CAR_Public/150623.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 23, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 124


                            Headlines


ABBOT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Similanc Infant Formula
ADF COMPANIES: "Hackett" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ADVANTAGE PLUMBING: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Kelley" Securities Action in N.J.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Addison" Class Suit Over Text Messages

AMERICAN HONDA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Katz" Suit Claims
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit in Cal. Over Engine Vibration
AMETEK: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Chemicals
AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Refuses to Rehear "Harris" Securities Suit
ANN INC: Being Sold to Ascena for Too Little, Shareholders Claim

ARIZONA: Sued Over Child Welfare System Deficiencies
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC: "Bendana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
AUSNET SERVICES: Black Saturday Settlement Obtains Final Court OK
BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Forex-Rigging Class Action for $180MM
BIOLASE INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Securities Action

BOK FINANCIAL: Class Actions in Preliminary Stages of Review
BREAKERS OF LONG BEACH: Faces Elder Abuse, Fraud Class Action
CADIZ INC: Faces "Wingerden" Securities Class Action in Calif.
CANADA: Class Action Over EI Sickness Benefits Certified
CAPITAL BUILDING: Store Cleaners File Wage Theft Class Action

CAREFIRST INC: Faces "Attias" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Class Action by CAWV Proceeding in Trial Court
CEDAR FAIR: Final Settlement Hearing in Ortegon Case in Q2 2015
CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Faces Class Action Over Denied Bond Right
COMMERCIAL VALUERS: Consumers Mull Suit Over Unfair Treatment

CVS HEALTH: Class Action in Alabama Proceeding
CVS HEALTH: Additional Class Discovery and Briefing Okayed
CVS HEALTH: Parties Conduct Discovery in Securities Class Action
CYTRX CORPORATION: Securities Case Dismissal Bid Under Submission
CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Granted Motion to Stay Rajasekaran Case

DIRT WORKS: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Accused in Tenn. of Not Paying Agents' Overtime
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Stipulation in Overdraft Suit Still Awaits Okay
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Appeal of Settlement in Merger Suit Dismissed
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Faces "Rosales" Class Action in New York

FORD MOTOR: More Female Employees Join Harassment Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 423,000 Cars Over Power-Steering Defect
FOXY LADY: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
FRESNO COUNTY, CA: Settles Inmates' Mental Health Care Class Suit
GEARBOX: Plaintiffs Agree to Drop Colonial Marines Class Action

GENERAL MOTORS: DeGiorgio to Be Deposed in Ignition Switch Suit
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Alleging "Good Start" False Claims
GOOGLE INC: Fails to Pay OT to Nonexempt Workers, "Trujillo" Says
HANOVER INSURANCE: Oral Argument Held in Durand Appeal
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: No Hearing Yet on Motion to Dismiss

HEART SAVERS: Has Sent Unsolicited Calls, "Amini" Suit Claims
HERBALIFE LTD: TINA.org Objects to Class Action Settlement
HERSHEY CO: Appeal by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Still Pending
HOUSEHOLD INT'L: 7th Cir. Tosses $2.46BB Judgment in Fraud Suit
HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Board Okays Voluntary License Relinquishment

IDAHO: 9th Circuit Says Abortion Ban Unconstitutional
ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Lead Plaintiff Urges Judge to Allow Suit
ISORAY INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
JL XPRESS: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JUBILEE PROPERTY: Sued Over Failure to Repair Rented Units

KUROSHIO INC: Removed "Vaughan" Class Suit to N. Dist. Georgia
KW ALAMEDA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Rented Units
LEE COUNTY, FL: Sheriff's Faces Suit Over Unapproved Radar Guns
LORD & TAYLOR: Faces "Galpern" TCPA Class Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Hancock Park Homeowner Files Action v. LADWP

LVNV FUNDING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act
MARICOPA, AZ: Sheriff Arpaio Wants Judge Sheridan to Recuse
MAYNARD GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Action Claims
MCDONALD'S CORP: Employees Win in Payroll Card Suit
MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Baasch" Suit Over Proposed Company Merger

MIDLAND FUNDING: Not Shielded From Usury Claims, 2nd Cir. Rules
MONARCH RECOVERY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act
MONTEREY, CA: Oct. 15 Deadline for Plan to Improve Jail Services
NATALIA CITY, TX: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NEBRASKA: Inmates File Suit Over Overcrowded Prison

NEWPARK RESOURCES: 83 Individuals Join "Davida" FLSA Lawsuit
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Conditional Cert. Denied in "Christiansen"
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Faulty Pathfinder Transmission
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Defective Front Suspensions
NUMERICABLE-SFR: Sued Over 4G Coverage Claims

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Tosses Suit Over Home Inspection Fees
OLD NATIONAL: Denial of Summary Judgment Bid Upheld in Part
OLD REPUBLIC: Certified Class Action Against ORNTIC Pending
OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Filed Motions to Dismiss Class Actions
ONTARIO: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss Wards' Abuse Class Action

PANASONIC CORP: Global Capacitor Price-Fixing Suit to Continue
PENNYSAVER USA: Files Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Amid Class Actions
PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Law
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Investors Sue Over $14BB Charge to Earnings
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Pending in Class Action in Brazil

PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Class Actions Pending in Brazil & Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Parties Await Judgment in "Letourneau" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Parties Await Judgment in Conseil Quebecois Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity Anticipated in "Semple" Case

PHILIP MORRIS: Says "Dorion" Complaint Not Properly Served
PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Plaintiff's Counsel Won't Take Action
PHILIP MORRIS: 2 Lights Cases Pending in Chile and Italy
PHILIP MORRIS: Argentina Case in Evidentiary Stage
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: Sued by Passenger of Grounded Airplane

PINNACLE A ROOFING: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
PINNACLE WEST: Appeal in Class Action Fully Briefed and Pending
PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
PLUM INC: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Workman" Suit Says
PRINCETON INFORMATION: Faces "Escort" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

RAISE MARKETPLACE: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Firefighters Pension Files Suit in Florida
REFINERY SPECIALTIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROYAL CANADIAN: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
SANDISK CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

SIRIUS XM: Must Face Turtles Copyright Class Action
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Korn" Suit Says
SOURCE ONE: Settles EEOOC Discrimination Claims for $800,000
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
ST. ANN, MO: Faces Class Action for Violating Rights of Poor

STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Faces "Wyms" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TASTY ROAST: Faces "Song" Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TECO ENERGY: Appeals Related to Class Actions Still Pending
TETRA TECH: Class Action Against BPR Inc. Officially Closed
THIESS CONSTRUCTIONS: Deception Bay Residents Mull Class Action

TINDER INC: Sued for Not Telling Subscribers of Right to Cancel
TRIANGLE FIRE: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Settles Insurance Class Action for $11.5MM
UNITED RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Shaffer" Suit Says
UNIV OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Proposes $6.2MM Frozen Sperm Case Deal

USAA CASUALTY: Removed "Byorth" Suit to Montana District Court
VON BROTHERS: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
W2007 GRACE: Sept. 11 Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement
W2007 GRACE: Summary Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
WARDLAW CLAIMS: "Hill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

WESTSIDE RENTALS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WILLOWICK, OH: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Sewer Class Action
YAHOO INC: Judge Allows Email Spying Class Action to Proceed
YINGLI GREEN: Faces Securities Class Action in California

* Consumers Still Face Huge Overdraft Fees Despite Regulation
* Employees Pay Big Price for Keeping Right to Sue Companies
* Indian Union Finance Minister Favors Class Action Proposals


                            *********


ABBOT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Similanc Infant Formula
-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that the maker of organically labeled
infant formula is being sued over allegations that its formula
wasn't actually organic.

Sara Margentette, Matthew O'Neil Nighswander and Ellen Steinlien
filed the suit on May 15 in U.S. District Court in New York
against Abbot Laboratories, claiming its Similac Advance Organic
Infant Formulas contained ingredients that are prohibited in
organic foods.

The lawsuit claims about 26 of the ingredients, which is more than
half of the 49 ingredients listed, are not allowed in organic
food.  The suit said the ingredients were "irradiated substances,
synthetic compounds, or produced from hazardous substances."
The plaintiffs claim Abbot listed the product as organic in order
to get consumers to purchase it, and to increase its own sales and
profits.

"As a result of its false and misleading labeling, Abbott was able
to sell its 'Organic' Infant Formula to hundreds of thousands of
consumers throughout the United States and to realize sizeable
profits," the lawsuit said.

The suit seeks class status, and also seeks more than $5 million
in damages plus court costs.  The plaintiffs are represented by
Todd S. Garber and D. Gregory Blankinship of Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP in White Plains, N.Y.;
Yvette Golan of The Golan Firm in Houston; and Kim E. Richman of
The Richman Law Group of Brooklyn.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
case number 1:15-cv-2837


ADF COMPANIES: "Hackett" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamar Hackett v. ADF Companies, LLC et al, Case No. 8:15-cv-01688-
PJM (D. Md., June 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

ADF Companies, LLC operates approximately 291 Pizza Hut franchise
stores in Maryland, Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd, Ste 133
      St Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 497-5006
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

         - and -

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      PAUL MCINNES LLP
      601 Walnut St, Ste 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com

         - and -

      Megan Kathleen Mechak, Esq.
      WOODLEY AND MCGILLIVARY
      1101 Vermont Ave NW Ste 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 833-8855
      Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
      E-mail: mkm@wmlaborlaw.com


ADVANTAGE PLUMBING: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Lopez, Victor Maldonado and Thomas Grant, individually, on
behalf of all others similarly situated and as class
representatives v. Advantage Plumbing & Mechanical Corp. and
Ronald C. Pescatore, Case No. 1:15-cv-22209-JLK (S.D. Fla., June
10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Advantage Plumbing & Mechanical Corp. is headquartered at 261 West
126th Street, New York, New York and, offers home and commercial
plumbing maintenance, repairs and contracting services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Kelley" Securities Action in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a couple is spearheading a class
action against a pharmaceutical company they believe has violated
federal law governing stocks.

Henry A. and Wilma Kelley, as well as a class consisting of an
unknown number of other individuals, filed a lawsuit against Aerie
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Vicente Anido Jr., Thomas A. Mitro, Richard
J. Rubino, Brian Levy and Anand Mehra on April 29 in U.S. District
Court for New Jersey.

The plaintiffs, of Fort Walton, Fla., are bringing this action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Aerie
publicly traded securities between Aug. 6 and April.  The lawsuit
states that the company's employees "made materially false and
misleading statements . . . in press releases and filings with the
[Securities and Exchange Commission] and in oral statements to the
media, securities analysts and investors."

These statements, the lawsuit states, resulted in Aerie's stock
trading "at artificially high prices . . . however after the above
revelations seeped into the market, the company's shares were
hammered by massive sales, sending the company's stock price down
nearly 64 percent . . . and causing economic harm and damages to
class members."

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as attorneys'
fees and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Peter S. Pearlman --
psp@njlawfirm.com -- of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrman and Knopf
LLP. in Saddle Brook, N.J., and David C. Walton --
davew@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins, Geller, Rudman and Dowd LLP in
San Diego.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Addison" Class Suit Over Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a popular movie theater chain is
facing a class action lawsuit over allegations it sent unwanted
text messages to individuals to promote the business.

Andria Addison filed the lawsuit on April 6 in U.S. District Court
in Minnesota against AMC Entertainment claiming she received text
message advertisements from the company even though she didn't
give it permission to text her.  The lawsuit claims businesses are
trying to get around the Do Not Call registry lists by texting
cell numbers to advertise their companies.

"As part of their effort to promote business, Defendants engaged
in an especially aggressive and deleterious form of marketing: the
transmission of unauthorized advertisements, in the form of 'text
message' calls to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout
the nation," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit states AMC marketed its text message campaign by
putting up posters around its business offering a $1 off of a
large fountain drink if moviegoers would provide their cell phone.
Addison contends AMC did not get written consent to then send
advertisements to those cell phones.

The suit seeks class action status for those who received one or
more text message advertisements from AMC since Oct. 16, 2013.
Addison is also seeking up to $500 in statutory damages and up to
$1,500 for each violation of federal law.

She is represented by J. Gordon Rudd Jr. --
gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- Patricia A. Bloodgood --
patricia.bloodgood@zimmreed.com -- and June P. Hoidal of Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP of Minneapolis.

United States District Court District of Minnesota case number
0:15-cv-02420


AMERICAN HONDA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Katz" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Katz, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04410-
CBM-RAO (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unlawful telephone calling practices in the form of unauthorized
telephone calls using an automatic telephone dialing system, and
to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

American Honda Motor Co. Inc. is the distributor of Honda
automobiles throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street, Ste. 100
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      E-mail: shavens@parisihavens.com
              dcparisi@parisihavens.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit in Cal. Over Engine Vibration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Honda 2015 CR-Vs have a
defective combination of engine and transmission that makes them
rattle and vibrate "to the point of nausea," a class action claims
in California Federal Court.


AMETEK: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------
Karen Pearlman, writing for The San Diego Union-tribune, reports
that a class-action lawsuit has been filed alleging that an
aerospace company poisoned water by dumping toxic chemicals
underneath an El Cajon school for more than 20 years.

The mother of a former student at Magnolia Elementary School, the
mother of a current student at Magnolia, and a teacher at the
school filed the complaint against the company, which was until
1988 located next to the school.  The company now on the grounds
also was named in the suit.

The suit was filed in San Diego Superior Court against
Pennsylvania-based Ametek, and the current company, Senior
Aerospace Ketema.  The suit says that from 1963 to 1985, Ametek
and a predecessor emitted toxic chemicals into a sump that leaked
into groundwater beneath the school on Greenfield Drive.

Several calls and emails to Ametek were not returned.  A
representative from Senior Operations LLC Ketema, which said the
group had not been served yet with legal papers, sent this
response:

"With respect to the allegations summarized in these news reports,
Senior Operations and its Ketema Division does not dump any
chemicals or pollutants at the El Cajon facility," read the email
from Jeff Peters, director of Ketema human relations.

"The lawsuit appears to relate to an unrelated company's activity
that allegedly occurred decades before Senior Operations acquired
the El Cajon facility.  For as long as Senior Operations has owned
the facility, both federal and state regulators have been closely
overseeing environmental operations there.

"Senior Operations takes environmental matters seriously, and we
have not received any notice of violation of federal or state
environmental laws or regulations with respect to our operations
at the El Cajon facility as suggested by these reports."

John Fiske, the attorney for the three plaintiffs, says his
clients represent former and current teachers and students who are
seeking compensation for "decades-long exposure of toxic
chemicals."  Mr. Fiske said compensation needs to come at least
through a medical monitoring program for students and teachers
past and present.

The three plaintiffs -- parents Danielle Trujillo and Lacey
Morales and Magnolia teacher Beverly Hoy -- are alleging
negligence, gross negligence and public nuisance and are demanding
a jury trial.

The lawsuit states that the Ametek property was founded in 1953 or
1954 by California Aircraft Projects, changed its name to Straza
Industry and was purchased by Ametek in 1968.  Ametek left the
property in 1987; Ketema took over the site later.  They say
Ametek/Straza dumped up to 7,000 gallons of toxic waste per month
for 22 years, and that children at the school, built in 1952, have
suffered health issues because of it.  Mr. Fiske said Ketema is
named as a defendant because "we believe the liability is passed
onto them as well."

For several years, state regulators and Ametek have worked
together and installed more underground containment wells under
the school.  The containment system consists of underground wells
that trap polluted water and allow the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Board to extract the hazardous chemicals.

"The water board is deeply committed to addressing long-term
cleanup of the site and ensuring the public is protected," said
Dave Gibson, executive officer the water board, which is
overseeing part of Ametek's cleanup effort.


AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Refuses to Rehear "Harris" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
With the 9th Circuit refusing to rehear securities claims against
drugmaker Amgen, several judges traded heated words May 26 over
the case, reports Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

"We're at it again," Judge Alex Kozinski said, chastising his
colleagues for falling prey to a habit of ignoring dictates from
the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Amgen case at hand has already gone before the 9th Circuit
twice.  Though a majority of the 9th Circuit voted not to give it
a third go May 26, this time before an en banc panel, Kozinski and
three others belong to a dissenting contingent of the court.

The case involves claims that Amgen violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, by failing to yank the
company stock option when its executives knew or should have known
that the stock's price was inflated.

Amgen stock prices tanked by one third when safety concerns about
its anemia drugs Epogen and Aranes became public, but the
company's retirees say Amgen had the results of damning clinical
trials since the late 1990s and early 2000s.

While one group of investors accused Amgen of violating its
fiduciary duty under ERISA, another alleged violations of federal
securities law in artificial inflation of the company's stock
price.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld class certification in the
securities-law case, but U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez
dismissed Amgen from the ERISA lawsuit on the basis that the
company was not a fiduciary.

Gutierrez rejected the remaining claims in light of the
"presumption of prudence," a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit
reversed after finding that the presumption does not shield Amgen
because the company's pension plans did not require or encourage
employees to invest in company stock.

The Supreme Court weighed in on the presumption of prudence while
assessing similar claims in 2013 with the case Fifth Third Bancorp
v. Dudenhoeffer.

Though both a federal judge and the 6th Circuit found that the
plan fiduciaries enjoy that presumption, the unanimous Supreme
Court rejected Fifth Third's claim "that the presumption at issue
here is an appropriate way to weed out meritless lawsuits or to
provide the requisite 'balancing.'"

"The proposed presumption makes it impossible for a plaintiff to
state a duty-of-prudence claim, no matter how meritorious, unless
the employer is in very bad economic circumstances," Justice
Stephen Breyer wrote for the court.  "Such a rule does not readily
divide the plausible sheep from the meritless goats.  That
important task can be better accomplished through careful,
context-sensitive scrutiny of a complaint's allegations.  We
consequently stand by our conclusion that the law does not create
a special presumption of prudence for [certain] fiduciaries."

With Fifth Third in mind, the Supreme Court later vacated the
Amgen holding and ordered the 9th Circuit to take another look.

When the 9th Circuit did just that last year, it found no reason
to affirm dismissal of the investors' case.

Kozinski complained May 26 that this ruling "not only fails to
give effect to those requirements, but also insulates our circuit
law from important aspects of the Supreme Court's holding."

"The panel's decision creates almost unbounded liability for ERISA
fiduciaries, plainly at odds with what the Court instructed," he
wrote.  "Worse still, the panel's rule will have grave
consequences for corporations across America, leaving them acutely
vulnerable to meritless lawsuits and subjecting them to novel,
judicially-fashioned disclosure requirements that conflict with
those of the securities laws.  I sincerely regret that a majority
of our court did not see fit to take this case en banc.  I expect
the Supreme Court will promptly correct our error."

Judge William Fletcher, a member of the original three-judge
panel, snapped back at Kozinski in an opinion concurring in the
court's denial to rehear the case en banc.

"The panel's opinion speaks for itself, and I will not repeat our
analysis, much of which is directly responsive to concerns
expressed by the Supreme Court in Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer," the seven-page opinion begins.

Fletcher goes on to correct three of Kozinski's supposed
misrepresentations of last year's opinion.

The Appellants are represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          Garry T. Stevens, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Fishback, Esq.
          Daniel L. Keller, Esq.
          KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP
          28720 Canwood Street, Suite 200
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 342-7442
          Facsimile: (818) 342-7616
          E-mail: sfishback@kfjlegal.com
                  dkeller@kfjlegal.com

               - and -

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          Symphony Towers
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: Gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com

               - and -

          Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

The Appellees are represented by:

          Emily Seymour Costin, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100
          Washington, DC 20006-6801
          Telephone: (202) 747-1900
          Facsimile: (202) 747-1901

               - and -

          Steven Oliver Kramer, Esq.
          Jonathan David Moss, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Forty-Third Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: skramer@sheppardmullin.com
                  jmoss@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Rose, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP,
          The Atlantic Building
          950 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1404
          Telephone: (202) 239-3300
          Facsimile: (202) 239-3333
          E-mail: jonathan.rose@alston.com

               - and -

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Brian David Netter, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
          E-mail: bnetter@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Davis, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1001
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          Facsimile: (212) 262-1910
          E-mail: rdavis@mayerbrown.com

The Steve Harris, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Amgen, Inc., et
al., Defendants-Appellees, Dennis M. Fenton, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 10-56014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The District Court case is Harris, et al. v. Amgen
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05442-PSG-PLA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.


