CAR_Public/150618.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 18, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 121


                            Headlines


AAA CARTING: "Larosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ABLE HEALTH: Sued in S.D. New York for Firing Pregnant Employee
ACTIVE POWER: Class Action Settlement Still Awaits Final Approval
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Action Over Marketing Expense Item

ALON BLUE: Bid to Withdraw Claim Over Sanitarian Standards Okayed
ALON BLUE: Claim Over Spidomat Approved as Class Action
ALON BLUE: Faces Suit Over Product & Service Regulation Order
ALON BLUE: Court Approved Settlement in Suit Against Oil Firms
ALON BLUE: Still Faces Action Over Production Date Labels

ALON BLUE: Bid to Withdraw Claim Over Failure to Comply Approved
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Discount Prices
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Action Over Higher Diesel Prices
ALON BLUE: Still Faces Suit Over Video Shooting & Sound Recording
ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Suit Over Lowest Prices Promo

AMERICAN LAFRANCE: Former Workers Settle Suit for $671,000
AMERICAN MEDICAL: July 28 Mesh Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
ARTISTIC CONCRETE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ASCENSION HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Church Plan Lawsuit
ATLANTIC STATE: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

AVALON BAY: Removed "Silva" Class Suit to C.D. California
BAHAMAS ELECTRICITY: Manager Slams 'Fraud by Hindsight' Claim
BALTIMORE, MD: Family Seeks Probe in Johnson "Rough Ride" Case
BANCO SANTANDER: "Ranieri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Allen" Suit Over FX-Price Manipulation

BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Banking Practices
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Kondell" Class Suit in Florida District Court
BLUE CROSS: Data Breach Class Pushes to Return to State Court
BOEING CO: To Pay $90 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Benefits
BRAHMIN RECORDS: Removed "Perez" Class Suit to S.D. California

CANADA: Suit Over Parental Leave Wins Certification
CANADIAN HEATING: June 2016 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Customer Sues for Lost Cable Signal
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Class Action Waivers Violate NLRA
CHESWICK GENERATING: Class Allegations Struck in Pollution Suit

CHESWICK GENERATING: Class Action Against Power Plant Dropped
CIK RESTAURANT: Faces "Preciado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COBB & COLE: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CONNECTICUT: Judiciary Committee Approves Settlement
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Removed "Gibson" Suit to W.D. Oklahoma

CONTROLADORA VUELA: Facing Class Action Over 2013 IPO
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Enters Judgment in "Wallace" Class Action
COURTESY VALET: Faces "McGraw" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CVS PHARMACY: Sued Over Alleged Racial Discriminatory Practices
DIVERSE FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Strikes Fail-Safe Class Definitions
EBAY INC: Lawsuit Over 2014 Cyber-Attack Dismissed
ELBIT IMAGING: Hearing This Month on Israeli Supreme Court Appeal
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action
ENERGY CORP: Bid for Accounting at Law in "Pollock" Case Denied

ENSIGN UNITED STATES: Faces "Watt" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ESPAR INC: Faces Guay Bros. Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
ESPRESSO BAR: Israeli Court Allows Suit Over Exposure to Smoking
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Intends to Contest Claims in MERS Case
EVERDRY WATERPROOFING: Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA

FINGER ONE: Moves "Moore" Suit to Southern District of California
FLASH FOODS: Faces "Novinger" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
FORMULA SYSTEMS: Matrix & Formula Have Yet to Respond to Request
FORT BEND: Faces Class Action Over Truancy Policy
FXCM INC: July 7 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Applications

FXCM INC: Faces Customer Suit for Inflating Stock Price
G. WILLI-FOOD: Four Civil Complaints in Early Stage
GARRETT SEAWRIGHT: "Arguedas" Suit Returns to Mexico Dist. Ct.
GEORGIA: Court to Hear City Employees' Challenge to Pension Reform
GERON CORP: Shuman Law Firm Investigates Firm

GLK FOODS: "Jean-Baptiste" Suit Moved From Florida to Wisconsin
GNC HOLDINGS: Six Class Actions Related to Hydroxycut Pending
GNC HOLDINGS: Named in 31 Injury Lawsuits Over DMAA, Aegeline
GNC HOLDINGS: Trial Scheduled in June 2015 in Sparling Case
GNC HOLDINGS: Court Approved Settlement in Class Action

GNC HOLDINGS: Final Order Entered Dismissing Calif. Wage Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Mediation Unsuccessful in Brewer Class Action
GNC HOLDINGS: Mediation Unsuccessful in Naranjo Class Action
GNC HOLDINGS: Parties Settled Claims in "Vargas" Case
GREAT AMERICAN PLUMBING: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Nonpayment of OT

HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Accused of Torture, Choking Kids
IHEARTMEDIA INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
INDIANA: Bureau of Motor Vehicles Used Ambiguous Fees, Audit Says
INSULET CORPORATION: Briscoe & Powers Taylor Launch Probe
INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN: Recalls Multivitamin Tablets

JJRA22 LLC: "Fachin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JR POOL: "Valdez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KARN ARJUN: Faces "Obenauf" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Filed Motion to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Class Action
LEADING EDGE: Faces "Patton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

LIFELOCK INC: Response to Amended Ebarle Complaint Due
LIFELOCK INC: Bid for Initial Approval of "Goldman" Deal Due
LIFELOCK INC: "Trax" Plaintiff Agreed to Dismiss Class Action
LIFELOCK INC: Waiting for Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Bien" Suit
LENDINGTREE INC: District Court Stayed "Dijkstra" Case

LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Securities Case Settlement Wins Final OK
LIVING SPACES: "Hill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removed "Bychkowski" Suit to N.J. Dist. Court
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Insurers Want Out Amid Scandal
MARRIOTT INT'L: Cross-Appealed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

MASTERCARD INC: Judge in Data Breach Case Won't Bar Target Deal
MCCALLUM GROUP: Removes "Moreno" Suit to Florida District Court
MCCLURE AND STEVENSON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MCGILL HEALTH CENTRE: Sued Over Building Construction Noise
MICREL INC: Ryan & Maniskas Launched Probe Over Sale to Microchip

MISSOURI: Atheist Prisoner Loses Bid to Represent Inmates
MOBILEIRON INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action
MOLYCORP INC: Deadline to Amend Complaint Has Expired
MOLYCORP INC: Continues to Defend Against Class Actions
MONEY STORE: Borrowers Can't Pursue Class Suit Over Legal Fees

NEBRASKALAND INC: Accused in New York of Violating FMLA and FLSA
NEW ORLEANS: Residents Question Payment to Special Master
NEW YORK CAFETERIA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NORTHLAND GROUP: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NUCOR STEEL: Appeals Court Revives Class Action Claim

OLD DOMINION: Removed "Monge" Suit to C.D. California
PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: To File Motion to Dismiss Class Action
PALI DESIGN: Recalls Children's Furniture Due to Injury Hazard
PITTSBURGH: Police Accused of Racial Bias, to Revamp Hiring
PLASTIC2OIL INC: Court Gave Final Approval of Settlement

PRE-PAID LEGAL: June 26 Hearing in "Savetsky" Class Action Set
PRECIPICE GLASS: Removes "Salgado" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Removed "Pettit" Class Suit to N.D. California
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Preliminarily Approved Celera Settlement

RAMART LLC: Recalls Swing Chair Products Due to Fall Hazard
RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in Hopkins v. AECOM Case
RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in CDS Antitrust Litigation
RICELAND FOODS: Faces Class Action Over GMO Rice
ROMO BLOCK: "Reyes" Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida

ROSS DRESS: Faces "Sitton" Class Suit Alleging Discrimination
SANDISK CORP: Aug. 18 Case Mgmt Conference in "Glore" Case Set
SCOTT CONANT: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SELECT ENERGY: Faces "Coker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SENGUPTA FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

SHO-ME POWER: KAMO-KPN Class Settlement Gets Court Approval
SOUTHERN SPECIALTIES: Removed "Jackson" Class Suit to S.D. Texas
SOUTHWEST CARPENTERS: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Leicht" Case
ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL: Refuses to Give ASL Interpreter, Suit Claims
ST. LOUIS CARDINALS: Lawsuits Could Force Team Testimony

STAPLES CONTRACT: "Rosales" Removed Class Suit to C.D. California
STERLING JEWELERS: Court Tosses Tapia's Motion to Amend Complaint
SUN-MAID GROWERS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SWISHER HYGIENE: Bid to Pay $185,434 in Legal Fees Approved
TAKATA CORP: "Johnson" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL

THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Osler Hoskin Discusses High Court Ruling
TIME WARNER: Parties Reached MOU in Comcast Merger Case
TIME WARNER: Ruling in Set-Top Box Antitrust Case on Appeal
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Court Lists Factors in Approving Settlement
TRI-VISTA DESIGNS: Recalls Monogram Mugs Due to Fire Hazard

TRINIDAD DRILLING: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: June 29 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids
UBER TECH: "Sabatino" Case Stayed Pending Arbitration
UBER TECH: Rivals Upset by Preferential Treatment
UNITED STATES: New Orleans May Join Hurricane Flood Suit

UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Suit Accused of Debt Collection Violations
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
US AIRWAYS: PBGC to Pay $5.25 Million to Retired USAir Pilots
VISA INC: Class Administrator Files Report in Interchange MDL
VISA INC: Appeal Launched in Consumer Interchange Litigation

VISA INC: Court Set Sept. 21 Trial Date in Texas State Court Case
VISA INC: Petition for Review Nixed in Credit Card Tying Cases
VISA INC: Webloyalty.com, GameStop, and Visa File Dismissal Bids
WARNER BROS: Court Dismissed Claims in Piracy Case
WESTERN UNION: Plaintiffs Object to Report and Recommendation

WESTERN UNION: Insurance Carrier and Plaintiff Reached Agreement
YELP INC: Aug. 26 Case Mgmt. Conf. in "Curry" Case Vacated

* Citicorp, JPMorgan, et al Agree to Parent-Level Guilty Pleas


                            *********


AAA CARTING: "Larosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas J. Larosa, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal,
Inc., Angelo Cartalemi, Pasquale Cartalemi, and Pasquale
Cartalemi, Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-04273 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a waste recycling service company
located at 480 Furnace Dock Road, Cortlandt Manor, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABLE HEALTH: Sued in S.D. New York for Firing Pregnant Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerdie Lambre v. Able Health Care Service, Inc. and Able Health
Care Service, Inc.-LHCSA, Case No. 1:15-cv-04078-RWS (S.D.N.Y.,
May 28, 2015) alleges that the Defendants discriminated against
the Plaintiff on the basis of her sex and pregnancy when they
fired her.

Able Health Care Service, Inc. is a New York corporation providing
health care services and headquartered in Merrick, New York.  Able
Health Care Service, Inc.-LHCSA is a New York corporation operated
by Defendant Able for the purpose of providing licensed home
health care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Jerome Rozger, Esq.
          BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
          80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 509-1616
          Facsimile: (212) 509-8088
          E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com


ACTIVE POWER: Class Action Settlement Still Awaits Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Active Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a class action
settlement was subject to final approval by the Court at a hearing
scheduled for May 15, 2015.

The Company said, "On September 10, 2013, a purported class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas against us and certain of our former
executives. The case is captioned Don Lee v. Active Power, Inc.,
et. al. (Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00797-SS). As amended, the
complaint alleges that on February 19, 2013, we reported that we
had begun working with an unnamed Chinese distributor partner, and
that on April 30, 2013, we announced in press releases and
conference calls that we had entered into a strategic distribution
partnership with Digital China. However, on September 5, 2013,
after the close of trading, we disclosed that our partnership was
with Qiyuan Network System Limited, which is neither an affiliate
nor a subsidiary of Digital China. The amended complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all stockholders who
purchased common stock between February 19 and September 5, 2013.
On March 7, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the class action
complaint.  Our motion was denied by the Court on July 2, 2014.
On August 11, 2014, we filed an answer to the class action
complaint, and on September 2, 2014, the Court declined to certify
its order of July 2, 2014 for an interlocutory appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit."

"On September 23, 2014, we reached an agreement in principle and
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the class
action complaint.  The parties to the class action signed a
definitive settlement agreement on December 2, 2014, which was
granted preliminary approval by the Court on January 7, 2015. The
proposed settlement would resolve for all defendants all of the
issues that are pending in the class action complaint.  If
completed, the class action settlement would result in a payment
of $1.5 million to the settlement class, inclusive of fees and
expenses.  We anticipate that the total settlement amount and
related expenses would be paid from insurance proceeds.  The
proposed settlement is not yet consummated, and is subject to a
number of conditions.  The proposed settlement is also subject to
final approval by the Court at a hearing scheduled for May 15,
2015."


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Lepore, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03113 (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2015) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

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


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Action Over Marketing Expense Item
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on August 22, 2011,
Dor Alon received a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as class action against Dor Alon and the three other
gasoline companies for a total of NIS 1 billion (of which Dor
Alon's share is NIS 167 million). The claimants argue that the
gasoline companies inflated the "marketing expense item" which is
incorporated into the calculation of the maximum price of gasoline
95 octane by adding expenses unrelated to the sale of gasoline,
thus misleading the regulator and enabling themselves to sell
gasoline 95 octane at a higher price than the price that should be
charged. The claimants assert that this is violation of legislated
provisions in the Supervision Order on Goods and Services (Maximum
Prices in Gasoline Stations) - 2002; the Consumer Protection Law -
1981; and the Damage Ordinance (new version) - 1968. In the
opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim
in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Bid to Withdraw Claim Over Sanitarian Standards Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on September 3,
2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action
was filed against Dor Alon and a subsidiary of Dor Alon, for an
aggregate amount of NIS 50 million. The plaintiff claims that Dor
Alon failed to comply with law requirements regarding sanitarian
standards of lavatories at its petrol stations, particularly
cleaning requirements and intactness of facilities. In November
2014 the court approved the Plaintiff's request to withdraw the
claim.


ALON BLUE: Claim Over Spidomat Approved as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on September 6,
2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action
was filed against Dor Alon, for an aggregate amount of NIS 43.2
million. The plaintiff claims that as a customer of the Dor Alon
"Spidomat" arrangement for car fueling at reduced prices, she
discovered that her reduction was less than the regular discount
given to all other customers at the station. As result, the
Plaintiff claims she suffered financial damages from being a
member of the "Spidomat" arrangement. In October 2014, the court
approved the claim as a class action, and Dor Alon made a proper
provision for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Faces Suit Over Product & Service Regulation Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on September 13,
2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action
was filed against a subsidiary of Dor Alon and other defendants,
for an aggregate amount of NIS 77 million. The letter of claim
states that the defendants have breached the provisions of the
product and service regulation order (maximum prices in gas
stations - 2002 as regards conditions for collection of extra
charge on full service, nighttime service and rest days service,
as well as the provisions of article 3(D) of the of the product
and service regulation order (maximum prices in gas stations)
(amendment) - 2006 (herein, "the Amended Order") as regards the
signage of self-service fuelling pumps. The claimants argue that
the order has set criteria for a minimum rate of self-service
pumps in the gas stations out of the total number of pumps in the
gas station, and that whenever the criterion is not met, it is
prohibited to collect service fee in that station. The claimants
further allege that according to the Amended order, whenever a
pump is not marked in accordance with the Order, it cannot be
regarded as a self-service pump. As a result, the Defendants did
not meet the criterion stipulated in the Order in certain stations
and are therefore prohibited from collecting service fee in those
gas stations. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion
of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected
exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision
for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Court Approved Settlement in Suit Against Oil Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in October 2013 a
letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action was
filed against a subsidiary of Dor Alon, together with other
defendants including oil companies and credit card companies. It
is claimed that there is an agreement between the oil companies
and the credit card companies, according to which extra charging
is made for a limited period of time, when paying with certain
credit cards at gas filling stations, without prior notification
to the client. In February 2015 the court approved a settlement
agreement between the parties.


ALON BLUE: Still Faces Action Over Production Date Labels
---------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in November 2013 two
letters of claim and motions for approval as a class action were
filed against a subsidiary of Dor Alon, one in the sum of NIS 7
million, and the other in the amount of NIS 306 million. It is
alleged in both claims that the subsidiary, Alon Intrade Coffee
Shops Ltd., replaced labels of the production dates of sandwiches,
in a way that appeared as if the sandwich had been produced no
later than in the last 24 hours from the time it was bought. In
the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the chances that the claims will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for these
claims in its financial statements.


ALON BLUE: Bid to Withdraw Claim Over Failure to Comply Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in July 2014, a
letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action was
filed against Dor Alon and a subsidiary of Dor Alon, in the sum of
approx. NIS 256 million, with regard to the alleged failure to
comply with provisions requiring verification and calibration of
fuel pumps. In January 2015 the court approved the plaintiff's
request to withdraw the claim.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Discount Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2015, a
letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action in the
sum of approx. NIS 94 million was filed against a subsidiary of
Dor Alon. It is claimed that the subsidiary did not fulfill its
commitment for a certain discount price, and that is failed to
properly display prices of fuel and diesel at its filling
stations. The Company is currently reviewing the Claims and
denying all allegations.

"However, at this time, given this matter is preliminary in
nature, our financial statements currently do not provide for any
amount. We will continue to assess this matter as the request for
the class action develops," the Company said.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Action Over Higher Diesel Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2015 a
letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action in the
sum of approx. NIS 71 million was filed against Dor Alon and a
subsidiary of Dor Alon. It is claimed that Dor Alon and its
subsidiary charge higher prices for diesel purchased at self
service pumps than diesel purchased at full service pumps, and
that they fail to comply with statutory requirements regarding the
display of prices at filling stations. The Company is currently
reviewing the Claims and denying all allegations.

"However, at this time, given this matter is preliminary in
nature, our financial statements currently do not provide for any
amount. We will continue to assess this matter as the request for
the class action develops," the Company said.


ALON BLUE: Still Faces Suit Over Video Shooting & Sound Recording
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in April 2015 a
letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action in the
sum of NIS 55 million was filed against Dor Alon and a subsidiary
of Dor Alon. The claim is with regard to video shooting and sound
recording made in convenience stores without proper notice and
consent of the customers. The Company is currently reviewing the
Claims and denying all allegations.

"However, at this time, given this matter is preliminary in
nature, our financial statements currently do not provide for any
amount. We will continue to assess this matter as the request for
the class action continues to develop," the Company said.


ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Suit Over Lowest Prices Promo
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in July 2013 a claim
and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed against
Mega, Kfar Hash'ashuim Toy Stores Chain and other store chains,
with regard to special sales that offer reduced prices for the
second item bought. It is claimed that when purchasing 4 items
(1+1 and 1+1), the reduction is always made from the lowest prices
of all four. The claim does not state the amount sought if it is
approved as a class action. In the opinion of the Company, based
on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim
will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make
any provision for this claim in its financial statements.


AMERICAN LAFRANCE: Former Workers Settle Suit for $671,000
----------------------------------------------------------
John McDermott, writing for Post and Courier, reports that former
American LaFrance employees who sued the Moncks Corner-based
vehicle manufacturer after losing their jobs have settled the case
for $671,000.

Lawyers for Olivia Schreiner and James Schreiner said a lump-sum
payment of $385,000 is the equivalent of six weeks of severance
package for about 100 fired workers who are eligible to receive a
cut of the money.  The rest of the settlement proceeds will go
toward legal fees and other expenses.

The deal requires court approval.  A hearing date has not been
set.

The money will be paid by American LaFrance and Patriarch Partners
LLC, a New York financier that controlled the Berkeley County
manufacturer.  The settlement stemmed from a March 4 mediation
session, according to a court document.

"Given the precarious financial position of American LaFrance,
which ceases to exist or hold meaningful assets, and the inherent
risks associated with a protracted legal battle, this settlement
compensates the employees, helping them as they transition to the
next chapter of their lives" said attorney James L. Ward Jr. --
jward@rpwb.com -- of Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman,
which represents the workers.

A representative for Patriarch Partners and the company's local
attorney did not respond to requests for comment.  In a complaint
seeking class-action status, the Schreiners last year alleged
American LaFrance violated labor law by not providing proper
notice about the shutdown in mid-January 2014.  They worked for
the company for about 10 years before it abruptly closed its doors
in South Carolina and two other states as its finances rapidly
deteriorated.

The Charleston lawsuit cited the federal Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, which requires most companies with
100 or more employees to provide written notice at least 60
calendar days before a factory shutdown or mass layoff.

The complaint named the manufacturer and Patriarch Partners, which
attorneys for the workers said owned, managed and controlled
American LaFrance.  The investment firm asked to be dismissed from
the lawsuit, saying it was merely a financial adviser. U.S.
District Judge Richard Gergel denied that request.

American LaFrance and its predecessors had been building fire
engines and firefighting equipment for about 180 years.  It
employed about 500 workers when it went out of business, including
about 100 in Moncks Corner.  The fired workers at the other
locations did not qualify for compensation from the lawsuit
because the headcount at those facilities did not meet federal
thresholds, Ward said.  All eligible former employees will receive
written notice of the settlement and additional notifications
about the process. Payments will vary depending on individual
circumstances.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: July 28 Mesh Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation against American Medical Systems Canada Inc.,
American Medical systems Inc., and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.
("AMS") will proceed as two class actions:

(1) On behalf of women who were or are implanted with AMS
transvaginal mesh devices for treatment of Stress Urinary
Incontinence (SUI) and their families (AMS SUI Class Action);

(2) On behalf of women who were or are implanted with AMS
transvaginal mesh devices for treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse
(POP) and their families (AMS POP) Class Action).

The claims against AMS have not been resolved and the defendant
denies any fault or liability and will vigorously defend the
actions.

For more information:

www.amsmeshclassactions.ca
1-800-461-6166 ext. 2367
or 1-866-881-2292

Important information:

For more important details see the "Long Form Notice" available at
www.amsmeshclassactions.ca or from Class Counsel.

If you want to exclude yourself from the AMS SUI class Action or
the AMS POP Class Action you must notify Class Counsel by July 28,
2015 in the manner described in the "Long Form Notice" available
at www.amsmeshclassactions.ca

If you have questions about either the AMS SUI Class Action or the
AMS POP Class Action, or for a no-cost consultation about your
case, contact Class Counsel at the numbers above.


ARTISTIC CONCRETE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Alvarez, Adrian Alvarez, Jr., Alexis Fierro, Gonzalo Islas,
and Pedro Sanchez v. Artistic Concrete of Georgia, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01996-RWS (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
over 40 hours per week.

Artistic Concrete of Georgia, Inc. owns and operates a
construction company with offices at 515 Gunnell Road, Comer,
Georgia 30629.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Moore Weaver, Esq.
      QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP
      3516 Covington Hwy.
      Decatur, GA 30032
      Telephone: (404) 299-1211
      E-mail: rweaver@qcwdr.com


ASCENSION HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Church Plan Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford at Pensions & Investments reports that Judge Avern
Cohn in the U.S. District Court in Detroit reviewed the motion to
settle and scheduled a final approval hearing for Sept. 17.

On May 9, 2014, Mr. Cohn granted Ascension Health's bid to dismiss
the class-action lawsuit, ruling that while the church exemption
from federal pension laws and regulations "may appear to be an
irrational distinction, it is a distinction mandated by law."  At
least two other courts in other jurisdictions have disagreed and
allowed similar cases to proceed against plan sponsors.

After the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
6th Circuit, the parties in Overall vs. Ascension entered into six
months of court-sponsored mediation before accepting a mediator's
proposal.  In the preliminary settlement document, plaintiffs call
it "an excellent result for the proposed class" because it
provides for "significant" plan changes, "in essence mimicking
some of ERISA's key provisions," through 2022.  Participants will
be guaranteed full benefits through 2022 and Ascension will
contribute $8 million.  Other ERISA-like changes affect plan
administration, such as annual notices, statements and claims
review.  Attorneys' fees and an incentive fee for the named
plaintiff are capped at an additional $2 million.

The size of the plan could not be learned by press time.  In their
initial complaint, the plaintiffs alleged Ascension's pension
plans were underfunded by $444.5 million

Lead plaintiff Marilyn Overall entered into the settlement "with
an understanding of the strength and weaknesses" of the claim, the
document said, including lengthy and expensive litigation to
continue, "significant uncertainties in predicting the outcome of
this complex litigation," and the defendants' "determination to
fight."

The plaintiffs did not give up the right to sue if the law on
church plans changes as a result of other court challenges in
other circuits.  "Ascension Health is not immune from any change
in the law.  The change in the law just won't come from the 6th
Circuit," said Thomas E. Clark Jr., an ERISA lawyer with The
Wagner Law Group in St. Louis. Mr. Clark is not connected to the
Ascension case.

With church plan cases working their way through several District
Courts and appeals courts, "I have always felt that it's a race
toward either the Supreme Court or Congress," said Mr. Clark.

Calls to Ascension and law firms representing the plaintiffs and
the defendants were not returned at press time.


ATLANTIC STATE: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Cruz and Nelson Sibre, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Atlantic State Development
Corp. and Atlantic State Consultants LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04248-
LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the construction business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonor Hidalgo Coyle, Esq.
      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th fl., Suite 1403
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com
              lambinder@vandallp.com


AVALON BAY: Removed "Silva" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Daniel Silva, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. Avalon Bay Communities, Inc., Case No. BC580095, was removed
from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
04157 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Silva
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Michael S. Kun, Esq.
      EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC
      1925 Century Park East Suite 500
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
      Telephone: (310) 556-8861
      Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
      E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com


BAHAMAS ELECTRICITY: Manager Slams 'Fraud by Hindsight' Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Hartnell, writing for Tribune 242, reports that the Bahamas
Electricity Corporation's (BEC) prospective manager has dismissed
as "fraud by hindsight" claims that it artificially inflated its
stock price prior to a one-day wipe-out that erased $250 million
in shareholder value.

Tribune Business can reveal that PowerSecure International is
petitioning the eastern district court in North Carolina to
dismiss a class action securities fraud claim against it on the
basis that it "fails to state a claim".

Documents obtained by Tribune Business show that the case, which
is thought to have played a key role in delaying the Christie
administration's announcement of PowerSecure as the preferred BEC
bidder, revolves around the 62 per cent "plunge" in the company's
share price that occurred on May 8, 2014.

