-case design
transceiver is black with green accent stripes on the top sides.
ORTOVOX and S1+ are printed on the top of the device. In the
open/receive position the top half of the transceiver displays a
blue screen with green border that displays an image and distance
reading of the buried individual. The transceivers measure about 5
inches long by 3 inches wide by 1 inch thick in the
closed/transmit position. All transceivers manufactured from 2010
through 2014 are included in the recall. The manufacture date is
printed inside the battery door on the back of the transceiver
with a roman numeral representing the quarter of the year and a
two digit number referring to the year.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/3uNhjX

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold at
Outdoor specialty retailers, ski shops and directly nationwide
from July 2010 through April 2015 for about $490.

Consumers should stop using the recalled S1+ transceiver beacons
immediately and return them to ORTOVOX for a free repair.


DL MITCHELL: "Baldock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Ragan Lee Baldock and Ryan Ross v. DL Mitchell Landscaping, Inc.
and David L. Mitchell, Case No. 2:15-cv-00160-J (N.D. Tex., May
22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in landscaping business or services for
commerce in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip R. Russ, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PHILIP R RUSS
      2700 S Western, Suite 1200
      Amarillo, TX 79109
      Telephone: (806) 358-9293
      Facsimile: (806) 358-9296
      E-mail: philiprruss@russlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jerry Dan McLaughlin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JERRY DAN MCLAUGHLIN
      2700 S. Western, Suite 1000
      Amarillo, TX 79109
      Telephone: (806) 371-9110
      Facsimile: (806) 373-9029
      E-mail: jmclaw@suddenlinkmail.com


EBAY INC: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Green" Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susie Morgan of the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case COLLIN GREEN,
Plaintiff, v. EBAY INC., Defendant Section: "E" (4), CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-1688 (E.D. La.)

eBay is a global e-commerce website that enables its over 120
million active users to buy and sell in an online marketplace. In
its normal course of business, eBay maintains personal information
of its users, including names, encrypted passwords, dates of
birth, email addresses, physical addresses, and phone numbers.

In February and March 2014, a data breach occurred and unknown
persons accessed eBay's files containing user information. On May
21, 2014, eBay notified its users of the data breach and
recommended that users change their passwords.

Plaintiff Collin Green filed a consumer privacy putative class
action against eBay on behalf of himself and all eBay users in the
United States whose personal information was accessed during the
Data Breach. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate
result of eBay's conduct, plaintiff and the putative class members
have suffered economic damages, actual identity theft, as well as
(i) improper disclosures of their personal information; (ii) out-
of-pocket expenses incurred to mitigate the increased risk of
identity theft and/or identity fraud due to eBay's failures; (iii)
the value of their time spent mitigating identity theft and/or
identity fraud, and/or the increased risk of identity theft and/or
identity fraud; (iv) and deprivation of the value of their
personal information. The class action complaint asserts federal
causes of action under the Federal Stored Communications Act, Fair
Credit Reporting Act, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and several state
law causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract,
and violation of state privacy laws.

eBay moved to dismiss the class action complaint pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Judge Morgan granted defendant's motion to dismiss and the class
action complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Morgan's order and reasons dated May 4, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/ZuclZ3from Leagle.com.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Kenmore Elite Slide-In Ranges
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Electrolux Home Products Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,300 Sears Kenmore Elite slide-in
ranges. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The stainless steel trim below the range control panel can have a
sharp edge, posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Sears Kenmore Elite stainless steel slide-in
gas, electric and dual-fuel ranges with the following model and
serial numbers. The model and serial numbers are located on the
inside frame of the range door on the left side. Kenmore Elite is
printed on the front of the oven door.

  Type        Model           Serial Numbers
  ----        -----           --------------
  Gas         790.32623xxx    AF41500007 - AF44902220
              790.32633xxx    AF41600811 - AF45004453
              790.32643xxx    AF41601928 - AF45003625
  Electric    790.42553xxx    AF41602002 - AF45006133
              790.42563xxx    AF42002743 - AF45005533
              790.42623xxx    AF42801297 - AF45000612
  Dual Fuel   790.42603xxx    AF40602184 - AF45004329
              790.42613xxx    AF42500541 - AF45003409

One consumer reported being cut by a sharp edge on the stainless
steel trim below the range control panel and required stitches.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Sears stores nationwide from May 2014 through April 2015 for
between $2,400 and $3,700.

Consumers should immediately contact Sears for a free inspection
and free repair.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Kenmore Elite Dual Fuel Ranges
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Electrolux Home Products Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 250 Sears Kenmore Elite dual fuel
ranges. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The burner flame can go out while the gas is turned on. This can
allow gas to escape and poses fire and burn hazards.

This recall involves Sears Kenmore stainless steel slide-in ranges
with gas cooktops and electric ovens. Model number 790.42603xxx
with serial numbers ranging from AF42500601 through AF43000916 and
model number 790.42613xxx with serial numbers ranging from
AF42500541 through AF43103647 are included. The model and serial
numbers are located on the inside frame of the range door on the
left side. Kenmore Elite is printed on the front of the oven door.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/I4fvBJ

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Sears stores nationwide from June 2014 through October 2014 for
between $3,200 and $3,700.

Consumers should immediately stop using the ranges and contact
Sears for a free inspection and free repair.


ESPAR INC: Faces Davidson Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Davidson Transfer, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Espar, Inc. and Espar Products Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-03005-WFK-CLP (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015), alleges that
from at least October 1, 2007 through at least December 31, 2012,
the Defendants and their co-conspirators inflated the price for
air and coolant parking heaters sold aftermarket for use in
commercial vehicles.

Espar, Inc. and Espar Products Inc. are sister corporations that
directly and through its affiliates corporations, sold Parking
Heaters in the United States for commercial use in the
aftermarket.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 201-6820
      Facsimile: (646) 219-6678
      E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              dnordin@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Simon B. Paris, Esq.
      Patrick Howard, Esq.
      SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENEDESKY, P.C.
      1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-8282
      Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
      E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
              phoward@smbb.com

         - and -

      Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
      GRIES LENHARDT MICHENFELDER ALLEN P.L.L.P.
      12725 43rd Street NE, Suite 201
      St. Michael, Minnesota 55376
      Telephone: (763) 497-3099
      Facsimile: (763) 497-3639
      E-mail: pat@glmalaw.com


EVERLOOP INC: Swindler Blames Syracuse-Area Financial Advisor
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that a man accused
of running a massive Ponzi scheme blamed a Syracuse-area man for a
failed Internet company that may have cost local investors
thousands of dollars.

Gregory Gray, of Buffalo, told Syracuse.com that Andrew Russo, a
former state Senate candidate, was the chief financial officer of
Everloop Inc. before the company failed.

"He was the CFO," Mr. Gray said.  "He worked for the company. We
were investors in the company.  He worked day-to-day with
Everloop, every single day for a minimum of a year."

Mr. Gray, 39, who grew up in the Syracuse area, was charged with
securities fraud and perjury in connection with an alleged Ponzi-
like scheme that defrauded $5 million from an investor in Uber
Technologies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is suing Gray and his
business, Archipel Capital, saying they "engaged in blatant Ponzi-
type conduct."

Mr. Gray said that Russo and his friend, Onondaga County
Legislature Chairman Ryan McMahon, worked on their own to recruit
some Syracuse-area people to invest in Everloop, a company that
marketed itself as Facebook for children.

"Andy Russo was the CFO," Mr. Gray said.  "He brought some of
those investors directly into Everloop, bypassing us."

Mr. McMahon "was the one bringing the investors, along with Russo,
through other entities without me knowing about some," Mr. Gray
said.

Mr. Russo, a concert pianist who unsuccessfully ran for state
Senate in 2010, said Mr. Gray's past should be considered when
assessing his credibility.

"Greg Gray stands accused of perjury," Mr. Russo said.  "Greg Gray
is very comfortable not telling the truth.  I would ask people to
consider that when they listen to anything he is willing to say."

Mr. Russo and Mr. Gray went to school together in the Syracuse
area and played Little League on the same team.  Mr. Russo was one
of the investors in Everloop, along with Prufrock Ventures, in
which he and McMahon were partners, according to court records.

Mr. Gray also noted that another prominent Central New Yorker,
former NFL star Tim Green, was a paid advisor to Archipel and was
responsible for getting the NFL involved in Everloop.

Mr. Green, who is also an author and lawyer, was supposed to use
his connections to get the NFL and his publisher involved in
Everloop.

"Tim Green made a boatload of money," Mr. Gray said.  He would not
say how much.

Mr. Green, who invested $100,000 in Everloop, could not be reached
for comment.

Mr. Gray also blamed Everloop's chief executive officer, Hilary
DeCesare, for the company's failure.

"The CEO couldn't close business," he said.  "When we get teams on
board and she can't bring users on after we get those brands
involved, that's not our job to do business development."

Everloop was the only business Archipel invested in that's not
done well, Gray said.

"Everloop was the only bad investment we had," he said.

The SEC lawsuit alleges that starting in 2011, Mr. Gray and his
company were commingling funds between Archipel's entities as
needed, using nearly $20 million from at least 140 investors
across the country.  Among the SEC's allegations was that Mr. Gray
received $650,000 from Everloop in a settlement with the company
last year.  Mr. Gray used $350,000 of that settlement to pay
investors to give them their expected return on their investment,
the lawsuit said.

Instead of disbursing all of that settlement money, Mr. Gray in
late June transferred $350,000 of it to the people who had
invested in Twitter, to give them their expected return on
investment, the SEC lawsuit said.

The SEC lawsuit accused Mr. Gray of soliciting $5.2 million in
investments for 230,000 shares of Twitter before it went public,
when he had only bought 80,000 Twitter shares by the time of its
initial public offering in November 2013.

Mr. Gray said that all the investors received the Twitter shares
they'd paid for.  Russo and at least 17 other people who invested
in Everloop and other businesses through Gray and his company are
expected to file a class-action lawsuit.


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: June 16 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until June 16, 2015 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against ForceField Energy
Inc. if they purchased the Company's securities between the
expanded period of September 16, 2013 through April 15, 2015,
inclusive.  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of ForceField and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by June 16, 2015.

About the Lawsuit

ForceField and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

These false statements and omissions included, in part, that:
(ii) articles issued by independent authors touting ForceField
were promoters ForceField paid; and (ii) ForceField's management
reviewed these articles before publication.

On April 15, 2015, Seeking Alpha published an article accusing
ForceField of previously paying the now-shuttered stock promotion
firm The DreamTeam Group to conduct a misleading campaign designed
to boost ForceField's stock price in which the Company paid
DreamTeam to publish purportedly independent, positive reports on
the Company.

On this news, the price of ForceField's shares plummeted by over
21%.

                   About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

To learn more about KSF, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., and other
lawyers with significant experience litigating complex securities
class actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and
individual shareholders.


GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls Cohort Folding Knives
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gerber Legendary Blades of Portland, Oregon, announced a voluntary
recall of about 150,000 Cohort Folding Knife in the United States
and 11,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The locking mechanism can fail to hold the blade, posing a
laceration hazard.

The Cohort is an open frame folding clip knife with either a black
or dark gray anodized aluminum handle. The tail end of the handle
includes a lanyard hole. When the knife blade is fully extended,
it is held in the open position with a liner lock function. When
fully extended, the overall length of the knife is about 7 inches.
When closed, the knife measures about 4 inches. The knife blade is
3 inches long, weighs less than 3 ounces and has the Gerber "sword
and shield" trademark in silver on the non-clip side of the blade.
The Gerber name appears on the knife clip. The following models
are being recalled. Model numbers can be found underneath the UPC
barcode on the lower right corner on the rear of the hanging
blister packaging. For box packaging, the model number is found on
the bottom of the box.

  Gerber Model Numbers
  --------------------
  30-000645N      31-002488NDIP
  31-001714N      31-002722HDN
  31-001714NDIP   31-002885HDN
  31-001715N      31-002885HDQP
  31-002488N

  Home Depot SKU Numbers
  ----------------------
  1000044211      1000246978

A product date code appears on the blade, beneath the thumb stud,
on the clip side of the knife. The last figure in the code is a
letter, and the recall applies to all Cohort knives with the
letters "E" and "F."

Gerber received six reports of laceration injuries, two of which
required stitches.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass
Pro Shops, Cabela's, Home Depot, other retailers nationwide and
online at www.gerbergear.com and other online sporting goods
stores from January 2013 through March 2015 for about $30.

Consumers should stop using the knife and contact Gerber for a
replacement.


GRATUS HOLDING: "Velsher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boris Velsher, Carlos Montoya and other similarly situated
individuals v. Gratus Holding LLC and Rodolfo Gomez, Case No.
0:15-cv-61085-WJZ (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREAT STATES CORP: Recalls Electric Lawn Mowers Over Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Great States Corporation, of Shelbyville, Ind., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,200ordless 17-inch electric lawn
mower. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The mower can start when the key is not in the starting position,
posing an injury hazard to the user.

This recall involves Earthwise cordless electric push lawn mowers
with a 17-inch mowing deck. The recalled mowers have a silver
motor housing and deck with a side discharge chute, a black
foldable handle and a bright green bail lever, height adjustment
lever and handle knobs. The mowers have a 24-volt removable,
rechargeable battery. Brand name "Earthwise" and "17" appear on
the front of the mowers. Model number 60517 is on the name plate
on the back of the motor cover.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/52ImTN

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Menards stores, Seventh Avenue catalogs and online at
PowerSales.com and SeventhAvenue.com from January 2014 to May 2014
for about $250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled electric
mowers, remove the battery and contact Great States Corporation
for a replacement mower.


GULLIVER'S TAVERN: "Levi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Levi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v.  Gulliver's Tavern, Incorporated, Solid Gold Properties, Inc.,
Thomas Tsoumas, and Patricia Tsoumas, all d/b/a The Foxy Lady,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00216 (D.R.I., May 23, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a strip club located in Providence,
Rhode Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq.
      BIANCHI & BROUILLARD, P.C.
      56 Pine Street, Suite 250
      Providence, RI 02903
      Telephone: (401) 223 - 2990
      Facsimile: (877) 548 - 4539
      E-mail: sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com

         - and -

      Brant Casavant, Esq.
      Stephen Churchill, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (617) 607 - 3261
      Facsimile: (617) 488 - 2261
      E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
              brant@fairworklaw.com


HANKYU EXPRESS: 9 Japanese Firms Settle Suit for $100MM
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Bultman at Law360.com reports that nine Japanese
corporations and their subsidiaries have agreed to pay $100
million to exit an antitrust class action alleging a conspiracy
among freight companies to fix prices on their services, according
to a filing in New York federal court.  In a motion seeking
preliminary approval of the deal, class members said the
settlement would end all claims against a group that includes
Hankyu Express International Co., Nippon Express Co. Ltd. and K
Line Logistics Ltd.


HARDEMAN COUNTY, TN: Inmate's Bid for Counsel, Class Cert. Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Todd of the Western District of Tennessee,
Eastern Division, denied plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel and for class certification in the case KENNETH L. STOREY,
Plaintiff, v. DERRICK SCHOFIELD, ET AL., Defendants, NO. 14-1098-
JDT-EGB (W. Tenn.)

On April 24, 2014, plaintiff, Kenneth L. Storey, an inmate at the
Hardeman County Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee,
filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
accompanied by motions seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and the appointment of counsel.

The court issued an order on April 28, 2014 granting leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and assessing the civil filing fee
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections
1915(a)-(b).

Aside from his motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff also
asked the court for class certification.

Judge Todd denied plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel
and for class certification, expressing that plaintiff has not
satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the court should
exercise its discretion to appoint counsel in this case.

