CAR_Public/150611.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 116


                            Headlines


142 NORTH: "Cervantes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
23ANDME INC: Judge Grants Bid to Stay Ironshore Suit
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Sued for Misrepresenting Technology
ADECCO USA: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
AIRSTREAM: Recalls Multiple Motor Home Models Due to Injury Risk

ALLIED INTERSTATE: 2nd Cir. Revives "Franco" Class Action
ALTRIA GROUP: 10 Healthcare Cost Recovery Suits v. PM in Canada
ALTRIA GROUP: 29 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM USA for Trial in 2015
ALTRIA GROUP: 77 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM Resulted in Verdicts
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Paid $271MM in Total Judgments at April 20

ALTRIA GROUP: 3,125 State Court Cases v. PM Pending at April 20
ALTRIA GROUP: Trials Stayed Pending Final Approval of Engle Deal
ALTRIA GROUP: "Russo" Case v. PM USA Being Re-tried
ALTRIA GROUP: Defendants in 7 Class Actions in Canadian Provinces
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin Jan. 2016 in Medical Monitoring Case

ALVEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Recalls Furosemide Injections
AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Removed "Stanturf" Suit to Kansas Court
ANZ BANK: Heads to High Court to Defend Late Payment Fees
APEX AT HOME: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
APPLE CANADA: Recalls Beats Pill XL Speakers Due to Fire Hazard

ASSURED SELF: "Fisher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AVNET INC: Received $3 Million From LCD Class Action Settlement
BANK OF BOSTON: Settles Private-Label MBS-Related Claims
BANKERS TRUST: Wants Court to Block Foreclosure of MonaVie
BAYER CORP: Calif. High Court Revives Cipro Antitrust Class Suit

BLATT HASENMILLER: Sued in Ariz. Over Violation of FDCPA
BLUE DIAMOND: Falsely Marketed Almond Milk Products, Suit Claims
BLUEHILL CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BMW: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbags
BMW: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag

BOH BROS: E.D. La. Judge Narrows Claims in "Vodanovich" Suit
BRASKEM S.A.: Class Action Claims in Fact-Finding & Appeals Phase
BRCP/GM: Appeals Court Says "Nordbye" Suit Should Be Dismissed
C. R. BARD: One Hernia Product Class Action Pending
C. R. BARD: 3 Trials on Hernia Product Claims in 2nd Half 2015

C. R. BARD: 10 Class Suits Pending Over Women's Health Products
C. R. BARD: Ontario Court Dismissed Motion for Class Certification
C. R. BARD: Judgment in Women's Health Product Claim Paid in March
C. R. BARD: $2MM Judgment in First MDL Trial on Appeal
C. R. BARD: Settles 25 Women's Health Product Claims

C. R. BARD: Medtronic Granted Leave to Amend Answer
C. R. BARD: Filter Product Claims by 45 Plaintiffs Still Pending
CABOT OIL: Groundwater Class Action Heads to Jury Trial This Year
CAN-AM: Recalls Children's ATVs Due to Injury Risk
CANADA: Treasury Board Rejects Soldier's Housing Claims

CARMAX INC: Decision in Fowler Lawsuit on Appeal
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
CHRYSLER: Recalls Dodge RAM Models Due to Defective Airbag
CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag

CLEAR SPRINGS: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
CNINSURE INC: Settlement Agreement in "Van Dongen" Case Approved
COQUITLAM: May Face Class Action Over Warrantless Searches
CORELOGIC INC: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held
CREDIT BUREAU: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

DISTRIBUTION MANSOUR: Recalls Antifreeze/Coolant Products
DONA ANA: Suit Over Lost Accreditation Gets Class Action Status
DONATI'S OF LAKE: Faces "Cortez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EBAY: Judge Dismisses 2014 Data Breach Class Action
FIRST STUDENT: "Hurst Suit" Remains in Oregon District Court

FISKARS CANADA: Recalls Cohort Knives Due to Laceration Hazard
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Ranger Models Due to Defective Airbag
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Mustang Models Due to Defective Airbag
FOREST RIVER: Recalls Multiple Trailer Models Due to Injury Risk
FOREST RIVER: Recalls Multiple Travel Trailers Due to Crash Risk

FORT BEND COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Action Over Truancy Program
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby-Food Labeling Class Action Can Proceed
HALCON RESOURCES: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Withdrawn
HEIGHTS APARTMENTS: Settles Suit Over Security Deposit Deductions
HMSHOST CORPORATION: Faces "Oana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

HOLIDAY LUGGAGE: Recalls Immersion Travel Water Heaters
HONDA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
HOUSTON AMERICAN: July 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Parents of Mistreated Children File Class Suit
IC SYSTEM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Narrows Claims in "Koehler" Suit
ISORAY INC: Faces "Duffy" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
J.B. HUNT: Awaiting Appointment of Panel of Judges in Appeal
JC CHRISTENSEN: 2d Cir. Absolves Debt Collector in FDCPA Suit
JAPAN: Court Rejects Class Action Over Koto Panjang Dam Damage

JOE FRESH: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Bangladesh Disaster
KENNER, LA: Firefighters Win Over City of Kenner on Appeal
KOCH TRUCKING: Judge Nixes 5th Amended Complaint in "Gilliand"
LAREDO PETROLEUM: Judge Grants Attorneys' Fees and Other Awards
LAUNDRY BASKET: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

LEAR CORP: Canada Courts Approve Class Action Settlement
LEAR CORP: Plaintiffs Dismiss in Truck & Equipments Dealers Case
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss CHIS Case
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Russet Potato Products Due to Tampering
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Hummus Products Due to Staphylococcus

LORILLARD TOBACCO: Faces Class Action Over BLU E-Cigarettes
M&T BANK: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Overdraft Charges
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN: E.D. Cal. Judge Stays "Story" Class Action
MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Spice Products Due to Mustard & Sulphites
MEMPHIS, TN: Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Denied

MERCURY INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
MERITAGE HOMES: Staff Arrested Over False FLSA Trial Testimony
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lehmeyer" Suit Says
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: "Manchouck" Suit Dismissal Ruling Upheld
MONTREAL MAINE: Court Approves Train Derailment Class Action

MUNDAE CLEANING: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NHP CONSULTING: Recalls Bio-Hpf Capsules Due to Lead
OCWEN LOAN: 9th Cir. Remands "Kuns" Class Action to Dist. Court
OHIO: Faces Class Action Over Turnpike Toll Hikes
OLIVER ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Mevorach" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA

ONEWEST BANK: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Gorsuch" Suit
PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Hearing Held
PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Laid-Off Workers File Class Action
PAY ME FOODS: Recalls Carbon Lump Charcoal Due to Noncompliance
PELLA CORPORATION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Walters" Suit

PELLA CORPORATION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Naparala" Suit
PETER CIPPARULO III: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
PFIZER INC: Court Delays Approval of Drug Class Action Settlement
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Must Face "Sourovelis" Case Over Forfeitures
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Osaga Avenue Residents Won't Accept Settlement

PHILIP MORRIS: Court Vacates Punitive Damages Award in "Berger"
PITTSBURGH, PA: Settles Hiring Bias Class Action for $1.6 Million
POTAMKIN HY: "Hurtado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
RLI CORP: Belmont Class Action Settlement Approved on Final Basis
SAN JOSE, CA: Police Dep't Faces Racial Profiling Class Action

SANDISK CORP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Action
SETHI DIAMONDS: Faces "Castellanos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SKINDER STRAUSS: Judge Grants Bid for Final Settlement Approval
SMASHBURGER: Court Dismisses Ex-CEO's Suit Over Shares
SPOKEO INC: October Hearing Set for Privacy Class Action

SPRINT NEXTEL: Guilbaud Gets More Time to File Class Cert. Motion
STATE FARM: "Thompson" Case Won't Proceed as Class Action
SUKHMANI INC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TOYS "R" US: Received $12MM Settlement Payment in January 2015
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Ill. Counties Sue Over Guardrail End Terminal

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued in Ontario Over Guardrail End Terminal
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: La Crosse Sues Over Guardrail End Terminal
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: In Talks to Resolve Train Derailment Case
TROPICAL SHIPPING: Sued Over LCL Cargo Shipping Market Monopoly
TWEEN BRANDS: Faces "Kallay" Suit Over False Merchandise Prices

UNITED AIRLINES: Sued for Misrepresenting Inflight Wi-Fi Services
UNITED UNLIMITED: Recalls Disposable Grill Products
VANTAGE FOODS: Recalls Beef Sausages Due to Mustard and Wheat
VENTAS INC: MOU Reached in HCT Acquisition-Related Litigation
VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Sued Over "Deceptive" Billing Practices

WAL-MART STORES: July 16 Case Mgmt. Conf. in "VanCleave" Case Set
WALLGREEN CO: Judge Narrows Claims in "Warner Suit"
WEATHERFORD INT'L: Advanced Settlement Talks in "Freedman" Action
WEATHERFORD INT'L: Insurers Fund Settlement Payments in "Dobina"
WHISTLER GROUP: Recalls Portable Jumpstart & Power Supplies

WILLOW CREEK: Recalls Organic Curry Powder Due to Mustard
YINGLI GREEN: Faces "Knox" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

* Kerryville Developers Face Suit for Misleading Homebuyers


                            *********


142 NORTH: "Cervantes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Ortega Cervantes and Galindo Moreno Villegas v. 142
North 1 LLC, and Shia Lefkowitz, Case No. 1:15-cv-03108 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a luxury residential building
located at 142 North 1st Street, Brooklyn, New York 11249.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


23ANDME INC: Judge Grants Bid to Stay Ironshore Suit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion for stay in the case IRONSHORE SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. 23ANDME, INC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 14-CV-03286-BLF (N.D. Cal.)

23andMe provides a Personal Genome Service (PGS) directly to
consumers who wish to access and understand their personal genetic
information. On November 22, 2013, the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter stating that sales of
the PGS without market clearance or approval violated the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act. The FDA expressed concerns regarding the
Health Component of the PGS, and required 23andMe to stop
marketing the Health Component pending FDA approval.

23andMe stopped offering the health component to new consumers.
Subsequently, several legal proceedings were commenced against
23andMe, including a class action, consolidated class action and
two proposed class arbitration complaints before the American
Arbitration Association.

23andMe tendered the defense of the federal actions and
arbitration complaints to Ironshore under a Products/Completed
Operations Liability and Professional Liability Policy for Life
Sciences that Ironshore had issued to 23andMe for the period March
19, 2013 to March 19, 2014. Ironshore accepted the defense of the
actions, and of a Civil Investigative Demand commenced by the
State of Washington, under a reservation of rights.

Ironshore subsequently filed a declaratory relief seeking a
judicial declaration that it does not have a duty to defend or
indemnify 23andMe in the underlying actions. Ironshore also seeks
judicial declarations as to the application of certain specific
policy exclusions and limitations. 23andMe moves to stay the
declaratory relief action pending resolution of the underlying
litigation.

Judge Freemen granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion to stay.

A copy of Judge Freeman's order dated May 14, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/b4Blkzfrom Leagle.com.

Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Bonnie Marie Hoffman -- bhoffman@hangley.com -- Ronald Paltin
Schiller -- rschiller@hangley.com -- Sharon Frances McKee --
smckee@hangley.com -- at Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin; Robin
Lee Singer -- rsinger@mpplaw.com -- Douglas Kent Wood --
dwood@mpplaw.com -- at Morris, Polich and Purdy LLC

23andMe, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence Allen Cox --
Lawrence.Cox@aporter.com -- Sharon D. Mayo --
Sharon.Mayo@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Sued for Misrepresenting Technology
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ferguson, writing for Arizona Daily Star, reports that a
shareholder lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court targets a local
biotech startup, claiming it misrepresented its proprietary
technology.

The lawsuit points to questions raised last year by the Securities
and Exchange Commission about Accelerate Diagnostics' technology,
which led to the company amending previous statements.  The suit
also notes that after a blogger's article in February criticized
the company's representations, Accelerate's publicly-traded stock
decreased 21 percent over a three-day period.

The stock price has largely recovered from the drop in February.
It is still below its peak price last year when it traded for
roughly $31 a share.  Accelerate trades as AXDX on the Nasdaq.

The company has stated its patented, automated technology can
identify bacteria in samples such as blood in a few hours, a
revolution in the industry where it takes days for labs to culture
and analyze specimens by hand.  The system is aimed at helping to
quickly diagnose and help fight the growing number of cases of
antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, including hospital-
acquired infections.

But the New York-based law firm representing investors, Rosen Law
Firm, alleges Accelerate Diagnostics misrepresented or failed to
disclose that its main product requires a positive blood culture,
which takes several days to form, to diagnose pathogens in a blood
sample.

"The Defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a
course of conduct that artificially inflated AXDX's stock price
and operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of AXDX stock by
misrepresenting the capability and description of the Company's
main product, BACcel or ID/AST system," Rosen attorneys argue in
the 15-page lawsuit.

The suit names one plaintiff, Brian Rapp, and seeks class-action
status on behalf of all affected investors.

An attorney representing Accelerate Diagnostics, Steven Schatz,
declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Correspondence between the Securities and Exchange Commission and
Accelerate Diagnostics show federal officials had questions about
the proprietary culture-free process, known as the ID/AST system.

In the letters, dating back to August 2014, the SEC asked the firm
about its "culture-free process."  In a response a month later,
Accelerate Diagnostics clarified that its technology relies on
blood cultures, which can take several days to grow.

"When we state that the ID/AST System uses a 'culture-free
process,' we are referring to our system's ability to directly
process a positive blood culture, respiratory, or other specimens
without first undergoing a manual culture and isolation process,"
the company told the SEC.  "This contrasts with conventional
identification and susceptibility testing methods that require
overnight culturing to produce a pure isolate prior to testing."

On Feb. 18 the article critical of Accelerate was posted on
Seeking Alpha, a website that uses freelancers to provide stock
analysis and information.  The article's anonymous author
disclosed being a short-seller of Accelerate stock, meaning he or
she had a vested interest in the stock price falling.

Accelerate's stock slid over the next few days.

The investors' lawsuit, filed in April, claims that investors
suffered damages, but does not specify a monetary value.

Tom Rainey, an Arizona business consultant who has helped to
launch high-tech companies and invested in others, said a drop in
stock price often leads to lawsuits.

"These kind of class action lawsuits are fairly common, especially
when there is a sudden and dramatic drop in the share price due to
a misstep, perceived misstep or deliberate attempt to mislead
investors or business partners," said Mr. Rainey, who helped to
start Flagstaff's business incubator, among other experience.

Pima County provided an incentive package worth an estimated $1.4
million for Accelerate to relocate to the Tucson area from Denver
in 2013.  Accelerate's headquarters and labs are in the county's
Herbert K. Abrams Public Health Center, 3950 S. Country Club Road.


ADECCO USA: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Omar A. Mohamed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Adecco USA, Inc. and Communications Test Design, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-025100-RBS (E.D. Pa., May 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Soumilas, Esq.
      James A. Francis, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN,P.C.
      Land Title Building 19th Fl.
      100 S. Broad St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 735-8600
      E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
              jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


AIRSTREAM: Recalls Multiple Motor Home Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motor home
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 4
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015218TC
ID number: 2015218

On certain motor homes, the screen door can become inoperable if
the outer sliding cargo door is shut over top. This could block
the emergency exit increasing the risk of injury. Correction:
Dealers will install a block/stop on the outer cargo door
prohibiting it to be closed if the screen door is in the closed
position.

  Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----      ----------------------
  AIRSTREAM              2015, 2016


ALLIED INTERSTATE: 2nd Cir. Revives "Franco" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In GILBERTO FRANCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, FKA
Allied Interstate, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-1464-CV,
Gilberto Franco appealed from a district court judgment dismissing
his class action as moot. Franco argued that (1) defendant's
unaccepted Rule 68 offer did not moot his individual claim, and
(2) even if his individual claim were mooted, the class action
would not be moot.

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in a summary
order entered May 18, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1cFmrEFfrom Leagle.com, vacated the judgment
entered on April 3, 2014, and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

The Second Circuit held that on de novo review of the district
court's determination of mootness, "we identify error in light of
our most recent controlling precedent, Tanasi v. New Alliance
Bank, ___ F.3d ___, No. 14-1389-cv (2d Cir. May 14, 2015). Tanasi
makes clear that Franco's individual claim was not mooted by
defendant's Rule 68 offer, which did not result in the entry of
any judgment against the defendant. . . .Because Franco's
individual claim was not moot, we need not address whether, had
his claims been moot, the class action also would have been moot."

PHILIP D. STERN, (Andrew T. Thomasson -- andrew@thomassonllc.com -
- Debora K. Gerads -- dgerads@thomassonllc.com -- Thomasson Law,
LLC, Jersey City, New Jersey, on the brief), Philip D. Stern --
pstern@wackslaw.net -- Attorney at Law, LLC, Union, New Jersey,
Appearing for Appellant.

CASEY DEVIN LAFFEY -- claffey@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, New
York, New York, Appearing for Appellee.

Adina Hyman Rosenbaum -- arosenbaum@citizen.org -- Public Citizen
Litigation Group, Washington, D.C., for Public Citizen, Inc., for
Amicus Curiae.


ALTRIA GROUP: 10 Healthcare Cost Recovery Suits v. PM in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 20, 2015,
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") is a named defendant in ten
health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also
name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc. are also named defendants in seven smoking and health class
actions filed in various Canadian provinces.


ALTRIA GROUP: 29 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM USA for Trial in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 20, 2015,
29 Engle progeny cases and two individual smoking and health cases
against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") are set for trial in
2015. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are
also scheduled for trial in 2015. Trial dates are subject to
change.


ALTRIA GROUP: 77 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM Resulted in Verdicts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 20, 2015,
77 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving Philip Morris
USA Inc. ("PM USA") have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 56 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant.

Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in
38 of the 56 cases. These 38 cases were tried in Alaska (1),
California (6), Florida (10), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1),
Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1),
New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1),
Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion for a new trial was
granted in one of the cases in Florida and in the case in Alaska.
In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court withdrew its order
for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for reconsideration. Oral
argument of plaintiff's appeal of this ruling occurred in
September 2014.

Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 15 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against
defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois
(Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in
December 2006, but plaintiff is seeking to reinstate the verdict,
which an intermediate appellate court ordered in April 2014. PM
USA filed a petition for leave to appeal, which automatically
stayed the April 2014 order. In September 2014, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal.

As of April 20, 2015, 77 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision. Forty-one verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs and 36 verdicts were returned in favor of
PM USA.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Paid $271MM in Total Judgments at April 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that after exhausting all
appeals in those cases resulting in adverse verdicts associated
with tobacco-related litigation, since October 2004, Philip Morris
USA Inc. ("PM USA") has paid in the aggregate judgments (and
related costs and fees) totaling approximately $271 million and
interest totaling approximately $144 million as of April 20, 2015.
These amounts include payments for Engle progeny judgments (and
related costs and fees) totaling approximately $13.8 million and
interest totaling approximately $2.5 million.

The changes in Altria Group, Inc.'s accrued liability for tobacco
and health litigation items, including related interest costs, for
the periods specified below were as follows:

                         For the Three Months Ended March 31,
                              2015                  2014
                                  (in millions)

Accrued liability for tobacco and health litigation items at
beginning of period            $39                   $3

Pre-tax charges for:            -                    $3
   Tobacco and health
      judgments                 -                    $3
   Related interest costs       -                    $1
   Tentative agreement to
     resolve federal Engle
     progeny cases
                               $43                    -
Payments                        (5)                   -
Accrued liability for tobacco
   and health litigation
   items at end of period      $77                   $7

The accrued liability for tobacco and health litigation items,
including related interest costs, was included in liabilities on
Altria Group, Inc.'s condensed consolidated balance sheets. Pre-
tax charges for tobacco and health judgments and the tentative
agreement to resolve federal Engle progeny cases were included in
marketing, administration and research costs on Altria Group,
Inc.'s condensed consolidated statements of earnings. Pre-tax
charges for related interest costs were included in interest and
other debt expense, net on Altria Group, Inc.'s condensed
consolidated statements of earnings.

To obtain stays of judgments pending current appeals, as of March
31, 2015, PM USA has posted various forms of security totaling
approximately $59 million, the majority of which has been
collateralized with cash deposits that are included in other
assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.


ALTRIA GROUP: 3,125 State Court Cases v. PM Pending at April 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 20, 2015,
approximately 3,125 state court cases were pending against Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") or Altria Group, Inc. asserting
individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,200 state
court plaintiffs.  Furthermore, as of April 20, 2015,
approximately 435 cases were pending against PM USA in federal
district court asserting individual claims by or on behalf of a
similar number of federal court plaintiffs.

Engle Class Action

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health
class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing
punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against
various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.
Following entry of judgment, PM USA appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that
execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment
will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating
defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a
result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into an
interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of
the judicial review, was to be paid to the court and the court was
to determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In May 2003, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the
trial court and instructed the trial court to order the
decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida
Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive
damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial
court be decertified and that members of the decertified class
could file individual actions against defendants within one year
of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the
following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in
such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of
the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that
nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants'
cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that
defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise
known or available knowing that the material was false or
misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the
health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants
agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or
addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the
public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that
defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the
health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the
intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent.
The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling
approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found
that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of
limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid approximately $3
million, representing its share of compensatory damages and
interest, to the two individual plaintiffs identified in the
Florida Supreme Court's order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme
Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling that
certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent
individual trials timely brought by Engle class members. The
rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal errors
that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be
addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August
2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of
limitations to non-members of the decertified class. In December
2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its July 2006
ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I findings
entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v) listed
(relating to agreement to misrepresent information), and added the
finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the
time of sale or supply, did not conform to the representations of
fact made by defendants. In January 2007, the Florida Supreme
Court issued the mandate from its revised opinion. Defendants then
filed a motion with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal
requesting that the court address legal errors that were
previously raised by defendants but have not yet been addressed
either by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal or by the
Florida Supreme Court. In February 2007, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal denied defendants' motion. In May 2007,
defendants' motion for a partial stay of the mandate pending the
completion of appellate review was denied by the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal. In May 2007, defendants filed a petition
for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In
October 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants'
petition. In November 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied
defendants' petition for rehearing from the denial of their
petition for writ of certiorari.

In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class, except
for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally
vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the Florida Supreme
Court's mandate. In April 2008, the trial court ruled that certain
defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing with respect to
allocation of the funds escrowed under the May 2001 bond
stipulation and would receive no credit at that time from the $500
million paid by PM USA against any future punitive damages awards
in cases brought by former Engle class members.

In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the
limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond
stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs'
claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining
plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed
his claims with prejudice.

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the
Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision, expired in January 2008.
As of April 20, 2015, approximately 3,125 state court cases were
pending against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual
claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,200 state court
plaintiffs.  Furthermore, as of April 20, 2015, approximately 435
cases were pending against PM USA in federal district court
asserting individual claims by or on behalf of a similar number of
federal court plaintiffs. Most of these federal cases are pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Moreover, most of these federal cases are subject to resolution
pursuant to an agreement. Because of a number of factors,
including, but not limited to, docketing delays, duplicated
filings and overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers are
estimates.

In July 2013, the district court issued an order transferring, for
case management purposes, all the Middle District of Florida Engle
progeny cases to a judge presiding in the District of
Massachusetts. The order directed that the cases will remain in
the Middle District of Florida and that such judge will be
designated a judge of that district for purposes of managing the
cases. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed a significant number of cases, of which approximately
750 were appealed by plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. In September 2014, the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed those dismissals.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trials Stayed Pending Final Approval of Engle Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on February 25, 2015,
PM USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("R.J. Reynolds") and
Lorillard Tobacco Company ("Lorillard") reached a tentative
agreement to resolve approximately 415 pending federal Engle
progeny cases (the "Federal Engle Agreement"). Under the terms of
the Federal Engle Agreement, PM USA paid into escrow approximately
$43 million on March 11, 2015, which is included in other current
assets on Altria Group, Inc.'s condensed consolidated balance
sheet at March 31, 2015. PM USA recorded a pre-tax provision of
approximately $43 million in the first quarter of 2015. Federal
cases that were in trial as of February 25, 2015 and those that
have previously reached final verdict are not included in the
Federal Engle Agreement. Engle progeny lawsuits pending in Florida
state courts are also not part of the Federal Engle Agreement. The
Federal Engle Agreement is conditioned on approval by all federal
court plaintiffs in the cases resolved by the Federal Engle
Agreement or as the parties otherwise agree. On February 25, 2015,
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued
an order staying all upcoming federal trials pending final
approval of the Federal Engle Agreement.


ALTRIA GROUP: "Russo" Case v. PM USA Being Re-tried
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/764180/000076418015000034/a
2015form10-qq12015.htm
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Russo case is
currently being re-tried and on April 17, 2015, defendants moved
for a rehearing in the Florida Supreme Court.

As of April 20, 2015, 77 federal and state Engle progeny cases
involving Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") have resulted in
verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court Engle decision. Forty-one
verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs.

Thirty-six verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA, of which 27
were state cases (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis,
Russo (formerly Frazier), C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva,
Weingart, Junious, Szymanski, Hancock, D. Cohen, LaMotte, J.
Campbell, Dombey, Haldeman, Blasco, Gonzalez, Banks, Surico, Baum,
Bishop, Vila, and McMannis) and 9 were federal cases (Gollihue,
McCray, Denton, Wilder, Jacobson, Reider, Davis, Starbuck, and
Sowers). In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only
some of which have resulted in new trials as of April 20, 2015.
The juries in the Reider and Banks cases returned zero damages
verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juries in the Weingart and
Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no
damages, but the trial court in each case granted an additur.

In the Russo case (formerly Frazier), however, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in defendants'
favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new trial.
Defendants sought review of the case in the Florida Supreme Court,
which was granted in September 2013. On April 2, 2015, the Florida
Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, rejecting defendants'
argument that the statute of repose applies to fraud and
conspiracy claims in Engle progeny cases. The case is currently
being re-tried. On April 17, 2015, defendants moved for a
rehearing in the Florida Supreme Court.


ALTRIA GROUP: Defendants in 7 Class Actions in Canadian Provinces
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 20, 2015,
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and Altria Group, Inc. are named
as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1),
South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of April 20, 2015, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin Jan. 2016 in Medical Monitoring Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial is scheduled
to begin January 25, 2016, in the medical monitoring class action
against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA").

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost
for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs
for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose
liability under various product-based causes of action and the
creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the
purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify
and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek
punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan have indicated
they may seek to treble any damages awarded. The future defense of
these cases may be negatively impacted by evolving medical
standards and practice.

One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against
PM USA. In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly
brought the action on behalf of the state's residents who are: age
50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or
more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are
under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. The
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions
certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that
under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by
individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of
an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the
case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a
factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010,
the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims
for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to
plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review
of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in
September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year
medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of $190
million.

In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification,
which motion was denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the
district court amended the class definition to extend to
individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria through
February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was not a
Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013. In January 2014,
plaintiffs filed motions for partial summary judgment and to
strike affirmative defenses. In December 2014, the court issued
its rulings on plaintiffs' previously-filed motions, granting and
denying the motions in part. Trial is scheduled to begin January
25, 2016.


ALVEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Recalls Furosemide Injections
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 22, 2015
Posting date: May 26, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53549

One lot (lot number: 30208) of Furosemide Injection USP 10 mg/mL
(DIN 02384094) marketed and sold by Alveda Pharmaceuticals Inc. is
being recalled, due to an incorrect barcode on the ampoule label.
The barcode reads (01)00837641000591 which is the same barcode as
on the ampoule label of Alveda Epinephrine Injection USP 1 mg/mL
(DIN 02325225). Epinephrine is not being recalled so as not to
precipitate a shortage.

Depth of distribution: Hospitals and pharmacies

Furosemide Injection USP
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02384094
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: Furosemide 10 mg/mL
Lot or serial number: 30208

Recalling Firm: Alveda Pharmaceutical Inc.
                Suite 1100, 21 St. Clair Avenue East,
                Toronto
                M4T 1L9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization: Holder Alveda Pharmaceutical Inc.
                         Suite 1100, 21 St. Clair Avenue East,
                         Toronto
                         M4T 1L9
                         Ontario
                         CANADA


AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Removed "Stanturf" Suit to Kansas Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Julie Stanturf, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Amerigroup
Corporation, Case No. 2015-cv-000125, was removed from the
District Court of Douglas County, Kansas to the U.S. District
Court District Of Kansas (Kansas City). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-07933 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges breach of insurance contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Wissel, Esq.
      Neal F. Perryman, Esq.
      LEWIS, RICE & FINGERSH
      1010 Walnut, Suite 500
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 421-2500
      Facsimile: (816) 472-2500
      E-mail: sawissel@lewisricekc.com
              nperryman@lewisrice.com


ANZ BANK: Heads to High Court to Defend Late Payment Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis and Katie Walsh, writing for The Australian
Financial Review, report that ANZ Bank will be hauled before the
High Court of Australia to defend its late payment fees, in what
will be the last hurrah of a controversial five-year running class
action that has seen the bank first lose and then win a battle
over whether its fees are illegal penalties.

On May 6, law firm Maurice Blackburn, backed by litigation funder
IMF Bentham and representing nearly 44,000 bank customers, filed
applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court in a
bid to overturn the Full Federal Court's decision in April to
throw out the case.  The decision threw into doubt similar class
actions against other banks, including Westpac and the
Commonwealth Bank of Australia. In all, the actions have attracted
around 180,000 customers.

"There has always been a strong public interest in rigorously
testing the fees, and it is fitting that the highest court in the
land will ultimately resolve Australia's biggest consumer class
action," said Maurice Blackburn national head of class actions
Andrew Watson.

The firm will argue that the late payment fees -- which can reach
$35 a pop -- are illegal penalties, in line with the original
decision of Federal Court judge Michelle Gordon last year.
Justice Gordon has since been appointed to the High Court,
beginning June. Under court convention she would not sit on either
the special leave application nor, if leave is granted, the
appeal.

Justice Gordon's decision was overturned last month; a full bench
of the Federal Court unanimous in its declaration that the fees
were not unfair or unjust, let alone an illegal penalty.

An ANZ Bank spokesman said that the bank would review the special
leave submission and provide a response to the court.  He welcomed
the fact that the IMF Bentham application relates only to the late
payment fees, leaving other types of fees which "have now been
resolved in ANZ's favour".

University of NSW associate professor and an expert on class
actions Michael Legg said the High Court could grant leave simply
because of the sheer number of plaintiffs affected.

But on the whole, Mr. Legg was apprehensive about it proceeding,
because the High Court was not being called upon to resolve a
question of law, but rather whether it was applied correctly.

"If the law is settled in this area, why would the High Court get
involved?" he said.

"There's no expert evidence Maurice Blackburn is likely to win on
here anyway," he said.

If special leave was rejected it could be all over in about four
months, but if it is granted the case could play out for at least
another 18 months.

Another class actions expert, Jones Day partner John Emmerig --
jemmerig@jonesday.com -- was more circumspect saying it was too
difficult to predict whether special leave would be granted.

"If leave is granted, which should not be assumed, there will be
uncertainty that will not only effect claims  against banks but
also cases against telcos and utilities," Mr. Emmerig said
referring to potential class actions against Telstra, Optus and
Vodafone over late fees by ACA Lawyers.

"I would hope sensible heads prevail and this matter is allowed to
run its course before any major new areas of litigation emerge."

Brian Ward and Partners partner Penny Pengilley --
pengilley@bwplegal.com.au -- said similarly special leave
applications were notoriously unpredictable but there was some
tendency in recent times to deny oxygen to class actions where the
case theory derived from United States experience and individual
losses were low, such as in the ANZ case.