Maguire Financial, the investor leading the 'class action'
complaint, is alleging that PowerSecure and its top executives
withheld material information that would have informed the market
its financial performance was about to take a hit.

By allegedly touting strong financial results, Maguire Financial
and other investors claim PowerSecure "artificially inflated" its
share price starting in August 2013.  They allege that this
occurred "just in time" for PowerSecure to place a stock issue
with investors, raising $34 million from the sale of 2.3 million
shares.  And, at the same time, the Maguire Financial class is
alleging that Sidney Hinton, PowerSecure's chief executive and
president, raised $3.2 million by selling 30 per cent of the
shares he held in the company.

All this occurred prior to May 7, 2014, when BEC's potential
manager unveiled first quarter results that led to one of the
company's analysts saying they had been "blindsided".  PowerSecure
unveiled a net $4.3 million loss for a period in which the market
had expected a profit, and reduced its revenue and net income
expectations for the remainder of 2014.

"In response to this shocking material adverse information,
PowerSecure's stock plunged by more than 62 per cent, erasing more
than $250 million in market capitalization, to close at just $7 on
May 8, 2014, on unusually high trading volume," the Maguire
Financial class action complaint alleged.

It claimed that PowerSecure had been "encountering significant
operational issues and inefficiencies" from the 2013 second
quarter, but these had not been disclosed to investors and the
capital markets.  The allegations contained in the class action
complaint drove Prime Minister Perry Christie to seek US
government guarantees -- from the likes of secretary of state,
John Kerry, and commerce secretary, Penny Pritzker -- vouching for
PowerSecure's integrity.  This process is thought to have delayed
the announcement of PowerSecure's selection by several months,
with the company having been effectively chosen by the Government
as BEC's management partner around Christmas-New Year 2015.

The Prime Minister, in particular, wants the selection of BEC's
management partner to be beyond reproach, and able to withstand
all scrutiny and challenge.  Yet the class action lawsuit remains
an issue of concern for Bahamians.  Clinton Minnis, the Bahamas
Electrical Managers Union (BEMU) president, told Tribune Business
that PowerSecure's legal battle was one concern it had raised with
Deputy Prime Minister Philip Davis.

"One of the concerns that we had was whether the company had put
all of its legal issues behind it," Mr Minnis said.  "We know that
there was a class action suit against them."  There were, in fact,
three separate class action lawsuits that were eventually
consolidated into the Maguire Financial complaint, as all made the
same allegations.

The US is one of the most litigious societies in the world.
Class-action lawsuits against publicly-traded companies by
disgruntled investors are relatively commonplace when investments
fail to work out and deliver the expected returns.

In PowerSecure's case, whether there is any substance to the
allegations will have to be determined by the North Carolina
court.  The company is due to file its final response to the
claims, and bid for their dismissal, by next month.  It will then
be up to the judge to sort out.

PowerSecure's first bid to dismiss the lawsuit effectively
portrays the Maguire Financial group as just a collection of
disgruntled shareholders who are unhappy with how their investment
turned out.

Pointing out that share prices and markets can go down as well as
up, PowerSecure said it had delivered numerous cautionary
statements and guidance warnings about the factors that could
negatively impact its business.

"It is only too easy - and too tempting - after a stock drop to
look back with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to allege, as
plaintiff has done here, that defendants knew or should have
predicted these operational challenges and disappointing financial
results," PowerSecure alleged.

"Most businesses experience short-term operational challenges or
disappointing financial results from time to time."

PowerSecure said "several negative factors coalesced during that
quarter".  These included a large utility customer ordering much
less work than in the year-end 2013 quarter; work for another
large utility that was more difficult and less profitable; and the
pace/timing of large distribution/generation contracts slowing.
One of these customers was Florida Power & Light (FPL).

"Although each of these negative factors was entirely consistent
with the many descriptions and warnings that the company had
frequently disclosed about the 'lumpy' and sometimes unpredictable
nature of the business, when they all hit at the same time it
negatively impacted the company's near-term results," PowerSecure
said.

"At bottom, this is a fraud by hindsight case.  The reliance on
hindsight is evident from the fact that plaintiff took the exact
explanation offered by company management for the disappointing
results in the 2014 first quarter conference call, and then claims
that these explanations were previously hidden from investors."

It added that while the Maguire Financial complaint referred to 26
separate statements it made between August 7, 2013, and May 7,
2014, there was no allegation that any of these were false.

The 'class action' group, though, claims that details provided by
a PowerSecure 'whistleblower' "support a strong inference" that
the company "knew or recklessly disregarded the serious problems"
that were set to impact its performance.

While not identified by name, the lawsuit alleges that the
whistleblower held several key executive posts with PowerSecure,
including vice-president of engineering/project management in its
utilities infrastructure group, plus vice-president of sales in
the same division.

PowerSecure's defence was quick to dismiss the so-called
whistleblower's claims, saying they had no contact with senior
management and knew nothing about the problem contracts.

Describing the purported whistleblower's evidence as "vague", the
prospective BEC manager added: "Finally, some of [the
whistleblower's] allegations are so implausible that they cast
doubt on their credibility.

"For example, [the whistleblower] claims 'the utility
infrastructure group stopped growing in the third and fourth
quarter of 2013', but this allegation is patently false.  Utility
infrastructure grew from $24.166 million in quarterly revenue in
the 2013 third quarter to $37.527 million the in 2013 fourth
quarter, an increase that represented 55.2 per cent quarter-over-
quarter and 81.6 per cent year-over-year growth."

Maguire Financial's complaint also makes a strong personal attack
on PowerSecure's chief executive, Mr Hinton, alleging that he had
his own "financial motives" to push the company's share price.

It claims that he transferred 20 per cent of his equity stake to
his wife just before Christmas 2013, as a means to fund his
impending divorce.

PowerSecure again dismissed this accusations, arguing that the
divorce was "an innocent explanation for Mr Hinton's action, and
was "more plausible than fraud".

The Maguire Financial 'class' apparently remains unconvinced. In
their reply to PowerSecure's arguments for dismissing the case,
they reiterated: "By failing to disclose the serious problems
facing the company, of which defendants were well aware, and
instead consistently assuring the investing public all was well,
defendants artificially inflated and maintained the trading price
of PowerSecure securities.

"Defendants profited directly by selling more than $37 million of
stock to the public at an artificially-inflated price."


BALTIMORE, MD: Family Seeks Probe in Johnson "Rough Ride" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Ganim, writing for CNN, reported that the family of a man who
died after being paralyzed riding in the back of a Baltimore
police van wants a criminal investigation into his case.  Dondi
Johnson Sr., a Baltimore plumber arrested in 2005 for public
urination, died two weeks after he was injured in a "rough ride,"
in which a police van is deliberately driven erratically.

The case is eerily similar to Freddie Gray's. Gray died after
suffering a spinal injury while in police custody.  Six Baltimore
police officers have been charged in his death.  But in Johnson's
case, no charges were filed against the three police officers
involved, and the three still work for the Baltimore Police
Department.

The driver of the van, Nicole Leake, was featured in March in a
Baltimore police promotional video, looking into the camera and
saying, "I am the BPD."

Johnson's family sued the Police Department and in 2010 they were
awarded a $7.4 million; the amount they received was much lower,
$216,500, because of a legal cap.  Johnson was arrested in 2005
for urinating on a sidewalk, He was put in the van without a seat
belt, according to an affidavit filed in the family's lawsuit.
When police arrived at the barracks and opened the door, he was
lying on the floor with a broken neck. He told an officer, "The
bitch was driving like an asshole. I fell and I can't move."

He was paralyzed.  The officers never called an ambulance.
Johnson died two weeks later from complications of his paralysis.

In the lawsuit, Leake testified that she wasn't driving
erratically and didn't strap in Johnson because he said he had to
urinate, and she didn't want to cause his bladder discomfort with
a seat belt.  At trial, a former Baltimore police officer took the
stand and testified that rough rides were an "unsanctioned
technique" of the Police Department, during which the driver would
"drive in such a manner that caused injury or pain."

That testimony came five years before Freddie Gray died.  Others
have come forward, saying they, too, were taken for rough rides
during that time by the Baltimore City police.

"All that says to us is that they can and will kill or hurt you or
your family members and walk free," said Johnson's stepdaughter,
who asked CNN not to use her name.

Baltimore police did not respond to CNN's questions about the
Johnson case or the officers involved.

Leake could not be reached for comment.

                    Others Say They Had Rough Rides

Since Gray's death, Jake Masters also has said he will sue over
what he says was a rough ride.  In photos, Masters is bruised
almost from head to toe.  He said he considers himself lucky to
have survived.

"They would slam on their brakes like every thousand feet, and to
make sure that we slammed into something in the back," he said,
recalling the night in 2012 that Baltimore police showed up at his
house after a noise complaint.

The situation escalated quickly, according to court documents, and
he and his wife, Chrissy Abbott, ended up on the ground, cuffed,
headed for the back of a police wagon just like the one that
transported Freddie Gray before he died.

"They throw you in and it's dark in there and so you can't really
see anything," he said. ". . .I would hear Chrissy from the other
side, slamming into the wall and just crying out."

She was on the other side of a metal partition.

"Every time he broke or hit on the brakes, I would slam forward
and then he'd start driving again, slam back the other way,"
Abbott said.  "I felt less than human, the way they treated you."

In 2012 Abbott sued the Baltmore police over her treatment that
night.  Her case is pending.  Masters didn't sue -- until he heard
about Freddie Gray, the allegations of "rough rides" and realized
that they are more common than he thought.

In Baltimore, the practice has been documented as far back as
1997, when Jeffrey Alston was arrested for speeding and placed in
the back of a police van.  When the ride was over, he was
paralyzed.  He sued the department and settled for $6 million.  He
died in 2007.

"The fact that this practice is going on to this day is just
inexcusable," said Masters' and Abbott's attorney, Steve Norman.
". . . I think it's time to focus exclusively on this rough ride
issue to evoke change here, to change the longstanding custom of
handing out street justice."

Norman said he wants to file a class-action suit against the
department, but state protections stand in the way.  He said he's
exploring his options and may have to file individually for every
person who says they've been taken for a rough ride.

Baltimore police did not respond to CNN requests for comment on
this story.

"It's just like they treat you like a cargo they don't care
about," Masters said, recalling his anger when he found out from
others in Baltimore that they'd been through the same thing.  "So,
like no value for human life . . . and took us on a ride to make
sure we were injured, basically, and felt their anger."


BANCO SANTANDER: "Ranieri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Ranieri and Nicholas Ranieri, on Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Banco Santander, S.A., Santander
Holdings USA, Inc., Santander Bank, N.A., Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.,
and Sovereign Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-03740-MCA-MAH (D.N.J.,
June 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a savings bank with corporate
headquarters located at 75 State St., Boston, Massachusetts,
02109.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Dichiara, Esq.
      KRAKOWER DICHIARA LLC
      One Depot Square
      77 Market Street Suite 2
      Park Ridge, NJ 07656
      Telephone: (201) 746-0303
      Facsimile: (347) 765-1600
      E-mail: md@kdlawllc.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Allen" Suit Over FX-Price Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Sue Allen, Donna S. Lucas, and all others similarly situated
v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04285-UA
(S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015), arises from the Defendants' and others'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to
manipulate prices for foreign exchange ("FX") futures and options
on FX futures.

FX futures are agreements to buy or sell a foreign currency at a
set price and date in the future, and are traded on centralized
exchanges, such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") and ICE
Futures U.S. Exchanges ("ICE").

Bank of America Corporation is a financial services company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Ross Wallin, Esq.
      GRAIS & ELLSWORTH LLP
      1211 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 755-7876
      Facsimile: (212) 755-0052
      E-mail: rwallin@graisellsworth.com

         - and -

      J. Brian McTigue, Esq.
      Regina M. Markey, Esq.
      MCTIGUE LAW LLP
      4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20016
      Telephone: (202)364-6900
      Facsimile: (202) 364-9960
      E-mail: bmctigue@mctiguelaw.com
              jmoore@mctiguelaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Banking Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Yasukochi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:15-cv-01231-JLS-NLS
(S.D. Cal., June 3, 2015), is brought on behalf of the California
who suffered damages due to denial loan modification appeal as a
result of the Defendant's improper banking and loan documentation
practices.

Bank of America, N.A. is a nationally chartered banking
association with its principal place of business located in
Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Richard L. Miller II, Esq.
      Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
      Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 267-1906
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              rmiller@siprut.com
              msilverman@siprut.com
              gbarbakoff@siprut.com

         - and -

      Todd C. Atkins, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      2261 Rutherford Road
      Carlsbad, CA 92008
      Telephone: 619-255-2380
      E-mail: tatkins@siprut.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Kondell" Class Suit in Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janie Kondell, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
d/b/a Florida Blue, Case No. 0:15-cv-61118-RLR (S.D. Fla.,
May 27, 2015) asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
          Daniel Alvarez Sox, Esq.
          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          E-mail: arolnick@riveromestre.com
                  dsox@riveromestre.com
                  arivero@riveromestre.com


BLUE CROSS: Data Breach Class Pushes to Return to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene at Law360.com reports that Blue Cross of California
customers who allege the health insurer's shoddy data security
left millions of Social Security numbers exposed urged a
California federal judge to send their putative class action back
to state court, saying federal courts don't have jurisdiction
because they're not seeking money damages.  U.S. District Judge
Michael W. Fitzgerald said in a short hearing he was considering
keeping the case in federal court, rebuffing the plaintiffs'
contention that, because they're asking for an injunction rather
than money.


BOEING CO: To Pay $90 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Siebenmark, writing for The Wichita Eagle, reports that
Boeing and the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in
Aerospace have reached a settlement that, if approved, would
require Boeing to pay $90 million to settle a 10-year-old class
action lawsuit over pension and retiree health benefits for some
former Boeing Co. employees represented by the SPEEA and two other
unions.

The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed in federal court by the
SPEEA in 2005 that alleged some union-represented workers at
Boeing who went to work for Spirit AeroSystems following the sale
of Boeing's commercial operations in Wichita did not receive the
pension and retiree health benefits they were due.

According to the lawsuit, the benefits were owed the workers under
collective bargaining agreements with the SPEEA, the International
Association of Machinists and the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers.

According to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, $4.25 million in attorney fees and expenses
would come from the $90 million settlement, as would $147,500 in
administrative fees and expenses.

The amounts received by individual workers included in the class
action suit would vary based on a formula that includes eligible
workers' credited years of service at Boeing and the number of
months they did not receive Boeing pension benefits while they
were employed by Spirit, court documents said.

The documents gave an example of a man who is still employed by
Spirit and will retire at 62.  The example said he had 23 years of
credited service at Boeing and was eligible to receive Boeing
pension benefits beginning at age 55.  That would entitle him to
receive an estimated $41,000 in lost Boeing pension benefits, the
documents said. The other example was a woman who had 25 years of
credited service at Boeing, went to work at Spirit and retired
three months after turning 55.  In that example, according to the
documents, the worker would be eligible for an estimated $1,600
under the settlement.  The settlement also provides for
reimbursement for certain medical costs, up to a maximum of
$40,000 for each member of the class action, court documents said.

Final approval of the settlement won't come until after a
settlement fairness hearing is held in federal court on Aug. 19 in
Wichita.  It's at that hearing that members of the class action
lawsuit could raise objections to the settlement.

The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace
plans to hold two meetings on updating members about the
settlement.  The meetings are to be held at the Machinists
District Hall, 3839 S. Meridian.  Only members of the class action
lawsuit will be permitted to attend, according to the notice.

SPEEA Midwest director Bob Brewer refused to comment on the
settlement agreement or the lawsuit, citing a federal gag order.

A spokesman for Boeing Co. in Chicago said he could comment only
on the fact that the company had come to a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs in the lawsuit.


BRAHMIN RECORDS: Removed "Perez" Class Suit to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Brian Perez and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Brahmin Records, LLC d/b/a King's
Head Records, Daniel B. Washburn, and William W. Garcia, Case No.
15-007841-CA-11, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of
Miami, Florida to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-21807-JAL to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com

         - and -

      Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq.
      SHUTTS & BOWEN
      201 S Biscayne Boulevard
      Suite 1500 Miami Center
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 347-7337
      Facsimile: (305) 347-7837
      E-mail: rgl@shutts.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ivan Jose Parron, Esq.
      PARRON & ASSOCIATES, PL
      175 SW 7th Street
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (888) 457-3771
      Facsimile: (888) 459-2139
      E-mail: ip@parronlaw.com


CANADA: Suit Over Parental Leave Wins Certification
---------------------------------------------------
Laurie Monsebraaten, writing for The Star, reports that more than
3,000 Canadian mothers who were denied EI sickness benefits while
they were on maternity or parental leave between 2002 and 2013
will get their day in court.  A $450 million class action lawsuit,
sparked by a Toronto cancer survivor's successful claim almost
four years ago, was certified.  It means women, who were seriously
ill while on maternity or parental leave and were denied
additional EI sickness benefits of up to 15 weeks, may finally get
compensation of up to $7,515 each, plus special damages.

Toronto lawyer Stephen Moreau, who represented local mother
Natalya Rougas in her successful 2011 claim, launched the class
action in 2012 on behalf of Calgary mom Jennifer McCrea.

"Natalya alerted us to the fact that this was a problem," Moreau
said.  "She opened the door to the fact that this was not just a
one-off problem, but that it was universal."

Rougas has since recovered from breast cancer and is "elated" that
her case is helping so many others, her husband Stavros said.

"We want to see the class action succeed so that there is no way
that those on parental leave ever have to worry about EI again
misinterpreting the intent of the rules," he said.

McCrea, was diagnosed with breast cancer while on maternity leave
in July 2011, the day Rougas won her appeal.  It was a Star story
about Rougas's win that prompted McCrea to appeal when her own
claim was denied in September that year.

"A friend Googled EI maternity sickness and Natalya's story popped
up," McCrea said in an interview from Calgary.  "My friend said
keep fighting.  So that's what I did."

The 38-year-old mother of two who has since run two marathons said
she was "ecstatic" when she learned a judge approved the class
action.

"It has been a long road already," said McCrea, whose son Logan is
now 4-and-a-half.  "But, as my lawyer says, I am a marathoner, not
a sprinter."

Ottawa changed the legislation in 2013 to ensure no more women are
denied EI sickness benefits if they become seriously ill during
maternity or parental leave.  And it has quietly paid about 350
women who launched appeals between 2012 and 2013.

But as of last November, the federal government has spent $1.3
million fighting McCrea and others who got sick before that,
according to government documents.

In Ottawa, New Democrat MP David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre)
questioned why the government was fighting mothers like McCrea
while disgraced Conservative Senator Mike Duffy was embroiled in a
spending scandal.

"Conservatives promised to fix this situation.  Why are they still
denying these women the sickness benefits they paid for and that
they deserve?" he said.

Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton-Canso), asked why Stephen
Harper, McCrea's local MP, "did nothing for her."

"Why did the Prime Minister not just go to his chief of staff and
say: 'Nigel, could you fix this for me? Could you make it good to
go?' Because he has done that before," Cuzner added.

As part of the Senate spending scandal, Harper's former chief of
staff Nigel Wright gave Duffy a personal cheque for $90,000 to
cover his expenses and later sent a memo that read: "good to go
from the PM."

Employment and Social Development Minister Pierre Poilievre said
he could not comment on the class action because it is before the
courts.

"Our hearts go out to families in these difficult circumstances,"
he told the Commons.

"That is why in 2013, our government brought in the Helping
Families in Need Act, that ensures that parents who fall ill while
they are on parental leave, can actually access sickness
benefits," he said.

EI legislation was changed in 2002 to extend sickness benefits to
working women who become ill during pregnancy or while on
maternity and parental leave, but, until the Rougas case, it was
never granted.

The amendment allows parents to stack sickness benefits onto
maternity/parental benefits.  If a parent (usually a woman)
becomes ill while on maternity or parental leave, she can apply
for up to 15 weeks of sickness benefits. Once those benefits are
paid, the maternity or parental leave resumes.

While the government paid sickness benefits to women who were
pregnant, EI officials said none of the mothers who became ill
while on maternity and parental leave were eligible because of a
"Catch-22" clause in the law that required them to be "otherwise
available for work."  Technically, mothers on maternity leave are
caring for their babies and not available for work, so their
sickness claims were denied.

Moreau previously estimated that up to 60,000 parents may have
become seriously ill while on maternity or parental leave but
didn't apply for sickness benefits because they were advised they
didn't qualify.  However, only those who applied for benefits and
were denied were accepted in the class action by Federal Court
Justice Catherine Kane in her May 7 certification ruling.

The government has 10 days from Kane's ruling to appeal, Moreau
said.


CANADIAN HEATING: June 2016 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you own, lease or otherwise occupy private property containing
a glass-fronted gas burning fireplace, fireplace insert or heating
stove, you should read this notice.

Under a court-approved class action settlement certain
manufacturers are offering, free of charge, barriers intended to
prevent burns from the hot glass fronts.  Further information is
below.

NOTICE* OF SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE OF A
CLASS ACTION INVOLVING CERTAIN GAS BURNING FIREPLACES, FIREPLACE
INSERTS AND
STOVES

TO: ALL PERSONS IN CANADA WHO OWN, LEASE OR OTHERWISE OCCUPY
PRIVATE PROPERTY CONTAINING A FIREPLACE FROM ONE OF THE SETTLING
DEFENDANTS DESCRIBED BELOW CERTIFICATION

A lawsuit commenced in British Columbia has been certified as a
class action against CANADIAN HEATING PRODUCTS INC., MILES
INDUSTRIES LTD., MONESSEN HEARTH CANADA, INC., and MONESSEN HEARTH
SYSTEMS COMPANY (doing business as VERMONT CASTINGS GROUP) (the
"Settling Defendants"), by the Supreme Court of British Columbia
(the "Court").

WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT?
It is an action concerning the risk of burns from contacting
the hot glass fronts of some gas burning fireplaces.

WHAT IS THE SETTLEMENT?
The British Columbia Supreme Court has approved a settlement under
which the Settling Defendants have agreed to provide, free of
charge, barrier screens or screen kits for certain of their
Fireplaces to reduce the burn risk.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
Class Members are all persons in British Columbia, plus all
persons elsewhere in Canada who choose to "opt in", who
have one of the Settling Defendants' gas fireplaces, inserts
or stoves ("Fireplaces") in their home that was installed
between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2014.

If you live in British Columbia and have such a Fireplace
you are automatically included in the class action
settlement.  If you live elsewhere in Canada you may
choose to opt into the settlement.  You should immediately
review the full legal notice in this matter to ensure that you
understand your legal rights.  Further details on the
proposed settlement and on opting in are available via the
telephone numbers and email & website addresses set out
in this notice.

Claim Forms and Opt in requests MUST BE SUBMITTED by June 6, 2016.
If your communication is not received in time it may not be
considered valid.

WHAT DOES COURT APPROVAL MEAN?
Class Members are bound by the settlement.  Notice of the
proposed settlement was published in April and May, 2015.
The settlement was approved by the Court on May 26, 2015.

WHERE CAN I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION, OR OBTAIN A FIREPLACE BARRIER
OR SCREEN?

Class Members should contact:

Crawford Class Action Services (the "Administrator")
Suite 3-505, 133 Weber Street North
Waterloo, ON N2J 3G9
Toll Free: 1-877-739-8933
Fax: 1-888-842-1332
E-mail: fireplaceclassaction@crawco.ca

DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING TO PARTICIPATE?
No.  You do not need to pay any money to participate in
the settlement.  Class members pay nothing.  The lawyers
appointed by the Court to represent the Class will be paid
by the defendants under the settlement.

WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?
The following law firm represents the plaintiffs and the
class, and will answer questions about the class action:

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP, 25th Floor,
700 West Georgia Street, Vancouver B.C. V7Y1B3
Contact fireplaceclassaction@farris.com
or Mike Wagner at 604-661-9388 or Robert
Anderson, QC at 604-661-9372

(*) This Notice is just a summary. For more detailed
information, including a list of all defendants and the
definitions used in this Notice, please go to
www.fireplaceclassaction.com or contact the Administrator listed
above, or contact the lawyers above.

Do Not Contact the Court about this Notice.
For any questions, please contact the Administrator or the lawyers
listed above

THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE BRITISH COLUMBIA SUPREME
COURT


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Customer Sues for Lost Cable Signal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Brown, writing for STL Today, reports that one angry boxing
fan has decided to go a round with Charter Communications.  Anna
Ralphs is suing the cable company for failing to televise the
championship bout between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in St. Louis, alleges
breach of contract and seeks class-action status.

Ralphs contends that she was one of the thousands of Charter pay-
per-view customers in St. Louis who missed fights leading up to
the welterweight championship unification fight and a large
portion of the main-event fight due to a cable outage.  A massive
cable outage affected Charter customers throughout the St. Louis
region and in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina.
Customers of some other providers also experienced some problems
with viewing the fight, including Time Warner, DirecTV and
Comcast.  Cable systems were overwhelmed by the crush of pay-per-
view orders, causing the fight to be delayed by nearly an hour.

In her suit, Ralphs said she paid $99.99 to view the fight on
Charter's pay-per-view channel but was unable to view the program
for several hours beginning at 8:28 p.m. until the end of the main
fight's fourth round.

"Despite the fact that Charter cable customers paid for the Fight
Package . . . (they missed) entirely the two Under Card Fights,
the pageantry of how Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao entered
the ring, introductions, the National Anthem performed by Jamie
Foxx, and pre-fight commentary," the lawsuit alleges. "At worst,
some viewers were unable to view the entire Program."

The class action could include thousands of class members,
according to the lawsuit, and the matter in controversy exceeds
$5 million.  The affected customers "have suffered irreparable
harm as a result of Defendants' bad faith, fraudulent, deceitful,
unlawful, and unfair conduct," the lawsuit alleges.

Ralphs, who is represented by Clayton law firm Carey, Danis &
Lowe, could not be reached for comment.

Charter declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying in an emailed
statement that it does not comment on pending legal issues.
Charter representatives told customers who called the company's
help line that refunds would be issued for those affected by the
outage. Charter is the largest local provider of subscription pay-
television service.