ANN INC: Being Sold to Ascena for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling ANN
Inc. (Ann Taylor) too cheaply through an unfair process to Ascena
Retail Group, for $47 a share or $2.2 billion, shareholders claim
in Delaware Chancery Court.


ARIZONA: Sued Over Child Welfare System Deficiencies
----------------------------------------------------
Eastern Arizona Courier reports that a recent class action lawsuit
filed by Children's Rights, seeking reform on behalf of the more
than 17,000 abused and neglected children in state care, asserts
that Arizona has engaged in destructive practices that have
exposed these children to "further physical and emotional harm and
unreasonable risk of harm while in the state's care."

According to the complaint, four core deficiencies within the
child welfare system are undermining children's health, well being
and safety. For example, young people:

   -- Have no place to go.  In September 2014 the state had only
5,669 spaces in licensed foster homes available for 9,418 foster
children who were not placed with relatives.  As a result, there
are many instances when children sleep in DCS offices because
homes aren't available.

   -- Aren't getting the medical, dental or mental health services
they desperately need. There currently are only about 400
therapeutic foster homes; meanwhile approximately 1,000 teenagers
in foster care have been clinically diagnosed as emotionally
disturbed.

   -- Are losing critical family connections. As of September
2013, the state failed to place all siblings together at least a
third of the time.  They also place children far from their home
communities.  As of September 2012, only 31 percent of children
were placed in the same zip code as the homes from which they were
removed.

   -- Are at risk of abuse or neglect in foster care.  The state's
own data shows that, between October 2010 and March 2013, over a
thousand investigations into reports of maltreatment in state care
had not been completed on time.


ATLANTIC & PACIFIC: "Bendana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Bendana, and others similarly-situated v. Atlantic &
Pacific Association Management, Inc., and Howard D. Cohen, Case
No. 1:15-cv-22205-RNS (S.D. Fla. Jun 10, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Atlantic & Pacific Association Management, Inc. is a Florida
corporation that delivers a solid management platform to
condominium associations and multi-family apartment communities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
      1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


AUSNET SERVICES: Black Saturday Settlement Obtains Final Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Meehan, writing for Herald Sun, reports that no amount of
money could ever replace the loved ones or properties lost on
Black Saturday, but a $300 million settlement approved by a court
provides "great relief" to victims.

The settlement figure, agreed to in February by power utility
AusNet Services and class action members, received its final tick
of approval in the Victorian Supreme Court on May 27.

The Murrindindi Bushfire Class Action claimed a broken conductor
started the fire which destroyed Marysville and nearby towns and
is separate to the record near-$500 million payout agreed over the
Kilmore East - Kinglake Fire.

Following the decision, lead plaintiff Dr Katherine Rowe said it
was a "great relief" that proceedings were over despite AusNet
maintaining the company was not to blame for the fire.

"It (approval of settlement) does remove any suggestion that the
loss of loved ones, property, businesses and a beautiful town was
a product of arson," Dr Rowe told reporters.

"While it is a difficult thing, it's good to know and people can
now get on with rebuilding."

In approving the settlement, Justice Karin Emerton noted those
involved in the class action could possibly receive more money if
the case went to trial.  But she said there were advantages of
finalizing the settlement, including avoiding further stress and
anxiety for families and a swifter handing over of payments.

Victims should receive their compensation payment within 12
months.

"In my view, the advantage of early finalization of the proceeding
is a very important one," Justice Emerton told the court.

"Even if the plaintiff was successful . . . each stage would give
rise to further costs and would delay by years the resolution of
group members' claims.

AusNet will pay $260.9 million, contractor UAM $10 million and the
State Parties will pay $29.1 million.

The May 27 approval marks the final settlement of six cases
stemming from the February 7, 2009 fires.

Payments to group members will be split between injury and
property claims.

Despite the settlement, Ausnet Services maintains it wasn't to
blame for the fire that resulted in the deaths of 40 people in the
Murrindindi fire or more than 170 people across the state.

The total settlement includes just over $20 million in legal fees.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Forex-Rigging Class Action for $180MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forbes reports that Bank of New York Mellon settled the last major
lawsuit related to its foreign exchange misgivings for a total
figure of $180 million -- finally putting a lid on an issue that
has been nagging the global custody bank for several years.  BNY
Mellon's settlement of the class-action suit means that only a few
small lawsuits brought against the bank by individual clients
remain to be dealt with.  As the bank had set aside most of the
cash needed for the deal, it will only incur a pre-tax charge of
$50 million in the second quarter as a result of this settlement.

BNY Mellon came under considerable fire in late 2011 when a series
of lawsuits alleged that its foreign exchange unit misled clients
into believing they were being given the best possible exchange
rate while actually providing them with some of the worst rates.
Subsequently, the lawsuits established the fact that all
transactions conducted by BNY Mellon as part of standing
instruction agreements with its clients did not use the "best"
exchange rate available as the bank advertised.  This translated
to millions of dollars in losses for clients ranging from
government pension funds to institutional investors who used BNY
Mellon's services to exchange currency worth billions over years
-- all of which boosted the bank's foreign exchange fee revenues
all the way back from 2001.

The most notable of these lawsuits were those filed by the states
of New York, Ohio, Virginia, Massachusetts and Florida against BNY
Mellon.  Over the years, the bank worked its way through these
lawsuits, with the biggest deal including the U.S. Justice
Department, the New York attorney general, the Department of
Labor, the SEC as well as private clients being inked this March
for $714 million.  With the recently announced settlement, BNY
Mellon has shelled out around $1.5 billion in total to get rid of
its forex woes.  The remaining minor lawsuits are not expected to
change the total figure materially.

While BNY Mellon maintained that there was no wrongdoing on its
part, the bank's reputation in the foreign exchange industry
suffered considerably over the 2011-2013 period.  The bank lost
some of its major clients, and had to accept sharp cuts in fees
from many large clients to ensure that it retains their business.
The impact of this can be seen quite clearly in BNY Mellon's
foreign exchange trading revenues for the period.

But the figure improved to a great extent in Q1 2015, with forex
and other trading revenues of $229 million being the highest since
Q4 2010.  Having put its forex-related misgivings behind it for
good, BNY Mellon should see a steady improvement in these revenues
over coming years.


BIOLASE INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biolase, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties have reached
an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit, which is subject to the negotiation of a
definitive settlement agreement and preliminary and final approval
of the court.

On August 23, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Brady Adams v. Biolase, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-1300 JST
(FFMx) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against BIOLASE, its then Chief
Executive Officer, Federico Pignatelli, and its then Chief
Financial Officer, Frederick D. Furry. On August 26, 2013, a
purported class action lawsuit entitled Ralph Divizio v. Biolase,
Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-1317 DMG (MRWx) was filed in the same
court against BIOLASE, Messrs. Pignatelli and Furry, and its then
President and Chief Operating Officer, Alexander K. Arrow. Each of
the lawsuits alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
asserts causes of action against the defendants under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"). In accordance with the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, on December 10, 2013, the court
entered an order consolidating the lawsuits, appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving the lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel. On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint against the Company and Messrs. Pignatelli,
Furry, and Arrow, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws and asserting causes of action against the defendants under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On November 19, 2013, the Board received a letter from attorneys
for purported shareholder David T. Long, demanding that the Board
investigate, institute litigation, and take measures to redress
and prevent alleged wrongdoing concerning the dissemination of
certain allegedly false and misleading public disclosures made by
the Company between January 2013 and August 2013.

Subsequent to December 31, 2014, the parties have reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class
action lawsuit, which is subject to the negotiation of a
definitive settlement agreement and preliminary and final approval
of the court. Although there can be no assurance that such
agreement will be finalized, as of the date of these financial
statements, management does not expect the Company to incur
additional expenses related to this matter due to certain
insurance coverage in place.


BOK FINANCIAL: Class Actions in Preliminary Stages of Review
------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 3, 2015, the
Bank and the Company were named as defendants in a putative class
action alleging that the manner in which the Bank posted charges
to its consumer deposit accounts was improper from September 1,
2011 through July 8, 2014, the period after which the Bank and BOK
Financial settled a class action respecting a similar claim.

On April 8, 2015, the Bank was named as a defendant in a putative
class action alleging that the Extended Overdraft Fee charged
customers who failed to pay overdrafts after five days constituted
interest and exceeded permissible interest rates set by state and
federal law.

While both actions are in preliminary stages of review, after
initial discussions management has been advised by counsel that
the Bank and the Company have meritorious defenses to the actions.
A reasonable estimate of losses, if any, cannot be made at this
time.


BREAKERS OF LONG BEACH: Faces Elder Abuse, Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Edwards, writing for Press-Telegram, reports that a new
lawsuit accusing The Breakers of Long Beach's operators of elder
abuse and fraud was filed mere days before the senior assisted-
living complex is scheduled to lose its license.

The Breakers of Long Beach on Ocean Boulevard operated inside a
historic former hotel building.  It is scheduled to lose its
license to operate as a residential care facility for the elderly
as of May 25, the result of a settlement agreement made with state
officials who had sought to shut it down over allegations of
improper care.

The Long Beach law firm of Garcia, Artigliere & Medby filed the
case in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 28.  Attorneys are
seeking to get the suit certified as a class action so that any of
the more than 100 residents who lived at The Breakers during the
prior two years could be included in the case.

The filing describes alleged improprieties committed during the
final months of the facility being managed by a company called
Sign of the Dove.

Although Sign of the Dove has agreed with the California
Department of Social Services to give up its license, company
President Bernard Rosenson, has denied wrongdoing and maintains
officials did not treat the company fairly.

Mr. Rosenson, named as a defendant in the new lawsuit along with
Sign of the Dove and The Breakers, also denied all of the
allegations outlined in the new filing.

"He's going to have a fight on his hands like he's never seen
before," Mr. Rosenson said in reference to plaintiff's attorney
Stephen Garcia.

The lawsuit alleges Sign of the Dove acted improperly by failing
to tell residents that the company as on the brink of losing its
operating license.  This allegedly resulted in residents
continuing to pay rent to The Breakers when they would have
otherwise found other accommodations, according to the lawsuit.

"It's a real simple thing.  They knew they wouldn't be able to
keep these people," Mr. Garcia said.

ONE PLAINTIFF SO FAR

The only plaintiff named in the case is a former resident named
Gloria Brown.  Mr. Garcia said Brown has recently died, but he did
not know the date of her passing.

Mr. Garcia also accused Mr. Rosenson and Sign of the Dove of
mistreating residents by cutting back on services during Sign of
the Dove's final weeks of managing The Breakers.

Mr. Rosenson said that's not true, and The Breakers had only
downsized from having about 45 employees to about 25 staffers in
the past week.  He said he lost $185,000 running the complex in
April.


CADIZ INC: Faces "Wingerden" Securities Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California land and water resource development company is facing a
federal securities class action lawsuit over allegations it filed
false statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Nickolas Van Wingerden filed the lawsuit on April 24 against Cadiz
Inc. claiming a form filed on March 10, 2014, contained the false
statements.

Cadiz owns about 70 square miles of property in San Bernardino
County on the eastern side of the Mojave Desert.  The lawsuit said
the company's main project is the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation,
Recovery and Storage Project, which captures and conserves
billions of gallons of groundwater under the desert.

The lawsuit stems from a September 2008 agreement between Cadiz
and the Arizona & California Railroad to allow Cadiz to use the
railroad's right-of-way to construct a 42-mile water conveyance
pipeline in the Mojave Desert.

However, in 2011 the U.S. Solicitor's Office ruled a railroad can
only authorize activities within a right-of-way if it is for
"railroad purposes."  The lawsuit claims Cadiz filed statements
with the SEC in March 2014 stating the company didn't believe
federal right-of-way approval was required.

On April 21, a report was published on a website that revealed
Cadiz knew the pipeline project was not a railroad purpose, and
was therefore "unviable," the suit claims.  Upon that news,
Cadiz's stock fell $1.06 per share.

Van Wingerden is seeking class status for individuals who held
Cadiz stock between March 10, 2014 and April 21, 2015, and an
unspecified amount of damages.

He is represented by Laurence Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. in
Los Angeles.

United States District Court for the Central District of
California case number 2:15-cv-03080


CANADA: Class Action Over EI Sickness Benefits Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Star reports that sick moms seeking justice moved a step
closer to their goal with a multi-million-dollar class action
lawsuit recently certified.  It's good to see they will finally
have their day in court. But it's regrettable that they've been
forced to turn to lawyers, judges and years of litigation simply
to get what they're due.

It shouldn't have to be this way.

As reported by the Star's Laurie Monsebraaten, the case involves
more than 3,000 Canadian women who fell seriously ill while off
work on maternity or parental leave between 2002 and 2013.
Women stricken by cancer, blood conditions and other major
ailments were denied EI sickness benefit payments on grounds that
they were not "available for work" when illness struck.

That came despite a 2002 amendment to EI legislation extending
sickness benefits to working women who became seriously ill while
on maternity or parental leave.  Evidently, the wording of those
provisions didn't get through to front-line EI staff who continued
to deny sick women payments to which they were entitled.

The federal government responded by changing the legislation, yet
again, in 2013 making it absolutely clear that Canadians were no
longer to be denied sickness benefits while on maternity or
parental leave.

This amendment allows a family to load sickness benefits onto
maternity or parental benefits when a major ailment strikes. If a
parent, most often a woman, falls ill under these circumstances
she can apply for up to 15 weeks of benefits.  Maternity or
parental leave resumes once those benefits run out.

As if further proof was needed that an injustice had been done,
Ottawa has discreetly paid sickness benefits to about 350 women
who had launched appeals in 2012 and 2013.

In light of all this, it seems absurd that women still awaiting
benefits must resort to a class action suit to obtain fairness.
The suit seeks benefits of up to $7,515 for each, plus special
damages.

Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner, the party's labor critic, effectively
contrasted the government's treatment of these women with the way
it handled disgraced Senator Mike Duffy.  While the prime
minister's chief of staff, Nigel Wright, cut Mr. Duffy a personal
check for $90,000, women who had suffered a major illness were
being denied benefits to which they were entitled and for which
they had paid premiums.  It's a compelling point.

Instead of wasting even more public money on lawyers to fight a
class action lawsuit, Ottawa should admit its responsibility for
past errors and fund a settlement providing fair compensation to
the women it has wronged.


CAPITAL BUILDING: Store Cleaners File Wage Theft Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Moore, writing for St. Paul Union Advocate, reports that
janitors who clean big-box and department stores in the Twin
Cities announced two key developments in their campaign for better
wages and working conditions: Setting a new strike deadline and
filing a class-action lawsuit to recoup wages allegedly lost to
wage theft.

Members of the Twin Cities worker center CTUL, Centro de
Trabajadores Unidos en la Lucha/Center of Workers United in
Struggle, took legal action in Hennepin County against cleaning
contractor Capital Building Services Group.  They allege that
janitors who clean Macy's and Herberger's stores were paid less
than minimum wage and did not receive overtime pay, among other
offenses.  They also set a new strike date of June 9.

The two retailers hire Capital, which in turn hires the workers.
That gives the retail giants "deniability" about the wages and
working conditions of janitors who clean its stores.

Eight current or former Capital employees joined the class action,
which could grow to include other workers as the lawsuit advances.
Several plaintiffs gathered for a May 20 press conference to
announce the suit outside Macy's store on Nicollet Mall in
Minneapolis.

Leyla Yusuf, a former Capital employee, said the company did not
provide paycheck stubs with information on wages, hours and
overtime to its employees.  When she suspected she was not being
paid in full, she demanded to see a pay stub.

"The reason I got fired is because I asked for my check stub,"
Ms. Yusuf said through a translator.  "I spoke up, and I'll never
be silenced.  We are here to get it right."

The lawsuit comes roughly seven months after CTUL reached a
historic agreement with a third big retailer, Target, on a policy
to ensure safe conditions, fair wages and basic protections for
all workers inside Target's Twin Cities stores -- even those
workers who toil for other companies, like subcontractors.

Target's influence in the local retail market sparked hope that
the policy would have a ripple effect throughout the industry.
Instead, workers say the two contractors that service area Target
stores, Carlson Building Maintenance and Prestige Maintenance USA,
are not abiding by the policy -- and it's holding back progress
for all cleaning workers as a result.

Maricela Flores and Jose Cabrera, CTUL members who work for
Carlson, reported being required to work seven days per week -- a
violation of Target's Responsible Contractor Policy.

"I don't have enough time to rest," Mr. Cabrera said.  "I don't
have time spend with my family.  Although Target created the new
policy, we still have not seen necessary changes."

The subcontractors also have failed to respect workers' union
rights, CTUL organizer Merle Payne said.  "We've had a number of
meetings where we've tried" to establish a pathway to organizing,
Payne said.  "But the companies aren't really meeting in good
faith."

Now, CTUL members are giving Carlson, Prestige and six other
contractors, including Capital, until June 9 to get serious about
those meetings, or else they will call a strike.

Any work stoppage could affect 15 retail chains, including Macy's,
Herberger's, Target, Kohl's and Sears.

Short-term, high-visibility strikes are gaining popularity among
low-wage workers in the Twin Cities and nationwide as a strategy
for putting pressure on employers and attracting more support.  If
janitors walk off the job June 9, it would mark their fifth strike
in the Twin Cities over the last two years.

"It's too long that we've been waiting, too long that our
petitions have gone without an answer," Luciano Balbuena, a Kimco
Services employee who cleans Home Depot stores, said through a
translator.  "If we don't get a response, we're going on strike
June 9."


CAREFIRST INC: Faces "Attias" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chantal Attias, Richard Bailey, and Latanya Bailey, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carefirst, Inc.
d/b/a Group Hospitalization Medical Services, Inc., Carefirst
BlueCross Blueshield, Carefirst BlueChoice, Group Hospitalization
and Medical Services, Inc, d/b/a Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield
and Carefirst BlueChoice, and Carefirst BlueChoice d/b/a Carefirst
BlueCross BlueShield, Group Hospitalization and Medical Services,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00882-CRC (D.D.C., June 10, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and
protect its users' sensitive, personally-identifiable information
and personal health information from data breach.

The Defendants are authorized to do business in the District of
Columbia, and offer and or sell health insurance policies to
citizens of the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan B. Nace, Esq.
      Christopher T. Nace, Esq.
      PAULSON & NACE, PLLC
      1615 New Hampshire Ave, NW
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 463-1999
      Facsimile: (202) 223-6824
      E-mail: jnace@paulsonandnace.com
              cnace@paulsonandnace.com

         - and -

      Troy N. Giatras, Esq.
      THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
      118 Capitol Street, Suite 400
      Charleston, WV. 25301
      Telephone: (304) 343-2900


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Class Action by CAWV Proceeding in Trial Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action
complaint filed by Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") is
currently proceeding in the trial court.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed
a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"),
the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as
class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to
modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.  Later in November
2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class filed a
separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century
Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with
respect to the foregoing.  These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et
al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West
Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have been consolidated
and venue has been set in the District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USW filed a motion for preliminary injunction
to prevent us from implementing any modifications to the retiree
medical benefits while these lawsuits are pending, which was
dismissed by the trial court, and affirmed upon appeal. CAWV has
filed a motion for summary judgment of these actions. The case in
chief is currently proceeding in the trial court, subject to the
court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment.


CEDAR FAIR: Final Settlement Hearing in Ortegon Case in Q2 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Fair, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the hearing to approve
the final settlement in the case, Ortegon, et al vs. Cedar Fair,
L.P., Cedar Fair Management Company, et al, is not expected to
occur until the second quarter of 2015.