"Courts have taken the view that as banks have the burden of
default, they can relieve themselves of this burden by taking it
into account in determining the fees charged to their customers,"
she said.

But DLA Piper partner Kieran O'Brien said the high profile nature
of the case, involvement of the banks and the fact class actions
more often settled out of court could entice the High Court to
grant leave to hear the matter.

"It has national relevance in that these fees are being charged to
bank customers in every state," Mr. O'Brien said.  "They [the High
Court] would appreciate the matter could have significant
implications for how plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders
assess the worth and merit of pursuing these sorts of actions."


APEX AT HOME: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Longo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Apex at Home, LLC et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-00185-ML-PAS
(D.R.I., May 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric R. Atstupenas, Esq.
      MACKIE & REILLY
      681 Smith Street
      Providence, RI 02908
      Telephone: (401) 521-4100
      Facsimile: (401) 274-5433
      E-mail: eatstupenas@mackie-reilly.com


APPLE CANADA: Recalls Beats Pill XL Speakers Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 3, 2015
Posting date: June 3, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53639

This recall involves the Beats Pill XL Speakers. The recalled
products are plastic, capsule-shaped audio speakers with model
number B0514. The speakers measure about 4 inches (10 centimeters)
tall by 13 inches (33 centimeters) wide by 4 inches (10
centimeters) deep and are black, white, pink, metallic sky or
titanium in colour. The affected speakers have a 'b' Beats logo on
the speaker grille side and the words 'beats pill XL'  on the
handle.

The battery in the speaker can overheat, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidents
or injuries related to the use of these speakers in Canada.

Apple has received two reports of incidents of the speakers
overheating in Canada and six in the United States, including one
with a burn to a consumer's finger and one with damage to a
consumer's desk.

Approximately 11,000 units were sold in Canada and 222,000 units
in the United States.

The recalled speakers were sold in Canada and the United States
between January 2014 and June 2015 at various retailers and
online.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Apple Canada
          Markham
          Ontario
          CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/s5Js6Y


ASSURED SELF: "Fisher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Fisher and Mike Fisher, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Assured Self Storage, Inc., Don Valk,
and Timothy D. Gergen, Case No. 4:15-cv-00373 (E.D. Tex., May 28,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing self-storage
facilities to customers throughout Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Hodges, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 W. Alabama St
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dhodges@kennedyhodges.com


AVNET INC: Received $3 Million From LCD Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 28, 2015, that the Company filed a proof of
claim in the settlement of a class action proceeding that sought
damages from certain manufacturers of LCD flat panel displays. A
settlement was reached in the proceedings and in the first quarter
of fiscal 2014 the federal district judge overseeing the
proceeding issued an order approving the distribution of
settlement funds to the class claimants and the Company received
an award payment of $19.1 million. In the third quarter of fiscal
2014, the federal district judge overseeing the proceedings issued
an order approving a final distribution of funds and the Company
received a final award payment of $3.0 million. The total award of
$22.1 million is classified within "gain on legal settlement" in
the consolidated statements of operations.


BANK OF BOSTON: Settles Private-Label MBS-Related Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015,
that the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (the "Bank") has agreed
with certain of its defendants to settle its claims against them
arising out of certain investments in private-label mortgage-
backed securities ("MBS"), for an amount of $110.7 million (which
amount is net of legal fees and expenses). This results, among
other things, in a dismissal of the Bank's class action complaint.
The Bank's private-label MBS complaint continues against various
securities dealers, underwriters, control persons,
issuers/depositors, and credit rating agencies based on its
investments in certain private-label mortgage-backed securities.


BANKERS TRUST: Wants Court to Block Foreclosure of MonaVie
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Harvey, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that in a
spectacular failure, a Florida company is foreclosing on Utah-
based MonaVie Inc. after the marketer of nutritional fruit juice
and personal care products defaulted on a $182 million note.  But
a South Dakota bank has gone to court to seek a halt to the
foreclosure while it sorts out what happened to the once high-
flying company.

MonaVie had a rocket ride to approach $1 billion in annual sales,
only to now have a dramatic crash that will wipe out all
shareholder value in the South Jordan company.  According to court
documents, MonaVie sold a note to TSG-MV Financing LLC, part of
TSG Consumer Partners of San Francisco, in November of 2010 for
$182 million, secured by "virtually all of the assets" of the
company. TSG had previously provided capital to MonaVie.  But,
with the company apparently struggling financially, MonaVie in
July 2014 announced the retirement of founders Dallin Larsen,
Randy Larsen and Henry Marsh.

In March, Jeunesse Global LLC of Altamonte Springs, Fla.,
purchased the note from TSG, court documents say.  Like MonaVie,
Jeunesse Global is a multilevel marketing company that sells
personal care and nutritional products to independent distributors
who are encouraged to recruit new distributors.  They, in turn,
recruit others and earn commissions on sales to distributors
through various levels of the network.

A news release by Jeunesse characterized the deal as an
acquisition of MonaVie but did not disclose the note it bought
from TSG-MV.  MonaVie Chairman and CEO Mauricio Bellora, who had
replaced founder Dallin Larsen in January 2013, characterized the
deal as "an exciting step forward for MonaVie and our
distributors."

Then on May 6, Mr. Bellora told shareholders that MonaVie was in
default on the note and the board intended to agree to a "strict
foreclosure."  That meant MonaVie would voluntarily transfer
"substantially all" of its assets to Jeunesse, Mr. Bellora said in
the message, which is part of the record in a federal court
lawsuit in Salt Lake City.

Now, the Bankers Trust of South Dakota, the trustee over the
company's employee stock ownership program (ESOP), has asked U.S.
District Judge Bruce Jenkins for a temporary restraining order
that would halt the foreclosure.

A hearing was set for May 11.

Bankers Trust said procedures for carrying out a strict
foreclosure had not been followed.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of employees who were part of the
ESOP.  The proposed class action lawsuit says MonaVie principals
sold shares valued at $186 million to an ESOP they had created in
2010 but that the company shares quickly fell nearly 100 percent
in value.  The lawsuit alleges Bankers Trust failed to fulfill its
duties as trustee of the program by allowing MonaVie to sell
shares at a highly inflated value using a loan carrying an
exorbitant interest rate.

Bankers Trust has turned around and sued MonaVie, alleging it was
failing to pay the bank's legal bills as their agreements require.

Dallin Larsen was named an Ernest & Young entrepreneur of the year
in 2009.  From its start in 2005, MonaVie grew to $854 million in
revenue in 2008 and had recruited 1 million distributors, Larsen
said at the time.

Neither MonaVie nor Jeunesse returned emails seeking comment.


BAYER CORP: Calif. High Court Revives Cipro Antitrust Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, reports that the California
Supreme Court issued a ruling on May 7 that could influence the
way federal courts analyze complicated pay-for-delay deals,
addressing some questions left unanswered by the U.S. Supreme
Court including spelling out that settlements don't have to
include cash to be anti-competitive.

In a unanimous decision, the California court revived a long-
running antitrust class action accusing Bayer Corp. of paying Barr
Laboratories Inc. nearly $400 million to delay launching a generic
version of its blockbuster antibiotic Cipro.  The court endorsed
the standard the U.S. Supreme Court did when it reached the same
conclusion that Hatch-Waxman Act settlements could face antitrust
scrutiny: the rule of reason.

But the California court offered a bit more detail on how to use
the test to consider whether the settlements do more harm than
good to competition than the split U.S. Supreme Court did in its
landmark 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc.
Among other things, the California justices explicitly noted that
a reverse payment from a branded-drug maker to a generic-drug
maker can be something other than just cash, a question that has
plagued federal courts since Actavis and is now pending before two
courts of appeal.

As a practical matter, because of the Class Action Fairness Act --
which was passed after the Cipro suit was filed -- it's unlikely
that many California courts other than the San Diego judge charged
with the current case will ever apply the new ruling.  But it will
still cover California state law claims brought by consumers in
federal pay-for-delay class actions and includes language that
gives plaintiffs tools to try to persuade other courts more
broadly, experts said.

"Let's assume . . . you get all the direct [purchasers], indirect
[purchasers] in one courthouse.  If there are claims under
California law, the Southern District judge is going to have to
use what the [California] Supreme Court just said in this thing,
at least for that," said Brown Rudnick LLP partner Helene Jaffe --
hjaffe@brownrudnick.com

"The spillover, that's what's going to happen.  As a practical
matter, this may become the blueprint that federal court judges
use when they're looking at this stuff."

By and large, the California court didn't veer too far from the
path laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys said.  But the
federal decision has been repeatedly criticized in the nearly two
years since it came down for leaving so many questions unanswered,
effectively telling trial judges to figure out how to analyze the
claims themselves.

"The California Supreme Court went out of its way [and] answered a
lot of criticisms and dotted some i's and crossed some t's that
perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court did not," said Rutgers School of
Law professor Michael Carrier, who signed an amicus brief
supporting the plaintiffs in the case.

Perhaps the most significant was an explanation that to show a
reverse payment occurred, plaintiffs can point to a deal that
sends "cash or equivalent financial consideration" to the generic
from the brand.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not explicitly say whether reverse
payments had to be cash.  It spoke about the kinds of monetary
payments at issue in the case before it but did not indicate
whether other kinds of consideration -- say, a promise not to
launch a competing authorized generic version of a drug, or
accepting a below market rate licensing fee -- could also trigger
antitrust scrutiny.

That has led to many motions to dismiss on those grounds, with a
variety of results.  Some federal judges have said other kind of
arrangements were fair game and let suits go forward, some said
payments didn't have to be cash but took issue with the alleged
consideration the plaintiffs cited, and others have said outright
that payments must be in cash.  As a result, cases on the issue
are now pending before the Third and First circuits.

But the California justices emphasized that cash payments were
generally a relic of the 1990s and said trial courts "should not
let creative variations in the form of consideration result in the
purchase of freedom from competition escaping detection."  That
logic could prove persuasive to federal courts weighing the issue,
attorneys said.  And if the federal appellate courts ultimately
decide payments must be in cash, it would still leave an avenue
open for plaintiffs to continue to sue over noncash settlements.

"If in fact the law did evolve in that way, it could be that other
state courts could find the California state court reasoning
applies under their own state laws," said Robins Kaplan LLP's Ryan
Marth -- RMarth@RobinsKaplan.com "It could open up another front
on noncash settlements."

The California court also offered more details on other issues as
well, admonishing trial judges to use "considerable caution" when
reviewing settlements that include side deals for the generic-drug
maker to provide the brand with other products or services.  The
court cautioned that those kinds of agreements could effectively
be a front to "provide cover" for an anti-competitive settlement.

Likewise, the court explicitly said that once the plaintiff has
made four key showings, the burden shifts to the defendant to show
the deal has pro-competitive benefits.

Under the California ruling, plaintiffs must prove a settlement
limits when the generic challenger can enter the market and sends
a payment to the generic from the brand.  That payment must be
worth more than the value of any goods or services the generic
gives the brand, other than the delayed entry, and the additional
litigation costs the brand would expect to pay if it did not
settle the patent challenge.  The California court further said
the defendants have the burden of producing evidence about their
litigation costs and the value of any other products and services
included in a settlement.  Once they do so, the plaintiffs still
must persuade the court that the payment was excessive compared to
those costs and services.

"It supported Actavis, then it expanded Actavis . . . and really
pushed beyond Actavis while still staying consistent with the
Actavis framework," Mr. Carrier said.  "The reason why this is
important is because Actavis is a bit of an open question in terms
of what it means on each of these supplemental issues."

Experts also said that the ruling could encourage state attorneys
general to get into the pay-for-delay game by using their parens
patriae authority to bring cases on behalf of consumers.

Indeed, California Senior Assistant Attorney General Kathleen
Foote, who chairs the Multistate Antitrust Task Force, recently
said that a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs in Cipro could
lead state attorneys general to pursue their own pay-for-delay
challenges.

And the kind of multistate, private-public joint litigation that
dozens of states and private plaintiffs' attorneys used to pursue
a damages case against Apple Inc. and several publishers in the e-
book litigation could offer a good model for states eyeing pay-
for-delay challenges, according to Ms. Jaffe.

"[The state attorneys general] are beginning to think about these
things, and health care is such a big chunk of consumers budgets,"
Jaffe said. "It seems to me a natural place for them to go."

Regardless of where these cases go from here, one issue now seems
firmly resolved in defendants favor after more than a decade of
plaintiffs arguing that the settlements should be considered an
automatic antitrust violation like price-fixing, according to
White & Case LLP antitrust chair J. Mark Gidley --
mgidley@whitecase.com

"I think it's the death knell of the per se treatment of reverse
payments," Mr. Gidley said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph R. Saveri of Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Eric B. Fastiff, Brendan Glackin, Jordan Elias
and Dean M. Harvey of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Mark
Lemley -- mlemley@durietangri.com -- of Durie Tangri LLP, Dan
Drachler of Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP and Ralph B.
Kalfayan -- rkalfayan@kkbs-law.com -- of Krause Kalfayan Benink &
Slavens LLP.

Barr is represented by Jay P. Lefkowitz, Karen N. Walker --
kwalker@kirkland.com -- Edwin John U and Gregory L. Skidmore of
Kirkland & Ellis LLP.  The other generics defendants are
represented by David E. Everson --
david.everson@stinsonleonard.com -- Heather S. Woodson and
Victoria Smith of Stinson Leonard Street LLP. All of the generics
defendants are represented by Joann Rezzo -- jr@edrezlaw.com -- of
Edleson & Rezzo and Kathryn E. Karcher of Karcher Harmes LLP.

The case is In re: Cipro Cases I & II, case number S198616, in the
California Supreme Court.


BLATT HASENMILLER: Sued in Ariz. Over Violation of FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Milke, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-00970-JZB (D. Ariz., May 28, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Neal McDevitt, Esq.
      Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
      E-mail: dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com
              tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


BLUE DIAMOND: Falsely Marketed Almond Milk Products, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Albert and Dimitrios Malaxianis, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Blue Diamond Growers, and WWF
Operating Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-04087-VM (S.D.N.Y., May 28,
2015), is brought on behalf of all consumers who purchased for
consumption and not resale any of Blue Diamond's or White Wave's
almond milk labeled products, that were falsely marketed as
primarily made from almonds, when in fact, the products contain
only 2% of almonds.

Blue Diamond Growers is an agricultural cooperative and marketing
organization that specializes in almonds.

WWF Operating Company is a consumer packaged food and beverage
company that manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells branded
foods and beverages, coffee creamers, dairy products and organic
produce throughout North America and Europe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Clayton Kelly, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES C. KELLY
      244 Madison Avenue, Suite K-278
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 920-5042
      Facsimile: (888) 224-2078
      E-mail: jkelly@jckellylaw.com


BLUEHILL CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pawel Wadolowski and Patryk Grabowski, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Bluehill Construction,
Inc. and Christopher Dalton, Case No. 1:15-cv-04090-AJN (S.D.N.Y.,
May 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with
a principal place of business at 44 Franklin Avenue, Pearl River,
New York 10965.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


BMW: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 30838
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015230TC
ID number: 2015230

On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is
warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat
occupant. Note: This recall supersedes special service campaign
2014-587. Correction: Dealers will replace the airbag module.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  BMW        3 SERIES    2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
  BMW        5 SERIES    2002, 2003
  BMW        X5          2003, 2004


BMW: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 30838
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015230TC
ID number: 2015230

On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is
warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat
occupant. Note: This recall supersedes special service campaign
2014-587. Correction: Dealers will replace the airbag module.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  BMW         3 SERIES    2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
  BMW         5 SERIES    2002, 2003
  BMW         X5          2003, 2004


BOH BROS: E.D. La. Judge Narrows Claims in "Vodanovich" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Distirct Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle of the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion in
the case JARED VODANOVICH, ET AL., v. BOH BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO.,
ET AL., SECTION "B" (3), CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-4191 (E.D. La.)

The subject matter before the court is a consolidated class action
concerning property damage in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. On
November 18, 2013, the court entered a final judgment approving a
Second Limited Fund Settlement. The judgment was followed by a
Motion for Award of Costs and Expenses filed by Liaison Counsel,
which sought disbursal of $3,500,000 in Escrowed Funds among the
Levee Litigation and MR-GO Litigation Groups and their respective
members. The court held a hearing on the motion on October 29,
2014, after which it issued an Order and Reasons granting the
motion.

In the ensuing period, Liaison Counsel filed a Motion for Payment
of Non-Taxable Litigation Costs, indicating that the various
members of the Litigation Groups had agreed as to how the approved
funds were to be distributed as between the two Litigation Groups
and, for the most part, between the members of each group.
Nevertheless, the motion noted that Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., a
member of the Levee Litigation Group, asserted a claim to $50,000
of the funds otherwise destined for the MR-GO Litigation Group.
The Court ordered the Escrow Agent to release all but the
contested $50,000 amount to the respective Litigation Groups.

On December 22, 2014, the Sims plaintiffs filed a Motion to Vacate
Order on Motion for Release of Funds, seeking vacatur of the Fee
Award under Fed R. Civ. P. 60. The thrust of the motion was that
the Sims plaintiffs had not received notice of the Fee Award prior
to entry of the Final Judgment due to issues with the CM/ECF
system. The court denied that motion by way of an Order and
Reasons issued February 25, 2015.

The Sims plaintiffs filed a motion for certification pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 54(b), which seeks certification to appeal an
order of the court, entered October 30, 2014, awarding $3,500,000
in costs to Liaison Counsel, as well as an order entered February
25, 2015, denying a Motion to Vacate the Fee Award. Liaison
Counsel oppose the Sims plaintiffs' motion and have further filed
a Motion for Writ of Execution, seeking entry of a writ directing
payment by the Escrow Agent of the funds that are the subject of
the same Fee Award the Sims plaintiffs  seek leave to appeal. The
Sims plaintiffs, in turn, oppose the Motion for Writ of Execution
as to certain sums.

Judge Lemelle ordered that the Sims plaintiffs' Rule 54 motion is
denied in part, as to the request to certify the fee award for
purposes of appeal, ordered that the Sims plaintiffs' Rule 54
motion is granted in part, as to the request to certify Rule-60
denial as a partial final judgment for purposes of appeal. A writ
of execution will be issued to US Bank, National Association
ordering and directing that US Bank, in its capacity as the Escrow
Agent designated in the December 15, 2008 Cash Escrow Agreement by
and among the plaintiffs and the settling defendants, make payment
in the amounts of:

     (a) $1,392,200.00 to the Bruno & Bruno LLP trust account, for
distribution to the Levee Litigation Group members as agreed by
the Levee Litigation Group members; and

     (b) $1,937,800.00 to the Domengeaux Wright Roy & Edwards LLC
trust account for distribution to the MR-GO Litigation Group
members as agreed by the MR-GO Litigation Group, which amount
reflects reservation in the escrow account of the $50,000
currently in dispute between the members of the Litigation Groups
and Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.

A copy of Judge Lemelle's order and reasons dated May 8, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/z1Nl5zfrom Leagle.com.

A. Shelby Easterly, III, Special Master, represented by A. Shelby
Easterly, III, Easterly Law Office

Jared Vodanovich, Plaintiff, represented by Gerald Edward Meunier,
Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer, Stephen Skelly
Kreller, Kreller Law Firm, Justin I. Woods, Woods, Bowers & Woods,
LLC & Kara Hadican Samuels, Sangisetty Law Firm

Kenneth Paul Armstrong, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Gerald
Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer,James P. Roy, Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards & Lewis
Scott Joanen, Joanen Law Firm

Raymond Cousins, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno
& Bruno, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Gerald
Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer,James P. Roy, Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards & Lewis
Scott Joanen, Joanen Law Firm

Thurman R. Kaiser, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Gerald
Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer,James P. Roy, Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards & Lewis
Scott Joanen, Joanen Law Firm

Kiyokawa Foods, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Gerald
Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer,James P. Roy, Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards & Lewis
Scott Joanen, Joanen Law Firm

Eddie E. Knighten, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Gerald
Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer,James P. Roy, Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards & Lewis
Scott Joanen, Joanen Law Firm

Lattimore & Associates, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M.
Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC,
Gerald Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer,James P. Roy, Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards & Lewis
Scott Joanen, Joanen Law Firm

Calvin Levy, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno &
Bruno, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Gerald Edward
Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer, James
P. Roy, Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards & Lewis Scott Joanen,
Joanen Law Firm

Kenneth A. Polite, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Gerald
Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer,James P. Roy, Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards & Lewis
Scott Joanen, Joanen Law Firm

Jose Luis Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Gerald
Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer,James P. Roy, Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards & Lewis
Scott Joanen, Joanen Law Firm

Leslie Sims, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by James K. Irvin,
Milling Benson Woodward, LLP

Ann Vodanovich, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Gerald Edward
Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer, Justin
I. Woods, Woods, Bowers & Woods, LLC, Kara Hadican Samuels,
Sangisetty Law Firm & Stephen Skelly Kreller, Kreller Law Firm

David J. Kirsch, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Hugh Palmer
Lambert, Lambert Firm, APLC, Evelyn Alexis Bevis, Koeppel
Traylor,LLC & Linda Jane Nelson, Lambert & Nelson

Jim Ezell, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jesse Lee Wimberly,
III, Jesse L. Wimberly, III, Attorney at Law

David M. Brown, Sr., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E.
Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC &Sidney Donecio Torres, III, Law
Offices of Sidney D. Torres, III

Beth A. LeBlanc, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno & David Scott Scalia, Miguel A. Elias, APLC

Julie E. Tauzin, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Randall A.
Smith, Smith & Fawer, LLP, Ariel Karma DiGiulio, DiGiulio Utley,
LLC, J. Geoffrey Ormsby, Smith & Fawer, LLP, Kirk Reasonover,
Reasonover & Olinde, LLC, Laura Hawkins Davis, Smith & Fawer, LLP
& Michael W. Hill, Law Offices of Michael W. Hill, LLC

Frederick Bradley, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Gerald Edward
Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer & Kara
Hadican Samuels, Sangisetty Law Firm

Mary Beth Finney, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert M.
Becnel, Law Offices of Robert M. Becnel &Meghan Becnel Burns, Law
Offices of Robert M. Becnel

Herbert W. Christenberry, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jim S.
Hall, Jim S. Hall & Associates

June F. Sanchez, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Walter C. Dumas,
Dumas & Associates Law Firm, LLC,NaTashia Carter Benoit, Michael
Hingle & Associates, Inc., Patti Durio Hatch, Dudley DeBosier, PLC
&Travis J. Turner, Turner Law Firm, LLC

James E. Fitzmorris, Consol Plaintiff, represented by F. Gerald
Maples, F. Gerald Maples, P.A., Carlos Alberto Zelaya, II,
Mumphrey Law Firm, LLC, Clayton Morris Connors, Westberry &
Connors, LLC, J. Stuart Kirwan, III, Kaplan & Sconzo, P.A., J.
Wayne Mumphrey, Mumphrey Law Firm, LLC, John Herr Musser, IV,
Toledano & Herrin, APLC & Wayne B. Mumphrey, Mumphrey Law Firm,
LLC

Peter Lamer Marcello, Consol Plaintiff, represented by John W.
deGravelles, deGravelles, Palmintier, Holthaus & Fruge', LLP,
Craig Frank Holthaus, deGravelles, Palmintier, Holthaus & Fruge',
Michael C. Palmintier, deGravelles, Palmintier, Holthaus & Fruge',
LLP & Scott Hubert Fruge, deGravelles, Palmintier, Holthaus &
Fruge'

Cathy Adams, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Albert Joseph
Rebennack, Jr., Law Offices of Albert J. Rebennack

Glenn Michael Adams, Consol Plaintiff, represented by John Patrick
Connick, Law Office of J. Patrick Connick, LLC

Emma Brock, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert John Caluda,
Caluda Law Firm

Nathaniel Joseph, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marion Overton
White, Marion Overton White, Attorney at Law

Ruben Cohen, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Keith Michael
Couture, Couture & Levesque LLC, Peter James DiIorio, Peter J.
DiIorio, Attorney at Law & Samuel Beardsley, Jr., Beardsley Law
Firm

Flora Fleming, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno, David Scott Scalia, Miguel A. Elias, APLC, Evelyn
Alexis Bevis, Koeppel Traylor,LLC, Hugh Palmer Lambert, Lambert
Firm, APLC & Linda Jane Nelson, Lambert & Nelson

Creato Gordon, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno, David Scott Scalia, Miguel A. Elias, APLC, Evelyn
Alexis Bevis, Koeppel Traylor,LLC, Hugh Palmer Lambert, Lambert
Firm, APLC & Linda Jane Nelson, Lambert & Nelson

Carole A. Breithoff, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Carole A.
Breithoff, Danner & Breithoff

Frances Gerald Weller, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Francis
Gerald Weller, Francis Gerald Weller, Attorney at Law

Edward Williams, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno & David Scott Scalia, Miguel A. Elias, APLC

Abraham Yacob, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Pius Akamdi
Obioha, Law Offices of Pius Obioha

Judy M. Paul, Consol Plaintiff, represented by John J. Cummings,
III, Cummings, Cummings & Dudenhefer, Arthur Anthony Morrell,
Morrell & Morrell, LLC, Deborah M. Sulzer, Deborah M. Sulzer,
LLC,Richard Massie Martin, Jr., Lamothe Law Firm, LLC, Richard
Anthony Weigand, Richard A. Weigand, APLC & Suzette Peychaud
Bagneris, The Bagneris Firm, LLC

Pamela Speed, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Housel
Smith, Smith Stag, LLC, Anthony D. Irpino, Irpino Law Firm, LLP,
Conrad S. P. Williams, III, Williams Law Group, Michael G. Stag,
Smith Stag, LLC &Val Patrick Exnicios, Liska, Exnicios & Nungesser

Laura Greer, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Albert Joseph
Rebennack, Jr., Law Offices of Albert J. Rebennack, Daniel E.
Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Darleen Marie Jacobs, Darleen
M. Jacobs, APLC, Gerald Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin,
David, Meunier & Warshauer, Jim S. Hall, Jim S. Hall & Associates,
Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr.,
Fayard & Honeycutt,David Scott Scalia, Miguel A. Elias, APLC,
Dennis Reich, Reich & Binstock, F. Gerald Maples, F. Gerald
Maples, P.A., Henry Price Mounger, III, Dodson, Hooks & Frederick,
APLC, Hugh Palmer Lambert, Lambert Firm, APLC, Jerrold S. Parker,
Parker Waichman Alonso, LLP, John Patrick Connick, Law Office of
J. Patrick Connick, LLC, John Robert Warren, II, Law Office of J.
Robert Warren, II, APLC, John W. deGravelles, deGravelles,
Palmintier, Holthaus & Fruge', LLP, Keith Michael Couture, Couture
& Levesque LLC, Peyton Patrick Murphy, Murphy Law Firm, Richard
Massie Martin, Jr., Lamothe Law Firm, LLC,Robert John Caluda,
Caluda Law Firm & Walter C. Dumas, Dumas & Associates Law Firm,
LLC

Judy M. Paul, Consol Plaintiff, represented by John J. Cummings,
III, Cummings, Cummings & Dudenhefer, Arthur Anthony Morrell,
Morrell & Morrell, LLC, Deborah M. Sulzer, Deborah M. Sulzer,
LLC,Richard Massie Martin, Jr., Lamothe Law Firm, LLC, Richard
Anthony Weigand, Richard A. Weigand, APLC & Suzette Peychaud
Bagneris, The Bagneris Firm, LLC

Lucinda Coco, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno & David Scott Scalia, Miguel A. Elias, APLC.
Donna Augustine, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Gerald Edward
Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer, Joseph
M. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno & David Scott Scalia, Miguel A. Elias,
APLC

Michelle Hennessey, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M.
Bruno, Bruno & Bruno & David Scott Scalia, Miguel A. Elias, APLC
Laurie Coniglio, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Bruno,
Bruno & Bruno & David Scott Scalia, Miguel A. Elias, APLC

Sybil Morial, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M. Garner,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John T.
Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Martha Y. Curtis, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & Sharonda R. Williams, City Attorney's Office.
Adrian Kornman, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M. Garner,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John T.
Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC &
Keith A. Kornman, Degan, Blanchard & Nash

Michael B. White, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Ashley Gremillion Coker, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC, Darnell Bludworth, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Joseph L. Lobrano, Jr., Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Darnell Bludworth, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC, John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC & Kevin Michael McGlone, Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Felix Puccio, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M. Garner,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Darnell
Bludworth, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC & Kevin Michael McGlone, Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Ronald F. Plaisance, Sr., Consol Plaintiff, represented by James
M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC & Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

WNO Ownership, LLC, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Christopher Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Heidi DeSalvo, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M. Garner,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John T.
Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC &
Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Vincent L. DeSalvo, Jr., Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John
T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Vincent L. DeSalvo, Sr., Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John
T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Union Limited Partnership, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James
M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC &
Darnell Bludworth, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC

Union Limited Partnership, 07-4959, et al, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Union Limited Partnership, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Raymond C. Lewis, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.
Riverfront Lodging, L.L.C., Consol Plaintiff, represented by James
M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Christopher Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Jackson Brewery Marketplace, Ltd., Consol Plaintiff, represented
by James M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC, Christopher Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner,
Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Hotel Investors, LLC, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Christopher Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Gregory J. Blaum, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John
T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Dorothy Reese, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Martha Y. Curtis,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Christopher
Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
James M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Rachael L. Plaisance, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John
T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Justin Reese, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Martha Y. Curtis,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Christopher
Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
James M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Jared Reese, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Martha Y. Curtis,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Christopher
Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
James M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Claire B. Davis, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M. Garner,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Ellen Pivach
Dunbar, Pivach, Pivach, Hufft, Thriffiley & Nolan, LLC & John T.
Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC.
Omega Hospital, L.L.C., Consol Plaintiff, represented by W.
Christopher Beary, Orrill, Cordell & Beary, LLC, Aaron Z.
Ahlquist, Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC, Gina Puleio Campo, Orrill,
Cordell & Beary, LLC &R. Ray Orrill, Jr., Orrill, Cordell & Beary,
LLC

Louis Gerdes, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M. Garner,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Martha Y.
Curtis, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Amanda Russo Schenck, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Abundance Square Associates, LP, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
James M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC, Ashley Gremillion Coker, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein
& Hilbert, LLC, Darnell Bludworth, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Joan Berenson, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M. Garner,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Debra J.
Fischman, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC &
John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

St. Augustine High School, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James
M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Darnell Bludworth, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Justin Reese, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Martha Y. Curtis,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Christopher
Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
James M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Jackson Brewery Marketplace, Ltd., Consol Plaintiff, represented
by James M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC, Christopher Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner,
Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Rachael L. Plaisance, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John
T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Ronald F. Plaisance, Sr., Consol Plaintiff, represented by James
M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC & Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Gregory J. Blaum, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John
T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Riverfront Lodging, L.L.C., Consol Plaintiff, represented by James
M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Christopher Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Heidi DeSalvo, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M. Garner,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John T.
Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC &
Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Vincent L. DeSalvo, Sr., Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John
T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Dillard University, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Ashley Gremillion Coker, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC, John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC & Peter L. Hilbert, Jr., Sher, Garner,
Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

H. Hunter White, III, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Ashley Gremillion Coker, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC, Darnell Bludworth, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Vincent L. DeSalvo, Jr., Consol Plaintiff, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, John
T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & Ryan O'Neil Luminais, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Jared Reese, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Martha Y. Curtis,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Christopher
Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
James M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC

Susan Laurendine, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Darleen Marie
Jacobs, Darleen M. Jacobs, APLC

William Laurendine, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Darleen Marie
Jacobs, Darleen M. Jacobs, APLC

Jackson Brewery Millhouse, L.L.C., Consol Plaintiff, represented
by James M. Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC, Christopher Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC & John T. Balhoff, II, Sher, Garner,
Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC

Board of Commissioners of the Orleans Parish Levee District,
Defendant, represented by Thomas P. Anzelmo, McCranie, Sistrunk,
Anzelmo, Hardy

Board of Commissioners of the East Jefferson Levee District,
Defendant, represented by Gary M. Zwain, Duplass, Zwain,
Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister & Weinstock

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Ralph Shelton Hubbard, III, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin &
Hubbard & S. Ault Hootsell, III, Butler Snow, LLP

Orleans Levee District, Defendant, represented by Thomas P.
Anzelmo, McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy

East Jefferson Levee District, Defendant, represented by Gary M.
Zwain, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister & Weinstock

Lake Borgne Basin Levee District, Defendant, represented by Gary
M. Zwain, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister & Weinstock

Board of Commissioners of the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District,
Defendant, represented by Gary M. Zwain, Duplass, Zwain,
Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister & Weinstock

Washington Group International, Inc., Consol Defendant,
represented by William D. Treeby, Stone, Pigman, Walther,
Wittmann, LLC, Carmelite M. Bertaut, Stone, Pigman, Walther,
Wittmann, LLC, Christopher R. Farrell, Jones Day, Heather Shauri
Lonian, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC, Jerome R. Doak,
Jones Day, John M. Landis, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC,
Wayne J. Lee, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC & William E.
Marple, Jones Day

Board of Commissioners for the Orleans Levee District, Consol
Defendant, represented by Thomas P. Anzelmo, McCranie, Sistrunk,
Anzelmo, Hardy, Andre Jude Lagarde, U. S. Attorney's Office, Ben
Louis Mayeaux, NeunerPate, Charles Edward Sutton, Jr., Sutton &
Alker, LLC, Darcy Elizabeth Decker, Javier Law Firm, lLC, Gregory
Alan Koury, Koury & Hill, APLC, James L. Pate, NeunerPate, James
C. Rather, Jr., Sutton & Alker, LLC, Kyle P. Kirsch, McCranie,
Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy & Mark Emerson Hanna, Mouledoux, Bland,
Legrand & Brackett, LLC

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Consol Defendant,
represented by Ralph Shelton Hubbard, III, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton,
Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, Joseph Pierre Guichet, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton,
Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, Rachel Ann Meese, Law Offices of Robert D.
Ford & S. Ault Hootsell, III, Butler Snow, LLP

United States of America, Consol Defendant, represented by Robin
D. Smith

Board of Commissioners for the Orleans Levee District, Consol
Defendant, represented by Thomas P. Anzelmo, McCranie, Sistrunk,
Anzelmo, Hardy, Andre Jude Lagarde, U. S. Attorney's Office, Ben
Louis Mayeaux, NeunerPate, Charles Edward Sutton, Jr., Sutton &
Alker, LLC, Darcy Elizabeth Decker, Javier Law Firm, lLC, Gregory
Alan Koury, Koury & Hill, APLC, James L. Pate, NeunerPate, James
C. Rather, Jr., Sutton & Alker, LLC, Kyle P. Kirsch, McCranie,
Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy & Mark Emerson Hanna, Mouledoux, Bland,
Legrand & Brackett, LLC

East Jefferson Levee District, , Consol Defendant, represented by
Lawrence J. Duplass, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister &
Weinstock & Gary M. Zwain, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton,
Pfister & Weinstock

East Jefferson Levee District, Consol Defendant, represented by
Nicole M. Boyer, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister &
Weinstock

Board of Commissioners for the Orleans Levee District, Consol
Defendant, represented by Thomas P. Anzelmo, McCranie, Sistrunk,
Anzelmo, Hardy, Andre Jude Lagarde, U. S. Attorney's Office, Ben
Louis Mayeaux, NeunerPate, Charles Edward Sutton, Jr., Sutton &
Alker, LLC, Darcy Elizabeth Decker, Javier Law Firm, lLC, Gregory
Alan Koury, Koury & Hill, APLC, James L. Pate, NeunerPate, James
C. Rather, Jr., Sutton & Alker, LLC & Mark Emerson Hanna,
Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC

Orleans Levee District, Consol Defendant, represented by Gary M.
Zwain, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister & Weinstock

Orleans Levee District, , Consol Defendant, represented by Ben
Louis Mayeaux, NeunerPate

Board of Commissioners of the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District,
Consol Defendant, represented by Gary M. Zwain, Duplass, Zwain,
Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister & Weinstock

Lake Borgne Basin Levee District, Consol Defendant, represented by
Gary M. Zwain, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister &
Weinstock

Board of Commissioners of the East Jefferson Levee District,
Consol Defendant, represented by Gary M. Zwain, Duplass, Zwain,
Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister & Weinstock

United States of America, Consol Defendant, represented by Robin
D. Smith

Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, Consol Defendant,
represented by Charles Munson Lanier, Jr., Christovich & Kearney,
LLP, George R. Simno, III, Sewerage & Water Board Legal
Department, Gerard Michael Victor, Sewerage & Water Board Legal
Department, Kevin Richard Tully, Christovich & Kearney, LLP,
Walter Nicholas Dietzen, IV, Christovich & Kearney, LLP, Charles
Munson Lanier, Jr., Christovich & Kearney, LLP, George R. Simno,
III, Sewerage & Water Board Legal Department, Gerard Michael
Victor, Sewerage & Water Board Legal Department, Kevin Richard
Tully, Christovich & Kearney, LLP & Walter Nicholas Dietzen, IV,
Christovich & Kearney, LLP

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, Consol
Defendant, represented by George Davidson Fagan, Leake &
Andersson, LLP & Alex P Tilling, Leake & Andersson, LLP

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Consol Defendant,
represented by Ralph Shelton Hubbard, III, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton,
Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, S. Ault Hootsell, III, Butler Snow, LLP,
Ralph Shelton Hubbard, III, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin &
Hubbard & S. Ault Hootsell, III, Butler Snow, LLP

Board of Commissioners of the East Jefferson Levee District,
Consol Defendant, represented by Gary M. Zwain, Duplass, Zwain,
Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister & Weinstock, Lawrence J. Duplass,
Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister & Weinstock, Joseph
Edward Bearden, III, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton, Pfister &
Weinstock & Nicole M. Boyer, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Morton,
Pfister & Weinstock

Daniel E Becnel, Jr, Movant, represented by Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.,
Becnel Law Firm, LLC.


BRASKEM S.A.: Class Action Claims in Fact-Finding & Appeals Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that class actions filed by
the Union of Workers in the Petrochemical and Chemical Industries
in Triunfo (RS) in the third quarter of 2010 claiming the payment
of overtime referring to work breaks and integration into base
salary of the remunerated weekly day-off amounting to R$338
million. The Management of the Company does not expect to disburse
any amounts upon their closure. The claims are in the fact-finding
and appeals phase and they are expected to be granted a final and
unappealable decision in the last quarter of 2014. No judicial
deposit or other form of security was accrued for these claims.


BRCP/GM: Appeals Court Says "Nordbye" Suit Should Be Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Douglas L. Tookey of the Court of Appeals of Oregon remanded
a class action lawsuit against BRCP/GM Ellington for entry of
judgment dismissing the case as moot.

The appellate case is entitled Sarah NORDBYE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent, and
Arlene JACKSON and Susan Knoke, Intervenors-
Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. BRCP/GM ELLINGTON, an Oregon limited
liability company, Defendant-Appellant, and OREGON HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Defendant, NO. A153436 (Or. Ct.
App.)

Defendant BRCP/ GM Ellington owns The Ellington, an apartment
complex that was funded through the federal Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) program. In 1990, in exchange for more than $2
million in federal tax credits, the original owner of the complex
entered into an extended use agreement/contract with the Oregon
Housing Authority, the predecessor of defendant Oregon Housing and
Community Services Department. The extended use agreement imposed
use restrictions on the complex that required compliance with the
LIHTC program requirements for 30 years. The original owner
acknowledged the use restrictions in the Declaration of Land Use
Restrictive Covenants for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, which
was recorded in Multnomah County.

Defendant purchased the complex in 2006. Defendant evicted
plaintiff Sarah Nordbye, who was a qualified low-income tenant of
the complex, and the other low-income tenants of the complex
without cause and began renting the apartments at market rates.
The evictions and market-rate rentals did not comply with LIHTC
program requirements.

After plaintiff was evicted, she brought an action seeking to
enforce the use restrictions in the declaration through
declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act
(DJA), ORS 28.010 to 28.160, and an injunction, on behalf of
herself and a class consisting of qualified low-income past,
present, and prospective tenants of the complex. Plaintiff sought
declarations that defendant must rent all of the apartments at the
complex to Qualified Low-Income Tenants and comply with all of the
requirements of the Declaration and the LIHTC Program until
January 1, 2021, or such later date determined by the Court, and
permanent injunctions to enforce those declarations.

Before plaintiff moved to certify the action as a class action
under ORCP 32 C, defendants moved for summary judgment on the
merits of plaintiff's claim. Defendants contended that the release
agreement was valid and enforceable against plaintiff and the
putative class, and that it terminated the use restrictions
imposed in the declaration.

Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. She contended
that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the
release agreement was ineffective to release the complex from the
use restrictions imposed in the declaration and she was entitled
to enforce those use restrictions. The trial court granted summary
judgment to defendants, and plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court concluded that plaintiff was a third party
beneficiary of the declaration and that defendant continued to be
bound by the declaration's use restrictions not-withstanding the
release agreement. The appellate court held that the trial court
erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. The
trial court's judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.

On remand, before the trial court entered a judgment in favor of
plaintiff and before plaintiff moved for class certification,
defendant sought to depose plaintiff. In lieu of being deposed,
plaintiff stipulated that she no longer qualified for low-income
housing under the LIHTC program and she did not intend to move
back to the complex. Both defendants then moved to dismiss under
ORCP 21 A(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending
that, in light of plaintiff's stipulation, plaintiff lacked
standing and her claims were moot, accordingly defendants
contended, the court lacked jurisdiction.

At the same time that defendants moved to dismiss, two people who
submitted declarations stating that they were income-qualified
prospective tenants moved to intervene.  After a hearing on both
motions, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and granted
the motion to intervene. Defendant appealed arguing that the trial
court erred in denying its motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and, in the same order, allowing intervention
by two members of the putative class. In defendant's view, Nordbye
had ceased to have standing and her claims had become moot. Thus,
defendant argues, the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over the action and could not allow intervention.

Judge Tookey concluded that the defendant is correct and that the
trial court should have dismissed the action. The appellate court
vacated the order and remanded the suit for entry of dismissal as
the case is moot.

A copy of Judge Tookey's judgment dated May 13, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/8b1DWPfrom Leagle.com.

John A. DiLorenzo, Jr. -- johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- Timothy R.
Volpert -- Aaron K. Stuckey -- aaronstuckey@dwt.com -- at Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, for appellant

Stephen S. Walters -- Edward Johnson -- Carolyn Norton -- at
Oregon Law Center

The Court of Appeals of Oregon panel consists of Presiding Judge
Timothy J. Sercombe and Judges Erika L. Hadlock and Douglas
L.Tookey.


C. R. BARD: One Hernia Product Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 15, 2015,
approximately 55 federal and 40 state lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 95 plaintiffs, as well as one
putative class action in the United States, are currently pending
against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and
certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the
"Hernia Product Claims"). The company voluntarily recalled certain
sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in
December 2005. As of April 15, 2015, all but one of the putative
class actions pending against the company were dismissed. The
remaining putative class action, which has not been certified,
seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii)
punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation;
and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2014, a settlement was
reached with respect to the three putative Canadian class actions
within amounts previously recorded by the company. Approximately
20 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by
approximately 20 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of
the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other
jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek
damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products.


C. R. BARD: 3 Trials on Hernia Product Claims in 2nd Half 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that there are three trials
currently scheduled in the second half of 2015 related to Hernia
Product claims.

In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently,
other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

In June 2011, the company announced that it had reached agreements
in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle the
majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each agreement was
subject to certain conditions, including requirements for
participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum
number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage
in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and
intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation. There are three trials
currently scheduled in the second half of 2015.

The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted
and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will
not have a material adverse effect on the company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: 10 Class Suits Pending Over Women's Health Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 1, 2015,
product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 14,500 plaintiffs have been filed against the
company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the
company's surgical continence products for women. In addition,
five putative class actions in the United States and five putative
class actions in Canada have been filed against the company. In
addition, a limited number of claims have been filed or asserted
in various non-U.S. jurisdictions (all lawsuits, collectively, the
"Women's Health Product Claims"). The Women's Health Product
Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from
use of the products. The putative class actions, none of which has
been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory
damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect
and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees.


C. R. BARD: Ontario Court Dismissed Motion for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in April 2015, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in one Canadian putative class action. The
plaintiffs may appeal this decision or may file an alternatives
motion with the Ontario Superior Court to redefine the class. With
respect to approximately half of the filed and asserted Women's
Health Product Claims, the company believes that two subsidiaries
of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc)
("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company, have an obligation
to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product
defect liability.


C. R. BARD: Judgment in Women's Health Product Claim Paid in March
------------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that judgment in a Women's
Health Product Claim was paid on March 20, 2015.

In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving
solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide
were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "District Court"),
the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits
involving all women's surgical continence products that are
manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a
state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted
in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million.
On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in
November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the
California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on
February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest
and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within amounts previously
recorded by the company.


C. R. BARD: $2MM Judgment in First MDL Trial on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the first trial in the
MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the
company of approximately $2 million. The company has appealed this
decision.

During the third quarter of 2013, the company settled one MDL case
and one New Jersey state case. In addition, during the third
quarter of 2013, one MDL case was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the District
Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional
300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the "WHP Pre-Trial
Orders") (the timing for which is currently unknown). These WHP
Pre-Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-
related defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and
are expected to result in material additional cost in 2015 in
defending Women's Health Product Claims. The District Court may
also order that the company prepare additional cases for trial,
which could result in material additional cost in future periods.
During the second quarter of 2014, the company reached an
agreement with two plaintiffs' law firms to settle their inventory
of cases, representing more than 500 of the filed or asserted
Women's Health Product Claims, which the company believes are not
the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. The company
also settled one MDL case that was originally scheduled for trial
in May 2014.


C. R. BARD: Settles 25 Women's Health Product Claims
----------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the third quarter
of 2014, the company reached an agreement with a plaintiffs' law
firm to settle approximately 25 of the filed or asserted Women's
Health Product Claims, which the company believes are not the
subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. The settlements
reached in 2014 for Women's Health Product Claims were within the
amounts previously recorded by the company. In addition, the
company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs'
law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women's
Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory
settlements. In February 2015, the District Court appointed a
Special Master to assist with settlement resolution. A trial was
scheduled to begin in the MDL in February 2015, however, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case. A
state court trial in Florida is scheduled for October 2015, and
one in Missouri is scheduled for November 2015. The company
anticipates that multiple additional trials, including a possible
consolidated trial or trials, may occur in 2015.


C. R. BARD: Medtronic Granted Leave to Amend Answer
---------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in December 2014,
Medtronic filed a motion for leave to amend its answer in the
underlying MDL for Women's Health Product Claims to assert cross-
claims against the company challenging the indemnification
provisions of certain of their supply agreements with the company.
In March 2015, the court granted Medtronic's motion.

On January 22, 2015, the company initiated litigation and/or
arbitration seeking, among other things, declaratory relief under
these supply agreements with Medtronic in three separate
jurisdictions - New Jersey state court, the English High Court of
Justice in London and Atlanta, Georgia.


C. R. BARD: Filter Product Claims by 45 Plaintiffs Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 15, 2015,
product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 45 plaintiffs are currently pending against the
company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena
cava filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").

The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012
and resulted in a judgment for the company. During the second
quarter of 2013, the company finalized settlement agreements with
respect to more than 30 Filter Product Claims and made payments
with respect to such claims within the amounts previously
recorded.

The case numbers do not include approximately 150 claims that have
been threatened against the company but for which complaints have
not yet been filed. The company expects additional trials of
Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. While
the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims
that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give
any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a
material adverse effect on the company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


CABOT OIL: Groundwater Class Action Heads to Jury Trial This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Horn, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that a recent
peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences has confirmed what many fracking critics have
argued for years: hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas can
contaminate groundwater.

The study's release comes as a major class action lawsuit filed in
the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 2009
winds its way to a jury trial later this year.  The lawsuit over
fracking groundwater contamination pits plaintiffs based in
Dimock, PA against Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation.

For the study, researchers examined groundwater contamination
incidents at three homes in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale basin
in Bradford County.  As The New York Times explained, the water
samples showed "traces of a compound commonly found in Marcellus
Shale drilling fluids."

It's not the first time fracking has been linked to groundwater
contamination in northeastern Pennsylvania. And that brings us
back to Dimock, located in neighboring Susquehanna County.

As DeSmogBlog revealed in August 2013, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) had in its possession an unpublished
PowerPoint presentation summarizing an Agency-contracted study
that linked fracking to groundwater contamination in Dimock, a
study the Agency later abandoned and censored.  That presentation
was subsequently leaked and published for the first time.

In its official July 2012 Dimock desk statement, EPA said "there
are not levels of contaminants present that would require
additional action by the Agency." As Greenpeace USA researcher
Jesse Coleman recently pointed out, EPA has done the bidding of
the oil and gas industry on multiple instances during high profile
fracking studies.

That PowerPoint presentation and the new Bradford County study
could both potentially serve as key pieces of evidence in the U.S.
District Court case.

Ely v. Cabot

Initially, the U.S. District Court complaint filed in November
2009 featured many more plaintiffs.

The story of how fracking forever changed Dimock played a
prominent role in the documentary films "Gasland" and "Gasland:
Part II."  Dimock's saga also received national and international
media coverage by "60 Minutes" and the BBC.  But years passed by
in the case and eventually most of the plaintiffs agreed -- some
would argue they were forced -- to enter into a plea deal with
Cabot. But the rest of the plaintiffs have stood their ground, and
will soon have their day in court.

Many of the plaintiffs entered into a presidential election-year
plea deal with Cabot in August 2012, a month after EPA declared
publicly that water is safe to drink in Dimock (while privately
telling citizens the opposite).  The case caption then changed
from Norma Florentino v. Cabot to Scott Ely v. Cabot.

Ely is a former Cabot employee joined in the case by co-plaintiff
Ray Hubert, who lives up the street from Ely on Carter Road.  When
shown the leaked PowerPoint back in August 2013 by DeSmog, Ely
expressed despair over EPA abandoning ship in this high profile
study.

"When does anybody just stand by the truth? Why is it that we have
a bunch of people in Washington, DC who are trying to manipulate
the truth of what's happening to people in Dimock because of the
industry?," Ely asked rhetorically at the time.

"We thought EPA was going to come in and be our savior.  And
what'd they do? They said the truth can't be known: hide it, drop
it, forget about it."

"Stand with Dimock Families"

Advocates for the grassroots group Energy Justice Network have
created an IndieGoGo page to raise funds for the legal battle set
to go to a jury trial sometime between October and December 2015,
depending on the Judge's final scheduling decision.  They have
also created a website, StandWithDimock.org.

The IndieGoGo page explains that the co-plaintiffs have limited
access to clean water due to the impacts of Cabot's drilling
operations.

"[S]ince 2008, the Elys and Huberts have been living without
reliable access to water and under rationing conditions.  To
survive day to day, these families haul water at their own expense
every week for drinking, bathing and other daily basics.  They
purchase bottled water for drinking and cooking," the page
explains.  "The Court has recognized that these plaintiffs have a
case against Cabot which they are preparing to present to a jury
of their peers."

To be certain, this is a case that will be key in determining
whether frackers who contaminate drinking water can be held
accountable under federal law.


CAN-AM: Recalls Children's ATVs Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: A.T.V.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 2385
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015221TC
ID number: 2015221

Certain children's ATV's could exceed the maximum unrestricted
speed of 24 KM/H prescribed for the age category. In addition, the
parking brake capacity may be inadequate. These issues could
increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will affect repairs.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  CAN-AM     DS 70       2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
                         2014, 2015
  CAN-AM     DS 90       2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
                         2014, 2015


CANADA: Treasury Board Rejects Soldier's Housing Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Ottawa Citizen reports that the Treasury Board has rejected the
latest effort by a 24-year veteran of the Canadian military who
has fought for years to recover $88,000 he lost on the sale of his
home when he was ordered to relocate to another base, the Canadian
Press writes.

Maj. Marcus Brauer said on May 8 that the board has reviewed his
housing claims and found the market in Alberta where he was living
was not depressed at the time, effectively quashing his appeal for
full compensation of his loss.

The letter from an official says the board determined Bon Accord
was not a depressed housing market in 2010 when Maj. Brauer sold
his home to relocate to Halifax. As a result, it says Maj. Brauer
is not entitled to more than the $15,000 he received for the loss.

"It just demonstrates how unjust this system is," Maj. Brauer
said.

"I'm not about to let this go.  There has to be some
accountability in this government. . . . This is not justifiable."

Maj. Brauer, a father of five, said he plans to sue the federal
government over what he says is a responsibility to follow its own
policies and compensate members who suffer losses.

Heather Domereckyj, a spokeswoman for the board, says in an email
that the second review of the Bon Accord market "was conducted in
an independent, impartial manner by the department and relied on
the advice of third-party experts in its conclusion."

New Democrat MP Robert Chisholm, who represents the Halifax-area
riding where Maj. Brauer lives, said he is disappointed with the
decision.

"I can't believe the lengths the government will go to fight
against and frustrate and work against Canadian Forces men and
women," he said.

"This has not only financial implications, but also emotional and
career ramifications for Marcus."

This latest decision comes almost a year after a Federal Court
judge in Halifax ordered the Treasury Board to review its initial
decision in 2012 not to grant Maj. Brauer full compensation for
the loss.

Judge Richard Mosley quashed the Treasury Board's decision and
sent the case back to the board for review.  He also awarded
Maj. Brauer his legal costs.

Judge Mosley said in his ruling that the board's decision was
"unreasonable" and "not justified."

Maj. Brauer's lawyer Daniel Wallace argued that housing prices in
Bon Accord dropped 23 per cent over the three years he lived
there, which is three percentage points above the 20 per cent
threshold for a depressed market in the military's policy. He also
said Bon Accord, which has its own mayor and boundaries, should
not be lumped in with Edmonton.  The board disagreed, arguing the
municipality was part of the Edmonton market where housing prices
had dropped just 2.9 per cent.

Ottawa spent almost $65,000 fighting the case, including $25,376
on Maj. Brauer's legal fees and disbursements, $33,270 for the
federal government's legal fees and almost $6,000 for a third
party review of the housing market.

Another Canadian Forces member has launched a proposed class-
action lawsuit against the federal government to fight for
compensation for housing losses.

Neil Dodsworth, the plaintiff, lost $72,000 on the sale of his
house Edmonton when he was posted to Kingston, Ont., in 2009.
Ottawa has filed a motion to strike down the matter.


CARMAX INC: Decision in Fowler Lawsuit on Appeal
------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. has appealed a decision in the Fowler lawsuit by
filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court,
the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended February 28, 2015.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act.  The putative class consisted
of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees
who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to
the present.  On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the
class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.  On
June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the
failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement
provisions.  The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary
adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay
overtime to the sales consultant putative class.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.  On November 21, 2011, the court
granted CarMax's motion to compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims
into arbitration on an individual basis.  The plaintiffs appealed
the court's ruling and on March 26, 2013, the California Court of
Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting CarMax's motion
to compel arbitration.  On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United
States Supreme Court.  On February 24, 2014, the United States
Supreme Court granted CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated
the California Court of Appeal decision and remanded the case to
the California Court of Appeal for further consideration.  The
California Court of Appeal determined that Plaintiffs' Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act claim is not subject to arbitration,
but the remaining claims are subject to arbitration on an
individual basis.  CarMax appealed this decision on March 9, 2015
by filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.
The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

"We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or
range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
this matter," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Guglielmo, Craig Wilhelmy and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03117 (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. is the owner and operator
of a popular restaurant chain consisting of nearly 200
restaurants, eleven of which are located in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: mrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com


CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 374508
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015228TC
ID number: 2015228
Manufacturer recall number: R25

On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is
warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat
occupant. Note: This recall supersedes special service campaign
2015-003. Correction: Dealers will replace airbag inflators. All
vehicles having received a replacement inflator as part of the
previous special service campaign will have a replacement inflator
installed.
Affected products

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  DODGE      CHARGER     2005, 2006, 2007
  CHRYSLER   ASPEN       2007, 2008
  DODGE      MAGNUM      2005, 2006, 2007
  DODGE      RAM         2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
  DODGE      DAKOTA      2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
  DODGE      DURANGO     2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
  CHRYSLER   300         2005, 2006, 2007
  RAM        1500        2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
  RAM        2500        2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
  RAM        3500        2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
  RAM        4500        2008, 2009, 2010
  RAM        5500        2008, 2009, 2010


CHRYSLER: Recalls Dodge RAM Models Due to Defective Airbag
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 38837
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015229TC
ID number: 2015229
Manufacturer recall number: R26

On certain vehicles, the passenger frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment
is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the
seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace airbag inflators.

  Make      Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----     ----------------------
DODGE      RAM       2003


CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 374508
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015228TC
ID number: 2015228
Manufacturer recall number: R25

On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is
warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat
occupant. Note: This recall supersedes special service campaign
2015-003. Correction: Dealers will replace airbag inflators. All
vehicles having received a replacement inflator as part of the
previous special service campaign will have a replacement inflator
installed.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  DODGE       CHARGER     2005, 2006, 2007
  CHRYSLER    ASPEN       2007, 2008
  DODGE       MAGNUM      2005, 2006, 2007
  DODGE       RAM         2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
                          2010
  DODGE       DAKOTA      2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                          2011
  DODGE       DURANGO     2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
  CHRYSLER    300         2005, 2006, 2007
  RAM         1500        2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
  RAM         2500        2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
  RAM         3500        2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
  RAM         4500        2008, 2009, 2010
  RAM         5500        2008, 2009, 2010


CLEAR SPRINGS: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Moody of the Middle District of Florida
Tampa Division ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss in the
case SHELENE JEAN-LOUIS and JUDES PETIT-FRERE, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLEAR
SPRINGS FARMING, LLC, FLORIDA GOLD CITRUS, INC., JACK GREEN, JR.,
HOWARD LEASING, INC., and HOWARD LEASING III, INC., Defendants,
CASE NO. 8:13-CV-3084-T-30AEP (M.D. Fla.)

Defendant Clear Springs Farming, LLC operates a blueberry farm in
Homeland, Florida. Clear Springs contracts with defendant Florida
Gold Citrus, Inc. to operate the farm through a grower agreement.
Florida Gold is responsible for the growing and harvesting
activities at the blueberry farm. Defendant Jack Green owns
Florida Gold and operates the Homeland blueberry farm. Clear
Springs contracts with Howard Leasing defendants to provide
payroll and employment administrative services for the farm
workers who harvest blueberries at the farm. Clear Springs'
Homeland blueberry farm is one of the largest blueberry farms in
Florida and consists of approximately 370 acres of blueberry
plants.

Plaintiffs Shelene Jean Louis and Judes Petit-Frere, along with
over 100 other black/Haitian/Afro-Haitian/African American farm
workers traveled to Lake Wales, Florida, to pick blueberries for
defendants. Plaintiffs' crew leader was Alteric Jean-Charles.
Plaintiffs reported for work from about March 19, 2012, until
about March 27, 2012 but they were denied work each day.
Plaintiffs were never provided any work during this period of time
and returned home without any compensation. Plaintiffs allege that
defendants' failure to provide them with any work constituted
unlawful race, color, and national origin discrimination.

Plaintiffs Jean-Louis and Petit-Frere brought the a class action
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against
defendants for race, color, and national origin discrimination in
their employment under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e, et
seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act, as amended, 760.01 -
760.11, Fla. Stat. (2013).

Defendants Howard Leasing, Inc. and Howard Leasing III, Inc. argue
that the claims against them fail as a matter of law because they
were not plaintiffs' employer. They also argue that the record is
undisputed that they did not participate in the alleged
discrimination. Defendants Clear Springs Farming, LLC, Florida
Gold Citrus, Inc., and Jack Green, Jr. argue that plaintiffs
cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination as a matter
of law. They also argue that plaintiffs cannot establish pretext.

Defendants Howard Leasing, Inc. and Howard Leasing III, Inc. filed
a motion for summary judgment, while defendants Clear Springs
Farming, LLC, Florida Gold Citrus, Inc., and Jack Green, Jr.'s
also filed a motion for summary judgment.

Judge Moody granted the motion for summary judgment filed by
defendants Howard Leasing, Inc. and Howard Leasing III, Inc. but
denied the motion for summary judgment filed by Clear Springs
Farming, LLC, Florida Gold Citrus, Inc., and Jack Green, Jr.

A copy of Judge Moody's order dated May 14, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/ha2tNffrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by, Alexis Marie Barkis -- Bradley Paul
Rothman -- brothman@weldonrothman.com -- at Weldon & Rothman, PL;
Michelle E. Nadeau -- mnadeau@ksblaw.com -- Ryan D. Barack --
rbarack@ksblaw.com -- at Kwall Showers Barack & Chilson, P.A

Clear Springs Farming, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda G.
Chafin -- amanda.chafin@bipc.com -- at Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney, PC; Doris M. Del Castillo -- ddelcastillo@constangy.com --
John W. Campbell -- jcampbell@constangy.com -- at Constangy,
Brooks & Smith, LLP

Clear Springs Farming, LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert
Gambrell Riegel, Jr. -- robert.riegel@bipc.com -- at Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney, PC

Clear Springs Farming, LLC, Defendant, represented by James Morgan
Craig -- jcraig@constangy.com -- at Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP

Florida Gold Citrus, Inc. and Jack Green, Jr., Defendants,
represented by Doris M. Del Castillo -- ddelcastillo@constangy.com
-- John W. Campbell -- jcampbell@constangy.com -- James Morgan
Craig -- jcraig@constangy.com -- at Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP


Howard Leasing, Inc. and Howard Leasing III, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Brian David Rubenstein --
brian.rubenstein@csklegal.com -- at Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA


CNINSURE INC: Settlement Agreement in "Van Dongen" Case Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cninsure Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has granted
final approval of the settlement agreement and entered a final
judgment dismissing the case filed by Pieter Van Dongen.

The Company said, "On October 17, 2011, Pieter Van Dongen,
individually and on behalf of an alleged class of similarly
situated holders of our ADSs, filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, or the Court, against us and three of our then executive
officers. The complaint alleges that we made a series of false or
misleading statements or omissions regarding our business,
prospects and operations. The compliant principally alleges that
we improperly accounted for the compensation that we paid to our
insurance agents, thereby understating our expenses and
overstating our net income. The complaint asserts claims under
Section 10(b) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934, or the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act."

"On March 19, 2014, we signed a settlement agreement with the
plaintiff to settle the lawsuit at US$6.6 million (approximately
RMB40.1 million), to be paid as consideration for full and
complete settlement of all the released claims. The settlement
agreement contains no admission of liability, fault or wrongdoing
by our company. On April 7, 2014, the Court preliminarily approved
the settlement. On April 23, 2014, we and the individual
defendants executed an agreement with XL Insurance Company PLC
(Singapore Branch), or XL Insurance, in which, inter alia, XL
Insurance agreed to pay the settlement amount of US$6.6 million
pursuant to the Directors and Officers and Company Reimbursement
Insurance policy purchased by us, and the parties exchanged
certain releases. On August 15, 2014, the Court granted final
approval of the settlement agreement and entered a final judgment
dismissing the case."