"We are analyzing the events from evening and we apologize to our
customers who were affected," Charter said in a statement issued
following the outage. "We are giving those customers who had
purchased the fight credits when they call us."


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Class Action Waivers Violate NLRA
----------------------------------------------------
National Law Review reports that despite overwhelming judicial
disapproval, the NLRB simply will not relent in its view that
mandatory arbitration agreements containing class/collective
action waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act.

In Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Case 14-CA-100530 (NLRB April
30, 2015), the NLRB once again stood behind its 2012 D.R. Horton
and 2014 Murphy Oil decisions to hold that an employer violates
the National Labor Relations Act when it requires an employee, as
a condition of employment, to sign an arbitration agreement that
precludes the employee from filing joint, class, or collective
claims addressing wages, hours, or other working conditions.

The Board is saying that these class/collective waivers
effectively prevent employees from exercising their NLRA Section 7
right to act in concert with respect to the terms and conditions
of their employment.  Dozens of courts have rejecting its line of
reasoning, but the Board has ignored them, perhaps waiting for a
definitive decision by the Supreme Court on this issue.  Thus,
while the Board's decision doesn't necessarily settle this issue,
employers wanting to take a more conservative approach could offer
their employees the opportunity to opt out of an arbitration
agreement.  Other, less risk adverse employers may continue to
require that their employees sign these agreements while banking
on the fact that courts will continue to enforce them, including,
perhaps, the Supreme Court one day as well.


CHESWICK GENERATING: Class Allegations Struck in Pollution Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Silton at Beveridge & Diamond PC, in an article for JD
Supra, reports that underscoring the requirement that class action
plaintiffs clearly and objectively define the putative class
without reference to the underlying merits of plaintiffs' claims,
a federal district court in Pennsylvania struck class allegations
from a complaint in a suit against a power plant. See Bell v.
Cheswick Generating Station, No. 12-929, (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2015).
The case was back in district court after the Third Circuit
reversed the trial court's dismissal, ruling that the Clean Air
Act did not preempt Plaintiffs' claims.  See Bell v. Cheswick
Generating Station, 734 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2013).

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint asserting nuisance,
negligence, trespass and strict liability claims arising from the
plant's emissions.  Plaintiffs defined the putative class as those
living within a one-mile radius of the power plant "who have
suffered similar damages to their property by the invasion of
particulates, chemicals, and gases from defendant's facility which
thereby caused damages to their real property."  Bell, Slip Op. at
2.

The district court struck the class allegations because the class
definition contained two fatal flaws.  First, the Court held
Plaintiffs had proposed a prohibited "fail-safe" class, meaning
that determining whether individuals fall within the class would
turn on resolving "ultimate issues of liability - damage and
causation." Id. at 5.  Here, class membership would have turned on
whether (1) that person was injured and (2) Defendant's emissions
caused the injury. Second, the Court concluded that requiring
class members' injuries to be "similar" to Plaintiffs' was too
subjective a standard to apply, therefore falling short of the
class "definiteness" requirement courts have found implicit in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 5-6.


CHESWICK GENERATING: Class Action Against Power Plant Dropped
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, writing for TRIB Live News, reports that a
Springdale resident has dropped her class-action lawsuit claiming
that the Cheswick power plant caused a public nuisance for nearby
property owners, according to court documents.

Kristie Bell and Joan Luppe sued the owners of the plant in April
2012.  Since then, the plant has changed hands and is now owned by
NRG Energy.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon dropped Luppe from the lawsuit
April 29 for failing to respond to court orders.  The attorneys
for Bell and NRG Energy filed a motion to dismiss the case, and
Bissoon approved the motion.

James DePasquale, the local attorney for Bell, referred questions
to the Detroit attorneys handling the case.  They couldn't be
reached for comment.

Bell and Luppe never established that the power plant damaged
anyone's property and the motion reflects that, said NRG Energy
spokesman David Gaier.

"Nothing whatsoever was paid to any of the plaintiffs," he said.
"They simply requested to dismiss their own lawsuit with
prejudice."

The lawsuit claimed that particulate matter and white fly ash
caused a nuisance for more than 1,500 people who own property near
the plant.  The company denied the allegation.

U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry dismissed the case in 2012,
ruling that the federal Clean Air Act pre-empted attempts to set
tougher emission standards.  The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned that decision and reinstated the case in 2013, ruling
that the federal law sets minimum protections but doesn't preclude
lawsuits seeking higher standards.


CIK RESTAURANT: Faces "Preciado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Preciado, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. C.I.K. Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Blueberry Hill
Breakfast Cafe and Chris Manolis, Case No. 1:15-cv-04900 (N.D.
Ill., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COBB & COLE: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Steinbaugh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cobb & Cole, P.A., a Florida Corporation, and
Admiralty Club Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, Case No. 6:15-cv-00861-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla., May 28,
2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753-8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com


CONNECTICUT: Judiciary Committee Approves Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Ken Dixon, writing for Connecticut Post, reports that most
Republicans on the Legislature's law-writing Judiciary Committee
have voted against cleaning up the final mess left by a former GOP
governor in 2003.  But the Democratic majority, without naming
John G. Rowland -- the disgraced former governor -- approved a
settlement with the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition
that could save the state hundreds of millions of dollars.

The unusual deal with 34,000 state employees includes 2,800
directly affected by the layoffs -- workers that federal and state
courts said Rowland targeted because they were unionized.  It's
those who lost their jobs or were bumped into lower-paying spots
who will make the most in the deal, which would be paid out mostly
over the next four years, includes retirement benefits and money
for claims of emotional distress.

Some employees would make as little as $100 to $1,500 in a $40
million portion of the payout.  All 34,000 in the class-action
suit would receive various levels of additional personal and
vacation time under the deal explained to the committee by Rep.
William Tong, D-Stamford, the panel's co-chairman.

Tong warned the committee that Attorney General George Jepsen
believes appealing a ruling against the state by the U.S. Second
Circuit Court of Appeals to the United State Supreme Court is a
long shot and could expose the state to orders to pay as much as
$340 million within a month.

"There are certain facts that are not helpful to the state's
case," Tong said, noting that Rowland and his budget adviser never
proved that the layoffs were vital to the state's interest.  "The
Second Circuit found . . . that the defendants in the federal case
had intentionally fired only union members when the firings had
minimal impact on the state budget."

Still, GOP members of the committee were skeptical, and all but
two Republicans voted to reject the two resolutions approving the
deal.  The House resolution passed the committee 17-13, with Rep.
Tom O'Dea, R-New Canaan, joining Democrats.

The Senate resolution was approved 8-2, with Sen. John Kissel,
R-Enfield, joining Democrats.

"This seems to be the best thing we can do," Kissel said. "We have
a gun to our heads," said Sen. Paul R. Doyle, D-Wethersfield.

"This is painful to read," said Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury,
who rejected the settlement. "I don't feel that $40 million is a
bargain."

In 2013, a three-judge panel for the Second Circuit said Rowland's
firings violated the constitutional rights of the employees.  In
unrelated cases later, Rowland served 10 months in prison for
corruption charges in 2005, was recently sentenced to 30 months in
prison for election fraud.

"I'm a little concerned about how this all fits together," said
Rep. John Shaban, R-Redding, who voted against the deal.  "I'm
concerned that a $40 million-ish hit to state coffers at this
point is probably not something I can buy into."

"I'm also concerned about a $340 million hit," Tong replied.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Removed "Gibson" Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Francis Janice Gibson,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Continental Resources Inc., Case No. CJ-15-00015, was removed
District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma to the U.S. District
Court Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00611-M to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleged breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Conner L. Helms, Esq.
      Gary R. Underwood, Esq.
      HELMS & UNDERWOOD
      One NE Second St
      Suite 202
      Oklahoma City, OK 73104
      Telephone: (405) 319-0700
      Facsimile: (405) 319-9292
      E-mail: Conner@helmsunderwood.com
              gary@helmsunderwood.com


CONTROLADORA VUELA: Facing Class Action Over 2013 IPO
-----------------------------------------------------
Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V. said in
its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2014, that the Company, as well as the CEO, CFO, three current
directors and the former chairman, are among the defendants in a
putative class action commenced on February 24, 2015 in the
federal United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York brought on behalf of purchasers of ADSs in and/or
traceable to the September 2013 initial public offering. The
complaint, which also names as defendants the underwriters of the
IPO, generally alleges that the registration statement and
prospectus for the ADSs contained misstatements and omissions with
respect to competitive outlook for certain markets and the
recognition of non-ticket revenue in violation of the federal
securities laws, and seeks unspecified damages and rescission. A
lead plaintiff for the action has not yet been appointed by the
court. The Company believes that the outcome of the proceedings to
which it is currently a party will not, individually or in the
aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the consolidated
financial statements.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Enters Judgment in "Wallace" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Josephine L. Staton entered judgment on May 22,
2015, in the case captioned REGGIE WALLACE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. SACV
08-1463-JLS (MLGX), (C.D. Cal.).

The judgment, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1dAn4QGfrom Leagle.com, provides that:

1. The Settlement Class is defined as:

"All individuals who received compensation from Full Spectrum
Lending, Inc. in the position of Branch Account Executive between
January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004 who were sent
Acknowledgement Letters in connection with Full Spectrum's back
pay program, excluding those Branch Account Executives who
released their claims through settlement in the case of Walker v.
Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc., et. al., U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas Case No. 3:03-CV-00684-N."

2. The parties must comply with the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement and of the Order Granting Final Approval,
including payment of the approved claims made by Class Members,
payment of the enhancement awards of $7,500 each to Plaintiffs
Reggie Wallace, Travin Lu'I, and Erik Frates, and payment to Class
Counsel of approved attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,150,000
and costs in the amount of $150,000. Upon such compliance, and in
accordance with the terms of the Order Granting Final Approval,
the matter and the Complaint will be dismissed in its entirety,
with prejudice. The Settlement Class members will be barred and
enjoined from prosecuting the Released Class Claims against the
Releasees, as those terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement.
The Court will retain jurisdiction over all matters relating to
the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation
and/or enforcement of the Stipulation of Class Settlement and
Release, the First Amendment to Stipulation of Class Settlement
and Release, the Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of the Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motion for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Incentive Awards and
this Judgment.

3. Persons who timely requested exclusion from the Class: (a) will
not participate in the recovery obtained through the Settlement
Agreement; and (b) are entitled to prosecute an alternative
lawsuit, or an individual claim with the California Labor
Commission, in accordance with California law, with regard to the
claims alleged in the Complaint.

Reggie Wallace, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, represented by Dale Michael Fiola --
fiolaw1@aol.com -- Dale M Fiola Law Offices and:

   Mark A Boling, Esq.
   Law Office of Mark Boling
   21986 Cayuga Ln
   Lake Forest, CA 92630
   Phone Number: (949) 588-9222
   Fax Number: (949) 588-7078

Erick Sosa, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees,
Plaintiff, represented by Dale Michael Fiola, Dale M Fiola Law
Offices & Mark A Boling, Law Office of Mark Boling.

Travin Lu'I, Plaintiff, represented by Dale Michael Fiola, Dale M
Fiola Law Offices & Mark A Boling, Law Office of Mark Boling.
Erik Frates, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A Boling, Law Office
of Mark Boling.

Countrywide Home Loans Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher
A Crosman -- ccrosman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Thomas R
Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton, Greg S Labate -- glabate@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Rishi Puri --
rpuri@sheppardmullin.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Ruben David
Escalante -- rescalante@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Vartan Serge Madoyan --
vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Countrywide Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher A Crosman, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Thomas R Kaufman,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Greg S Labate, Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton LLP, Rishi Puri, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Ruben
David Escalante, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Vartan
Serge Madoyan, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Full Spectrum Lending Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher A
Crosman, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Thomas R Kaufman, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton, Greg S Labate, Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP, Rishi Puri, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Ruben David Escalante,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Vartan Serge Madoyan,
Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Besthines Maria Davis, Intervenor, Pro Se.


COURTESY VALET: Faces "McGraw" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey McGraw, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Courtesy Valet Corporation, Case No. 8:15-cv-01327-SDM-MAP (M.D.
Fla., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Courtesy Valet Corporation owns and operates a parking and valet
services company in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com


CVS PHARMACY: Sued Over Alleged Racial Discriminatory Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lacole Simpson, Sheree Steele, Delbert Sorhaindo and Kerth
Pollack, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04261-
JGK (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
unlawful discriminatory practices in connection with loss
prevention approach that intentionally target and racially profile
Black and Hispanic shoppers.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation with its
headquarters and corporate offices in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
CVS owns and operates hundreds of stores located throughout New
York City and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq.
      David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
              dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
              mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com


DIVERSE FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca B. Brown, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Diverse Funding Associates, LLC and Gary S. Lewis,
Attorney at Law, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03577-ES-JAD (D.N.J.,
May 27, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Strikes Fail-Safe Class Definitions
------------------------------------------------------------
David Krueger at Benesch, in an article for JDSupra, reports that
Kenneth Boyer filed a putative class action against Diversified
Consultants, Inc. and LiveVox, Inc., in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that DCI, through
LiveVox, initiated telephone calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system and/or prerecorded voices, in alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227.  On
April 20, 2015, the Eastern District of Michigan struck Boyer's
class allegations.  Boyer v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., No.
14-cv-12399, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58420 (E.D. Mich. April 20,
2015).

Boyer proposed two classes.  First, a class of individuals who
subscribed to a cellular telephone to which DCI initiated a call
using an ATDS, and where the person "did not provide his or her
phone number to DCI."  Similarly, Boyer proposed a second class of
persons who received calls that used a prerecorded message to
their wireless phone, and who "did not provide her or her phone
number to DCI. . . "

DCI moved to strike the class allegations on the grounds that the
proposed classes constituted fail-safe class definitions.  A fail-
safe class definition is one that is defined so that only those
who are entitled to relief are part of the class--in such
circumstances, if a defendant prevails on liability, that
necessarily means that no persons are part of the ultimate class.
Here, DCI argued that Boyer's class definitions constituted fail-
safe classes because they were defined to only include those
persons who did not give DCI consent to call--and thus constituted
fail-safe classes, because if DCI proved that some or all persons
did give consent, they would no longer be class members and would
not be bound by any adverse judgment.

In opposing DCI's motion to strike, Boyer argued that DCI's motion
was premature as discovery would "allow him to redefine the
classes in a matter that avoids a failsafe class."  In rejecting
the plaintiff's argument, the district court noted that a motion
to strike must be judged by "whether the classes as currently
defined are legally permissible."  The court concluded that the
proposed classes were fail-safe definitions, and granted DCI's
motion to strike.  The court, however, granted Boyer fourteen days
to file an amended complaint with a modified class definition.


EBAY INC: Lawsuit Over 2014 Cyber-Attack Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Matthew J. Schwartz, writing for Gov Info Security, reports that
a federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against
eBay in the wake of a 2014 data breach that exposed encrypted
passwords and personal information for 145 million users.

After eBay discovered the cyber-attack -- which occurred between
late February and early March 2014 -- it notified its users and
advised them to change their passwords.  The database that was
exposed during the breach contained users' encrypted passwords, as
well as their names, e-mail addresses, mailing addresses, phone
numbers and dates of birth, eBay said.  But eBay -- which owns
PayPal -- said that the database contained no financial
information.

The lawsuit was filed in July 2014 by Collin Green on behalf of
all eBay users in the United States whose personal information was
exposed by the breach (see eBay Faces Breach Class Action Suit).
The lawsuit alleged that the breach resulted in "economic damages"
for eBay users, "actual identity theft," as well as damages
resulting from having to mitigate an increased risk of identity
theft, as well as lost time.

For such a lawsuit to be successful, however, legal experts say
plaintiffs must typically prove -- per what's known as Article III
standing -- that they suffered an actual or threatened injury. But
eBay said there was no evidence that payment card data had been
compromised, or users harmed, and the judge presiding over the
case appeared to agree.

"This case raises the issue of whether the increased risk of
future identity theft or identity fraud posed by a data security
breach confers Article III standing on individuals whose
information has been compromised by the data breach but whose
information has not yet been misused," U.S. District Court Judge
Susie Morgan wrote in a May 4 order.  "After considering the
parties' briefs and the relevant case law, the court finds itself
positioned with the majority of district courts that have held the
answer is no."

As a result, Morgan granted eBay's request to dismiss the case,
saying that Green "has not adequately alleged Article III
standing."

A Common Issue

Such a ruling in a class action lawsuit filed over data breaches
is common.  "The failure to establish an injury-in-fact sufficient
to support Article III standing has been a key issue in data
breach class actions," says Barry Goheen, a partner in the
litigation practice group at the Atlanta-based law firm King &
Spalding, in a blog post published prior to Morgan dismissing the
case.

In legal terms, "standing" refers to the ability to demonstrate a
connection to - or harm resulting from - a law or action, and
"over the last several years, federal courts have dismissed the
majority of these types of cases for lack of standing," Goheen
says.

The lack of standing results from judges ruling that plaintiffs -
such as Green - cannot prove that they suffered some tangible or
imminent "injury," such as economic harm.  "His lawsuit, like so
many others before his, basically argued the harm was the risk of
future harm, as breach victims have statistically higher
likelihood of becoming victims of ID theft," says the privacy
blogger known as "Dissent."

Lawsuit Exception: Target

But when it comes to class action lawsuits filed in the wake of
data breaches, not all cases have been dismissed. U.S. District
Judge Paul Magnuson, for example, allowed several class action
lawsuits lodged against Target, in the wake of its massive data
breach in 2013 -- which involved the theft of payment card data,
and resulting cases of fraud -- to continue.  Target has agreed on
a provisional settlement of one of those suits that would award
$10 million to affected consumers.

Attorneys for Target had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuits.
"In consumer cases that have been brought across the country, the
vast majority of them have been dismissed.  The kinds of injury
they claim is really the threat or risk of future harm, and courts
have pretty universally found that to be insufficient," Target
attorney Wendy Wildung, partner at Faegre Baker Daniels, said in a
document filed with the court.

Magnuson, however, denied that request, and ruled that the cases
would proceed.  Subsequently, Target reached its provisional
settlement agreement for one lawsuit filed on behalf of consumers,
which the judge plans to review in a Nov. 10 hearing, so he can
assess how related claims have been handled.

Still, it's not clear whether the judge would have ruled in
Target's favor, had the case not been settled.  Some experts said
that Target -- which had $2.2 billion in cash on the books as of
Jan. 31, 2015 -- may have agreed to the settlement simply to make
the consumer case go away.  As of February, the company reported
that it had already spent $252 million on breach-related expenses,
about $90 million of which was offset by the company's insurance
policies.

Meanwhile, a class action lawsuit filed by financial institutions
against Target seeking reimbursement for breach-related expenses
is still pending.  And a group of financial institutions affected
by the Target data breach that exposed at least 40 million payment
cards is asking a court for a preliminary injunction to block the
proposed settlement between the retailer and MasterCard that would
provide $19 million to card issuers.  In documents filed on April
21 in Minnesota U.S. District Court, the banks allege that "the
total losses actually suffered by card-issuing financial
institutions are astronomically higher than the $19 million
offered under the proposed settlement."


ELBIT IMAGING: Hearing This Month on Israeli Supreme Court Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing of the
appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court is currently scheduled for
June 2015.

The Company said, "Following the approval of the Debt
Restructuring by the Court (the "Court Ruling"), a holder of our
Series B Notes which had previously filed with the Court a
purported class action lawsuit against us on April 11, 2013 (the
"Previous Action"), filed an appeal with the Israeli Supreme Court
arguing that the Court erred in approving the Debt Restructuring,
with specific reference to the exemption from personal civil
liability that could potentially have been accorded to our
officers and directors (other than Mr. Mordechai Zisser) and the
rejection of the Previous Action. It should be noted that the
Previous Action was dismissed on June 26, 2014 by the Court. To
date, the appeal is yet to be heard by the Supreme Court, and the
Debt Restructuring was consummated as mentioned above. The hearing
of the appeal is currently scheduled for June 2015."


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or entities
that purchased the securities of Endurance International Group
Holdings, Inc. between November 4, 2014 and April 27, 2015,
inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and certain of its officers.  Endurance
International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, states that it provides cloud-based platform
solutions for small- and medium-sized businesses.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose materially negative facts, about the Company's business
prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the
Company overstated its average revenue per subscriber ("ARPS") and
organic growth rate; (2) the Company engaged in irregular
accounting practices related to its international business; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Endurance's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  As a result of defendants'
alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on April 28, 2015, research firm
Gotham City Research LLC published a report alleging, among other
things, that 40% to 100% of Endurance's reported profits were
suspect and the Company's normalized profits would be insufficient
to cover its interest expenses.  The report alleged that the

Company used related parties to inflate earnings, and that
transactions with related entities have accounted for at least
16.5% of the Company's 2012-2014 Earnings Before Interest, Taxes,
Depreciation and Amortization.  The report also alleged that the
Company's reported organic growth was overstated and that 2014
ARPS had actually declined 13% when the Company's 10-K claimed
that ARPS had grown 11%.

On this news, shares in Endurance dropped over 10%, closing at
$19.70 per share on April 28, 2015, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 3, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com


ENERGY CORP: Bid for Accounting at Law in "Pollock" Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell denied a motion for an
accounting at law filed by plaintiffs in the class action
captioned  DAVID F. POLLOCK, as executor of the estate of Margaret
F. Pollock, JOHN T. DIBIASE, JR., JOHN S. FRAYTE, STUART W.
WHIPKEY, PATRICIA L. CHRISTOPHER, LOUIS A. VECCHIO and BESSIE P.
VECCHIO, BARBARA A. MORRIS; GENE M. VIRGILI and ERIN R. VIRGILI,
and LLOYD R. SHAFFER, III, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENERGY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1553, (W.D. Penn.).

A copy of Mag. Judge Mitchell's May 27, 2015 memorandum order is
available at http://bit.ly/1L1Qgeufrom Leagle.com.

"The Court finds that the interests of the class would not be
fulfilled by granting an accounting seeking the exact amount of
interstate charges and marketing fees deducted from their
royalties," ruled Mag. Judge Mitchell.  "An accounting seeking
this information is costly, would unduly burden ECA and not
efficiently lead to reliable information given that ECA estimated
the aggregate damages stipulated to at trial, ECA does not
maintain records on an individual well basis of the costs incurred
between the well meter and point of sale, many of the well-owners
have since sold the property interest to non-class third parties,
and as ECA predicts, it would take a team of three people two to
three months to complete the accounting sought. Insofar as it is
Plaintiffs' duty to inform this Court and the class members of how
the judgment, if any, will be distributed between the subclasses,
exactitude is not the standard; rather, the amount distributed to
the subclasses must be "fair, reasonable and adequate.""

Robert C. Sanders -- rcsanders@rcsanderslaw.com -- Esquire, Law
Office of Robert C. Sanders, Upper Marlboro, MD.

William R. Caroselli, Esquire, David A. McGowan, Esquire,
Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy Pittsburgh, PA, Counsel
for Plaintiffs.

Kevin C. Abbott, Esquire -- kabbott@reedsmith.com -- Justin H.
Werner, Esquire -- jwerner@reedsmith.com -- Nicolle R. Snyder
Bagnell, Esquire -- nbagnell@reedsmith.com -- Stacey L. Jarrell,
Esquire -- sjarrell@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, Reed Smith
Centre, Pittsburgh, PA, Counsel for Defendant.


ENSIGN UNITED STATES: Faces "Watt" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Watt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ensign United States Drilling (S.W.) Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01158 (D. Colo., June 3, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a single work week.

Ensign United States Drilling (S.W.) Inc. is an oilfield service
company with significant operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ESPAR INC: Faces Guay Bros. Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guay Brothers Company, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Espar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03225
(E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015), alleges that from at least October 1,
2007 through at least December 31, 2012, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators inflated the price for air and coolant parking
heaters sold aftermarket for use in commercial vehicles.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
      Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
             garenson@kaplanfox.com
             rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com


ESPRESSO BAR: Israeli Court Allows Suit Over Exposure to Smoking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, writing for Jerusalem Post, reports that
the Supreme Court accepted an appeal of a lower-court ruling and
made it possible for people exposed to tobacco smoke in public
places to file class-action suits over the issue.  The claims
against owners of premises that do not enforce the no-smoking law
could total millions of shekels in each case, as each individual
in the suit is entitled to a NIS 1,000 fine against violators.

The Israel Cancer Association, represented by attorney Amos
Hausner, appeared as a friend of the court in the suit (Efrati vs
Espresso Bar Ltd).

The appeal was heard by Supreme Court President Miriam Naor with
Justices Neal Hendel and Noam Solberg.  The ruling overturned a
previous Tel Aviv District Court decision by Judge Drora Pilpel
and determined that it is possible for those exposed to tobacco
smoke in public places to file class-action lawsuits against the
owners of offending premises.

The district court had reasoned that because an individual can sue
businesses, entertainment venues, or banquet halls for this, it
ruled out powerful class-action suits.  But according to the
Supreme Court, anyone complaining about secondhand smoke exposure
can make a claim on behalf of other sufferers to file a class-
action suit.

The ICA welcomed this ruling principle.  "The association had
encouraged private claims and encouraged law students to assist
individuals to file such claims.  When private lawsuits' success
was only partial, class actions have become an important component
in the enforcement of the law prohibiting smoking in public
places, which is unfortunately ignored by many business owners who
do not enforce it."

"This has removed the doubt about the principle in the district
court," said Hausner on behalf of the ICA "in any case of exposure
to smoke, one can sue in a class action."


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Intends to Contest Claims in MERS Case
----------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
contest all such claims vigorously in the case, Mortgage
Electronic Registration Services Related Litigation.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS), EverHome
Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that
have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following
material and class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege
improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure
to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes:
(1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney
General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al., filed in October
2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio, and
later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded to state
court; (2) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick, County Attorney
of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in April 2012
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky and now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit; (3) St. Clair County, Illinois v. Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et al.,
filed in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois;  (4) County of Multnomah v.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in
December 2012 in an Oregon state court,  later removed to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon and subsequently
remanded back to the state court; and (5) Delaware County, PA,
Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in November 2013 in the
Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and later
removed to federal court and subsequently remanded back to state
court.