The Partnership and Cedar Fair Management, Inc. are defendants in
a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for Santa Clara County on October 3, 2013 by Frank
Ortegon-Ramirez seeking damages and injunctive relief for claims
related to certain employment and pay practices at our parks in
California, including those related to certain check-out, time
reporting, discharge and pay statement practices. The defendants
filed an answer on November 21, 2013 denying the allegations in
the complaint and requesting a dismissal of all claims. The class
has not been certified.

On November 12, 2014, the Partnership participated in a mediation
relating to the claims alleged in the lawsuit. Following this
mediation, the Partnership negotiated a $4.75 million settlement
with the named Plaintiff on a class wide basis which is subject to
final court approval. The Partnership and the named Plaintiff are
required to file a brief in support of the settlement with the
court. The hearing to approve the final settlement is not expected
to occur until the second quarter of 2015. The Partnership
believes the liability recorded as of March 29, 2015 is adequate
and does not expect the terms of the negotiated settlement or
final briefing to materially affect its financial results in
future periods.


CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Faces Class Action Over Denied Bond Right
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Lindley, writing for The Cherokee Ledger-News.com, reports
that a Cherokee County woman has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on allegations that the county, as well as Cherokee
Sheriff Roger Garrison, violated the rights of thousands of
individuals by denying them bond.

The Barnett Law Firm, in Woodstock, filed the class action
complaint on April 24.  The class, which is represented by the
plaintiff, Patricia Annette Davis, may consist of some 2,600
people who were arrested on a Cherokee County State Court bench
warrant and then allegedly were denied bail.  The class is seeking
$10 million in damages.

"It is clear from case law these citizens had a right to post bond
the minute they were booked and processed," said Stacy Barnett,
attorney for the plaintiff.

According to court documents, Cherokee County Solicitor General
Jessica Moss filed an accusation against the class representative,
Davis, in November 2013, for an incident that occurred on Sept.
29, 2013.   The two-count accusation claims Davis exhibited
reckless conduct after she allegedly pointed a pistol at another
woman, both misdemeanor offenses.

Court records show that Davis bonded out of jail on Sept. 30,
2013, after posting a $1,500 bond.  Among other special conditions
of the bond, court records show that Ms. Davis was ordered to
"appear in court when required" and waive her rights under state
and federal law against search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

State Court Judge Alan Jordan, according to court documents,
issued two bench warrants on Ms. Davis between March 2014 and
February of this year.  The first bench warrant was handed down
March 24, 2014, when Ms. Davis failed to appear for a calendar
call, records show.

This bench warrant was lifted in May 2014 after Ms. Davis paid a
$150 fee, according to court documents.  The judge also, in May
2014, cancelled a bond forfeiture that he had issued in March
2014.

According to court documents, the judge issued another bench
warrant this past January after Ms. Davis failed to appear for
jury trial scheduled for Jan. 5-9.

"On the face of the warrant were the words, 'Hold for Judge,'" the
class action suits states.

The suit alleges that "Hold for Judge" warrants are illegal and
violates not only Georgia law but also the United States
Constitution, as well.

Attorney Carver DeBord, who was representing Ms. Davis in the 2013
criminal case, filed a motion in State Court this past February to
recall the bench warrant.  In the motion, Mr. DeBord stated that
his client "possessed spirit and determined to test her mettle by
living in a tent on Yellow Creek, suffered losses from a
calamitous flood that washed away her wash tub and most of her
clothing."  It also states that the flood washed away her vehicle.
The motion goes on to say that Ms. Davis "would have appeared if
the Good Lord had been willing and the creek had not risen."

Court documents show that Ms. Davis was arrested on the warrant on
Feb. 13 when she appeared in court for a hearing on the motion to
recall the bench warrant.  Her attorney in the criminal case,
according to court documents, filed a motion for bond on Feb. 19.
The class action lawsuit contends that Davis was "refused bond by
Garrison" despite "being possessed with the wherewithal to post
bond."

"She was held for 11 days before being released," Ms. Barnett
said.  "I know of one case wherein the citizen was held for 30
days on a failure to appear on a speeding ticket case."

Court records show that Ms. Davis entered a plea of no contest on
Feb. 23 and was ordered to serve 12 months in jail.  Her jail
sentence, records show, was suspended upon service of 11 days in
jail.

The class action lawsuit states that the plaintiff "was deprived
of her constitutional rights and subjected to extreme physical and
mental pain and suffering."  The complaint claims the defendants
violated her Fourth and 14th Amendment rights to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure.  The suit further contends that
the acts of Garrison "constitutes false imprisonment."

Angela Davis, of Jarrard & Davis, who will be representing
Cherokee County and Garrison, said she did not "have any comment
at this time."


COMMERCIAL VALUERS: Consumers Mull Suit Over Unfair Treatment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Burn-Callander, writing for The Telegraph, reports that
the UK's largest business rates specialist has been accused of
acting "unfairly" by a group of unhappy customers, after the
company continued to demand payments after its apparent five-year
contract.

CVS (Commercial Valuers and Surveyors), which trades as CVS,
negotiates business rates bill reductions on behalf of its clients
on a no-win, no-fee basis, charging 50pc of the total savings.
Business rates are re-evaluated every five years but in 2013 the
Government announced it was to review the way they were
calculated, and deferred the start date of the next "rateable
period" by two years.  CVS has required its customers pay until
2017.

A clause included in the fine print of its standard contract
states: "Rating period is the five-year term from one re-
evaluation of a rateable value to another."

"What if the Government extended the period for 20 years?" said
Grahame Connor, the founder of accountancy firm Connor Warin, who
has been invoiced for GBP5,000 by CVS for the two-year period.
"What would happen then?"

Colin Noble, founder of PEC Packaging, which manufactures
automotive packaging on behalf of clients including Jaguar Land
Rover, has paid CVS GBP70,000 over five years.  "This two-year
extension is just the sting in the tail," he said.  "It's unfair."
Keith Tuckley, licensee of the Earl of Chatham pub in London, is
another unhappy CVS customer.  He said: "They've had GBP20,000 out
of us and I do not want to pay another GBP10,000."

Sandra Spearing, founder of South West Reclamation, which sells
antiques and renovation materials, is being billed GBP1,000 a year
by CVS, including VAT.

"I feel so stupid," she said.  "I didn't even realise we had to
pay every year. 50pc is so high, I thought it was a one-off
payment. Now it could be another two years of payments."

CVS' website claims that it has processed more than 58,000
business rates appeals since 2010. In 2013, the company turned
over GBP22.4 million.

CVS' board boasts a number of well-respected directors.  Chief
executive Mark Rigby is chairman of professional rugby union team
Wasps, while Peter Chappelow, CVS chairman, is non-executive
chairman of OKA, the homewares company owned by Lady Astor, mother
of Samantha Cameron, the Prime Minister's wife.

The largest shareholding in CVS is owned by convicted fraudster
Jason Peter Clarke, who was successfully prosecuted by North
Yorkshire trading standards in 2000 for using the promise of
business rates reductions to con tens of thousands of businesses.
Mr. Clarke pleaded guilty to six offences of fraudulent trading
through the Strattons and Oldfields companies.

CVS is regulated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
and is a member of the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation
and the Institute of Customer Service.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors confirmed that it was
launching a full investigation into the allegations against CVS.

"I'm refusing to pay up," said Mr. Connor.  "I'm hoping that if
enough of us get together, we can launch a class action."

A spokesperson for CVS said: "The Government's decision to
postpone the next business rates revaluation has had dramatic and
damaging consequences for businesses across the UK.  In this
context, CVS' professional surveyors work hard to reduce
businesses' rates and we only ever charge clients when they are
saving money.

"These complaints reflect only a handful of cases from our 50,000
clients, for whom we have saved GBP600m since our incorporation.
We are fully regulated and our contractual terms are very clear,
but we are always willing to discuss any instance in which a
client is in some way dissatisfied."

A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local
Government, which is responsible for business rates, said: "The
Government postponed the revaluation to provide certainty for
businesses and avoid sharp changes and unexpected hikes in
business rates.

"The Enterprise Bill announced will create a faster and more
efficient appeals system that limits the number of speculative
appeals allowing the speedier resolution of genuine appeals.  This
should reduce the costs and frustration for businesses and ensure
that businesses receive any reduction in their rates bill more
quickly.

"While the issue at hand is a private contractual matter between
the individuals concerned, the changes outlined will help ensure
that undue profits cannot be made from the system."


CVS HEALTH: Class Action in Alabama Proceeding
----------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Alabama Supreme
Court affirmed a trial court's August 15, 2012 Order, and the case
is proceeding.

Caremark -- the term "Caremark" being used to generally refer to
any one or more pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") subsidiaries
of the Company, as applicable -- was named in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by
John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999
settlement of various securities class action and derivative
lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include
insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with
respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks
approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-
specified damages based on allegations that the amount of
insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was
misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others,
Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999
settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action,
but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the
Lauriello action.

Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an
Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedures
23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order
appointed class representatives and class counsel. On September
12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's
August 15, 2012 Order, and the case is proceeding.


CVS HEALTH: Additional Class Discovery and Briefing Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has
permitted certain additional class discovery and briefing in the
In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining
retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In August 2003,
Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and
Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with
Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists
Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in
Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive
relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the
contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark.

In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc.,
filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court
against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages
and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two
of the Caremark entities named as defendants was transferred to
Illinois federal court, and the case against a separate Caremark
entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the
pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed
by the parties pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy
court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs. Motions for class
certification in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict
litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain
pending, and the court has permitted certain additional class
discovery and briefing. The consolidated action is now known as
the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation.


CVS HEALTH: Parties Conduct Discovery in Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties are conducting
discovery in the securities class action.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
by Richard Medoff, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS
Health Corporation stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009.
The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants
and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public
disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM business and
allegations of insider trading. In addition, a shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed by Mark Wuotila in December 2009 in
the same court against the directors and certain officers of the
Company. This lawsuit, which has remained stayed pending
developments in the related securities class action, includes
allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider
trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that
the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly
inflated prices under its share repurchase program.

In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The
parties are conducting discovery in the class action, and the
derivative action is stayed pending further developments in the
class action.


CYTRX CORPORATION: Securities Case Dismissal Bid Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court took a
motion to dismiss the CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation
under submission and took the hearing off calendar.

On June 13, 2014, three purported securities class action lawsuits
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, were consolidated in the matter of In re
CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx),
and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On October 1,
2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of CytRx between November 20, 2013 and March 13,
2014, against CytRx, certain Company officers and directors, a
freelance writer, and certain underwriters. The complaint alleges
that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements
in press releases, promotional articles, SEC filings and other
public statements. The complaint further alleges that certain of
the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by making
materially misleading statements and omitting material information
in the shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC
on December 6, 2012 and Prospectus Supplement on Form 424(b)(2)
filed with the SEC on January 31, 2014. These allegations arise
out of the Company's alleged retention of The DreamTeam Group and
MissionIR, external investor and public relations firms
unaffiliated with the Company, as well as the Company's December
9, 2013 grant of stock options to certain board members and
officers. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages,
including interest, in an unspecified amount, reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees, and any equitable, injunctive, or other relief
that the court may deem just and proper.

On December 5, 2014, CytRx and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The Court was scheduled to hear
argument on this motion on March 2, 2015.  On February 25, 2015,
the Court took this motion under submission and took the hearing
off calendar.


CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Granted Motion to Stay Rajasekaran Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court granted the
parties' joint ex parte motion to stay the proceeding, Rajasekaran
v. CytRx Corporation, pending resolution of motions to dismiss in
the related federal action, In re CytRx Corporation Securities
Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx).

On April 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain officers and each director, as
well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx Corporation,
et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
secondary common stock offering, which closed on February 5, 2014.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements in filings with the SEC. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, and
attorney's fees and costs.

On October 14, 2014, the court granted the parties' joint ex parte
motion to stay this proceeding pending resolution of motions to
dismiss in the related federal action, In re CytRx Corporation
Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx).


DIRT WORKS: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Galicia, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Dirt Works, LLC and Tony H. Davis, Case No. 5:15-cv-00170-JMH
(E.D. Ky., June 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company doing
business in Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      7450 Griffin Road
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Accused in Tenn. of Not Paying Agents' Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that First Acceptance Insurance
stiffs its agents for overtime, a class action claims in Tennessee
Federal Court.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Stipulation in Overdraft Suit Still Awaits Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an order approving
that stipulation is awaiting court approval in the Overdraft
Litigation.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against the Corporation and FirstMerit Bank N.A.
The complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of
Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and
who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged
re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been
filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without
prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County
seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive
damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

In December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a
proposed class and the Bank and Corporation appealed the order to
the Eleventh District Court of Appeals.

In September 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed
in part and reversed in part the trial court's class certification
order, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
consideration, in particular with respect to the class definition.
On October 9, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed with the
Eleventh District Court of Appeals an application for
reconsideration and application for consideration en banc. On
November 20, 2013, the Eleventh District denied those
applications. On December 4, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed
a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, and on January 3,
2014, they filed with the Ohio Supreme Court a memorandum in
support of the Court's exercising its jurisdiction and accepting
the appeal.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition, and, on April 24, 2014, the
Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. On August 6,
2014, the Bank and Corporation filed a motion asking the trial
court to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims subject to
an arbitration agreement. That motion has been fully briefed and
is awaiting a decision by the court. On August 25, 2014, the
parties stipulated to a revised class definition (without
affecting the pending motion to stay), and an order approving that
stipulation is awaiting court approval.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Appeal of Settlement in Merger Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an appeal of the
settlement in the Merger Litigation was dismissed in March 2015
and the settlement has become final.

Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged
shareholders of Citizens Republic Bancorp Inc. filed six purported
class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Genesee County,
Michigan, relating to the proposed merger between Citizens and
FirstMerit, which merger closed in April 2013. The lawsuits were
consolidated under the caption In re Citizens Republic Bancorp,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the "Lawsuit").
The consolidated complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that the former
directors of Citizens breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to obtain the best available price in the merger and by not
providing Citizens shareholders with all material information
related to the merger, and that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Complaint
sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the
consummation of the merger, rescissory damages and other equitable
relief.

The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement of
the Lawsuit, which the court approved on September 20, 2013. Under
the settlement, the defendants amended the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include certain
supplemental disclosures to shareholders of Citizens and agreed to
pay attorneys' fees and expenses as awarded by the court. An
appeal of the settlement was dismissed in March 2015 and the
settlement has become final.


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Faces "Rosales" Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit seeks damages
from a company that allegedly used underhanded tactics to inflate
its worth.

Dean Rosales and Nirav Shah filed a class action complaint against
Forcefield Energy Inc., David Natan, Jason Williams and Richard
St. Julien on April 27 in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The defendants are in the alternative energy industry, bringing
market products such as light emitting diode commercial lights and
fixtures.  They also utilize "waste heat," which involves making
clean electricity from manufacturing sources, the lawsuit states.

But the lawsuit stems from Forcefield allegedly making false or
misleading statements about the company and even, according to
court documents, enlisted paid promoters to inflate stock and hid
some of its employees' history with "fraudulent companies."

Once the media caught wind, the companies shares fell 21 percent
in one day, April 15, the lawsuit claims.  Then, five days later,
the company's former chairman, St. Julien, resigned his position,
was arrested and was charged with "scheming to boost the company's
share price in part by making secret payments to conspirators
through a firm based in Belize."

All the plaintiffs, citing significant losses and damages, seek
the court to validate their action and award compensatory damages,
costs and expenses.

The plaintiff is represented by Joseph E. Guglielmo, Thomas L.
Laughlin and Joseph V. Halloran at Scott and Scott LLP in New
York.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case no.
1:15-cv-03279


FORD MOTOR: More Female Employees Join Harassment Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Schulte, writing for WLS, reports that 29 more female
employees have joined a class action lawsuit that all alleges
sexual harassment and discrimination at two Ford Motor Company
plants in Chicago. The lawsuit now includes Ford's stamping plant
as well as its assembly plant.

Despite some recent management changes, the women say the work
environment at the Chicago plants remains the same.  The female
employees say there are many more women who would like to join the
lawsuit, but they fear retaliation.

The list of women gets longer and more female employees at Ford
Motor Company's Chicago assembly and stamping plants say they have
been sexually harassed and discriminated by their bosses.

"I've experienced management, supervisors asking me to take
pictures of my boobs and send it to them, telling me that they are
horny, they want to have sex with me," said Sharanda Campbell.

These women all tell a similar tale of a working environment that
not only alleges many examples of sexual harassment, but
discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it to the
company and the union.

"You would be denied overtime, you would be denied job
selections," said Miyoshi Morris, a former Ford employee.

Ms. Morris believes she was fired for speaking out after 18 years
on the job.  She is one of 33 women who are part of a class action
suit that was first filed by Four ford employees last November.
Maria Price is one of them.

"I'm one of the ones who will continue to continue receive
retaliation because I spoke up against company and the union,"
Ms. Price said.

A written statement issued by Ford on May 12 reads in part: " We
have undertaken a thorough investigation in response to the
allegations of harassment and improper conduct and have taken
appropriate steps in response, including disciplinary action where
warranted."

The company replaced some its top managers at the assembly plant.
Yet, these women say nothing has changed.

"These woman don't feel there is a meaningful avenue of
complaining or complaints are going to be heard," said Keith Hunt,
attorney.

Mr. Hunt says many more victims are afraid to come forward.  For
those who have, they are not giving up.

"I will never be used for my body, period," Ms. Campbell said.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined
employees were victims of sexual harassment, race discrimination
and retaliation.

In 1997, Ford settled a similar lawsuit.  This time, attorney
Keith Hunt is asking for a federal monitor to be placed inside the
plants, so women can voice their complaints to an independent
person.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 423,000 Cars Over Power-Steering Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that under pressure from U.S. safety
regulators, Ford is recalling nearly 423,000 cars and SUVs in
North America because the power-assisted steering can fail while
they're being driven.

The recall covers certain Ford Flex and Taurus vehicles, as well
as the Lincoln MKS and MKT from the 2011 through 2013 model years.
Also covered are the Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ from 2011 through
2012 and some 2011 Mercury Milans.

Ford says an intermittent electrical connection can cause the
power steering to stop.  That sends the steering into manual mode,
making the vehicles harder to control.  The company says it knows
of four crashes due to the problem but no injuries.  Dealers will
either update power steering control software or replace the
steering gear depending on the problem with individual vehicles. A
new steering gear eliminates the electrical issue.

In October, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
began investigating complaints of power-steering failures on three
Ford Motor Co. midsize car models.  The probe covered 938,000 Ford
Fusion and Lincoln MKZ cars from the 2010 through 2012 model
years, as well as the 2010 and 2011 Mercury Milan.  According to a
class-action lawsuit about the matter, the problem could affect
more Ford models, including the compact Focus.

NHTSA said at the time that it received 508 complaints alleging
that the cars lost power-assisted steering, causing increased
steering effort.

Ford said it was unsure if the agency would close its
investigation because of the recall.

The company also is recalling 19,500 2015 Mustangs with 2.3-Liter
engines due to high underbody temperatures that could degrade the
fuel tank and fuel vapor lines, increasing the risk of a fire.  No
fires have been reported. The heat also can damage the parking
brake cable.  Dealers will replace a heat shield and add
insulation.


FOXY LADY: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------
ABC6News reports that former exotic dancers at the Foxy Lady in
Providence are suing their old employer.  A dancer who worked at
the Providence club from 2012 to 2014 filed a class action suit in
district court claiming they were paid as contractors rather than
employees.  The suit says the dancers were not paid a base wage
had to pay a $40 a week shift fee and tip out the club's house
mom, deejay and bouncer five to $10 per shift.  She is asking for
back pay, damages and attorney's fees.


FRESNO COUNTY, CA: Settles Inmates' Mental Health Care Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Benjamin, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that a
settlement reached on May 28 on behalf of Fresno County Jail
inmates in a federal class-action lawsuit will cost the county
millions to hire new staff and $900,000 in fees for the inmates'
lawyers.