COQUITLAM: May Face Class Action Over Warrantless Searches
----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that lawyers for a
Coquitlam man argued on May 6 that a case in which 457 homeowners
were subjected to warrantless searches as part of a city program
to crack down on marijuana grow-ops should be certified as a
class-action lawsuit.

In March 2008, Nicola Monaco's home in the 300-block Seaforth
Crescent had its power shut off and his tenant was forced to move
out after the premises was inspected without a search warrant by a
city team that included uniformed RCMP officers.  The team claimed
that there were signs of a grow-op but Monaco, a licensed
electrician, denied the charges and said he was familiar with
indications of grow-ops and had found no such signs in the home
prior to the city's inspection.

The city revoked the occupancy permit for his home but he went to
court and a judge found in his favor, ruling that there was no
evidence of a grow-op and staying the revocation of the permit.

Mr. Monaco spent more than $17,000 in inspection fees, bylaw
infraction penalties and repairs.  So far he has only recovered
the $5,000 inspection fee, which was refunded to him by the city
in February 2009.

Luciana Brasil, a lawyer for Monaco, told B.C. Supreme Court
Justice Patrice Abrioux that there were common issues among the
457 premises that were targeted for warrantless searches between
2007 and 2013, when the city program was scrapped.  She said the
presence of police during the city searches lent an "aura of
criminality" and amounted to a "significant stigma" to those
targeted.  After a court ruling in 2008, police stopped entering
the premises but remained on the scene during the searches and
effectively "detained" homeowners outside their homes, said Ms.
Brasil.

Under the program, B.C. Hydro provided the city with information
on power usage in homes and the city targeted premises where it
was deemed that there was an overconsumption of power.

Ms. Brasil's colleague, Susan Precious, told the judge that the
inspections breached the homeowners' Charter rights against an
unreasonable search and amounted to trespass.  She cited a ruling
in 2010 in which the B.C. Court of Appeal found that provincial
legislation that allowed warrantless searches to be conducted on
Surrey homeowners suspected of having a marijuana grow-op was
unlawful and in violation of their rights.

Monaco's lawyers are seeking damages for the alleged Charter
breaches.  Lawyers for the city were expected to begin their
submissions on May 7.


CORELOGIC INC: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held
-----------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the final fairness
hearing was set for April 24, 2015, in the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act Class Action.

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT
alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between
WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to
artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value
loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9,
2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against
eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for
class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a
nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006,
received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that
were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class
certification order. Following discovery, on July 1, 2014, the
defendant filed motions for summary judgment and to decertify the
class. On September 16, 2014, the trial court granted summary
judgment against one named plaintiff but denied it as to the
other, denied the motion to decertify the class, and bifurcated
trial into two phases with the first phase to begin November 24,
2014. The parties thereafter conducted a court-ordered mediation
and subsequently reached an agreement in principle to settle the
case for a total of $9.9 million, inclusive of attorney fees and
subject to court approval. We previously recorded an accrual for
this amount within loss from discontinued operations, net of tax.

On December 12, 2014 the court preliminarily approved the
settlement. Notice to the class has been made and the final
fairness hearing was set for April 24, 2015.


CREDIT BUREAU: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yitzchok Dick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. d/b/a
Chase Receivables Case No. 1:15-cv-02589-CBA-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 6,
2015, seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DISTRIBUTION MANSOUR: Recalls Antifreeze/Coolant Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 3, 2015
Posting date: June 3, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53605

This recall involves Everest Universal Gold antifreeze/coolant
(item number EV10606) sold in a yellow or black bottle bearing UPC
816752010606.

This consumer product does not meet labelling requirements for
consumer chemical products under Canadian law. It does not have
proper hazard labelling required by the Consumer Chemicals and
Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product
Safety Act.

Improper labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these
products and lead to serious illnesses, injuries and death.

Neither Health Canada nor Distribution Mansour Inc. have received
consumer incident reports related to the use of this product.

Approximately 216 bottles of the recalled product were sold at
various retail locations across Canada.

The recalled product was sold in Canada from October 2014 to May
2015.

Manufactured in the United States

Distributor: Distribution Mansour Inc.
             Montreal
             Quebec
             CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/osjSP5


DONA ANA: Suit Over Lost Accreditation Gets Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a state district court judge has
ruled that a lawsuit filed by eight former Dona Ana Community
College students against the school will become a class-action
proceeding.

Las Cruces Sun-News reports that the initial lawsuit was filed
after the students claimed they suffered turmoil and financial
loss after the community college's nursing school lost its
national accreditation in 2012.  Students are saying that loss was
a breach of contract.

According to court documents, 100 students were enrolled at that
time and will now be included in the case.  Some students remained
at the school after it lost accreditation, while the majority
chose to transfer to New Mexico State University's nursing
program.

An attorney for the students says any of the students can choose
to opt out of the lawsuit.


DONATI'S OF LAKE: Faces "Cortez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Cortez v. Donati's of Lake Forest, Inc. d/b/a Donati's Piza
and Jeffrey Urso, Case No. 1:15-cv-04724 (N.D. Ill., May 28,
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 Donati's Pizza restaurant in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos Gerardo Becerra, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
      332 S. Michigan, Suite 1020
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 957-9005
      Facsimile: (773) 890-7780
      E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com


EBAY: Judge Dismisses 2014 Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Elise Viebeck, writing for The Hill, reports that a federal judge
dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against eBay over its
2014 data breach, ruling that plaintiffs failed to prove they were
tangibly injured by the hack.

U.S. District Judge Susan Morgan of the Eastern District of
Louisiana said the plaintiffs lacked standing because they argued
on the basis of a "threat of future harm" -- that the breach would
make them more vulnerable to identity theft in the future --
rather than ongoing harm.

"The mere fact that plaintiff's information was accessed during
the data breach is insufficient to establish injury-in-fact,"
Judge Morgan wrote.

"Thus, the potential threat of identity theft or identity fraud,
to the extent any exists in this case, does not confer standing on
plaintiff to pursue this action in federal court."

The ruling, a victory for eBay, sheds light on the specifics of
the company's 2014 data breach.

Early last year, hackers accessed a database that held customers'
encrypted passwords, names, dates of birth and contact
information, but no payment or financial data.  Several months
later, eBay alerted users about the breach and urged them to
change their passwords.  The type of data compromise in the attack
distinguishes the eBay breach from similar incidents at retailers
such as Target and Home Depot.  In those cases, as many of 40
million and 56 million credit and debit cards were compromised,
respectively.

Both Target and Home Depot are facing a variety of class action
lawsuits from victims.


FIRST STUDENT: "Hurst Suit" Remains in Oregon District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the District of Oregon denied
plaintiff's motion to remand the case LARRY HURST, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRST
STUDENT, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant, NO. 3:15-CV-
00021-HZ (D. Or.)

Larry Hurst was a former employee of defendant First Student, Inc.
Hurst filed a class action complaint in Multnomah County Circuit
Court alleging First Student violated Oregon's minimum wage laws
by requiring current and former employees attend mandatory
training and orientation and not paying them for their time.

In his complaint, Hurst pled one claim for relief seeking unpaid
minimum wages, penalties, attorney's fees and costs and stated
that the aggregate total of the claims pled do not exceed five
million dollars. Hurst filed a motion for class action
certification which the judge granted it.

The parties agreed to attend a settlement mediation conference
which turned out to be unfruitful. A few weeks later, First
Student made a request for admission asking if Hurst was seeking
to recover more than $5,000,000.00 exclusive of interests and
costs on behalf of him and the members of the class certified by
the court. Hurst answered affirmatively on December 9, 2014.

First Student removed the action to federal court on January 5,
2015, asserting the case satisfied the amount-in-controversy and
diversity jurisdiction requirements under the Class Action
Fairness Act. Hurst filed a motion to remand.

Judge Hernandez denied plaintiff's motion to remand in an opinion
and order dated May 13, 2015, available at http://is.gd/2tMJxa
from Leagle.com.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

David A. Schuck, Esq.
SCHUCK LAW, LLC,
10013 NE Hazel Dell Avenue, #178
Vancouver, WA 98685
Telephone: 503-974-6152
Facsimile: 503-575-2763

Douglas E. Smith -- desmith@littler.com -- Jennifer N. Warberg --
jwarberg@littler.com -- LeiLani J. Hart -- lhart@littler.com -- at
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Attorneys for Defendant


FISKARS CANADA: Recalls Cohort Knives Due to Laceration Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 26, 2015
Posting date: May 26, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Laceration Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53487

This recall involves certain Gerber Cohort knife models. The
Cohort knife is an open frame folding clip knife with both a black
or dark grey anodized aluminum handle and a silver steel liner.
The following models are affected by this recall:

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

The model number can be found underneath the UPC barcode on the
lower right corner on the rear of the trap blister packaging. For
box packaging, the model number is found on a label at the bottom
of the box.

Additionally, the product date code appears on the blade, beneath
the thumb stud, on the clip side of the knife. The last figure in
the product date code is a letter, and only knives with letters
"E" and "F" are included in this recall.

The tail end of the handle includes a lanyard hole through both
sides. 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 approximately 17.75 centimetres (7
inches). When closed, the knife measures approximately 10
centimetres long (4 inches) and weighs less than 85 grams (3
ounces). The knife blade is approximately 7. 6 centimetres long (3
inches) and is marked on one side with 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 locking mechanism can fail to hold the blade when excessive
pressure is applied to the back of the blade, posing a laceration
hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Gerber Legendary Blades has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product in Canada.

Gerber Legendary Blades has received 6 reports of laceration
injuries in the United States, two of which required stitches.

Approximately 11,000 of the recalled knives were sold in Canada at
various retailers, and approximately 150,000 were sold in the
United States.

The recalled knives were sold from March 2013 to March 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Yangjiang Andeli Kitchen Knives Enterprises Co.,
              Ltd
              Guangdong/Yangijang
              CHINA

Distributor: Fiskars Canada, Inc.
             Gerber Legendary Blades
             Markham
             Ontario
             CANADA

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


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Ranger Models Due to Defective Airbag
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 29458
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015231TC
ID number: 2015231
Manufacturer recall number: 15S22

On certain vehicles, the passenger frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment
is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the
seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace airbag inflators.

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  FORD      RANGER      2004, 2005, 2006


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Mustang Models Due to Defective Airbag
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 63700
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015232TC
ID number: 2015232
Manufacturer recall number: 15S21

On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is
warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat
occupant. Note: This recall supersedes special service campaign
2015-052. Correction: Dealers will replace airbag inflators. All
vehicles having received a replacement inflator as part of a
previous special service campaign will have a replacement inflator
installed.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  FORD        MUSTANG     2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                          2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2006


FOREST RIVER: Recalls Multiple Trailer Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 98
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015227TC
ID number: 2015227

On certain fifth wheel and travel trailers, the HSM Quad Steps
rivets that hold the steps together could loosen and fail. If the
rivets were to fail, the steps could collapse which could cause a
person to fall, resulting in injury. Correction: Dealers will
inspect and replace the rivets with stronger bolts.

  Make          Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----         ----------------------
FOREST RIVER    SIERRA        2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2013, 2014,
                              2015, 2016
FOREST RIVER    SANDPIPER     2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
FOREST RIVER    CEDAR CREEK   2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
FOREST RIVER    CARDINAL      2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
FOREST RIVER    DYNAMAX       2013, 2014, 2015, 2016


FOREST RIVER: Recalls Multiple Travel Trailers Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Steering
Units affected: 149
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015243TC
ID number: 2015243

On certain travel trailers and fifth wheels, the wheel hubs may
have been manufactured with defective wheel studs, which could
cause a complete separation of the wheel(s) from the travel
trailer and a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, replace the defective
hubs.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
FOREST RIVER   WILDWOOD     2016, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016
FOREST RIVER   SALEM        2016
FOREST RIVER   SURVEYOR     2016
FOREST RIVER   R-POD        2016
FOREST RIVER   GREY WOLF    2016


FORT BEND COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Action Over Truancy Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sudhalter, writing for Fortbendstar.com, reports that Fort
Bend County-based attorney Deron Harrington and three fellow
lawyers filed a class action lawsuit over the legality of the Fort
Bend Truancy Court in the 268th District Court of Judge Brady
Elliott.

Mr. Harrington, a Sienna Plantation resident and parent of Fort
Bend ISD students, has been involved in trying to improve the
district's Truancy program for more than a year.

Mr. Harrington said the suit is "non-monetary" with one plaintiff,
and it seeks to void the citations that have been issued by the
Truancy Court on the grounds that it violates the Texas
Constitution.

Mr. Harrington said the formation of a Truancy Court "violates
kids' constitutional rights and their due process."

"It didn't work in good faith," Mr. Harrington said. "We'll prove
that it (violated) their rights.  The class action suit aims to
prove that all citations should be void and unlawful."

The lawsuit names 12 defendants, including Fort Bend ISD
superintendent Dr. Charles Dupre, the FBISD board as a governing
body (not individually), several FBISD employees, Fort Bend County
Judge Robert Hebert, Fort Bend Truancy Court Judge Nina Schaefer
and Fort Bend Precinct 3 Justice of the Peace Kenneth Cannata.

Efforts to reach Fort Bend ISD representatives were unsuccessful
at this time.

Dr. Dupre has announced that the district was suspending its
Truancy program.  Over the past few months, the district has
emphasized that it attempts to intervene at the campus and
district level, before referring Truancy cases to the Truancy
Court -- where students can face a Class C Misdemeanor charge.
Many have disputed the district's thoroughness in prevention
leading up to referring the cases to the Truancy Court.

No new cases will be referred to the Truancy Court this year, and
cases waiting to be heard will be dismissed.  But there are still
as many as 600 cases still in the system, according to Mr.
Harrington.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), who represents constituents
in parts of eastern Fort Bend County, wrote a letter to then-U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder, in March, requesting a federal
investigation into Fort Bend's Truancy Court.

The Justice Department hasn't indicated it will investigate Fort
Bend's Truancy Court, but it has announced an investigation of the
only other Truancy Court in the state, in Dallas County.

Harrington, who wrote a letter to then-Attorney General Holder in
March to inform him of the truancy issues in Fort Bend, isn't sure
if the Justice Department will investigate truancy in the county.
"The Justice Department steps in when local governments don't act
responsibly," Mr. Harrington said.  "This case is the last stop.
If not, we'll complete lose (local) control of the situation."
Truancy opponents have stated that the current law
disproportionately affects minority students.  In FBISD, 91
percent of the students who received Truancy tickets were
minorities.

Mr. Harrington said he and his fellow attorneys will request that
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
appoint a special prosecutor to investigate possible criminal
actions involved with the Fort Bend Truancy Court.

Truancy has been a major topic in the current session of the Texas
Legislature.

State Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston) has led the charge to
decriminalize Truancy. Texas is one of just two states that has
students face Truancy charges in an adult court.

Mr. Harrington said more information on the case was set to be
issued on May 11.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby-Food Labeling Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Hain Celestial
Group Inc. failed to persuade a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit
accusing it of deceiving consumers into overpaying for its Earth's
Best baby food, infant food and baby and home care products by
falsely labeling them "organic" or "all natural."

The plaintiffs in the proposed class action are represented by
Todd Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- of Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber. Hain is represented by John Dunne of Lynn
Gartner Dunne & Covello.


HALCON RESOURCES: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halcon Resources Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015,
that plaintiffs in a class action determined to withdraw their
motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Company said, "The Company, the members of the Company's board
of directors and HALRES LLC ("HALRES") have been named as
defendants in three putative class action lawsuits brought in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by shareholders of the Company
challenging the approval of the issuance of additional shares of
Halcon common stock to HALRES LLC upon conversion of our 8.0%
senior convertible note and exercise of the warrants (the
"Delaware Actions"). The complaints generally allege, among other
things, that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders of the Company by
recommending the approval of the Amended Note and Amended
Warrants.  The complaints also allege that HALRES aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the
members of the Company's board of directors.  On April 7, 2015,
the court granted a motion for consolidation of the lawsuits into
a single action captioned In re Halcon Resources Corporation
Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10849-VCP and appointment of lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On March 27, 2015 plaintiffs filed a
motion to expedite.  On April 14, 2015 plaintiffs filed a motion
for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the stockholder
vote on Proposal 4 of the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A filed on April 2, 2015.  On April 24, 2015 plaintiffs
determined to withdraw that motion in view of the supplemental
disclosures made herein.  The Company believes that the
consolidated are without merit and intends to defend them
vigorously."


HEIGHTS APARTMENTS: Settles Suit Over Security Deposit Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NBC Los Angeles reports that The Heights Apartments, L.P. has
agreed to settle a class action accusing the company of over-
deducting security deposits when tenants moved.  The company is
not admitting liability.  California law is specific with regard
to what can be deducted from a tenant's security deposit.  Normal
wear and tear expenses cannot be deducted.

The case is Hager v. The Heights Apartments, L.P.
Superior Court of the State of California -- County of Los Angeles
Case No. BC452024 (Lead Case)


HMSHOST CORPORATION: Faces "Oana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Otilia Oana v. HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00922-SB (D. Ore., May 28, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are in the business of managing and overseeing the
operations of food and beverage concessions at numerous United
States airports and other travel facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve D. Larson, Esq.
      209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 227-1600
      Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
      E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com

         - and -

      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
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      Email: seth@klafterolseon.com
             jeff@klafterolseon.com
             fran@klafterolseon.com
             michael.reed@klafterolseon.com

        - and -

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


HOLIDAY LUGGAGE: Recalls Immersion Travel Water Heaters
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 1, 2015
Posting date: June 1, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53561

This recall involves the Austin House immersion travel water
heater model CH101. The recalled immersion water heaters are used
to heat liquids during travel. The product consists of a heating
element and a three-foot white or black power cord with a non-
grounded polarized plug.

The style numbers below are included in the recall:

  Style Number   UPC           Certification Authorization Number
  ------------   ---           ----------------------------------
  AH19WH01       063627011378  UL E89413
  12007HG15      067012925240  UL E89413

A voltage surge can occur when the immersion water heater is
immersed in liquid, which poses an electric shock hazard.

In Canada, an incident of electric shock was reported to Health
Canada in relation to the use of this product.

Approximately 1,531 immersion water heaters of style AH19WH01 were
sold at various retailers in Canada. The number of units of style
12007HG15 that were sold is unknown.

The immersion water heaters of style AH19WH01 were sold in Canada
from February 2014 to April 2015 and the units of style 12007HG15
were sold from 2004 to 2013.

Manufactured in Taiwan

Manufacturer: Chun Tai Electric Co Ltd.
              Taipei
              CHINA

Distributor: Holiday Luggage Inc.
             Montreal
             Quebec
             CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xcp9K7


HONDA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Minivan, Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 704770
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015225TC
ID number: 2015225

On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is
warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat
occupant. Note: This recall supersedes special service campaign
2014567. Correction: Dealers will inspect/replace the driver's
frontal airbag inflator. All vehicles having received a
replacement inflator as part of any previous driver's inflator
campaign will have a replacement inflator installed."

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  HONDA     CIVIC       2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
  HONDA     ACCORD      2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
  HONDA     ODYSSEY     2002, 2003, 2004
  HONDA     CR-V        2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
  ACURA     1.7EL       2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
  ACURA     TL          2002, 2003
  ACURA     CL          2003
  HONDA     PILOT       2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
  ACURA     MDX         2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
  HONDA     ELEMENT     2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
                        2010
  HONDA     RIDGELINE   2006


HOUSTON AMERICAN: July 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Federman & Sherwood
regarding the Houston American Energy Corp. Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
In re HOUSTON AMERICAN ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, Master File No. 4:12-cv-
01332

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK AND/OR CALL OPTIONS AND/OR SOLD THE PUT OPTIONS OF HOUSTON
AMERICAN ENERGY CORP. DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 9, 2009
THROUGH APRIL 18, 2012, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that a hearing
will be held on July 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9C before
the Honorable Melinda Harmon, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Texas, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002
for the purpose of determining:  (1) whether the Court should
approve the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of
$7,000,000, as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the application by
Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement
of expenses and a reimbursement award to Lead Plaintiffs should be
approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice and in accordance with the terms of the Settlement.

If you purchased publicly traded common stock and/or call options
and/or sold put options of Houston American Energy Corp. during
the period from November 9, 2009 through April 18, 2012,
inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this
action.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency
and Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to In
re Houston American Energy Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o
Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box 58820, Philadelphia, PA 19102, or
going to the website, www.HoustonAmericanSettlement.com

If you are a member of the Class, to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release no later than July 30, 2015, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the
Litigation whether or not you make a claim. To exclude yourself
from the Class, you must submit a Request for Exclusion to the
Claims Administrator in the manner detailed in the Notice, and
postmarked no later than July 8, 2015.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and a reimbursement award to Lead
Plaintiffs must be received by the following at the designated
addresses no later than July 8, 2015:

COURT
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District Texas
P.O. Box 61010
Houston, Texas 77002

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Murielle Steven Walsh
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016

William B. Federman
Federman & Sherwood
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK  73120
Telephone:  (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112

DEFENSE COUNSEL
Gerard G. Pecht
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
Fulbright Tower
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010-3095
Telephone: (713) 651-5151
Facsimile: (713) 651-5246

Peter A. Stokes
Mark Oakes
98 San Jacinto Boulevard
Suite 1100
Austin, Texas 78701-4255
Telephone: (512) 474-5201
Facsimile: (512) 536-4598

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Plaintiffs' Counsel identified above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: May 6, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS


HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Parents of Mistreated Children File Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
News4Jax reports that a local lawyer is speaking out about a
lawsuit that he filed on behalf of four parents against a
Jacksonville pediatric dentist accused of mistreating and abusing
his patients for decades.

Dozens of parents and former patients say Dr. Howard S. Schneider
abused their children in the chair, intentionally causing pain and
leaving some with permanent damage.

Attorney Gust Sarris said he felt compelled to file the suit and
to do it quickly, because the allegations are so serious and so
shocking.  He said he's spoken to about 60 people so far who claim
either they or their family members were abused when they were
patients of Schneider's.  Some claim that they're scarred for
life.  In the lawsuit, the attorney called it "easily the most
egregious case of sadistic and serial child abuse" he's ever
encountered.

"The reason why we filed it so quickly is we wanted to put the
public on notice, let people know what was happening, and that
there was help for these victims.  And we did that first,"
Mr. Sarris said.  "It is unheard of for a doctor to be practicing
for 47 years and people report atrocities all the way through that
time frame."

Mr. Sarris served Dr. Schneider with the paperwork on May 6, a
little more than a week since the dentist came under fire.  Mr.
Sarris said he plans to update the lawsuit and add more victims.
He said it could soon be a class-action case with more than 100
families.

"The claims are atrocious," Mr. Sarris said.  "It gets to the
point where it's actually hard to talk to these children
sometimes, or their parents, because of the pain or injury they
had.

"People who do these types of things are incredibly methodical.
He was picking on mostly single mothers -- although we have some
families -- who have limited resources, who are on Medicaid, who
many have handicaps, the parents and the children."

Parents like Mr. Hammock said they hope the lawsuit shuts
Schneider down for good.

"It's about time," Mr. Hammock said.  "I will be here until the
day they make an arrest."

The Florida Attorney General's Office is investigating Schneider
for possible insurance fraud.  They said the case is still open.

So far, the Florida Department of Health said Schneider's
dentist's license is current and valid.


IC SYSTEM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hanie Lichtman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. I.C. System, Inc., Docket No. 1:15-cv-03103
-ENV-VMS (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and  unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Narrows Claims in "Koehler" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Pamela Pepper of the Eastern District of Wisconsin
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
in the case BRENDA KOEHLER, KELLY PARKER, LAYLA BOLTON, and
GREGORY HANDLOSER, Plaintiffs, v. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
INC., and INFOSYS PUBLIC SERVICES, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-
CV-885-PP (E.D. Wis.)

Plaintiffs Brenda Koehler, Kelly Parker, Layla Bolton and Gregory
Handloser are Caucasian individuals of American national origin,
against whom Infosys Technologies Limited, Inc. and/or Infosys
Public Services, Inc. (ITL and/or IPS) made adverse hiring or
employment decisions on the basis of their race and national
origin. They seek to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals.

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action, alleging race and
national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. The second
amended complaint (SAC) alleges that ITL and IPS are corporations
organized and headquartered in India. The corporations have many
offices located in the United States that are comprised
predominantly or in some cases, entirely of employees of the South
Asian race and of Indian, Bangladeshi, and Nepalese national
origin. The SAC contains allegations describing the defendants'
discriminatory treatment of each of the plaintiffs, and describing
the defendants' alleged employment practices that cause a
disparate impact against Caucasians.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, including the class
allegations, under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). In their motion
and brief, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs effectively
are challenging the defendants' use of the federal visa programs.
They also argue that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of
action for disparate treatment because there are no guidelines to
determine who is of the South Asian race, and the phrase is not
capable of being clearly defined. The defendants contend that the
plaintiffs' inability to identify distinct racial and national
origin groups is fatal to plaintiffs' claims, because the
plaintiffs cannot show that either defendant took an adverse
action because of the plaintiffs' membership in an identifiable
group. They further argue that the court must dismiss the
plaintiffs' discrimination claim under Section 1981 because
discrimination on the basis of national origin is not actionable
under that statute, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate
membership in a group commonly regarded as racially distinct.
Finally, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs' disparate
impact claims fail because the plaintiffs have failed to plead
with particularity the source of any alleged disparate impact, and
failed to identify a particular policy or practice that causes a
disparate impact on a member of a protected class.

Judge Pepper granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Pepper's decision and order dated May 8, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/KFtxkvfrom Leagle.com.


ISORAY INC: Faces "Duffy" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Duffy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Isoray, Inc., Dwight Babcock, and Brien Ragle, Case
No. 4:15-cv-05046 (E.D. Wash., May 28, 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. 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:

      Cliff Cantor, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
      627 208th Ave. SE
      Sammamish, WA 98074
      Telephone: (425) 868-7813
      Facsimile: (425) 732-3752
      E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      C. Dov Berger, Esq.
      POMERANTZ, LLP
      600 Third Ave., 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665


J.B. HUNT: Awaiting Appointment of Panel of Judges in Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company is a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in which
the plaintiffs are current and former California-based drivers who
allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, and other items.

|During the first half of 2014, the Court in the lead class-action
granted Judgment in our favor with regard to all claims. The
plaintiffs have appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and we are currently awaiting the appointment of a panel
of judges. The overlapping claims in the remaining action have
been stayed pending a decision in the lead class-action case. We
cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, that may arise from these lawsuits," the Company
said.


JC CHRISTENSEN: 2d Cir. Absolves Debt Collector in FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Second
District, affirmed the District Court's judgment in the case ISAAC
ALTMAN, for himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. J.C. CHRISTENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, DOCKET NO. 14-2240-CV (2d Cir.)

J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. (J.C.) was contracted by Bank
of America to be the debt collector of the latter.

Issac Altman had a debt with Bank of America, which J.C. tried to
collect on or about May 17, 2013 by sending a Notice of Collection
and Special Offer which stated in relevant part that: "Your Bank
of America/FIA Card Services N.A. account has been placed with us
for collections. Our services have been contracted to represent in
the recovery efforts of your delinquent account. Our records
indicate that the outstanding balance on your account is
$6,068.13.In an effort to resolve this matter as quickly as
possible we have been authorized to negotiate GENEROUS SETTLEMENT
TERMS on this account. Please review the following settlement
opportunities to make voluntary resolution of your account a
reality: 1. Settle your account now for a lump-sum payment of
$3,155.43. That is a savings of 48% on your outstanding account
balance.2. Extend your time and settle your account in three
payments of $1,314.76. This is a savings of $2,123.85 on your
outstanding account balance.3. Further extend your time and pay
your balance in full in 12 payments of $505.68."

Altman filed a complaint in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New Jersey alleging that the this language
is deceptive because the forgiven debt may be taxable under the
Internal Revenue Code. Altman alleges because the letter failed to
advise him of the possible tax consequences of accepting the
offer, J.C. Christensen violated Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act's (FDCPA's) prohibition against using false, deceptive, or
misleading representation or means in connection with the
collection of a debt 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York dismissed Altman's putative class-action lawsuit against J.C.
Christensen.  Altman appealed.

Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, who penned the decision,
affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York expressing that a debt collector need
not warn of possible tax consequences when making a settlement
offer for less than the full amount owed to comply with FDCPA.

A copy of Judge Pooler's judgment dated May 14, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/hJDOlbfrom Leagle.com.

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant Isaac Altman:

Michael Korsinsky, Esq.
Joseph Garland, Esq.
KORSINSKY & KLEIN, LLP
2926 Avenue L
Brooklyn, NY 11210
Telephone: 212-495-8133

Jonathan Bruno -- jbruno@kbrlaw.com -- at Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan
LLP; Michael A. Klutho -- mklutho@bassford.com -- at Bassford
Remele, PA., for Defendant-Appellee J.C. Christensen & Associates,
Inc.

The Second Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Rosemary S.
Pooler, Robert D. Sack and Christopher F. Droney.


JAPAN: Court Rejects Class Action Over Koto Panjang Dam Damage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Syofiardi Bachyul Jb, writing for The Jakarta Post, reports that a
group of residents has vowed to continue fighting despite a recent
move by the Japanese supreme court to reject a class-action
lawsuit on environmental and material damage caused by the
development of the Koto Panjang Dam in West Sumatra.

The court rejected in March the lawsuit filed by 8,396 residents
in Koto Panjang against the Japanese government and aid agencies
the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Japan Bank for
International Cooperation (JBIC) and Tokyo Electric Power Services
Co.

According to the court, providing compensation to Indonesia is not
the responsibility of the Japanese but the Indonesian government.

The residents first filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo district court
13 years ago on Sept. 5, 2002; however the court rejected the case
in 2009.  People's Struggle Forum for Victims of the Koto Panjang
Dam secretary-general Iswadi said the lawsuit rejection was not
the main issue.

"For us, the victims, losing or winning is part of the process.
The courts, be they in Japan or Indonesia, are the same.  They
will never side with the people," said Mr. Iswadi.  He said
victims of the dam development were the most deprived, as they
were forced out the village and the promises made to them had
never been realized.

According to Mr. Iswadi, in 1993, 350 families from Tanjung Pauh
village, Koto Baru district, Limapuluh Kota regency, West Sumatra,
affected by the project were relocated.  Each family was given
three land deeds to build a house (1,000 square meters), to grow
food crops (4,000 sqm) and for farming (2 hectares).

"We were given land but the quality of the houses was far from
adequate and we did not receive the plant seedlings as promised,"
said Mr. Iswadi.

"The land was also very small compared to what we had before while
the number of families has doubled," he added.  He cited that in
the former village, his extended family, comprising 15 households,
owned 3,000 hectares of land but upon relocation each household
only received 2.5 hectares.

Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi) campaign manager Edo
Rakhman said although they had to accept the defeat in court, the
lawsuit filed against the Japanese courts had served as a lesson
and would be documented.  The case also serves as an important
lesson for the government so it would not carry out activities
funded by overseas loans.

Mr. Edo added there was still an opportunity to resume the legal
struggle through Indonesian and international courts.  "What we
will do next is demand that the National Commission on Human
Rights [Komnas HAM] get involved in the struggle," said
Mr. Edo.

Walhi has reminded the National Development Planning Boards
(Bappenas) to no longer accept loan assistance for projects,
especially dams.

The Koto Panjang Dam project, funded through a Japanese soft loan
amounting to 31 million yen, engulfed the Kampar Kanan and Batang
Mahat rivers confluence area, spanning 124 square kilometers.

The dam, located in Riau and West Sumatra provinces, was built to
generate 114 megawatts (MW) of electricity.

The ground breaking ceremony for the project was conducted in
1991, after 16,954 people were forcibly evicted from 10 villages
in the area.