In these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in
each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the
defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory
and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.

"We believe that the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intend to contest all such claims vigorously," the Company said.


EVERDRY WATERPROOFING: Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wisconsin State Home Services Inc. d/b/a Everdry
Waterproofing Wisconsin, and William Eyers, Case No. 2:15-cv-00638
(E.D. Wis., May 27, 2015) alleges that within the past three
years, the Plaintiff and the putative class members have been
denied pay at the minimum wage for all hours worked and
compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their respective
regular rates for all hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law.

Mr. Cooper and the putative class members have worked as hourly,
production crew employees of the Defendants.

Wisconsin State Home Services Inc., doing business as Everdry
Waterproofing Wisconsin, provides waterproofing services for
residential properties in the state of Wisconsin and is
principally located in Waukesha, Wisconsin.  William Eyers is the
owner/operator of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara Zack Quindel, Esq.
          Timothy Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 East Erie, Suite 210
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: bquindel@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com


FINGER ONE: Moves "Moore" Suit to Southern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Moore v. Finger One, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 37-2015-00011496-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego,
Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01182-BTM-JLB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noam Glick, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: noam.glick@ogletreedeakins.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew D. Skale, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO PC
          3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 314-1500
          Facsimile: (858) 314-1501
          E-mail: askale@mintz.com


FLASH FOODS: Faces "Novinger" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Novinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Flash Foods Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00086-LJA (M.D.
Ga., May 27, 2015) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for alleged denial of overtime compensation.


FORMULA SYSTEMS: Matrix & Formula Have Yet to Respond to Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Matrix and Formula
have not yet filed a response to the amended request by the
applicant.

On September 10, 2014, a motion for certification of a class
action (together with a statement of claim) was filed by an
alleged shareholder of Formula's subsidiary Matrix against Matrix
and Matrix's directors and chief executive officer, and against
Formula, as Matrix's controlling shareholder. The motion included
a claim for damages caused, according to the alleged shareholder,
to the shareholders of Matrix as a result of the publication of
financial statements that included misleading information, which,
according to the applicant, have a significant impact on Matrix's
results of operations, a breach of the duty of disclosure under
Israeli securities laws and negligent supervision over the
financial statements, based on reports regarding the correction of
errors discovered in the financial statements of Matrix.

On January 13, 2015, the applicant filed an amended request, which
included, among other things, a financial expert opinion and an
increase to the amount of the claim in accordance with the above
request, with the losses to the applicant estimated to be NIS
0.225 and the losses of the entire group estimated to be NIS
41,000 (approximately $ 10,543).  Matrix and Formula have not yet
filed a response.

"At this time, given the multiple uncertainties involved and in
large part to the highly speculative nature of the damages sought
by the plaintiff we are unable to estimate the amount of the
probable loss, if any, to be recognized with respect to this
claim," the Company said.


FORT BEND: Faces Class Action Over Truancy Policy
-------------------------------------------------
Matt Cooper, writing for Courthouse News, reports that the Fort
Bend County Independent School District unlawfully sends its
frequently absent students to criminal court, a class action
claims.  Calling it a "mischievous intermingling of two
governmental entities," the May 6 complaint accuses Fort Bend's
school district of operating an automated program to mass-produce
citations that summon over 4,000 students annually to appear
before the county truancy court.

There, the students face class-C misdemeanor charges and before "a
magistrate called a judge" and an "unlawful and biased tribunal,"
lead plaintiff Verakisha Roach claims.

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

Roach's suit, filed on behalf of her minor son, comes just over a
week after the school district suspended its program amid public
scrutiny and calls for the U.S. Department of Justice to
investigate area truancy laws.  The department has already opened
an investigation of Dallas County's truancy court, upon which the
Fort Bend court is based.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The class alleges that the county, its school district and its
truancy court staffers lack authority to issue citations or levy
criminal charges against minors.  It is represented by Deron
Harrington of Missouri City, Texas.


FXCM INC: July 7 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Applications
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until July 7, 2015 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against FXCM Inc. FXCM,
+0.70% if they purchased the Company's securities between June 11,
2013 through January 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of FXCM and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com --. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by July 7, 2015.

                        About the Lawsuit

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

These false statements and omissions included, in part, that:  (i)
FXCM's agency model of FX trading did not insulate it from
financial risk from its heavily leveraged clients; (ii) FXCM did
not disclose the true potential risk posed by market volatility;
and (iii) FXCM did not maintain sufficient regulatory capital
reserves for unforeseen scenarios.

On January 16, 2015, FXCM announced that Leucadia National Corp.
would be providing a loan of $300 million in cash to FXCM to allow
it to meet its regulatory-capital requirements and avoid possible
bankruptcy.

On this news, trading of the FXCM's stock was suspended. Once the
stock resumed trading, the price of FXCM's shares plummeted.

                         About Kahn Swick

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


FXCM INC: Faces Customer Suit for Inflating Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a pension fund sued U.S. currency broker FXCM
Inc. for allegedly misleading investors about its financial
prospects and concealing weaknesses in its core business before
its stock dropped 90 percent in January.

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478
Pension Fund accused FXCM of fraud and artificially inflating its
stock price in the complaint, filed in federal court in New York.
The complaint said that FXCM, which provides currency brokerage
services to retail clients, claimed its currency trading model was
"extremely low-risk" and volatility in the foreign exchange
markets was good for its business.

The complaint seeks class-action status and undisclosed damages.
In addition to the company, the suit names FXCM's chief executive,
Dror Niv, and chief financial officer, Robert Lande.  The
complaint also accused Lande of insider trading, saying that he
sold more than $3 million of his personal holdings of FXCM shares
while the price of the stock was artificially inflated.

FXCM would vigorously defend the allegations, company spokeswoman
Jaclyn Klein said in an email.

FXCM customers experienced losses of $225 million after the Swiss
franc surged as much as 41 percent against the euro in January,
following a decision by the Swiss National Bank on Jan. 15, 2015,
to end a policy in place since 2011 that allowed the franc to
trade freely against the euro, according to the complaint.

The pension fund said it is seeking class action status for
investors who bought shares in FXCM between June 11, 2013, and
Jan. 20, 2015.

The pension fund in its complaint also cited FXCM's announcement
on Jan. 16, 2015, of a $300 million loan extended by Leucadia
National Corp made shortly after the Swiss Bank's decision.  It
said the terms of the loan were described as "highly punitive,"
and nearly all shareholder value in the company was wiped out.
Trading in FXCM's stock was suspended.

Trading in the stock resumed on Jan. 20.  The shares closed at
$1.60, down from the prior close on Jan. 15 of $12.63, the
complaint said.

The complaint said FXCM stock "traded at artificially inflated
prices during the class period."


G. WILLI-FOOD: Four Civil Complaints in Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in
December 2013, December 2014 and April 2015, four civil complaints
and applications for their approval as class actions were filed
against the Company alleging the unlawful and misleading labeling
of products imported and sold by the Company. The complaints seek
to represent every resident of the State of Israel who purchased
products of the Company. The aggregate amount of the claims, as
estimated by the plaintiffs, is approximately NIS 37 million (USD
9.5 million). In light of the early stage of the procedures, it is
not possible at this time to provide an assessment of the chances
of success of the claims and, therefore no provision has been made
in the financial statements.


GARRETT SEAWRIGHT: "Arguedas" Suit Returns to Mexico Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2013, plaintiffs filed a class complaint in the First
Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico, against defendant
Garrett Seawright individually and as class representative for
Defendant Class of State Farm Agents Licensed to Sell Automobile
Liability Insurance in New Mexico, asserting violations of the New
Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act and alleging unfair, misleading,
deceptive or unconscionable trade practices in connection to sales
of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. On June 17, 2013,
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm)
intervened as a party defendant. On the same day, State Farm filed
a Notice of Removal with the Court, asserting subject matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). This
matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Memorandum Motion to
Strike Notice of Removal or Alternatively Remand to State Court
for Lack of Federal Jurisdiction, Defendants' Joint Response to
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs' Reply on Motion to
Remand to State Court for Lack of Federal Jurisdiction, and
Defendants' Joint Surreply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of
Their Motion to Remand.

"I have determined this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this class action and order it remanded to the First Judicial
District Court," wrote District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales in his
memorandum opinion and order dated June 3, 2015, a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1Tr0DOJfrom Leagle.com.

"I determine this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this
lawsuit. I also determine this Court is without jurisdiction to
consider State Farm's Amended Motion to Intervene. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is granted," Judge Gonzales
concluded.

The case is ARTHUR ARGUEDAS, BARBARA ARGUEDAS and HELEN BRANSFORD,
Plaintiffs, v. GARRETT SEAWRIGHT, individually and as DEFENDANT
CLASS REPRESENTATIVE for a Defendant Class of State Farm Agents
Licensed to Sell Automobile Liability Insurance in New Mexico,
Defendants, NO. CIV 13-00565 KG/KK, (D.N.M.).

Arthur Arguedas, Plaintiff, represented by David J Berardinelli --
renea@djblawfirm.com -- Berardinelli Law Firm, Daniel J O'Friel --
dan@ofrielandlevy.com -- O'Freil and Levy, PC & Pierre Levy --
pierre@ofrielandlevy.com -- O'Friel and Levy, P.C.

Barbara Arguedas, Plaintiff, represented by David J Berardinelli,
Berardinelli Law Firm, Daniel J O'Friel, O'Freil and Levy, PC &
Pierre Levy, O'Friel and Levy, P.C.

Helen Bransford, Plaintiff, represented by David J Berardinelli,
Berardinelli Law Firm, Daniel J O'Friel, O'Freil and Levy, PC &
Pierre Levy, O'Friel and Levy, P.C.

Garrett Seawright, individually and as Defendant Class
Representative for a Defendant Class of State Farm Agents Licensed
to Sell Automobile Liability Insurance in New Mexico, Defendant,
represented by Rudolph Lucero -- rlucero@mstlaw.com -- Miller
Stratvert P.A.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Intervenor
Defendant, represented by Joseph A Cancila, Jr. --
jcancila@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Neil Lloyd --
nlloyd@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Sarah A Ratliff --
sratliff@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP & Terry R. Guebert
-- tguebert@guebertlaw.com -- Guebert Bruckner P.C.


GEORGIA: Court to Hear City Employees' Challenge to Pension Reform
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Leslie, writing for Atlanta Journal Constitution, reports
that the Georgia Supreme Court will hear arguments in a class
action lawsuit filed by city employees over Atlanta's 2011 pension
reform.  A handful of employees representing nearly 6,000 fire,
police and general workers filed suit against Atlanta in late
2013, contending that the increase in their pension contributions
was in violation of their contract and, therefore,
unconstitutional.

Attorneys for Mayor Kasim Reed say the city acted lawfully in
reforming the under-funded pension system.  A Fulton Superior
Court judge ruled against the employees last year.

The workers are appealing that decision to the state's highest
court.  If the judges side with employees, Atlanta could be on the
hook for about $36 million in restitution.  According to court
filings, Atlanta anticipates that losing the legal challenge would
cost the city $160 million in prospective savings over the next 30
years.


GERON CORP: Shuman Law Firm Investigates Firm
---------------------------------------------
Shuman Law Firm said that it is investigating potential claims
against certain officers and directors of Geron Corp.  Geron is a
Menlo Park, CA-based clinical stage biopharmaceutical company.

The Firm's investigation relates to allegations raised in a class
action lawsuit against the Company concerning the Company's drug,
imetelstat, and related clinical trials which took place between
June 16, 2013 and March 11, 2014.  The class action alleges that
Geron's senior officers and directors may have known that patients
treated with imetelstat exhibited liver function abnormalities
putting them at risk for chronic liver injury but nonetheless made
statements to the public that imetelstat was safe and well-
tolerated.  When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suspended
imetelstat clinical trials on March 11, 2014 due to these liver
toxicity concerns, Geron's stock fell 62%.

The Firm is investigating whether Geron's officers' and directors'
statements may have exposed the Company to civil liability.  The
Company currently faces a class action lawsuit alleging that Geron
knew about imetelstat's harmful side effects and concealed these
facts from the public.  On April 10, 2015, U.S. District Judge
Charles R. Breyer denied, in part, Geron's motion to dismiss the
class action and the case is proceeding toward trial.

If you currently own Geron common stock and are interested in
discussing your rights, or have information relating to this
investigation, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn
toll-free at (866) 569-4531 or email Mr. Shuman at --
kip@shumanlawfirm.com -- or email Mr. Glenn at --
rusty@shumanlawfirm.com


GLK FOODS: "Jean-Baptiste" Suit Moved From Florida to Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jean-Baptiste v. GLK Foods, LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-20691, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Green Bay).  The
Wisconsin District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00636-WCG
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought by a migrant farmworker to secure and
vindicate rights afforded to him by the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act.  The Plaintiff also seeks
relief on behalf of his co-workers for the Defendant's alleged
violations of the registration verification, working arrangement
and wage payment provisions of the AWPA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Schell, Esq.
          MIGRANT FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT
          508 Lucerne Avenue
          Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819
          Telephone: (561) 582-3921
          Facsimile: (561) 582-4884
          E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bradley Scott Bell, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP PA
          407 N Howard Ave., Suite 201
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 867-4522
          Facsimile: (813) 867-4542
          E-mail: bbell@bbellpa.com

               - and -

          Gregory B. Gill, Sr., Esq.
          GILL & GILL SC
          128 N Durkee St.
          Appleton, WI 54911-5427
          Telephone: (920) 739-1107
          Facsimile: (920) 739-3027
          E-mail: gbgillsr@new.rr.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Six Class Actions Related to Hydroxycut Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015,
there were six putative class action cases related to Hydroxycut
in which the Company had been named.

In 2009, the FDA issued a warning on several Hydroxycut-branded
products manufactured by Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc.
("Iovate") based on 23 reports of liver injuries from consumers
who claimed to have used the products between 2002 and 2009. As a
result, Iovate voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut-branded
products.

Following the recall, the Company was named, among other
defendants, in multiple lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-branded
products in several states. The United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial proceedings of many
of the pending actions in the Southern District of California (In
re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No.
2087), and Iovate previously accepted the Company's tender request
for defense and indemnification under its purchasing agreement
with the Company in these matters.

As of March 31, 2015, there were 76 pending lawsuits related to
Hydroxycut in which the Company had been named: 70 individual,
largely personal injury claims and six putative class action
cases, generally inclusive of claims of consumer fraud,
misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of warranty. In May
2013, the parties to the individual personal injury cases signed a
Master Settlement Agreement, under which the Company is not
required to make any payments. Settlement payments are being made
exclusively by Iovate and dismissals are expected to be entered in
these actions in the near term. The parties in the consolidated
class actions reached a settlement, which was approved by the
Court on October 20, 2014 and which does not require the Company
to make any payments. Following final resolution of the individual
personal injury cases and the settlement of the consolidated class
action suits, all of the Hydroxycut claims currently pending
against the Company will be resolved without any payment by the
Company.


GNC HOLDINGS: Named in 31 Injury Lawsuits Over DMAA, Aegeline
-------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015,
the Company was named in 31 personal injury lawsuits involving
products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline.

Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by
third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as
1.3-dimethylpentylamine/dimethylamylamine/13-dimethylamylamine, or
"DMAA," which were recalled from its stores in November 2013,
and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company was named in 31 personal injury
lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline. As a
general matter, the proceedings associated with these cases, which
generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early
stages, and any liabilities that may arise from these matters are
not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. The Company is
contractually entitled to indemnification by its third-party
vendor with regard to these matters, although the Company's
ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims
against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the vendor
and/or its insurance coverage and the absence of any significant
defenses available to its insurer.


GNC HOLDINGS: Trial Scheduled in June 2015 in Sparling Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that one of the personal
injury suits in which the Company is named, Leanne Sparling and
Michael Sparling on behalf of Michael Sparling, deceased v.
USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al., Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego (Case No. 2013-00034663-CU-PL-CTL), filed
February 13, 2013, is the subject of pending motion for summary
judgment filed by the Company and is scheduled for trial in June
2015.


GNC HOLDINGS: Court Approved Settlement in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company previously
was named in three putative class action cases in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, one of which
was dismissed with prejudice in December 2014. The two remaining
class action claims were consolidated and, in February 2015, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
approved a settlement agreement among the parties, which does not
require any payment by the Company.


GNC HOLDINGS: Final Order Entered Dismissing Calif. Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the remaining
plaintiffs in a class action related to California Wage and Break
Claims entered into a settlement agreement with the Company in
December 2014 and the Court subsequently entered a final order
dismissing the action with prejudice.

In November 2008, 98 plaintiffs filed individual claims against
the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Orange, which was removed to the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California in February 2009. Each of
the plaintiffs had previously been a member of a purported class
in a lawsuit filed against the Company in 2007 and resolved in
September 2009. The plaintiffs alleged that they were not provided
all of the rest and meal periods to which they were entitled under
California law, and further alleged that the Company failed to pay
them split shift and overtime compensation to which they were
entitled under California law. The plaintiffs also alleged
derivative claims for inaccurate wage statements, failure to pay
wages due at termination, and penalty claims under the California
Labor Code. In June 2013, a trial was conducted with respect to
the claims of seven of the plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the Company on all claims submitted to the jury, and
the Court entered an order in favor of the Company on the one
claim submitted to the Court. A number of other plaintiffs were
dismissed from the action pursuant to stipulation and/or Court
order. The remaining plaintiffs entered into a settlement
agreement with the Company in December 2014 and the Court
subsequently entered a final order dismissing the action with
prejudice.


GNC HOLDINGS: Mediation Unsuccessful in Brewer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a mediation conducted
in April 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving the Plaintiff's claims
in the class action by Charles Brewer.

In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal
court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, Case No.
11CV3587). In October 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended
complaint alleging, inter alia, meal, rest break and overtime
violations on behalf of sales associates and assistant store
managers, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor
Standards Act class with respect to one of Plaintiff's claims, and
in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a California class, and granted
Defendant's Motion for Decertification of FLSA Collective Action.
A mediation conducted in April 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving
the Plaintiff's claims. As of March 31, 2015, an immaterial
liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements.


GNC HOLDINGS: Mediation Unsuccessful in Naranjo Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a mediation conducted
in April 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving the Plaintiff's claims
in the class action by Elizabeth Naranjo.

In February 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated sued
General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG 12619626).
The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, inter
alia, meal, rest break, and overtime violations. In October 2014,
the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class of
approximately 900 current and former managers.  A mediation
conducted in April 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving the
Plaintiff's claims. As of March 31, 2015, an immaterial liability
has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements.
FLSA Matters.


GNC HOLDINGS: Parties Settled Claims in "Vargas" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in June 2010, Dominic
Vargas and Anne Hickok, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation and the
Company in federal court (U.S. District Court, Western District of
Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:05-mc-02025). The two-count complaint
alleged, generally, that plaintiffs were required to perform work
on an uncompensated basis and that the Company failed to pay
overtime for such work. The parties have settled the plaintiffs'
claims for an immaterial amount.


GREAT AMERICAN PLUMBING: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Nonpayment of OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Gomez, on behalf of a class of similarly situated workers v.
The Great American Plumbing Company, Inc. d/b/a $15 Sewer and
Drain Service, Mark Anthony McGinnis, and Suretec Indemnity
Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-02465 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Great American Plumbing Company, Inc. is a California
corporation that provides service and repair plumbing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
      JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP
      84 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 790
      San Jose, CA 95113
      Telephone: 408) 317-1100
      Facsimile: (408) 351-0105
      E-mail: Tomas@JAWLawGroup.Com

         - and -

      Stephan R. Wattenberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF STEPHAN R. WATTENBERG
      1074 East Avenue, Suite C
      Chico, California 95926
      Telephone: (530) 342-8930
      Facsimile: (530) 342-5625


HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Accused of Torture, Choking Kids
--------------------------------------------------
Charlene Adams, writing for Daily Mail, reports that a Florida
pediatric dentist has been accused of assault, battery, and using
his practice to torture children over several decades.

In a lawsuit, four plaintiffs allege that Dr. Howard Schneider's
dental practice in Jacksonville has little to do with dentistry,
but much to do with his 'deviant, sadistic appetites.'  The
Florida Attorney General's Office recently confirmed that
Schneider, 78, is under investigation for alleged medical fraud,
the Des Moines Register reports, but the plaintiffs hold that the
dentist is guilty of much more.  The accusations include, assault,
battery, false imprisonment, and intentionally inflicting 'severe
emotional distress.'  The class-action lawsuit describes
Schneider's practice as a 'house of horrors' and accuses the man
of physically abusing children, performing unnecessary dental
procedures, botching dental procedures, threatening his 'victims'
into silence, and refusing to answer to concerned parents and
investigators.

The suit, which seeks damages exceeding $15,000 and a jury trial,
states that attorneys for the plaintiffs have identified at least
60 of Schneider's alleged victims and suggests that there could be
as many as 1,000 -- some of whom are now adults, the Register
reports.

'When enough people come together, and they're all telling the
same story, then certainly there's a lot more creeds.  And right
now a lot of people are coming forward,' Gust Sarris, an attorney,
told the Register.  He said he has heard from former patients of
Schneider as old as 48.

Schneider is accused of choking children to the point of
unconsciousness, threatening children into silence, performing
painful procedures on children without anesthetic, and more.  The
plaintiffs attribute the man's alleged behavior to a 'psychosexual
disorder.'  They hold that the 78-year-old is a 'pathological
sadist' who experiences sexual pleasure from inflicting physical
or psychological pain on another person.  The suit alleges that in
January 2014, a child was taken to Schneider to receive two dental
caps.  Instead, the suit states, Schneider gave the child eight
telling the child's parents simply that the child 'needed caps.'
All eight of the caps fell off within one month of the treatment,
the suit alleges, and the treatment has led to health issues which
will likely lead to the child having to have several teeth
removed.

The Register reports that the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office has
been called to Schneider's practice twice -- once in 2001 and
again in 2013 -- and two malpractice suits were filed against him
in 1995 but later dismissed.


IHEARTMEDIA INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Shvarts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  iHeartMedia, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03231 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unauthorized text message calls to the cellular telephones of
consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured
by its conduct.

iHeartMedia, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a media
and entertainment company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawnj.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman*
      Courtney C. Booth
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              cbooth@edelson.com

         - and -

      Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
      THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
      39 Schindler Court
      Neptune, NJ 07753
      Telephone: (732) 455-9737
      Facsimile: (267) 737-0446
      E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


INDIANA: Bureau of Motor Vehicles Used Ambiguous Fees, Audit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Coyne, writing for wane.com, reports that the Indiana Bureau
of Motor Vehicles lacks oversight, uses a complex fee schedule
that leads to inconsistent charges for the same transactions and
may have overcharged motorists more than previously disclosed,
according to an independent audit released May 11, 2015.

The 38-page report by the accounting firm BKD LLP said that during
the audit 16 new overcharges were discovered that could mean
refunds for drivers.  BMV spokesman Josh Gillespie said the agency
won't know the amount of the overcharges or how many drivers were
affected until late June.

Those come in the wake of BMV officials acknowledging the agency
has overcharged motorists by more than $60 million since 2013.
The most recent acknowledgement came in February when Gov. Mike
Pence announced he was seeking legislation to streamline the
agency's fee structures because it had overcharged drivers $2
million in six years.

The BMV admitted last September it has overcharged state residents
$29 million in refunds and a year earlier settled a class-action
lawsuit that accused the BMV of overcharging customers $30
million.  The audit also found 10 additional undercharges to
motorists.  Gillespie said the BMV will not attempt to recover the
undercharges.

Irwin Levin, the attorney who led that class-action lawsuit and
has another lawsuit pending against the BMV, said the public
should be outraged at how incompetently the agency has been run.
"I'm pleased that because of our lawsuit, they were put into a
corner and had to have someone do an outside investigation," Levin
said.

Kent Abernathy, who took over as BMV commissioner, said internal
improvements already have begun, including the hiring of a chief
of staff and a new chief information officer and the formation of
a central internal audit team.

"The assessment provides areas of focus helping us put together an
aggressive and transformational agenda focusing on legislative,
operations and systems adjustments," Abernathy said in a prepared
statement.

The report said the BMV is responsible for administering 1,200
unique fees and taxes and that fees did not always match the names
in the code, requiring judgment and creating a risk of error by
workers. The report recommended that the

BMV not only work with the Legislature to review, reduce and
simplify the code structure, but also demonstrate a commitment to
establish a workforce capable of supporting the agency's mission.

BKD also recommended that agency management evaluate the
effectiveness and proficiency of key leadership positions and "act
as necessary to address shortcomings."

"The current culture operates in a reactive mode versus
proactively monitoring for instances of noncompliance or control
failures," the report found.  "Without an internal audit function,
there is limited assurance as to the adequacy and effectiveness of
management's internal control system and related processes."

The report said that while the branch operations were
independently audited on a consistent basis, the central office
had not been subject to an internal audit for a number of years.

BKD also found problems that allow "transactional errors to
occur."  For example, the report said the BMV has different fees
for a "plate swap" and a "plate transfer" transaction, but doesn't
clearly define when each applies.  It also doesn't say when a
registration should be treated as a new registration.
Levin said he believes a court should oversee all the refunds,
saying the BMV can't be trusted to pay back all the money it
overcharged motorists.  He has a second case pending against the
BMV that alleges the agency drivers possibly as much as $38
million in excessive charges for a number of fees and services.
Marion County Superior Court Judge John Hanley is scheduled to
hear a motion on May 18 by the BMV, which is seeking to have the
lawsuit dismissed.


INSULET CORPORATION: Briscoe & Powers Taylor Launch Probe
---------------------------------------------------------
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the
securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announce that a
federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Insulet
Corporation and several officers and directors for acts taken
during the period of February 27, 2013 to April 30, 2015.

Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are
investigating additional legal claims against the officers and
Board of Directors of Insulet.  If you are an affected Insulet
shareholder and want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the
action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via
email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com, Patrick Powers at
Powers Taylor LLP via email at shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or
call toll free at (877) 728-9607. There is no cost or fee to you.