In addition, the county will pay another $40,000 each of the next
four years for monitoring costs to ensure that the Sheriff's
Office and other agencies are complying with guidelines of the
jail improvement plan.  The county also must hire more
correctional officers and pay for improved psychiatric services,
expected to cost about $4 million next year alone.

The lawsuit, filed nearly four years ago, alleged that conditions
in the jail constituted cruel and unusual punishment because
inmates were denied adequate medical, dental and mental health
care, and were vulnerable to attack by other prisoners because of
inadequate security.  The lawsuit also alleged that inmates with
disabilities were not provided reasonable accommodations,
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The settlement contains a 22-page "remedial plan" that includes
hiring 127 new correctional staff in the next three years to
reduce violence by inmates against other inmates and allow
officers to be more responsive.  It also outlines other
obligations that the sheriff and Corizon Health, a private
contractor, must undertake to improve jail conditions.

The county is adding 52 officer positions in Fresno County Jail
during the first year of the remedial plan.  The total cost of the
first year's sheriff's staffing will exceed $2 million, according
to the Fresno County Sheriff's proposed budget for 2015-16.

Fresno County was the first county jail sued by the Berkeley-based
Prison Law Office.  Lawyer Kelly Knapp, who filed the case, said
Fresno County "rose to the top especially as it applied to its
mental health care."

The added corrections officers will speed the response to inmate
issues, whether it involves violence, illness or psychiatric
matters, Knapp said.

The lawsuit covers inmates who are currently in jail and anyone
who will be confined there in the future.  Negotiations were
ongoing for the past two years and included a panel of experts who
examined the jail's needs.  Under the settlement, the county
admitted no liability and continues to deny allegations made in
the complaint.  "Nothing in the consent decree (settlement) shall
constitute or be used as evidence of wrongdoing or liability of
county, its agents or employees," the settlement says.

Bee's 2013 report chronicled issues

Treatment of mentally ill inmates was a focus of The Fresno Bee's
Watchdog Report "Locked In Terror," which chronicled that for
years inmates were not given psychiatric drugs they needed while
behind bars and were then deemed incompetent to stand trial and
shipped off to state hospitals, often more than once.

The Bee's 2013 report also resulted in the former chief of
psychiatric services at the Fresno County Jail being placed on
five years probation by the Medical Board of California because of
the actions he took at the jail.

Dr. Pratap Narayan's license was revoked, but the board last
September stayed the revocation and ordered probation.  As part of
the probation agreement, Narayan was ordered to enroll in a
clinical training program, a prescribing practices course and a
medical record-keeping course.  He also cannot be in solo practice
without a medical expert monitoring him in his office.  The
medical board had accused Narayan of repeated negligence,
prescribing medications without prior examination, unprofessional
conduct and inadequate record-keeping in his treatment of inmates.
Narayan worked at the Fresno County Jail for five years before
resigning in February 2013 to take a job at Avenal State Prison.

The county also is engaged in negotiating costs for medical and
mental health services improvements with its jail and juvenile
justice center contractor, Corizon Health, which agreed last year
to a five-year, $100 million contract with the county.  Under the
remedial plan approved by the county, the Department of Public
Health is seeking more psychiatric services for inmates as well as
increasing the number of confidential visits for inmates in
isolation.

David Pomaville, the county's public health director, said the
costs are being negotiated with Corizon, but could reach into the
$2 million range in the coming year because of the settlement.

He said that under the county's contract with Corizon those
expenses couldn't be anticipated.

"Regardless of the provider we would have chosen, we would be
coming back and doing that part," Mr. Pomaville said.

The most important change, Ms. Knapp said, was the increase in
psychiatric hours, which will more than double from about 20 to 25
hours per week to a minimum 55 hours per week and the opportunity
for those in "segregation" to receive confidential meetings with
psychiatrists three hours per week.  She said those meetings are
often only minutes long with the inmate inside and the
psychiatrist outside the cell within earshot of other inmates.
Additionally, she said, the requirement for recreation increases
to seven hours per week, more than double the previous three
hours.

"We're pleased with the outcome," she said.  "There are
substantial, necessary and important reforms that will come out of
this plan."

Among other terms of the settlement, the county agreed that:

  -- prisoners with chronic illnesses will get necessary
medications;

  -- pregnant inmates will receive timely and appropriate prenatal
and postpartum care, counseling, and specialized obstetrical
services when needed;

  -- suicidal prisoners will get a risk assessment;

  -- prisoners with serious mental illness in solitary confinement
will be taken out of their cells for recreation a minimum of seven
hours each week and mental health services will be offered three
times each week;

  -- inmates with disabilities will be housed in the most
appropriate housing possible based on their disabilities.

The inmates do not get any money from the settlement.

Ms. Knapp said she spoke with inmate Dawn Singh, one of the
plaintiffs, who was satisfied knowing she played a role in
improving conditions for her fellow inmates.

"She is very happy to see it as systemic reform, that other
inmates won't suffer from the treatment they did," Ms. Knapp said.
"This was part of achieving that goal."

County wanted to find resolution

Michael Woods, who was hired by the county specifically to handle
the jail lawsuit, said the county was willing to settle as it
learned about the problems.

"It provided an opportunity to explore the conditions in the jail
that could be improved and that assured Fresno County the ability
to comply with all applicable laws," he said.

Mr. Woods, with Fresno's McCormick-Barstow law firm, said the
county wanted to devote resources to finding an acceptable
resolution rather than fighting and paying large litigation bills.

Mr. Woods said the county wanted to work with the lawyers
representing the plaintiffs.  The two sides hired mutually agreed
upon experts in prison/jail security, mental health and inmate
medical services, Woods said.  In addition, Disability Rights
California, which was representing plaintiffs in the case, served
as experts in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"I truly think that what we've done here will create a better
environment for both inmates and correctional officers and this is
a situation where people of Fresno County should be happy with the
results," he said.

He points to a recent settlement in Monterey County where the
county and its contracted medical provider, CFMG, were sued over
conditions at the county jail, circumstances that Woods said were
less significant than the problems found in Fresno County.  The
Monterey County settlement promises lawyers for the plaintiffs up
to $4.8 million.  And, the county has not developed a mutually
acceptable remedial plan with opposing lawyers, which could add
hundreds of thousands more to the costs.

Mr. Woods estimates his firm's fees and costs are just under
$410,000.

In a statement on May 27, Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims
said: "The Fresno County Sheriff's Office will continue to work
with the Department of Public Health who has management of the
contract for jail medical and psychological services.  We will
work collaboratively to meet the obligations of the remedial plan
and continue to comply with all applicable laws in providing for
the safety and security of inmates."


GEARBOX: Plaintiffs Agree to Drop Colonial Marines Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Any Chalk, writing for PcGamer, reports that it appears as though
Gearbox made the correct move last year when it refused to settle
the Aliens: Colonial Marines lawsuit filed against it and
publisher Sega in 2013.  Polygon reported on May 28 that the
plaintiffs in the suit have agreed to drop the complaint against
Gearbox, in exchange for Gearbox agreeing not to seek legal fees.

The suit was originally filed over claims that the game did not
match what was promised in pre-release promotional trailers.
Gearbox asked to be removed from the action last year, saying it
just made the thing and had nothing to do with publishing or
selling it.  Sega, meanwhile, blamed Gearbox, and particularly
studio boss Randy Pitchford, for loose-cannon marketing and making
promises it couldn't keep.  In August of last year, Sega agreed to
settle the matter for $1.25 million, but the plaintiffs couldn't
agree to terms with Gearbox.

Now, however, Gearbox is out, and further, the judge in the case
has declined to certify it as a class action, meaning that only
the original two plaintiffs are now being represented.  The judge
ruled that the proposed class, which would have included everyone
in the US who bought the game, was too broad because it included
people who may not have seen the misleading trailer; a proposal to
have class applicants swear that they had seen it before
preordering the game wasn't sufficient.

The documents also indicate that the remaining plaintiffs had
until June 3 to decide how they want to proceed with Sega.


GENERAL MOTORS: DeGiorgio to Be Deposed in Ignition Switch Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nora Naughton, writing for Automotive News, reports that former
General Motors engineer Ray DeGiorgio will be deposed in June in
the class-action filed by consumers against the automaker over the
faulty ignition switches now linked to 107 deaths, Texas lawyer
Bob Hilliard's office confirmed on May 27.

Lawyers with Hilliard's firm will question Mr. DeGiorgio in
Detroit on June 18 and June 19.

Mr. DeGiorgio could not be reached for comment.

He is one of 15 GM employees who lost their jobs after the
automaker waited more than a decade to recall about 2.6 million
vehicles with defective ignition switches, which can be jostled
out of the "run" position by a knee or a heavy keychain, cutting
power to the engine.

A GM spokesperson was not immediately available for comment.  The
Wall Street Journal reported the story earlier on May 27.

Mr. DeGiorgio has been one of the central figures in GM's
ignition-switch troubles after he was discussed at length in
former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas' report on the crisis last
summer.  Mr. DeGiorgio approved putting the defective ignition
switch into production, despite it falling short of the
automaker's performance standards. He later quietly approved a
design change, according to Mr. Valukas' report.

Mr. DeGiorgio is one of 96 current and ex-employees Hilliard's
office has involved in the class-action, including former CEOs
Rick Wagoner and Dan Akerson and current CEO Mary Barra.
Depositions have not yet been scheduled for Wagoner or Akerson,
Hilliard's office wrote in an email on May 27.  Ms. Barra's
deposition is scheduled for Oct. 8.

GM has set up a victims compensation fund, headed by lawyer
Kenneth Feinberg.  Through Friday, Mr. Feinberg's office has
approved 107 death claims and 199 injury claims linked to the
faulty ignition switches.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Alleging "Good Start" False Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gerber aka Nestle falsely
claims that its Good Start formula helps prevent babies from
developing allergies, a class action claims in New York Federal
Court.


GOOGLE INC: Fails to Pay OT to Nonexempt Workers, "Trujillo" Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Vaco and Google failed to pay
hourly, nonexempt employees overtime, and denied them meal or rest
breaks, among other labor violations, a class alleges.

The case is Daniel Trujillo v. Google Inc.; Vaco Technology
Services LLC; Vaco San Francisco LLC in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Oral Argument Held in Durand Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that oral argument
on the appeal in the Durand Litigation is scheduled for June 11,
2015.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named
plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution
from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the
time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly
situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution
because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan
understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff
claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and those of
similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional
so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an
estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum
distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65.

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation
of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint included: (a) a
claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account
balances and lump sum payments properly because interest credits
were based solely upon the performance of each participant's
selection from among various hypothetical investment options (as
the Plan provided) rather than crediting the greater of that
performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that the
2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest crediting for all
participants from the performance of participant's investment
selections to the 30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") for participants who had account balances as of the
amendment date by not continuing to provide them performance-based
interest crediting on those balances; and (c) claims against the
Company for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice requirements
arising from the various interest crediting and lump sum
distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain. On March 31,
2011, the District Court granted the Company and the Plan's Motion
to Dismiss on statute of limitations grounds the additional claims
set forth in (a) and (b) above, however, in response to a motion
for reconsideration, the Court allowed the new breach of fiduciary
duty claim to stand, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim
that remained in the case. On June 22, 2012, the Company and the
Plan filed a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss the
"whipsaw" claim of one of the named plaintiffs who received his
lump sum distribution after December 31, 2003.

On October 2, 2013, the Court granted the Company and the Plan's
Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice
the "whipsaw" claim of the named plaintiff who received a lump sum
distribution after December 31, 2003 and the similar claims of the
putative class members he sought to represent. On December 17,
2013, the Court entered an order certifying a class to bring
"whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting
of all persons who received a lump sum distribution between March
1, 1997 and December 31, 2003, and a subclass to bring such claims
consisting of all persons who received lump sum distributions
between March 1, 1997 and March 12, 2002. On December 17, 2013,
the Court also granted plaintiffs' motion for entry of a final
order allowing an immediate appeal by the two named plaintiffs
added in the Amended Complaint of their dismissed claims that the
2004 Plan amendment reduced benefits in violation of ERISA, and
for one of them, that his post-2003 lump sum distribution should
have been greater.

On January 14, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Alter or Amend
the Court's December 17, 2013 Order requesting that the Court
reverse its order making the dismissed claims final and appealable
or, in the alternative, stay merits discovery on the claims
remaining in the district court pending resolution of the
dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. The Court denied this motion on
April 30, 2014. The appeal of the dismissal of the claims of the
two named plaintiffs added in the Amended Complaint was filed on
May 30, 2014. Oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for June
11, 2015. The Company recently filed a Summary Judgment motion to
dismiss another class of plaintiffs that were added with the
Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs have objected to this motion pending
the outcome of the foregoing appeal.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: No Hearing Yet on Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a hearing has not yet
been set on the Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims
are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the
statute of limitations.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v.
HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our
former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for
discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the
Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion
to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010."

"During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us.
Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint
to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth
and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12,
2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request
certification as a class action. One of those named officers has
repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court,
most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to
remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On
September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to
state court.

"On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended
complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time period of
1997 to 2002. On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss
on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims
are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the
statute of limitations. A hearing on our motion has not yet been
set.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on
the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and
circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying
claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and
scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an
adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it
is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or
range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment
or settlement of this case."


HEART SAVERS: Has Sent Unsolicited Calls, "Amini" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Amini and Mona Amini, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Heart Savers, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-
00916 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of contacting the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephone
using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Heart Savers, LLC is a body imaging center located in the Orange
County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


HERBALIFE LTD: TINA.org Objects to Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Seeking Alpha reports that on May 11, a final approval hearing for
the Bostick vs. Herbalife class action lawsuit took place in a Los
Angeles courtroom, which met opposition by TINA.org.  TINA's
objection is now under consideration by the court.  The objection
is summarized below:

The settlement would essentially ban the estimated 1.3 million
class members from ever suing Herbalife again, while only binding
the company for a three-year period to maintain a status quo that
will not require it to change its deceptive marketing practices,
refrain from operating its pyramid scheme, or eliminate its
fraudulent billing practices. In addition, while most class
members will receive a de minimis amount of money (between $3 and
$20) compared to their loss, class counsel will receive $5.25
million with leftovers going toward a cy pres award instead of
fully compensating class members.

TINA provided an update on Twitter which stated the judge will
write a formal decision on the objection, which may take between
weeks or even months to hear the outcome.

Prior to the hearing, a downtown LA press conference was held
where others voiced their opposition to the proposed class-action
settlement terms.

Coinciding with the Bostick class-action settlement, those
following Herbalife's series of unfortunate events are aware the
controversial company is currently under investigation by the FTC,
SEC, IL/NY Attorneys General.  Most recently a Department of
Justice probe was initiated, looking at Herbalife and its business
practices, led by the office of Manhattan US Attorney, Preet
Bharara.


HERSHEY CO: Appeal by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hershey Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 5, 2015, that the appeal by direct
purchaser plaintiffs remains pending before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In 2007, the Competition Bureau of Canada began an inquiry into
alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act in the sale and
supply of chocolate products sold in Canada between 2002 and 2008
by members of the confectionery industry, including Hershey
Canada, Inc. The U.S. Department of Justice also notified the
Company in 2007 that it had opened an inquiry, but has not
requested any information or documents.

Subsequently, 13 civil lawsuits were filed in Canada and 91 civil
lawsuits were filed in the United States against the Company.  The
Company said, "The lawsuits were instituted on behalf of direct
purchasers of our products as well as indirect purchasers that
purchase our products for use or for resale. Several other
chocolate and confectionery companies were named as defendants in
these lawsuits as they also were the subject of investigations
and/or inquiries by the government entities referenced above. The
cases sought recovery for losses suffered as a result of alleged
conspiracies in restraint of trade in connection with the pricing
practices of the defendants."

"The Canadian civil cases were settled in 2012. Hershey Canada,
Inc. reached a settlement agreement with the Competition Bureau of
Canada through their Leniency Program with regard to an inquiry
into alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act in the
sale and supply of chocolate products sold in Canada by members of
the confectionery industry. On June 21, 2013, Hershey Canada, Inc.
pleaded guilty to one count of price fixing related to
communications with competitors in Canada in 2007 and paid a fine
of approximately $4.0 million. Hershey Canada, Inc. had promptly
reported the conduct to the Competition Bureau, cooperated fully
with its investigation and did not implement the planned price
increase that was the subject of the 2007 communications.

"With regard to the U.S. lawsuits, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation assigned the cases to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "District
Court"). Plaintiffs sought actual and treble damages against the
Company and other defendants based on an alleged overcharge for
certain, or in some cases all, chocolate products sold in the U.S.
between December 2002 and December 2007, and certain plaintiff
groups alleged damages that extended beyond the alleged conspiracy
period. The lawsuits had been proceeding on different scheduling
tracks for different groups of plaintiffs.

"On February 26, 2014, the District Court granted summary judgment
to the Company in the cases brought by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs that had not sought class certification as well as
those that had been certified as a class. The direct purchaser
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ("Third Circuit") in
May 2014. The appeal remains pending before the Third Circuit.

"The remaining plaintiff groups -- the putative class plaintiffs
that purchased product indirectly for resale, the putative class
plaintiffs that purchased product indirectly for use, and direct
purchaser Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. -- dismissed their
cases with prejudice, subject to reinstatement if the Third
Circuit were to reverse the District Court's summary judgment
decision. The District Court entered judgment closing the case on
April 17, 2014."


HOUSEHOLD INT'L: 7th Cir. Tosses $2.46BB Judgment in Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 7th Circuit overturned a major victory for shareholders in a
long-running securities-fraud suit against Household
International, a consumer finance firm now owned by HSBC, reports
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service.

Household's share price fell more than 50 percent from mid-2001 to
October 2002, when lender agreed to pay $484 million to settle
predatory-lending allegations brought by state regulators.  HSBC
soon bought the company, but had to write off billions in bad
loans.

In 2013, U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzman entered a judgment of
$2.46 billion against Household and three of its former executives
following a jury verdict that they had misled investors about its
predatory-lending practices.  The judgment consisted of $1.5
billion in damages plus almost $1 billion in pre-judgment
interest, and was the largest award in a securities-fraud action
that went to trial in history.

But the 7th Circuit threw it out in May, finding that the "leakage
model" adopted by the jury to determine how much Household's
misrepresentations inflated its stock price did not account for
other factors that could have impacted the stock.

"[Defendants] argue that the leakage model, which the jury
adopted, did not account for firm-specific, non-fraud factors that
may have affected the decline in Household's stock price.  That is
true," Circuit Judge Diane Sykes wrote for the three-judge panel.
"The model assumes that any changes in Household's stock price --
other than those that can be explained by general market and
industry trends -- are attributable to the fraud-related
disclosures."

Plaintiffs' expert Daniel R. Fischel testified that he looked for
firm-specific factors during the relevant period, but did not find
any of significance. Household claimed that this investigation was
not enough -- rather, the leakage model needs to eliminate firm-
specific non-fraud related factors because it is plaintiff's
burden to prove loss causation.

The 7th Circuit panel agreed, finding that in order to prove loss
causation that shareholders also had to "isolate the extent to
which a decline in stock price is due to fraud-related corrective
disclosures and not other factors" -- which the leakage model did
not do in this case, the panel said.

"As things stand, the record reflects only the expert's general
statement that any such information was insignificant," Sykes
wrote.  "That's not enough.  A new trial is warranted on the loss-
causation issue consistent with the approach we've sketched in
this opinion."

The panel added that adopting Household's narrow position might
doom the shareholders' theory of securities fraud entirely,
because it might be impossible for any statistical model to
eliminate all non-fraud factors.  So the judges advocated for
adopting "a middle ground."

"If the plaintiffs' expert testifies that no firm-specific, non-
fraud related information contributed to the decline in stock
price during the relevant time period and explains in non-
conclusory terms the basis for this opinion, then it's reasonable
to expect the defendants to shoulder the burden of identifying
some significant, firm-specific, non-fraud related information
that could have affected the stock price," Sykes wrote for the
panel.  "If they can't, then the leakage model can go to the jury;
if they can, then the burden shifts back to the plaintiffs to
account for that specific information or provide a loss-causation
model that doesn't suffer from the same problem."