A copy of Judge Todd's order dated March 30, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/q3zyhHfrom Leagle.com.

Kenneth L. Storey, Plaintiff, Pro Se


HARVESTPRO AND SMITH: Truckers Consider Legal Action
----------------------------------------------------
Imran Ali, writing for The Northern Advocate, reports that
Whangarei-based trucking companies owed nearly $200,000 by two
failed logging firms are demanding a meeting with directors of
both businesses.  They are also calling for more detailed
financial information -- and some answers.

The non-secured creditors throughout the country have not ruled
out a class action against HarvestPro and Smith and Davies New
Zealand to recover $1.7 million they are owed.

Seven Northland trucking companies are owed $192,916.

The logging firms -- both 100 per cent-owned subsidiaries of Kiwi
Forestry International -- owe about $26million to secured and non-
secured creditors.

Directors Andrew Chalmers and Zane Cleaver have proposed to pay
non-secured creditors 20 cents for every dollar of debt as a full
and final settlement to be paid within 20 working days of its
approval.

Whangarei trucker Simon Reid, who is owed $25,107, has written to
both companies on behalf of the creditors.  He expressed bitter
disappointment at the failure of the companies to provide
financial information.

"We have been asked to sustain a significant loss on the basis of
flawed information and procedures," he said in a letter to Brent
Hempel, who has been appointed by the board to facilitate the
proposal.

Mr. Reid pointed to alleged flaws in the proposal and the way any
postal ballot, which would determine whether they would accept the
20 per cent payment, was conducted.  He said voting papers that
were circulated to non-secured creditors gave a short response
time and the results of the postal ballot were not available more
than one week after voting closed.  After having received
professional advice from an experienced chartered accountant who
specialized in insolvency matters, Mr. Reid said it was doubtful
the directors' proposal met the criteria laid down in the
Companies' Act.

"It is our right to know why the business has failed and where the
assets have gone.

"Many of us believe there is more equity in the plant and
equipment than we are being led to believe and we consider it
appropriate that the directors front up and provide full and frank
disclosures of why the business is in the state it is, what has
happened to the money and why we should be asked to take such a
substantial discount," he said.

Mr. Reid warned the directors the issue would not go away and the
creditors were considering options, including the involvement of a
liquidator and legal action.  Neither the board of directors nor
Mr Hempel responded to written questions by edition time.


HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES: Gas Station Coupons Not Gift Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Lawyer reports that after more than three years of
wrangling, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has rendered its
verdict: under Minnesota law, gas station car wash coupons are not
gift certificates.

In its second whack at the case, the appeals court affirmed the
district court's dismissal of a class action brought by Donald
Wells, a Blaine man who sued after purchasing a $7.99 car wash
coupon at a Holiday gas station that included an expiration date.
Wells claimed that violated a provision of 2007 consumer
protection law that bars the use of expiration dates on gift
cards.

After the district court granted a motion to dismiss, Wells
appealed and the appeals court remanded based "on the limited
record."  Following discovery, the district court again dismissed,
and this time the appeals court affirmed the decision.

In an 11-page decision that included linguistic minutiae involving
distinctions between the dictionary definition of the word "value"
and its use in the statute, Judge Michael Kirk took note of one
seemingly salient point that was raised during discovery: Under
Holiday's policy, customers with "expired" car wash coupons can
still present their coupons to the cashier and get a new car wash
code or a cash refund.  So why include the 30-day expiration date?
As it turns out, Kirk wrote, the use of expiration dates is
designed "to prevent a practice called 'jackpotting,' which is
when an individual randomly punches numbers into the code box to
try to obtain a free car wash."

Attorney Susan Coler said she has yet to discuss the ruling with
her client, whom she described as an ordinary citizen who sued out
of principle.  But despite the apparently low stakes involved,
Coler said the court's decision effectively undermines the
consumer protections.

"Under this court's interpretation of statute, if you go to ma and
pa nail salon, get a hand written gift certificate with an
expiration date, that would be just fine," she ventured.  "It will
eliminate a lot of the common paper forms of gift certificate."


HEALTH CANADA: June 11 & 12 Hearings on Cert. Bid in Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri Borden Colley, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports
that lawyers will go before a Federal Court judge in Halifax in
June to ask the court to certify a proposed class action on behalf
of 40,000 medical marijuana users whose privacy was breached by
Health Canada in 2013.  There are 2,105 Nova Scotia class members
in the case.

A confidentiality order protects the real names of the two lead
plaintiffs, a Nova Scotia man who works as a health-care
professional and an Ottawa woman who works in the legal field.  In
court documents, they are identified under the pseudonyms John Doe
and Suzie Jones.

June 11 and 12 have been set aside for the certification hearing.

The week of Nov. 18, 2013, Health Canada sent letters to about
40,000 people authorized under the Marijuana Medical Access
Program to acquire the drug for medical use or who were licensed
to grow it.  The mail-out had the name of the program and the
participants' names in clear view on the envelope.

Health Canada said it was an administrative error.  Before that,
all correspondence sent by Health Canada in relation to the
program was sent in plain envelopes and did not have sender
information or use the word marijuana.

"As soon as it was discovered, my phone started ringing off the
hook with individuals who were very upset that Health Canada had,
from what I understand, deviated from their previous standard
practice of corresponding with members of the Marijuana Medical
Access Program," David Fraser, of the Halifax law firm McInnes
Cooper, said in an interview.

"And the reason why people were very upset was because this
exposed their name and their connection with the Marijuana Medical
Access Program not only, for example, to Canada Post but also to
their neighbors in some small communities.

"We've heard a number of cases where the individual piece of mail
was misdirected and went to the neighbor's house.  This is very
sensitive, private information."

Three other law firms, one in British Columbia and two in Ontario,
are also handling the case.  The lawsuit alleges Health Canada was
negligent, careless and reckless in sending out the mailing.  None
of the allegations have been tested in court.  The government has
not yet filed a defense.

Since the lawsuit was filed in November 2013, the Federal Privacy
Commissioner concluded an investigation that found Health Canada
violated the Privacy Act, Fraser said.  The irony, he said, is
that Health Canada had sent the letters to permit holders because
it was changing the program, as the then-current version exposed
people to safety concerns like violent home invasions.

"So in the process of telling individuals that they were subject
to these risks, they, in fact, created those risks," Fraser said.

Some of his clients have stopped growing marijuana and storing the
plants in their homes and had to significantly increase security
at their properties because of the breach, he said.

The plaintiffs are seeking various damages.


HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Illegally Sells Subcribers Info, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Boelter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hearst Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03934-AT (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2015), arises from the Defendant's
unlawful practice of selling its subscribers' personal
information, myriad other personal, lifestyle, and demographic
information to data miners and other third parties without the
written consent of its customers.

Hearst Communications, Inc. is an international media company that
publishes over 300 magazines throughout the world, including
widely circulated magazines such as Country Living, Harper's
Bazaar, Cosmopolitan, Esquire, Good Housekeeping, Redbook,
Seventeen, and 0, the Oprah Magazine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      Email: scott@bursor.com
             jmarchese@bursor.com
             pfraietta@bursor.com


HEWITT MACHINE: Recalls Chain Driven Winches Due to Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hewitt Machine & Manufacturing Inc., of Nicollet, Minn., announced
a voluntary recall of about 1,700 chain driven winches. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The top and bottom roller chains in the winch can break, causing
the winch and marine lift to fail. This can pose an injury hazard
to the user or bystander.

This recall includes Hewitt Machine & Manufacturing winches with
model number 1501, 2001 and 2501 printed on the front label of the
product. The winches can be used in various marine lifts. The
products are silver, metal and measure 21 inches high by 12 inches
wide by 8 inches deep. Recalled winches were manufactured December
2013 through September 2014 and have a date code in the MM YY
format stamped on the front right side of the product.

There have been six incidents of the roller chains breaking in the
recalled winch housing. No injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at
Independent boat and watersport dealers nationwide and
internationally and online at buyhewitt.com from April 2014
through October 2014 for about $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled winches and
contact Hewitt Machine & Manufacturing or their local dealer to
arrange for a free replacement of the roller chains.


HMSHOST CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Liles & Frank Crump v. HMSHost Corporation and Host
International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00935 (D. Ariz., May 22,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the
Plaintiffs overtime for hours above 40 that they worked in a
workweek.

The Defendants manage and oversee the operations of food and
beverage concessions at numerous United States airports and other
travel facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Michael H. Reed, Esq.
      KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
              jeff@klafterolsen.com
              fran@klafterolsen.com
              michael.reed@klafterolsen.com

         - and -

      Bradley I. Berger, Esq.
      BERGER & ASSOCIATES
      321 Broadway
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 571-1900
      E-mail: bradberger29@gmail.com


HTC CORPORATION: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Rodriguez v. HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and
Aerotek, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-21948-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 21,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. are foreign corporations
that manufacture and sell smart mobile devices.

Aerotek, Inc. own and operate a staffing agency located in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IESI BETHELEHEM: State to Probe Landfill Odors
----------------------------------------------
Lynn Olanoff, writing for the Lehigh Valley Live, reports that the
state has agreed to investigate complaints of odors at the IESI
Bethlehem Landfill in Lower Saucon Township, which a law firm also
is soliciting information on for a possible class-action lawsuit.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection plans to
come out to the Applebutter Road landfill to investigate the odor
complaints in the next few weeks, spokeswoman Colleen Connolly
said.  Lower Saucon asked first in September and then again
earlier in April for an odor investigation.

"They're polluting our air and we're breathing it and something
has to change," said township Councilwoman Priscilla deLeon, who
also lives in the Steel City neighborhood closest to the landfill.
"We're not going to take it anymore."

The neighborhood has been dealing with odor problems for about
three years now and Mr. deLeon said she gets regular complaints
from residents, including a recent one from a couple with a
5-month-old who can smell odors in their home.  She said some
residents had grown frustrated after not receiving any response
for the state for many years but she's glad an inspection is now
planned.

"It's better than what we had before," Mr. deLeon said. "Something
has to change."

The township had requested that the state perform ambient air
testing at the landfill, which the state will do depending on the
outcome of some preliminary testing, Connolly said.  The state
plans to come out to the landfill in the next few weeks to
evaluate IESI's gas collection system in its phase-four area as
well as test the performance of the immediate cover in that area,
Connolly said.

IESI said the company expected the odor investigation as part of
its expansion request.  IESI has petitioned the state to allow for
6 acres of new disposal area as well as the 22 acres of additional
new disposal area on top of existing landfill.

"The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's
upcoming inspection of Bethlehem Landfill is part of its overall
process to review our southeast expansion permit request," Vito
Galante, IESI's northeast regional engineer, said in a statement.
"We look forward to working closely with PADEP to showcase our
facility and operations."

On the heels of the inspection news, thousands of Lower Saucon
residents also received a solicitation from a Trenton, New Jersey,
law firm gauging their interest in a possible class-action lawsuit
against IESI.

Kamensky, Cohen & Riechelson recently filed a lawsuit in federal
court over odors at Tullytown Landfill in Bucks County and is
poised to file another lawsuit over odors at Keystone Sanitary
Landfill near Scranton, partner Kevin Riechelson said.  The firm
had both been contacted by a Lower Saucon resident about a
possible lawsuit and also had read about the landfill's odor
problems in the media, Mr. Riechelson said.

Mr. Riechelson said he's gotten a lot of inquiries.

"It sounds like it's been an ongoing problem for a while," he
said.

IESI is aware of Kamensky, Cohen & Riechelson's solicitation but
hasn't received any communication from the firm, Galante said.

"IESI Bethlehem Landfill remains dedicated and open to working
closely with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Lower Saucon Township and Steel City residents to
address any concerns regarding the operation of our facility," he
said.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP disclosed that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of all current public shareholders
of Imperial Holdings, Inc. common stock for violations of Section
14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breach of fiduciary
duties in connection with a bylaw that requires current and former
shareholders who wish to file a class or derivative action against
or on behalf of Imperial, its directors, or its officers to first
obtain written consent from other shareholders beneficially owning
at least 3% (or over 642,000) of the Company's shares.   The case
is also brought as a derivative action on behalf of Imperial for
breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of
control, and gross mismanagement.

Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief on behalf of all
Class members.  If you hold Imperial common stock, you may wish to
join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff.  In order to do
so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable
law and file appropriate papers no later than June 22, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as an Imperial
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3
billion for its clients.  The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.

The firm can be reached at:

         Joseph R. Seidman, Jr.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Tel No: (212) 779-1414
         E-mail: seidman@bernlieb.com


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that an action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Board of Directors of Imperial
Holdings, Inc. as a class action on behalf of all public holders
of Imperial Holdings common stock for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the adoption by the Board of a bylaw that requires current
and former shareholders who wish to file a class or derivative
action against or on behalf of Imperial Holdings, its directors,
or its officers to first obtain written consent from other
shareholders beneficially owning at least 3% (or over 642,000) of
the Company's shares, and as a derivative action on behalf of
Imperial Holdings for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate
assets, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 22. 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 --  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 the members of Imperial Holdings' Board with
violations of the 1934 Act, breach of fiduciary duty and/or waste
of corporate assets, abuse of control and gross mismanagement, and
further seeks a declaratory judgment that the Bylaw is contrary to
law and against public policy.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges the Bylaw was adopted on November 3, 2014 in breach of
defendants' fiduciary duties because its sole intent is to reduce
the Board's risk of being held accountable to the Company or its
shareholders for any violations of law, including criminal law,
breaches of fiduciary duties or other misconduct, and to protect
the Board members' tenure by entrenching their control of the
Company.

In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants caused Imperial
Holdings to file a false and misleading Proxy with the SEC in
connection with defendants' attempt to obtain a shareholder
"advisory vote" on the Bylaw.  The Proxy is false and misleading
and/or fails to disclose material information to the Company's
shareholders and violates Sec.14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by: (a) creating a materially misleading
impression that shareholder litigation serves no legitimate
purpose; (b) failing to explain the meaning of the following
sentence: "nor does it apply to claims . . . where a private right
of action at a lower threshold . . . is expressly authorized by
statute;" (c) creating a materially misleading comparison between
the Bylaw and inapt statutes and laws; (d) failing to disclose
material information concerning IRS and SEC investigations of
Imperial Holdings; (e) failing to disclose the basis for the
Board's stated belief that the Bylaw will not unduly deter the
prosecution of meritorious litigation; (f) failing to disclose the
basis for the Board's stated belief that current law (including
Rule 11, the PSLRA, and the business judgment rule) is not
adequate to deter unmeritorious litigation; (g) failing to
disclose the Board's understanding -- in view of its own self-
interest -- of what constitutes meritorious or unmeritorious
litigation; (h) failing to disclose that of the purported nine
shareholders who individually own at least 3% of the Company's
outstanding shares, many are insiders; (i) failing to disclose
what basis the Board has for choosing a 3% threshold of ownership,
as opposed to any other percentage; (j) failing to disclose the
basis for the representation that the Bylaw will reduce the cost
of D&O insurance; (k) failing to disclose the existence of
litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, which could be grounds for future
representative litigation against the Company and its directors
and/or officers; (l) failing to disclose the fact that individual
shareholder pursuit of "meritorious" litigation is disincentivized
by the cost and complexity of such litigation, which is only
tempered by the ability to pursue class and derivative litigation;
and (m) being contradictory with respect to whether the vote on
the Bylaw is "advisory" or not.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of all
public holders of Imperial Holdings common stock (the "Class") and
derivatively on behalf of Imperial Holdings.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, 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.


INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Alleged FCRPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Nieyshia Patrick, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Interstate Management Company, LLC, Case No. 8:15-
cv-01252-VMC-AEP(M.D. Fla., May 22, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTUIT INC: Sued Over TurboTax Security and Identity Theft
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Wood, writing for Forbes, reports that Intuit Inc. has
been sued by several high profile plaintiffs' lawyers alleging
that the company's lax security protections in TurboTax software
helped enable fraudulent tax returns.

This year's tax filing season got off to a bad start with huge
security concerns that stopped TurboTax state filings for days and
then spread to federal filings.  The mess reportedly even
triggered an FBI investigation.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by two
women claiming they were hurt by TurboTax.  The complaint alleges
that, "Rather than protecting customers' personal and financial
information by implementing stricter security measures, TurboTax
has instead knowingly facilitated identity theft tax refund fraud
by allowing cybercriminals easy access to its customers' most
private information."

The complaint says that Intuit has a duty to protect sensitive
customer data, and that the TurboTax website promises that "all
TurboTax platforms offer a secure, easy-to-use experience."
Hardly, say the lawyers, who claim that security was poor until it
was too late.  The two plaintiffs are Christine Diaz and Michelle
Fugatt, although it is clear the real prize the lawyers seek is
class action status.

Ms. Diaz last used TurboTax in 2011, when she used the online
version of the software to file her joint return.  But in March
2015, before filing her tax return, she received a bill for $242
from TurboTax for supposedly filing a federal tax return through
the software, along with state returns in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio
and Oklahoma.  Plaintiff Michelle Fugatt alleged that she received
a similar bill in March despite having never used TurboTax. The
complaint alleges that as a result, Ms. Fugatt now must file by
paper and wait longer for her tax refund.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs include Richard McCune of
McCuneWright in Redlands, California; Michael Sobol of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco; and John Yanchunis
of Morgan & Morgan in Florida. They hope to represent a nationwide
class of TurboTax customers (like Ms. Diaz) who had personal data
stolen.  They are even aiming for a second nationwide class of
non-customers (like Ms. Fugatt) who were victims of fraudulent tax
returns filed in their name through TurboTax.

The complaint accuses Intuit of aiding and abetting fraud, breach
of contract and violating California's Unfair Competition Law and
Consumer Records Act.  They plaintiffs also allege that Intuit
failed to notify victims after their personal information was used
to file fraudulent tax returns.  The suit also alleges that Intuit
insiders have accused the company of turning a blind eye to tax
fraud.

The IRS is well aware that tax fraud has exploded, and e-filing is
one of the enablers.  The complaint includes some impressive IRS
statistics, including the jump in suspected electronic tax fraud.
Incidents jumped from 500,000 in 2010 to almost two million in
2013.  The IRS says it prevented an estimated $24.2 billion in
fraudulent refunds in 2013, but it paid another $5.8 billion in
refunds that were later deemed fraudulent.

Intuit has denied the allegations.  The company also advocates
standards to clarify how much tax preparation software providers
can do to prevent tax fraud.  "We recognize that the industrywide
problem of tax fraud has increased this tax season and our focus
remains on playing our part in fighting it," the company said in a
statement.  "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in the
appropriate forum.


ISORAY INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bourbaki, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Isoray, Inc., Dwight Babcock, and Brien
Ragle, Case No. 2:15-cv-03890-BRO-AS (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts  about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Isoray, Inc. is a Minnesota Corporation that develops,
manufactures, and sells isotope-based medical products and devices
for the treatment of cancer and other malignant diseases in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


KALDI'S COFFEE: Recalls Disposable Cup Sleeves Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kaldi's Coffee Roasting Company, of St. Louis, Mo., announced a
voluntary recall of about 700,000 Disposable Cup Sleeves.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The cup sleeve can ignite if used in a microwave, posing a fire
hazard.

This recall involves Kaldis Coffee disposable paper cup sleeves
used with 12- and 16-ounce paper cups. The black paper cup sleeves
have the "Kaldis Coffee" and the company logo printed on the
front, and "100% Recycled Paperboard" printed on the back.

Kaldi's has received two reports of the cup sleeves catching fire
when heated in the microwave. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5yhInk

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A and sold at
Kaldi's Coffee Roasting stores in Missouri from February 2014
through March 2015 at no cost with hot drinks.

Consumers should immediately stop using and discard the recalled
cup sleeves.


KEANE FRAC: "Stanek" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stanek, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. Keane Frac NC, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01005 (M.D. Pa.,
May 22, 2015), 3:15-cv-01005-RDM (M.D. Pa., May 22, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Keane Frac NC, LLC is an energy services company that operates in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
              asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
              mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


KELSEY-HAYES: E.D. Mich. Judge Certifies UAW Case as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW);
JAMES WARD, MARSHALL HUNT, and RICHARD GORDON, for themselves and
others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY,
TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP, and NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-14434 CLASS ACTION (E.D.
Mich.)

Plaintiff United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW) and defendant Kelsey-Hayes Company were
parties to the February 2, 1998 CBA governing the now-closed
Kelsey-Hayes Detroit, Michigan manufacturing plant and to the
collectively-bargained April 17, 2001 plant closing agreement.
James Ward, Richard Gordon, and Marshall Hunt retired from the
UAW-represented bargaining unit at the Detroit plant in 1998,
2000, and 2001, respectively.

Ward, Hunt, and Gordon sue for themselves and a class of similarly
situated retirees and the retirees' surviving spouses and other
eligible dependents. They sue for breach of collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) under Section 301 of the Labor-Management
Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Section 185, and for violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1001, et seq. Plaintiff UAW sues for CBA breach under LMRA
Section 301.

Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, that the Court
certify the case as a class action and appoint plaintiffs-retirees
James Ward, Marshall Hunt, and Richard Gordon, and their counsel,
to prosecute the class action.

Judge Steeh granted plaintiffs' motion and appointed plaintiffs-
retirees Ward, Hunt and Gordon as Rule 23(a)(4) class
representatives and attorneys Israel, Wertheimer and Adam, and
their law firms as Rule 23(g) class counsel. Judge Steeh certified
the class as:

"Employees who retired under the 1998 collective bargaining
agreement from the UAW-represented unit at the now-closed Kelsey-
Hayes/TRW Detroit, Michigan plant and the retirees' surviving
spouses and other dependents eligible for company-paid retiree
health insurance."

A copy of Judge Steeth's order dated April 28, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/wn3iI1from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs represented by Stuart M. Israel --
israel@legghioisrael.com -- John G. Adam -- jga@legghioisrael.com
-- at Legghio & Israel. P.C.; William A. Wertheimer, Jr. at
William A. Wertheimer Assoc.

Defendants, represented by Gregory V. Mersol --
gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- Todd A. Dawson -- tdawson@bakerlaw.com --
at Baker & Hostetler LLP


KINGSDOWN INCORPORATED: Sued Over Plan Asset Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------
David Scott Cecil, Frank Hood, Martin Krumnacher, in their
capacity as Trustees of the Kingsdown, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (the ESOP), on behalf of the ESOP, and as
participants in the ESOP, on behalf of a class of similarly
situated participants in the ESOP v. W. Eric Hinshaw, George
McLamb, Thomas McLean, Case No. 1:15-cv-00409 (M.D.N.C., May 22,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to prudently
and loyally manage plan assets under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Kingsdown, Incorporated is an employee-owned company that
maintains a research and development center, training and
distribution facilities, and two manufacturing facilities in
Mebane Alamance County, North Carolina.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Kingsdown,
Incorporated.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norris A. Adams II, Esq.
      Edward G. Connette, Esq.
      ESSEX RICHARDS, P.A.
      1701 South Blvd.
      Charlotte, NC 28203-4727
      Telephone: (704) 377-4300
      Facsimile: (704) 372-1357
      E-mail: NAdams@essexrichards.com
              econnette@essexrichards.com

         - and -

      Daniel W. Koenig, Esq.
      Bruce H. Connors, Esq.
      CONNORS MORGAN, PLLC
      609-B Eugene Court
      Greensboro, NC 27401
      Telephone: (336) 333-7907
      Facsimile: (336) 333-7909
      E-mail: dkoenig@connorsmorgan.com
              bconnors@connorsmorgan.com


KMART CORP: N.D. Cal. Judge Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District
of California denied defendant's motion in the case ADRIAN LOPEZ,
Plaintiff, v. KMART CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV-01089-
JSC (N.D. Cal.)

Beginning in April 2012, Kmart implemented an arbitration
policy/agreement under which participating employees and Kmart
each waived the right to pursue employment-related claims in
court, and instead agreed to submit such disputes to binding
arbitration.

Kmart hired plaintiff Adrian Lopez as a cashier in its Concord
store on April 16, 2013, when plaintiff was 16 years old and a
sophomore in high school. Before he began work, plaintiff received
an email from Kmart notifying him that he needed to complete all
online training requirements, including acknowledgement of the
Agreement. Plaintiff completed the training at home on his laptop,
including review of the Agreement.  He notes that Kmart did not
provide guidance or actual training about any of the forms, never
requested his parents' consent, and never explained what an
arbitration agreement was or that he could review the terms with
an attorney. In any event, plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the
agreement on May 20, 2013. Plaintiff did not opt out of the
agreement by submitting the Opt Out form within his 30-day window
to do so, nor did he do so any time thereafter.

On January 20, 2015, one month after his 18th birthday, plaintiff
filed a class action complaint in Contra Costa County Superior
Court alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. Kmart
timely removed the action to federal court. On March 16, 20145,
Kmart filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay this
action.

Kmart seeks to compel arbitration consistent with the agreement
that plaintiff electronically signed. Plaintiff contends that
there was never any valid agreement in the first instance because
plaintiff was a minor when he acknowledged receipt of the
agreement, or in the alternative, because plaintiff was a minor
when he acknowledged the agreement, he is now entitled to
disaffirm it. In addition, even if the court finds that
plaintiff's age is not fatal to agreement, plaintiff further
argues that the agreement is nonetheless unenforceable as
unconscionable.

Judge Corley denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration and
stay action and directed defendant to answer the complaint by May
21, 2015.  A copy of Judge Corley's order dated May 4, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/hP1TaIfrom Leagle.com.

Adrian Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Raul Perez --
Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Alexandria Marie Witte --&
Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone
Law APC; Arnab Banerjee -- at Initiative Legal Group APC

KMART Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph Charles Liburt
-- jliburt@orrick.com -- Lindsey Connor Hulse -- lhulse@orrick.com
-- at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Steinmetz" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Steinmetz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00316-JAG
(E.D. Va., May 22, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP
      112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 784-6400
      Facsimile: (212) 231-5949
      E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com


MEDPARTNERS INC: June 30 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------

John Lauriello et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

CVS Health et al.,
Defendants.

No. CV-03-6630
Class Action

If you bought MedPartners, Inc., common stock between October 30,
1996, and January 7, 1998, you may be a member of a certified
class.

Case Background. This Action, which was initially filed on October
22, 2003, arises out of the settlement of a nationwide
class action styled Griffin v. MedPartners, Inc., et al.
(Jefferson County, Alabama, Circuit Court; CV-98-00297, etc.).
The Griffin case consolidated more than 20 securities and
derivative lawsuits alleging that MedPartners had made a series of
false and misleading statements concerning a planned merger
between MedPartners and PhyCor Inc. and concerning MedPartners'
overall financial condition.  In 1999, a court approved
the settlement of the 1998 MedPartners Securities Litigation for
$56 Million.

What Is This Case About? Plaintiffs here allege that during the
course of the 1998 MedPartners Securities Litigation,
they were told that liability insurance coverage was limited.
Effective September 30, 1998, American International
Specialty Lines Insurance Company issued to MedPartners the
"AISLIC Policy" -- the excess insurance policy that is at issue in
this Action.  The AISLIC Policy provided additional liability
insurance coverage for the 1998 MedPartners Security Litigation.
In this current certified class action, Plaintiffs' Complaint
alleges two counts: (1) that Defendants misrepresented the amount
of insurance available to settle the 1998 MedPartners Security
Litigation; and (2) that Defendants suppressed information
concerning the AISLIC Policy.  Defendants deny Plaintiffs'
allegations and have raised a number of affirmative defenses.  The
Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or
Defendants' defenses.

Who Is Included? The class is defined as, "All Persons who (i)
purchased MedPartners, Inc. common stock (including, but not
limited to, through open market transactions, mergers or
acquisitions in which MedPartners issued common stock, acquisition
through the company's employee stock purchase plan, and any other
type of transaction in which a person acquired one or more shares
of MedPartners stock in return for consideration) during the
period from October 30, 1996 through January 7, 1998, inclusive
(MedPartners employees who purchased shares through the ESPP in
January 1998 being deemed to have purchased their shares on
December 31, 1997); (ii) purchased call option contracts on
MedPartners common stock during the period October 30, 1996
through January 7, 1998, inclusive; (iii) sold put option
contracts on MedPartners common stock during the period October
30, 1996 through January 7, 1998, inclusive; (iv) purchased
MedPartners threshold appreciation price securities in the
September 15, 1997, offering or thereafter through January 7,
1998; or (v) tendered shares of Talbert Medical Management
Holdings Corporation to MedPartners between August 20, 1997, and
September 19, 1997; excluding all those members who opted out of
the 1999 Class Settlement."

What Are Your Options? If you believe that you may be a member of
the Class, more detailed information about this Action and its
potential effect on you and your rights is available online at
AIGCVSClassAction.com or by calling toll-free to 1-888-564-1149.
If you are a member of the Class and you want to exclude yourself
from the Class and keep your right to sue the Defendants, you must
take further action before June 30, 2015.  By that date, you must
request exclusion in writing to this address: AIG-CVS Class Action
Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San
Rafael, CA 94912-8040.  Please do not telephone or address
inquiries to the Court.  If you choose to be excluded from the
Class, you will not be bound by any judgment in this Action, nor
will you be eligible to share in any recovery that might be
obtained in this Action.


MERCEDEZ BENZ: Aug. 17 Fairness Hearing on "Seifi" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion in the case MAJEED SEIFI, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, CASE NO.
12-CV-05493-THE (N.D. Cal.)

Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC joined in plaintiffs' request for an order
preliminarily approving the parties' settlement. Aside for the
requested order plaintiffs also asks the court to certify a
settlement class, to appoint settlement class counsel, sets a
hearing on the final approval of the settlement and to direct
notice to the class.

Judge Henderson granted preliminary approval of the settlement
based upon the terms set forth in the settlement agreement and
certified a class of:

All current and former owners and lessees of Mercedes-Benz branded
automobiles equipped with M272 or M273 engines bearing serial
numbers up to 2729..30 468993 or 2739 ..30 088611, found in the
Subject 2005-2007 Model Year Vehicles respectively, who purchased
or leased their Subject Vehicles within the United States.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: Persons who validly and
timely exclude themselves; Persons who have settled with,
released, or otherwise had claims adjudicated on the merits
against MBUSA that are substantially similar to those alleged in
this matter; Persons with only claims relating to personal injury,
wrongful death or property damage as a result of the defects
alleged; employees of MBUSA; insurers or other providers of
extended service contracts or warranties for the vehicles owned by
settlement class members; and the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson
and the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley and members of their
respective families.

The court appoints Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel Law Firm, and
Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., and the
successors of these law firms as counsels for the settlement
class.  The Notice and provisions for disseminating notice
substantially as described in and attached to the Settlement
Agreement and the parties' Joint Statement submitted on March 30,
2015, are approved.