In the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have violated
certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that the
company was experiencing weaker demand for its products and having
problems with its sales and marketing efforts, which was causing
Insulet's financial performance to be uneven.  When the truth
emerged the Company's stock fell significantly.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC is a full service business litigation,
commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20
years of experience in complex litigation and transactional
matters.

Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a
variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims
of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression,
shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions.


INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN: Recalls Multivitamin Tablets
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
International Vitamin Corporation (IVC), of Freehold, N.J.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 17,000 Multivitamin Women
50+ tablets. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The packaging is not child-resistant and senior friendly as
required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. The multivitamin
supplement tablets inside the bottle contain iron, which can cause
serious injury or death to young children if multiple tablets are
ingested at once.

This recall involves "Well at Walgreens" Multivitamin Women 50+
tablets. The white plastic bottles contain 200 multivitamin
tablets. "Well at Walgreens Multivitamin Women 50+" is printed on
the bottle's white and silver label. A yellow band at the top of
the label states "Value Size."  UPC number 3-11917-17262-0 and one
of the following lot numbers 000001 (EXP 9/2016), 000002 (EXP
12/2016) or 000003 (EXP 11/2016) are printed on the back of the
bottles on a white label.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/x6KoaB

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Walgreens drug stores nationwide from January 2015 through
March 2015 for about $16.

Consumers should immediately place recalled bottles out of the
reach of children and contact International Vitamin Corp. for a
free replacement child-resistant cap.


JJRA22 LLC: "Fachin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeria Fachin, and other similarly situated individuals v. JJRA22
LLC d/b/a Vicolo, Flavio Santini and Pasqualino Loddi a/k/a
Pascual Loddi, Case No. 1:15-cv-22114-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 3,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Florida corporation that is
engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JR POOL: "Valdez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diosvany Valdez, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. JR Pool Plastering & Texas Gunite, Ltd. and
Refugio Oyervidez, Case No. 4:15-cv-01499 (S.D. Tex., June 3,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in 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


KARN ARJUN: Faces "Obenauf" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Obenauf and Caitlin Egan v. Karn Arjun Enterprise, LLC ,
Gayatri Management Corporation and Chhaya M. Joshi, Case No. 4:15-
cv-01119 (N.D. Ohio, June 3, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate multiple Subway sandwich franchises within
the Northern District of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard T. Bush, Esq.
      GREEN HAINES SGAMBATI CO., L.P.A.
      800 City Centre One Bldg.
      100 Federal Plaza, E P.O. Box 849
      Youngstown, OH 44501-0849
      Telephone: (330) 743-5101
      E-mail: rbush@green-haines.com


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Filed Motion to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in theirt Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the action on February 20, 2015, which was
further amended and restated on April 24, 2015 in response to the
amended and restated complaint.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended
and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting
errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment,
and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
fees and expenses. The Company believes the action lacks merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the action on February 20, 2015, which was further amended
and restated on April 24, 2015 in response to the amended and
restated complaint.

The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range
of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this
matter because the proceedings are in their early stages.


LEADING EDGE: Faces "Patton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Patton and Laura Sonn v. Leading Edge Professional Services,
P.A. and William Lanoue, Case No. 8:15-cv-01333-SDM-TGW (M.D.
Fla., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Leading Edge Professional Services, P.A. is in the business of
providing financial, accounting, and technology services to
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Kemp Brinson, Esq.
      THE BRINSON FIRM
      PO Box 582
      Winter Haven, FL 33882
      Telephone: (863) 288-0234
      Facsimile: (863) 508-7684
      E-mail: kbrinson@brinsonfirm.com


LIFELOCK INC: Response to Amended Ebarle Complaint Due
------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's response
to that amended complaint filed by Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne
Stamm was due on May 12, 2015.

The Company said, "on January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle
and Jeanne Stamm filed a nationwide putative consumer class action
against us in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The plaintiffs allege that we have
engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection
with our membership plans in violation of the Arizona Consumer
Fraud Act, and are seeking declaratory judgment under the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act.  The plaintiffs also seek certification
of a nationwide class of consumers who are or were subscribers of
our identity theft protection services since January 19, 2014,
compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. We were
served with the complaint on January 22, 2015. On March 6, we
filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on March 27, 2015. Our response to that amended complaint was due
on May 12, 2015."


LIFELOCK INC: Bid for Initial Approval of "Goldman" Deal Due
------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case
filed by Etan Goldman was scheduled to be filed on May 22, 2015.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, plaintiff Etan Goldman
filed a California putative consumer class action complaint
against us in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, California.
The complaint alleges that we violated California's Automatic
Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide
required disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and
cancellation policies.  The complaint also seeks certification of
a class consisting of all persons in California who have purchased
subscriptions to identity theft protection services from us since
December 1, 2010, injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 15, 2015, the
parties participated in a mediation, and signed a Confidential
Memorandum of Agreement for a Settlement Agreement. The motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement was currently
scheduled to be filed on May 22, 2015."


LIFELOCK INC: "Trax" Plaintiff Agreed to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Thomas A. Trax agreed
to dismiss his class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On February 2, 2015, plaintiff, Thomas A. Trax,
filed a class action complaint against us in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
complaint asserted that we violated California's Automatic Renewal
Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide required
disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and cancellation
policies. The complaint seeks certification of a class consisting
of all persons in California who have purchased products and/or
services from us as part of an automatic renewal plan or
continuous service offer since February 2, 2011, injunctive
relief, compensatory damages, restitution, a constructive trust
and/or disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs.  We have not
yet been served with the complaint. On April 15, 2015, Mr. Trax
agreed to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and we expect that
to occur shortly."


LIFELOCK INC: Waiting for Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Bien" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is waiting
for the court to rule on its motion to dismiss the class action
filed by Dawn B. Bien.

The Company said, "On March 3, 2014, Dawn B. Bien, representing
herself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired
our securities from February 26, 2013 to February 19, 2014,
inclusive, filed a class action complaint in United States
District Court for the District of Arizona alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against us, Todd
Davis, and Chris Power.  We refer to this complaint as the Bien
Complaint. On March 10, 2014, Joseph F. Scesny also filed a class
action complaint in the same court against the same parties that
made substantively similar allegations and requested substantially
similar relief as the Bien Complaint.  We refer to this complaint
as the Scesny Complaint."

"On June 16, 2014, the court consolidated the Bien Complaint and
Scesny Complaint into a single action captioned In re LifeLock,
Inc. Securities Litigation.  The court also appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.  On August 15, 2014, the lead
plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
or the Consolidated Amended Complaint, against us, Mr. Davis, Mr.
Power, and Hilary Schneider seeking to represent a class of
persons who acquired our securities from February 26, 2013 to May
16, 2014, inclusive, or the Class Period.  The Consolidated
Amended Complaint alleged that we, along with Ms. Schneider and
Messrs. Davis and Power, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements,
or failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of our
business, operational, and compliance policies, including with
regard to certain of our services, our data security program, and
our and Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC Order.   The
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that, as a result, certain
public statements made by Ms. Schneider and Messrs. Davis and
Power during the Class Period, and certain of our financial
statements issued during the Class Period, were false and
misleading.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought
certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

"On September 15, 2014, we, along with Ms. Schneider and Messrs.
Davis and Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint. A hearing on our motion to dismiss was held on
December 1, 2014.   On December 17, 2014, the court dismissed the
Consolidated Amended Complaint and gave the lead plaintiff 21 days
to seek leave to amend. The lead plaintiff filed his Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint, on January 16, 2015. The Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint no longer names Ms. Schneider as a
defendant, but otherwise makes substantively similar allegations
as the Consolidated Amended Complaint. It alleges that we, along
with Messrs. Davis and Power, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading
statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding
certain of our business, operational, and compliance policies,
including with regard to certain of our services, our data
security program, and our and Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC
Order. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that, as
a result, certain public statements made by Messrs. Davis and
Power during the Class Period, and certain of our financial
statements issued during the Class Period, were false and
misleading. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and
attorney's fees and costs. We, along with Messrs. Davis and Power,
filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint on January 30, 2015. A hearing on our motion to dismiss
was held on March 16, 2015. We are waiting for the court to rule
on our motion."


LENDINGTREE INC: District Court Stayed "Dijkstra" Case
------------------------------------------------------
LendingTree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the district court has
stayed the matter, Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan
Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV),
pending plaintiffs' investigation and subsequent report to the
district court as to whether any class members will seek trials on
individual damages.

In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in
Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry
Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges
that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West
Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the
practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision
of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to
close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory
judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation
of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"),
violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act,
civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all
defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc.
have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in
October 2011.

On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class
certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment,
contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class
included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after
November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose
loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of
a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. In
February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each
party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class
Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment
with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and
violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary
judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied
HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims
applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"),
HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC
and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June
2014.

In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the
amount of $2.8 million. A reserve of $2.8 million has been
established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated
balance sheet as of March 31, 2015, of which some or all may be
covered by insurance. HLC filed a notice of appeal in August 2014
and in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit determined that the district court's order was not yet
final, and, accordingly, HLC's appeal was dismissed. HLC intends
to renew its appeal following the issuance of a final order by the
district court. The district court has stayed this matter pending
plaintiffs' investigation and subsequent report to the district
court as to whether any class members will seek trials on
individual damages.


LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Securities Case Settlement Wins Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd., a global online retail company
that delivers products directly to consumers around the world,
disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York has entered a final Order approving
settlement of In re LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd. Securities
Litigation, No. 13-cv-6016 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed in 2013 on
behalf of a class consisting of those persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's American Depository Receipts
(ADRs) between June 6, 2013 and August 19, 2013.

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alan Guo, commented, "We are
pleased to have received approval of the settlement, which we
believe is in the best interest of the Company and its ADR
holders.  We look forward to continuing to focus on growing and
strengthening our business."

The Court's final Order, which directs that a judgment of
dismissal be entered, concludes this litigation against the
Company and certain current or former executive officers.  There
having been no objections to the settlement filed with the Court,
the final Order will become non-appealable on June 8, 2015, and
the settlement will become effective on June 9, 2015.

                  About LightInTheBox Holding

LightInTheBox is a global online retail company that delivers
products directly to consumers around the world.


LIVING SPACES: "Hill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hill, as individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Living Spaces Furniture, LLC and DOES 1
through 10, Case No. 3:15-cv-01245-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., June 3,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Living Spaces Furniture, LLC owns and operates retail furniture
stores in San Diego County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removed "Bychkowski" Suit to N.J. Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Demetri Bychkowski and Sherry
Bychkowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC,
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Services,
LLC and John Does (1-300), Case No. CAM L 1135 15, was removed
from the Camden County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-03305-RMB-JS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleged marketing fraud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alfred Michael Anthony, Esq.
      WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER
      90 Woodbridge Center Drive
      Woodbridge, NJ 07095
      Telephone: (732) 855-6097
      E-mail: aanthony@wilentz.com

         - and -

      Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
      James A. Barry, Esq.
      Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
      LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC
      801 N. Kings Highway
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 663-8200
      Facsimile: (856) 823-1551
      E-mail: abell@lockslaw.com
              jbarry@lockslaw.com
              mgalpern@lockslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Brian M. Gerstein, Esq.
      HARKAVY GOLDMAN GOLDMAN & GERSTEIN
      1129 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 214
      West Caldwell, NJ 07006
      Telephone: (973) 882-3555
      Facsimile: (973) 882-8717
      E-mail: bgerstein@harkavygoldman.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Insurers Want Out Amid Scandal
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle Celarier, writing for New York Post, reports that Lumber
Liquidators' fight against claims its China-sourced laminate
flooring contained unsafe levels of formaldehyde could get a lot
tougher.  Many of the retailer's product liability insurance
carriers are refusing to defend the company in class-action suits
brought by unhappy customers -- forcing the company to file suit
against the insurers, court papers filed in a Wisconsin state
court reveal.  If forced to defend and ultimately pay out on those
claims, Lumber Liquidators would spend tens of millions of
dollars, one class-action lawyer said.

In an April 27 action, the Toano, Va., company sued Wausau
Business Insurance, Liberty Mutual and other insurance companies
for breach of contract.

Lumber Liquidators told The Post that the insurers "are arguing
that some of the fine print in those policies lets them off the
hook."

"This is a contract dispute . . . over how some of the terms
should be construed or defined," the company said in a statement
to The Post.  "The insurers made a promise to defend Lumber
Liquidators and they are now attempting to break that promise. "

A Lumber Liquidator spokesman said the case has nothing to do with
the merits of the class-action cases.

The retail chain first came under fire for its China-made laminate
flooring on March 1 when a "60 Minutes" segment claimed
formaldehyde levels in the flooring exceeded levels deemed safe by
California regulators, the only state that regulates the known
carcinogen.  The company said it would no longer sell the
controversial flooring.

The retailer is asking the court to declare that the insurers are
"obligated to defend" the company and required to pay any
judgments or settlements, according to court filings.  It claims
the insurers have promised to pay damages due to "bodily injury"
or "property damage."

Liberty Mutual is also asking Lumber Liquidators to pay a
"retrospective premium" of more than $2,000 per claimant as
compensation for sending denial letters to plaintiffs suing the
retailer in the class-action suits, according to court documents.
Liberty Mutual had already sued Lumber Liquidators in a Virginia
federal court, claiming it has no duty to defend the company due
to a "total pollution exclusion" clause in all the policies.

Lumber Liquidators, in a recent regulatory filing, said it
maintains "insurance against some forms of product liability
claims, but such coverage may not be available or adequate for the
liabilities actually incurred."


MARRIOTT INT'L: Cross-Appealed on Statute of Limitations Grounds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs have
filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, and the Company has cross-appealed on statute of
limitations grounds.

The Company said, "On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott
employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a putative class action
complaint against us and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"),
alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock
granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees
for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more
rapid than those set forth in the awards. The action was brought
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
(Greenbelt Division), and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P.
Steigman were the remaining named plaintiffs. Class certification
was denied, and on January 16, 2015, the court granted Marriott's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs
have filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, and we have cross-appealed on statute of
limitations grounds."


MASTERCARD INC: Judge in Data Breach Case Won't Bar Target Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the judge
overseeing litigation over Target's epic 2013 data breach has
serious qualms about Target's $19 million deal with MasterCard,
which proposes to resolve claims by banks that issue MasterCard
credit and debit cards.  But in a ruling, U.S. District Judge Paul
Magnuson of St. Paul, Minnesota, said there's nothing he can do to
stop it.

He refused to enjoin Target and MasterCard from notifying banks of
their right to participate in the proposed settlement, which
requires the banks to release claims in the data breach
litigation.  Those banks have until May 20 to decide whether to
accept the MasterCard deal or continue litigating in a class
action in Magnuson's court.

In the opinion, the judge reiterated concerns he first expressed
at a hearing in April on a motion by class action lawyers to
enjoin Target from sending banks notice of the MasterCard
proposal.  "At the very least, the way this issue has arisen is
neither fair nor is it how the court expects attorneys to conduct
themselves in litigating matters before the court," Judge Magnuson
said in an opinion.  "But the court cannot enjoin a proposed
settlement in this situation because it suspects that neither the
settlement nor the putative class's options are completely fair.
The court may act only if there is 'misconduct of a serious
nature.'  Although the settlement may not 'pass the smell test,'
as the saying goes, it is not serious misconduct."

Lawyers for an uncertified class of banks that incurred expenses
related to their customers' compromised credit and debit cards -
through fraudulent purchases and the cost of replacing cards - had
accused Target of circumventing the class action to settle the
banks' claims on the cheap.  Class counsel Charles Zimmerman of
Zimmerman Reed and Karl Cambronne of Chestnut Cambronne claimed
the deal was improper because Target didn't include them in its
negotiations with MasterCard even though the proposed deal affects
their clients.  They also contended the notices Target sent to
banks eligible to participate in the settlement were misleading
because they misstated the percentage of costs banks would be able
to recover.  Finally, they argued eligible banks would feel
pressured to accept the MasterCard deal for fear of endangering
their relationship with MasterCard.

Target counsel Douglas Meal of Ropes & Gray said at a hearing that
under precedent from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Target
and MasterCard have every right to offer a settlement to banks in
the class action because the class has not yet been certified.
Meal also said there's no evidence that banks will feel coerced,
and every bank will be able to see MasterCard's calculation of the
bank's fraud losses before banks decide whether to take the
MasterCard deal.

Class counsel had asserted that MasterCard estimated total fraud
losses from the data breach for MasterCard issuing banks to be
about $80 million.  Meal said the actual estimate is more like $15
million.

In the ruling, Judge Magnuson agreed with Target that under 8th
Circuit precedent, Target was indeed free to negotiate and settle
with potential class members without his oversight.  He also ruled
that the settlement notices Target sent to eligible banks are not
misleading and that class counsel hadn't shown evidence of
MasterCard attempting to strong-arm its issuing banks into taking
the deal.  Without signs of actual misconduct, the judge said, his
hands are tied.

"We're pleased that Judge Magnuson recognized it would not be
appropriate to enjoin the settlement we reached with Target," a
MasterCard representative said in an email statement.  "Each
impacted bank and credit union will review the terms and make an
independent decision on whether to accept the settlement."  A
Target spokeswoman said, "We are pleased with the court's decision
which we believe will allow us to resolve claims with
participating MasterCard issuers and avoid protracted litigation
with those issuers."

In a statement, class counsel Zimmerman and Cambronne said the
ruling was "a harsh indictment" of Target's deal with MasterCard
that "should give financial institutions great pause before
accepting this flawed and inadequate settlement."  They are out of
legal options to block banks from considering the offer but said
they would continue to urge potential class members not to take
Target's offer.

Judge Magnuson's refusal to block the deal, however grudging,
marks the third time a data breach defendant has resolved claims
by financial institutions by settling with a credit care issuer.
The previous two cases involved data breaches at T.J. Maxx, which
in 2007 agreed to a $40 million deal with Visa; and Heartland
deals in 2010 with Visa, MasterCard and American Express for more
than $100 million.


MCCALLUM GROUP: Removes "Moreno" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Moreno, et al. v. McCallum Group
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 15-007284, was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-61124-KMW to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lee John Harang, Esq.
          FULLER HOLSONBACK & MALLOY PA
          400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1500
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229-9119
          Facsimile: (813) 229-3415
          E-mail: lharang@gjtbs.com

               - and -

          Autumn Price George, Esq.
          GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS, BURR & SMITH
          620 East Twiggs Street, Suite 303
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 977-1200
          Facsimile: (813) 977-1288
          E-mail: ageorge@gjtbs.com


MCCLURE AND STEVENSON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Sanders, Ariana Thompson, Tanika Jones, Alexis Thompson, and
Zacka Gomes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McClure And Stevenson Investments, LLC and Felisha
Stevenson, Case No. 1:15-cv-02007-SCJ (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles R. Bridgers
      Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
      Matthew W. Herrington
      DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
      3100 Centennial Tower
      101 Marietta Street
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 979-3171
      Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
      E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
              charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
              matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com


MCGILL HEALTH CENTRE: Sued Over Building Construction Noise
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Defrel, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that the
newly-formed Neighbours of the Glen Campus has named as defendants
in the court motion the McGill University Health Centre, design-
build contractor SNC-Lavalin, the private consortium that will
maintain the superhospital as well as one of the partners,
Innisfree.

"We were told there would be a solution in March and nothing came
to pass," said York Ave. resident Marc Felgar, who has complained
that the noise "sounds like you're on the tarmac of an airport."

"This legal step was taken as a last resort after exhausting all
other avenues."

It's not just the residents who are upset.  The city of Westmount
has also criticized both the MUHC and SNC-Lavalin for not coming
up with a satisfactory solution to eliminate the noise from the
$1.3-billion superhospital.

Felgar said tests by sound engineers in his bedroom at nighttime
have recorded noise levels above 50 decibels -- well above the
municipal bylaw.  To cope with the problem, he has shut his
windows and keeps a fan on all night.

"From our perspective, there has been no improvement at all," he
added.  "I would welcome anybody to come to my backyard to tell me
whether it's pleasant and peaceful."

Julie Paquet, a spokesperson for the MUHC redevelopment, emailed
the Montreal Gazette a statement saying that the hospital network
is working "urgently" with its partner to solve the noise problem.

"While the MUHC would naturally prefer that operational noise not
be an issue, we recognize that it is a source of concern for our
community," the statement said.

"The MUHC is committed to working with our private partner, the
Groupe Immobilier Sante McGill (GISM), to ensure that it acts
urgently to respect its obligations and put in place a long-term
solution that complies with regulatory requirements.

"Major work to the main ventilation ducts and several parts of the
air extraction system in Block E (the Research Institute) were
conducted in January to enhance air circulation and reduce load
and pressure on various components of the ventilation and air
extraction systems," the statement added.  "SNC-Lavalin, Pomerleau
Verreault Consortium and Silentec experts have already begun a
second phase of work, with a series of consultations, studies and
computer simulations.  The next step will be to conduct a variety
of acoustic and mechanical readings to assess the improvements."

Paquet was unable to specify when those readings will be
conducted.

Louis-Antoine Paquin, manager of media relations at SNC-Lavalin,
released a statement saying that the engineering firm "received
notification of this lawsuit [May 8] end of day.  We are currently
reviewing it and will not make any comments at this point."

Questioned about the issue in November, an SNC-Lavalin official
said in an email that the company "is looking into concrete and
long-term solutions" that included attaching noise mufflers to the
ventilation system.

The motion, filed in Quebec Superior Court, seeks annual damages
of $5,000 per person "for residents' lost use and enjoyment of
their property and violation of their right to a healthful
environment."  The area covered by the court motion is bounded by
C“te-St-Antoine Rd. to the north, Landsdowne Ave. to the east,
Marlowe Ave. to the west in N.D.G. and Ste-Catherine St. and de
Maisonneuve Blvd. to the south.


MICREL INC: Ryan & Maniskas Launched Probe Over Sale to Microchip
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is investigating potential claims against the
board of directors of Micrel Inc. concerning possible breaches of
fiduciary duty and other violations of law related to the
Company's efforts to sell the Company to Microchip Technology
Incorporated in a transaction valued at approximately $839
million.

If you own shares of Micrel and would like to learn more about
this class action or if you wish to discuss these matters and have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mcrl. You
may also email Mr. Maniskas at -- rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Micrel would
receive $14.00 in cash for each share of Micrel they own.

Our investigation concerns possible breaches of fiduciary duty and
other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of Micrel
for not acting in the Company's shareholders' best interests in
connection with the sale process.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.


MISSOURI: Atheist Prisoner Loses Bid to Represent Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR, reports that a Missouri inmate
who says he was denied parole because, as an atheist, he refused
to participate in faith-based substance abuse programs has lost
Round 2 of his fight against prison authorities.

Randall Jackson, who was convicted of offenses related to driving
while intoxicated, claims prison officials unlawfully conditioned
his parole on his attendance in Alcoholics Anonymous, which
requires participants to recognize and rely on a "higher power."

In April 2012, U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr.
dismissed the class-action lawsuit Jackson had filed on behalf of
other atheist inmates, but in 2014 the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals reinstated it.

The appeals court ruled that, while inmates had no constitutional
right to early parole, the requirement that Jackson attend a
program with religious content violated the First Amendment's
Establishment Clause.

The case was sent back to the trial court, and Gaitan refused to
certify Jackson's lawsuit as a class action. This time he ruled
that Jackson had failed to meet the "numerosity" requirement of a
class action, or the idea that the class is so big that adding its
members to an individual lawsuit would be impractical.

Jackson had proposed a class of all prisoners in the Missouri
Department of Corrections "who do not believe in a god."  He also
proposed a subclass of prisoners who do not believe in a god and
"who are eligible for substance abuse treatment programs."

Jackson reckoned that 1,710 of Missouri's 30,000 inmates are
atheists or agnostics, extrapolating from a 2012 Pew Research poll
that said that 5.7 percent of Americans self-identified as
atheists or agnostics.  He said that even if only 1 percent of the
inmate population was atheist or agnostic, that still added up to
300 prisoners.

Gaitan, however, said that Jackson had failed to demonstrate
numerosity.  He said it was unclear whether the Pew poll was
reliable and whether the percentage of atheist or agnostic
prisoners correlates with that of the U.S. population at large.

Gaitan didn't slam the door entirely on Jackson, however.  He said
if Jackson were able to develop evidence supporting numerosity,
"the Court may reconsider its position."


MOBILEIRON INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
notifies investors in MobileIron, Inc. of the June 30, 2015
deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action lawsuit filed against MobileIron and
certain executives.

A complaint has been filed in the Northern District of California
on behalf of all persons who purchased MobileIron securities from
February 13, 2015 through April 22, 2015 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated
federal securities laws with respect to its disclosures concerning
its business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, the action alleges that during the Class Period, the
Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that MobileIron had unrealistic expectations of meeting
first quarter 2015 guidance as a result of not being able to close
large customers and a continuing shift in the Company's customers
using subscription services instead of perpetual licenses.

On April 22, 2015, MobileIron announced lower revenue guidance due
in part to the inability to close large deals and a shift by
customers to monthly subscription offerings.  The Company also
announced the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer.

Following this news, the price of MobileIron's stock declined by
$2.39 per share, or over 25%, to close at $7.11 on April 23, 2015.

Request more information now by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/MOBL. There is no cost or obligation to you.
Take Action

If you invested in MobileIron stock or options during the Class
Period and would like to discuss your legal rights, visit
www.faruqilaw.com/MOBL. You can also contact us by calling Richard
Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by
sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
also encourages anyone with information regarding the Company's
conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a national law firm which represents
investors and individuals in class action litigation.  The firm is
focused on providing exemplary legal services in complex
litigation in the areas of securities, shareholder, antitrust and
consumer litigation, throughout all phases of litigation.  The
firm has an experienced trial team which has achieved significant
victories on behalf of the firm's clients.


MOLYCORP INC: Deadline to Amend Complaint Has Expired
-----------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit had until May 29, 2015 to
amend their Complaint.