Thirty-one elephants were also relocated, 25 of which later died
after failing to adapt to their new environment.

An 11th century Muaratakus Hindu temple was also submerged during
development.


JOE FRESH: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Bangladesh Disaster
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adria Vasil, writing for Now Toronto, reports that just when
Joe Fresh thought it had salvaged its reputation from the wreckage
of the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, workers there
have filed a $2 billion class action in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice.  The action, spearheaded by a Toronto-based law firm,
alleges Loblaw Companies Limited, Loblaws Inc. and Joe Fresh
Canada knew that Bangladesh had a history of unsafe working
conditions but failed to conduct proper inspections and audits in
Rana Plaza.

Lawyer Joel Rochon says the class action is seeking to hold the
Ontario-based companies legally responsible for the injuries and
deaths of workers "who were employed in extraordinarily unsafe
working conditions.

"When Canadian companies contract out manufacturing to take
advantage of extremely low wages, they must ensure that the
working conditions for those employees are safe."

Some 1,130 people were killed and more than 2,510 seriously
injured in the factory collapse, many of them permanently
disabled.

Loblaw has said that it's contributed "more than its share,"
noting that it has spent $5 million on relief and compensation
commitments and is the only Canadian clothing company to have
signed the Accord for Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh.

Maquila Solidarity Network's Bob Jeffcott acknowledges that Loblaw
has "done more than most companies linked to Rana Plaza to
compensate the survivors."  However, he adds, "the Rana Plaza
Donors Trust Fund only provides compensation for lost income and
medical expenses and doesn't offer anything for the pain and
suffering of seriously injured workers and the families of those
killed."

HBO comedian John Oliver agrees Loblaw/Joe Fresh could do more.
He sent Joe Fresh's new creative director, Mario Grauso, a platter
of cheap meat dumplings, saying he wasn't really sure where they
were made or under what conditions.

Dodgy meals were also sent by Oliver to the heads of H&M, the
Children's Place, Gap and Walmart.  Walmart, Children's Place and
J.C. Penney are facing Rana Plaza class actions of their own south
of the border.


KENNER, LA: Firefighters Win Over City of Kenner on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fredericka Homberg Wicker of the Court of Appeals of
Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, vacated the trial court's judgment and
reversed the lower court's findings in the appealed case of
MICHAEL DUNN AND THE CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, KENNER
FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1427 IAFF, v. CITY OF KENNER, NO.
14-CA-113 (La. Ct. App.)

In 1999, the City of Kenner merged its municipal retirement system
for firefighters with the statewide Firefighters' Retirement
System (FRS). Under the earlier municipal retirement system,
Kenner calculated firefighters' pension contributions based on
base pay and supplemental pay, but did not include educational
incentive pay, seniority incentive pay, acting pay, and holiday
pay. After the merger, Kenner made no changes in its method of
calculating pension contributions.

On May 7, 2010, individual members of the Kenner Fire Fighters
Association Local 1427 (the Firefighters) filed a class action
lawsuit against Kenner. In their petition, the Firefighters sought
retroactive adjustments and corrections to Kenner's pension
contributions for Kenner's failure to consider educational
incentive pay, seniority incentive pay, acting pay, and holiday
pay as earnable compensation for the purpose of calculating
pension contributions.

In July 2010, Kenner began remitting pension contributions on
holiday and acting pay, but did not make retroactive adjustments
or begin remitting pension contributions on either educational
incentive pay or seniority incentive pay. On September 13, 2011,
the trial court granted the Firefighters leave to amend the
petition to name individual firefighters affected by Kenner's
alleged misconduct.

On April 16, 2012, the Firefighters filed a motion for partial
summary judgment as to liability. On October 12, 2012, the trial
court denied the firefighters' motion as to the pension claims.

On October 24, 2013, Kenner filed a motion for summary judgment on
the pension claims. On November 12, 2013, the firefighters filed a
cross-motion for summary judgment on the same issues. The trial
court granted Kenner's motion for summary judgment and denied the
firefighters' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the
remaining pension claims. The firefighters appeal from this
judgment.

Judge Wicker vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment
in favor of Kenner and reverses the trial court's denial of the
firefighters' motion for summary judgment with regard to seniority
incentive pay, educational incentive pay, acting pay, and holiday
pay, and render summary judgment in favor of the firefighters with
regard to seniority incentive pay, educational incentive pay,
acting pay, and holiday pay.


A copy of Judge Wicker's judgment dated May 14, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/Di8cYgfrom Leagle.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:

     LOUIS L. ROBEIN, JR., Esq.
     PAULA M. BRUNER, Esq.
     ATTORNEYS AT LAW
     2540 Severn Avenue, Suite 400
     Metairie, LA 70002,

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:

     ALVIN J. BORDELON, JR., Esq.
     ATTORNEY AT LAW
     429 Arlington Drive
     Metairie, LA 70001

          - and -

     REGINA S. WEDIG, Esq.
     CARLEE J. WHITE, Esq.
     ATTORNEYS AT LAW
     Post Office Box 185
     Amite, LA 70422


KOCH TRUCKING: Judge Nixes 5th Amended Complaint in "Gilliand"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Frederick Motz of the District of Maryland ruled
on plaintiffs' motions in the case LONNIE GILLIAND, et al., v.
KOCH TRUCKING, INC., et al., CIVIL NO. JFM 11-3073 (D. Md.)

Plaintiffs are bus drives and bus attendants, who filed a
complaint on October 28, 2011, against the Board of Education of
Charles County, Maryland and several bus companies including Koch
Trucking, Inc., that contracted with it.

The complaint alleged that plaintiffs were denied overtime pay in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq; the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), Md.
Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. Section 3-401, et seq; and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL), Md. Code Ann., Lab. &
Empl. Section 3-501, et seq.

After the plaintiffs' third amended complaint, the School Board
and its constituent members filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds that they were immune under the Eleventh Amendment, which
the judge denied the motion. The School Board filed an
interlocutory appeal and the Fourth Circuit reversed.

The plaintiffs removed the School Board and its members in the
fourth amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended
complaint, which defendant Keller Bus Service, Inc. filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) on December 12, 2014,
which all other remaining defendants joined.

The Rule 12(b)(7) motion argued that dismissal was required
because the School Board was a necessary party under Rule 19.
Pursuant to the Local Rules, plaintiffs' response in opposition
was due by December 29, 2014. Plaintiffs did not timely respond,
and contacted defense counsel directly after that deadline on two
occasions to ask for an extension of time. Defendants consented to
both extensions, and plaintiffs filed a consent motion for an
extension of time to respond on January 19, 2015.

Judge Motz granted the motion for an extension of time, agreeing
to the requested deadline of January 28, 2015, but plaintiffs'
counsel missed the deadline and did not contact defendants or the
court. Judge Motz granted defendants' motion to dismiss the fifth
amended complaint but noted that plaintiffs had not filed their
response in opposition, and their omission seemed to imply that it
is in the public interest that plaintiffs refile their complaint
in state court.

On March 4, plaintiffs filed the motion for reconsideration and to
accept their late response in opposition. Plaintiffs seek relief
under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b).

Judge Motz granted plaintiffs' motion for relief from the order
under Rule 60(b)(1), but nonetheless reached the same conclusion
and granted defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7).
Plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint is dismissed without
prejudice.

A copy of Judge Motz's memorandum dated May 19, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/fVLis8from Leagle.com.

Lonnie Gilliland, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law
LLC

Donna Rawlings, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law
LLC

Corey Washington, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byScott A Conwell, Conwell Law
LLC

Melecka Riley, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law
LLC

Patina Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Mary Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Judith M. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Evelyn F. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Sharon Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Amos Gross, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law
LLC

Lessthan S. Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Terry Hoff, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law
LLC

Lisa k Wenfield, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Salanna Travis, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Doris M. Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Tisha Cave, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law
LLC

Douglas L. Wallace, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Loretta Hollaway, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Chanda R. Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Keith W. McGirt, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Tammie Posey, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Jovanna Denise Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Ellen E. Monroe, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Joe L. Monroe, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Tania Monroe, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Patricia Bowman, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Ray A. Savoy, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

James Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Daneen N. Gaines, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Rita Bowman, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Katherine M. Basulto, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Michael Garrison, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Billy Hawkins, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Catherine E. Lancaster, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Betty Lyles, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Herbert W. Perry, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Tito Proctor, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Ann C. Savoy, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Robert E. Waddell, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Dawn Savoy, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law
LLC

Chanelle Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Joe Dickerson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC

Patricia Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC

Koch Trucking, Inc., And all similarly situated bus contracting
and operating entities, Defendant, represented by Bruce L Marcus,
Marcus Bonsib LLC, Janine Evans Wolford, Marcus Bonsib LLC &Joseph
Anthony Compofelice, Jr., MarcusBonsib LLC

Keller Transportation Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark J
Swerdlin, Shawe and Rosenthal LLP

Ernest J. Keller, Jr., Defendant, represented by Mark J Swerdlin,
Shawe and Rosenthal LLP

Ernest Keller, III, Defendant, represented by Mark J Swerdlin,
Shawe and Rosenthal LLP

Ruth E. Koch, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bruce L Marcus,
Marcus Bonsib LLC, Janine Evans Wolford, Marcus Bonsib LLC &
Joseph Anthony Compofelice, Jr., MarcusBonsib LLC

Edwin A. Keller Bus Service Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark J
Swerdlin, Shawe and Rosenthal LLP

H & H Bus Service, Inc., And all similarly situated bus
contracting and operating entities, Defendant, represented by Mary
Gould Weidner, Humphreys McLaughlin and McAleer LLC, Michael John
Collins, Michael J. Collins PC & Theresa Mae Colwell, Humphreys
McLaughlin & McAleer LLC

Catherine A. Keller, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark J
Swerdlin, Shawe and Rosenthal LLP

E. Keller, III Bus Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark J
Swerdlin, Shawe and Rosenthal LLP

Helen E. Keller, Defendant, represented by Mark J Swerdlin, Shawe
and Rosenthal LLP

Compton Bus Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Judah
Baror, Thatcher Law Firm LLC &Linda Hitt Thatcher, Thatcher Law
Firm LLC

G. Wade Compton, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Judah
Baror, Thatcher Law Firm LLC & Linda Hitt Thatcher, Thatcher Law
Firm LLC

Dink's Bus Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Judah
Baror, Thatcher Law Firm LLC & Linda Hitt Thatcher, Thatcher Law
Firm LLC

Mark E. Koch, Defendant, represented by Bruce L Marcus, Marcus
Bonsib LLC & Joseph Anthony Compofelice, Jr., MarcusBonsib LLC

Ruth E. Koch, Defendant, represented by Bruce L Marcus, Marcus
Bonsib LLC & Joseph Anthony Compofelice, Jr., MarcusBonsib LLC

Edwin A. Keller, Defendant, represented by Mark J Swerdlin, Shawe
and Rosenthal LLP

Beverly Hill, Defendant, represented by Michael John Collins,
Michael J. Collins PC & Theresa Mae Colwell, Humphreys McLaughlin
& McAleer LLC

Catherine Keller, Defendant, represented by Mark J Swerdlin, Shawe
and Rosenthal LLP

Calvin L. Compton, Defendant, represented by Robert Judah Baror,
Thatcher Law Firm LLC & Linda Hitt Thatcher, Thatcher Law Firm LLC

G. Wade Compton, Defendant, represented by Robert Judah Baror,
Thatcher Law Firm LLC & Linda Hitt Thatcher, Thatcher Law Firm LLC

Clifford L. Dunnington, Defendant, represented by Robert Judah
Baror, Thatcher Law Firm LLC & Linda Hitt Thatcher, Thatcher Law
Firm LLC


LAREDO PETROLEUM: Judge Grants Attorneys' Fees and Other Awards
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy D. Degiusti of the Western District of
Oklahoma awards attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and case
contribution in the case Chieftain Royalty Company, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Laredo
Petroleum, Inc., Defendant, CASE NO. CIV-12-1319-D (W.D. Okla.)

The class representative filed a motion for approval of attorneys'
fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses and case contribution
award, which class counsel seeks an award of attorneys' fees
constituting 40% of the $6,651,997.95 Settlement Amount, plus
interest, reimbursement of litigation expenses not to exceed
$350,000, plus interest, and a case contribution award to class
representative of 1 % of the settlement amount to be paid out of
the gross settlement fund.

Judge Degiusti granted the motion and awarded $160,859.39 to class
counsel as reimbursement of litigation expenses, plus interest
earned on the amount at the same rate as the gross settlement
fund. Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
40% of the Gross Settlement Fund, plus accrued interest. Class
Representative is awarded a case contribution award of l% of the
$6,651,997.95 settlement amount.

A copy of Judge Degiusti's order dated May 13, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/8gg9dxfrom Leagle.com.

Chieftain Royalty Company, Plaintiff, represented by:

Bradley Earl Beckworth, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON & ROACH LLP
205 Linda Drive
Daingerfield, TX 75638
Telephone: 903-645-7333
Facsimile: 903-645-5389

     - and -

Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq.
Robert N Barnes, Esq.
BARNES & LEWIS LLP
720 Northwest 50th, Suite 200B
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: 405-843-0363
Facsimile: 405-843-0790

Laredo Petroleum Inc, Defendant, represented by Mark D
Christiansen -- mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com -- at McAfee &
Taft-OKC


LAUNDRY BASKET: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
James Williams v. Laundry Basket Villager LLC, Steven Matrix and
Jane Doe Matrix, Case No. 2:15-cv-00968 (D. Ariz., May 28, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a laundry shop located at 5108
North 19th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A.R. Dayes III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (800) 562-5297
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


LEAR CORP: Canada Courts Approve Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the Canadian class
action settlement agreement was approved by courts in the
provinces of Ontario on March 12, British Columbia on March 23 and
Quebec on April 20, 2015.

Beginning on October 5, 2011, several plaintiffs filed putative
class action complaints in several United States federal district
courts against the Company and several other global suppliers of
automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and
indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the
Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period.
The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices
at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an
anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United
States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently
concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these
proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified
amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the
proceedings, including attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions (the "Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial
purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court").
Beginning in early 2012, putative class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec and
British Columbia against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
Canadian laws related to competition (the "Canadian Cases"). The
allegations and requests for relief in the Canadian Cases are
substantially similar to those in the Consolidated Cases.

In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to
litigate the Consolidated Cases and the Canadian Cases, the
Company entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in
the Consolidated Cases on May 5, 2014 (the "U.S. Settlement
Agreements") and with the plaintiffs in the Canadian Cases on
November 11, 2014 (the "Canadian Settlement Agreement" and
together with the U.S. Settlement Agreements, the "Settlement
Agreements"), under which the class plaintiffs in both the
Consolidated Cases and the Canadian Cases will release the Company
from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of action. The
Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the Company of any
wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it violated no laws in
connection with these matters.

Because the conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly
relates to periods prior to the Company's emergence from
bankruptcy proceedings in 2009, the U.S. Settlement Agreements
provide that the aggregate settlement amount of $8.75 million will
consist of $370,263 in cash contributed by the Company with the
remainder paid in outstanding common stock and warrants of the
Company held in the bankruptcy reserve established under the
Company's plan of reorganization. Likewise, the Canadian
Settlement Agreement provides that the aggregate settlement amount
of CDN$563,500 will consist of CDN$23,845 in cash contributed by
the Company with the remainder paid from the proceeds of the sale
of outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held in
the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of
reorganization.

The U.S. Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27,
2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by
the District Court on July 1, 2014. The U.S. Settlement Agreements
between the Company and the class of direct purchasers received
the final approval of the District Court on December 3, 2014. The
U.S. Settlement Agreements between the Company and the classes of
indirect purchasers remain subject to the final approval of the
District Court, which will be decided following the provision of
notice to purported class members and hearings, with respect to
each class, to confirm the fairness of the settlement. The
Canadian Settlement Agreement was approved by courts in the
provinces of Ontario on March 12, British Columbia on March 23 and
Quebec on April 20, 2015.


LEAR CORP: Plaintiffs Dismiss in Truck & Equipments Dealers Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that on November 21, 2014,
a plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in the
District Court against the Company and several other global
suppliers of wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and
state antitrust and related laws regarding the sales of wire
harnesses for medium and heavy duty trucks, buses, commercial
vehicles and equipment. Plaintiffs purport to be truck and
equipment dealers (the "Truck and Equipments Dealers") who are
indirect purchasers of wire harnesses supplied by the Company
and/or the other defendants during the relevant period. The
allegations and requests for relief in the complaint are otherwise
substantially similar to those in the Consolidated Cases. The
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the Company, without prejudice, from
the Truck and Equipments Dealers' lawsuit on April 23, 2015.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss CHIS Case
-----------------------------------------------------




District Judge Marc T. Treadwell denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned CHIS, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY
INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-277 (MTT),
(M.D. Ga.).

Defendant Peerless Indemnity Insurance Co. filed the motion to
dismiss.

In this putative class action, Plaintiff CHIS, LLC seeks relief on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated for the Defendants'
alleged refusal to assess and pay damages for diminution in value
when claims are made under their business or commercial property
insurance policies. CHIS alleges it "timely reported a claim for
direct physical loss to its building resulting from water damage"
but that, in violation of Georgia law and in breach of their
insurance policy with CHIS, the Defendants failed to assess and
pay damages for diminution in the value of CHIS's property.

Though CHIS has not yet moved for class certification, it
envisioned two classes: (1) the "Policyholder Class" comprised of
"[a]ll persons currently insured under businessowners insurance
policies issued by Liberty Mutual that provide coverage for
property located in the State of Georgia," and (2) the "Covered
Loss Class" comprised of "[a]ll persons formerly or currently
insured under businessowners insurance policies issued by Liberty
Mutual that provide coverage for property located in the State of
Georgia" who presented claims within the past six years for loss
resulting from water damage for which damages for diminution in
value were not paid.

According to Judge Treadwell's May 15, 2015 order, a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1EY7Yu4from Leagle.com, "Contrary
to Peerless' argument, the existence of an adequate legal remedy
is not a bar to a claim for a declaratory judgment but rather a
factor for the Court to consider in determining whether to issue
declaratory relief. The Court recognizes that this issue may need
to be revisited, but the Court cannot say at this point that CHIS
has an adequate remedy at law. More importantly, the existence of
such a remedy does not preclude declaratory relief. The Court also
notes that the real issues in this case will likely emerge if CHIS
moves for class certification. The Court is mindful of the hurdles
presented by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, as well as the
potential justiciability issue.  For the time being, however, the
Court will allow Count 2 to proceed. Peerless's motion to dismiss
is denied."

CHIS LLC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM P PRINCENTHAL --
adam@princemay.com -- C COOPER KNOWLES, CLINTON W SITTON --
cws@m-j.com -- JAMES C BRADLEY -- jbradley@rpwb.com -- MATTHEW A
NICKLES -- mnickles@rpwb.com -- MICHAEL J BRICKMAN --
mbrickman@rpwb.com -- NINA FIELDS BRITT -- nfields@rpwb.com -- &
RICHARD KOPELMAN -- richard.kopelman@hawcpa.com

LIBERTY MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY INC, Defendant, represented by
BOWEN REICHERT SHOEMAKER -- bowen.shoemaker@alston.com -- ALSTON &
BIRD, CARI K DAWSON -- cari.dawson@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD,
DANIEL F DIFFLEY -- dan.diffley@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD &
DAVID B CARPENTER -- david.carpenter@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD.

LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC, Defendant, represented by BOWEN REICHERT
SHOEMAKER, ALSTON & BIRD, CARI K DAWSON, ALSTON & BIRD, DANIEL F
DIFFLEY, ALSTON & BIRD & DAVID B CARPENTER, ALSTON & BIRD.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by BOWEN
REICHERT SHOEMAKER, ALSTON & BIRD, CARI K DAWSON, ALSTON & BIRD,
DANIEL F DIFFLEY, ALSTON & BIRD & DAVID B CARPENTER, ALSTON &
BIRD.

PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
BOWEN REICHERT SHOEMAKER, ALSTON & BIRD, CARI K DAWSON, ALSTON &
BIRD, DANIEL F DIFFLEY, ALSTON & BIRD & DAVID B CARPENTER, ALSTON
& BIRD.


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Russet Potato Products Due to Tampering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Tampering
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited, Strang's Produce Inc.
Distribution: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9844

Loblaw Companies Limited and Strang's Produce Inc. are voluntarily
recalling certain Farmer's Market and Strang's Produce brands of
Russet Potatoes from the marketplace due to possible food
tampering with nails and needles. Consumers should not consume the
recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased. However, if you find a foreign metal object in a
potato, please do not throw out the potato, metal object or the
bag and any tags related to the product. Please contact your local
police so the potatoes and related items can be passed along to
the investigators.

There have been no reported injuries associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by an ongoing investigation into
consumer complaints of nails and needles which appear to have been
inserted into potatoes. As tampering is a criminal offense, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police are leading the investigation into
this matter.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.


  Brand name   Common    Size       Code(s) on       UPC
  ----------   name      ----       product          ---
               ------               ----------
Strang's Chef  Potatoes  50 lb      Julian dates     033383454900
               Jumbo for (22.7 kg)  between 060-135
               Chips                followed by 11W
                                    or 12W
                                    Examples: 11412W,
                                    13011W

Farmer's       Potatoes  15 lb      Julian dates     061483014779
Market         Russet    (6.8 kg)   between 060-135
                                    followed by 11W
                                    or 12W
                                    Examples: 11412W,
                                    13011W

Farmer's       Potatoes  10 lb      Julian dates     061483014786
Market         Russet    (4.54 kg)  between 060-135
                                    followed by 11W
                                    or 12W
                                    Examples: 11412W,
                                    13011W

Farmer's       Potatoes  5 lb       Julian dates     061483005920
Market         Russet    (2.27 kg)  between 060-135
                                    followed by 11W
                                    or 12W
                                    Examples: 11412W,
                                    13011W

Strang's       Potatoes  15 lb      Julian dates     3338345486
Produce                  (6.8 kg)   between 060-135
                                    followed by 11W
                                    or 12W
                                    Examples: 11412W,
                                    13011W

Strang's       Potatoes  10 lb      Julian dates     3338345485
Produce                  (4.54 kg)  between 060-135
                                    followed by 11W
                                    or 12W
                                    Examples: 11412W,
                                    13011W

Strang's       Potatoes  5 lb      Julian dates     3338345481
Produce                  (2.27 kg)  between 060-135
                                    followed by 11W
                                    or 12W
                                    Examples: 11412W,
                                    13011W

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/4yWLQM


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Hummus Products Due to Staphylococcus
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus

Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9863

The food recall warning issued on May 25, 2015 has been updated to
include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Loblaw Companies Limited is recalling President's Choice brand
hummus and dip products from the marketplace because they may
contain the toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria. Consumers
should not consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where it
was purchased.

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell
spoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not
easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptoms
of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle
cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption
of these products.

This recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common      Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  ----------   name        ----    product       ---
               ------              ----------
President's    Roasted     454 g   All codes      0 60383 03583 9
Choice         Garlic
               Hummus

President's    Hummus      454 g   All codes      0 60383 03582 2
Choice

President's    Spicy       227 g   All codes      0 60383 03598 3
Choice         Hummus

President's    Hummus      227 g   All codes      0 60383 03580 8
Choice

President's    Spicy       454 g   All codes      0 60383 03597 6
Choice         Hummus

President's    Caramelized 227 g   All codes      0 60383 06051 0
Choice         Vidalia
               Onion
               Hummus

President's    Roasted     227 g   All codes      0 60383 03581 5
Choice         Garlic
               Hummus

President's    Roasted     280 g   All codes      0 60383 13518 8
Choice         Garlic
               Red Pepper
               and Cumin
               Hummus

President's    Roasted     280 g   All codes      0 60383 13517 1
Choice         Pepper and
               Paprika
               Hummus

President's    Roasted     280 g   All codes      0 60383 13519 5
Choice         Pepper and
               Chipotle
               Hummus

President's    Butter      280 g   All codes      0 60383 13392 4
Choice         Bean &
               Roasted
               Garlic
               Hummus

President's    Moroccan-   280 g   All codes      0 60383 13387 0
Choice         Style
               Hummus

President's    Olive       280 g   All codes      0 60383 13388 7
Choice         Tapenade
               Hummus

President's    Red Harissa 280 g   All codes      0 60383 13390 0
Choice         Hummus

President's    Sweet       280 g   All codes      0 60383 13391 7
Choice         Potato
               and Harissa
               Dip

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


LORILLARD TOBACCO: Faces Class Action Over BLU E-Cigarettes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Puente, writing for The Orange County Register, reports that
it's a nearly $2 billion industry growing in popularity, but the
safety of electronic cigarettes remains hotly debated.  Now, at
least one Orange County resident says advertisers are downplaying
the dangers of the smokeless devices.

In a class action lawsuit filed in Orange County, lead plaintiff
Larry Diek says Lorillard Tobacco Company, known for such brands
as Newport and Kent, is misleading consumers by claiming its
e-cigarette brand, called BLU, is a safer and healthier
alternative to traditional cigarettes.  In his 58-page lawsuit,
Mr. Diek said he never would have purchased BLU e-cigarettes if
the company had made him aware of the dangers through proper
warning labels.  He is suing the North Carolina-based tobacco
giant for an unspecified amount in damages.

His attorney, Brian Chase, of the Bisnar Chase law firm in Newport
Beach, said e-cigarette companies could see more lawsuits as
studies weigh the potential health risks.  The law firm has filed
similar suits against other companies, including NJoy.

Sometimes called e-cigs or vape pens, e-cigarettes are battery
operated devices that deliver a smoke-like vapor that usually
contains nicotine.  The liquid cartridges come in a wide range of
flavors, from bubblegum to banana split.

The Food and Drug Administration, which has not yet regulated
e-cigarettes, says the devices have not been fully studied, so
consumers don't know the potential risks. But some states, like
California, aren't waiting to sound an alarm.

In January, California Department of Public Health Director Dr.
Ron Chapman issued a warning that e-cigarettes contain nicotine
and other harmful chemicals and are a danger to children.  The
aerosol in e-cigarettes has been found to contain at least 10
chemicals that are on California's Proposition 65 list of
chemicals known to cause cancer and birth defects, the state
health department said.  The advisory noted that e-cigarette use
among teens and young adults has surged in recent years.

"The e-cigarette cartridges and e-liquid bottles are not equipped
with child-resistant caps, often leak, creating a poisoning risk
by ingestion or by skin or eye contact," Dr. Chapman said in a
statement. "These products are not safe."

While some studies suggest e-cigarettes could help smokers quit, a
panel of experts from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force this
month said more research is needed.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Diek said ads such as, "Why quit? Switch to
BLU," are misleading, since studies have shown that e-cigarettes
contain harmful additives.  Among the studies cited in the lawsuit
is one from the University of California, Riverside, which found
that the aerosol from e-cigarettes contained toxic particles from
tin, aluminum and other metals.

Mr. Chase said he thinks today's ads for e-cigarettes are similar
to the mid-century tobacco ads that advertised cigarettes as
healthy and "doctor approved."

"When it comes to tobacco, people thought that was healthy, too,
and by the time they realized it was harmful, it was hard for
people to break free," Mr. Chase said.

The case is pending in Orange County Superior Court.


M&T BANK: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Overdraft Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Al Vaughters, writing for News 4, reports that if you have had a
checking account at M&T Bank in the last nine years, you might
have some money coming your way.  Many of the country's largest
banks figured out a way to boost overdraft charges simply by
clearing your checks or debits at the end of the day, in
descending order, from largest checks to smallest.

But consumers fought back with class action lawsuits, and the
banks are settling, including M&T Bank.  The company reached a $4
million settlement, earlier this year, in a federal court in
Florida to compensate customers for overdraft charges attorneys
claimed were excessive.  The lawsuit alleged M&T Bank would settle
transactions at the end of the day, posting the largest debits or
checks first.  Once the balance in the account was exceeded, even
the smallest debits would incur overdraft charges; in some cases
the overdraft penalty would be more than the debit itself.  If the
bank posted the smaller items first, only the larger checks would
incur an overdraft fee.  M&T Bank and other major banks have
agreed that is not the way they will post debits going forward.

M&T Bank's $4 million settlement is being credited to the accounts
of affected customers.  The company has insisted the bank has
always conducted its business in accordance with the law, but a
spokesman sent a brief email to News 4 saying transactions are now
posted as they come in, or they debit the smallest checks first.


MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN: E.D. Cal. Judge Stays "Story" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez of the Eastern District of
California granted defendant's motion to stay in the case PAUL
STORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA, LLC, a Delaware
limited-liability company, Defendant, NO. 2:14-CV-02422-JAM-DAD
(E.D. Cal.)

Defendant Mammoth Ski Area, LLC, operates, manages and owns a ski
resort in Mammoth Lakes, California.

Plaintiff Paul Story alleges that on two separate occasions in
April 2014 he received prerecorded or artificial voice telephone
calls on his cellular phone from defendant. The calls were
advertisements to purchase season passes to defendant's ski
resort. Plaintiff alleges that he had never given any signed
authorization to anyone expressly permitting defendant to use his
cellular-telephone number for telemarketing or advertising
purposes. Plaintiff filed a complaint which contains a class
action allegations and one cause of action for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of various notices and reports
of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as a
judicial order in another district court case. In addition,
defendant requests the court take notice of its petition filed
with the FCC, a House Report and a public notice issued by the FCC
in connection with defendant's petition. The Court grants the
requests for judicial notice pursuant to Rule 201.

Defendant also filed an ex parte application to file a statement
of recent authority regarding a comment by the United States
Chamber of Commerce to the FCC. In addition, plaintiff filed a
request for judicial notice regarding the lifting of a stay in
another Eastern District Court case where the parties jointly
stipulated to the stay and were nearing a potential settlement.
The court denied both requests.

Defendant requested the court stay the current action pursuant to
the primary jurisdiction doctrine in order to allow the FCC to
resolve petitions currently pending before it.  Plaintiff opposes
the request, arguing that a stay would not be proper under the
circumstances and would unduly delay the proceedings.

Judge Mendez granted defendant's motion to stay and the parties
are directed to update the court by joint submission within 5
court days of a ruling by the FCC on defendant's petition and a
joint status report shall be filed every 60 days.

A copy of Judge Mendez's order dated May 12, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/iU2B0Bfrom Leagle.com.

Paul Story, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Mark Samuel Greenstone -
mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP;
Abigail Ameri Zelenski -- abigail@jlglawyers.com -- David S
Zelenski -- david@jlglawyers.com -- Michael Joe Jaurigue --
michael@jlglawyers.com -- at Jaurigue Law Group

Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
L. Willian -- jeffrey.willian@kirkland.com -- John Richard Edwards
-- john.edwards@kirkland.com -- Jordan M. Heinz --
jordan.heinz@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP


MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Spice Products Due to Mustard & Sulphites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Maple Leaf Spices
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9841

  Brand name   Common    Size    Code(s) on       UPC
  ----------   name      ----    product          ---
               ------            ----------
  Maple Leaf   Curious   69 g    All codes where  8 75950 00025 3
  Spices       Curry             mustard is not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Maple Leaf   Asian     132 g   All codes where  8 75950 00013 0
  Spices       Adventure         mustard and
               Rub               sulphites are
                                 not declared on
                                 the label.
  Maple Leaf   Creamy    30 g    All codes where  8 75950 00005 5
  Spices       Curry Dip         mustard is not
               Mix               declared on the
                                 label.


MEMPHIS, TN: Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Brent A. Rowan, a pretrial detainee at the Shelby County Criminal
Justice Complex in Memphis, Tennessee, filed on March 23, 2015, a
pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The
Defendants are identified as Workers' Compensation/Rowan Law Firm,
the City of Memphis, (Inmates), Jail Staff, the United States
Department of Justice, the United States Department of Education,
the United States Department of Defense (2M5), Renshaw Property
Management/Hampton Inn.