KCC Class Action Services, LLC (KCC), selected pursuant to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, shall be responsible for
providing notice of the proposed settlement to the Settlement
Class Members in accordance with the provisions referenced above
and as directed under the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C.
Section 1715). MBUSA will pay KCC's fees and costs.  KCC shall
mail the Notice to the identified Settlement Class Members per the
Notice Plan within 35 days of the entry of the Order. On the same
date, KCC will make an informational settlement website available
to the public, which website will include a copy of the Order, the
Notice, the Settlement Agreement including all Addenda thereto,
the Claim Form, and other important documents. Within 15 days
after the deadline to mail the Notice, KCC shall file declarations
to the court, attesting to the measures undertaken to provide
Notice to the Settlement Class and as directed by CAFA. Anyone who
wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class must submit a
written request for exclusion by sending it to KCC Class Action
Services, LLC, by First-Class U.S. mail to the address provided in
the Notice. The envelope containing the Request for Exclusion must
be postmarked on or before the date set forth in the Notice, which
shall be 45 days after the completion of mailing of the Notice
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Court shall rule on the
validity of exclusions at the Fairness Hearing.

Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to the proposed
Settlement must send or file an Objection with the Court. The
envelope containing the Objection to the Settlement must be
postmarked on or before the date set forth in the Notice, which
shall be 45 days after completion of mailing of the Notice
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Objections may otherwise be
filed within 45 days after completion of mailing of the Notice
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Only Settlement Class
Members may object to the Settlement. A copy of such papers being
filed in support of any Objection shall also be mailed to Class
Counsel and Defense Counsel within the 45-day period set forth.

Any objecting Settlement Class Member may appear at the hearing on
the fairness of the proposed settlement held by the court, in
person or by counsel, to show cause why the Settlement Agreement
should not be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, or to
object to any petitions for attorney fees and reimbursement of
litigation costs and expenses; provided, however, that the
objecting Settlement Class Member must mail or file with the Clerk
of the Court, a notice of intention to appear at the Fairness
Hearing on or before the date set forth in the Notice, which shall
be 45 days after the completion of mailing of the Notice pursuant
to the Settlement Agreement.

Class Counsel shall file with the court their motion for payment
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and
expenses no later than 14 days before the expiration of the
deadline for submitting opt-outs from and objections to the
Settlement Agreement for Notices that were not returned
undeliverable.  Fourteen days prior to the date set for the
Fairness Hearing, plaintiffs shall file a motion for judgment and
final approval of the Settlement. The parties shall file their
briefs in support of settlement approval, as well as any
supplemental briefs supporting Class Counsel's motion for
attorney's fees and reimbursement of litigation costs, at that
time. The briefing shall include the parties' responses to any
Objections, as well as a declaration setting forth the number of
Settlement Class Members who opted-out of the Settlement Class.

If any Settlement Class Members object or opt-out after plaintiffs
files the motion for final approval, the parties shall file
supplemental briefing no later than seven (7) days prior to the
date set for the Fairness Hearing, setting forth the parties'
responses to such Objections and the number of opt-outs. If
appropriate, the parties shall include supplemental briefing on
Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees at that time.

On August 17, 2015, at 10:00 AM, the Court will hold the Fairness
Hearing. It shall be held in Courtroom 2, on the 17th floor of the
United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
California 94102. This time and place shall be set forth in the
Mailed Notice. Pending further orders by the court, all
proceedings in the case shall be stayed, except for proceedings
pursuant to the order.

A copy of Judge Henderson's order dated April 8, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/cc2KOGfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Roy Arie Katriel -- rak@katriellaw.com
-- at The Katriel Law Firm

     - and -

Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Michael L. Braunstein, Esq.
Robert A. Lubitz, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Telephone: 845-459-0001
Facsimile: 845-356-4335

Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by Troy Masami
Yoshino -- tyoshino@cbmlaw.com -- Chad Allen Stegeman --
cstegeman@cbmlaw.com -- Matthew J. Kemner -- mkemner@cbmlaw.com --
at Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP


MICHAELS STORES: 3 FCRA Violations Centralized in NJ
----------------------------------------------------
Timothy St. George, David M. Gettings, John C. Lynch and David N.
Anthony at Troutman Sanders, in an article for Mondaq, report that
on April 9, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that three putative nationwide class actions against
Michaels Stores Inc. be centralized in New Jersey.  The actions
accuse Michaels Stores of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") by failing to properly notify job applicants that the
company would access their credit reports.

Federal lawsuits are pending against Michaels Stores in New
Jersey, Texas, and Missouri.  The U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation said that the federal suits involve
common questions over the arts and crafts retailer's online job
applications and that centralizing the cases for pretrial
proceedings would be most convenient for the parties and witnesses
and would "promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation."  The Panel noted that "[c]entralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery on potentially complex factual
inquiries such as the willfulness of defendant's conduct; avoid
inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly on class
certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel and the judiciary."

The first-filed action is pending in New Jersey, the Panel noted,
adding that the district represents "a readily accessible and
convenient transferee forum."

In the New Jersey action, plaintiffs allege that Michael Stores
fails to provide a "stand alone" disclosure that it will obtain
the consumer reports.  The lawsuit claims that Michaels Stores'
current disclosure is buried among blank spaces for the applicant
to fill in his or her previous work experience, ten different
state law notices relating to conviction record protection laws,
and other statements and proposed agreements.  The same issue has
been raised in the Texas and Missouri lawsuits.

The suit is one of a number of such recently-filed lawsuits
alleging that companies have violated this provision of the FCRA.
For instance, as we previously reported, Whole Foods Market Group,
Inc. also was recently hit with putative class actions for
allegedly violating the FCRA.

Troutman Sanders LLP has extensive experience in FCRA litigation
and compliance with respect to challenged disclosure forms.  This
growing body of lawsuits challenging employer disclosure forms
warrants careful review of such forms by companies.  Troutman
Sanders will continue to monitor this area of law.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Denied Request for Reconsideration in "Hallmark"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio of the Western District of New
York, denied defendants' motions in the case MICHAEL HALLMARK, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
COHEN & SLAMOWITZ, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendants, NO. 11-CV-
842S(F) (W.D.N.Y.)

In a class action filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.,(FDCPA), plaintiff
seeks damages against defendants for the latter's unauthorized
attempt to collect pre-suit filing fees of $140 for which
defendant Cohen & Slamowitz (C&S) demanded payment by letter sent
prior to the filing of any complaint.

Plaintiff requested defendants to produce all credit card
agreements and related documents which defendants assert authorize
defendants to collect such fees from the 10,250 class members
permitted under FDCPA Section 1692f(1).

Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion claiming that the requested
production would impose a prohibitively expensive compliance cost
of at least $300,000, and would be unduly burdensome. In this
estimate, defendant Midland stated that it would be required to
obtain records for 3,200 class members from the original creditors
as Midland did not already possess such records but could obtain
them at a cost of $10 per credit cardholder or $32,000, plus
Midland's other costs related to such request.

In a Decision and Order filed January 8, 2015, the court directed
defendants to produce responsive documents limited to a random 10%
sample of the cardholder files for 7,050 class members, excluding
the 3,200 class member account files which Midland averred it did
not presently hold in its possession, thereby relieving Midland of
$32,000 in acquisition fees to obtain such records and reducing
Midland's production costs to less than 10% of its estimate of
$300,000.

Midland filed an objection to the Jan. 8, 2015 decision and order
and requested the court to modify the decision and order to limit
production to 680 (10% of 6,800) as a sample of class members'
credit card agreements containing the contract authorization
clause defendants assert  in support to its authorization defense,
applied to the 2,200 more accessible accounts to avoid
approximately $25,000 in costs, that Midland claims would be
incurred upon Midland's review of the remaining portion, 4,750, of
the relevant account files representing the balance of cardholder
agreement files for the class.

District Judge Wolford, to whom the case was recently re-assigned,
requested Magistrate Judge Foschio to consider the objection as a
motion for reconsideration.

Magistrate Judge Foschio considered Judge Wolford's directive and
treated defendants' objections as motions for reconsideration of
the January 8, 2015, decision and order and the same are denied.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Foschio's decision and order dated
April 28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/jd0CsYfrom
Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
Jonathan R. Miller, Esq.
BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
26 Broadway, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: 212-248-7906

     - and -

Seth Andrews, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER, PPLC
6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1A
Amherst, NY 14226
Telephone: 716-564-3288

Andrew C. Sayles, Esq. -- asayles@connellfoley.com -- at CONNELL
FOLEY LLP, for Defendant Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP

Thomas A. Leghorn, Esq. -- thomas.leghorn@wilsonelser.com -- at
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP, for Defendant
Midland Funding, LLC


MIRA SUSHI: Faces "Liem" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selva Liem, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Mira Sushi Inc., Andy Lee, and Jinhee Cho, Case No. 1:15-cv-03970-
AT (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Mira Sushi Restaurant located at 46
West 22nd Street, New York, NY 10010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Linzer, Esq.
      FREEMAN LEWIS LLP
      228 East 45h Street-17th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 230-8543
      Facsimile: (212) 980-4055
      E-mail: alinzer@freemanlewis.com


MULTIBAND CORP: Removed "Holloway" Suit to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Greg Holloway, Paul Whitman,
Curtis Fournier, individually and on behalf of a group of
individuals similarly situated v. Multiband Corp. and DIRECTV,
LLC, Case No. 0101-5569655, was removed from the Massachusetts
District Court to the U.S. District Court District of
Massachusetts (Worcester). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No.4:15-cv-40069-TSH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-rated claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
      Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
              mthomson@llrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Bronwyn L. Roberts, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS LLP
      100 High Street, Suite 2400
      Boston, MA 02110-1724
      Telephone: (857) 488-4200
      Facsimile: (857) 488-4201
      E-mail: blroberts@duanemorris.com

         - and -

      Gregory S. Bombard, Esq.
      HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
      28 State Street, 24th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 213-7000
      E-mail: gbombard@duanemorris.com


NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Mason Jar Night Light Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nantucket Distributing Co. LLC, Middleboro, Mass., announced a
voluntary recall of about 12,000 Mason Jar Night Light. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The plastic around the base of the light bulb can melt, posing a
burn hazard.

The night light features a glass mason jar enclosing the 7-watt
incandescent light bulb.  The night light was sold with a clear
glass mason jar enclosure or a silver glass mason jar enclosure.
The glass jars have clear raised letters that read "frutta del
prato." The night lights measure approximately 10.5 inches high by
3.5 inches wide. The light bulb has a plastic piece securing the
light bulb to the glass mason jar.  The affected Model No. is
DGL0915.  The SKU is 30732353.  The Model No. and SKU appear on
the price tag affixed to the product packaging.

There have been two reported incidents involving the night lights
with the silver jar in which the plastic around the base of the
light bulb melted. No injuries or property damage has been
reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Christmas Tree Shops, Christmas Tree Shops andThat!, and andThat!
retail locations from December 2014 through March 2015 for
approximately $5.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled night lights
and return them to any Christmas Tree Shops, Christmas Tree Shops
andThat!, or andThat! store to receive a full refund.


NASDAQ OMX: Three Law Firms Reach Settlement of Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Entwistle & Cappucci, Finkelstein Thompson and
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson disclsoed that they have reached
an agreement to settle claims against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.,
The NASDAQ Stock Market and certain individual defendants, on
behalf of a class of investors who suffered losses caused by
system-wide disruptions in the handling of the Facebook, Inc.
initial public offering.  In class action litigation pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
before the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, plaintiffs alleged that the
NASDAQ Defendants violated federal and state law by failing to
disclose technology weaknesses in the Exchange's IPO systems and
vulnerability to system failures, and by negligently designing and
testing its IPO systems for the Facebook offering.  In a landmark
settlement, the first of its kind with a national securities
exchange, NASDAQ has agreed to pay the sum of $26.5 million to
compensate customers who were adversely impacted by the system
failures on the day of the IPO, May 18, 2012.  The settlement is
in addition to the $62 million accommodation plan NASDAQ
previously announced on March 22, 2013, following commencement of
the class action.  The settlement will be presented to Judge Sweet
for approval following formal notice to the class.  The parties
will jointly request the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit to hold in abeyance the NASDAQ Defendants' appeal of the
ruling by Judge Sweet denying their motion to dismiss, pending
final approval of the proposed settlement.  The case is captioned
In re Facebook Inc. IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation,
(NASDAQ Actions) MDL No. 12-2389 (RWS).


NASSAU COUNTY: Court Halts Strip-Search Payment
-----------------------------------------------
Luca Marzorati, writing for Capital Network, reports that a three-
judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit stayed an $11.5 million settlement that Nassau County was
slated to pay to thousands of plaintiffs who were strip-searched
at a county jail.

The ruling comes after a landmark Supreme Court decision threw the
class-action suit into tumult, and may save Nassau County from
paying the plaintiffs at all.

The case stems from a policy in place from 1996 to 1999, when
suspects charged with misdemeanors or non-criminal offenses were
strip searched for contraband before entering the Nassau County
Correctional Center.  In a 2002 decision in a separate case, Shain
v. Ellison, the Second Circuit found this policy unconstitutional.

The current strip search case -- O'Day v. Nassau County -- has
been ricocheting through the judicial system since it was
originally filed 16 years ago.  In 2003, following their loss in
Shain, Nassau County lawyers admitted liability in the O'Day case
in order to stop class certification, hoping to cap their payout
at $35,000 each for the 10 named plaintiffs.  However, an
appellate court allowed for a class-action suit, enlarging the
plaintiff pool to 17,000 people.

After a bench trial in 2009, a federal judge determined that the
plaintiffs should be awarded $500 per search in compensation for
their loss of dignity -- over $11.5 million in total.  Yet before
a cent could be paid, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, ruling that jails were
justified in using strip searches to root out contraband.

"Correctional officials have a legitimate interest, indeed a
responsibility, to ensure that jails are not made less secure by
reason of what new detainees may carry in on their bodies,"
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

In light of the Supreme Court judgment, the case was reheard and
overturned, as Judge Denis Hurley of the Eastern District of New
York held that there were no federal or civil rights claims
against Nassau County.  But at the end of his April 2014 ruling,
the judge held open the possibility that the plaintiffs had their
state constitutional rights violated.  Hurley ordered Nassau
County to post the $11.5 million within 30 days.

The unanimous decision issued by a three-judge panel both delays
any turnover of the $11.5 million to a holding fund, and casts
doubt upon the chances of the plaintiffs prevailing.  The panel
ruled that Nassau County -- which has a 2015 operating budget of
roughly $3 billion -- is clearly able to pay the settlement sum if
mandated by a court, and that the payouts will take a long amount
of time regardless of whether the court gets the money now or
later.

"We are pleased that the court agreed with our arguments that a
bond is not necessary.  This will avoid wasting county resources
on matters that we may prevail on appeal," Nassau County attorney
Carnell Foskey said in a statement.

Lawyers for Nassau County now hope that the Court will nullify the
settlement altogether.  In a brief, they argued that there are no
similar cases before the state courts, and that the claim was
"never enunciated by New York State, and . . . only briefly
mentioned in the original complaint(s) but never argued, explored,
or litigated to that point."

Robert Herbst, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, had written a
letter to the court asking the judges to deliver an opinion after
granting the hold last December.  The delivery of the nine-page
opinion now sets up the case to proceed to oral arguments.
According to Herbst's brief, the case was down to tying up "loose
ends" before the Florence decision invalidated the settlement and
put $3.8 million in attorneys' fees in limbo.

"We welcome the issuance of a decision on the state's pending
appeal.  We can now get a date for oral argument so that this
appeal, which has been fully briefed since February, can be
resolved as soon as possible," Mr. Herbst told Capital.