The Company said, "In February 2012, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Colorado Federal District Court against
us and certain of our current and former executive officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. A Consolidated
Class Action Complaint filed on July 31, 2012 also named most of
our Board members and some of our stockholders as defendants,
along with other persons and entities. On March 31, 2015, the
Colorado Federal District Court granted our motion to dismiss that
Complaint without prejudice. The plaintiffs have until May 29,
2015 to amend their Complaint. We believe that this lawsuit is
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims."


MOLYCORP INC: Continues to Defend Against Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against
the claims in two purported class action lawsuits.

The Company said, "In August 2013, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us and certain of our current and
former executive officers, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
filed on May 19, 2014, also named us and certain of our current
and former executive officers. On March 12, 2015, the Federal
Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order
dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. On April 1, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of certain portions
of the dismissal order. Our response to the reconsideration motion
is due May 13, 2015. We believe that this lawsuit is without
merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims."


MONEY STORE: Borrowers Can't Pursue Class Suit Over Legal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that borrowers accusing
former mortgage lender the Money Store of fraud for allegedly
charging them improper legal fees have lost their latest bid to
pursue their case as a class.  In a decision, a three-judge panel
for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the
borrowers' case, which was denied class action status by a lower
court in February. Borrowers were represented by Paul S. Grobman,
who could not immediately be reached for comment.


NEBRASKALAND INC: Accused in New York of Violating FMLA and FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ahamad Karim v. Nebraskaland, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04079-AKH
(S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2015) is brought to recover declaratory relief,
monetary damages, injunctive, equitable and affirmative relief
based upon the Defendant's alleged violations of the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law and other laws and regulations.

Mr. Karim is a resident of the County of Queens, New York.  He
allegedly suffered from a "serious health condition."  Throughout
his entire employment with the Defendant, spanning approximately
12 years, he was employed as a truck driver.

Nebraskaland, Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation
with its principal place of business located in Bronx, New York.
The Company is a meat distribution company in the New York
Metropolitan area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Teitler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM L. TEITLER, ESQ.
          45-18 Court Square, Suite 400
          Long Island City, NY 11101
          Telephone: (718) 392-3483
          E-mail: williamlteitleresq@gmail.com


NEW ORLEANS: Residents Question Payment to Special Master
---------------------------------------------------------
Ricard A. Webster, writing for NOLA.com, reports that more than
5,000 people who lived and worked in a community the city of New
Orleans allowed to be built on top of a toxic waste dump were
recently awarded $14.2 million as part of a class action lawsuit.
To help disburse the money, Orleans Civil District Court Judge
Tiffany Chase appointed Paul Valteau in February 2014 to serve as
special master, an individual the court typically hires to assist
in complicated cases.  Bourgeois Bennett CPAs was chosen as claims
administrator.

Valteau, with help from the Metairie accounting firm, reviewed
thousands of claims forms from residents of the Agriculture Street
Landfill, located on a 45-acre tract of land in the Upper 9th
Ward.  He determined who was eligible to be paid and how much they
would receive.  He also helped to establish administrative court
costs and the fees for the five attorneys representing the
residents.

The attorneys, who worked the case for several decades, were given
40 percent of the judgment for an average of $1.1 million per
lawyer.  The court set aside 10 percent, or $1.4 million, to pay
for its own administrative costs, which included compensation for
Valteau. That left $7.1 million for more than 5,000 residents,
some of who lived on the toxic dump for more than 30 years.  Their
settlement checks amounted to a few thousand dollars per person.

Now, residents are raising questions about the fairness of the
disbursement process after learning that Chase and Valteau have a
longstanding relationship.

Valteau served as Chase's campaign chairman in 2007 and has
donated thousands of dollars to the judge's political campaigns
over the years.  That includes $3,100 in July 2014, five months
after he was appointed special master.  Valteau has also been
referred to as Chase's "godfather."

Shannon Rainey, who has lived on the landfill site since 1981,
said Chase's appointment of Valteau looks like the judge was doing
a special favor for a close friend, handing him an opportunity to
make more than $1 million from a fund meant to compensate the
residents for decades of hardship.

"Everyone made a lot of money except the people who suffered,"
said Rainey who received $6,237.97 for property damage and
emotional distress.  "It doesn't look right."

Chase referred a reporter's questions to Civil District Court
spokesman Walt Pierce, who defended the appointment.

"Valteau is uniquely qualified and was selected as a result of his
. . . wealth of experience, knowledge of law as well as ability to
apply the proper policies and procedures," Pierce said in an
emailed response.  "He was called upon many times during his
tenure as Civil Sheriff by the judges of Civil District Court to
assist on cases."

Valteau, who didn't respond to requests for comment, served as
Orleans Parish Civil Sheriff for 28 years.  He chose not to run
against Sheriff Marlin Gusman in 2010 after the civil and criminal
sheriff's offices were consolidated into one agency.  He is now a
partner at the law firm Valteau, Harris, Koenig & Mayer.

Pierce also added that Valteau is not Chase's actual godfather and
is only referred to as such informally.

"Judge Chase was raised in the Catholic Church and was not
christened by Mr. Valteau," Pierce said.  "He is not her godfather
in the traditional Catholic sense of the term.  He is a longtime
friend of the Chase family."

The controversy is just the latest to arise from the Agriculture
Street Landfill.  Between 1969 and 1980, the city and the Housing
Authority of New Orleans built two residential communities, Press
Park and Gordon Plaza, on the former site of the city's waste
dump.  They rented and sold homes without telling residents about
the land's history, according to court documents.

After the federal government in 1994 declared that the community
was a Superfund site, one of the most contaminated in the country,
the residents filed a class action lawsuit which they won in 2006.

The court found the city, the Housing Authority of New Orleans and
the Orleans Parish School Board, which built Moton Elementary
School on the site, liable for property damage and emotional
distress.  They have denied responsibility and refused to pay the
residents any compensation.

The court has not yet established an amount owed by the city, HANO
and the School Board but ordered former insurers of the housing
authority to pay $14.2 million.

Suzette Bagneris, one of five plaintiffs' attorneys who worked the
landfill case, defended Chase and Valteau.  The plaintiffs
requested the court appoint a special master and had no objections
when Valteau was selected, she said.

"There has been nothing inappropriate, unethical or illegal about
the court's appointment of Mr. Valteau to serve as a special
master in this case," Bagneris wrote to Joshua Allen, a former
resident of the landfill, after he raised questions about Chase
and Valteau.  "Additionally, he has served the court and the class
in a highly professional manner.  At all times, Mr. Valteau has
evaluated the claims of class members in a fair and impartial
manner."

Bagneris ran against and lost to Chase in the 2007 election for
the Civil District Court seat.  At the time, she criticized Chase
for being the candidate of a political machine headed by Valteau
and Clerk of Court Dale Atkins, who also ran Chase's successful
2014 campaign.  But now Bagneris says Chase and Valteau's ties are
irrelevant because they are not related by blood.  She cited an
article in the Louisiana Civil Code that requires judges to recuse
themselves if attorneys or parties appearing before them are their
spouses, parents, children or immediate family members.

"Assuming for argument's sake that Judge Chase is the 'godchild'
of Paul Valteau that has no bearing in this case, and does not
serve as a bar to his appointment as special master," Bagneris
said.

That's not entirely true, said Greg Smith, an ethics professor at
Louisiana State University's Paul M. Hebert Law Center.  He noted
the Louisiana Code of Judicial Conduct states judges "shall act at
all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," and that judges
"shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships
to influence judicial conduct or judgment."

The code also states a "judge should avoid appointments which tend
to create the appearance of impropriety.  A judge shall not
approve the compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of
services rendered."

While Chase might not have done anything illegal, her appointment
of Valteau is on thin ethical grounds in that it created an
appearance of impropriety, causing the residents to question the
integrity of the court, Smith said.  Smith pointed to the case of
St. Charles Parish District Court Judge Kirk Granier, who the
Louisiana Supreme Court censured in 2005 for hiring his
girlfriend, Tanya LeBlanc, as an independent contractor to
summarize medical records for 19 cases.

LeBlanc, a registered nurse with 23 years of experience, was
qualified for the job, but her hiring "brought the judicial office
into disrepute," the court determined.

Granier "allowed a social relationship to influence his judicial
conduct" and violated the judicial code of ethics by creating the
appearance of impropriety, the court stated in its censure ruling.

"The judge was actually apologetic about it and said, 'I didn't
realize this was going to look bad and I apologize for that,'"
Smith said.  "Nevertheless, the court said, 'Well, it did look bad
so we're going to censure you.'  The fact that you didn't intend
to do evil is not the question.  It just didn't look right. It
didn't pass the smell test."

Chase's appointment of Valteau treads similar ground, Smith said.

"The code is telling us, 'Don't do things that look bad because we
want the public to have confidence in the judiciary.  We want the
public to believe that justice is blind,'" Smith said.
"Obviously, judges are human beings and they make errors, but you
don't want to make decisions that are intended to benefit your
family and friends and people you're close to.  If you make an
error, you make a legal error.  You make a judgment error. But not
an error to favor people."

As for the $1.4 million paid to Valteau and his team for a year's
work, Smith said, "Nice job when you can get it."

Correction: The story initially stated that Paul Valteau was Judge
Tiffany Chase's campaign manager.  He was her campaign chairman.


NEW YORK CAFETERIA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Romero-Barron, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. New York Cafeteria Inc. d/b/a New
York Deli and Kostas Kaloudis, Case No. 1:15-cv-03228 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 3, 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 restaurant located at 2109 and
2330 Borden Avenue, Flushing, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHLAND GROUP: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Norma I. Santiago, On behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Northland Group Inc., Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC
and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-03608-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.,
May 28, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


NUCOR STEEL: Appeals Court Revives Class Action Claim
-----------------------------------------------------
The Republic reports that a federal appeals court says black
employees at a South Carolina steel mill can pursue a class-action
lawsuit claiming racial discrimination in promotions.  The lawsuit
by black workers at Nucor Steel in Charleston raises claims of a
racially hostile environment as well as discrimination in
promotions.  In a 2-1 decision on May 11, a panel of the 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that a judge improperly
decertified the class on the promotions claim.  The judge left the
class intact on the hostile workplace claim.

The appeals court said the judge erroneously relied on a 2011 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling that more than half a million female
employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. failed to prove they had enough
in common to pursue a class-action sex discrimination suit.


OLD DOMINION: Removed "Monge" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Luis Monge, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Old Dominion Freight Line,
Inc., Case No. BC578553, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03631-DDP-SS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Trush, Esq.
      TRUSH LAW OFFICES
      695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (714) 384-6390
      E-mail: jtrush@earthlink.net

         - and -

      Brennan S. Kahn, Esq.
      Todd H. Harrison, Esq.
      PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN AND MENDOZA
      300 East San Antonio Dr
      Long Beach, CA 90807-0948
      Telephone: (562) 426-6155
      Facsimile: (562) 490-9823
      E-mail: brennankahn@plblaw.com
              toddharrison@plblaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
      Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq.
      Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      1800 Century Park East 8th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 315-8200
      Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
      E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
              skim@mcguirewoods.com
              mkane@mcguirewoods.com


PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: To File Motion to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted, including by
filing a motion to dismiss in a class action lawsuit.

On October 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and three of its current officers, Nicholas R. Lovallo v.
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06172-WHW-
CLW. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised
on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-
disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of April 9, 2012 to September 24, 2014.

The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted,
including by filing a motion to dismiss. Given the early stage of
the litigation, at this time the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate possible losses or form a judgment that an unfavorable
outcome is either probable or remote. It is not currently possible
to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will
have a material adverse effect on the Company.


PALI DESIGN: Recalls Children's Furniture Due to Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pali Design Inc., of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about
18,000 Children's furniture in the U.S. and 2,160 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The plastic restraint strap used to attach armoires, combos,
dressers and hutches to a wall can break and allow the unit to tip
over. Falling furniture can result in a wide range of injuries to
young children, from soft tissue bruising to broken bones, head
injuries and death by suffocation when a child is pinned under a
heavy piece of furniture.

This recall involves Pali Design armoires, combos, dressers and
hutches sold separately or in the following collections: Karla
Collection, Mantova Collection, Milano Collection, Salerno
Collection, Volterra Collection, Wendy Collection and West Point
Collection. The recall also includes a separate bookcase/hutch
available in finishes to match the collections. The recalled
furniture was manufactured from January 2006 to September 2010.
Combos combine drawers and a cabinet in one unit.

The model number, product name and manufacture date are printed on
a white sticker on the back of the units. The manufacture date is
in the YYYY-MM-DD format. Units in the following collections, with
the following model numbers and product names are being recalled:

  Collection Name     Model Number/Product Name     Colors
  ---------------     -------------------------     ------
Milano Collection     101 Milano Combo              Mocacchino,
                                                    Natural/White
                      107 Milano Armoire

Salerno Collection    201 Salerno Combo             White,
                                                    Mocacchino,
                                                    Sienna
                      205 Salerno 5-Drawer
                      Dresser
                      206 Salerno 5-Drawer
                      Dresser

West Point Collection 705 West Point 5-Drawer       Vintage
                      Dresser                       Cherry, White
                       706 West Point Double
                       Dresser
                       707 West Point Armoire
                       709 West Point Hutch

Wendy Collection       801 Wendy Combo              Distressed
                                                    Amber,
                                                    Distressed
                                                    White,
                                                    Chocolate,
                                                    Cognac
                       805 Wendy 5-Drawer Dresser
                       806 Wendy Double Dresser
                       807 Wendy Armoire
                       809 Wendy Hutch

Mantova Collection     1004 Mantova 4-Drawer        Chocolate,
                       Dresser                      White
                       1006 Mantova Double Dresser  Vintage

Volterra Collection    1203 Volterra 3-Drawer       Cherry,
                       Dresser                      Mocacchino,
                                                    White
                       1205 Volterra 5-Drawer
                       Dresser
                       1206 Volterra Double
                       Dresser

Karla Collection       1504 Karla 4-Drawer Dresser  Cherry
                       1506 Karla Double Dresser

Bookcase/Hutch         5555 Bookcase/Hutch          Vintage
                                                    Cherry,
                                                    Chocolate,
                                                    Mocacchino,
                                                    Sienna,
                                                    White, Cognac

The firm has received one report of a restraint strap on a Wendy
Double Dresser breaking and allowing the unit to tip over.  No
injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Independent specialty stores nationwide, at Pequeno Angelito in
San Juan, Puerto Rico and online from January 2006 to September
2010 for between $420 and $750. The Karla collection was sold
exclusively in Babies R Us stores.

Consumers should immediately place the recalled armoires, combos,
dressers or hutches out of the reach of young children and contact
Pali Design for a free retrofit kit that contains newly designed
restraint straps, mounting hardware and installation instructions.


PITTSBURGH: Police Accused of Racial Bias, to Revamp Hiring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Daley, writing for Reuters, reports that the Pittsburgh
Police Department has agreed to revamp its hiring practices in
order to settle a federal lawsuit that claimed discrimination
against African-American job applicants, Mayor Bill Peduto said.

The settlement of the class-action lawsuit also calls for the city
to pay $985,000 in total to black applicants who were shut out of
jobs open on the force between 2008 and 2014.

The city also will pay legal fees of up to $600,000, said the
city's lawyer Lourdes Sanchez-Ridge, who spoke to reporters at a
press conference with the mayor and the American Civil Liberties
Union of Pennsylvania, which filed the legal action.

In a city that is 66 percent white, according to the 2010 Census,
the police force is currently 85 percent white, according to City
Hall.  About 19.5 percent of applicants who took recent Pittsburgh
officer exams were African-American, but only 4 percent of new
hires since 2001 have been black, said ACLU legal director Witold
Walczak.  Census figures show 26 percent of Pittsburgh residents
are black.  To remedy the situation, the department has agreed to
work with outside experts to examine and revamp its hiring
practices within 24 months, the mayor's office said.

"We want to hire officers that reflect the diversity of the city
of Pittsburgh," Peduto said.  "If you see the issues that are
flaring up in city after city, you realize . . . that it can't be
solved after the fact."

The settlement comes at a time of widespread concern over
shootings by white police officers in confrontations with black
suspects after such incidents in Missouri and North Carolina
sparked a series of protests nationwide.

Pittsburgh police in the past were more likely to hire white
officers who had criminal records with minor offenses than to hire
African-Americans with the same background or even a cleaner
record, Walczak said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five black applicants who were
denied jobs with the Pittsburgh force.  Four of them have
subsequently been hired to area police forces, including one newly
hired by the Pittsburgh Police Department.

Sanchez-Ridge encouraged black candidates to apply to the next
police academy class by May 11.

"We welcome you," the city lawyer said.


PLASTIC2OIL INC: Court Gave Final Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Plastic2oil, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, that on
April 28, 2015, the court presiding over the previously reported
class action lawsuit against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and
Baldwin (both former officers of the Company) gave its final
approval of the proposed settlement set forth in the previously
reported stipulation agreement and dismissed the action.

As previously reported, on August 8, 2013, the Company entered
into a stipulation agreement (the "Stipulation Agreement") in
potential settlement of the previously reported class action
lawsuit filed by certain stockholders of the Company against the
Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin on behalf of a
settlement class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period from August 28, 2009 through January 4,
2012. The terms of the Stipulation Agreement are summarized in the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2013. Thereafter, on December
18, 2014, the Court filed and entered its Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice of Proposed
Settlement (the "Preliminary Approval Order"). In its Preliminary
Approval Order the Court preliminarily approved the settlement set
forth in the Stipulation Agreement, and scheduled a hearing on
April 27, 2015, to determine whether to give final approval of the
settlement, and enter judgment accordingly. On April 28, 2015,
following said hearing, the Court filed its Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, giving final approval of the
settlement set forth in the Stipulation Agreement and dismissing
the action.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: June 26 Hearing in "Savetsky" Class Action Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
In MICHAEL SAVETSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a LegalShield, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-03514 SC, (N.D. Cal.),
before the Court is LegalShield's motion to compel Mr. Savetsky to
arbitrate his claims in this putative consumer class action. The
motion is now fully briefed, however, because the parties have
overlooked an important issue, District Judge Samuel Conti ordered
supplemental briefing in a ruling entered May 22, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://bit.ly/1GBI1YFfrom Leagle.com.

The Court previously denied a motion to compel arbitration under
LegalShield's membership agreement, finding that Mr. Savetsky
never assented to the arbitration provision contained in that
agreement. After the Court denied that motion, LegalShield
discovered that even prior to becoming a member, Mr. Savetsky
signed up to sell LegalShield memberships as a "sales associate."
In becoming a sales associate, LegalShield contends Mr. Savetsky
entered into an "associate agreement" containing a separate and
enforceable arbitration provision.

The parties apparently overlooked the very first line of the
arbitration clause that is at the heart of this motion, which
states that "[t]he Associate Agreement and Policies and
Procedures," which contain the arbitration provision, "will be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of Oklahoma," ruled Judge Conti.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental
briefs regarding the choice of law clause, its enforceability, and
its applicability to the motion. Briefing will take place
according to this schedule:

* No later than Friday, June 5, 2015, LegalShield will file an
opening brief of no more than 10 pages confined to these issues.

* No later than Friday, June 12, 2015, Mr. Savetsky will file a
responsive brief of no more than 10 pages confined to these
issues.

* No later than Friday, June 19, 2015, LegalShield may file a
reply of no more than five pages confined to the issues raised in
its opening and Mr. Savetsky's responsive briefs.

* The hearing currently set for May 29, 2015 has been vacated, and
the Court instead set a hearing for Friday, June 26, 2015 at 10:00
AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco Court House.

Michael Savetsky, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Nathan Cherniak --
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw, PC, Julian Ari Hammond
-- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw, PC, Todd Anthony
Seaver -- tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio & Victor
Santiago Elias -- velias@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio.

Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shannon
Z. Petersen -- spetersen@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Thomas Blanchard Snyder --
thomas.snyder@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe Dunlevy, David Edward
Snyder -- dsnyder@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin LLP & Lai
Lam Yip -- lyip@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton.


PRECIPICE GLASS: Removes "Salgado" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Salgado v. Precipice Glass,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2015008575 CA 01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22001-JLK to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Orion G. Callison, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALEXIS GONZALEZ, P.A.
          3162 Commodore Plaza, Suite 3E
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 223-9999
          Facsimile: (305) 223-1880
          E-mail: orion@aglawpa.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Removed "Pettit" Class Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jamie Pettit, an individual, on
behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly
situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. CGC 15-545175, was
removed from the California Superior Court for City of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court California Northern District
(San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-
cv-02150-EDL to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleged marketing fraud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth A. Safier, Esq.
      Adam Gutride, Esq.
      Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Esq.
      Marie Ann McCrary, Esq.
      GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 271-6469
      Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
      E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
              adam@gutridesafier.com
              Kristen@gutridesafier.com
              marie@gutridesafier.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
      Cortlin Hall Lannin, Esq.
      Sonya Diane Winner, Esq
      COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
      333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
      Redwood Shores, CA 94065
      Telephone: (650) 632-4700
      E-mail: ehenn@cov.com
              clannin@cov.com
              winnersd@cov.com


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., Alan H. Auerbach, and
Charles R. Eyler, Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal., June
3, 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.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Puma Biotechnology, Inc.
is a development stage biopharmaceutical company, focusing on the
acquisition, development, and commercialization of products to
enhance cancer care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 285-5330
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      C. Dov Berger, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              cdberger@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Preliminarily Approved Celera Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Celera and the
director and officer defendants have reached an agreement to
settle this action, which the court has preliminarily approved.

In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Celera
Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former
officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that
from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and
financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The
complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding
a financial restatement. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's
stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations
were made. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was
denied. Celera and the director and officer defendants have
reached an agreement to settle this action, which the court has
preliminarily approved. The settlement is fully covered by
insurance.


RAMART LLC: Recalls Swing Chair Products Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ramart LLC, of Tulsa, Okla., announced a voluntary recall of about
250 Swing chairs. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The swing chairs can tip over, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

This recall involves green, apple-shaped swing chairs and brown,
teardrop-shaped swing chairs. They hang from a chain connected to
a metal stand with a circle-shaped base. The chairs are made from
plastic rattan and have red cushions. The chairs measure about 42
inches in diameter and 43 inches tall with a 48 inch wide seat
cushion. The stand measures about 77 inches tall.

HomeGoods has received 11 reports of the swing chairs tipping over
with consumers in them, including four reports of injuries to
adults and a baby.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
HomeGoods stores nationwide from March 2015 through May 2015 for
about $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled swing chairs
and return them to a HomeGoods store for a full refund.


RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in Hopkins v. AECOM Case
---------------------------------------------------------
RBS Holdings N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is underway in
the case, Hopkins v. AECOM.

In 2005 RBS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd ("RBSGA"), previously ABN
AMRO Australia Pty Limited, a member of RBSH Group, was a member
of a consortium that appointed AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (formerly
known as Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd) ("AECOM") to forecast traffic
for the Clem7 Tunnel in Brisbane, Australia. Three sets of
proceedings have been brought against AECOM.

The first (Hopkins v AECOM) is a class action relating to the
initial public offer of units to retail investors in the RiverCity
Motorway Group, which operated the Clem7 Tunnel. The claim relates
to allegations that the IPO disclosure was defective, particularly
in relation to traffic volume forecasts by AECOM. The second and
third proceedings (RiverCity v AECOM and Portigon v AECOM),
involve claims of negligent misstatement and misleading or
deceptive conduct in the issuance of traffic forecasts. In all
three proceedings AECOM filed a number of cross-claims for
contribution in the event it is found liable, including against
RBSGA. On 18 July 2014, the court refused to allow the cross-
claims to proceed, except in the case of Hopkins v AECOM.
Discovery is underway.


RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in CDS Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Holdings N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is underway in
the Credit Default Swap Antitrust Litigation.

Certain members of RBS Group, as well as a number of other
financial institutions, are defendants in a consolidated antitrust
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The plaintiffs generally allege that
defendants violated the U.S. antitrust laws by restraining
competition in the market for credit default swaps through various
means and thereby causing inflated bid-ask spreads for credit
default swaps.  On 4 September 2014, the Court largely denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss this matter. Discovery is underway.


RICELAND FOODS: Faces Class Action Over GMO Rice
------------------------------------------------
Law360.com reports that in a very meta turn, Riceland Foods Inc.
found itself on the receiving end of a class action composed of
class action counsel and plaintiffs from the genetically modified
organism rice multidistrict litigation overseen by U.S. District
Judge Catherine D. Perry of the Eastern District of Missouri.

This state and federal litigation involved several thousand rice
farmers (i.e., producers) and other businesses involved in the
rice business (i.e., nonproducers) based upon the allegation that
Bayer CropScience AG's genetically modified rice had tainted the
U.S. rice supply.


ROMO BLOCK: "Reyes" Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Plaza Contracting Company, LLC, and Katz Meltzer
Construction, Co., removed the class action lawsuit entitled
Reyes, et al. v. Romo Block Inc., et al., Case No. 14-01643-CA-01,
from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-22035-JLK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

Defendants Plaza Contracting Company, LLC and Katz Meltzer
Construction, Co., are represented by:

          Jennifer T. Williams, Esq.
          Laurie Martine Weinstein, Esq.
          AKERMAN SENTERFITT
          Suntrust International Center
          1 SE 3rd Avenue, 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131-1714
          Telephone: (305) 374-5600
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
          E-mail: jennifer.williams@akerman.com
                  laurie.weinstein@akerman.com


ROSS DRESS: Faces "Sitton" Class Suit Alleging Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Sitton, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a Class
Comprised of other Similarly Situated individuals v. Ross Dress
for Less Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00851-ACC-KRS (M.D. Fla., May 27,
2015) alleges job discrimination (race).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANDISK CORP: Aug. 18 Case Mgmt Conference in "Glore" Case Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria signed on May 22, 2015, a
stipulation and order extending time to respond, and to file case
management statement, and to continue the case management
conference in TRENTON GLORE, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SANDISK CORP., SANJAY
MEHROTRA, and JUDY BRUNER, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01455-VC,
(N.D. Cal.).

On March 31, 2015, the Court entered an Order setting an initial
Case Management Conference ("CMC") for June 30, 2015, and setting
Rule 26(f), CMC, and ADR deadlines for June 9, 2015 and June 23,
2015.