The prayer for relief refers to identity theft, stolen briefs, and
a class action lawsuit to protect Plaintiff's identity during his
incarceration.  Plaintiff also seeks "forms from a pod to be
reviewed by an investigator about [his] claim of harassment,
vexation and negligence by individuals who should be unemployed
because of missing pamphlets requested from LSAC since 2003."
Plaintiff also asks the Clerk to "file envelopes from counselors
and paralegals since 1-21-2015."

In an order entered May 15, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1HLdJgZfrom Leagle.com, District Judge James D.
Todd held that the Plaintiff has "failed to plead facts supporting
a finding of imminent danger on the date that he filed his
complaint."

"Because this complaint does not come within the exception to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(g), the Court cannot consider it on the merits
unless Plaintiff first tenders the civil filing fee.  Therefore,
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g)," ruled Judge Todd.

The Court ordered the Plaintiff to remit the entire $400 civil
filing fee within 28 days.  Failure to do so will result in the
dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute, Alea, 286 F.3d
at 381-82, and assessment of the civil filing fee in a lump sum.

The case is BRENT A. ROWAN, Plaintiff, v. WORKERS'
COMPENSATION/ROWAN LAW FIRM, ET AL., Defendants, NO. 15-2206-JDT-
TMP, (W.D. Tenn.).

Brent A. Rowan, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


MERCURY INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Ehsan Aghdasi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mercury Insurance Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04030
(C.D. Cal., May 28, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of contacting the Plaintiff and class members on their
cellular telephones using an automatic dialing system without
their prior express consent.

Mercury Insurance Group, Inc. operates an insurance company
headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bob Semnar, Esq.
      Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
      SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP
      400 South Melrose Drive, Suite 209
      Vista, CA 92081
      Telephone: (951) 234-0881
      Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
      E-mail: bob@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
              jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com

         - and -

      Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
      Michael J. Boyle Jr., Esq.
      MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
      1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 224-6000
      Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
      E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
              mboyle@meyerwilson.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


MERITAGE HOMES: Staff Arrested Over False FLSA Trial Testimony
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul DeBenedetto, writing for Law360, reports that a Meritage
Homes Corp. sales associate was arrested on May 7 for allegedly
lying in deposition and trial testimony in support of the
homebuilder during a Fair Labor Standards Act class action,
according to Houston prosecutors.

Amy Fisher, 36, was charged with perjury for false statements
regarding her actions and whereabouts the day before her
deposition and trial testimony in the case, which alleged Meritage
improperly paid sales associates on a commission-only basis
without any overtime compensation or guaranteed minimum wage.

According to the indictment, unsealed on May 7, Ms. Fisher
testified about her activities to illustrate the kind of work such
employees performed when outside the office, a key question in the
trial seeking to show whether the employees were properly
classified as "outside salesmen."

But prosecutors said she lied when testifying that she had shown
houses to three families, despite having never left her model home
office.

"The integrity of the judicial system requires truthfulness from
all witnesses in legal matters in order for justice to prevail,"
U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.  "When perjury allegations
are referred to us, we work closely with investigators to
determine whether to seek federal criminal charges.  We do not
take allegations of perjury lightly in any proceeding -- civil or
criminal -- and will pursue those that attempt to undermine the
reliability of our legal processes."

The salespeople, who say they were expected to be present at a
model home sales office during work hours to sell new homes and
mortgages, allege in their suit that they were expected to work
beyond 40 hours in a given workweek and could only earn a
commission by being present in the model home, making an outside
sales exemption inapplicable.

Meritage contends it properly applied the outside sales exemption
and did so based on letters from the U.S. Department of Labor that
characterized new home salespeople as exempt.  The company moved
to decertify the collective action in March, arguing the evidence
showed considerable differences in the plaintiffs' day-to-day
experiences as sales associates and whether they were customarily
and regularly engaged away from their sales offices.

A Texas federal judge in September decertified the collective
action against the company, holding that the group of home sales
representatives was insufficiently similarly situated to move
forward as a group in the FLSA suit.

The judge said discovery evidence showed that though the
plaintiffs shared a common job description, their actual
performance varied.  He said evidence, including tapes collected
by Meritage "mystery shoppers," showed that there were enough
inconsistencies in how the company's on-site home sales
representatives actually performed their jobs that a jury would
likely reach different results for some of the 104 plaintiffs on
whether Meritage properly applied an outside sales exemption to
them.

In her own November deposition testimony, Ms. Fisher, the only
sales associate who testified for the company, told the court that
she left her office around 12:30 p.m. to meet with customers.  She
also had appointments between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., then again
between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., according to her testimony.  When
asked again during the trial, Ms. Fisher reiterated her story.

But prosecutors say that was a lie and that she never left the
Houston-area model home for those reasons at all.

If convicted, Ms. Fisher faces up to five years in federal prison
and a possible $250,000 fine, according to the U.S. attorney's
office.

The class was later again certified and settled their claims.

The prosecution is represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of Texas.

Ms. Fisher is represented by Walter McNab Miller IV.

The case is U.S. v. Fisher, case number 4:15-cr-00227, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lehmeyer" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alida Lehmeyer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Messerli & Kramer P.A., Case No. 0:15-cv-02419-JRT-HB (D.
Minn., May 6, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.D. Haas, Esq.
      J D HAAS & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      9801 Dupont Ave S., Ste. 430
      Bloomington, MN 55431
      Telephone: (952) 345-1025
      Facsimile: (952) 854-1665
      E-mail: jdhaas@jdhaas.com


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: "Manchouck" Suit Dismissal Ruling Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Manchouck appealed the district court's dismissal of her
class action suit against Mondelez International, Inc., dba
Nabisco (Nabisco) with prejudice. She alleged only that the
district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend;
she does not challenge its dismissal of her complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In its memorandum dated May 18, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://bit.ly/1eX5tU6from Leagle.com, the United States Court
of Appeals, Ninth Circuit declined to consider Manchouk's new
proposal for amending her complaint to cure its defects, saying
she failed to first present the proposed amendment to the district
court either in opposition to a motion to dismiss or in a motion
for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) or 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  Moreover, the Ninth Circuit continued,
even if it considered Manchouk's proposed amendment, the amendment
does no more than restate an allegation in paragraph 22 of the
First Amended Complaint.

Manchouk raised the additional argument that other Newtons
products list fruits rather than fruit purees as ingredients, but
failed to explain the legal significance of this fact, the Ninth
Circuit added. Accordingly, the district court did not err in
concluding that any further amendment would be futile and the
class action dismissal is affirmed, ruled the Ninth Circuit.

The case is MONIQUE MANCHOUCK, as an individual, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONDELEZ
INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Illinois corporation, DBA Nabisco,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-17029.


MONTREAL MAINE: Court Approves Train Derailment Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a class-action lawsuit has been
approved almost two years after a train derailment and explosion
killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Que.  But the Quebec Superior
Court justice's ruling means it is far more limited in scope.

Justice Martin Bureau has given the plaintiffs permission to go
after only two companies -- World Fuel Services and Canadian
Pacific Railway.

Initially, the legal action targeted 37 different parties,
including Irving Oil, the now-bankrupt Montreal Maine and Atlantic
Railway and its former president, Edward Burkhardt.  In January,
victims of the rail disaster reached a major financial settlement
with Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Canada.

The lawsuit alleges CPR was negligent and there was a lack of
prudence in all circumstances leading up to the tragedy.  The
lawsuit was filed by three Lac Megantic residents --
Guy Ouellet, Serge Jacques and Louis-Serge Parent -- on behalf of
all the victims.

The exact amount being sought will be determined at a later date.


MUNDAE CLEANING: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Martin, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Mundae Cleaning & Restoration Services, Inc. and Ron
Saar, Case No. 4:15-cv-01428 (S.D. Tex., May 28, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a cleaning services company doing
business within the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop W., Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


NHP CONSULTING: Recalls Bio-Hpf Capsules Due to Lead
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 25, 2015
Posting date: May 26, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-53539
Lead exceeds the acceptable limit of 10 mcg/day as per quality of
Natural Health Products Guide.

Depth of distribution: Distributors

Bio-Hpf Canada
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80048395
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: 5,6-Dihydro-9,10-dimethoxybenzo(g)-1,3-
          benzodioxolo(5,6-a)quinolizinium chloride 40.0 mg
          Baptisia tinctoria 3.0 mg
          Bentonite 85.0 mg
          Berberis aquifolium 20.0 mg
          Berberis vulgaris 20.0 mg
          Commiphora myrrha 60.0 mg
          Deglycyrrhizinated licorice 100.0 mg
          Pimpinella anisum 20.0 mg
          Syzygium aromaticum 60.0 mg
          Ulmus rubra 80.0 mg

Lot or serial number: 403082B

Recalling Firm: NHP Consulting
                1731 8th Ave NW
                Calgary
                T2N 1C5
                Alberta
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Biotics Research Corporation
                                6801 Biotics Research Dr
                                Rosenberg
                                77471
                                Texas
                                UNITED STATES


OCWEN LOAN: 9th Cir. Remands "Kuns" Class Action to Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed in part
and reversed in part a district court decision in JEFFREY KUNS, an
individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant-Appellee, NO.
13-55562.

In this complaint, Kuns alleges that because his former home was
bought with a purchase money mortgage and sold through a
nonjudicial foreclosure, he had no personal liability for the
deficiency that resulted from the foreclosure sale. Ocwen was
nonetheless reporting the deficiency amount to credit reporting
agencies such as Equifax. After Kuns filed for bankruptcy, Ocwen
reported that the deficiency was discharged via the bankruptcy.
Kuns alleges that Ocwen's reporting of the deficiency, without
being accompanied by additional information to indicate Kuns' lack
of personal liability, violated Ocwen's obligation under
California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA") to
not report information that Ocwen "knows or should know . . . is
incomplete or inaccurate."  The district court concluded that
Ocwen had no "affirmative duty" under the CCRAA to indicate that
the deficiency could not be collected from Kuns, and dismissed the
complaint.

Kuns appealed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his
putative class action complaint.

According to the Ninth Circuit's May 21, 2015 memorandum, a copy
of which is available at http://bit.ly/1JxDreHfrom Leagle.com,
the district court correctly concluded that, after Kuns filed for
bankruptcy and Ocwen reported the deficiency as discharged in the
bankruptcy, this reporting could not have been "incomplete or
inaccurate" within the meaning of CCRAA Section 1785.25. There is
no allegation that Ocwen did anything other than accurately report
the action taken by the bankruptcy court. Therefore, the Ninth
affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings
consistent with its Memorandum.

Each party will bear its own costs.


OHIO: Faces Class Action Over Turnpike Toll Hikes
-------------------------------------------------
Marilou Johanek, writing for Toledo Blade, reports that a federal
class-action lawsuit is challenging both the state and federal
constitutionality of Ohio Turnpike tolls.

A lawsuit filed by a Cleveland woman against the renamed Ohio
Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission accuses the agency of
acting illegally by funding infrastructure apart from the turnpike
system.  The suit says the toll hikes that coincide with the
allegedly unlawful funding violate the Ohio constitution's
commerce and equal protection clauses, among a host of other
claims.

The 60-year-old turnpike was never supposed to play a lead role in
state infrastructure investment.  It was supposed to be toll-free
after its debt was retired.  But that envisioned road was a hoax
paved with broken promises.


OLIVER ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Mevorach" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yitzhak Mevorach, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Oliver Adjustment Company, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
03602-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., May 28, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC
      1669 East 12th Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com


ONEWEST BANK: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Gorsuch" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jack Zouhary of the Northern District of Ohio,
Western Division, denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
Dolores Gorsuch, Individually and on behalf of a Class,
Plaintiffs, v. OneWest Bank, FSB, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
3:14 CV 152 (N.D. Oh.)

Dolores Gorsuch's mortgage agreement required her to obtain
adequate flood insurance. If she failed to do so, the agreement
authorized defendant OneWest Bank, N.A., her lender to do and pay
whatever is necessary to protect the value of the property and the
lender's rights in the property.

Defendant Newport Management Corp. monitored OneWest's portfolio
to ensure loan collateral carried proper flood insurance and using
OneWest's letterhead, Newport warned borrowers of insurance
shortfalls. If left uncorrected, defendants shored up insurance
coverage by force-placing insurance.

Plaintiff made short comings on her flood insurance coverage that
made mortgagee to obtain additional lender-placed insurance (LPI)
coverage in her behalf. Plaintiff alleges that defendants
committed mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections
1341 and 1343. Second, defendants engaged in honest-services
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1346. Third, defendants
committed extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion in
violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C Section 1951(a).

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of Judge Zouhary's amended memorandum opinion and order
dated May 19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/wwPqe3from
Leagle.com.

Dolores Gorsuch, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen J. Fearon, Jr.
-- stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- at Squitieri & Fearon

     - and -

James G. O'Brien, Esq.
Pamela A. Borgess, Esq.
KRANZ & BORGESS, LLC
6620 West Central Avenue, Suite 100
Toledo, OH 43617
Telephone: 419-841-9623
Facsimile: 419-841-9719

OneWest Bank, FSB and Financial Freedom Acquisition, LLC
Defendants, represented by Edgar H. Martinez -- emartinez@omm.com
-- Elizabeth L. McKeen -- emckeen@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers
-- Joseph T. Dattilo -- jdattilo@brouse.com -- Michael P.
O'Donnell -- modonnell@brouse.com -- at Brouse McDowell, Rik S.
Tozzi -- rik.tozzi@burr.com -- at Burr & Forman

Balboa Insurance Company, QBE Insurance Corporation and Newport
Management Corporation Defendants, represented by Megan E. Bailey
-- mbailey@porterwright.com -- James D. Curphey --
jcurphey@porterwright.com -- at Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur;
Robyn C. Quattrone -- rquattrone@buckleysandler.com -- Dustin A.
Linden -- dlinden@buckleysandler.com -- Stephen M. LeBlanc --
sleblanc@buckleysandler.com -- at Buckley Sandler


PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Hearing Held
------------------------------------------------------
Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Superior Court
entered a preliminary approval order setting May 21, 2015 for the
final settlement hearing in a Stockholder Suit.

The Company said, "On October 2, 2014, Continuum Capital, on
behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated
stockholders of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the California
Superior Court for Contra Costa County, or the Superior Court,
against us and our then current board members (only one of whom
remains as a director) as well as against the entity then known as
Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Old Paratek. The complaint
alleges that the then Transcept board members breached fiduciary
duties to Transcept stockholders in connection with the Merger
announced on June 30, 2014, and that Transcept and its then board
of directors failed to make adequate disclosures in soliciting
stockholder approval of the Merger, and that Old Paratek aided and
abetted the alleged breaches. After expedited discovery, the
parties agreed in principal to a settlement and release of all
claims by a defined class of pre-merger stockholders of Transcept.
In furtherance of the settlement, we supplemented our disclosures
regarding the Merger and agreed to pay a negotiated plaintiffs'
attorneys' fee of $0.6 million. The settlement is subject to the
approval of the settlement and fee award, and a dismissal of the
action with prejudice each by the Superior Court. The defendants
denied any wrongdoing and agreed to settle the action to eliminate
the burden and expense of further litigation. On March 4, 2015,
the Superior Court entered a preliminary approval order setting
May 21, 2015 for the final settlement hearing and directed that
notice be provided to the class. In the event the settlement is
not consummated, we intend to vigorously defend all claims
asserted."


PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Laid-Off Workers File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Carol Ostrow, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports that
a Tyler man has filed a class action suit against his former
employer for allegedly violating a requirement to give notice of
impending layoffs.

Donald Phillips filed a class action lawsuit May 1 in the Marshall
Division of the Eastern District of Texas against Patterson-UTI
Drilling Co.  The lawsuit states the defendant violated the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 when it failed
to provide "written notice to plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals in connection with recent mass layoffs and/or plant
closing" at the defendant's Tyler factory.

Mr. Phillips and the class members, totaling more than 50, seek
back pay, benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs
and attorney fees.  He is represented by attorney William S.
Hommel Jr. of the Hommel Law Firm in Tyler.

Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas case number:
2:15-cv-00582


PAY ME FOODS: Recalls Carbon Lump Charcoal Due to Noncompliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 3, 2015
Posting date: June 3, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53559

This recall involves 2.5 kg bags of Carbon Especial lump charcoal.
This product comes in a brown bag with black writing.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation project has revealed this
product does not meet the warning label requirements under the
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA). The CCPSA requires
warning labels be in both French and English.

Charcoal produces carbon monoxide. This can be toxic if it is
burned inside or in an area without proper ventilation. Warning
labels help to protect the public by telling them about this
hazard.

Neither Pay Me Foods nor Health Canada has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
this product.

Approximately 800 of the recalled products were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold at Pay Me Foods from September
2014 to May 2015.

Manufactured in Paraguay

Manufacturer: Ganadera Don Pedro
              Asuscion
              PARAGUAY

Importer: Pay Me Foods
          64 Acres Drive
          Steinbach
          Manitoba
          CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/DLoIK5


PELLA CORPORATION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Walters" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton of the District of South Carolina,
Charleston Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss the case BRIAN WALTERS and MIRTA
BIEL-WALTERS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant, NOS. 2:14-
MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-CV-00544-DCN (D.S.C.)

Plaintiffs Brian Walters and Mirta Biel-Walters began constructing
their Reno, Nevada home in late 2006. They engaged BGTC
Construction to furnish and install the windows, doors, and
exterior cladding on the home. In late 2008, BGTC Construction, on
behalf of and at the request of the Walters, entered into an
agreement with an agent of Pella for Designer Series windows to be
used in the construction of the home.  Construction of the home
was completed in or around July 2009.

A series of window problems occurred in 2010, 2012 and 2013, were
the Walters alleged that the windows suffer from various design
deficiencies, including a defect that allows water intrusion
through the glazing pocket, between the aluminum cladding and
wood, through the crank hardware in the windows, and through the
joint between the window frame-to-sash joint. According to the
Walters, these defects cause leaks and allow water to be trapped
between the aluminum and the operable wood frame causing damage to
the windows and other property within the home. The Walters
further allege that Pella was or should have been aware that the
windows were defective.

On January 7, 2014, the Walters filed a class action complaint
against Pella in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada, alleging jurisdiction based on the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Walters
amended their complaint on January 10, 2014, bringing seven causes
of action: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied
warranties; (3) negligence; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5)
fraud by uniform written misrepresentation and omission; (6)
violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA); and
(7) declaratory relief. Pella filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

Judge Norton granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to dismiss and tossed without prejudice the Walters' breach of
implied warranties claim, negligence claim, negligent
misrepresentation claim, fraud by uniform written
misrepresentation and omission claim, NDTP claim to the extent it
relies on affirmative misrepresentations, and declaratory relief
claim.

A copy of Judge Norton's order dated May 19, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/23e1HEfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by David Hilton Wise --
dwise@wisedonahue.com -- at Wise and Donahue PLC; Daniel K Bryson
-- dan@wbmllp.com -- Matthew E Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com -- at
Whitfield Bryson and Mason; Scott A George --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- at Seeger Weiss; Gary E Mason -- at
Mason Law Firm

Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bret F Meich --
Richard G. Campbell, Jr. -- at Armstrong Teasdale, LLP; G Mark
Phillips -- mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com -- Michael Tucker Cole
-- mike.cole@nelsonmullins.com -- at Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough; James A O'Neal -- james.oneal@FaegreBD.com -- John P.
Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Shane A Anderson --
shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- Kevin L Morrow --
kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Mark J Winebrenner --
joe.winebrenner@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels


PELLA CORPORATION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Naparala" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton of the District of South Carolina,
Charleston Division granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case of TED NAPARALA, SR., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA
CORPORATION, Defendant, NOS. 2:14-MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-MN-03465-DCN
(D.S.C.)

Plaintiff Ted Naparala installed Pella windows in his home in
2005. Plaintiff discovered that the windows were defective but
defendant Pella Corporation declined coverage under the warranty,
stating that the warranty does not cover condensation or high
humidity situations.

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

Naparala filed a class action complaint against Pella in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, alleging jurisdiction based on the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The complaint
brought nine causes of action: (1) violation of the Wisconsin
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (WDTPA); (2) negligence; (3) breach
of implied warranty of merchantability; (4) breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (5) breach of
express warranty; (6) fraudulent concealment; (7) unjust
enrichment; (8) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(MMWA); and (9) declaratory relief.

The United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
the case to the court as part of the consolidated multidistrict
litigation. Pella filed a motion to dismiss on September 15, 2014.

Judge Norton granted in part and denied in part Pella's motion and
dismisses without prejudice Naparala's WDTPA claim; negligence
claim; breach of implied warranty claims; and declaratory relief
claim.

A copy of Judge Norton's order dated May 19, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/VGUUXcfrom Leagle.com.

Ted Naparala, Sr, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A George --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- at Seeger Weiss; Daniel K Bryson --
dan@wbmllp.com -- Matthew E Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com -- at Whitfield
Bryson and Mason; Jeffrey A Leon -- at Quantum Legal

Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by John P. Mandler --
john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Kevin L Morrow --
kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Mark J Winebrenner --
joe.winebrenner@FaegreBD.com -- Shane A Anderson --
shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels


PETER CIPPARULO III: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Raizy Perlstein, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Law Offices of Peter Cipparulo, III, LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03115 (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 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


PFIZER INC: Court Delays Approval of Drug Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reports that around 172 patients who developed gambling, sex and
shopping addictions as a side effect of a Pfizer medication will
have to wait for compensation after a court delayed the approval
of a settlement.  The patients are expecting to share in millions
of dollars worth of compensation as a result of the confidential
settlement, which Pfizer agreed to in principle in December.

But Judge Jennifer Davies of Victoria's Federal Court declined to
approve agreement in a ruling on May 7 because the claimants
entitlements were not independently assessed.

The patients took Pfizer's drugs Cabaser and Dostinex to treat
tremors associated with Parkinson's disease or restless legs
syndrome between 1996 and 2010.   Many claimed to have gambled
away hundreds of thousands of dollars, amounting to their entire
life savings, after taking the drugs despite having not pre-
existing gambling problems.

Justice Davies said in her judgment four group members objected to
the settlement on the basis there was no adequate and proper means
of assessing the overall quantum of the group members' claims.
The judge said she was not persuaded the settlement was not a fair
and reasonable compromise of the claims, nor was there any
systemic failure by the claimant's legal firm, Arnold Thomas &
Becker in preparing the claims.  But Justice Davies said there was
some substance in the objectors' concerns about the fairness of
the assessment process being conducted by junior counsel at law
firm and not by an independent person.

"In such circumstances, there is the potential for a conflict of
interest to arise which may well support an apprehension that the
claims of group members may not have been fairly assessed,"
Justice Davies said.

"In so stating I am not to be taken as stating that the claims
have not been fairly assessed."

Justice Davies said no good reason was advanced as to why the
usual approach of appointing an independent panel of assessors was
not taken.  While the settlement distribution scheme provided for
an independent review, Justice Davies said, it appeared group
members were not aware of their rights to an independent review or
the time limit within which such rights could be exercised.
Further an independent review was limited to material that was
before the assessor, she said.

"The rights of review provisions in the settlement distribution
scheme need to be amended and submitted to the Court for further
consideration for approval of the settlement to be given," Justice
Davies said.

The proposed payment of legal costs would not come out of the
settlement sums, she said.  The in principle settlement came ahead
of class action proceedings set to begin early this year.  It also
follows a separate settlement in November 2013 of a case against
Aspen Pharmacare and Eli Lilly with 32 patients over a similar
drug Permax.

In the Pfizer case, the claimants argued the drug company was
negligent in selling the drugs to health care professionals and
patients without adequate warnings and despite the drug company
knowing of the potential side effects.  The drug contains dopamine
agonists that imitate the effects of dopamine in the brain, which
Parkinson's disease and restless legs syndrome patients lack.
This drug helps the patients to control their movements, but has
been linked to risk-taking behaviors and addictions.

A spokesman for Pfizer said the company was pleased the settlement
proposal was expected to be approved by the Federal Court.

"Pfizer entered into settlement resolution discussions in order to
avoid the cost of litigating this claim and to avoid a lengthy
trial.  Pfizer remains willing to litigate this matter in court if
necessary," the spokesman said.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Must Face "Sourovelis" Case Over Forfeitures
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
CHRISTOS SOUROVELIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-4687 (E.D. Pa.)

Christos Sourovelis, Doila Welch, Norys Hernandez are the owners
of real property against which forfeiture proceedings commenced by
the defendant Philadelphia District Attorney's Office under the
Controlled Substances Forfeiture Act (Forfeiture Act), 42 Pa. C.S.
Sections 6801-6802, were pending in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County. Plaintiff Nassir Geiger is the owner of a
2000 Buick LeSabre against which a proceeding under the Forfeiture
Act was pending in the Court of Common Pleas.

On November 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging that defendants have been unconstitutionally employing
civil forfeiture procedures to confiscate property from residents
for the properties' alleged involvement in crime, even when
property owners have no involvement in or even knowledge of the
crimes alleged. Plaintiffs challenge the defendants' policies and
practices. Plaintiffs allege that:

     (i) Defendants' policy and practice of applying for and
executing ex parte seizures of homes and other real properties
without providing any evidence of exigent circumstances or
necessity to justify proceeding without affording affected owners
notice or an opportunity to be heard;

    (ii) Defendants' policy and practice of requiring real
property owners to waive their statutory and constitutional rights
in order to be let back into their property or have the forfeiture
petition withdrawn;

   (iii) Defendants' policy and practice of failing to provide
property owners with a prompt, post-deprivation hearing before a
neutral arbiter where those owners may contest the basis for the
seizure, restraint, or indefinite retention of their property
pending an ultimate hearing on the merits;

    (iv) Defendants' policy and practice of repeatedly "relisting"
civil-forfeiture proceedings, which forces property owners to
appear in person for these proceedings over and over again or else
permanently lose their property through a default judgment;


     (v) The policy and practice of retaining forfeited property
and its proceeds for use by the Philadelphia District Attorney's
Office and the Philadelphia Police Department; and

    (vi) Defendants' policy and practice of having prosecutors and
employees of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office control
hearings in Courtroom 478.

Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended
complaint arguing that plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed on
the following grounds:

     (1) Because the underlying forfeiture proceedings against the
real property owned by Plaintiffs Sourovelis and Welch have been
discontinued, the claims of these plaintiffs have been rendered
moot and must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1).

     (2) Because, since on or about September 22, 2014, the D.A.
Defendants have not submitted an application for an ex parte
"seize and seal" order, which is the source of the constitutional
violations alleged in the first and second counts of the amended
complaint, and a policy established by the District Attorney on
October 1, 2014, ensures that subsequent applications will be
warranted by exigent circumstances, a case or controversy is not
presented as to the first and second counts of the amended
complaint, which must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

     (3) Because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate an "injury in fact"
that is "fairly traceable" to the conduct alleged in counts one,
three, and six of the amended complaint that will likely be
remedied by the requested relief, they lack Article III standing
to bring these claims, which must be dismissed pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1).

     (4) Insofar as the named plaintiffs are the owners of
property against which civil forfeiture petitions are presently
pending in the Court of Common Pleas, their constitutional claims
could be raised in their state court forfeiture proceedings and
this court should abstain from deciding them in this case.

     (5) Because Defendant Philadelphia District Attorney's Office
is not an entity amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, this
defendant must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

     (6) Because the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted as to Plaintiff Geiger, the claims of
this plaintiff must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

     (7) Because the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth counts of
the amended complaint fail to state claims upon which relief may
be granted, those claims must be dismissed pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).

Judge Robreno denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Robreno's memorandum dated May 12, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/w6T88Ufrom Leagle.com.

CHRISTOS SOUROVELIS, Plaintiff, represented by DARPANA M. SHETH,
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE,DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING &
FEINBERG LLP, ROBERT P. FROMMER, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, SCOTT G.
BULLOCK, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE & WILLIAM H. MELLOR, INSTITUTE FOR
JUSTICE

DOILA WELCH, Plaintiff, represented by DARPANA M. SHETH, INSTITUTE
FOR JUSTICE, DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG
LLP, ROBERT P. FROMMER, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, SCOTT G. BULLOCK,
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE & WILLIAM H. MELLOR, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

NORYS HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, represented by DARPANA M. SHETH,
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE,DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING &
FEINBERG LLP, ROBERT P. FROMMER, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, SCOTT G.
BULLOCK, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE & WILLIAM H. MELLOR, INSTITUTE FOR
JUSTICE

NASSIR GEIGER, Plaintiff, represented by DARPANA M. SHETH,
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE & DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING &
FEINBERG LLP

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, represented by DIMITRIOS
MAVROUDIS, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPT & MICHAEL R. MILLER, CITY
OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPT

MICHAEL A. NUTTER, Defendant, represented by DIMITRIOS MAVROUDIS,
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPT & MICHAEL R. MILLER, CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPT

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendant, represented by
BRYAN C. HUGHES, PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
ELIZABETH J. RUBIN, OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY & DOUGLAS WECK,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA

SETH R. WILLIAMS, Defendant, represented by BRYAN C. HUGHES,
PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ELIZABETH J. RUBIN,
OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY & DOUGLAS WECK, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, Defendant, represented by DIMITRIOS MAVROUDIS,
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPT & MICHAEL R. MILLER, CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPT


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Osaga Avenue Residents Won't Accept Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samaria Bailey Tribune reports that the families that remain on
the 6200 block of Osage Avenue remember the street as a family-
friendly block prior to the day the city dropped an explosive on
the MOVE home in 1985, resulting in the burning of more than 60
houses.

Described as a place where children could once play outside
freely, residents say it is now a haven for drug dealers and
prostitutes to conduct daily business.  A walk down the street
indicates such transactions. Condom wrappers, marijuana baggies
and syringe caps rest on the street and sidewalk, in addition to
such litter as potato chip bags, beer bottles and cigarette ends.

"It's hell living on Osage Avenue.  We are ducking bullets and
chasing prostitutes," said Gerald Renfrow, president of the
Osage/Pine Community Association.  "We are faced with people that
park along the boarded homes and have sex.  We are faced with drug
dealers that sell drugs alongside the boarded homes.  Last summer
we had two drug dealing shootouts on Osage Ave. We had bullet
holes in our homes and cars.  We have to be alert at every moment
of every day."

Mr. Renfrow's assertions are backed up by others that live on the
block.  And they all point to the same reason for its current
state -- the city's inaction to restore or sell 37 blighted
properties on Osage Avenue and Pine Street.  He believes it is an
attempt by the city to drive the residents out, so the area can be
razed and ultimately be rebuilt for "white professors, doctors and
professionals who currently live in the suburbs to come back to
the city" for leisure.

But Everett Gillison, chief of staff for Mayor Michael Nutter,
said the city is unable to rehab or sell the properties because
some of the Osage Avenue and Pine Street residents will not accept
a $190,000 settlement offered by the city in 2008.

"The city made the determination they wanted to buy them out and
the people did not want that," he said.  "They would not accept
the amount of money the city was offering.  We have to wait until
the parties have released the city in the settlement of the
lawsuit.  The people have to accept the dollars ordered by the
court.  They haven't accepted [and] the city can't go against that
court order and do something with the properties."

Mr. Renfrow said he and five families -- out of a total of 24 --
that were a part of a class action lawsuit against the city for
shoddy housing, refused to accept the buyout of $190,000 from the
city in 2008 because of certain stipulations that "would force us
to give up certain rights to be compensated that had not been
addressed in court."  He dismissed Mr. Gillison's claims and said
he would want to see some documentation that confirms it.