The Chicago-based appeals court also overturned the judgment
against the individual defendants -- Household's executives --
because it is not clear that the they "made" the false statements
in the company's press releases.

"We're hesitant to hold as a matter of law that a CEO 'makes' all
statements contained in a company press release," Sykes wrote.
"We haven't been directed to evidence showing that [CEO William]
Aldinger's signature or name appeared in the press releases in the
sense of an attribution," nor did he read the release at a press
conference, the panel found.

And while, as CEO, Aldinger certainly had authority over the press
releases, the shareholders have not shown that he "actually
exercised control over the content of the press releases," the 47-
page opinion stated.

Michael Dowd, a Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd partner representing
the plaintiffs, told Reuters that his clients will present the
"very limited" remaining issues to a jury at a new trial ordered
by the appeals court.

"We believe that we will prevail and that class members will
finally get the justice they deserve," he said.

The appellate case is Glickenhaus & Company, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. Household International, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants,
Case No. 13-3532, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

The District Court case is Glickenhaus & Company, et al. v.
Household International, Inc., et al., Case No. 02 C 5893, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.


HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Board Okays Voluntary License Relinquishment
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Coast News reports that The Florida Board of Dentistry voted
on May 29 to accept Dr. Howard Schneider's voluntary
relinquishment of his dentistry license.

The decision means Schneider will never be able to practice
dentistry in the state of Florida and makes it nearly impossible
for him to apply for a license anywhere else.

"Our charge is to protect the citizens.  When you see things going
on like you witnessed, we did what we had to do and we're glad to
get it done," says chair William Kochenour.

Jacksonville Attorney Gust Sarris is representing nearly 50
victims who claim to have suffered from abuse and unnecessary
procedures at the hands of Schneider.

"We are pleased to know that Dr. Schneider will no longer be
practicing in Florida.  However, the removal of his license will
not impact the ongoing criminal and civil investigations, and we
will continue to peruse all available actions to see that justice
is done for all of his victims," he says.

Mr. Sarris is working on several lawsuits regarding Schneider,
including a class action lawsuit.

Board members say given the severity of the accusations, the
decision the pull his license wasn't a difficult one to make.

"I think when you look back at how fast this has come, we've
gotten a conclusion. He is out of the system.  He is not going to
have contact with the children or anyone else in the state," Mr.
Kochenour says.

Mr. Schneider's legal troubles are far from over.  He's facing
several pending criminal investigations involving the State
Attorney's Office, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, and Medicaid
Fraud Unit.  No formal criminal charges have been filed yet.


IDAHO: 9th Circuit Says Abortion Ban Unconstitutional
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill Chappell, writing for NPR, reports that the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals says Idaho's law prohibiting abortions after 20 or more
weeks of pregnancy is "unconstitutional because it categorically
bans some abortions before viability."

The court ruled in favor of Jennie McCormack and Dr. Richard Hearn
(on behalf of himself and his patients), who had challenged
Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that restricts
abortion in the state.

In 2011, Ms. McCormack was arrested and faced criminal charges
after she ended a pregnancy by taking what's known as the abortion
pill, RU-486.  She was found to have been perhaps twice as far
into the pregnancy as the recommended nine-week window for using
the pill.

The criminal charges against McCormack were dismissed in 2011;
shortly afterward, she filed a class-action lawsuit.

As NPR reported in 2012, "McCormack is a small, quiet woman in her
early 30s and a single mom of three.  McCormack was raised
devoutly Mormon in Pocatello, Idaho, where she's lived all her
life -- and until last year, she was used to going unnoticed."

The arguments were heard by Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson and Kim
McLane Wardlaw and Senior District Judge Donald E. Walter.  The
court's opinion was written by Judge Pregerson.

In addition to ruling on the 20-week time period, the court said
Idaho's requirement that all second-trimester abortions take place
in a hospital is also unconstitutional, "because it places an
undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion."

Other elements of Idaho's law, such as a requirement that abortion
be performed in a medical office with proper staffing, were
"unconstitutionally vague," the court said.


ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL: Lead Plaintiff Urges Judge to Allow Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a new plaintiff's filing in a
class-action head injury lawsuit against the governing body of
Illinois prep sports has asked a judge to let the litigation move
forward.

The filing contends the Illinois High School Association
exaggerated the lawsuit's potential impact.  The IHSA filed a
motion in April seeking a dismissal of the lawsuit.  It argued the
lawsuit would lead to costly court mandates that could end up
killing some high school football programs.

But the plaintiff's filing contends legal action could actually
help save high school football.  It says a successful lawsuit will
reassure parents concussions are being dealt with properly and
make parents more willing to let their kids play.

The 19-page document was filed in Cook County Circuit Court.


ISORAY INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 29 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against IsoRay, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern
District of Washington, and docketed under 15-cv-05046, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased IsoRay securities between May 20, 2015 and May 21, 2015,
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased IsoRay securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 21, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

IsoRay develops, manufactures, and sells isotope-based medical
products and devices for the treatment of cancer and other
malignant diseases in the United States.  The Company produces
Proxcelan Cesium-131 brachytherapy seeds for the treatment of
prostate, lung, head and neck, colorectal, brain,
pelvic/abdominal, and gynecological cancers, as well as ocular
melanoma.  It also offers GliaSite radiation therapy system, a
balloon catheter device, which is used to treat brain cancer,
including primary and recurrent gliomas and metastic brain tumors.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements regarding IsoRay's
Celsium-131 isotope seeds and mesh for the treatment of non-small
cell lung cancers.

On May 20, 2015, IsoRay issued a press release touting the on-line
publication of the first major peer reviewed study showing
improved results using IsoRay's Cesium-131 seeds in the treatment
of lung cancer.

On May 21, 2015, TheStreet.com published an article on IsoRay
asserting that the Company selectively edited findings from a
published study in the May 20th Press Release to make its Cesium-
131 product seem better than it really is.

On this news, shares of IsoRay fell $1.10 per share or over 35% to
close at $2.02 per share on May 21, 2015, damaging investors.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm is -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- acknowledged
as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities,
and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L.
Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the
Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions.
Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.


JL XPRESS: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan P. Saavedra, and other similarly situated individuals v. JL
Xpress Corp. and Carlos E. Prieto, Case No. 2015-012762-CA-01
(Fla. Cir. Ct., June 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a freight shipping and trucking
company in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005


JUBILEE PROPERTY: Sued Over Failure to Repair Rented Units
----------------------------------------------------------
Elton Bell Sr. and Elton Bell Jr. v. Choyce 1995 Family Trust,
Gordon W. Choyce, Sharon M. Choyce, Jubilee Property Management,
Jubilee Restoration Incorporate and Does 1 to 20, Case No.
RG15773219 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 8, 2015), is brought on behalf
of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury,
over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of
the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the
habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Black, Esq.
      Ian Bennett-Goldberg, Esq.
      BLACK AND BENNETT LAW GROUP
      2001 Omega Rd. Ste. 203
      San Ramon, CA 94583
      Telephone: (925) 362-3120
      E-mail: Jonathan@blackandbennettlawgroup.com
              Ianbennett@blackandbennettlawgroup.com


KUROSHIO INC: Removed "Vaughan" Class Suit to N. Dist. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Sarah Vaughan, Anthony Davis,
and Jennifer Rivas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kuroshio, Inc., Kuroshio II, Inc., and Khoa
Nguyen, Case No. 15-00001-90-00056, was removed from the Superior
Court of Cobb County to the U.S. District Court Northern District
of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02067-SCJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Ronald Bridgers, Esq.
      Kevin D. Fitzpatrick Jr., Esq.
      DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS & FITZPATRICK, LLC
      101 Marietta Street, NW
      3100 Centennial Tower
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 979-3150
      E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
              kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com

         - and -

      Mitchell Douglas Benjamin, Esq.
      BILLIPS & BENJAMIN, LLP
      3101 Towercreek Parkway, Suite 190
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (770) 859-0751
      E-mail: benjamin@bandblawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Frederick Lane Warren III, Esq.
      Patrick L. Ryan, Esq.
      FORD & HARRISON LLP-ATL
      Suite 1900, 271 17th Street, NW
      Atlanta, GA 30363
      Telephone: (404) 888-3800
      Facsimile: (404) 888-3863
      E-mail: rwarren@fordharrison.com
              pryan@fordharrison.com


KW ALAMEDA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Rented Units
------------------------------------------------------------
Afaf Bashumaila, et al. v. KW Alameda, LLC, FPI Management, Inc.,
Summer House Apartments, Lidia Zaragoza and Does 1-30, Case No.
RG15773199 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 8, 2015), is brought on behalf
of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury,
over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of
the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the
habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


LEE COUNTY, FL: Sheriff's Faces Suit Over Unapproved Radar Guns
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Culberth, writing for WINK News, reports that within hours
after a WINK News exclusive investigation, a major class action
lawsuit was filed.  The Lee County Sheriff's Office was exposed
for using unapproved radar guns, resulting in possibly thousands
of speeding tickets that should never have been written.

Numerous lawyers tell WINK News that there's much more to this
than just the cost of a speeding ticket.  If the stop was made
initially because of the unapproved radar guns, what about the
cost of traffic school? What about the points on your license, the
extra money you spent on insurance? What about the cost of a DUI,
lawyers fees, and insurance?

WINK News spoke with the head of the office which took in all the
millions of dollars and who saw WINK News's story on May 11.

"My first concern was what about if we have to refund all this
money?" said Linda Doggett, who runs the Lee County Clerk of
Courts which collects the money for speeding tickets.  "They look
at that revenue as the main source for funding clerks and court
related functions and many other trust funds in state and local
agencies."

WINK News' investigation discovered that for over at least the
last 10 years, the Lee County Sheriff's Office has issued up to
52,000 speeding tickets.  Sources with direct knowledge of the
situation say most of those are based on a radar device called the
Python II.

Don Sawicki is a radar exert who testifies in court cases.  He
says the problem with the Python II lies in what's known as beam
width and that it does not meet Florida's minimum design
specifications.

"It specifically says that the beam width shall not exceed 12
degrees," said Mr. Sawicki.

In a graphic shown on WINK News, it shows a radar gun pointing
towards three vehicles.  With a device with a 12 degree beam
width, it shows that there's no problem.  But, in another graphic
which depicts a 15 degree beam width Mr. Sawicki explains, "He
could be picking up traffic that he is not expecting to pick up,
so he may mistake somebody for speeding that isn't speeding."

That's a problem, because the Python II has a 15 degree beam
width.

"Therefore, any speed measurement from the Python II is
inadmissible in any court in Florida," said Mark Bonner, who's a
former federal prosecutor and now teaches at Ave Maria Law School.

On May 12  people had already started going to the courthouse to
look up their ticket.

"Sometimes they name which device they use and the serial number,"
Doggett explained.  "Sometimes they just say radar, so you're not
guaranteed that it's going to be listed on your ticket."

Also on May 12, Fort Myers attorney Sawyer Smith filed a federal
class action lawsuit.  "We have launched a website, PythonII.com,
that allows a ticketed driver to submit some basic information
that will allow us to evaluate whether they have the potential to
be in this class."

Mr. Smith says this is going to be big.  "The sky's the limit with
this case.  I assure you it's going to be broad.  This is just the
beginning."

WINK News finally heard from Sheriff Mike Scott on May 12.  He
points out that he took the bad radar guns off the streets in
January, which was clearly pointed out in its initial story.  He
also said he felt our story made it seem like he purchased the
devices.  However, we were clear in saying they were purchased in
2004, and that Mr. Scott was elected in November of that year.


LORD & TAYLOR: Faces "Galpern" TCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Bryan Koenig, writing for Law360, reports that Lord & Taylor LLC
is facing a proposed class action after a man accused the retailer
in New Jersey federal court on May 8 of sending unsolicited text
message advertisements to thousands of people.

The lawsuit alleges more than 10,000 people have received such
texts without ever signing up for them, in what Michael Galpern
argues is an invasion of privacy under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

"Defendants maintain a policy of sending uniformly worded
advertising messages via text to mobile phones owned by plaintiff
and the class, despite the fact that plaintiff and the class have
not indicated their express consent to receive such messages,"
Mr. Galpern said.

In addition to an invasion of privacy, Mr. Galpern argues that the
texts cost cellphone users money because they use data.

Mr. Galpern's complaint said that Lord & Taylor has two different
programs by which customers can sign up for text message ads for
sales at company stores: either by texting the word "sale" to a
set number or by asking for the messages on the retailer's
website.  The proposed class would consist of anyone who has
received texts but didn't ask for them from October 2013 to the
present.

"Defendants are fully capable of identifying all persons who have
given defendants their express consent to receive advertising text
messages from Lord & Taylor," Mr. Galpern said.  "Indeed, by using
the electronically stored records maintained by defendants,
defendants can identify all such persons easily."

Moreover, Mr. Galpern argued that Lord & Taylor can tell who had
received advertisement texts after signing up and who had received
advertisement texts without requesting them.

"These text messages are not the result of an accident or human
error," Mr. Galpern said.

According to the complaint, Mr. Galpern started receiving the text
message ads in April 2014 despite never signing up for them.

The lawsuit hits Lord & Taylor with two counts, one for negligent
violations of the TCPA and the other for knowing or willful
violations.  It seeks $500 for every single negligent violation
and $1,500 for every willful violation.

The case also names Lord & Taylor parent company NRDC Equity
Partners LLC as a defendant.

Mr. Galpern is represented by Stephen P. Denittis of Denittis
Osefchen PC.

The case is Galpern V. NRDC Equity Partners LLC et al., case
number 1:15-cv-03255, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Hancock Park Homeowner Files Action v. LADWP
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Los Angeles reports that a Hancock Park homeowner said he was
expecting a $7,000 refund from the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power for overpayment.

Randy Esada told CBS2's Randy Paige that when he inquired about a
refund, he was not only told he wasn't due a refund, he was told
he owed.  And owed a lot.  It's a story that is Only On 2.  Mr.
Esada received a bill for more than $18,000.  The homeowner said
when he first moved into the residence five years ago, he set up
an automatic payment plan of $1,300 every two months.  He said it
was always enough to cover his power and water bill and then some.

"It's unbelievable," he said, holding the new bill.

Mr. Paige asked Mr. Esada if there is any way that the bill could
be accurate, based on his past power consumption.

"Absolutely not," he said.

Mr. Esada was also told his water bill was an additional $,2,600,
and this was after he switched his lawn to artificial turf.
"This is a blatant overcharge on my power and water bill,"
Mr. Esada said.

When he challenged the amount of both bills, Mr. Esada said he was
told to pay it or his power and water would be shut off.
"This sent shock waves through our household," Mr. Esada said.
"This is almost certainly inaccurate," attorney Tim Blood said.
He has filed a class-action suit against the utility.  He says it
knowingly told people the higher bills are due to a leak or that
they left a light on.

"And they know this is patently false," Mr. Blood says.  "It's not
what happened to these folks."  Mr. Esada is not part of the class
action.

The LADWP has declined Paige's request for an on-camera interview.
Instead, it provided the following statement:

"The problem some of our customers experienced with the billing
system is the subject of litigation . . . as such we cannot
comment on specifics of those cases or on specific customer
complaints.  We continue to encourage our customers to contact us
directly if they have any concerns with their bill."

Mr. Esada said he has complained and is waiting for answers.


LVNV FUNDING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Hassler, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. LVNV Funding, LLC and Resurgent Capital Services, LP, Case No.
4:15-cv-00903-RLW (E.D. Mo., June 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James W. Eason, Esq.
      EASON LAW FIRM
      124 Gay Ave., Suite 200
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 932-1066
      Facsimile: (314) 667-3161
      E-mail: james.w.eason@gmail.com


MARICOPA, AZ: Sheriff Arpaio Wants Judge Sheridan to Recuse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sheriff Joe Arpaio wants to recuse the federal judge hearing his
civil contempt case, claiming he showed bias when asking about
Arpaio's hiring a private eye to investigate the judge's wife,
reports Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service.

Arpaio's attorneys filed the motion May 22, moments before a
status conference to prepare for the second half of a civil
contempt hearing set to continue in June.

Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio, his Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan
and three former and current officers face contempt charges
accusing them of violating a court order in a 2007 racial
profiling class action.

"The MCSO did not understand [racial profiling], in an immigration
context, to prohibit the use of race as a factor among others in
making a law enforcement decision," U.S. District Judge G. Murray
Snow wrote in the order.  "Thus, MCSO deputies could consider race
as one factor in stopping a vehicle or initiating an investigation
so long as race was not the sole basis on which deputies made that
decision."

Attorneys for Arpaio and Sheridan claim in a motion for recusal
that Snow's inquiry during the contempt hearing in April "is
sufficient to mandate recusal and disqualification" and make
Snow's wife "a material witness."

Snow's questioning was prompted by a Phoenix New Times article
that claimed Arpaio, 82, hired an investigator to find information
showing that Snow and the Department of Justice were conspiring
against him.

"Importantly, this article had never been disclosed and no advance
notice was provided to any of the defendants or their counsel in
the contempt proceeding that the article would be discussed or
relied upon by Judge Snow," the motion states.

During his testimony in April, Arpaio told Snow the private eye
found that Snow's wife had told an acquaintance that her husband
"wanted to do everything to make sure [Arpaio was] not elected."
The acquaintance later sent a Facebook message to the sheriff with
the information.

"Whether a sitting judge is admittedly biased toward a defendant
in his court and will do anything to ensure he is not re-elected
is -- without question -- a conflict that creates grounds for
recusal," the attorneys claim.  "Accordingly, even if at some
point there is a denial that Mrs. Snow made the statements at
issue, the conflict that is created is unwaivable."

Cecillia Wang, an ACLU attorney representing the underlying
plaintiffs, said there is no basis for Snow to be recused.

"Frankly, the timing of Arpaio's motion is very suspect and
indicates that this is an effort to manipulate the judicial system
and to derail the contempt proceeding," Wang said May 22.

Mel McDonald, an attorney for Arpaio, called Wang's statement
"wrong."

The motion calls into question a number of other actions taken by
Snow, including the timing of his 2013 order, which was released
one week before a petition to recall Arpaio was due.

"The time of the decision was curious and problematic, as it
resulted in immediate marches and protests against defendant
Arpaio at a crucial point in his political career," the motion for
recusal states.

The first judge assigned the 2007 class action, U.S. District
Judge Mary Murguia, recused herself due to statements her sister
-- a political activist -- made publicly against Arpaio.  It is
unclear if the new motion will delay the second half of the civil
contempt hearing.


MAYNARD GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Central Alarm Signal, Inc., individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. The Maynard Group,
Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-12108-PDB-MKM (E.D.
Mich., June 10, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendants'
practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

The Maynard Group, Inc. is a telephone and computer networks
contractor with its principal place of business in Soquel,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: BWanca@andersonwanca.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
      2000 Town Center, Suite 900
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: Employees Win in Payroll Card Suit
---------------------------------------------------
James O'Malley, writing for Times Leader, reports that payroll
cards in Pennsylvania are not legally money and they're not
legally checks, according to one Luzerne County judge.  And it's
for that reason Judge Thomas F. Burke says in an opinion filed on
May 29 he cannot rule in favor of Clarks Summit-based McDonald's
franchisees Albert and Carol Mueller.

State law requires employers pay their employees by check or in
"lawful money of the United States," and Judge Burke wrote that
the JP Morgan Chase Payroll Cards the couple mandated employees
use constituted neither.

But Judge Burke's opinion notes that the civil case -- which
examines whether the Muellers' mandate violated that law -- is a
new legal issue whose resolution will have statewide implications.

He writes that "reasonable minds can differ, particularly where
considerations of advancing technology and consumer convenience,
as well as the competing consideration of consumer protection are
all involved."

The opinion makes further note of the fact at least half of all
U.S. states allow wages be paid by payroll card, and at least one
proposed piece of legislation would amend the Pennsylvania law
regulating payment to allow payroll cards.