As of the date of this stipulation, at least one other plaintiff
has filed a related action in the District: Glenn Bowers,
Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. SanDisk
Corporation, Sanjay Mehrotra, and Judy Bruener, Case No. 3:15-cv-
02050.

Defendants have not yet been served with the complaint in the
Bowers Action.

In light of the multiple complaints on file, the potential for
additional complaints, and the nature of Plaintiff's allegations
under the Reform Act, the Plaintiff has agreed that Defendants
need not respond to the complaint pending the appointment of a
lead plaintiff and the consolidation of any related actions,
including but not limited to the Bowers Action.

In light of the current procedural posture, and in particular, the
fact that a lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed, the parties
requested that the CMC and related CMC and ADR deadlines be
continued.

Hence, the stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1HxZxMnfrom Leagle.com, provides that:

1. Defendants need not respond to the complaint pending the
appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-
4(a)(3)(B) and the consolidation of any related actions;

2. The CMC is continued pending the appointment of a lead
plaintiff and the consolidation of any related actions. Likewise,
the deadlines for filing a Joint Case Management Statement or ADR
documents pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-4 are
continued accordingly. A case management conference is scheduled
for August 18, 2015.

BORIS FELDMAN -- bbahns@wsgr.com -- KEITH E. EGGLETON --
keggleton@wsgr.com -- MICHAEL R. PETROCELLI --
mpetrocelli@wsgr.com -- ANNE S. AUFHAUSER -- aaufhauser@wsgr.com
-- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Professional Corporation,
Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, SanDisk Corporation,
Sanjay Mehrotra, and Judy Bruner.

JEREMY LIEBERMAN -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, New
York, NY, Attorney for Plaintiff, Trenton Glore.


SCOTT CONANT: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evans Rivera, Dan Hrcsko, Mario Quimbay, John Bousante, and
Vinicio Santos, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Scott Conant, Antonello Paganuzzi, Scarpetta, LLC,
d/b/a Scarpetta, LDV Hospitality LLC, LUCKY 13 LLC and SCM
Management, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04276-RWS (S.D.N.Y., June 3,
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 restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN
      501 Fifth Ave. Suite 1900
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-8999
      Facsimile: (212) 691-2253
      E-mail: jeff@jgoldmanlaw.com


SELECT ENERGY: Faces "Coker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Coker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Select Energy Services, LLC, and John
Schmitz, Case No. 3:15-cv-00136 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants are engaged in providing oil and gas well
monitoring services to energy companies nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


SENGUPTA FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lazaro-Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Sengupta Food Services, LLC, d/b/a Soho Park
Restaurant, Ashim Sengupta, and Shawn Sengupta, Case No. 1:15-cv-
04259-RA (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 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 Soho Park restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
              pcooper@jcpclaw.com


SHO-ME POWER: KAMO-KPN Class Settlement Gets Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey approved a class settlement in
the case captioned CHASE BARFIELD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHO-ME
POWER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-
4321NKL, (W.D. Mo.).

The KAMO Class Representatives, through Class Counsel, and
Defendants KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc. and K-PowerNet, LLC
(collectively "KAMO-KPN") entered into the KAMO-KPN Class
Settlement Agreement, as of December 4, 2014.

Judge Laughrey held that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of KAMO Class
Members, and is approved in all respects.  The Court directed the
parties to perform and satisfy the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement.

Incentive awards to the KAMO Class Representatives in these
amounts are reasonable and are approved: Chase Barfield: $8,000;
and J. Carol and Rowena Hutchens: $8,000 jointly.

All Communications Claims of any Class Member (and the successors
in interest of all members of the KAMO Class) against KAMO-KPN are
dismissed. Upon the Effective Date, the dismissal will be with
prejudice.

Upon the Effective Date, all Call Members (and the successors in
interest of all members of the KAMO Class) will be barred and
permanently enjoined from instituting, asserting, or prosecuting
against KAMO-KPN or any other Released Party any and all
Communications Claims they have, had, or may have in the future,
against KAMO-KPN or any other Released Party, except any claims
for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the Court's June 1, 2015 order and judgment is available
at http://bit.ly/1QsSWITfrom Leagle.com.

Michael D Biffle, Plaintiff, represented by Cecilia Fex --
fex@ackersonlaw.com -- Kathleen C Kauffman --
kauffman@ackersonlaw.com -- Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC, Michael
Amberg, Brad A. Catlin -- bcatlin@price-law.com -- Price
Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, F. Alexander O'Neill, Henry J. Price --
hprice@price-law.com -- Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, Matthew A.
Clement -- mclement@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr,
P.C., Ronald J. Waicukauski -- rwaicukauski@price-law.com -- Price
Waicukauski & Riley, LLC & Heidi Doerhoff Vollet --
hvollet@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C.

Gina Biffle, Plaintiff, represented by Cecilia Fex, Kathleen C
Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC, Michael Amberg, Brad A.
Catlin, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, F. Alexander O'Neill,
Henry J. Price, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, Matthew A.
Clement, Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C., Ronald J.
Waicukauski, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC & Heidi Doerhoff
Vollet, Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C.

Dwight K Robertson, Plaintiff, represented by Cecilia Fex,
Kathleen C Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC, Michael Amberg,
Ronald J. Waicukauski, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, Brad A.
Catlin, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, Henry J. Price, Price
Waicukauski & Riley, LLC & Heidi Doerhoff Vollet, Cook, Vetter,
Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C.

Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative, Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Hohn -- chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson
Coburn, LLP, David L. Coffman --   dcoffman@thompsoncoburn.com --
Robert Joseph Wagner -- rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson
Coburn LLP, W. Stanley Walch -- swalch@thompsoncoburn.com -- Dana
L. Flora, Andereck, Evans, Widger, Johnson & Lewis LLC, Mark A.
Mattingly -- mmattingly@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'Aunoy
-- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- & Terry M Evans --
tevans@LawOfficeMo.com -- Andereck, Evans, Widger, Johnson &
Lewis, LLC.

Sho-Me Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Hohn, Thompson Coburn, LLP, David L. Coffman, Robert Joseph
Wagner, Thompson Coburn LLP, W. Stanley Walch, Dana L. Flora,
Andereck, Evans, Widger, Johnson & Lewis LLC, Mark A. Mattingly,
Stephen A. D'Aunoy & Terry M Evans, Andereck, Evans, Widger,
Johnson & Lewis, LLC.


SOUTHERN SPECIALTIES: Removed "Jackson" Class Suit to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Robert L. Jackson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Southern Specialties
Transportation, LLC, Case No. 15-00005-23,407, was removed from
the 24th Judicial District Court of Dewitt County, Texas to the
U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas (Victoria). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-00038 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg S. Gober, Esq.
      BLAIES & HIGHTOWER LLP
      421 W. 3rd Street, Suite 900
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 334-0800
      Facsimile: (817) 334-0574

The Defendant is represented by:

      Corey Edward Devine, Esq.
      MUSKAT, MARTINEZ & MAHONY, LLP
      1201 Louisiana, Suite 850
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 495-2329
      Facsimile: (713) 987-7854
      E-mail: cdevine@m3law.com


SOUTHWEST CARPENTERS: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Leicht" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In JOHN LEICHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE SOUTHWEST CARPENTERS PENSION
PLAN, an ERISA pension plan, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-55715,
John Leicht appealed a district court order granting summary
judgment to the Southwest Carpenters Pension Plan ("Plan").

According to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in
its memorandum dated June 1, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1Bkzwivfrom Leagle.com, "Where an ERISA plan grants
discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or
to construe the terms of the plan, we review the administrator's
interpretation for abuse of discretion and the district court's
application of this standard de novo . . . We review de novo
whether the terms of an ERISA plan are plain or ambiguous . . .
Because the Plan's interpretation of its provisions was "not
grounded on any reasonable basis," see Tapley, 728 F.3d at 1139,
we reverse."

"[W]e conclude that the term is unambiguous and that the Plan
abused its discretion when it arbitrarily construed the term to
mean only publicly-employed building inspectors. . . The Plan
provided no rational justification, either in its briefing or at
oral argument, for interpreting the term to encompass only
inspectors formally employed by a public entity. We must
necessarily reject such an arbitrary interpretation," the Ninth
Circuit added.

"Accordingly," concluded the Ninth Circuit, "because the Plan
abused its discretion when it arbitrarily interpreted the term
"building inspector" and suspended Leicht's benefits on this
basis, we reverse the district court's ruling and instruct it to
enter judgment in favor of Leicht."

Costs on appeal are awarded to Appellant.


ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL: Refuses to Give ASL Interpreter, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Cole v. St. Francis Medical Center, Case No. 1:15-cv-00098
(E.D. Mo. May 28, 2015) arises from the Defendant's alleged
refusal and failure to provide an American Sign Language
interpreter to the Plaintiff.

Ms. Cole, a resident of the state of Missouri, is profoundly deaf
and primarily communicates in ASL.

St. Francis Medical Center is a non-profit corporation organized
and operating within the State of Missouri and maintaining its
offices and principal place of business in Cape Girardeau,
Missouri.  SFMC is a place of public accommodation and is a
recipient of and accepts federal funds, including Medicaid and
Medicare funds.  SFMC is a major hospital and provider of medical
care and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth M. Chackes, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kolde, Esq.
          CHACKES, CARLSON & GOROVSKY, LLP
          906 Olive Street, Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314)872-8420
          Facsimile: (314)872-7017
          E-mail: kchackes@cch-law.com
                  dkolde@cch-law.com

               - and -

          Eric Baum, Esq.
          Andrew Rozynski, Esq.
          EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP
          24 Union Square East, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 353-8700
          Facsimile: (212) 353-1708
          E-mail: ebaum@eandblaw.com
                  arozynski@eandblaw.com


ST. LOUIS CARDINALS: Lawsuits Could Force Team Testimony
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that concussion lawsuits filed by
former St. Louis Cardinals receiver Roy Green, former Kansas City
Chiefs defensive lineman Neil Smith and their teammates could
force team officials to testify about claims they hid the risk of
repeated head injuries.

A Missouri judge ruled the Cardinals case should be heard
separately and not decided on the federal level, where it could be
combined with the recently settled federal class-action lawsuit
that could cost the NFL $1 billion or more over the next several
decades.

By settling the class-action case, the league avoided having to
offer testimony about its role in mitigating concussion injuries
over the years.

Green along with teammates J.T. Smith and Ed Scott sued their old
franchise -- now in Arizona -- in 2013, at about the same time
nearly two dozen former Chiefs, including Neil Smith and Albert
Lewis, filed a similar lawsuit against their former team.

Chiefs spokesman Ted Crews said the team didn't want to comment on
pending litigation.  The Cardinals did not respond to requests
from The Associated Press for comment.

All the players involved have opted out of the class-action
lawsuit, in hopes of having their case heard in Missouri, where
the state workers' compensation statute allows them to directly
sue the teams.  The Chiefs lawsuit is under jurisdiction of the
judge who oversaw the class-action lawsuit, Anita Brody.  She must
rule on whether that can also be sent back to state court in
Missouri.

"The move is justified," plaintiffs' attorney Ken McClain said.
"We've been proven right in doing it, because the federal
settlement provides our players with absolutely nothing.  They get
no benefits."

In the class-action lawsuit settlement, Brody agreed with a
provision that could exclude future claims involving chronic
traumatic encephalopathy -- the condition several players,
including Junior Seau and Dave Duerson, were found to have after
their brains were examined during autopsies.

CTE cannot be definitively diagnosed in the living, though Brody
called for the settlement to be revisited periodically to include
the latest science.  The settlement will pay players who suffer
cognitive injuries, all of which have strong links to CTE, though
not those who claim to suffer from CTE itself.

According to both lawsuits, the plaintiffs have developed "post-
concussion syndrome -- e.g. mood, behavior and cognitive
dysfunction -- and neurological impairments/damage, such as CTE."

McClain said when terms of the settlement were becoming clear, he
sent all his clients to be evaluated about whether any of them
would be eligible for benefits.

"None qualified," he said.

All the players in the lawsuits claim they endured concussions
between late 1987 and early 1993 when there was no NFL collective
bargaining agreement in place.


STAPLES CONTRACT: "Rosales" Removed Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Mike A. Rosales, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Staples Contract &
Commercial, Inc., Case No. CIVDS1505146, was removed from the San
Bernardino County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District Of California (Eastern Division - Riverside).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00949-JLS-DTB
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Lander, Esq.
      Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
      5670 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1460
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
      Telephone: (323) 549-9100
      Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
      E-mail: lander@kbarnes.com
              barnes@kbarnes.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Amber D. Shubin, Esq.
      David Patrick Zins, Esq.
      Karen J. Kubin, Esq.
      MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
      707 Wilshire Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 892-5285
      Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
      E-mail: ashubin@mofo.com
              dzins@mofo.com
              kkubin@mofo.com


STERLING JEWELERS: Court Tosses Tapia's Motion to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila denied a plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a first amended class action complaint in the case
captioned KATHYA TAPIA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a
Class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
STERLING JEWELERS INC., an unknown business entity; SIGNET
JEWELERS LTD, an unknown business entity, Defendants, CASE NO.
5:14-CV-00624-EJD, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint that includes
successor liability allegations against Defendants' predecessor,
Ultra Stores, Inc. ("Ultra Stores"). Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to
amend the complaint to comport with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure since the operative complaint was originally filed in
state court.

"In sum, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for modifying the
deadline of October 6, 2014 to amend the pleadings," wrote Judge
Davila in his May 22, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1L20o79from Leagle.com.  "There is no indication of
good cause that would warrant such modification, nor of
Plaintiff's diligence since by at least May 2014, Plaintiff knew
of the existence of Ultra Stores. Since the deadline to amend the
complaint has passed, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first
amended class action complaint is untimely."

Kathya Tapia, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Edward Quintilone
-- req@quintlaw.com -- II, Quintilone and Associates.

Sterling Jewelers Inc., Defendant, represented by Jesse Carter
Ferrantella -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., Timothy Lloyd Johnson --
tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart, P.C. & Spencer C. Skeen  --
spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
Stewart PC.

Signet Jewelers Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jesse Carter
Ferrantella, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C.,
Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart,
P.C. & Spencer C. Skeen, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC.


SUN-MAID GROWERS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathon Talavera, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. Sun-Maid Growers Of California
and Does 1-50, Case No. 1:15-at-00453 (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Sun-Maid Growers of California is engaged in food processing
business in Fresno County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cory G. Lee, Esq.
      THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (213) 291-3333
      Facsimile: (610) 813-4579
      E-mail: downeyjusticelee@gmail.com


SWISHER HYGIENE: Bid to Pay $185,434 in Legal Fees Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Graham C. Mullen issued an order approving a
distribution plan, and authorizing distribution of a settlement
fund in IN RE SWISHER HYGIENE, INC. SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION, Division, NO. 3:12-MD-2384-GCM, (W.D. N.C.).

The Court granted on August 6, 2014, final approval to the
settlement of this class action and retained jurisdiction to
authorize and approve the distribution of the settlement fund to
eligible class members.  Lead Plaintiffs have filed an Unopposed
Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan for Net Settlement Fund
asking the Court to (1) approve the administrative determinations
of the Claims Administrator accepting and rejecting claims; (2)
authorizing payment out of the Settlement Fund to the Claims
Administrator for its fees and expenses; (3) directing
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund consistent with the Claims
Administrator's distribution plan; and (4) authorizing destruction
of paper copies of the Proofs of Claim one year after final
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and destruction of
electronic copies three years after final distribution.

Judge Mullen's May 22, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1IML4hffrom Leagle.com, provides, among other
things, that:

* The Court finds that the procedures followed by A.B. Data, as
set forth in the Walter Affidavit, in reviewing claim forms from
Class Members are in conformity with the procedures set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement; the distribution plan for the Net
Settlement Fund set forth in the Walter Affidavit is approved and
A.B. Data's recommendation to pay Claimants identified in Exhibits
E and F to the Walter Affidavit are approved; A.B. Data's
recommendation to reject Proofs of Claim identified in Exhibit G
to the Walter Affidavit are approved.

* A.B. Data's recommendation to reject the claim identified in
Exhibit D to the Walter Affidavit is approved.

* A.B. Data's request to establish a reserve in the amount of
$100,000, or 2.5% of the Swisher Net Settlement Fund, to adjust
for any inadvertent errors in payments upon sufficient proof, the
resolution of disputed claims consistent with Court orders, and/or
to pay additional taxes, costs, and administrative fees associated
with such matters is approved.

* Lead Counsel's request to pay A.B. Data $185,434.62 in fees and
expenses is approved.


TAKATA CORP: "Johnson" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Johnson v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01112, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21994-FAM
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Henry Nicholas Didier, Jr., Esq.
          DIDIER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1203 N. Orange Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32804
          Telephone: (407) 895-3401
          Facsimile: (407) 895-3408
          E-mail: didier@productsafetyattorneys.com
                  hank@didierlaw.com


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Osler Hoskin Discusses High Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence E. Ritchie, Laura Fric and Adam Hirsh at Osler Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that the recent
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Theratechnologies Inc.
v. 121851 Canada Inc. raises interesting questions about
disclosure obligations that can be triggered by a regulator's
inquiries, and resulting class action risk if disclosure is
inadequate.

The case arose as a proposed class action brought by shareholders
of Theratechnologies Inc. ("Thera").  The plaintiff alleged that
Thera failed to adequately disclose and respond to questions that
it received from the FDA as part of the regulatory approval
process for a new drug.  The FDA questions were about side effects
of a proposed new drug.  When the questions were publicized
externally, Thera's stock dropped by 58% that same day.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim at
the leave stage, finding that the company had previously made
adequate disclosure regarding the drug's potential side effects
and about the FDA process.  The Court found that the FDA's
questions were a routine part of the regulatory process.

However, on different facts the outcome may not have been as happy
for the company.  For example, if the FDA's questions had not been
routine, would this have resulted in a material change to Thera's
business that Thera would be compelled to disclose? The case does
not answer the question, but it reinforces the inherent risk in
navigating the regulatory process, as a regulator's inquiries can
often raise larger issues regarding disclosure and potential
investor liability.

                       Factual Background

In the spring of 2010, Thera was awaiting FDA approval of a new
drug to reduce excess abdominal fat in HIV patients.  As the
application proceeded, Thera regularly informed its shareholders
of the results of its clinical trials measuring the safety and
efficacy of the drug.  During the approval process, the FDA
referred a number of questions about the drug, including its
potential side effects, to an expert Advisory Committee, and made
these questions public as part of the package of briefing
materials on its website.  These questions were then publicized by
stock quotation enterprises, leading to a 58% decline in the price
of Thera's shares.

Thera did not respond publicly to the publication because it
believed the briefing documents it had already provided to the FDA
and the clinical trials it had already made public to its
investors offered a comprehensive response to the specific
questions that the FDA had posed.  Thera shareholders commenced a
class action, claiming that the FDA's questions amounted to a
material change in Thera's business, operations or capital, and
that Thera breached its obligation to make timely disclosure of
those changes under s. 73 of the Quebec Securities Act.

                              Finding

The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's claim, finding that the
FDA's questions did not amount to a material change.  In
particular, the Court focused on the fact that the FDA's
questions, and the package of briefing materials that were made
public, were part of the regular and routine process through which
the FDA assessed whether a new drug should be approved.  The court
held there was no new information that required disclosure.

Moreover, the Court recognized that not every fact about a
regulatory inquiry, or affecting a business generally, can or
should be disclosed to shareholders.  The Canadian Supreme Court
agreed with this observation from the U.S. Supreme Court: "there
are risks of excessive disclosure, which could 'simply . . . bury
the shareholders in an avalanche of trivial information - a result
that is hardly conducive to informed decision making" (TSC
Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. 426 U.S. 438 (1976))."

                  Implications of the Decision

Public issuers can take comfort from the fact that the Supreme
Court recognized that it is not necessary to disclose each and
every interaction with a regulator, particularly where these
inquiries are routine.  As well, the Court acknowledged the
dangers of excessive disclosure.

However, where the line can be drawn between routine aspects of a
regulatory process and more unusual or atypical aspects will be a
judgment call, based on the facts of each case.  Whether non-
routine queries must be disclosed will be another judgment call
-- depending upon whether they represent a material change or not.
The Thera case highlights that companies navigating a regulatory
process must be mindful of the larger risks relating to disclosure
and related civil liability.


TIME WARNER: Parties Reached MOU in Comcast Merger Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties to the
litigation related to the Comcast merger entered into a memorandum
of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to
final approval by the New York Supreme Court and certain other
conditions, to settle all of the outstanding litigation
challenging the merger.

Following the announcement of the Comcast merger on February 13,
2014, eight putative class action complaints challenging the
merger were filed on behalf of purported TWC stockholders, seven
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
and one in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These
complaints were captioned: Barrett v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et
al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Karl Graulich IRA v. Marcus, et al. (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.); Wedeking v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup.
Ct.); Lassoff v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.);
Thomas v. Marcus, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Tangarone v. Time Warner
Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System v. Black, et al. (Del. Ch.); and
Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.).

On March 25, 2014, the plaintiff in Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable
Inc. voluntarily discontinued the action in the New York Supreme
Court and re-filed the action in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware under the caption Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable
Inc, et al. (Del. Ch.). Likewise, on March 26, 2014, the
plaintiffs in Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc.,
et al. voluntarily discontinued the action in the New York Supreme
Court, and re-filed the action on March 27, 2014 in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware under the caption Empire State
Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.). On
March 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System v. Black, et al. (Del. Ch.) filed an
amended complaint.

On April 2, 2014, the Court orally granted a motion to consolidate
the pending actions in the New York Supreme Court under the
caption Barrett, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.), which the Court did formally by written order on April
15, 2014. On April 3, 2014, the plaintiffs in Barrett, et al. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The various complaints name as
defendants the Company, the members of the Company's Board of
Directors, Comcast and Tango Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub").

The complaints assert that the members of the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders during the Comcast merger negotiations and by
entering into the Merger Agreement and approving the Comcast
merger, and that Comcast and Merger Sub aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints also allege that the
Company and its Board of Directors failed to disclose in the
registration statement related to the Comcast merger material
facts relating to the merger. The complaints seek, among other
relief, injunctive relief enjoining the shareholder vote on the
Comcast merger, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and fees.

On July 22, 2014, the parties to the litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement,
subject to final approval by the New York Supreme Court and
certain other conditions, to settle all of the outstanding
litigation challenging the merger.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in the
lawsuits are without merit and, if the settlement does not receive
final approval by the New York Supreme Court or otherwise is not
consummated, intends to defend against the litigation vigorously.


TIME WARNER: Ruling in Set-Top Box Antitrust Case on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit appealed a decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

The Company is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television
Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the U.S. These actions are
subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring
the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. On July 26, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class action
complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging that the
Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various
state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade practices
statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television services
to the leasing of set-top converter boxes. The plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages
and an injunction to cease such alleged practices. On September
30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011. On June 17,
2011, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company intends to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible
loss.


TRANSDEV SERVICES: Court Lists Factors in Approving Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup issued a notice on May 28, 2015,
a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1G0HOc6from
Leagle.com, regarding these factors to be evaluated for any
proposed class settlement in SHAUNTAE WILLIAMS, on behalf of
herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSDEV
SERVICES, INC. AND VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, NO. C 15-02180 WHA, (N.D. Cal.):

1. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION
2. DUE DILIGENCE
3. COST-BENEFIT FOR ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS
4. THE RELEASE
5. EXPANSION OF THE CLASS
6. REVERSION
7. CLAIM PROCEDURE
8. ATTORNEY'S FEES
9. DWINDLING OR MINIMAL ASSETS
10. TIMING OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
11. A RIGHT TO OPT OUT IS NOT A CURE-ALL
12. INCENTIVE PAYMENT
13. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS

Shauntae Williams, an individual, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Norman B. Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawlj.com -- Blumentha,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com --
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Kyle Roald Nordrehaug --
kyle@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Transdev Services, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by
Brandyn E. Stedfield --  bstedfield@gleasonfavarote.com -- Gleason
& Favarote LLP, Janet Sylvia Yavrouian --
jyavrouian@gleasonfavarote.com -- Gleason & Favarote, LLP & Torey
Joseph Favarote -- tjf@gfemploymentlawyers.com -- Gleason &
Favarote LLP.


TRI-VISTA DESIGNS: Recalls Monogram Mugs Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tri-Vista Designs Inc., of Deer, Ark., announced a voluntary
recall of about 10,000Metallic Monogram Beverage Mugs. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

If used in the microwave, the metallic mugs can spark, posing a
fire hazard.

If used in the microwave, the metallic mugs can spark, posing a
fire hazard.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/XiEP5S

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Kirkland's stores nationwide from March 2015 to May 2015 for about
$7.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mugs in the
microwave, and return them to any Kirkland's store for a full
refund.


TRINIDAD DRILLING: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Ceniceros, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Trinidad Drilling, LP, Case No. 2:15-cv-00183-J (N.D.
Tex., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Trinidad Drilling, LP is in the business of providing drilling and
well services in the oil and gas industry in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Rachael Victoria Rustmann, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
              rachael@youngfirm.com


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: June 29 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds
purchasers of Trinity Industries Inc. securities from February 16,
2012 through April 21, 2015  of the important June 29, 2015 lead
plaintiff deadline in the class action.  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Trinity Industries investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Trinity Industries class action, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-585.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Trinity Industries altered certain dimensions of the ET-Plus
in 2005 without informing the Federal Highway Administration
("FHWA"), which certifies the safety of roadside hardware; and (2)
as a result, Trinity Industries' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.  When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 29, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-585.htmlor to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


UBER TECH: "Sabatino" Case Stayed Pending Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on May 29, 2015, a stipulation
and order granting defendants' motion to stay proceedings in JACOB
SABATINO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RASIER-DC,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RASIER-PA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00363-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

Defendants filed their Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
Arbitration on March 23, 2015, on the basis that Plaintiff agreed
to arbitrate pursuant to the Terms and Conditions that Plaintiff
assented to as part of the Uber registration process.

A hearing on the Motion is scheduled for June 11, 2015, while a
a case management conference is scheduled for July 22 2015.