The Second Circuit will hear their argument within months.  At
that point, the Court will either rule on the case in its entirety
or send it the New York State Court of Appeals, the state's
highest court, to evaluate whether any state constitutional claims
were violated.  Only then will the payouts, if any, begin.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Garretson to Negotiate Healthcare Lien Discounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Armstrong, writing for Bloomberg, reports that nearly a
fifth of the National Football League settlement approved
compensating former players with head injuries could go to their
health insurers instead.

As a result of federal laws and court rulings enabling insurers to
recover costs of medical treatment for injuries, Medicare,
Medicaid, and private insurers will be reimbursed before players
receive any money.  Their share will reduce the value of a deal
already criticized by some ex-players' lawyers as inadequate.

"It is an enormous problem," said George Washington University law
professor Alan B. Morrison, who filed an amicus brief in the case
in federal district court in Philadelphia expressing concern about
the payments to health insurers.  It could take a year or longer
to sort out how much is owed to which insurers, Morrison said.

The settlement of the class-action lawsuit alleging that the NFL
failed to properly investigate and respond to the risk of
concussion-causing hits is expected to pay up to $1 billion to
more than 20,000 retired players.  The agreement allows for
payments of up to $5 million to injured players, or their
surviving family members, depending on the severity of the illness
or injury.  For instance, a player diagnosed with amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Lou Gehrig's disease, could collect up
to $5 million, while someone with Parkinson's disease would be
eligible for a maximum award of $3.5 million.

Most of those awards will be reduced by payments to health
insurers, often referred to as medical liens.

Mark Wahlstrom, the president of a Phoenix company that helps
administer class-action cases and reviewed medical billings in the
NFL case, said insurers could end up taking 15 percent to 18
percent of the compensation set aside for the players.  Among the
biggest beneficiaries will be Medicare, the government insurance
program for the elderly and disabled.

Over the past decade, federal laws have enhanced Medicare's
ability to recover treatment costs by mandating that it be
notified of any legal settlements paid to beneficiaries.  Last
year, Medicare netted $2.5 billion from taking a cut of payments
made to its beneficiaries by third parties.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that some private insurers
also have the right to recover payments made to treat injuries
caused by a third party, a legal concept known as subrogation.
Bloomberg News reported in April that an insurer is seeking to
recoup $3.4 million from a San Francisco Giants fan who was left
in a coma after being beaten by two Los Angeles Dodgers fans.

To help minimize the losses for ex-players, the federal court in
the NFL case appointed the Cincinnati-based Garretson Resolution
Group Inc. to negotiate discounts of the health-care liens.
Garretson said in a court affidavit that it typically negotiates a
discount with Medicare and Medicaid on behalf of all the class
members.

The judge in the case, Anita Brody, said in her ruling that paying
insurers before the players was "reasonable" given the significant
penalties for failing to do so.  Hiring Garretson will help
streamline the process and speed up payments to the players, she
wrote in her ruling.

While he couldn't estimate the total payout to health insurers,
Christopher Seeger, the lead counsel for the ex-players, said the
discounts will save money for victims.  "We are a few weeks away
from finalizing discussions with the government and we will get
substantial discounts on liens," he said.  "This is going to be a
huge success for players."


NATIONAL RAILROAD: Judge Narrows Claim in "Campbell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District of Columbia
granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion in the case
KENNETH CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD
PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-2979 (EGS)
(D.D.C.)

On March 1, 2012, the court entered an amended scheduling order
that would permit National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
to depose any individual who submits an affidavit, declaration, or
statement in support of plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs Robert Guerra and Terrence Whitesides
each submitted declarations in support of plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Rather than deposing everyone who submitted a declaration, Amtrak
selected 41 individuals, including Guerra and Whitesides. Mr.
Guerra's deposition was noticed for 9:00 a.m. on June 7, 2012 in
Washington, D.C.  Shortly after 9:00 a.m., plaintiffs' counsel
informed defendant's counsel by phone that Mr. Guerra would not be
attending, reasoning that Mr. Guerra decided not to appear for his
deposition out of personal concerns and fears of retaliation,
including possible retribution by former co-workers if he were to
testify. Amtrak's counsel had prepared for the deposition before
it was cancelled.

On the other hand, Mr. Whitesides was to be deposed in New York
City on May 2, 2012 at 2:00 p.m., but on May 1, 2012, plaintiffs'
counsel informed defendant's counsel that the deposition could not
go forward. Plaintiffs' counsel received a phone call from
Terrence Whitesides who experienced a death in his family this
evening, apparently a relative to whom he was close. Plaintiffs'
counsel later proposed that the deposition take place on May 23,
2012 at 2:00 p.m. in Washington, D.C., but on May 22, 2012,
plaintiffs' counsel cancelled Mr. Whitesides's deposition, due to
their inability to contact Mr. Whitesides. Amtrak's attorneys had
twice begun preparing for Mr. Whitesides's deposition.

Amtrak filed a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(d), which seeks exclusion of the legal claims of
Guerra and Whitesides and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

Judge Sullivan granted in part and denied in part Amtrak's motion
for exclusion of plaintiffs Guerra and Whitesides, and for related
costs.

A copy of Judge Sullivan's memorandum opinion dated May 4, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/X7Jcqwfrom Leagle.com.

KENNETH CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC, Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C, Byron Perkins, GORDON,
SILBERMAN, WIGGINS & CHILDS, P.C., Jon Goldfarb, GORDON,
SILBERMAN, WIGGINS & CHILDS, P.C., Robert Childs, GORDON,
SILBERMAN, WIGGINS & CHILDS, P.C. & Scott Gilliland, GORDON,
SILBERMAN, WIGGINS & CHILDS, P.C.

DONALD BATTS, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

PATRICIA YOUNG-BOSEMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B.
Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

KENNETH MCDANIEL, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC

VICKI JONES-WHITTIES, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B.
Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

TREADWELL SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

SABRENNA MUMPHREY, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

RICKY MURDOCK, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

CHARMIN BARROW, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

TIMOTHY MCKISSIC, Plaintiff, represented by Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

CARLOS BELGRAVE, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

AUDLEY BOLAND, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

DONALD RODGERS, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

HAROLD REDFERN, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

REACHELLE FRANCIS, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

BERTHA KELLY, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

MICHAEL HELTON, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

WILLIAM MILLER, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

DARYL LATHAM, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

LYSA RIDLEY-JONES, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos,
GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr.,
GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC, Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

DARRELL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos,
GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr.,
GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC, Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

KIRK MARSHALL, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos,
GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr.,
GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC, Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

CARL BETTERSON, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos,
GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr.,
GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC, Timothy B. Fleming,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

PENNSYLVANIA FEDERATION OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY
EMPLOYEES, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos, GUERRIERI,
EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., GUERRIERI,
EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC & Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS,
CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Corkery,
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, Matthew K.
Handley, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS,Timothy B.
Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC, Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C, Robert Mark Bruskin,
WASHINGTON LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & Russell W. Adams,
WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
Bryan C. Shartle, SESSIONS & FISHMAN, David Israel, Sessions,
Fishman, Nathan & Israel, L.L.C., Grace E. Speights, MORGAN, LEWIS
& BOCKIUS, LLP, Jeffrey A. Bartos, GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN &
BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, &
BARTOS PC, Kevin G. Barreca, SESSIONS, FISHMAN & NATHAN LLP,
Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Joyce E.
Taber, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKUS LLP, Krissy Anne Katzenstein,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Marianne Hogan, MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP & William E. Doyle, Jr., MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN & OILERS, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos, GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN &
BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, &
BARTOS PC & Michael Stephen Wolly, ZWERDING. PAUL, KAHN & WOLLY,
PC

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHOP BUILDERS,
BLACKSMITHS, DROP FORGERS AND HELPERS, Defendant, represented by
Michael Stephen Wolly, ZWERDING. PAUL, KAHN & WOLLY, PC

AMTRAK INSPECTOR GENERAL, Movant, represented by Colin Christopher
Carriere, AMTRAK

AUGUSTINE GLASS, JR, Plaintiff, represented by Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

ARSHELL QUALLS, Plaintiff, represented by Warren K. Kaplan,
WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C

ED CARR, Plaintiff, represented by Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON
LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C


NCS MULTISTAGE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Mendez" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NCS Multistage, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01396
(S.D. Tex., May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

NCS Multistage, LLC is an oilfield services company with locations
throughout the United States offering multistage completion
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet Street
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


NISSAN: Class Action Filed by Altima Owners Over Rust Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Yaeger, writing for 41 Action News, reports that a 41
Action News investigation has spurred a class action lawsuit on
behalf of Nissan Altima owners who say they have a dangerous
problem right beneath their feet.  Many car owners may not even
know they have a problem until they look underneath their car.  In
February, the 41 Action News investigators uncovered more than 400
complaints from Nissan Altima owners frustrated about rusting in
their cars' floorboards.  Some owners had rusting large enough to
see through and in some cases, put their hands or feet through the
hole in their car floor.

The complaints came from model years 2002-2006 Nissan Altimas and
logged in from all parts of the country, not just areas with snow
where road salt might cause problems.  Despite a large number of
complaints, the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration said the issue is not safety related and so would
not be under their jurisdiction for action.  They have had no
reports of injuries or deaths related to the problem.

Many owners have received estimates ranging from $2500 to $5000 to
have the issue repaired.  However, they may now have a legal
channel to voice their concerned.

A Kansas City law firm has filed a class action lawsuit in federal
court in California, where Nissan's operations are incorporated in
the United States.

"There's a serious economic impact to these impacted consumers who
are facing massive costs for repairs relative to the value of
their vehicle," said Tim Dollar, an attorney with Dollar, Burns
and Becker.

The suit was just filed in federal court in April. Consumers who
are interested in joining the suit can contact Dollar's firm
directly.

"This issue deserves attention and a fair hearing," Dollar said.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Feldman Shepherd Files Train Accident Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Valley Forge ParkFeldman Shepherd lawyers Alan M. Feldman, Daniel
J. Mann and Edward S. Goldis have commenced a lawsuit on behalf of
the family of Fenjin He, who was fatally injured on May 17, 2014
in the area of the shuttered Port Kennedy train station in Valley
Forge, Pa.  Mr. He and a friend, Zoujun Lin, were taking nature
photographs early that Saturday morning when a Norfolk Southern
freight train traveling in a westbound direction approached them
from behind.  Despite having a clear view of Mr. He and his friend
on the tracks in front of them, neither the engineer nor the
conductor sounded the train's horn in order to warn the
pedestrians of the train's approach.  They were killed instantly.

Fenjin He was well-respected in the Chinese-American communities
not only in Philadelphia, but in New York City, New Jersey,
Delaware and Washington, D.C. Coming to the United States from a
rural area of China, Mr. He became Vice President and CEO of
Nature Soy, a company employing nearly 100 people and
manufacturing a variety of soy products.  Mr. He had a Master's
Degree from Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. from Utah State
in Food Science.  In addition to his business activities, he was a
singer in the Philly Pops Orchestra and a sponsor of many
charitable activities and Chinese-American cultural events.

Fenjin He is survived by his wife Sunfei Ye and his daughters Lily
He and Marilyn He.


OCWEN LOAN: Judge Denied Member's Bid for Discovery in "Lee" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, denied settlement class member's motion
for discovery in the case JENNIFER LEE, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., Defendants, CONSENT CASE NO. 0:14-CV-
60649-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.)

Margo Perryman is a settlement class member in this lender-placed
insurance class action case. Perryman seeks to compel the parties
to provide her with discovery already produced to settlement class
counsel. She says she needs the discovery to help her make an
informed decision about whether to support, object, or opt out of
the settlement.

Her requested discovery relates to the necessity of the claims-
made structure of the proposed settlement, which was agreed to by
the parties. According to her, whether a claims-made structure is
truly necessary to effectuate the settlement is one of the
relevant factors the court will consider at the June 11, 2015
final approval hearing to determine whether the settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate.

According to Perryman's argument, where it is possible to pay at
least some claims automatically, those claims should be paid
without requiring claims forms. Her sought-after discovery is
designed to probe the view that no claims can be paid
automatically.

Magistrate Judge Goodman denied class member Margo Perryman's
motion for discovery.  A copy of Judge Goodman's order dated April
28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/tB4Q8Jfrom Leagle.com.

Jennifer Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, Jason L. Solotaroff, Anderson & Stewart,
LLP, John Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Margery Ellen
Golant, Margery E. Golant, P.A., Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst
Orseck, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan,
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC, Tal J Lifshitz,
Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, Howard Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby &
Bushman LLP, Jeffrey N. Golant, Joseph Gurian, Gurian Group, P.A.,
Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum
Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law Group
& Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.

Enrique Dominguez, TX, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M.
Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak,
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A.

Frances Erving, FL, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A.

Lisa Chamberlin Engelhardt, VA, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M.
Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak,
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A.

Johnnie Erving, FL, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A.

Douglas A. Patrick, NJ, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M.
Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak,
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A.

Shelia D. Heard, IL, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A.

Gerald Coulthurst, NY, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M.
Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak,
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A.

John Clarizia, MA, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A.

OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian V.
Otero, Hunton & Williams, Corey Anthony Lee, Hunton & Williams,
Ryan A. Becker, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Stephen R. Blacklocks,
Hunton & Williams, LLP & Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt P.A.

Assurant Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian P. Perryman,
Cralton, Fields, Jorden, Burt, P.A., Franklin G. Burt, Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt P.A., W. Glenn Merten, Carlton, Fields, Jorden,
Burt, PA, Farrokh Jhabvala, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. &
Irma T. Reboso-Solares, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Brian P. Perryman, Cralton, Fields, Jorden, Burt, P.A., Franklin
G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A., W. Glenn Merten,
Carlton, Fields, Jorden, Burt, PA, Farrokh Jhabvala, Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. & Irma T. Reboso-Solares, Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A.

Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A.

Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A.

American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Defendant,
represented by Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A..


OILWELL GUIDANCE: "Barge" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Barge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Oilwell Guidance, L.L.C., Case No. 4:15-cv-01397 (S.D.
Tex., May 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Oilwell Guidance, L.L.C. operates an oilfield service company,
providing MWD services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet Street
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


OXO: Recalls Nest Booster Seats Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
OXO, of El Paso, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about
25,000 Nest Booster Seat in the U.S. and 130 in Canada. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The stitching on the restraint straps can loosen which allows the
straps to separate from the seat, posing a fall hazard to
children.

This recall involves the Nest Booster Seat sold in green (model
6367200), pink (model 6367300), taupe (model 6367500) and orange
(model 6367400) with a white base. A sticker affixed to the
underside of the seat reads "Nest Booster Seat" with the model
number and manufacture date. The manufacture date code represents
the month and year in MMYY format and recalled units have the
code: 0714, 0814, 0914, 1014, 1114 or 1214. The formed plastic
seats are about 13 inches wide by 14 inches tall by 12 inches deep
and have a grey three-point child restraint strap system. The OXO
logo is embossed on the restraint system's buckle.

The firm has received five reports of the stitching coming undone
releasing the straps following a child pulling on the strap or an
adult tightening the straps. No injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
buybuy Baby, Toys"R"Us/Babies"R"Us and independent specialty
stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com from September 2014
through April 2015 for about $55.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Nest booster seats and
contact OXO for a free repair kit with redesigned safety straps
and installation instructions.


PALATINE, IL: 7th Cir. Keeps Judgment in Parking Ticket Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the district court's judgment
in the case JASON SENNE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF PALATINE,
ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-3671 (7th Cir.)

Plaintiff-Appellant Jason Senne filed a suit which he sought to be
certified as a class action against the Village of Palatine and
asks for statutory damages for the Village violation against the
Dirver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2721 et seq..