However, Judge Burke writes, the proposed legislation would allow
payroll cards as one of several options for obtaining wages,
rather than the exclusive one.  Many other states have similar
requirements, the opinion says.

Judge Burke suggests the state Department of Labor and Industry
take a formal position on the matter, saying such an opinion would
be beneficial to both an appellate court and both employers and
wage-earners throughout the state.

The judge issued the opinion along with an attached order in
response to a defendants' motion seeking judgment in their favor.

Judge Burke earlier in May certified the suit as a class action,
writing in another order and opinion that because the suit could
see a class of as many as 2,380 members, joining each one to the
case as a plaintiff would prove impossible.  The opinion
continued, saying similar facts would surround each potential
plaintiff's claim, and the named plaintiff's claims challenge the
same conduct as the class's claims.

Plaintiffs allege the Muellers, trading as McDonald's, effectively
reduced the earnings of employees at some 16 restaurants by
mandating they receive their pay between November 2010 and July
2013 via the fee-heavy payment cards.

Natalie Gunshannon, of Dallas Township initially filed the suit in
June 2013, and an amended complaint filed in August 2013 added
several more plaintiffs.

Court papers indicate Ms. Gunshannon, who worked at a Dallas
Highway restaurant, withdrew from the suit voluntarily after it
was learned she was never actually paid using the payroll cards.


MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Baasch" Suit Over Proposed Company Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Baasch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Meru Networks, Inc., Bami Bastani, Barry Cox, Stephen
Domenik, John T. Kurtzweil, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, Fortinet, Inc.,
and Malbrouck Acquisition Corp., Case No. 11112 (Del. Ch., June 8,
2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Meru
Networks, Inc., to enjoin a proposed merger with Fortinet, Inc.
and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Malbrouck Acquisition Corp.
through a flawed process, unfair price, and inadequate
consideration.

Meru Networks, Inc. is Delaware corporation that serves customers
around the world by consistently delivering high performance
intelligent Wi-Fi solutions in high density and bandwidth
intensive environments.

Fortinet, Inc. provides high performance cyber security solutions
to some of the largest enterprise service providers and government
organizations across the globe.

Malbrouck Acquisition Corp. is a Delaware corporation and is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
      995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 588-5516


MIDLAND FUNDING: Not Shielded From Usury Claims, 2nd Cir. Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Though the debts it tries to collect may have originated with a
national bank, federal law does shield Midland Funding from usury
claims, reports Gina Carrano at Courthouse News Service, citing a
2nd Circuit ruling.

Saliha Madden hopes to represent a class with claims that Midland
wrongfully applied a "usurious" 27 percent yearly interest rate on
alleged debts.

Since New York caps the annual interest rate at 25 percent, and
Madden lives there, she claimed that Midland's conduct constitutes
"abusive and unfair debt collection practices in violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)."

Midland meanwhile pointed to the National Bank Act, or NBA, a
federal law that lets banks charge interest on a loan at any rate
allowed by the state in which the bank is located, regardless of
maximum interest rates in the consumer's home state.

In Madden's case, Midland said her credit card debt originated
with the Bank of America, whose credit card program was later
consolidated into Delaware-based national bank FIA Card Services.

Since Midland is located in Delaware, it denied an obligation to
meet New York's interest-rate cap.

Midland said Madden received a "change in terms" document when FIA
became Madden's creditor, and that this notice contained a
"Delaware choice-of-law clause."

Crediting Midland's arguments, a federal judge in Manhattan denied
Madden class certification and found that the NBA pre-empts her
claims.

The 2nd Circuit's reversal May 22 refuses, however, to put much
stock in the fact that Midland Funding and Midland Credit
Management are "assignees" of a national bank.

"Because neither defendant is a national bank nor a subsidiary or
agent of a national bank, or is otherwise acting on behalf of a
national bank, and because application of the state law on which
Madden's claim relies would not significantly interfere with any
national bank's ability to exercise its powers under the NBA, we
reverse the District Court's holding that the NBA pre-empts
Madden's claims and accordingly vacate the judgment of the
District Court," Judge Chester Straub wrote for a three-person
panel.

Midland's purchase of Madden's alleged debts ended any interest
the banks had in collecting them, the court found.  With Midland
acting solely on its own behalf in collections attempts, it is not
entitled to the protections of the NBA, according to the ruling.

Class certification may be available to Madden on remand, and the
lower court must determine whether the Delaware choice-of-law
clause precludes her claims.

Midland says it was still acting under Delaware law, even if its
debt-collection actions are not preempted by the NBA, because
Madden's creditor, FIA Card Services, is located in Delaware.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Daniel Adam Schlanger, Esq.
          Peter Thomas Lane, Esq.
          SCHLANGER & SCHLANGER LLP
          343 Manville Road
          Pleasantville, NY 10570
          Telephone: (914) 946-1981
          Facsimile: (914) 946-2930
          E-mail: daniel@schlangerlegal.com
                  peter@schlangerlegal.com

               - and -

          Owen Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          25 E Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: Rand@horwitzlaw.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Thomas Arthur Leghorn, Esq.
          Joseph L. Francoeur, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
          150 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 490-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 490-3038
          E-mail: thomas.leghorn@wilsonelser.com
                  joseph.francoeur@wilsonelser.com

The appellate case is Saliha Madden, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Midland Funding,
LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 14-2131-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  The District Court case is Madden v. Midland
Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 7:11-cv-08149, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry M. Shedler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Monarch Recovery Management Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03876-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., June 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE HERSh
      17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
      Rutherford, NJ 07070
      Telephone: (201) 507-6300
      E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


MONTEREY, CA: Oct. 15 Deadline for Plan to Improve Jail Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Gatlin, writing for The Salinas Californian, reports that
officials involved in a protracted lawsuit involving alleged
failings at the Monterey County Jail said they reached a
preliminary settlement on May 11.  Per the agreed-upon settlement,
defendants -- Monterey County, the Monterey County Sheriff's
Office and California Forensic Medical Group -- deny any
liability, according to a joint press release.  All parties have
until Oct. 15 to agree on a plan for implementing enhanced
services at the jail.  In the interim and for a limited time
after, a panel of neutral monitors will be retained for jail
oversight.

Monterey County and CFMG will pay out $4.8 million in attorneys
fees with a $250,000 cap annually on fees associated with
implementing necessary improvements.

Under the settlement, areas of targeted improvement include intake
screening, infection control -- especially where tuberculosis
screening is concerned -- detoxification, safety cells, continuity
of medication, staffing and health care related to medical, mental
and dental care.

The defendants must also make marked improvements to the facility
to bolster safety and accessibility for disabled inmates, per the
settlement.  Deaf inmates, specifically, have alleged jail staff
have frequently failed to provide interpreters.

Many of those improvements have been under way for some time,
according to representatives of Monterey County and CFMG, which
provides medical and mental health care for inmates housed at the
facility.

In the works is an $89 million jail expansion which, Monterey
County Sheriff Steve Bernal has said, will likely ameliorate most
of the concerns outlined in the lawsuit.

"The settlement clears the way for us to complete our jail
modernization work," Mr. Bernal said in the release.

San Francisco-based Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP filed the
suit on behalf of an initial five named inmates in May 2013.  The
firm was soon joined by the Monterey County Public Defender's
Office and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Last year, the lawsuit was granted class action status on behalf
of all current and future inmates.  Disabled inmates were named a
special class in the determination.

The May 11 announced settlement follows a damning conclusion by
U.S. Magistrate Paul Grewal in April that said the inmates were
"likely to succeed based on the merits" of the complaint.  With
that decision, Grewal filed a preliminary injunction ordering
Monterey County and CFMG to complete a remediation plan within 60
days.

At that time, Monterey County and CFMG already had submitted a
remediation plan as part of the settlement discussion, County
Counsel Charles McKee and Peter Bertling, representing CFMG, told
The Californian.

"The plaintiffs declined to agree to our implementation plan,"
Mr. McKee said.

Improvements were already ongoing, Mr. Bertling said.  In the
press release, CFMG co-founder and chief operating officer
Elaine Hustedt echoed Mr. Bertling's comments.

"The settlement acknowledges that we and the county have
continually enhanced services, including increased staffing, in
recognition of rising healthcare demands and our desire to do
right by inmates and their families," she said.

Public Defender Jim Egar lauded the settlement within the press
release.

"By continuing to work with us on this settlement, the county will
continue to rapidly improve our clients' conditions of
confinement, without the delay and expense of a civil trial," he
said.

Trial was set for September in the case.

Judge Grewal must still approve the settlement.

Michael Bien, part of the counsel that brought the suit, praised
the "constructive" collaboration on the settlement.

"We specifically look forward to working with the county to ensure
the prisoners with disabilities can participate fully in proven
programs that reduce recidivism and improve public safety," he
said.


NATALIA CITY, TX: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Waymon Morgan v. The City of Natalia, Ruby Vera, and Beth
Leonesio, individually and in their Official Capacities, Case No.
5:15-cv-00483 (W.D. Tex., June 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The City of Natalia is located in Medina County, Texas, and may be
served with process by serving its City Mayor, Ruby Vera.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn Deutsch Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
      906 West Basse Road-Suite 100
      San Antonio, TX 78212
      Telephone: (210) 822-5666
      Facsimile: (210) 822-5650
      E-mail: glenn@glennlevylaw.com


NEBRASKA: Inmates File Suit Over Overcrowded Prison
---------------------------------------------------
The Grand Island Independent reports that all men sentenced to
prison start their time at the Diagnostic and Evaluation Center,
where they are evaluated before being sent to the state's other
prisons to finish out their sentences.

The Lincoln prison was at 335 percent of capacity at the end of
April, according to the Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services website.

Reaching 140 percent of capacity triggers a report to the
governor, who can declare an emergency. Neither former Gov. Dave
Heineman nor current Gov. Pete Ricketts has done so.  The level
also can be a benchmark federal judges use to order construction
of new cells.

Andre Pare, one of the inmates suing, said the overcrowding leads
to the spread of airborne disease and has put a strain on medical
staff.

He said he contracted staph pneumonia when he was there in August
2013.  He is at the Community Corrections Center-Lincoln now.
Mr. Pare said in the lawsuit that in one housing unit, 22 inmates
sleep on the floor of the cell block around insects and rodents
and by trash cans, and that food is served 10 feet from the
toilet.

There are two toilets for 54 inmates per cell block, Pare's
lawsuit says.

Both lawsuits seek a preliminary injunction finding prison
administrators are violating the inmates' constitutional rights
and order the state to temporarily stop accepting new inmates at
the Diagnostic and Evaluation Center until a court-mediator
investigates.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: 83 Individuals Join "Davida" FLSA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 29, 2015,
83 individuals have joined the case, Davida v. Newpark Drilling
Fluids LLC.

On June 18, 2014, Jesse Davida, a former employee of Newpark
Drilling Fluids LLC filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties for the
Company's alleged failure to: properly classify its field service
employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA; and, pay them on an
hourly basis (including overtime). The plaintiff seeks recovery on
his own behalf, and seeks certification of a class of similarly
situated employees.

On January 6, 2015, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
"conditionally" certify the class of fluid service technicians
that have worked for Newpark Drilling Fluids over the past three
years. Beginning in early March of 2015, notification was given to
658 current and former fluid service technician employees of
Newpark regarding this litigation and those individuals have the
opportunity to "opt-in" to the Davida litigation. The opt-in
period will close in early May of 2015.

As of April 29, 2015, 83 individuals have joined the Davida
litigation.

"Once the opt-in period has closed, the proceedings will
transition to addressing the merits of the claims," the Company
said.  "Notwithstanding, the conditional certification of the
class, we have a number of defenses we can assert against these
claims including that these employees are properly classified as
exempt employees. Until the final number of plaintiffs joining the
case has been determined and their individual work histories
assessed, a determination of our potential liability exposure
cannot be determined. We have retained counsel with experience in
cases of this nature, and intend to vigorously defend this
litigation."


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Conditional Cert. Denied in "Christiansen"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has denied
the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification in the
case, Christiansen v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC.

On November 11, 2014, Christiansen filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties
for the Company's alleged failure to: properly classify him as an
employee rather than an independent contractor; properly classify
its field service employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA; and,
pay them on an hourly basis (including overtime) and seeks damages
and penalties for the Company's alleged failure to pay him and the
others in the proposed class on an hourly basis (including
overtime).

Since the filing of this lawsuit, five additional plaintiffs have
joined the proceedings. The plaintiff seeks recovery on his own
behalf, and sought certification of a class of similarly situated
individuals.  However, in March of 2015, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification.

"Counsel for the plaintiffs are considering whether to proceed
with the litigation on the basis of individual claims, appeal the
ruling of the Court, or take some other course of action. We have
retained counsel with experience in cases of this nature, and
intend to vigorously defend this litigation," the Company said.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Faulty Pathfinder Transmission
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit seeks
restitution for an apparently faulty transmission in some recent
models of the Nissan Pathfinder.

According to a lawsuit filed on March 30 in Los Angeles County
Superior Court, Gerardo Torres and Angela Matlin are leading a
class action complaint against Nissan North America Inc, Nissan
Motor Co. Ltd. and 10 unnamed individuals.

Nissan removed the case to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 30 under the Class Action Fairness
Act.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Californians who bought a
2013 or 2014 Nissan Pathfinder, with a continuously variable
automatic transmission (CVT).  The lawsuit states that the
defendants portrayed CVT as a way to satisfy buyers' desire for
more efficiency while maintaining the horsepower from previous
models and having an engine that could achieve "the ideal rpm for
the conditions at hand, offering responsive power for passing or
towing when needed and quiet efficient running at cruising speeds
or around town," the lawsuit states.

Ultimately, the lawsuit states, the class action was brought
because the transmissions had flaws that were causing "shaking,
juddering, jerking, delayed acceleration and, eventually,
transmission failure."

In April 2014, Nissan issued a recall of the vehicles, focused on
problems with the internal oil cooler hose, but the problems
allegedly persisted; although Nissan continued to pump up hype for
the CVT, according to the lawsuit.

Ultimately, the lawsuit alleges that Nissan hid a "transmission
defect" in these engines.

The plaintiffs, citing violations of the state Consumer Remedies
Act and Unfair Competition Law, as well as breaches of implied and
express warranty, seek a jury trial for the recognition of the
class; to demand that Nissan obey all pertaining laws; and award
unspecified compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages,
restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and
court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jordan L. Lurie --
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Friedl --
Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek H. Zobdy and Cody R.
Padgett of Capsione Law APC in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:15-cv-03251


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Defective Front Suspensions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nissan Versas in 2007-2011
model years have dangerously defective front suspensions, a class
action claims in California Federal Court.


NUMERICABLE-SFR: Sued Over 4G Coverage Claims
---------------------------------------------
Telecompaper reports that French consumer association Familles
Rurales has taken legal action against operator Numericable-SFR
for misleading consumers about the extent of its 4G network
coverage, AFP reports.  Such lawsuits inspired by US class action
system, have been legal in France since October 2014.

"Consumers have not benefited from reliable information.  Many
customers were able to sign up to 4G tariffs when SFR knew that
the technology was not available in their place or residence," the
group wrote in a press statement.

The association said it put all operators on notice of the risk of
erroneous information during the launch of 4G at the end of 2013.
"Unlike other operators, SFR did not wish to evolve its
practices," according to the group, which is seeking to enable
consumers who bought a 4G phone on a false premise of local
coverage to be reimbursed.  The operator would not comment on the
matter.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Tosses Suit Over Home Inspection Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has
dismissed a class action lawsuit accusing Ocwen Financial Corp of
fraudulently billing hundreds of thousands of homeowners for
needless property inspections, saying the case amounts to no more
than a breach of contract claim.

The order by U.S. District Judge Otis Wright in Los Angeles on
May 29 ends one of several lawsuits across the country accusing
mortgage servicers of charging excessive fees after homeowners
miss mortgage payments, pushing them further into debt.

Inspections and other default-related fees were a major profit
source for Ocwen, which specialized in servicing distressed loans,
the 2014 lawsuit said.  The homeowners sought damages for
violations of various California state and federal laws, including
the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
lawsuit said Ocwen decided to "game the system" by charging
borrowers unreasonable fees for property inspections, which
mortgage contracts allow servicers to carry out to protect their
interests after a default.  It accused Ocwen of ignoring Fannie
Mae guidelines that call for assessing individual circumstances to
see if repeat inspections are needed.

In the May 29 order, Wright said the homeowners had no right to
enforce the Fannie Mae guidelines because they were not a party to
them.  Homeowners' entire theory of wrongdoing depended on the
servicing guidelines, and without them they had no case, he said.

The lawsuit also accused Ocwen's former chairman William Erbey of
profiting from unnecessary inspections as a major shareholder of
Altisource Portfolio Solutions, the company Ocwen contracted with
to arrange for the inspections.  Mr. Erbey was not named as a
defendant in the suit.

In December Ocwen replaced Mr. Erbey and agreed to pay $150
million to New York State's Department of Financial Services and
its customers to settle claims of servicing misconduct and
conflicts of interest.

Since the settlement, Ocwen has been selling billions of dollars
of servicing rights as it streamlines operations.

"We are pleased and agree with the decision of the court," said
Ocwen spokesman John Lovallo.

The case is Mary Lou Vega v. Ocwen Financial Corp, U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, No 14-4408


OLD NATIONAL: Denial of Summary Judgment Bid Upheld in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court of Appeals
has affirmed in part and reversed in part the Circuit Court's
denial of Old National's Motion for Summary Judgment.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit
in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging our checking account
practices associated with the assessment of overdraft fees. The
theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is similar to other
class action complaints filed against other financial institutions
in recent years and settled for substantial amounts. On May 1,
2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a First Amended
Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and amended certain
claims. The plaintiffs seek damages, and other relief, including
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Indiana
Crime Victim's Relief Act.

On June 13, 2012, Old National filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint, which was subsequently denied by the Court. On
September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted on March 20, 2013, and provides
for a class of "All Old National Bank customers in the State of
Indiana who had one or more consumer accounts and who, within the
applicable statutes of limitation through August 15, 2010,
incurred an overdraft fee as a result of Old National Bank's
practice of sequencing debit card and ATM transactions from
highest to lowest."

Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on the issue of class
certification on April 2, 2013, which was subsequently denied. On
June 11, 2013, Old National moved for summary judgment asserting
the law as applied to the material facts not in dispute should
result in judgment in favor of Old National. On September 16,
2013, a hearing was held on the summary judgment motion and the
Motion was denied by the Circuit Court on April 14, 2014.
Subsequently, Old National sought and was granted leave to appeal
the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

On July 11, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals accepted the appeal
and the parties fully briefed the matter as of February 23, 2015.

On April 23, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
reversed in part the Circuit Court's denial of Old National's
Motion for Summary Judgment and remanded the case to the Circuit
Court for further proceedings. Specifically, the Court of Appeals
rejected Old National's contention that all of plaintiffs' claims
were preempted by federal law but did agree that plaintiffs' state
law claims of conversion, unconscionability and unjust enrichment
were unsupported under Indiana law. The dismissal of these claims
remove any claims which would entitle plaintiffs to treble
damages. The Court of Appeals determined Old National had not
negated plaintiffs' state law claim for breach of a duty of good
faith and fair dealing as to the deposit account agreement and
remanded that contractual claim back to the Circuit Court. Old
National expects to file a Petition to Transfer the Case to the
Indiana Supreme Court within the statutory timeframes. At this
phase of the litigation, it is not possible for management of Old
National to determine the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss.


OLD REPUBLIC: Certified Class Action Against ORNTIC Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a
certified class action lawsuit is pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a federal district court in
Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006). The
plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue
and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required
by filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). ORNTIC is
challenging the certification based on more recent case
precedents.


OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Filed Motions to Dismiss Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a class
has not been certified in either class action lawsuits and RMIC
has filed motions to dismiss the cases.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve
against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage
insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were
substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty
insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks'
captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in
violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of
Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been
dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs,
fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class
has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions
to dismiss the cases.