The court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1TqYEKufrom Leagle.com, provides that the
Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration is
granted and the hearing on Defendants' motion and the case
management conference are vacated.

IRELL & MANELLA LLP, Andra Barmash Greene -- agreene@irell.com --
A. Matthew Ashley -- mashley@irell.com -- Newport Beach,
California, Attorneys for Defendants.

MLG AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, APLC, Kathryn Harvey, Attorneys for
Plaintiff.


UBER TECH: Rivals Upset by Preferential Treatment
-------------------------------------------------
Chris Joseph, writing for BrowardPalmBeach.com, reports that
Uber's competitors in Palm Beach County are upset over what
they're saying is "special treatment" given to the ride-sharing
company by county commissioners.  So much so, that several
transportation companies have banded together and filed a class-
action lawsuit against Palm Beach County.

Back in March, commissioners entered into a temporary agreement to
allow Uber to operate in the county, at the behest of the Chamber
of Commerce.  In a 4-3 vote, commissioners agreed to allow the
ride-sharing company to operate under the same regulations as cab
companies, though there are certain regulations that they're not
following that other companies have been forced to.

"Uber is a large vehicle for hire company that has a history of
coming into a particular city or county and attempting to obtain
special treatment so that it need not comply with local and/or
state regulations with which its competitors must comply," reads
part of the 53-page suit.

The plaintiffs, which include VTS Transportation, North County
Transportation, A1A Airport, Prestige Limousines, and All Transit
Solution, claim in the suit that the county's temporary operating
agreement with Uber is "irrational" and "arbitrary."

The suit says the agreement was made just to avoid a legal battle
with Uber had the company been forced to follow the same
regulations as other transportation companies.

"Moreover, PBC's decision to do so was based on the payment of
money from [Uber] to induce PBC from enforcing its rules, laws and
codes applicable to both [the Plaintiffs and Uber]," the suit
reads.

The plaintiffs say that they have will continue to suffer direct
damages and are seeking monetary damages from the county and for
commissioners to change their ruling of allowing Uber to operate
under a different set of rules.

Aside from fairness, opponents of Uber have often pointed to
safety being an issue for following specific regulations.

"Uber is largely operating without regulations designed to keep
consumers safe," Walter Dartland, executive director of the
Consumer Federation of the Southeast, tells New Times.  "Such
regulations as background checks, insurance coverage, and vehicle
maintenance requirements aren't unnecessary red tape -- they are
practical policies designed first and foremost to keep the public
safe."

Back in March, Dennis Grady, CEO of the Palm Beach County Chamber
of Commerce, sent Commissioner Steve Abrams a letter asking the
commissioners to find a temporary solution and negotiate with
Uber.  In his letter, Grady said the financial gain that the
county has seen since Uber arrived in Palm Beach, as well as the
ride-sharing service's popularity with residents, as a reason to
enter into the Temporary Operating Agreement.

"[Uber] has connected hundreds of thousands of local people
residing in and visiting our community with safe and reliable
rides," part of Grady's letter reads.

Meanwhile, Broward County commissioners recently enforced
regulations on Uber.  In response, Uber said it cannot do business
in Broward under those regulations.


UNITED STATES: New Orleans May Join Hurricane Flood Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGill, writing for Times Union, reports that New Orleans
officials are compiling information about hurricane damage to
municipal property in the city's Lower 9th Ward, now that a
federal judge has ruled the U.S. government bears liability for
some of the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina and other storms.

City Attorney Sharonda Williams said that the information is being
compiled as the city considers whether to join a St. Bernard
Parish lawsuit filed in 2005 over storm damage blamed on a now-
closed U.S-built ship channel -- the Mississippi River Gulf
Outlet.

Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in
Washington ruled that the construction, operation and maintenance
of the outlet caused environmental damage and wetlands loss as
well as increased storm surge, contributing to flood damage by
Hurricane Katrina and other storms in New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward
and in neighboring St. Bernard Parish.

Plaintiffs in the case are the St. Bernard government and several
property owners.

"We have been in contact with the plaintiffs' attorneys already,"
Williams said.

Much remains unclear following Braden's ruling, including how much
money is at stake and who might eventually be in line to receive
it.  The plaintiffs asked for the lawsuit to be certified as a
class action that would cover many property owners in St. Bernard
and the Lower 9th Ward.  A ruling on that was pending.

Federal lawyers and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which built
the MRGO, have declined comment and it remains unclear whether
they will appeal.  A closed-door conference was held this week in
New Orleans to determine whether the parties would agree to have
damages worked out by a mediator, but nobody would comment about
what went on in the meeting.

Williams said the city could file to intervene in the suit or seek
to take part as a member of the affected class.  She said she
hopes information on affected properties can be compiled in the
next couple of weeks.  How much the city might be due would rely
on numerous factors, including payments that have already been
received as aid or insurance.

"There is the potential for some offset if we've already been paid
for certain damage," she said.

Katrina struck on Aug. 29, 2005, causing widespread damage on the
Mississippi Gulf Coast and in southeast Louisiana.  Levees in New
Orleans failed and about 80 percent of the city flooded.  The
Lower 9th Ward and St. Bernard Parish were among the hardest hit
areas.


UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Suit Accused of Debt Collection Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Record reports that a Pennsylvania man recently
sued a Florida debt collection firm alleging consumer law
violations in 2014.  John C. Pawlowski Jr., of Southampton,
brought a class action complaint against United Tranzactions LLC
(UTA), of Miramar, Fla., and Janet Eden in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 28, alleging
deceptive practices dating to August.

Pawlowski purchased supplies from a Warrington home improvement
store with a convenience check drawn from his Bank of America
credit line on or about Aug. 20.  The lawsuit states that the
plaintiff had ample funds to cover the $1,821.90 transaction.

According to the filing, the store contracts with UTA for check
acceptance services.  He received a phone call from Eden on or
about Sept. 23, informing him that his check was written on
insufficient funds, he says.

Disputing the debt, the plaintiff states that he was advised by
both the bank and the store that there was no issue.

Eden continued to call daily, the lawsuit states, harassing and
threatening him through October.  Finally, the complaint says, the
plaintiff received a form dunning letter, on Nov. 5, with a $30
"returned check fee" added to the bill. Pawlowski paid the total
on or about Nov. 19, he says.

The lawsuit states that UTA routinely sends such letters to
consumers in violation of state law and seeks to reimburse all
Pennsylvanians who have been subjected to UTA's returned check
fee.

Citing violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
alleging false representation and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and court
costs.  The plaintiff is represented by James Francis and John
Soumilas of Francis and Mailman in Philadelphia.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Silverstein, Ross Weintraub, and Booth Family Trust, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Mark A. Thierer, Steven D. Cosler, Peter J. Bensen, William J.
Davis, Steven B. Epstein, Betsy D. Holden, Karen L. Katen, Harry
M. Kraemer, Anthony R. Masso, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, and
1031387 B.C. Unlimited Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:15-
cv-04896 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
holders of common stock of Catamaran Corporation against,
Catamaran's Board of Directors, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated,
and 1031387 B.C. Unlimited Limited Liability Company to enjoin the
Defendants from further violating the Securities Exchange Act in
their pursuit of a sale of the Company to UnitedHealth for an
unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Catamaran Corporation is a provider of pharmacy benefit management
services and healthcare information technology solutions to the
healthcare benefit management industry.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a Minnesota corporation that
provides health care coverage and benefits services.

1031387 B.C. Unlimited Limited Liability Company is an unlimited
liability company incorporated under the laws of the Province of
British Columbia, Canada and a wholly owned subsidiary of United
Health.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com
              gs@rigrodskylong.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Kelly Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      Times Square Plaza
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


US AIRWAYS: PBGC to Pay $5.25 Million to Retired USAir Pilots
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions and Investment, reports that
the PBGC will pay $5.25 million to a group of retired US Airways
pilots whose lump-sum payments were delayed, under a class-action
settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

The retired pilots' group first sued the airline in 2000 after
lump-sum payments took longer, typically 45 days longer than their
official benefit commencement date, than the payments made to
retirees receiving monthly benefits.  In the meantime, the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corp. became trustee of the plan in March 2003
when US Airways sought bankruptcy protection.

After multiple court decisions and reversals in other
jurisdictions as well as the D.C. circuit, U.S. District Judge
Rosemary Collyer in Washington certified a class for pilots
retiring between 1997 and 2003 and choosing a lump sum.  The
latest decision approved, on April 30, the final issue over what
length of delay would be reasonable, and how much interest should
be charged.  The $5.25 million settlement was calculated on a 45-
day administrative payment delay at 6% interest, plus attorneys'
fees and costs.  Payments will be made after 60 days.

"It has been long and hard but it is gratifying to be near the
end," plaintiffs' attorney J.C. Nickens of law firm McGuireWoods
said in an interview.  Mr. Nickens praised the persistence of the
class representatives, and said he expected as many as 90% of the
nearly 600 class members remaining would participate.


VISA INC: Class Administrator Files Report in Interchange MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015, that in the Interchange Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL), on January 14, 2015, following a court-approved
process to give class members who previously opted out of the
damages portion of the class settlement an option to rejoin it,
the class administrator submitted a report stating that it had
received 1,179 requests by merchants to rejoin the cash settlement
class, some of which may include multiple merchants.


VISA INC: Appeal Launched in Consumer Interchange Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015, that on November 26, 2014, in the
putative class action filed on behalf of an alleged class of Visa
and MasterCard payment cardholders, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' federal law claim and declined to exercise
jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claim. Both sides have
asked the court to reconsider aspects of its decision, and have
filed notices of appeal.


VISA INC: Court Set Sept. 21 Trial Date in Texas State Court Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has set a trial date
of September 21, 2015, in the Texas state court case filed by
merchants.

Beginning in May 2013, more than 40 opt-out cases have been filed
by hundreds of merchants in various federal district courts,
generally pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those
raised in MDL 1720. A number of the cases also include allegations
that Visa has monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and/or
conspired to monopolize debit card-related market segments, and
one of the cases seeks an injunction against the fixed acquirer
network fee. The cases name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A.,
Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, and MasterCard
International Incorporated, although some also include certain
U.S. financial institutions as defendants.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its subsidiaries filed an opt-out
complaint that also added Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe
Services Inc. as defendants. Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe
Services Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Wal-Mart's claims against
them.

As of the date of filing this quarterly report, Visa has reached
settlement agreements with a number of merchants representing
approximately 24% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of
merchants who opted out.

On December 23, 2014, a similar case was filed in New Mexico state
court by New Mexico's attorney general on behalf of the state,
state agencies, and citizens of the state, generally pursuing
claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. If this
case is transferred to or otherwise included in MDL 1720, it will
be covered litigation for purposes of the retrospective
responsibility plan.

In the Texas state court case filed by merchants, which generally
pursues claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720,
on April 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment regarding standing and denied defendants' cross-
motion. The court has set a trial date of September 21, 2015.


VISA INC: Petition for Review Nixed in Credit Card Tying Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015, that in the "Indirect Purchaser"
Actions, in early December 2014, objectors to the settlement in
the consolidated Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases petitioned for
review by the California Supreme Court, which the court denied on
February 11, 2015.


VISA INC: Webloyalty.com, GameStop, and Visa File Dismissal Bids
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015, that on January 9, 2015,
Webloyalty.com, GameStop, and Visa each filed motions to dismiss
the second amended class action complaint in the Data Pass
Litigation.


WARNER BROS: Court Dismissed Claims in Piracy Case
--------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that a
federal judge doesn't see anything wrong with how Rightscorp and
its clients are using subpoenas to identify film and TV pirates
and has dismissed a claim they are abusing the legal process.

Rightscorp clients Warner Bros. and BMG Rights Management are
facing a class-action lawsuit from John Blaha and others.  The
plaintiffs say they were bombarded with phone calls after their
Internet service providers gave their information to the
defendants.  Blaha and others say they've faced demands to settle
copyright infringement allegations lest they be pursued further in
court.

In response to a claim regarding their aggressive tactics in
seeking to collect from those pirating The Shawshank Redemption,
Gravity and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,
Warners invoked California's anti-SLAPP statute, which is meant to
deter frivolous litigation that impinges First Amendment rights on
matters of public concern.

"Plaintiff is attacking Defendants' right to petition courts in
the Ninth Circuit to issue DMCA subpoenas to identify copyright
infringers," argued the defendants.

Blaha and others retorted that the subpoena procedure under the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act was not designed to let copyright
holders file lawsuits against John Does so as to allow these
copyright holders to quickly seek discovery of ISPs.

But according to U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer, that doesn't
rise to an abuse of process.  "The first fatal deficiency in
Plaintiff's abuse of process claim is that Plaintiff raises no
ulterior motive in Defendants' use of the subpoenas," writes the
judge in a memorandum released.  "Whether or not Sec. 512(h)
subpoenas should validly be issued under the circumstances in
which Defendants sought them, there is no allegation and no
evidence that Defendants sought to do anything other than what
their subpoena requests indicated -- identify potential copyright
infringers for the purpose of pursuing Defendants' rights under
the Copyright Act."

The plaintiffs attempted to avoid this outcome by arguing that
California's anti-SLAPP statute and California's litigation
privilege didn't apply on the issue of federal subpoenas.  The
judge basically says the plaintiffs have it backward.  "The
Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea of a federal common
law tort of abuse of process," he writes.

Later, Fischer concludes that litigation privilege -- pertaining
to communications connected to the pursuit of advancing the
interests of litigants -- also is a well-founded defense to the
plaintiff's claim.

As a result of Fischer's order, the claim in the ongoing lawsuit
that the defendants have abused process has been stricken.  The
defendants are still facing an allegation they violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making automated calls to
cellphones in pursuit of settlements.

The latest ruling doesn't mean that copyright holders will always
be successful in their use of DMCA subpoenas to identify ISP
customers flagged for copyright abuse.  A couple of ISPs have put
up a fight, looking to quash subpoenas, and some judges have found
merit to the argument that the copyright holders don't have enough
of a basis to go on a fishing expedition.  Other judges have been
permissive.  There's not much of a uniform standard across the
nation at the moment.

Rightscorp was represented by Sanford Michelman and Mona Hanna of
Michelman & Robinson.  The plaintiffs are represented by Morgan
Pietz.


WESTERN UNION: Plaintiffs Object to Report and Recommendation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the
class action filed by City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement
System have filed objections to the report and recommendation by a
magistrate judge.

On December 10, 2013, City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement
System filed a purported class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against The
Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer
and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission rule
10b-5 against all defendants. On September 26, 2014, the Court
appointed SEB Asset Management S.A. and SEB Investment Management
AB as lead plaintiffs. On October 27, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint, which asserts the
same claims as the original complaint, except that it brings the
claims under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act only against the
individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint also
adds as a defendant another former executive officer of the
Company. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, during
the purported class period, February 7, 2012 through October 30,
2012, defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose adverse material facts known to them, including those
regarding: (1) the competitive advantage the Company derived from
its compliance program; (2) the Company's ability to increase
market share, make limited price adjustments and withstand
competitive pressures; (3) the effect of compliance measures under
the Southwest Border Agreement on agent retention and business in
Mexico; and (4) the Company's progress in implementing an anti-
money laundering program for the Southwest Border Area. On
December 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On January 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January
23, 2015, defendants filed a reply brief in support of their
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Court
referred the motion to a Magistrate Judge, who, on April 14, 2015,
issued a report and recommendation, which recommends that the
defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and that the consolidated
amended complaint be dismissed in full. On April 28, 2015,
plaintiffs filed objections to the report and recommendation.

This action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, which could be associated with this action. The Company and
the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in
this matter.


WESTERN UNION: Insurance Carrier and Plaintiff Reached Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's
insurance carrier and the plaintiff in the class action filed by
Jason Douglas has reached an agreement.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier
and the plaintiff reached an agreement, subject to the Court's
approval, to create an $8.5 million settlement fund that will be
used to pay all class member claims, class counsel's fees and the
costs of administering the settlement. The agreement is subject to
memorialization in a definitive agreement.

The Company has accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy and believes that any amounts in excess of this
accrual will be covered by the insurer. However, if the Company's
insurer is unable to or refuses to satisfy its obligations under
the policy or the parties are unable to reach a definitive
agreement or otherwise agree on a resolution, the Company's
financial condition and results of operations could be adversely
impacted.


YELP INC: Aug. 26 Case Mgmt. Conf. in "Curry" Case Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on May 29, 2015, a stipulation
and order in the case captioned JOSEPH CURRY, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YELP INC.,
JEREMY STOPPELMAN, ROB KROLIK and GEOFFREY DONAKER, Defendants,
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-03547, (N.D. Cal.).

The Defendants in the case intend to file a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

The parties to the case met and conferred concerning a briefing
and hearing schedule that takes into account scheduling conflicts
of counsel, personal medical issues and planned summer vacations.
The parties agreed that in light of the foregoing concerns, the
interest of judicial efficiency, administration of justice and
conservation of judicial and private resources would be best
served by establishing a schedule for briefing on Defendants'
motion to dismiss and to defer the initial case management
conference and related deadlines (including ADR deadlines) until
the Court has ruled on Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1Gr0rbnfrom Leagle.com, provides that:

1. Defendants must file and serve their motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint on or before June 26, 2015;

2. Plaintiffs must file and serve their opposition to defendants'
motion to dismiss on or before July 31, 2015;

3. Defendants must file and serve their reply in support of their
motion to dismiss on or before August 21, 2015;

4. The hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss is set for
September 10, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.; and

5. The case management conference presently scheduled in the
action for August 26, 2015, along with any associated deadlines
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules
(including ADR deadlines), is vacated, and reset to a date after
the Court rules on Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

GILBERT R. SEROTA -- Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- MARJORY GENTRY
-- Marjory.Gentry@aporter.com -- RYAN KEATS --
Ryan.Keats@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, San Francisco, CA,
Attorneys for Defendants, YELP INC., JEREMY STOPPELMAN, ROB KROLIK
and GEOFFREY DONAKER.

SHAWN WILLIAMS -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD LLP, Counsel for Plaintiff Joseph Curry.


* Citicorp, JPMorgan, et al Agree to Parent-Level Guilty Pleas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Five major banks -- Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Barclays PLC,
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc and UBS AG -- on May 20 agreed to
plead guilty to felony charges.   Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Barclays PLC, and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc have agreed to
plead guilty to conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars
and euros exchanged in the foreign currency exchange (FX) spot
market and the banks have agreed to pay criminal fines totaling
more than $2.5 billion.  A fifth bank, UBS AG, has agreed to plead
guilty to manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)
and other benchmark interest rates and pay a $203 million criminal
penalty, after breaching its December 2012 non-prosecution
agreement resolving the LIBOR investigation.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Assistant Attorney General Bill
Baer of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, Assistant
Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department's
Criminal Division, Assistant Director in Charge Andrew G. McCabe
of the FBI's Washington Field Office and Director Aitan Goelman of
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Division made the
announcement.

"T[he] historic resolutions are the latest in our ongoing efforts
to investigate and prosecute financial crimes, and they serve as a
stark reminder that this Department of Justice intends to
vigorously prosecute all those who tilt the economic system in
their favor; who subvert our marketplaces; and who enrich
themselves at the expense of American consumers," said Attorney
General Lynch.  "The penalty these banks will now pay is fitting
considering the long-running and egregious nature of their
anticompetitive conduct.  It is commensurate with the pervasive
harm done.  And it should deter competitors in the future from
chasing profits without regard to fairness, to the law, or to the
public welfare."

"The charged conspiracy fixed the U.S. dollar -- euro exchange
rate, affecting currencies that are at the heart of international
commerce and undermining the integrity and the competitiveness of
foreign currency exchange markets which account for hundreds of
billions of dollars worth of transactions every day," said
Assistant Attorney General Baer.  "The seriousness of the crime
warrants the parent-level guilty pleas by Citicorp, Barclays,
JPMorgan and RBS."

"The five parent-level guilty pleas that the department is
announcing today communicate loud and clear that we will hold
financial institutions accountable for criminal misconduct," said
Assistant Attorney General Caldwell.  "And we will enforce the
agreements that we enter into with corporations.  If appropriate
and proportional to the misconduct and the company's track record,
we will tear up an NPA or a DPA and prosecute the offending
company."

"These resolutions make clear that the U.S. Government will not
tolerate criminal behavior in any sector of the financial
markets," said Assistant Director in Charge McCabe.  "This
investigation represents another step in the FBI's ongoing efforts
to find and stop those responsible for complex financial schemes
for their own personal benefit.  I commend the special agents,
forensic accountants, and analysts, as well as the prosecutors for
the significant time and resources they committed to investigating
this case."

According to plea agreements to be filed in the District of
Connecticut, between December 2007 and January 2013, euro-dollar
traders at Citicorp, JPMorgan, Barclays and RBS -- self-described
members of "The Cartel" -- used an exclusive electronic chat room
and coded language to manipulate benchmark exchange rates.  Those
rates are set through, among other ways, two major daily "fixes,"
the 1:15 p.m. European Central Bank fix and the 4:00 p.m. World
Markets/Reuters fix.  Third parties collect trading data at these
times to calculate and publish a daily "fix rate," which in turn
is used to price orders for many large customers.  "The Cartel"
traders coordinated their trading of U.S. dollars and euros to
manipulate the benchmark rates set at the 1:15 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.
fixes in an effort to increase their profits.

As detailed in the plea agreements, these traders also used their
exclusive electronic chats to manipulate the euro-dollar exchange
rate in other ways.  Members of "The Cartel" manipulated the euro-
dollar exchange rate by agreeing to withhold bids or offers for
euros or dollars to avoid moving the exchange rate in a direction
adverse to open positions held by co-conspirators.  By agreeing
not to buy or sell at certain times, the traders protected each
other's trading positions by withholding supply of or demand for
currency and suppressing competition in the FX market.

Citicorp, Barclays, JPMorgan and RBS each have agreed to plead
guilty to a one-count felony charge of conspiring to fix prices
and rig bids for U.S. dollars and euros exchanged in the FX spot
market in the United States and elsewhere.  Each bank has agreed
to pay a criminal fine proportional to its involvement in the
conspiracy:

    Citicorp, which was involved from as early as December 2007
until at least January 2013, has agreed to pay a fine of $925
million;

    Barclays, which was involved from as early as December 2007
until July 2011, and then from December 2011 until August 2012,
has agreed to pay a fine of $650 million;

    JPMorgan, which was involved from at least as early as July
2010 until January 2013, has agreed to pay a fine of $550 million;
and

    RBS, which was involved from at least as early as December
2007 until at least April 2010, has agreed to pay a fine of $395
million.

Barclays has further agreed that its FX trading and sales
practices and its FX collusive conduct constitute federal crimes
that violated a principal term of its June 2012 non-prosecution
agreement resolving the department's investigation of the
manipulation of LIBOR and other benchmark interests rates.
Barclays has agreed to pay an additional $60 million criminal
penalty based on its violation of the non-prosecution agreement.

In addition, according to court documents to be filed, the Justice
Department has determined that UBS's deceptive currency trading
and sales practices in conducting certain FX market transactions,
as well as its collusive conduct in certain FX markets, violated
its December 2012 non-prosecution agreement resolving the LIBOR
investigation.  The department has declared UBS in breach of the
agreement, and UBS has agreed to plead guilty to a one-count
felony charge of wire fraud in connection with a scheme to
manipulate LIBOR and other benchmark interest rates.  UBS has also
agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $203 million.

According to the factual statement of breach attached to UBS's
plea agreement, UBS engaged in deceptive FX trading and sales
practices after it signed the LIBOR non-prosecution agreement,
including undisclosed markups added to certain FX transactions of
customers.  UBS traders and sales staff misrepresented to
customers on certain transactions that markups were not being
added, when in fact they were.  On other occasions, UBS traders
and sales staff used hand signals to conceal those markups from
customers.  On still other occasions, certain UBS traders also
tracked and executed limit orders at a level different from the
customer's specified level in order to add undisclosed markups.
In addition, according to court documents, a UBS FX trader
conspired with other banks acting as dealers in the FX spot market
by agreeing to restrain competition in the purchase and sale of
dollars and euros.  UBS participated in this collusive conduct
from October 2011 to at least January 2013.

In declaring UBS in breach of its non-prosecution agreement, the
Justice Department considered UBS's conduct described above in
light of UBS's obligation under the non-prosecution agreement to
commit no further crimes.  The department also considered UBS's
three recent prior criminal resolutions and multiple civil and
regulatory resolutions.  Further, the department also considered
that UBS's post-LIBOR compliance and remediation efforts failed to
detect the illegal conduct until an article was published pointing
to potential misconduct in the FX markets.

Citicorp, Barclays, JPMorgan, RBS and UBS have each agreed to a
three-year period of corporate probation, which, if approved by
the court, will be overseen by the court and require regular
reporting to authorities as well as cessation of all criminal
activity.  All five banks will continue cooperating with the
government's ongoing criminal investigations, and no plea
agreement prevents the department from prosecuting culpable
individuals for related misconduct.  Citicorp, Barclays, JPMorgan
and RBS have agreed to send disclosure notices to all of their
customers and counter-parties that may have been affected by the
sales and trading practices described in the plea agreements.

In connection with its FX investigation, the Federal Reserve also
announced that it was imposing on the five banks fines of over
$1.6 billion; and Barclays settled related claims with the New
York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the United Kingdom's
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for an additional combined
penalty of approximately $1.3 billion.  In conjunction with
previously announced settlements with regulatory agencies in the
United States and abroad, including the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency (OCC) and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory
Authority (FINMA), today's resolutions bring the total fines and
penalties paid by these five banks for their conduct in the FX
spot market to nearly $9 billion.

This investigation is being conducted by the FBI's Washington
Field Office.This prosecution is being handled by the Antitrust
Division's New York Office and other criminal enforcement sections
and the Criminal Division's Fraud Section.The Justice Department
appreciates the substantial assistance provided by the CFTC, OCC,
FINMA, FCA, DFS, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal
Reserve Board, and the U.K. Serious Fraud Office.  The Criminal
Division's Office of International Affairs and the U.S. Attorney's
Office in the District of Connecticut have also provided
assistance in this matter.


                            *********

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  * * *