Plaintiff alleges that the incident happened last 2010 when
plaintiff parked his car in front of his house in the Village of
Palatine and that around 1:35 a.m. police officer wrote a parking
ticket and filled the ticket with plaintiff's name, date of birth,
sex, height, weight, driver's license number, and address, plus
information about the vehicle.

Two years later, after a panel had affirmed the dismissal of the
suit by the district court on the ground that the disclosure of
Senne's personal information on the parking ticket was a
permissible use, the court granted rehearing en banc. The en banc
court agreed with the panel that placing the parking ticket on the
windshield of Senne's car had been a disclosure within the meaning
of the Act, 695 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2012), but remanded for a
determination by the district court.

On remand, following discovery and the filing of cross motions for
summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment in
favor of the Village on the ground that the information disclosed
on the parking tickets had furthered both of these purposes. Senne
has again appealed.

Circuit Judge Posner affirmed the district court's judgment.

A copy of Judge Posner's decision dated April 28, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/SJkzMEfrom Leagle.com.

The Seventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Richard
Posner, Diane S. Sykes and Simon.


PNC N.A.: Faces "King" Suit Over HAMP Eligibility Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Roselia King, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PNC N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-03013 (E.D.N.Y., May 22,
2015), asserts a claim for relief against the Defendant for
failing to correctly determine Plaintiff's eligibility under Home
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), denying her a modification
to her detriment, and for failing to communicate the reasons for
the loan denial.

PNC N.A. owns and operates a financial service company with
offices at 175 Mile Crossing Boulevard, Rochester, New York 14624.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd S. Garber, Esq.
      D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Ave., Suite 220
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3283
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
              gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

         - and -

      Norah Hart, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF NORAH HART
      305 Broadway, 9th Floor
      New York. NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 897-5865
      Facsimile: (212) 320-0373
      E-mail: nhart@hart-smart.net


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Defibaugh" Suit Removed to Md. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Thomas Defibaugh, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, Case No. 21-C-001875-OT, was removed from the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City to the U.S. District Court
District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01478-ELH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Credit
Reporting Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jane Santoni, Esq.
      Kathleen Hyland, Esq.
      WILLIAMS AND SANTONI LLP
      401 Washington Ave Ste 200
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 938-8666
      Facsimile: (410) 938-8668
      E-mail: jane@williams-santonilaw.com
              kat@williams-santonilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
      MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
      100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201
      Camp Hill, PA 17011
      Telephone: (717) 651-3703
      Facsimile: (717) 651-3707
      E-mail: lmburnette@mdwcg.com


PRECISION TRADING: Recalls Premium(R) Espresso Makers
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Precision Trading Corp., of Miami, Fla., announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,700 PREMIUM(R) Espresso Makers. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The filler cap at the top of the unit can crack and allow steam to
escape, posing a risk of burns to the user. In addition, the cap
can pop off unexpectedly as a result of pressure buildup, posing a
risk of injury to a bystander.

This recall involves Precision Trading Corp.'s PREMIUM(R) four-cup
Espresso Makers manufactured in September 2014 and November 2014.
The recalled units have model number PEM585 and product date code
"0914" or "1114" printed on a rating label affixed to the bottom
of the espresso maker. The Premium logo is printed on the bottom
front of the espresso maker. Espresso makers with "2015" marked on
the cap are not included in this recall.

The firm has received one report of a consumer who sustained burns
to her arm when the cap unexpectedly released steam from the
espresso maker.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Brand
Mart U.S.A. and other retail stores in Florida and Puerto Rico
between November 2014 and February 2015 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled espresso
makers and contact Precision Trading Corp. to request a free
replacement cap.


PYRAMID OPERATING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standard Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Williams, John Mack, Chavez Lane and Bianca Faircloth
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Pyramid Operating Group Inc., Aramingo Operating Group Inc., Emad
Elgeddawy, HEM Mgmt. 733, and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:15-
cv-02401 (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz,Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


QEP MIDSTREAM: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement
----------------------------------------------------------
W. Joss Sanderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. QEP Midstream Partners, LP, Tesoro
Logistics LP, Susan O. Rheney, Don A. Turkleson, and Gregory C.
King, Case No. 5:15-cv-00428-XR (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2015), is an
action for violations of of the Securities Exchange Act and
Securities and Exchange Commission, specifically by making false
and materially misleading Registration Statement.

QEP Midstream Partners, LP is a Delaware Limited Partnership that
provides natural gas and crude oil gathering and transportation
services.

Tesoro Logistics LP is a Delaware Limited Partnership that
operates a full-service logistics company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq.
      Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
      POWERS TAYLOR LLP
      8150 N Central Expwy, Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-8900
      Facsimile: (214) 239-8901
      E-mail: meredith@powerstaylor.com
              patrick@powerstaylor.com

         - and -

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM
      8117 Preston, Suite 300
      Dallas, TX 75225
      Telephone: (214) 706-9314
      E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com


QUALITY BLOW: Faces "Rucker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Damien Rucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Quality Blow Molding, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01039
(N.D. Ohio, May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Quality Blow Molding, Inc. is a plastic product manufacturer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Sonia M. Whitehouse, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              sonia@lazzarolawfirm.com


RESTAURANTE EL: Faces "Cardona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Cardona, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Restaurante El Gran Conquistador Inc. d/b/a el
Conquistador restaurant and Silvio Mendia a/k/a Silvio Memdia,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03943 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in Westchester
County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com


RHODE ISLAND: Retirees Invited to Weigh-in on Pension Case Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mooney, writing for Providence Journal, reports that notices
are in the mail to some 60,000 public-sector workers and retirees
asking whether they wish to weigh in on the proposed class-action
settlement to the state's pension lawsuit.

Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter granted preliminary
approval of the deal, triggering the official notification
process.  Those who wish to speak at a May 20 "fairness hearing"
on the settlement had until May 15 to notify the court they wish
to be heard.  In her decision, Taft-Carter said that "on a
preliminary basis, the proposed settlement appears to be fair and
within the range of settlements that could be worthy of final
approval as fair, reasonable and adequate."

Reaching a settlement, the judge said, would save the unions and
retiree groups that sued the state over benefit cuts "the risks
inherent in litigation as well as from the additional delays and
expense of continued litigation and bring some finality to this
long-running dispute over the plaintiffs' retirement benefits."

The settlement, which relaxes some of the retirement-age
requirements set in the 2011 pension law and provides for some
small cost-of-living increases, still needs legislative approval.

State lawyer John Tarantino said that he expected there would be
ample time for the settlement to get necessary approval by both
Taft-Carter and lawmakers before this year's legislative session
ends.

The 12-page notification letters explain the history of the
lawsuit and go into great detail about the economic terms of the
proposed settlement.  The letters identify the various groups of
state workers and retirees who have been approved as class-action
participants and make clear that individual members of those
groups cannot opt out of the settlement.  They can only object to
the judge and explain why they feel the settlement should not be
approved for anyone.

Tarantino said the two sides have set aside three days for that
hearing but how long it goes will depend on how many people wish
to speak.  Not everyone has signed on to the agreement.  About 800
public safety workers, including police officers and firefighters
in Cranston and the members of the International Brotherhood of
Police Officers, which has locals in about 20 Rhode Island
communities, have chosen to take their case to trial.

That trial could begin in June.


RIG POWER: "Morgan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garland Morgan, Ruben Ramirez, Jorge Pinedo, David Duron, Alfelio
Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rig Power, Inc. and M3P Energy, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-
00073 (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide rental equipment and personnel for
companies in the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua C. Borsellino, Esq.
      BORSELLINO, P.C.
      1020 Macon St., Suite 15
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 908-9861
      E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


SANDISK CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

"To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of SanDisk Corporation (NASDAQ: SNDK) between October
16, 2014 and March 25, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  If you purchased or otherwise
acquired SanDisk Corporation ("SanDisk") securities between
October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, your rights may be affected
by this action.  To get more information click here:

http://zlk.9nl.com/sandisk-infosheet

The complaint alleges, among other allegations, that Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding quality
control within the corporate organizational structure.

On March 26, 2015, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it expects its revenue for the fiscal first quarter to be
approximately $1.3 billion, rather than the previously forecasted
revenue of $1.40 billion to $1.45 billion.  Upon this news, shares
of SanDisk declined $14.98 per share to close at $66.20 per share.

If you suffered a loss in SanDisk you have until May 29, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/sandisk-infosheet.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits.  Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes."


SEAWORLD INC: Texas Resident Sues Over Well-Being of Whales
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Danner, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports that
the latest suit was filed in San Antonio federal court by a Texas
resident who alleges SeaWorld and related entities have violated
state law by disseminating false information regarding the health
and well-being of the whales at its San Antonio park.  Similar
lawsuits have been filed in recent weeks in federal courts in San
Diego, California, and Orlando, Florida, where the company is
based.  The San Antonio suit seeks certification as a class-action
and unspecified financial damages from the company.  SeaWorld
representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.  A lawyer for the plaintiff was unavailable for comment.


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shabnam Vafaee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00809-
JVS-JEM (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of placing calls to the consumers' cellular
telephone using its automatic dialing equipment without prior
express consent.

Securus Technologies, Inc. a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. Securus provides communication solutions for the
corrections industry in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bob Semnar, Esq.
      Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
      SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP
      400 S. Melrose Drive, Suite 209
      Vista, CA 92081
      Telephone: (951) 293-4187
      Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
      E-mail: bob@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
              jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com


SLATER & ZURZ: Ohio Ct. App. Affirms Judgment in "Beck" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy P. Cannon of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth
District, Summit County, affirmed the trial court's judgment in
the case BECK ENERGY CORP., Appellant, v. RICHARD ZURZ, JR., et
al., Appellees, C.A. NO. 27393 (Ohio Ct. App.)

Attorneys James Peters, Richard Zurz and Mark Ropchock and their
respective law firms, Slater & Zurz, LLP, Roetzel and Andress,
LPA, and Peters Law Office Co., LPA filed a suit on behalf of
certain clients, a class action suit against Beck Energy Corp. in
Monroe County, Ohio, seeking a judicial determination as to the
validity and enforceability of certain drilling leases between
Beck and the members of the class.

In 2012, Beck filed a complaint, assigned case No. CV 2012 01
0275, against the lawyers and their respective law firms. Beck
alleged tortious interference with contractual relations and
defamation. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings,
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). The trial judge converted that motion to
a Civ.R. 56(C) motion for summary judgment. Before the trial court
issued its judgment, Beck voluntarily dismissed the case.

Beck re-filed the complaint against the same aforementioned
parties. In the re-filed complaint, appellant again alleged
appellees engaged in tortious inference with contractual and
business relations. Appellant also alleged civil conspiracy,
defamation, and sought injunctive relief. Appellees filed answers,
and Appellees Zurz, Slater & Zurz, LLP, and Ropchock, filed a
Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings. After being
granted two separate extensions, appellant filed a memorandum
opposing the motions to dismiss.

The trial court issued an order converting the motion for judgment
on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment. On April 25,
2014, appellant filed a motion for continuance pursuant to Civ.R.
56(F). The trial court granted appellees' motions for summary
judgment. Appellant appealed.

Judge Cannon affirmed the judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas.

A copy of Judge Cannon's decision and journal entry dated April
29, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/5M8xTLfrom Leagle.com.

Attorney for Appellant:

Craig T. Conley, Esq.
CRAIG T. CONLEY CO
220 Market Ave S #604
Canton, OH 44702
Telephone: 330-453-1900

Jason D. Winter -- JWinter@reminger.com -- Holy Marie Wilson --
hwilson@reminger.com -- Julian T. Emerson -- jemerson@reminger.com
-- at Reminger Attorneys at Law, for Appellees

Orville L. Reed, III -- oreed@stark-knoll.com -- at Stark & Knoll,
Attorney at Law, for Appellees

The Ohio Court of Appeals panel consists of Presiding Judge Donna
Carr, Judge Carla Moore and Judge Timothy P. Cannon of the 11th
District Court of Appeals.


SONOMA, CA: Judge Barred Plaintiffs From Filing Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District of
California denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend in the
case RAFAEL MATEOS SANDOVAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF
SONOMA, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-05817-THE (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on December 2, 2011,
challenging under both state and federal law defendants'
enforcement of California Vehicle Code Section 14602.6, which
authorizes the impoundment of a vehicle for thirty days under
limited circumstances. Plaintiffs twice filed amended complaints
pursuant to orders granting in part and denying in part motions to
dismiss, and which also granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

Plaintiffs operative complaint is the third amended class action
complaint for damages (TAC), filed on August 18, 2014.  Since the
TAC was filed, the court granted partial summary judgment to
plaintiff Ruiz on his claim that the extended duration of his
vehicle's impoundment violated the Fourth Amendment, but also to
the individual defendants based on their qualified immunity. The
court also denied plaintiff Ruiz's motion for class certification,
finding that he failed to prove numerosity, commonality, or
typicality, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).
Finally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the court's denial of the Sonoma County defendants'
motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, lifting the stay
against those defendants in this court.

Plaintiff filed another motion for leave to file a fourth amended
complaint.

Judge Henderson denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
complaint.  A copy of Judge Henderson's order dated April 27,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/tzO9jwfrom Leagle.com.

Rafael Mateos Sandova and Simeon Avendano Ruiz, individually and
as class representatives, Plaintiffs, represented by:

Alicia Roman, Esq.
ALICIA ROMAN LAW OFFICE
719 Orchard St
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Telephone: 707-526-4100
Facsimile: 707-573-1094
Email: aliciaromanlaw@yahoo.com

     - and -

Cynthia Morrison Anderson-Barker, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER
3435 Wilshire Blvd #2910
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: 213-381-3246
Facsimile: 213-252-0091

     - and -

Donald Webster Cook, Esq.
Robert Frederick Mann, Esq.
ROBERT MANN & DONALD COOK
3435 Wilshire Blvd #2910
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: 213-252-9444
Facsimile: 213-252-0091

County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff's Department, Steve
Freitas, Defendants, represented by Richard William Osman --
rosman@bfesf.com -- Thomas F. Bertrand -- tbertrand@bfesf.com --
at Bertrand, Fox, Elliot, Osman & Wenzel

City of Santa Rosa and Santa Rosa Police Department, Defendants,
represented by Matthew James LeBlanc, Office of the City Attorney
& Robert Lear Jackson, Office of the City Attorney


SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS: Judge Narrows Claim in "Garcia" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the Southern District of
New York granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion in
the case LUIS GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS
INC. et al., Defendants, NO. 14 CIV 5298 (AJN) (S.D. N.Y.)

Spectrum of Creations operates a business called Food Trends.
Plaintiff Luis Garcia was initially hired in December 2008 to work
as a counter person, food preparer and delivery person, while Food
Trends was still operating as a restaurant. Sometime in 2009, the
restaurant closed its inhouse services and became a full-time
catering business. Beginning with the changeover, Garcia worked as
a food preparer and delivery person for the catering business,
until his termination in March 2012.

Plaintiff Miguel Flores was initially hired in June 2006 to work
as a delivery person. From July 2009 until the end of his
employment in March 2014, Flores worked as a delivery dispatcher
and delivery person. Throughout the entire period of his
employment, Flores also worked as a food preparer.

Garcia filed a suit against his former employer, Spectrum of
Creations, Inc. d/b/a Food Trends, and Alla Moskowicz for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201
et seq. (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). On January 21,
2015, Flores joined the lawsuit, and three other individuals have
joined the lawsuit since.

Plaintiffs move to have the case conditionally approved as a
collective action with notice being sent to all non-exempt
employees.