"I don't believe Nutter has the right to deny our families to have
our block restored," he said.  "There is no documentation that
verifies that."

Nadine Foskey, who lives four doors down from the MOVE home on
Osage Avenue, said the back and forth on settlements and fixing
the properties goes back as far as the Street administration.  The
entire ordeal, she said, has made her distrust politicians.

"I don't have faith in politicians," she said.  "It's been 30
years and I am residing in the same house they were supposed to
fix it up. It's in worse condition than it was before."

Mr. Gillison said he doubt the issue will be resolved with the
homeowners in the remainder of Nutter's term and said it will be
up to the next administration to decide what to do, stating that
one option would be to "destroy all the properties and put out a
for bid for redevelopment."

Some residents said they plan to remain, even with the blight.
"There's no place else to go," said Ernest Hubbard, who lives with
his wife. "I had the option to leave, but what's the sense in
running. It doesn't make sense to run and start all over.  I've
been up in age and it doesn't make sense to run."

In the meantime, the Hubbards keep flowers in the small bed in
front of their home, to make it look a little better.
"I have to live here, might as well make it look presentable," he
said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Vacates Punitive Damages Award in "Berger"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beau C. Creson of Butler Snow reports that on April 23, 2015, the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
vacated a $20,760,000 punitive damages award that had been levied
against international tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris USA, Inc.
by a Florida jury earlier this year. The lawsuit, Berger v. Philip
Morris USA, Inc., Case No. 3:09-cv-14157, is one of thousands of
individual suits that remain from the Engle v. Liggett Group Inc.
class action lawsuit that was decertified by the Florida Supreme
Court in 2006.  As one of the Engle progeny, the jury in Berger
was instructed to accept certain findings of fact made in Engle
and apply those findings to the individual circumstances of the
Plaintiff, Judith Berger, to determine whether Philip Morris
should be held liable under various theories of liability for
Ms. Berger's congestive obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD").

In September of 2013, the jury in Berger found in favor of
Ms. Berger and awarded a verdict of $27,010,000.14 against Philip
Morris.  A substantial portion of the award was $20,760,000 in
punitive damages, which were based upon Ms. Berger's claims that
Philip Morris had fraudulently concealed the negative health
effects and/or addictive nature of smoking cigarettes. After the
verdict had been rendered, Philip Morris made a post-trial motion
for judgment as a matter of law on Ms. Berger's fraudulent
concealment and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal claims.  The
court granted this motion, vacating the $20,760,000 in punitive
damages and, by extension, conditionally granting Philip Morris'
motion for a new trial on the two claims at issue.

First, the court found that the evidence at trial had "amply
confirmed the tobacco companies' decades-long fraudulent conduct,"
which the court said Philip Morris was "actively and deeply
complicit."  Despite this evident wrongdoing, which was described
as "frightfully inhumane, vile, and unconscionable," the court
reasoned that the punitive damages award was not warranted unless
Ms. Berger had proven that she detrimentally relied upon Philip
Morris' conduct.  After a thorough analysis of the evidence, the
court found that evidence of such detrimental reliance was absent
from proof at trial.  The only expert witness who offered any
testimony on the issue based his opinions about Ms. Berger's
addiction on Ms. Berger's testimony that she decided to smoke
because of peer pressure, the easy availability of cigarettes, and
the pleasure she got from smoking.  The expert also based his
opinions on testimony that Ms. Berger had never seen a cigarette
advertisement before she began smoking and had not paid attention
to such advertising at any time thereafter.

Having found that the expert's testimony did not give rise to any
inference of reliance on the part of Ms. Berger, the court
reasoned that Ms. Berger's "claim of reliance rises or falls on
her own testimony.   While Ms. Berger testified that she was
generally aware of the health risks of smoking, she said she was
completely unaware of the tobacco industries "faux research"
downplaying such dangers.  Thus, the court was left with the
conclusion that the tobacco industry's misinformation, which did
exist, had no effect on Ms. Berger's decision to continue smoking.
Without any effect on her actions, the court held that there was
no evidence of detrimental reliance, dooming her fraudulent
concealment and conspiracy claims.  While the remainder of the
jury's verdict is still intact, though substantially discounted by
the jury's finding that Ms. Berger was 40% at fault for her
injuries, Philip Morris has won a substantial victory in the most
recent chapter of this country's ongoing tobacco litigation saga.


PITTSBURGH, PA: Settles Hiring Bias Class Action for $1.6 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mandak, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
city has agreed to pay nearly $1.6 million to settle a lawsuit
filed by the American Civil Liberties Union three years ago that
claimed police hiring policies discriminated against blacks.
City solicitor Lourdes Sanchez Ridge said the city doesn't believe
there was intentional bias, but settled to limit the city's
liability.

"From the city's point of view, if in this kind of action a jury
awards $1 (in damages), then we have to pay all the attorneys'
fees and there are six (plaintiffs') attorneys -- so it's going to
be a lot more than this entire settlement," she said.

The ACLU sued because 23 of 530 officers hired by the city since
2001 -- or about 4 percent -- have been black, even though the
city's population is about 26 percent black.  The percentage of
black officers was 17 percent when the lawsuit was filed and has
dropped to 13 percent even though the city and ACLU jointly hired
an expert to begin studying the issue in 2013.

The expert, Leaetta Hough, an industrial organization
psychologist, determined no single step in the hiring process was
discriminatory, but "the overall system has an adverse impact on
African-American applicants" and "should be revised and improved."
Mayor Bill Peduto said the reforms will help the city in "creating
a force that understands the cultural differences that are part of
any community."

The city has already approved spending $250,000 to pay Hough and
EB Jacobs, a consulting firm, to help revise its hiring practices,
which could take a year or two.  The settlement must be approved
by City Council and a federal judge, which should take about four
months.

The city will pay up to $600,000 in attorneys' fees and $985,000
to roughly 360 black candidates rejected from 2008 to 2014, with
the five lead class-action plaintiffs likely getting more money
than the others, said Witold "Vic" Walczak, legal director for the
ACLU in Pennsylvania.

The rejected applicants will be paid based on a still-to-be-
developed formula accounting for how many times they were passed
over, among other factors, Mr. Walczak said.

The city had previously said in court papers that one lead
plaintiff had three warrants for failing to respond to citations,
a spotty work record and a "poor" driving record, and that
discrimination claims by four other plaintiffs were "extremely
weak."

But Mr. Walczak said one of those plaintiffs is in the city's next
police academy class and three others work for suburban police
departments.

"This case is not about changing or lowering the standards for
anyone," Mr. Walczak said, rather, it's about creating more
concrete standards that will be applied less subjectively.

There are no guarantees the new approach will work, but Ridge said
the scientific method being implemented should shield the city
from further lawsuits if the number of black officers doesn't
increase significantly.

The city has dealt with court-ordered minority hiring in the past.
A federal consent decree forced the city to hire one white woman
and one black male and female for every white male officer hired
from 1975 to 1991, when a federal appeals court found that
approach unconstitutional.


POTAMKIN HY: "Hurtado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Hurtado, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Potamkin HY Palmetto, LLC d/b/ Kendall Hyundai, Case
No. 1:15-cv-22031-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an automobile dealership location
in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Sanchez, Esq.
      ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
      6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
      Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 665-9211
      Facsimile: (305) 328-4842
      E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com


RLI CORP: Belmont Class Action Settlement Approved on Final Basis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RLI Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015, that the settlement in the class
action filed by Belmont Massachusetts Contributory Retirement
System was approved in final by the court in April 2015, and the
suit has been dismissed.

The Company said, "As previously reported in our 10-Q Quarterly
Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2014 and 10-K Annual
Report for the year ended December 31, 2014, the Belmont
Massachusetts Contributory Retirement System filed a putative
class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit against RLI Corp.
and its Board of Directors in Illinois state court. The lawsuit
has been settled and dismissed. The lawsuit originally alleged
breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty by our directors
relating to adjustments made to the exercise price of outstanding
stock options under our equity-based incentive plans, in
connection with extraordinary cash dividends paid by us in 2011,
2012 and 2013. In December 2014 we reached a negotiated settlement
of the lawsuit with plaintiff, which was subject to court
approval. A filed objection to the settlement was withdrawn, the
settlement was approved in final by the court in April 2015, and
the suit has been dismissed. Settlement terms include submitting
proposed clarifying amendments of our equity incentive plans to a
shareholder vote at our upcoming May 2015 Annual Meeting of
Shareholders, and payment of $350,000 to plaintiff's legal counsel
for legal fees. We believe our settlement of this matter and the
terms are favorable to and in the best interests of the company
and its shareholders."


SAN JOSE, CA: Police Dep't Faces Racial Profiling Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Kaplan, Robert Salonga and Leigh Poitinger, writing for
Mercury News, report that police officers in San Jose pulled over,
searched, curb-sat, cuffed or otherwise detained blacks and
Latinos last year at far higher percentages than their share of
this city's population, an analysis of traffic-stop data by this
newspaper found. Yet the stops seldom led to arrests or evidence
of crimes.

The data, which the San Jose Police Department collected at the
request of the city's independent police auditor in response to
citizen complaints, highlight concerns that police are more likely
to treat blacks and Latinos as potential suspects than others.

The figures represent the most detailed statistical examination of
the Police Department to date using this type of data, and come
amid national concerns about disparate treatment of blacks and
other racial minorities by police that have erupted in protests
when encounters with cops turned deadly in Ferguson, Missouri;
Staten Island, New York; and Baltimore.

"The numbers are a red flag," said LaDoris Cordell, the city's
independent police auditor and a retired judge who is African-
American.  "Something concrete has to change in San Jose.  Look at
Baltimore and Ferguson.  They're not justified, but it's what
we'll get if we don't do something now."

Advertisement

Police Chief Larry Esquivel, who is Latino, cautioned that what
may appear as disparate treatment is often a reflection of
policing focused on high-crime areas such as East San Jose, which
is heavily Latino, in what is otherwise a relatively safe large
city.

"Our job is to not only provide protection, serve our community,
and apprehend those responsible for crimes, but it is to seek out
criminal activity and to be proactive," Mr. Esquivel said.
"Unfortunately, in some areas of San Jose, we have more crime and
different types of crime.  Gang activity has been a huge focus.
Within that, there are certain areas or people who gravitate
toward gangs."

But the chief added that a city consultant is conducting an
independent analysis of the data, a step he welcomed as an
opportunity to improve police interactions with minority
communities, where distrust of cops often runs deep.

"We need to vigorously critique ourselves," Mr. Esquivel said.
"It goes back to the way we talk to people, how we address them,
the tone we use.  That makes a difference to people we contact. We
need to do a better job, especially in our minority communities."

This newspaper's analysis of the data, which reflect activity
through the first nine months of 2014 because that is all the
department compiled for release, found:

In a city where blacks and Latinos make up slightly more than a
third of the population, those groups made up nearly two-thirds of
the traffic stops.  Blacks made up 8 percent of the stops,
compared with 3 percent of the population; Latinos, 57 percent of
the stops, compared with 33 percent of the population.

Once stopped, blacks and Latinos also were significantly more
likely to be ordered out of their vehicles, frisked and have their
cars searched; more than three-quarters of those subjected to such
treatment by San Jose police were black or Latino.

Only 6 percent of all those stopped were arrested, including 3
percent of Asians, 5 percent of whites and 7 percent each of
blacks and Latinos.

While few searches of those stopped turned up evidence, whites
were slightly more likely to be carrying drugs or other contraband
(16 percent) than Latinos (12 percent) and blacks (14 percent).

San Jose police showed similar patterns during pedestrian stops,
with blacks and Latinos making up three-quarters of such
encounters.  But once the pedestrians were stopped, police curb-
sat and searched blacks and Latinos at roughly similar rates as
whites and Asians, unlike during the traffic stops.

The city's police force in 2013, the latest year figures are
available, was about 54 white, 23 percent Latino, 4 percent black
and more than 15 percent Asian.

The San Jose Police Officers' Association agreed with Ms. Esquivel
that demographics and geography cannot be overlooked when
assessing the issue.

"It doesn't take a mathematician to conclude that there will be
more searches as a result of more stops in higher crime
neighborhoods that unfortunately have a higher minority
population," union president Sgt. Paul Kelly said in a statement.
"To draw a different conclusion or infer something sinister from
the available data is misguided and reminds me of what Mark Twain
once wrote, 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and
statistics.'"

California law allows officers to pull over cars for minor traffic
violations in hopes of discovering more serious crimes, but they
may not make a stop on the basis of race alone.

San Jose officers cited safety concerns as the primary reason for
the detentions in which drivers were ordered out of their
vehicles.  In 2001, a San Jose officer was fatally shot by a young
motorist during a routine traffic stop.

But leaders of several law enforcement groups, including the
California Police Chiefs Association, found the city's data
troubling.

"There is a concern when some people are being searched more often
and detained more often," said David Bejarano, the California
Police Chiefs Association's president and chief of the Chula Vista
Police Department.

Local civil rights leaders were more blunt when asked about the
findings, saying they only affirm what blacks and Latinos have
long experienced. Other jurisdictions, including San Diego and the
state of North Carolina, also have found racial disparities.

"This is proof there is a bias," said the Rev. Jethroe "Jeff"
Moore, president of San Jose chapter of NAACP.  "Why do they think
brown people are criminals? We must admit it's a problem and fix
it."

It is an issue that could affect the city's pocketbook as well as
police relations with the community they serve.

The Police Department and city were served with a civil rights
lawsuit seeking class-action status by Shauncey Burt, an African-
American man who was stopped by local police for minor traffic
violations three times in five months.  Each stop lasted at least
30 minutes, the suit contends, during which he was ordered to sit
on the curb, and on one occasion, handcuffed, while officers
searched his car.  Yet the searches came up empty and Burt was
given a traffic ticket only once.  The city declined to comment.

Mr. Burt's lawyer, Nicholas Emanuel, claims the data show San Jose
police engage in racial profiling by subjecting blacks and
Hispanics to unreasonable and prolonged detentions after stopping
them for minor vehicle code violations.  The suit seeks an order
from the court requiring police to stop the practice.

"The ultimate goal of this litigation is to make San Jose a part
of the solution to race relations, not part of the problem,"
Emanuel said.

Mayor Sam Liccardo said the key question is whether the city is
"treating similarly situated people -- drivers stopped for
speeding, for example -- differently based on race?"

"On the surface, the data raises troubling inferences,"
Mr. Liccardo said, "but on closer inspection, the data does not
offer enough detail to answer that key question definitively."

San Jose has set aside $125,000 for a consultant to study the
traffic stop data, which may address questions like the mayor's as
well as include ride-alongs with officers, focus groups and
informal department surveys.

Still, the mayor said he will push to strengthen oversight on
issues ranging from use of force to bias in policing.

"We're fortunate to have a very professional, hardworking set of
police officers in San Jose," Mr. Liccardo said.  "They're human
beings, however, endowed with the same frailties as the rest of
us. Like every major U.S. city, we have to work vigilantly to
confront bias in policing."

This is not the first time San Jose police have been accused of
tactics that disproportionately affect minorities.  About five
years ago, an analysis by this newspaper found that the
department's rate of arrests for public drunkenness, primarily in
the downtown entertainment district, was higher than that of any
other California city and largely targeted Hispanics.

Some experts challenged critics to come up with effective
alternatives to tactics that appear to target certain minorities.

"People are asking, 'Is this all you can do, go on a fishing
expedition?'" said Eugene O'Donnell, a former cop and prosecutor
in New York City who teaches at John Jay College of Criminal
Justice.  "But the answer may be, 'yes.'"

But others said the price of alienating blacks and Latinos may be
too high.

"We need to stop playing the game of 'I'll stop 20 people because
one will be dirty,'" said J. Thomas Manger, president of the Major
Cities Chiefs Police Association and chief of the Montgomery
County, Maryland, police force, one of the largest in the
Washington, D.C., metro area.  "Because then what have you done to
community relations with the other 19?"


SANDISK CORP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC on May 6 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of SanDisk Corp. securities,
who purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk's securities between
October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Click here to learn more about the litigation
http://brodsky-smith.com/933-sndk-sandisk-corporation.htmlor
call: 877-534-2590.  There is no cost or obligation to you.

SanDisk designs, develops and manufactures "data storage
solutions."  The Company's products include solid state drives,
embedded products, removable cards, universal serial bus ("USB")
drives, wireless media drives, and digital media players.

On January 12, 2015, SanDisk provided preliminary revenue results
for its fiscal fourth quarter.  The Company estimated that, for
the quarter, its total revenue would be "approximately $1.73
billion, lower than the previously forecasted revenue range of
$1.80 billion to $1.85 billion."  According to the Company, the
lower revenue result was "primarily due to weaker than expected
sales of retail and iNAND products."  Following this news, shares
of the Company's stock declined $13.47 per share, or over 13.8%,
to close on January 12, 2015 at $83.57 per share.

Finally, on March 26, 2015, the Company announced that it expected
to report revenue for the fiscal first quarter of "approximately
$1.3 billion, depending on final sell-through results, compared to
the previously forecasted revenue range of $1.40 billion to $1.45
billion."  In discussing its revenue estimation for the quarter,
the Company stated that "[t]he change in first quarter revenue
estimate is primarily due to certain product qualification delays,
lower than expected sales of enterprise products and lower pricing
in some areas of the business. The Company expects continued
impact to its 2015 financial results from these factors as well as
the previously identified supply challenges, and now forecasts
2015 revenue to be lower than the previous guidance."
Additionally, the Company withdrew its financial forecasts for the
quarter and the remainder of the year.  Following this news,
shares of the Company's stock declined an additional $14.98 per
share, or over 18.4%, to close on March 26, 2015 at $66.20 per
share.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and
prospects.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or
indicate the following: (1) the Company was experiencing
production delays with certain of its products; (2) the Company
was experiencing lower than expected sales; (3) the Company was
suffering from a lower pricing environment in certain business
areas; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants'
statements about the Company's financial wellbeing and future
business prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis when made.

SanDisk shareholders may, no later than May 29, 2015, move the
Court to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class.  In order to be
appointed as a 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.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by
the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  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 own shares of SanDisk common stock and wish to discuss this
action, or if you have any questions, you may e-mail or call the
law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will, without obligation or
cost to you, attempt to answer your questions.  You may contact
Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire or Evan J. Smith, Esquire at Brodsky &
Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by
e-mail at investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com by visiting
http://brodsky-smith.com/933-sndk-sandisk-corporation.htmlor
calling toll free 877-LEGAL-90.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and case action lawsuits.  The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the
country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and successfully
recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders.


SETHI DIAMONDS: Faces "Castellanos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Fernando Castellanos, and all others similarly situated v.
Sethi Diamonds, Inc., Dr. Gold Buyer Inc., Sethi Gold Exchange,
LLC d/b/a Dr. Gold Jewelry and Bullion and also d/b/a Dr. Gold
Buyer, and Tonny Sethi, Case No. 3:15-cv-01842-B (N.D. Tex., May
28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of buying and selling of
precious and semi-precious stones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
      Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


SKINDER STRAUSS: Judge Grants Bid for Final Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor of the District of New Jersey
granted plaintiff's motion in the case LANDSMAN & FUNK, P.C., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SKINDER-STRAUSS ASSOCIATES, a New Jersey Partnership, Defendant,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 08CV3610 (CLW) (D.N.J.)

Plaintiff initiated an action seeking relief for plaintiff as well
as for class members under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, in relation to defendant's alleged
practice of sending thousands of unsolicited fax advertisements.

The parties eventually entered into a settlement agreement and
sought certification of the class and preliminary approval of the
class action settlement. The settlement agreement provides for a
total settlement fund of $625,000, to be distributed on a sliding
scale from $500 to $175 per fax received depending on whether the
fax was retained and on how many faxes were received by a
claimant, attorney's fees of one-third of the fund, and an
incentive award. October 27, 2014, the court preliminarily
certified the class for settlement purposes and preliminarily
approved the class action settlement subject to the approval and
determination of the court as to the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement.

On January 9, 2015, Lightman & Associates, P.C., and Glenn A.
Manochi, Esq., filed an objection to the class action settlement.
On January 23, 2015, plaintiff filed its unopposed motion for
final approval of the class settlement, attorneys' fees, and
incentive award. Plaintiff seeks an incentive award of $10,000.

Magistrate Judge Waldor granted plaintiffs motion for final
approval of the class settlement, attorneys' fees, and incentive
award.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Waldor's opinion and final judgment and
order dated May 18, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/FFPk4Gfrom
Leagle.com.

GLENN A. MANOCHI, Objector, represented by GLENN A. MANOCHI --
mail@lightmanlaw.com -- at Lightman & Manochi

LANDSMAN & FUNK, P.C., Plaintiff, represented by:

AYTAN YEHOSHUA BELLIN, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
85 Miles Ave,
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: 914-358-5345

SKINDER-STRAUSS ASSOCIATES, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL R.
MCDONALD -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- at GIBBONS, PC

SKINDER-STRAUSS ASSOCIATES, a New Jersey Partnership, Defendant,
represented by DAMIAN V. SANTOMAURO -- dsantomauro@gibbonslaw.com
-- at GIBBONS, PC

GANN LAW BOOKS, INC., GANN LEGAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION, INC.,
MICHAEL PROTZEL, Defendants, represented by ALLYN ZISSEL LITE --
alite@litedepalma.com -- at LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC


SMASHBURGER: Court Dismisses Ex-CEO's Suit Over Shares
------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks, writing for Blue Maumau, reports that after the
former Smashburger CEO filed a lawsuit last July against the chain
and owners Consumer Capital Partners for deceptively cheating him
out of millions of dollars in stock, a Delaware court granted
Smashburger's motion to dismiss the lawsuit last December.

But it is far from over.  Now the parties must decide, with the
help of an independent firm, what the valuation and payment of the
former CEO's interest should have been, according to Smashburger's
limited liability agreement.

The litigation triggered lawsuits from both sides to determine
what David Prokupek's payout should be.  Mr. Prokupek filed a
second lawsuit asking the court to allow him access to
Smashburger's financials in order to find out if the company met
certain performance benchmarks that would entitle him to more
shares in the company.  But in its ruling, the Court of Chancery
denied his request, stating Mr. Prokupek, as a former member of
the company, lacked standing to pursue inspection of Smashburger's
books and records for a valuation to be determined.

Mr. Prokupek began his career as Smashburger's chief executive
when he was first hired by owner Richard "Rick" Schaden when the
chain first started in 2007.  The CEO was credited with elevating
the company to have "the fastest growth in quick-service
restaurant history," according to the Denver Business Journal.
Under Mr. Prokupek's leadership, Smashburger also became the
country's second-largest "better burger" franchise, second to Five
Guys.

Mr. Prokupek's lawsuit was kindled after Rick Schaden and his
equity team asked him to groom the privately-held hamburger chain
for an equity sale in 2013.  In doing so, Smashburger executives
required him to give up certain rights under his employment
contract in exchange for arranging a potential sale or public
offering.  Mr. Prokupek said he was told by Schaden's group that
the arrangement would add value to the company and grow his stake
in Smashburger.

But after the auction process began in August 2013 to sell the
company, Mr. Prokupek abruptly left Smashburger in November
without explanation.  News reports surfaced telling that the
chain's ownership team had fired Mr. Prokupek, offering him a
severance package with fewer shares than his employment contract
stipulated.  The stock price fell below what was offered by
several bidders.

Mr. Prokupek had filed his lawsuit against the chain and its
owners in July 2014, followed by a second legal action, which
asked for access to Smashburger's financials "so he can see if the
company met certain performance benchmarks that would entitle him
to more shares in the company."  The former CEO claimed that
Smashburger owners understated the chain's financial performance
to minimize its contractual obligations to him.

Allegations of financial deception against Rick Schaden, his
Consumer Capital Partners and management team are nothing new.
For the past decade the group has been involved in similar
litigation, first with hundreds of Quiznos franchisees through
class action lawsuit.  Recently, Avenue Capital and Fortress
Holdings, multi-billion-dollar lenders, who supported Quiznos
through its financial struggle in 2012, is suing the Schaden group
in Denver district court as Quiznos continues its bankruptcy
process.  The lenders allege Mr. Schaden and others conspired to
overvalue the sandwich chain in the 2012 restructuring of the
company.

Ongoing litigation to determine valuation of payoff
The Court of Chancery ruled on December 30, 2014 that Smashburger
exercised the right under its limited liability company agreement,
to redeem all of Mr. Prokupek's equity interests in Smashburger.
Mr. Prokupek was provided a notice of redemption and paid by check
for the fair market value of his equity interest as determined by
Smashburger's manager.

The court further ruled that because Mr. Prokupek demanded to
inspect financials of the company after he "ceased to be a
member," and after he received notice and was paid off, he was not
entitled to that information.

In order to determine the valuation of and payment for
Mr. Prokupek's interest in Smashburger, under the LLC agreement,
the parties requested on January 7, 2015 the court allow an
independent "Special Master" to make a final ruling.  Vice
Chancellor John W. Noble stated in his letter of opinion on March
27, regarding Smashburger Master LLC v Prokupek.  The question
then was how much should a judge intervene into the efforts of the
independent firm and the Special Master? Chancellor Noble added,
"In contemplating this fundamental consideration, some blind
alleys were traversed."

The chancellor said three primary issues had to be addressed: the
selection of the independent firm to perform the valuation;
whether discovery should be stayed; and whether Mr. Prokupek's
counterclaims can survive.  Chancellor Noble said if the
independent firm can, in its professional judgment, follow the
terms of the parties' agreement, it should do so.

After the judge's detailed analysis of the process of resolving
the issues, he said the attorneys for both parties were requested
to confer and to submit implementing form of order.  "This request
is made in part because counsel are likely in a better position to
fine-tune some aspects of the process the Court has set forth
above."


SPOKEO INC: October Hearing Set for Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
John K. Higgins, writing for E-Commerce Times, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court granted a request from Spokeo, a data
aggregator, to consider whether the legal basis litigants must
meet to file a claim in federal court should be broadly or
narrowly defined.

In the case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Thomas Robins, Thomas Robins is a
resident of Virginia acting individually and as representative of
a class.

Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo submitted a joint brief in
support of Spokeo. Separately, credit data firm Experian and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce also supported Spokeo.

Spokeo, Inc. v. Thomas Robins is "the most important privacy class
action and consumer case of the decade," said Stephen Embry, an
attorney with Frost Brown Todd.  Spokeo asked the Supreme Court to
issue a ruling that would prevent the filing of what it contends
are essentially frivolous claims that could saddle e-commerce
firms and other businesses with costly damages.

Opponents contend that a ruling favoring Spokeo would place severe
restrictions on the ability of consumers to pursue legitimate
claims against businesses dealing with data breaches, credit
reference errors and various civil rights.

Conflict on Constitutional Test

At issue is the test under which lawsuits can be initiated under
the U.S. Constitution. By virtue of the "cases and controversies"
element of Article III, courts generally have avoided considering
disputes in which little or no actual injury or harm has been
inflicted upon an aggrieved party.

However, a U.S. Appeals Court (Ninth Circuit) early last year
ruled that Thomas Robins was correct to file a claim against
Spokeo for disseminating false information about him via
electronic media.  Spokeo had posted information that Robins had
obtained an advanced degree and that he was wealthy -- both of
which assertions were determined later to be false.

Mr. Robins made a general claim that the erroneous posting
affected his ability to seek employment but otherwise failed to
establish any financial harm.  Spokeo contended that since the
inaccurate information caused no actual or measurable injury,
Robins had no legal basis to sue the company.

The appeals court ruled that the posting of false information
violated Thomas' rights under the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act, or FCRA, and therefore constituted abridgement of a statutory
right, which was sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirement of Article III.

Violation of a right embedded in a federal statute provides a
legitimate cause for injury in and of itself, even though it
cannot be measured in a tangible way, the appeals court said.

"When, as here, the statutory cause of action does not require
proof of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the
statutory right without suffering actual damages," said appeals
court judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain.

"This is the precisely the question that the Supreme Court will be
reviewing.  The law, at this point, is settled that Congress is
entitled to define rights by statute, and violation of those
rights gets an individual whose rights were affected into court,"
said Jay Edelson, managing partner at Edelson, the firm
representing Thomas Robins in the case.

"Robins had a right under FCRA which required Spokeo to take a
series of actions that would assure the maximum possible accuracy
of his information on Spokeo's website, which we claim it
willfully failed to do, and resulted in Spokeo publishing a host
of false information.  The law, in these circumstances, does not
require Robins to prove that he suffered additional harm beyond
the violation of his FCRA rights. This is essentially what the
Ninth Circuit found," Mr. Edelson told the E-Commerce Times.

"Spokeo is saying that even if it violated the FCRA and published
false information about millions of Americans, Congress does not
have the right to allow people to file suit to force Spokeo to fix
the false information or recover damages.  We believe that this is
wrong and would overturn hundreds of years of precedent," he
added.

The Technology Sector Impact

"Worse though, if Spokeo's argument is accepted, it would gut not
only the FCRA but a host of other consumer, employee and civil
rights statutes.  It would mean that large companies can violate
laws like the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act --
and Americans would not be able to bring a federal suit to hold
them responsible, Mr. Edelson said.

"From the perspective of the technology world, a win by Spokeo
would threaten the ability of intellectual property holders to
protect their IP.  It would also eviscerate privacy laws, making
it difficult for consumers to sue when their information was
hacked or taken, and sold without their permission.  We do not
believe the Supreme Court will endorse such a drastic and
unprecedented result and look forward to having that conversation
with the Justices," Mr. Edelson said.

While economic injury is not present in such cases, plaintiffs can
still seek monetary damages, and when class action cases are
involved, the liability increases.

"This is an extremely important case, because Mr. Robins purports
to represent an entire class of people allegedly injured.
Leveraging his own non-injury into a class action means that he is
seeking substantial statutory damages -- potentially running to
tens or hundreds of millions of dollars -- for technical
violations that caused no harm," said Deborah La Fetra, a
principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which also
filed a brief supporting Spokeo.

"The Ninth Circuit decision encourages plaintiffs to bring such
actions, survive dismissal, and succeed in certifying a class,"
Ms. La Fetra told the E-Commerce Times.

Such "no harm" lawsuits, especially class actions, "are a drain on
both economic and judicial resources, to no one's benefit except
the plaintiffs' bar," she said.

Opponent Claims 'Shakedown' Process

"The case impacts a wide variety of statutes: For example, the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act has already been
particularly prone to abuses of the class action procedure
combined with statutory damages to become, essentially, a
shakedown statute.  Similar cases have arisen with regard to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Cable Communications
Policy Act," Ms. LaFetra added.

"Every business, large and small, both brick and mortar as well as
Internet-based, should be very concerned with federal standing
issues. Federal courts were designed to resolve disputes between
injured parties and those who allegedly caused the injury.  They
are not designed to make legislative policy, or to issue advisory
opinions, or to serve as the plaintiffs' bar backstage hammer to
coerce class settlements over technicalities," she said.

Spokeo is described in court documents as "operating a website
that provides users with information about other individuals,
including contact data, marital status, age, occupation, economic
health, and wealth level."  The company cautions that the personal
data it offers should not be used for employment screening or
credit checks.

FTC and Spokeo Settled on Claim

The Federal Trade Commission in 2012 alleged that certain Spokeo
activities violated the Federal Credit Reporting Act.  Without
admitting any violation of law, Spokeo reached a settlement with
the FTC that included payment of a US$800,000 civil penalty, and a
commitment to avoid actions that could harm consumers.

"Spokeo did not need to change its business model because of the
FTC settlement.  The FTC's allegations concerned a prior version
of Spokeo's website, which Spokeo had already changed.  The FTC
action did not affect Spokeo's then-current website, which Spokeo
explained to the FTC was not marketed to employers," the company
said in a statement provided to the E-Commerce Times by
spokesperson Vanessa Waite.