Plaintiffs seek an order granting the following:

     (1) Conditional certification of the FLSA claim as a
representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) on behalf of Covered Employees;

     (2) Court-facilitated notice including Spanish translation of
the FLSA action to Covered Employees, including a consent form or
opt-in form as authorized by the FLSA;

     (3) Approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and
the consent form;

     (4) Production in Excel format of names, Social Security
numbers, titles, compensation rates, dates of employment, last
known mailing addresses, email addresses, all known and telephone
numbers of all Covered Employees within 10 days of Court approval
of conditional certification; and

     (5) Posting by plaintiffs' counsel of the notice, along with
the consent forms, in defendants' place of business where Covered
Employees are employed during regular business hours.

Judge Gorenstein granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs'
motion for conditional approval of a collective action.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's opinion and order dated
May 4, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/UioL4gfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212-465-1180
Facsimile: 212-465-1181
Email: info@leelitigation.com

Defendants, represented by David Brian Feldman --
dfeldman@mosessinger.com -- John Vincent Baranello --
jbaranello@mosessinger.com -- at Moses & Singer LLP


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Atty. Fees Granted in Right of Way Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the District of
Massachusetts granted plaintiffs' motion in the case RICHARD
KINGSBOROUGH et al., for themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P.,
CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC.
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12049-NMG (D. Mass.)

A class-action settlement resolves a property-rights dispute that
arises out of the installation of fiber-optic cable on railroad
rights of way by Sprint Communications Company L.P., CenturyLink
Communications, LLC f/k/a Qwest Communications Company, LLC, and
WilTel Communications, LLC. The claims resolved by the Settlement
affect parcels of land in Massachusetts covering approximately 260
miles of rights of way throughout the state.

On December 4, 2014, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, certifying the settlement class and
approving the form and manner of notice. The settlement agreement
provides in pertinent part: Settlement class counsel may seek from
the court a cash award of fees and expenses from the Settling
defendants, in an amount not to exceed the maximum attorneys' fee
award, to which the settling defendants will not object. The
settlement agreement defines the maximum attorneys' fee award as
$868,000.

By order dated November 13, 2014, the Court conditioned
preliminary approval of the settlement on the reduction of the
originally requested $868,000 fee-and-expense award to no more
than 25% of the gross value of the settlement, to which
plaintiffs' counsel agreed by reducing the request to $597,000.
Plaintiffs moved for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
settlement class counsel.

Judge Gorton allowed the motion for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to settlement class counsel and approves a fee-and
expense award of $597,000 to settlement class counsel. Defendants
shall deposit the fee-and-expense award approved into the
interest-bearing escrow account  with U.S. Bank in New York, New
York, no later than 10 days after the date on which the order and
judgment becomes final, that any alleged or actual civil liability
against the defendants for attorneys' fees arising out of the tort
claims resolved by the Massachusetts Class Settlement Agreement
approved by the court is satisfied and extinguished through the
defendants' payment of the fee-and-expense award and that any
interest earned on the escrow account shall be recognized as gross
income of the Qualified Settlement Fund.

A copy of Judge Gorton's findings of facts and conclusions of law
dated April 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/GxGXfDfrom
Leagle.com.

Richard Kingsborough, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Cohen,
Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, Daniel J
Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP & Katheleen
Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC

Corey Kingsborough, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Cohen,
Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, Daniel J
Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP & Katheleen
Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC

Stephen A. Hagen, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Cohen,
Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, Daniel J
Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP & Katheleen
Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC

Sarah A. Hagen, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Cohen, Koonz,
McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, Daniel J Millea,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP & Katheleen Kauffman,
Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC

Richard C. Caparso, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Cohen,
Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, Daniel J
Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP & Katheleen
Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC

Sprint Communications Company L.P., Defendant, represented by
David B. Chaffin, White and Williams LLP

CenturyLink Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christopher J. Koenigs, Sherman & Howard, David B. Chaffin, White
and Williams LLP, J. Emmett Logan, Stinson Morrison Hecker
LLP,Joseph E. Jones, Fraser Stryker PC LLO & Michael B. Carroll,
Sherman & Howard

WilTel Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by David B.
Chaffin, White and Williams LLP


SQUARE INC: Credit Card Firm Faces Class Suit by Shierkatz
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News, reports that a credit card processor closed a
bankruptcy law firm's account as a business supposedly
"prohibited" by its contract, Shierkatz RLLP claims in a class
action.

"The complaint is intended to apply civil rights law to a tech
company that is in blatant violation of civil rights of 27
categories of person who are being arbitrarily being discriminated
against because of their lawful occupation," William McGrane, an
attorney for Shierkatz with McGrane LLP, said in a phone
interview.

Shierkatz filed the superior court class action on April 17
against Square Inc., a Delaware credit card company that allegedly
describes its service is "fast and free -- no commitments or long-
term contracts."

Square allegedly revealed that it was terminating an account that
Shierkatz opened nearly two years ago pursuant to supposed
prohibitions in Square's seller agreement.  The contract section
in question purportedly has customers confirm that they will not
accept payment in connection with business activities from
bankruptcy attorneys, debt-collection agencies, credit-counseling
services, bill-payment services and automated fuel dispensers.

Square also lists "drug paraphernalia" and "occult materials"
among its list of 28 prohibited business categories, according to
the complaint, an amended version of which it filed on April 20.

Shierkatz notes that, with the exception of the prohibition on
accepting payment in connection with illegal business activity,
"each and every other category" of supposedly prohibited
businesses is either entirely vague or constitutes an entirely
lawful occupation.

When Shierkatz opened its account, the only way to access the
seller agreement was by clicking a hyperlink at the bottom of
Square's website labeled "Legal," according to the complaint.
The firm notes that clicking this link was not required to open an
account.

Square allegedly changed its website later to "inferentially
require" new customers to click on a hyperlink called "Seller's
Agreement."

Shierkatz claims there is "absolutely nothing" to suggest anyone
who signed up when it did must click on "Legal," or which
otherwise suggests that a person who clicks on "Sign Up" has
thereby agreed to whatever separate content might have been
accessed by first clicking on "Legal."

For those who signed when Shierkatz did, there is "absolutely
nothing to suggest that whatever separate content may be viewed by
clicking on 'Seller's Agreement' is at variance with the earlier
written representations that 'Signing up for Square is fast and
free -- no commitments or long-term contracts,'" according to the
suit.

Shierkatz says the company's warranty moreover "entirely
misrepresents the meaning and intent of the sixty-four paragraph
long Square seller's agreement."  The seller agreement is, "quite
literally, a commitment" to, among other things, forever waive the
right to jury trial or any access to the courts, Shierkatz claims.

Shierkatz wants to represent a class that includes any people or
companies whose accounts Square has similarly terminated under the
seller agreement, though the business in question has no
involvement in any "illegal activity or goods."  In addition to
damages, the class seeks an injunction against Square for
violations of California's Unruh civil rights law and unfair
competition law.

A Square representative told Courthouse News, "This case is
completely without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously
against it."


TOP RANK: Faces "Bynum" Suit Over Pacquiao Injury Concealment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chamar Bynum, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Top Rank Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03016
(E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate
result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic
Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight
between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd S. Garber, Esq.
      D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
      Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP.
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
              gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
              tgarber@fbfglaw.com


TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: "Hayes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Hayes, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Transamerica Premier Life Insurance Company and Monumental Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00313-JRS (E.D. Va., May 21,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an insurance company in
Chesterfield, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
      CURWOOD LAW FIRM PLC
      530 East Main Street, Suite 710
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 788-0808
      Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
      E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com

         - and -

      Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
      CURWOOD LAW FIRM PLC
      530 East Main Street, Suite 710
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 788-0808
      Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
      E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


TWEEN BRANDS: Sued For Advertising False Merchandise Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Metoyer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tween Brands, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01007
(C.D. Cal., May 22, 2015), asserts that the Defendant advertises
false original prices, regular prices, and price discounts for its
apparel and other merchandise, in its direct marketing to
consumers via in-store advertising displays, print advertising,
and via its internet website -- http://www.shopjustice.com/

Tween Brands, Inc. owns and operates 77 Justice Stores throughout
the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
      DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 444-5240
      Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
      E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
      77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G
      Palm Desert, CA 92211
      Telephone: (760) 469-5986
      Facsimile: (760) 345-1581
      E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com


UAG FAYETTEVILLE: Removed "Fletcher" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Natasha L. Fletcher,
individually and on behalf of all others Similarly situated v. UAG
Fayetteville II, LLC and Ally Financial, Inc., Case No. CV15-664-
5, was removed from the Circuit Court of Washington County to the
U. S. District Court Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-05117-PKH.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy F. Snively, Esq.
      SNIVELY LAW FIRM
      135 W. Sunbridge
      Fayetteville, AR 72703
      Telephone: (479) 695-2444
      Facsimile: (479) 695-1120
      E-mail: timsnively@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Clifford W. Plunkett, Esq.
      FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
      3425 N. Futrall, Suite 103
      Fayetteville, AR 72703
      Telephone: (479) 695-1103
      Facsimile: (479) 695-2147
      E-mail: plunkett@fridayfirm.com


UBER TECH: Guide-Dog Users' Discrimination Suit May Move Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Bliss, writing for CityLab.com, reports that in a ruling
that could raise the accountability bar for all tech companies, a
federal judge in San Francisco has allowed the National Federation
of the Blind of California to pursue a lawsuit that accuses Uber
of discrimination against visually impaired guide-dog users.

The NFB states that Uber drivers have violated ADA laws on
multiple occasions by refusing to serve passengers with service
animals.  Drivers have also denied transport to blind people
without dogs, the organization maintains.  In other cases, animals
were allowed passage but were allegedly mistreated.  According to
the original civil complaint, filed in September of 2014:

Plaintiffs are aware of more than thirty instances where drivers
of UberX vehicles refused to transport blind individuals with
service animals.  UberX drivers that refused to transport these
blind individuals did so after they initially agreed to transport
the riders.  The UberX drivers denied the requested transportation
service after the drivers had arrived and discovered that the
riders used service animals.

In addition, some UberX drivers seriously mishandle guide dogs or
harass blind customers with guide dogs even when they do not
outright deny the provision of taxi service.  For example, Leena
Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog.  An UberX driver forced Ms.
Dawes' guide dog into the closed trunk of the UberX sedan before
transporting Ms. Dawes.  When Ms. Dawes realized where the driver
had placed her dog, she pleaded with the driver to pull over so
that she could retrieve her dog from the trunk, but the driver
refused her request.

Uber had requested the case to be dismissed, on the basis that its
contracts require customers to take disputes to arbitration and
argue their complaints as individuals, not in class-action suits,
according to SF Gate.  The ride-hailing company also argued that
it is not a "public accommodation" and therefore not subject to
ADA requirements.

A federal judge tossed out that reasoning, stating that the NDF
could move forward on behalf of its members who haven't signed
Uber contracts (i.e., those who haven't necessarily used Uber
yet).

The ruling is part of a wave of accessibility complaints and
lawsuits against Uber and similar companies.  Uber came under fire
in March after a software bug rendered the app effectively useless
for blind users and went unfixed for months.  An ongoing lawsuit
in Texas debates whether Uber provides sufficient access to
wheelchair users, according to the San Francisco Business Times.
Lyft was also sued there, but settled privately.  And in March,
Chris Pangilinan, a former SF Muni engineer, filed a complaint
with the DOJ against Leap, the San Francisco private bus start-up
with a $6 fare but with no wheelchair access.

Ars Technica reports:

His complaint alleges that Leap "removed features that made the
buses previously wheelchair accessible, such as the front door
ramp, and wheelchair securement areas within the vehicle."

"I don't want money or anything, what I want is to make sure that
the spirit and the letter of the ADA [is considered] in the way
that we build or change our transportation in the country,"
Pangilinan told Ars.  "If services like Leap are going to become
more popular, then it's harder to fight if we don't change it."
It's important to remember that for many vision-impaired people,
services like Uber are game-changers.  The convenience, relative
low cost, and integration (most of the time) with most new
smartphones' built-in screen-reading functionality have given the
blind community new ways of being independent when it comes to
travel.

The San Francisco ruling will hopefully set a precedent that shows
newer, app-based businesses are accountable to the same civil
rights laws as traditional ones.

"As a blind person myself, these things [like Uber] are such a
leveler of the playing field," Scott Blanks, deputy director of
the San Francisco LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired,
has said.  "They're not a driverless car, but they're a lot closer
. . .  But, clearly there are some places where the service is not
working for people.  We're talking about the wheelchair users,
people with service dogs, guide dogs, where something that should
make life more convenient can in fact make it a lot more
frustrating."


UNIVERSAL PRESSURE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Soto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Universal Pressure Pumping, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00424-DAE
(W.D. Tex., May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection
with recent a mass layoff and plant closing at the Defendant's
Elmendorf, Texas site of employment.

Universal Pressure Pumping, Inc. operates an oil well services
company with its principal place of business located at or near 6
Desta Drive, Suite 4400, Midland, Texas 79705.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


URS CORPORATION: Sued Over Unlawful Background Check Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hunter, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. URS Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-02300 (N.D.
Cal., May 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by
requiring job applicants to sign a standardized background check
forms.

URS Corporation owns and operates an engineering, design, and
construction firm, headquartered at 600 Montgomery Street, 25th
Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
      TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
      3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (323) 744-1146
      Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
      E-mail: Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com

         - and -

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      John Soumilas, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
      Land Title Building, 19th Floor
      100 South Broad Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 735-8600
      Facsimile: (215) 940-8000


US BANK: Illegally Collects Post-Judgment Debt Cost, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen J. Todd, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated former and current homeowners in Pennsylvania v. U.S.
Bank, National Association and McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02866 (E.D. Pa., May 22, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' systemic practices of using unfair means to collect or
attempt to collect post-judgment debts costs and interest that
were not expressly authorized by the mortgage.

U.S. Bank National Association is a national bank with its
principal place of business located at 425 Walnut Street,
Cincinnati, Ohio.

McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C. operates a law firm with its
principal office located at 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1400,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Malakoff
      Jonathan R. Burns, Esq.
      437 Grant Street, Suite 200
      The Frick Building
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-4217
      E-mail: malakoff@mpmalakoff.com
              burn@mpmalakoff.com


UTI DRILLING: Settles Discrimination Claim for $14.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Jaffe, writing for The Denver Post, reports that what started
with Latino workers on a Western Slope oil rig being called
"beaners" and "tacos" and escalated to fistfights and firearms has
ended in a $14.5 million discrimination case settlement.

Snyder, Texas-based Patterson-UTI Drilling Co. agreed to a no-
fault settlement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission in the nearly nine-year-long case.

Denver Federal Court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel approved a consent
decree settling the suit.  Citing drill rigs in Colorado, South
Dakota and Louisiana, the EEOC said Patterson-UTI engaged in a
nationwide pattern of discrimination and harassment based on race
and national origin.

Pablo Ruenda, a Colorado oil field worker, was one of the three
"charging parties" in the lawsuit.

Ruenda went to work on a Patterson-UTI rig near Rifle in 2005,
said his lawyer Karen Zulauf.

"Pablo and the other Hispanics working on the rig were never
addressed by their names but were called 'wetback,' 'taco' or
'beaner,' Ms. Zulauf said.

The slurs escalated to physical harassment, with workers opening a
portable toilet where a Hispanic worker was sitting and throwing a
cleaning fluid on him, Ms. Zulauf said.  An attempt to drag a
Hispanic worker to a hot pipe by two workers led to a melee
between white and Latino workers, Ms. Zulauf said.  Soon after,
one worker brandished a gun at the drill site, she said.

Mr. Ruenda voiced his concerns about the deteriorating situation
to his supervisor but eventually was fired.

Many of these claims formed the bases of the lawsuit, said Andrew
Winston, an EEOC senior attorney.

"Work on drill rigs is hazardous, and they added to that elements
that made it downright dangerous," Winston said.

Under the settlement, Patterson-UTI will put nearly $12.3 million
into a fund for discrimination victims, with another $2.2 million
from separate out-of-court settlements added.

As many as 1,000 Patterson-UTI workers and former workers are
expected to make claims to the class-action fund, Winston said.
The settlement also required Patterson-UTI to take steps to
prevent discrimination in the future.

These included anti-discrimination training, random interviews
with minority employees to ensure there is no discrimination and a
process to investigate complaints.  The company also agreed to
increase recruiting of qualified minority candidates.

"We take this matter very seriously and are pleased to have
reached a resolution," Andy Hendricks, CEO of Patterson-UTI Energy
Inc., the drilling company's parent, said in a statement.  "We are
committed to providing a safe, welcoming and respectful work
environment."


UTICA: School District Sued Over Segregation of Refugee Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that some refugee
students in the Utica school district aren't allowed to attend the
public high school and are shipped to their own school, according
to a federal class-action lawsuit filed.

Utica's school district won't allow refugees between the ages of
17 and 20 to attend Proctor High School, instead sending them to
two alternative schools, the lawsuit said.  One is the Newcomer
Program at the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees, where
the only class offered is English as a second language, the
lawsuit said.

Those students can't earn a high school diploma, said the lawsuit,
filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union and Legal Services of
Central New York.  That program has no classes in math, science or
history, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of six refugee students and a
class of similar immigrant students.  The district's policy
violates a state law that guarantees a free public education
anyone under 21, the lawsuit said.

"Each came to the United States longing for freedom and
opportunity, only now to be the subject of national origin
discrimination," the lawsuit said.

Utica schools Superintendent Bruce Karam said he hasn't seen the
lawsuit and will respond more fully after it's been served on the
district.

"From what I have been advised, the allegations are totally
unfounded and without merit," Karam said in an email to
Syracuse.com.  "We have never denied any student entry into our
schools.  We provide a quality education to all our students."

The district's lawyer, Donald Gerace, said the district has never
denied any eligible student admission to its schools.  A "number
of" refugee students ages 17 and older are attending the high
school, he said.

"The district is proud of its educational program for its (English
language learner) students which has resulted in immigrant student
graduates who have become doctors, lawyers, members of the US
service academies and students at Ivy league schools," Gerace
said.  The school district's program has been recognized by the
United Nations, he said.

Utica is nicknamed "the second-chance city," partly because of its
large refugee population, the suit said.  Almost one out of every
six residents is a refugee, the suit said.  The school's refugee
policy began eight years ago, according to lawyers who filed the
lawsuit.  The second alternate program for refugee students,
APPLE, is a GED program located in New Hartford, the lawsuit said.
The Utica school district doesn't allow refugee students into its
own GED program, the suit said.

One of the plaintiffs, Patrick Tuyizere, was born in a refugee
camp in Rwanda after escaping conflict in the Congo.  He attended
a high school in Baltimore when he first arrived in the U.S., was
placed in the GED program when his family moved to Utica, he said.

"All I want to do is go to school and work hard to achieve my
goals," Tuyizere said in a news release about the lawsuit.  "But
right now all I feel is that I am falling behind and it makes me
very sad."


VALOR ATHLETICS: Recalls Weight Bench Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Valor Athletics Inc., of St. Petersburg, Fla., announced a
voluntary recall of 100 Weight bench. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The weld joining the front leg to the main frame can break, posing
an injury hazard to the user.

This recall involves Valor Fitness BF-38 Flat/Incline/Decline
Olympic Benches. The benches are used to perform various free
weight exercises. The recalled benches have a gray, steel frame
that measures 53 inches long by 43 inches wide by 47 inches tall
and have black, multi-position seat and back pads. They have
adjustable bar supports with safety bar hooks and plate storage
pegs on the rear of the uprights. The Valor Fitness logo and model
number are on the main cross frame between the two uprights.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/WpOER6

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Valorathleticsinc.com and Valorfitness.com from January 2014 to
September 2014 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the bench and contact
Valor Fitness for a free repair.


VELDOS LLC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Weissmandl" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Weissmandl, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Veldos, LLC, Docket No. 1:15-cv-02999
(E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIKING RANGE: Recalls Gas Ranges Due to Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Viking Range LLC, of Greenwood, Miss., announced a voluntary
recall of about 52,000 Gas ranges in the U.S. and about 8,300 in
Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The ranges' ovens can turn on by themselves, posing a burn hazard
to consumers.

This recall involves Viking Range freestanding gas ranges sold in
stainless steel, black, white and 21 different colors and
finishes. The ranges were sold in various surface configurations:
All burners or burners with griddle and/or grill. The ranges are
about 36 inches tall to the top of the side trim, 30, 36, 48 or 60
inches wide and 24.5 inches deep to the end of the side panel.
The model and serial numbers can be found on a label in one of
three locations:  On the bottom of the control panel above the
door, on the front of the oven cavity below the control panel, or
on the inside of the left side panel; which  can be seen by
removing the left front grate and burner bowl. Consumers should
only search for the model and serial number when the range is not
hot. Model and serial numbers beginning with the following are
included in this recall:

  Model Numbers      Serial Numbers
  -------------      --------------
  VGIC306            All
  VGIC308            All
  VGIC366            All
  VGIC368            All
  VGIC486            All
  VGIC488            All
  VGIC530            All
  VGIC536            All
  VGCC530            From 040108 through 010313
  VGCC536            From 110108 through 010913
  VGCC548            From 020109 through 010913
  VGCC560            From 050111 through 010313
  VGSC530            From 063008 through 063014
  VGSC536            From 113008 through 063014
  VGSC548            From 030109 through 063014

Viking Range has received 75 reports of gas ranges turning on by
themselves, including three reports of burns and four reports of
property damage claims, with one claim resulting in a payment of
$850.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5IUzzV

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at ABT, Ferguson, Morrison, Pacific Sales, PC Richard & Son and
other stores nationwide from July 2007 through June 2014 for
between $4,000 and $13,000.

Consumers should immediately contact Viking Range to schedule a
free in-home repair. While waiting for a free repair, consumers
can contact Viking Range for steps to avoid a burn injury.


VIVINT INC: Recalls Dimming Switch Modules Due to Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Vivint, Inc. of Provo, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of about
213,000 Dimming switch modules. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The module wiring is incorrectly installed, posing a shock hazard
to consumers.

This recall involves Vivint's Remotec plug-in dimming and on/off
switch module, model ZDS-100US.  It was sold separately or in home
automation alarm systems that remotely control lighting and home
appliances and act as a repeater that amplifies wireless signals.
The off-white module plugs into the wall and measures about 5
inches long at the top and 4 inches long at the bottom, 2.45
inches high at the center and 1.39 inches wide at bottom. It has
electric outlets on both sides and signal strength indicators at
the top. Recalled modules have the first four digits of the serial
numbers ranging from 1115 through 1440. Remotec, model and serial
numbers are printed in black on the rear of the dimming switch
module.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Authorized dealers nationwide and at www.vivint.com from April
2011 through October 2014 for about $50.

Consumers should contact Vivint Inc. immediately for instructions
for a free replacement module. Vivint is contacting consumers
directly.


VOLARIS AVIATION: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the American Depository Shares of Volaris Aviation
Holding Company pursuant and/or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about September 18, 2013, alleging violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company and certain of its
officers.

If you purchased Volaris during the Class Period, you may, no
later than April 27, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

If you want more information about the Volaris Shareholder Class
Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO contained
financial statements that were presented in violation of
applicable accounting standards and the Company's publicly
disclosed accounting policies.  As a result of defendants'
materially false and misleading statements, the Company's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, the Company's Registration Statement
failed to disclose certain material events known to defendants
that rendered the Registration Statement materially false and
misleading.  According to the suit, the misstatements and
omissions include: (1) the financial effects ensuing from a change
in the Company's airline reservation system; and (2) an expansion
of competition in the Tijuana and Guadalajara, Mexico, markets,
which was having a material adverse effect on the Company's
revenues and profit margins at the time of the IPO.

About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms.  In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability.


WELLS FARGO: "Hallie" Suit Dismissed for Failure to Opt Out
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Philip P. Simon of the Northern District of
Inidana, Hammond Division, granted defendants' motion in the case
JUDITH HALLIE, individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff,
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO INSURANCE, INC., AMERICAN
SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND ASSURANT, INC., Defendants, NO.
2:12-CV-00235-PPS-APR (N.D. Ind.)

Judith Hallie brought an action against defendants American
Security Insurance Company, Wells Fargo Bank, and Wells Fargo
Insurance over forced-placed insurance Wells Fargo put on Hallie's
home when she didn't have insurance coverage as required by her
mortgage agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the case
initially for failure to state a claim.

The case was stayed in February 2014 pending the outcome of
settlement proceedings in in Fladell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
No. 13-cv-60721-FAM (S.D. Fla.), that the parties informed the
court might apply to the case as well.

The Fladell class settlement was preliminarily approved on March
17, 2014, and with that approval came the class notice and the
scheduling of deadlines for opting out and the final approval
hearing were scheduled on September 18, 2014. In October 2014 the
defendants notified the court of the approval of the class action
settlement. The defendants' notification stated that the Fladell
settlement encompasses Hallie's claims. The court ordered Hallie
to file relevant dismissal papers based on the settlement.  In
December Hallie, through her counsel, filed a status report
disputing the defendants' characterization of the Florida
settlement. Hallie said she had filed a timely request for
exclusion from the settlement in August 2014, so her claims
weren't released.

The defendants responded that Hallie failed to properly opt out of
the Florida settlement because she hadn't personally signed her
request for exclusion, and instead her counsel had sent the letter
on her behalf. The defendants filed a new motion to dismiss.

Judge Simon granted defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings since Hallie failed to properly opt out of the Florida
class settlement, her case has been settled, and she cannot
continue to pursue settled claims in the present court.

A copy of Chief District Judge Simon's opinion and order dated
April 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/U9x8FBfrom
Leagle.com.

Judith Hallie, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Wells Fargo Bank NA and Wells Fargo Insurance Inc, Defendants,
represented by Timothy J Abeska -- tim.abeska@btlaw.com -- Alice J
Springer -- alice.springer@btlaw.com -- Joseph R Fullenkamp --
joseph.fullenkamp@btlaw.com -- at Barnes & Thornburg LLP
American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
William G Beatty -- beattyw@jbltd.com -- at Johnson & Bell Ltd;
Farrokh Jhabvala -- fjhabvala@cfjblaw.com -- Frank G Burt --
fburt@cfjblaw.com -- at Jorden Burt LLP


WESTOWER COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Approves Settlement on Final Basis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez of the Eastern District of
California granted plaintiff's motion for final approval of
settlement in the case TROY W. CRAYTHORN, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WESTOWER COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., a Delaware corporation and and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-01328-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff filed a motion for order granting Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement, the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
filed December 5, 2014.

Judge Mendez said the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable
and adequate to the class and to each class member and that the
settlement is ordered finally approved, and that all terms and
provisions of the settlement are ordered to be consummated.

Class counsel is entitled to a fee and accordingly, the court
approves the application of class counsel, Law Offices of Cohelan
Khoury & Singer and Vaughan & Associates for $342,000.00 for their
attorneys' fees, and $16,282.46 for their litigation expenses. The
court approves a class representative service payment in the sum
of $5,000.00 to the named plaintiff, Troy W. Craythorn as an
enhancement for his initiation of the action, work performed, the
risks undertaken for the payment of costs had the case had an
unfavorable outcome, and for the substantial benefit to be
received by the 280-member class as a result of his efforts. The
court further approves payment of the fees and costs of the
appointed claims administrator, CPT Group, Inc., of $12,000.00 for
services rendered and to be rendered in connection with the
completion of its administrative duties pursuant to the
settlement. The Court entered final judgment in the case.

A copy of Judge Mendez's order dated April 8, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/0dyGMdfrom Leagle.com.

Isam C. Khoury -- ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Michael D. Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Diana M. Khoury -- dkhoury@ckslaw.com -- J.
Jason Hill -- jhill@ckslaw.com -- at COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER,
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Conditionally Certified Class

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Conditionally Certified Class:

Cris C. Vaughan, Esq.
VAUGHAN & RING
6207 S. Walnut Street, Suite 800
Loomis, CA 95650-8930
Telephone: 916-660-9401
Facsimile: 916-660-9378


WORLD BANK: Sued Over Funding of Coal Plant in India
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Hudson and Barry Yeoman, writing for Huffington Post,
report that the World Bank Group caused serious harm to fishers,
farmers and villagers in northwest India by bankrolling a giant
coal-fired power plant on an ecologically fragile stretch of
coastline, a lawsuit filed in U.S. federal court in Washington
argues.

The suit accuses the World Bank Group's private-sector lending
arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), of
"irresponsible and negligent conduct" in handling its $450 million
financing package for the coal plant.  Lawyers for EarthRights
International, an environmental group with offices in the U.S.,
South America and Asia, filed the case on behalf of people living
and working near the coal plant, which is located along the Gulf
of Kutch, an inlet of the Arabian Sea.

The suit, which seeks class action status, argues that the Tata
Mundra coal-fired plant has "fundamentally altered the local
environment."  Heated water pumped from the plant has drastically
reduced catches for traditional fishing clans, and coal dust and
fly ash from the plant has contaminated farms and homes, the suit
claims.

The plaintiffs in Jam v. IFC seek compensation for harm to local
residents' livelihoods and a court order enforcing the IFC's
standards for protecting people and the environment.

The IFC would not comment directly on the lawsuit's claims.  An
IFC spokesperson provided a statement saying that the Tata Mundra
plant "provides reliable power to rural and urban-based domestic
consumers across the western states of Gujarat and Maharashtra and
the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Rajasthan."  The
spokesperson said the IFC and the plant's operators have been
working to address local community concerns.

In previous statements, the IFC has said that area residents are
better off because it helped finance the power plant.  "IFC has
played a critical role in the Tata Mundra project, both in terms
of investing and in providing guidance on environment and social
practices," it said.  By developing guidelines to reduce harm to
neighbors, and helping Tata implement them, "IFC ensured that the
project's environmental and social impacts are in line with good
international industry practices."

The World Bank Group has two main lenders -- the World Bank, which
lends to governments, and the IFC, which lends to corporations
such as the Tata group, an Indian conglomerate that built and
operates the coal power plant.  The lawsuit comes amid reports by
the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, The
Huffington Post, The Investigative Fund and other media partners
that the World Bank and the IFC have regularly failed to enforce
their rules for protecting people in the path of development
projects.

World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said in March that he had
"deep concern" about how the bank is handling the social impact of
its projects.  He announced an action plan for dealing with the
concerns.

The IFC has said that its mission is to "carry out investment and
advisory activities with the intent to 'do no harm' to people and
the environment."

The lawsuit argues that the IFC's handling of the Tata Mundra
project represents a "mission failure" because the plant's
construction and operations have "done substantial harm to local
people and the environment."  The suit charges that the IFC knew
the plant would have serious social and environmental consequences
but moved forward with financing "without taking reasonable steps
to prevent the harms it specifically foresaw."

International organizations such as the World Bank Group generally
contend they have a high level of legal immunity, which makes it
difficult to sue them.  Rick Herz, EarthRights' litigation
coordinator, said his group believes that the circumstances of the
case and recent legal decisions will allow the litigants to defeat
any claims of immunity.


                            *********

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  * * *