The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court decision, in fact, limited its
scope to the issue of what constitutes a statutory violation,
without ruling specifically on any connection to the FCRA.

"Because standing is the only question before us, we do not
intimate any opinion on the merits of this case.  We do not
decide, for example, whether Spokeo qualifies as a consumer
reporting agency or whether Spokeo actually violated the FCRA,"
Judge O'Scannlain said in an explanatory note.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court decided to consider the
important constitutional issue raised by our petition -- whether
the Constitution permits class actions seeking millions or
billions of dollars even though class members have not suffered
any injury.  We look forward to presenting our case to the court,"
Spokeo said.

The Supreme Court will consider the case in its term starting in
October 2015.

        FCRA Case May Alter Privacy Class Action Landscape

Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that with technology
driving class sizes and potential damages in privacy and data
breach cases into the stratosphere, the U.S. Supreme Court's
upcoming decision in a Fair Credit Reporting Act suit against
Spokeo Inc. could be a game changer for both sides of the bar,
according to a panel of attorneys on May 6.

The Spokeo case and its broad implications for establishing
standing under statutes like the FCRA, which the high court agreed
to hear, was the hot topic during a segment on May 6 of the Perrin
Class Action Litigation Conference in Chicago.  The panel featured
Jay Edelson of Edelson PC, an attorney for the plaintiff suing
Spokeo, and Brian Eldridge -- beldridge@smsm.com -- of Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd., who offered the defense-side
perspective.

"[Spokeo] has the potential to be a tremendous sea change for
privacy class actions and class action litigation in general,"
Eldridge said, adding that the justices will weigh whether "a mere
statutory violation," rather than an actual injury, is enough to
establish Article III standing.

The so-called people search engine is challenging a Ninth Circuit
order reviving a Virginia man's suit accusing Spokeo of violating
the FCRA by publishing bogus information about him that hurt his
job prospects.

One unique aspect of the case -- and a possible reason the
justices took it up -- is that the allegedly inaccurate
information Spokeo returned on plaintiff Thomas Robins wasn't
necessarily negative, according to Mr. Edelson.  The search engine
falsely reported that he was wealthy, had a graduate degree and
was older than his actual age, he said.

But Mr. Edelson added that those mistakes need to be taken in
context, as they might be a detriment depending on what sort of
job Robins was applying for.  In any event, he has a view on
standing that is at odds with Spokeo's argument that Mr. Robins'
fear of potential employers' relying on inaccurate information
didn't amount to actual harm.

"I don't think standing means that you have to be damaged,"
Mr. Edelson said.  "You have to have an interest in a case that is
different from your ordinary interest as a civilian."  He added
that the case could turn on a "minor point" in the complaint --
that Spokeo failed to include a toll-free number on its website
for people to call and request corrections, which is required
under the statute.

Eldridge pointed to Spokeo as an example of the plaintiffs bar's
creativity in shoehorning privacy claims into statutes that
weren't designed to police the conduct at issue, pointing to the
Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act as other examples.  He
noted that should the suit against Spokeo survive high court
scrutiny, the issue of whether the company is actually a credit
reporting agency under the FCRA could come into play.

Speaking more broadly on the stakes in privacy class actions
targeting Internet-based services like Spokeo, Eldridge said that
Google boasts more than 1.1 billion users per month.  That means
an hourlong "glitch" on one of its servers that compromises user
information could spawn a suit with a million-strong class, he
said.

Combined with statutory damages in the hundreds or thousands of
dollars under laws like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
this means some of his clients face "catastrophic, annihilating
damages" in the billions or possibly trillions of dollars, he
said.

Both Messrs. Eldridge and Edelson, along with panelist Steven
Bridges of JLT Specialty Insurance Services Inc. agreed that a cap
on class action damages under various statutes would be a logical
step to make privacy and data breach cases more manageable.

The Perrin conference is scheduled to wrap up on May 7.  Other
conference highlights included three Illinois federal judges
discussing their perspectives on class action case management, and
a panel on "evolving ethical considerations" in class settlements.

The conference's mix of attendees and speakers from both sides of
the bar, along with in-house counsel and other legal industry
players, makes for compelling debate, according to Adam Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- head of Grant & Eisenhofer PA's consumer
practice group and a co-chair of the conference.

"Anytime you get smart people in a room to discuss key issues in
our practice, it leads to a greater sense of understanding and a
greater sense of respect," he told Law360, "which, in this
litigation climate, I think is sorely needed."


SPRINT NEXTEL: Guilbaud Gets More Time to File Class Cert. Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria signed on May 20, 2015, a
stipulation extending deadlines in the cases captioned OLIVIA
GUILBAUD, MARQUES LILLY, AND MICHAEL WONG, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION AND
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO., INC., Defendants. MICHAEL SMITH, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NOS. 3:13-CV-
04357-VC, 3:14-CV-02642-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

The Parties have recently determined that settlement discussions
may be appropriate at this juncture and have agreed to schedule a
mediation. The Parties are in the process of exchanging names of
potential mediators. The Parties expect that the mediation will
occur in the next 60 to 90 days. The current scheduling order in
this case does not contemplate mediation or allow for focused
exchange of damages data and information, preparation of a
reasoned damages analysis for the collective and class, or
settlement discussions. The Parties require additional time to
complete these steps necessary to explore settlement.

In order to accommodate these matters, the Parties proposed that
the current deadlines be continued 120 days to prevent any
prejudice to either party.

Pursuant to the Parties' court-approved stipulation, a copy of
which is available at http://bit.ly/1MgJa6efrom Leagle.com,
the Court orders this further amended schedule to govern the
future deadlines in the litigation:

* Motion for Class Certification to be filed: October 7, 2015
[current date: June 16, 2015].

* Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed: November 6,
2015 [current date: July 14, 2015].

* Reply to Opposition to Motion for Class Certification to be
filed: November 20, 2015 [current date: July 28, 2015].

* Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: December 17, 2015 at
10:00 a.m. [current date August 20, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.]

* Discovery Cut-off: April 29, 2016 [current date December 18,
2015].

* Expert Discovery Cut-off: April 29, 2016 [current date December
18, 2015].

* Deadline for Expert Disclosure and Rebuttal: Disclosures must be
made by February 26, 2016 [current date October 19, 2015];

* Rebuttals must be made by March 28, 2016 [current date November
18, 2015].

* Dispositive Motions Hearing Deadline: May 19, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
[current date January 21, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.]

* Pretrial Conference: 2 months after ruling on dispositive
motions set for hearing on above deadline (TBD based on Court's
order; Court schedules pretrial conference on Mondays
Tuesdays at 1:30 p.m.)

* Jury Trial Date: 1 month after pretrial conference (Court
schedules trials Monday through Wednesday and Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
2:00 p.m.)

Todd M. Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Carolyn
Hunt Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Nicole N. Coon
-- ncoon@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs, the Proposed Collective and Putative Class.

Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- John Glugoski --
jglugoski@righettilaw.com -- Michael Righetti --
mike@righettilaw.com -- RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C., San Francisco,
California, Richard Hoyer, Ryan L. Hicks, HOYER & ASSOCIATES, San
Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Proposed
Collective and Putative Class.

McGUIREWOODS LLP, Matthew C. Kane, Michael D. Mandel --
mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- Sabrina A. Beldner --
sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com -- John A. Van Hook --
jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com -- Joanna E. MacMillan --
jmacmillan@mcguirewoods.com -- Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for
Defendant SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP Carolyn H. Cottrell
-- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the
Proposed Collective and Putative Class.


STATE FARM: "Thompson" Case Won't Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the Middle District of
Georgia, Macon Division denied plaintiffs' consolidated motion in
the case JOHN THOMPSON and LEIGH ANN THOMPSON, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM
FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-32
(MTT) (M.D. Ga.)

Plaintiffs John and Leigh Ann Thompson owned a townhouse in
Smyrna, Georgia, that is insured by defendant State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company. The Plaintiffs' townhouse suffered water damage
when a pipe burst, and State Farm paid for repairs to the damaged
areas of the townhouse.

Plaintiff John Thompson called State Farm and asked if it would
pay for diminished value to their townhouse, which the latter
decline since it does not provide such coverage. The next day the
plaintiffs filed a lawsuit.

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2), and seeks a declaration that State Farm's homeowners
policy provides coverage for diminished value and that State Farm
is required under its homeowners policy to assess for diminished
value even if an insured does not make a specific request for
diminished value. State Farm argued that plaintiffs were
attempting to mask the fact that their real claim against State
Farm is one for individualized breach-of-contract damages, which
cannot be certified for class treatment under any subsection of
Rule 23.

Plaintiffs consolidated their motion for class certification and
summary judgment.

Judge Treadwell denied plaintiffs' motions since the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over their claim for declaratory
judgment.

A copy of Judge Treadwell's order dated May 14, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/X28ft1from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by ADAM P PRINCENTHAL, C COOPER
KNOWLES,CLINTON W SITTON, JAMES C BRADLEY, MATTHEW A NICKLES,
MICHAEL J BRICKMAN, NINA FIELDS BRITT & RICHARD KOPELMAN

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
Thomas W. Curvin -- tom.curvin@sutherland.com -- Tracey K.
Ledbetter -- tracey.ledbetter@sutherland.com -- Stacey M Mohr --
stacey.mohr@sutherland.com -- at SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP


SUKHMANI INC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Rodriguez, Joffre Naula, Marcelino Mixcoatl, Rafael
Martinez, Yoni Lopez and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Sukhmani, Inc. d/b/a Tamarind Tribeca and Avtar Singh Walia, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03557 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


TOYS "R" US: Received $12MM Settlement Payment in January 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015,
that in May 2013, the Company opted out of the settlement of a
class action lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard alleging
violations of antitrust laws.  "In January 2014, we, along with
several other companies, filed a separate lawsuit against Visa and
MasterCard entitled Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. et al. v.
Visa, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, No. 14-00276).  A settlement was reached in
December 2014, and we received a payment of $12 million in January
2015 which was recorded in SG&A," the Company said.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Ill. Counties Sue Over Guardrail End Terminal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for The
Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is aware
of three class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the
ET Plus. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November
6, 2014, titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County,
Illinois, Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the
State of Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC Case 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of Illinois).
This complaint was later amended to substitute St. Clair County,
Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff. The case is
being brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and
the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois. The plaintiffs
allege that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made a series
of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falsely certified
that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on the nation's
highways based on federal testing standards and approval for
Federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiffs also allege breach of
express and implied warranties, violation of the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for which
plaintiffs seek actual damages related to purchases of the ET
Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund for
class members, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued in Ontario Over Guardrail End Terminal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for The
Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has been
served in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015 titled The Corporation
of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity
Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc. Case
No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The
class in this matter has been identified as persons in Canada who
purchased and/or used an ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The
plaintiff alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn
of dangers associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET
Plus guardrail end terminals, breached an implied warranty,
breached a duty of care, and were negligent. The plaintiff is
seeking $400.0 million in compensatory damages and $100.0 million
in punitive damages. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims the right
to an accounting or other restitution remedy for disgorgement of
the revenues generated by the sale of the modified ET Plus in
Canada.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: La Crosse Sues Over Guardrail End Terminal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for The
Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has been
served in a lawsuit filed February 25, 2015, titled La Crosse
County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC Case 15-cv-117 (Western District of Wisconsin). The
case is being brought by the plaintiffs for and on behalf of
themselves and all other purchasers of allegedly defective ET
Pluses, including proposed statewide and nationwide classes. The
plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products
made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and
falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use
on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards and
approval for Federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiff also alleges
strict liability design defect, breach of contract, breach of
express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The
plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is
defective, actual damages related to class-wide purchases of the
ET Plus, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest, and
injunctive relief.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: In Talks to Resolve Train Derailment Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. has engaged in settlement negotiations to
resolve the entirety of the derailment litigation within the
limits of available insurance and subject to court approval in the
context of the Canadian and U.S. bankruptcy proceedings of the
involved railroad, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company was named as a respondent in litigation filed July 15,
2013 in Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Saint-
Francois, styled Yannick Gagne and Guy Ouellet vs. Rail World,
Inc., et al related to the July 2013 crude oil unit train
derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. A partially-owned subsidiary
of the Company owned and leased to a third party 13 of the
railcars involved in the incident, which lessee is also named as a
defendant in the Province of Quebec litigation. As of June 18,
2014, the petitioners in the Quebec litigation have voluntarily
desisted with their claims against the Company resulting in the
dismissal of the Company without prejudice; however the partially-
owned subsidiary remains as a respondent in the litigation. The
litigation filed in Quebec is seeking "class" status which, if
certified, could lead to multiple individuals and business
entities becoming class members.

The Company was also named as a defendant in multiple cases filed
by the estates of decedents in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois seeking damages for alleged wrongful death and property
damage arising from the July 2013 crude oil unit train derailment
in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The Company's tank car manufacturing
subsidiary manufactured 35 of the 72 tank railcars involved in the
derailment. However the Illinois cases have since been ordered
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of Maine. This transfer prompted plaintiffs to seek dismissal of
these actions. Nonetheless, the Maine court has not indicated
those dismissals were effectuated and the cases were transferred
to federal court in Maine and have been assigned new case numbers.
Certain of the plaintiffs in these transferred cases have appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit seeking to
overturn the decision to transfer. This appeal has resulted in a
stay of all proceedings in the transferred cases pending
resolution of the appeal. The Company could be named in similar
litigation involving other affected plaintiffs, but the ultimate
number of claims and the jurisdiction in which such claims are
filed, may vary. The Company's loss accrual for this matter, net
of expected third party recoveries, is not significant. The
Company has engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve the
entirety of the derailment litigation within the limits of
available insurance and subject to court approval in the context
of the Canadian and U.S. bankruptcy proceedings of the involved
railroad.


TROPICAL SHIPPING: Sued Over LCL Cargo Shipping Market Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Danielson, Silicone Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Rooftops, and
Trademark Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Lisa's Paint Shop, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Tropical Shipping
and Construction Co., Ltd., VI Cargo Services, LLC, and Saltchuk
Resources, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00045 (D.V.I., May 28, 2015), is
an antitrust class action brought the Sherman Antitrust
Act and the Virgin Islands Antitrust Act, based on the Defendants'
monopolization of the less-than-a container (LCL) cargo shipping
market between St. Croix and Florida.

The Defendants own and operate a shipping company doing business
within the State of Florid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent A. Colianni II, Esq.
      COLIANNI & COLIANNI
      1138 King Street
      St Croix, VI 00820
      Telephone: (340) 719-1766
      Facsimile: (340) 719-1770
      E-mail: vinny@colianni.com


TWEEN BRANDS: Faces "Kallay" Suit Over False Merchandise Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea M. Kallay, for herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tween Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02238
(S.D. Ohio, May 28, 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:

      Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
      DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
      60 South Park Place
      Painesville, OH 44077
      Telephone: (440) 352-3391
      Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
      E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Sued for Misrepresenting Inflight Wi-Fi Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Bluestone, writing for Gawker, reports that a woman has
filed a $5 million class action suit against United Airlines,
alleging the airline routinely and fraudulently misrepresents the
capabilities of its inflight entertainment systems.  Cary M. David
reportedly filed suit after paying for inflight Wi-Fi on a flight
to Puerto Rico.  The only problem: the system only works within
the continental United States.  Ms. David claims she got about 10
minutes of Wi-Fi before she got shut out.

Gawker cited topclassactions.com: Mr. David alleges that in order
for passengers to use DirecTV services during a United flight,
they must pay $4.99 for flights that last less than two hours and
$7.99 for flights that last longer than that period of time.  The
United Airline class action lawsuit further claims the Wi-Fi fees
range from $4.95 to $49, depending on a consumer's device and how
they choose to use the internet during the flight.

"United sells these services to passengers on the flights and
fails to disclose that the services will not work as advertised
when the aircraft is outside the continental United States or is
over water," the United class action lawsuit alleges.  "It is not
until they have crossed U.S. borders or are over water, with no
service, that customers learn that their DirecTV and/or Wi-Fi
service will not work for all or part of the flight."

Although United's website apparently discloses this fact, David
claims there was no indication on board (which United disputes in
its motion to dismiss):

"Those [Wi-Fi service] offers, which control over Plaintiff's
inconsistent allegations, demonstrate that Plaintiff's claims are
fatally deficient and must be dismissed.  Specifically, United
tells its on-board passengers before they confirm their purchase
that 'Live DIRECTV programming is not available while the aircraft
is outside of the continental United States' and that 'Wi-Fi
service is available over the continental U.S.'  Plaintiff cannot
avoid dismissal of her claims by failing to attach or quote in
full these dispositive documents."

Gawker said the court was expected to rule on United's motion in
May, which could lead to a real settlement offer if unsuccessful.
United is also trying to move the case out of state court on the
grounds that David's claims fall under the Airline Deregulation
Act.  But if the court agrees she has a viable fraud claim, the
case will likely remain where it is.

In the meantime, Mr. David is reportedly trying to track down
other international passengers to join the class as plaintiffs
which shouldn't be hard seeing as United isn't exactly beloved by
its customers.


UNITED UNLIMITED: Recalls Disposable Grill Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: June 2, 2015
Posting date: June 2, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53573

This recall involves EZ Grill Ready-to-Use Disposable Grill, a
shrink-wrapped aluminum pan containing charcoal and a grill, UPC
899521002019.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation project has revealed that
the EZ Grill does not meet the warning label requirements under
the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA).

Charcoal produces carbon monoxide. This can be toxic if it is
burned inside or in an area without proper ventilation. Warning
labels help to protect the public by telling them about this
hazard.

Neither United Unlimited nor Health Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of this product.

Approximately 200 of the recalled EZ Grill Ready-to-Use Disposable
Grill were sold in Canada.

The recalled EZ Grill Ready-to-Use Disposable Grill was sold at
United Unlimited in Winnipeg, Manitoba from May, 2013 to May,
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: United Unlimited
          Winnipeg
          Manitoba
          CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Hwp0gu


VANTAGE FOODS: Recalls Beef Sausages Due to Mustard and Wheat
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Vantage Foods Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9843

  Brand name   Common    Size    Code(s) on       UPC
  ----------   name      ----    product          ---
               ------            ----------
Compliments    Beef      500 g   All lots where   0 68820 13010 9
               Sausages          mustard and      or
                                 wheat are not    0 68820 13007 9
                                 declared on the
                                 label.


VENTAS INC: MOU Reached in HCT Acquisition-Related Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ventas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties in the
litigation relating to the HCT Acquisition have reached a
memorandum of understanding.

The Company said, "In the weeks following the announcement on June
2, 2014 of our agreement to acquire American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("HCT"), a total of 13 putative class
actions were filed by purported HCT stockholders challenging the
transaction. Certain of the actions also purport to bring
derivative claims on behalf of HCT. Among other things, the
lawsuits allege that the directors of HCT breached their fiduciary
duties by approving the transaction and that we and our
subsidiaries, Stripe Sub, LLC and Stripe OP, LP, aided and abetted
this purported breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek
injunctive relief and damages."

"Ten of these actions were filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland and consolidated under the caption In re:
American Realty Capital, Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder &
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534, two actions were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New
York, and one action was filed in the United States District Court
of Maryland.

"On January 2, 2015, the parties to the consolidated state court
action agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class
of HCT stockholders. In connection with the settlement
contemplated by that memorandum of understanding, each action and
all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval
by each applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require
HCT to make certain additional disclosures related to the merger,
which were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K dated
January 2, 2015. The memorandum of understanding further
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to HCT's stockholders. If the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy
of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding.

"On January 5, 2015, the parties to the federal action also agreed
to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all
claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT
stockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated by
that memorandum of understanding, each action and all claims
asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval by each
applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require HCT to
make certain additional disclosures related to the merger, which
were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K dated January
5, 2015. The memorandum of understanding further contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which
will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory
discovery and court approval following notice to HCT's
stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding.  We believe that
each of these actions is without merit."


VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Sued Over "Deceptive" Billing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a New Jersey electric company is being
sued over allegations it engaged in "deceptive" billing practices.

David Steketee filed the lawsuit on April 22 against Viridian
Energy claiming the company hiked rates after an initial rate
period expired for new customers.

Once the "teaser rate" is over customers are enrolled in a month
to month variable rate plan with "exorbitant rates," the lawsuit
said.  The rates are tied to the wholesale power market, however
Mr. Steketee claims Viridian charges higher rates regardless of
the changes in the underlying market price.

"Viridian routinely charges its consumers rates that are four or
even five times the underlying market rate, notwithstanding
Viridian's representations that its variable rates 'reflect'
monthly wholesale electric prices," the lawsuit said.

Mr. Steketee said the company raises the prices when the market
cost goes up, however, it doesn't lower the price when the market
falls.  Mr. Steketee is seeking class status for all New Jersey
consumer who switched to Viridian hoping for lower rates, and is
also seeking more than $5 million in damages plus court costs.

He is represented by Robert A. Izard -- rizard@izardnobel.com --
Seth R. Klein -- sklein@izardnobel.com -- and Nicole A. Veno --
nveno@izardnobel.com -- of Izard Nobel LLP in West Hartford, Conn.

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut case
number 3:15-cv-00585


WAL-MART STORES: July 16 Case Mgmt. Conf. in "VanCleave" Case Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order setting the
case management conference in ELIZABETH J. VANCLEAVE, Plaintiff,
v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-
01657-PJH, (N.D. Cal.).

The May 20, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1QgvvCFfrom Leagle.com, provides that the Case
Management Conference will be held on July 16, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.,
in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, California.

The Court directed lead counsel to meet and confer as required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the Case Management Conference with
respect to those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c). Not
less than seven days before the conference, counsel must file a
joint case management statement addressing each of the items
listed in the "Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern
District -- Contents of Joint Case Management statement.

Elizabeth J. VanCleave, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Hillel
Lieberman, ParasmoLiebermanLaw & David Christopher Parisi --
dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Mitchell
Lee  -- james.lee@ltlattorneys.com -- Lee Tran & Liang LLP.

National Vision, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy P. Lally --
alally@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP & Jennifer
Naomi Gaspar, United States Attorney's Office.


WALLGREEN CO: Judge Narrows Claims in "Warner Suit"
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the Southern District of
Florida granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion for
in the case RUBY WARNER, Plaintiff, v. WALGREEN CO., d/b/a
WALGREENS, Defendant, CASE NO. 9:14-CV-81176-ROSENBERG/BRANNON
(S.D. Fla.)

The plaintiff Ruby Warner was a former employee of the defendant
Walgreen Co., d/b/a Walgreens. Ms. Warner resigned from Walgreens
in 2012. In 2013 Ms. Warner joined a class-action lawsuit against
Walgreens styled Teramura, et al. v. Walgreen Co., No. 12-cv-
05244, in the Western District of Arkansas. Ms. Warner was
dismissed from that suit and has since elected to pursue an
independent action.

In her complaint Ms. Warner alleged that she was first hired as a
Management Trainee in 1999 and was paid an hourly wage and was
eligible for overtime pay. In 2006, she was promoted to Executive
Assistant Manager (EXA) and was a salaried employee no longer
eligible for overtime and was eligible to receive an annual bonus.

Ms. Warner's new position as an EXA required her to take and
complete a series of management training courses. As an EXA, no
employee other than the store manager or district manager could
delegate or assign work to Ms. Warner.  Ms. Warner's duties as an
EXA included work that non-exempt, hourly-wage employees under her
supervision performed. Ms. Warner's testified that she was
testimony that she was unable to supervise the other employees in
the front of the store and due to her inability to supervise, the
store manager would appoint shift leaders who would supervise the
front area of the store. Finally, Ms. Warner consistently
testified that she was unable to exercise any significant
managerial responsibilities in her stores because she was
constrained by store policies and any decision of significance
required store manager approval.

Ms. Warner has brought in a claim for unpaid overtime wages
against Walgreens under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Walgreens argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law because Ms. Warner qualified for the FLSA overtime exemption
as both an executive employee and as an administrative employee
and the statute of limitation is applicable in this case.

Judge Rosenberg granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion for summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Rosenberg's order dated May 14, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/uJ5XSefrom Leagle.com.

Ruby Warner, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Aloysius Cullen -- at
The Cullen Law Firm PA

Walgreens, Co., Defendant, represented by Barry J. Miller --
bmiller@seyfarth.com -- Brett C. Bartlett --
bbartlett@seyfarth.com -- Katherine Smallwood --
ksmallwood@seyfarth.com -- Kevin M. Young -- kyoung@seyfarth.com
-- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP; Suzanne Ashelle Singer --
ssinger@rumberger.com -- at Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell


WEATHERFORD INT'L: Advanced Settlement Talks in "Freedman" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015,
that in the three months ended December 31, 2014, the Company
advanced settlement negotiations such that settlement is deemed
probable in the Freedman class action.

The Company said, "In March 2012, a purported securities class
action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et
al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (SDNY) was filed in the Southern
District of New York against us and certain current and former
officers. That case alleges violation of the federal securities
laws related to the restatement of our historical financial
statements announced on February 21, 2012, and later added claims
related to the announcement of a subsequent restatement on July
24, 2012. In the three months ended December 31, 2014, we advanced
settlement negotiations such that settlement is deemed probable
and we continue to maintain an accrual of the estimated probable
loss."


WEATHERFORD INT'L: Insurers Fund Settlement Payments in "Dobina"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015,
that settlement payments in the Dobina class action lawsuit
totaling $53 million was entirely funded by the Company's
insurers.

The Company said, "In March 2011, a purported shareholder class
action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al.,
No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (SDNY), was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, following our announcement
on March 1, 2011 of a material weakness in our internal controls
over financial reporting for income taxes, and restatement of our
historical financial statements (the "2011 Class Action"). The
lawsuit alleged violation of the federal securities laws by us and
certain current and former officers. During the three months ended
December 31, 2013, we entered into negotiations to settle the 2011
Class Action. As a result of these negotiations, settlement became
probable and a settlement agreement was signed on January 29,
2014. The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on January 5, 2015, and final
judgment entered on January 30, 2015. The settlement agreement
required payments totaling $53 million which was entirely funded
by our insurers."


WHISTLER GROUP: Recalls Portable Jumpstart & Power Supplies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 21, 2015
Posting date: May 21, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53431

This recall involves Jump&Go; Portable Jumpstart & Power Supply
12V power supplies. The recalled products are pocket-sized power
supplies that measure about 5.1 inches (13 centimeters) tall x 3
inches (7.5 centimeters) wide x 0.9 inches (2.5 centimeters) deep.
They are red, black, yellow or pink in colour. The affected power
supplies come with detachable jumper cables; built-in high output
LED flashlight with emergency flashing patterns; and a USB port
for charging electronic devices. The Jump&Go; and Whistler logos
are printed on the front of the unit.

The following model numbers are included in this recall:

  Model Number   UPC                Date Codes
  ------------   ---                ----------
  WJS-3000R      052303 40726 0     201404 through 201439
  WJS-3000B      052303 40728 4     201404 through 201439
  WJS-3000Y      052303 40727 7     201404 through 201439
  WJS-3000P      052303 40725 3     201404 through 201439

The model number and date code can be found on the back of the
unit under the colored silicone boot. The model number is on the
operational label. The date code is stamped directly on the case
adjacent to the operational label. Units that have an additional
serial number label on the case beneath the silicone cover are not
included in this recall.

The lithium battery in the power supply can overheat and cause the
units to melt, catch fire and ignite nearby items, posing a fire
hazard to consumers.

Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidents
or injuries related to the use of these power supplies in Canada.

Whistler Group, Inc. is aware of two reports of the units
overheating in Canada, with no injuries reported.

Approximately 955 of the recalled power supplies were sold at
various retailers and online in Canada.

The recalled products were sold between March 2014 and September
2014.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Shenzhen Gospell Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
              Shenzhen
              CHINA

Distributor: The Whistler Group, Inc.
             Bentonville
             Arkansas
             UNITED STATES

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


WILLOW CREEK: Recalls Organic Curry Powder Due to Mustard
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Willow Creek Organic Grain Company Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9861

  Brand name   Common      Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  ----------   name        ----    product       ---
               ------              ----------
Willow Creek   Certified   100 g   All codes     6 96851 00329 3
               Organic             here mustard
               Curry               is not
               Powder              declared on
                                   the label.


YINGLI GREEN: Faces "Knox" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin T. Knox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, Liansheng
Miao, and Yiyu Wang, Case No. 2:15-cv-04003 (C.D. Cal., May 28,
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.

Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited together with its
subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufacture, markets, sells, and
installs photovoltaic, or solar energy, products in the People's
Republic of China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      ROBERT V. PRONGAY, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com


* Kerryville Developers Face Suit for Misleading Homebuyers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leesha McKenny, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that would-be homebuyers desperate to break into Sydney's booming
property market are being warned about "burn and run" developers
seeking to cash in on some of the city's fastest growing areas.

The huge demand for property in greenfield areas such as the Hills
district is leading buyers to put down deposits before blocks have
been registered or, in some cases, before subdivision plans have
been lodged with the council, in a bid to secure the land.  But
some buyers are effectively losing hundreds of thousands of
dollars as the market rises, or are being locked out entirely when
their contracts are later rescinded by developers capitalizing on
the boom by reselling the same sites at higher prices.

"It's a despicable act," said lawyer Bailey Compton of Leverage
Solicitors, who has represented owners in Kellyville and who said
he was aware of instances elsewhere in the suburb and in Castle
Hill and Hurstville.

Developers, who are often required to pre-sell blocks to secure
financing, must use their "best endeavours" to register the
development, Mr Compton said.

However, unscrupulous operators would "burn and run" by failing to
complete the sale before a contract's sunset date if prices were
rising, he said.  "Consumers are being utilized as pawns in an act
of greed."

Hills Shire mayor Andrew Jefferies warned that those who buy into
a subdivision at an early stage "run a very real risk" that it may
later change.

"I'm not telling people not to buy land that isn't registered, but
they need to understand that there are some very serious risks
involved if they do and they must carefully carry out their due
diligence," Cr Jefferies said.

"In some cases, people have put a deposit on land only for them to
end up with nothing."

This scenario unfolded for property buyer Con, who asked Fairfax
Media to withhold his surname due to ongoing concerns about the
developer who sold land in a small Kellyville subdivision to his
family in July 2013.

"This was a dream move for us," said Con, who had sold his
previous house to put down a deposit on the $420,000 block but
"started to panic" when the sale was not finalized almost a year
later.

The developer, who it was later discovered had been withholding
payments from contractors, resold the block mid last year for
$550,000, Con said -- a week after cancelling his contract.

The same fate befell his parents, who had put down a deposit on a
nearby block.

"The same thing almost happened to my cousin out at Oran Park,"
said Con.  He took legal action to recover his costs, but could no
longer afford to buy in Kellyville, where prices for similar
blocks are now approaching $700,000.

Mr. Compton, who represented Con, is now forming another class
action against a site three minutes up the road in North
Kellyville.

In a letter seen by Fairfax Media, purchasers were advised that
"cost blowouts" meant their contracts may be rescinded after the
April 30 sunset date.

However, the letter advised them the date could be extended "on
[the] condition that there be an increase in the current contract
price to be paid by each purchaser of between 10 per cent and 15
per cent".

Neither the North Kellyville developer nor his solicitor responded
to requests for comment.

Urban Development Institute of Australia (NSW) chief executive
Stephen Albin said there were legitimate reasons why a development
could be held up and developers seeking to cash in were "the
exception not the rule".

"It's incumbent on the industry to ensure that they act in good
faith," Mr. Albin said.  "When you sign a contract, and a
developer signs a contract, you should honor the terms of that
contract."

The Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation,
Victor Dominello, said he was "concerned by reports of buyers
being treated unfairly and misled", and encouraged them to contact
Fair Trading.


                            *********

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  * * *