ONTARIO: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss Wards' Abuse Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Mendleson, writing for Toronto Star, reports that crown
wards who suffered abuse and neglect in Ontario have cleared a
major roadblock in their battle to proceed with a landmark $100-
million class-action lawsuit against the province.

The proposed lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of an estimated
40,000 Crown wards going back as far as 1966.  The plaintiffs
allege the province failed to protect their legal right to secure
compensation for physical, sexual and emotion abuse they endured
in the system.

"We want justice, but we also want to be validated," Thunder Bay
resident Toni Grann, 48, one of the lead plaintiffs, told the
Star.  "It comes down to validating the fact that these things
happened . . . The Crown put itself in a position to presumably
fight for us, look after us, and they absolutely, completely
failed."

Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Pierce denied a motion by the
province to strike down the lawsuit.  She also found that the
lawsuit meets the first of five tests required for certification.

The proposed lawsuit is the first of its kind in Ontario, and only
the second in Canada.  None of the claims has been tested in
court.  The plaintiffs allege that the province, as the legal
guardian of Crown wards, shirked its responsibility to pursue
justice on behalf of those who suffered abuse.  Meanwhile,
limitation periods expired and evidence disappeared, the statement
of claim alleges.  As a result, the children were unable to seek
civil remedies or support from Ontario's Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board, the statement of claim alleges.

In the recently denied motion, the province argued the law does
not impose a "duty of care" on the Crown "to bring proceedings on
behalf of Crown wards."  Instead, the province argued, the
legislation gives this responsibility to Children's Aid Societies,
and that "imposing such a duty" on the government would conflict
with the powers assigned to the societies.

Justice Pierce sided with the plaintiffs, comparing the
relationship between the province and wards to that of parent and
child.

"I conclude that a private law duty of care analogous to that
between parent and child has been recognized as subsisting between
the plaintiffs (crown wards) and the defendant (the province),"
she wrote in her decision.

On May 29, a spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney General
pointed out that while the court agreed the first step of the
certification test had been met, "the claim was not certified and
the issue of certification will be argued at a future date."

The statement of claim catalogues horrendous alleged abuses.
Made a Crown ward after suffering physical abuse in her family
home, Ms. Grann was repeatedly raped and sodomized by her adoptive
father, beginning at age 5, the statement alleges.  When she fled
the home at age 10, she sought refuge at a CAS office in Hamilton.
"The Crown or its agents were aware of the abuse suffered by Toni,
but no actions were taken," the statement alleges.

Ms. Grann said she did not know about the victim compensation fund
until she learned about the lawsuit last year.

"I personally could have used the funds to get through university
a little easier," she said.  "It could have helped with therapy."
Koskie Minsky lawyer Jonathan Ptak, co-lead counsel on the case,
lauded Justice Pierce's decision as "an important milestone."
"They (the province) posited complete immunity to the allegations
of these thousands of children, and the judge concluded that's not
the case," Mr. Ptak said.  "There is no immunity for the Crown in
these circumstances."


PANASONIC CORP: Global Capacitor Price-Fixing Suit to Continue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reports that a worldwide
antitrust case alleging price-fixing in capacitors will proceed
though a federal judge dismissed 15 of 27 defendants May 26, with
leave to amend.

Direct purchase plaintiffs (DPP) accused manufacturers in Japan,
Taiwan, Germany and the United States of fixing prices of
aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors since 2003.

Indirect purchaser plaintiffs (IPP) sued separately on similar
claims.

The defendants sought dismissal of the DPP complaint for failure
to state a claim, but "concede the plausibility of the antitrust
claim in the IPP complaint, but challenge it on standing and state
law grounds," U.S. District Judge James Donato wrote in his
ruling.

He denied the defendants' motions "for the most part," but granted
dismissal for some, "who were sued because they belong to an
alleged family of conspirators rather than on the basis of
specific allegations against them individually.  DPPs and IPPs
will have an opportunity to amend."

Calling the technology issue "straightforward," Donato described
capacitors as "one of the most basic functional units in
electronic circuits."  They act essentially as short-term
batteries, to regulate and smooth out the flow of electrons.

"Capacitors are incorporated into almost every electronic device,
including audio/video equipment, telecommunication equipment,
computers and automobiles," direct purchaser plaintiff eIQ said in
its August 2014 complaint.

eIQ, a small company that makes clean energy electronic products,
claims the capacitor market is "susceptible to collusion" because
the market is concentrated and "the five largest defendants
collectively make up more than 76 percent of the global market for
tantalum capacitors."

It adds that "pricing for capacitors is highly inelastic in large
part because there are no adequate substitutes."

Direct purchaser plaintiffs include are New York-based Chip-Tech,
Florida-based Dependable Component Supply, California-based eIQ
Energy and Colorado-based Walker Component Group.

They the accuse defendants of violating the Sherman Act by fixing
prices through a "single overarching conspiracy 'in aluminum,
tantalum and film capacitors,'" Donato wrote.

The class period for direct purchasers runs from Jan. 1, 2003, to
the present.

The indirect purchasers included 31 plaintiffs from 22 states.
They claim that every capacitor they bought can be traced to a
company owned by the defendants, whom they accused of violating
the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law.

"This putative consumer group was the only group to allege claims
on the basis of finished goods that included capacitors," Donato
wrote.  They "allege two 'massive and separate conspiracies' to
fix the prices of 'electrolytic and film capacitors,
respectively."

The class period for electrolytic plaintiffs has a start date of
Jan. 1, 2003, while the start date for the film capacitors class
has a start date of Jan. 1, 2007.

The defendants filed four motions to dismiss. Donato found that
the defendants' "main attack on the DPP complaint is that it falls
short of plausibility."

The defendants did not challenge the sufficiency of the
allegations of two separate conspiracies for electrolytic and film
capacitors, but did challenge the plausibility of a single
conspiracy to fix the prices of both types of capacitors.

"Both sides exaggerate their positions," Donato found, but there
is "sufficient grounding in fact to go forward" with the DPP
complaint.  He said the defendants "overstate" the differences in
the two complaints.

"Despite the allegation of two separate conspiracies, the IPPs
acknowledge that some defendants (Hitachi, NCC, Rubycon and
Panasonic) participated in both, and that 'discovery may reveal
that there was one overarching conspiracy due to the overlapping
defendants and customers,'" Donato wrote.

"Not only are the factual allegations between the two complaints
not as dissimilar as defendants contend, there simply is no
requirement that an antitrust plaintiff draw the boundaries of the
alleged conspiracy (or conspiracies) in a complaint with the
precision of a diamond cutter."  (Parentheses in ruling.)

The defendants jointly sought dismissal because the plaintiffs did
not specify which U.S. subsidiaries joined a majority of companies
that participated in the alleged conspiracy. Donato rejected that
also.

"This case involved 22 defendant groups and . . . the court
declines the invitation to do the heavy lifting on its own time
and resources to figure out which defendants fall into the
'majority' and which do not."

Instead, Donato addressed separate motions to dismiss made by
individual defendants and denied the joint motion to dismiss the
majority of U.S. defendants.

The companies that prevailed, at this step, argued that they had
no direct connection to or involvement in conspiracies to fix
prices.

Dismissed with leave to amend the DPP complaint are AVX, EPCOS,
TDK-EPC, TDK U.S.A., Fujitsu Components America, KEMET Electronics
and KEMET Electronics.

Also dismissed with leave to amend are Nichicon (America), Okaya
Electric America, ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., Shinyei Capacitor,
Shinyei Corporation of America, Shoshin Electronics of America,
United Chemi-Con and Vishay Intertechnology.

Also dismissed with leave to amend are ELNA America, Hitachi
Chemical, NEC TOKIN America, Nichicon (America), Rubycon America
and United Chemi-Con.

Donato also struck all references to a nationwide class action for
indirect purchasers' claims under California's Cartwright Act and
Unfair Competition Law.

Attorneys for plaintiffs could not be reached for comment.

The consolidated case is captioned In re Capacitors Antitrust
Litigation, Master File No. 14-cv-03264-JD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


PENNYSAVER USA: Files Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Amid Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pimentel and Lauren Williams, writing for The Orange County
Register, report that PennySaver has filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy in Delaware, a week after it shut down and in the wake
of lawsuits claiming nearly 700 workers were abruptly laid off
without notice or final pay.

A Delaware bankruptcy judge on May 29 granted a lawyer
representing the company and several of its affiliates a 14-day
extension to file a list of assets and liabilities.

The voluntary petition for relief is the first step for the
company in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy process, which will protect
them from creditors before an assigned trustee begins to dispose
of all their assets and pay off those same creditors.

The petition filed by PennySaver, based in Brea, lists debts
between $10 million and $50 million against the same range in
assets.  Creditors number from 200 to 999, the petition states.

The bankruptcy comes nearly three years after Los Angeles private
equity firm OpenGate Capital LLC acquired the Brea-based coupon
and classified mailer for $22.5 million.

"OpenGate Capital regularly acquires under-performing businesses
that by their very nature are sometimes operationally distressed.
. . . But in some cases, as with PennySaver, external
circumstances frustrate our ability to have our investments
realize their full potential," according to a statement issued by
Sitrick and Co., a crisis management firm representing OpenGate
Capital.

"OpenGate worked diligently to try to resolve the issues
confronting PennySaver," the statement continued.  "Despite the
best efforts of PennySaver, its employees and management, due to
circumstances beyond the company's control, PennySaver was not
able to continue operations."

PennySaver unexpectedly ceased operation and laid off 678
employees at the end of the May workday May 22.

At least two lawsuits have been filed by employees, with one
seeking class action status, claiming the company did not give
employees proper notice ahead of the closure -- as per California
labor laws.

The Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing will temporarily halt lawsuits
against PennySaver, but the suits still could move forward against
OpenGate Capital, according to attorney Richard McCune, who filed
a lawsuit on behalf of former PennySaver employees.

PennySaver, launched in 1962 in Huntington Beach, has been a
common sight in mailboxes across California.

              Class Action Over Lack of Layoff Notice

Lauren Williams, writing for The Orange County Register, reports
that at least one former employee of the PennySaver coupon
magazine has filed a lawsuit against the company and its owner,
OpenGate Capital, claiming they violated the law when they
abruptly shuttered the business and laid off nearly 680 employees
without notice.

The case, filed on May 26 in Orange County Superior Court,
represents Luann Benton, who worked for the company for 34 years.
The lawsuit is seeking class action status, a determination that
will be made by a judge later in the case.

Other affected employees are joining as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
And still others have approached different law firms with the same
grievances.

The complaint zeroes in on the lack of notice given to employees
ahead of the closure, which it claims is in violation of
California labor laws.  Employees also reported receiving bad
checks for their final pay and no compensation for accrued
vacation.  Those elements aren't part of the filing but could be
added later, said attorney Richard McCune, who is representing
Benton and other former PennySaver employees.

PennySaver abruptly ceased operation and laid off 678 employees at
the end of the work day Friday, after producing a coupon and
classified ad magazine for more than 50 years.

The mailer, most recently headquartered in Brea, got its start in
Huntington Beach in 1962, providing coupons and advertising goods
and services, job openings and personal ads.  In 2013, OpenGate
Capital bought PennySaver for $22.5 million.

While PennySaver and OpenGate Capital have said their lender
suddenly cut off funding Friday afternoon, forcing the company to
immediately cease operation, McCune said it remains to be seen
whether that is true.

"It is clear PennySaver is trying to set it up that they just had
this loan pulled out from under them at the last minute," McCune
said.  "We are very skeptical of that."

OpenGate Capital declined to comment on the litigation.

The complaint filed on May 26 argues that PennySaver failed to
provide employees with 60 days' notice as required under state and
federal labor laws. The lawsuit contends employees are owed back
pay and benefits, and it seeks more than $25,000 in damages.

Other law firms are searching employees to file lawsuits of their
own.

Marcus J. Bradley with the law firm Marlin/Saltzman said more than
100 employees have contacted him about not receiving their last
wages and accumulated vacation pay, and he might file a lawsuit in
Orange County Superior Court as soon as May 27.

Another attorney, Rene S. Roupinian with the New York-based Outten
& Golden, said her firm has been contacted by former employees,
but the firm hasn't made a determination about whether it will
file a lawsuit.


PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Trepicchio, individually, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Performant Recovery, Inc. f/k/a
Diversified Collection Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:15-cv-03885-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., June 10, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Investors Sue Over $14BB Charge to Earnings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Brazil's Petroleo Brasileiro
took a $14 billion charge to earnings once a massive bribery
scheme came to light, shareholders allege in New York, building on
several earlier lawsuits.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Pending in Class Action in Brazil
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the appeal is
pending the following case:

Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff: Brazil/The Smoker Health
Defense Association

Type of Case: Class Action

Verdict: The Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable
without hearing evidence. The court did not assess actual damages,
which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case. The size
of the class was not defined in the ruling.

Post-Trial Developments: In April 2004, the court clarified its
ruling, awarding "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $340)
per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate of
1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did not
award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second
phase of the case. The size of the class was not estimated.
Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011,
the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff appealed the
decision. In February 2015, the court unanimously dismissed
plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff may further appeal. In addition, the
defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme
Tribunal on the basis that the plaintiff did not have standing to
bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Class Actions Pending in Brazil & Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April
30, 2015, there were a number of smoking and health cases pending
against the Company, its subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows:

-- 61 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (23),
Brazil (22), Canada (2), Chile (7), Costa Rica (2), Greece (1),
Italy (2), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 65
such cases on May 1, 2014, and 71 cases on May 1, 2013; and

-- 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs
in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such cases on May
1, 2014 and 11 such cases on May 1, 2013.


PHILIP MORRIS: Parties Await Judgment in "Letourneau" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the class
action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco
Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.,
Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, the
Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. In
February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government
would remain as a third party in the case. In November 2012, the
Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against
the federal government. Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in
December 2014. The parties now await the judgment. There is no
fixed time period by which the trial court must issue its
decision.


PHILIP MORRIS: Parties Await Judgment in Conseil Quebecois Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the class
action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La
Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the Company's subsidiary
and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The plaintiffs,
an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, are seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class
was certified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled
that the federal government would remain as a third party in the
case. In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants'
third-party claims against the federal government. Trial began in
March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The parties now await
the judgment. There is no fixed time period by which the trial
court must issue its decision.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the class
action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed
July 10, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees
(PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own
addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered,
or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits. Preliminary motions are pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity Anticipated in "Semple" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the class
action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products
and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.


PHILIP MORRIS: Says "Dorion" Complaint Not Properly Served
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the class
action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products.

"To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been
properly served with the complaint. No activity in this case is
anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action
filed in Saskatchewan," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Plaintiff's Counsel Won't Take Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the class
action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
filed June 20, 2012, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use
of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that
he does not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future.


PHILIP MORRIS: 2 Lights Cases Pending in Chile and Italy
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April
30, 2015, there were 2 lights cases brought by individual
plaintiffs pending against the Company's subsidiaries or
indemnitees in Chile (1) and Italy (1), compared with 2 such cases
on May 1, 2014, and 1 such case on May 1, 2013.

These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf of a
class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the term
"lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek
various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief,
and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack
of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and
statute of limitations.


PHILIP MORRIS: Argentina Case in Evidentiary Stage
--------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April
30, 2015, there were 2 public civil actions pending against the
Company's subsidiaries in Argentina (1) and Venezuela (1),
compared with 2 such cases on May 1, 2014, and 4 such cases on May
1, 2013.

In the public civil action in Argentina, Asociaci¢n Argentina de
Derecho de Danos v. Massalin Particulares S.A., et al., Civil
Court of Buenos Aires, Argentina, filed February 26, 2007, the
Company's subsidiary and another member of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer association, seeks the
establishment of a relief fund for reimbursement of medical costs
associated with diseases allegedly caused by smoking. The
Company's subsidiary filed its answer in September 2007. In March
2010, the case file was transferred to the Federal Court on
Administrative Matters after the Civil Court granted the
plaintiff's request to add the national government as a co-
plaintiff in the case. The case is currently in the evidentiary
stage.


PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: Sued by Passenger of Grounded Airplane
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell at Courthouse News Service reports that a woman whose
flight to the Philippines from JFK Airport was mysteriously
canceled -- and who was then bounced around from hotel to hotel
and never rebooked -- has sued Philippine Airlines for $10
million.

Cherilyn Darilag is the lead plaintiff in the May 26 class action
filed in superior court over a May 17 flight to Manila via
Vancouver that was allegedly grounded for mechanical problems and
then never rescheduled.

After waiting three hours in the Airbus jet while it sat on the
tarmac, Darilag and about 250 other passengers were then told to
deplane because of a mechanical problem, according to the
complaint.  Darilag claims the passengers were told they would be
put up in a hotel for the night and then flown to the Philippines
the next morning.  However, no airline representatives met her at
the Radisson where passengers were to be put up for the night so
she had to transfer to another hotel, she says in the complaint.
The next day Darilag waited for the afternoon flight after being
told the morning flight was fully booked, the lawsuit states.
Those plans fell through as well since the afternoon flight --
which was the same plane she exited from the previous day -- was
again grounded for mechanical problems, she says in the complaint.

The airline issued flight transfers to Manila-bound flights run by
EVA Air and China Airlines to Darilag and other passengers, but
those transfers were not honored by those other airlines because
they were not properly filled out and lacked validation stamps by
Philippines Airlines employees, according to Darilag's complaint.

Airline agents and ground staff were not present to help her or
other passengers on the flight, and Darilag says she still has not
heard from the airline as to when she can next fly out of JFK to
Manila.

Darilag's attorney and media representatives from Philippines
Airlines could not be reached for comment.

In a May 20 statement e-mailed to the press after the flight
debacle, Philippines Airlines representative Maria Cielo said that
the grounding was due to a maintenance check.

"We empathize with the passengers knowing fully well the
inconvenience of the extended stay due to the grounding.  But
safety remains a priority," Cielo wrote.

In March the airline was given permission to fly out of New York
after an 18-year hiatus first due to economic hardships and then
to safety concerns.

From 2008 to 2014 Philippines Airlines failed to meet minimum
safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation
Organization.

During that period Philippines Airlines had flights out of
Honolulu and San Francisco.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Felix Q. Vinluan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FELIX Q. VINLUAN
          69-10 Roosevelt Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Woodside, NY 11377
          Telephone: (718) 478-4488
          Facsimile: (718) 478-4488
          E-mail: fqvinluan@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Gabriel Dela Merced, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GABRIEL DELA MERCED
          65 Broadway, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 791-7621
          Facsimile: (212) 791-7625
          E-mail: gabdelamerced@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Manuel B. Quintal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MANUEL QUINTAL
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 732-0055
          Facsimile: (212) 587-8933
          E-mail: quintallaw@aol.com

The case is Cherilyn G. Darilag, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., Case No.
705386/2015, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Queens.


PINNACLE A ROOFING: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beymar Osiel Perez Ramirez and all others similarly situated v.
Pinnacle A Roofing Company, Pinnacle Roofing Inc., and Robert
Thomas, Case No. 1:15-cv-22208-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants are in the business of providing residential and
commercial roofing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven C. Fraser, Esq.
      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: 865-7167
      E-mail: steven.fraser.esq@gmail.com
              ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


PINNACLE WEST: Appeal in Class Action Fully Briefed and Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and Arizona Public Service
Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that the appeal in a class action lawsuit is
now fully briefed and pending before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint
was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages for
loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of interruption
of electrical service.  APS and Pinnacle West filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013.  On January
13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's decision.  The
appeal is now fully briefed and pending before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter," the
Companies said.


PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Reed Ward, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
an Allegheny County Common Pleas judge has thrown out both claims
in a class-action lawsuit against the University of Pittsburgh
Medical Center regarding a data breach that affected 62,000
current employees as well as former employees.

The data breach resulted in employees' personal information being
obtained, the complaint said.  Filed in February, the lawsuit
alleged that UPMC had a duty to protect the employees' sensitive
data.  It included one claim for negligence and another for breach
of contract.

Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. found in his opinion on May 28 that
no cause of action exists for negligence that solely results in
economic losses but not physical injury or property damage.

Further, he found that data breaches are widespread and the result
of sophisticated criminal activity and that the entities whose
information is breached are victims, too.


PLUM INC: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Workman" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Workman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Plum Inc., d/b/a/ Plum Organics, and Campbell Soup
Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-02568-JCS (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all who purchased the Plum Organics Mighty 4
food products, that are falsely marketed by the Defendants that
they contain high-value, healthy ingredients.

The food products at issue do not contain high-value ingredients,
such as blueberries, green beans, quinoa, and kale but rather
contain largely with sweet sugar water.

Plum Inc. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures organic
foods and snacks for babies, toddlers, and children.

Campbell Soup Company together with its consolidated subsidiaries
is a manufacturer and marketer of high quality, branded
convenience food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
      Robert J. Berg, Esq.
      DENLEA & CARTON LLP CALDWELL
      2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
      White Plains, NY 10604
      Telephone: (914) 331-0100
      Facsimile: (914) 331-0105
      E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com
              rberg@denleacarton.com

         - and -

      Robyn C. Crowther, Esq.
      Lennette W. Lee, Esq.
      Cameron J. Johnson, Esq.
      CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC
      725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-5524
      Telephone: (213) 629-9040
      Facsimile: (213) 629-9022
      E-mail: crowther@caldwell-leslie.com
              lee@caldwell-leslie.com
              cjohnson@caldwell-leslie.com


PRINCETON INFORMATION: Faces "Escort" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hope Escort, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
individuals v. Princeton Information LTD, Citigroup Inc.,
Citibank, NA, Citigroup Technology Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04487
(S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Princeton Information LTD. operates a staffing company with its
principal place of business located in New York, New York.

Citigroup Inc. is an international banking conglomerate, with its
principal place of business located in New York.

Citibank, NA is a nationally-chartered domestic bank, with its
principal place of business located in New York, New York.

Citigroup Technology Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, NA, and is engaged in commercial and
consumer banking and lending.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      7450 Griffin Road
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


RAISE MARKETPLACE: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Gutierrez, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Raise MarketPlace, Inc., f/k/a Coupon Trade, Inc.,
d/b/a CouponTrade.com and Raise.com and George D. Bousis, Case No.
1:15-cv-05121 (N.D. Ill., June 10, 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 buying and selling online gift and
card sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Firefighters Pension Files Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit in Florida aims
to recover damages from a securities separation that plaintiffs
say didn't pay off for stockholders.

The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and other
class members are suing Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc., Paul G.
Boynton, Frank A. Ruperto and Benson K. Woo in a lawsuit filed on
April 30 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

The class action concerns all those who received stock from
Rayonier Advanced Materials (RYAM) between June 30 and Jan. 28.

On Jan. 27, 2014, the lawsuit states, RYAM went public to spin off
its Performance Fibers Division into a separate, publicly traded
companies.

Then, that November, RYAM said that it had incorrectly included in
its merchantable timber inventory parcels of land that were
specially designated, environmentally protected or otherwise
restricted, the suit states.

Rayonier's depletion expenses were understated during the periods
listed, and Rayonier also admitted material weakness in its
internal controls regarding merchantable timber inventory, the
suit states.

As a result, the lawsuit states, RYAM stock dipped from $27.57 per
share to $25.06, and two months later, the company announced it
was "making massive adjustments to its environmental reserves."

Stock continued to fall.

RYAM has incurred about $950 million of new debt to separate the
division into a independent company.  And, the lawsuit alleges,
"RYAM knowingly and/or recklessly made misleading and false
statements so that it could effectuate the separation and raise
borrowings in amounts and on terms that it otherwise would not
have been able to receive."

The action seeks affirmation from the court; unspecified damages;
pre- and post-judgment interest; attorneys' fees; and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by attorneys Joseph E. White III and
Lester R. Hooker of Boca Raton, Fla.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida case no.
3:15-cv-00546


REFINERY SPECIALTIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Rittman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Refinery Specialties, Inc., Case No. 4:15-
cv-01629 (S.D. Tex., June 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Refinery Specialties, Inc. is a Texas corporation that provides
oilfield services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROYAL CANADIAN: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Tamsyn Burgmann, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that RCMP
faces gender discrimination class action.

At age 22, Quebec native Joanne Mayer was greeted at her first
RCMP posting in Gibsons, B.C., with a handshake and a blunt
statement from the sergeant: "We don't think women should be in
the force, and especially not French-speaking ones."

Ms. Mayer said that along with her regular duties, she spent over
two years doing "sexist" chores including making coffee, ensuring
there was an ample supply of cream and sugar, and cleaning police
cruisers.

A quarter-century later, Ms. Mayer has joined hundreds of other
former and current RCMP members hoping for justice over alleged
gender discrimination, bullying and harassment with a potential
class-action lawsuit.

A five-day hearing to determine certification of a class-action
proceeding involving 362 women was set to begin on June 1 in B.C.
Supreme Court.

"I didn't tell my parents or anybody what had happened to me. I
went through this all on my own," said Ms. Mayer, who plans to fly
to Vancouver from Ottawa along with several other women expected
to attend from across Canada.

Ms. Mayer was emboldened to come forward after Janet Merlo, a 19-
year RCMP veteran from Nanaimo, B.C., went public with her own
experience of ongoing discrimination before launching the suit in
March 2012.

"I was like, 'Well, I went through that, too. Maybe it wasn't my
fault,'" Ms. Mayer said.  "I had blocked it out, to be honest.  I
didn't realize what was happening to me at the time and I was too
scared to speak out."

In the three years it has taken to wind through the legal system,
a law firm championing the case has canvassed more than 100 women
with a detailed questionnaire, said lawyer David Klein.

"They share an unfortunate common bond," he said.  "They were
subjected to systemic harassment, bullying and discrimination over
a long period of time.  The bond they share is the consequence of
that treatment."

Mr. Klein said he will introduce the case and present key evidence
from Ms. Merlo's affidavit and an expert he calls the leading
authority on gender harassment and discrimination.  He will also
explain why it's crucial to tackle the allegations en mass with a
class action rather than require individual women to file hundreds
of lawsuits on their own.

"Reality is, some of the claims are too small to warrant
individual litigation," he said.

"The only way many of these women will have access to the civil
justice system is if it is done through a class action."

None of the claims have been tested in court.

Mr. Klein said that while he believes the RCMP has begun taking
steps to reduce harassment against women, people who have made
allegations are still being challenged on every statement they
make.

"It's time for the government of Canada to step in and direct the
RCMP to take these claims seriously."

Jeremy Laurin, a spokesman for the federal Public Safety
Department, said he couldn't comment while the case is before the
courts but that the government takes issues of discrimination and
sexual harassment "very seriously.

"All RCMP members and employees should feel safe and respected
amongst their colleagues and superiors," he said in a statement.
"Canadians have the right to expect professional and exemplary
conduct from their national police service."

For Mayer, who had dreamed of being a police officer since she was
a little girl, settlement is the only way to bring closure because
she felt forced to switch careers.

"My hope is that the force will recognize that it has affected a
lot of female members," she said.  "I wouldn't want this to happen
to new members going in, new females.  If this is truly what they
want to do they should be able to do the same job as anyone else."


SANDISK CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 27 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of SanDisk Corporation publicly
traded securities during the period between April 16, 2014 and
April 15, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 30, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class
action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/sandisk/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges SanDisk and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
SanDisk is a global provider of flash storage products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted
adverse information regarding the Company's operations, sales and
product development, including that the Company was experiencing
production qualification delays on certain of its key products and
lower than expected sales of enterprise products.  Defendants also
concealed problems associated with SanDisk's acquisition of
Fusion-io, Inc. ("Fusion io") in June 2014.  Subsequently, the
Company was forced to announce drastically lower first quarter
revenue estimates compared to prior forecasts and withdraw its
2015 forecasts entirely.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, SanDisk securities traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, with its stock price reaching a
high of $107.83 per share on July 16, 2014.  While SanDisk's stock
price was artificially inflated, the Company's top officers and
directors were able to sell over $35.8 million worth of their
SanDisk stock.

On March 26, 2015, SanDisk announced that it expected revenue for
the first fiscal quarter of 2015 to be approximately $1.3 billion,
rather than the previously forecast revenue of $1.40 billion to
$1.45 billion, "primarily due to certain product qualification
delays, lower than expected sales of enterprise products and lower
pricing in some areas of the business."  Moreover, the Company
announced that it expected these adverse trends to continue into
2015, and as a result, the Company would not be able to make its
other forecasts for the quarter or meet its 2015 revenue guidance.
As a result of this news, SanDisk's stock price fell $14.98 per
share to close at $66.20 per share on March 26, 2015, a one-day
decline of 18% on volume of 32.3 million shares.

Then, on April 15, 2015, after the market closed, SanDisk issued a
press release announcing its first quarter fiscal 2015 financial
results.  The Company reported net income of $39 million, or $0.17
diluted earnings per share, and revenue of $1.33 billion for the
quarter ended March 29, 2015.  The Company also announced a write-
down of $61 million associated with Fusion-io.  As a result of
this news, the price of SanDisk stock dropped $3.21 per share to
close at $67.91 per share on April 16, 2015, a one-day decline of
nearly 5% on volume of 23.6 million shares.

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

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked
number one in the number of shareholder class action recoveries in
ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.


SIRIUS XM: Must Face Turtles Copyright Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chung, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge in
California allowed a class action lawsuit to proceed on May 27
against satellite-radio company Sirius XM Holdings Inc. over the
payment of royalties for songs produced before 1972, in a case
that is being closely watched for its implications for digital
media.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez marks another
win for members of the 1960s band the Turtles, known for the hit
"Happy Together," and means the company could face claims from a
broader group of artists.

"Sirius XM treats every single owner of a pre-1972 song the same,
namely it doesn't pay them, so it was appropriate for this court
to grant class certification," said Henry Gradstein, attorney for
Flo & Eddie Inc, a company controlled by founding Turtles members
Howard Kaylan and Mark Volman.

Sirius XM declined comment.

Judge Gutierrez ruled last September that, under California state
law, New York-based Sirius XM was liable for copyright
infringement by airing the band's pre-1972 songs without paying
royalties.

Flo & Eddie also sought to certify a class action against the
company to bring in other artists in a similar situation.  Sirius
XM argued against certification because it said damages would be
difficult to calculate accurately for different members of the
class.

Judge Gutierrez rejected that argument on May 27, saying "a class
action is superior to individual litigation to the fair and
efficient adjudication of the present controversy."

The lawsuit is one of a handful challenging Sirius and Pandora
Media Inc. over their playing of songs recorded before Feb. 15,
1972.  Although such songs are not covered by federal copyright
law, some recording artists and labels have won rulings entitling
them to copyright protection under individual state laws.

The prominence of online and satellite music services has risen in
recent years, with artists and labels increasingly dependent on
them to make money as record sales have fallen industry wide.

Flo & Eddie has filed lawsuits in California, New York and Florida
seeking more than $100 million for Sirius' alleged infringements.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Korn" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. David Korn, Ms. Tina Mary Brunello, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Snyder's-Lance Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-02593 (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
the United States consumers who purchased Snyder's Snacks, Cape
Cod Chips, and Padrinos Chips that were falsely marketed by the
Defendants as "All Natural"

The products at issue are not "natural" because they contain
unnatural genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and other
unnatural artificial and synthetic ingredients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Thomas Fraser, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
      One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (800) 436-6437
      Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
      E-mail: mfraser@hwrlawoffice.com

         - and -

      Michael T. Franser, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, PA
      One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (386) 848-4194
      E-mail: mfraser@hwlawoffice.com

         - and -

      Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com


SOURCE ONE: Settles EEOOC Discrimination Claims for $800,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Industry Analysts reports that a Chicago-area staffing
agency settled under a consent decree two lawsuits filed by the US
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $800,000 under a
consent decree, the federal agency announced.  The EEOC reports
$70,000 will go to the sexual harassment and retaliation victims
and remaining $730,000 will be distributed evenly to a class of
female employees who were not considered for certain work on the
basis of their sex.

"After eight years, we were thrilled to settle this for $800,000,"
said Elliot Wiczer, managing member of Wiczer & Sheldon LLC and
the attorney representing Source One.  "We think that is a real
victory."

The EEOC investigation began eight years ago and litigation was
filed in federal court in 2011, according to Mr. Wiczer.  The
initial class action lawsuit sought $54 million.

"This was a very complex class action with thousands and thousands
of members," Mr. Wiczer said.  "I think the EEOC saw what we saw;
they are going to have a very difficult time proving their
allegations."

The EEOC lawsuits charged that Source One Staffing Inc. violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically, the EEOC
charged that the firm engaged in the following unlawful conduct:

     Assigned female employees to a known hostile work environment

     Retaliated against two female employees who reported that
their supervisor was making sexual advances toward them

     Categorized jobs as "men's work" or "women's work" and
assigned employees accordingly

     Asked impermissible pre-employment medical questions in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

     Failed or refused to assign employees to certain jobs because
of their race and/or national origin

The decree also requires Source One to train its employees on
employees' rights under Title VII and the ADA; report complaints
of discrimination during the decree's three-year term; change its
employment policies and practices to conform to the ADA and Title
VII; and post a notice of the decree at all of its locations.  An
independent monitor will oversee Source One's compliance with the
decree.

"The EEOC determined that Source One violated federal anti-
discrimination law in multiple ways, which was alarming, and
clearly required serious EEOC action," said Julianne Bowman,
director of the EEOC's Chicago District Office.  "Further,
staffing agencies must understand that they are not immune from
enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws.  This decree
sends a strong signal to other staffing agencies that if they
engage in discrimination -- especially several different kinds of
it -- it will come at a high cost."


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Forbes a/k/a Sandra Ammouri, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. Southwest Credit System, L.P. and John Does
1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-03274-GP (E.D. Pa., June 10, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vicki Piontek, Esq.
      PIONTEK LAW OFFICE
      951 Allentown Road
      Lansdale, PA 19446
      Telephone: (717) 533-7472
      E-mail: vicki.piontek@gmail.com


ST. ANN, MO: Faces Class Action for Violating Rights of Poor
------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Schremp Hahn, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports
that the city of St. Ann violates the rights of the poor by
jailing them because they cannot pay a small amount of money,
according to a complaint filed on May 27 in federal court.  The
suit seeks class action status.

According to the lawsuit, bail amounts range from $150 to $350
depending on the offense, and if people can't pay, they typically
have to spend at least three days in jail.  "The city's policy has
no place in American law," the suit says.  It was filed by St.
Louis-based ArchCity Defenders and Washington-based Equal Justice
Under Law, who filed it on behalf of Kellen Powell, 33, who is
homeless.  Mr. Powell was pulled over and arrested in St. Ann on
May 21 on his way to pick up his brother, who was being put out of
his home by his girlfriend.

The suit says St. Ann police refused to provide details, but it is
believed Powell was charged with failure to display a license
plate and driving with a suspended license.  He was told he would
be released from jail if he paid $300, and kept there for a week
unless he paid it.  He was working at a tire shop at the time of
his arrest and made $300 a week, and most of that went to support
his family, Mr. Powell told the attorneys.

The suit says that unlike many other cities, St. Ann does not
release people on their own recognizance or with an unsecured
bond, which means people would be released by promising to pay if
they failed to appear in court later.

St. Ann City Administrator Matt Conley said he couldn't comment on
the suit because he had not seen it.  "We're at the end of a state
audit, which so far has gone extremely well," he said.  He also
said he knows people have been released from St. Ann jail on their
own recognizance.

Other St. Ann court officials could not be reached for comment.

The city of St. Ann has 13,000 residents, and the department filed
more than 28,000 municipal ordinance violations in 2013, the suit
says.  As of September 2014, the city had more than 14,000
outstanding warrants.

The court produces more than $3 million from court costs and
fines, the suit says, because of this "high volume policing."

"Because of St. Ann's unusual and illegal policies, it is
difficult for the public to obtain accurate details concerning how
many impoverished St. Ann arrestees are unable to buy their
release each week," the suit says.

The same attorneys filed a similar suit in April against Velda
City, another north St. Louis County municipality.  They also
filed federal suits alleging the operation of "debtors prisons" in
Ferguson and Jennings, as well as nine lawsuits in state court
challenging the fees and fines in some other St. Louis County
municipal courts.


STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Faces "Wyms" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Wyms, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Staffing Solutions Southeast, Inc. d/b/a Prologistix,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00643 (S.D. Ill., June 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Staffing Solutions Southeast, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that
has supplied forklift operators to the Edwardsville Facilities,
which is located within the Southern District of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite #133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com


TASTY ROAST: Faces "Song" Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Siyuan Song, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Tasty Roast House, Inc. d/b/a Tasty Roast House, and Loong Koo,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03364 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 5916A Main
St., Flushing, NY 11355.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


TECO ENERGY: Appeals Related to Class Actions Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teco Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that appeals are pending on
the court dismissal of class actions.

In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a class
consisting of all "32,000 [sic] customers" who had their gas
utility service curtailed during the early-February system
emergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against New
Mexico Gas Company, Inc. In March 2011, the Town of Bernalillo,
New Mexico, purporting to represent a class consisting of all "New
Mexico municipalities and governmental entities who have suffered
damages as a result of the natural gas utility shut off" also
filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC, four of its
officers, and John and Jane Does at NMGC.

In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo class action filed
an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff purporting to
represent a class of all "similarly situated New Mexico private
businesses and enterprises."

The two purported class action suits (three purported classes)
were consolidated. The court dismissed the class actions in their
entirety with prejudice in October 2014 and appeals from the
dismissal were taken by the plaintiffs in November 2014 and are
pending.


TETRA TECH: Class Action Against BPR Inc. Officially Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tetra Tech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that a class action
proceeding against BPR Inc. is officially closed.

On April 19, 2013, a class action proceeding was filed in Montreal
in which BPR Inc. ("BPR"), BPR's former president, and other
Quebec-based engineering firms and individuals are named as
defendants.  The plaintiff class includes all individuals and
entities that have paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city
of Montreal.  The allegations include participation in collusion
to share contracts awarded by the City of Montreal, conspiracy to
reduce competition and fix prices, payment of bribes to officials,
making illegal political contributions, and bid rigging.  A class
certification hearing was held in March 2014, and on May 7, 2014,
the court dismissed the action.  On June 5, 2014, the plaintiff
filed an appeal, and on November 3, 2014, the court dismissed this
appeal.  The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of
Canada, and on April 23, 2015, the court dismissed the
application.  Accordingly, this matter is officially closed.


THIESS CONSTRUCTIONS: Deception Bay Residents Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Moore, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that Brendan
Pendergast, the principal lawyer at Maddens Lawyers said residents
on May 12 asked the company to begin a class action for
compensation.

Mr. Pendergast described the May 13 meeting as "well attended and
spirited."

"There was a unanimous resolve to seek compensation for local
residents of Deception Bay who say that the property damage they
suffered could have been avoided," Mr. Pendergast said.

"Maddens Lawyers are currently undertaking extensive research and
anticipate that proceedings will be commenced very shortly."

Overall 106 residents in Deception Bay, Rothwell and Mango Hill
were rendered "uninhabitable" in the week after the May 1 deluge.

What the residents say

Residents in Deception Bay's Major Street -- where water swelled a
metre-deep through homes -- say they still believe the
construction works -- including a bridge and dam on Saltwater
Creek -- have changed water flows in the area.

Jon Cuffe said their Major Street home had never flooded, even in
the serious 2011 Brisbane floods.

"In the 11 years my parents have lived here, the 2011 floods did
not even get into the streets here," Mr. Cuffe said.

He said in the last 12 months the consortium that is building the
Moreton Bay Rail Link -- Thiess Constructions -- has partially
dammed nearby Saltwater Creek to build a bridge as part of the
rail link.

"And in February this year, water got into the front yards," he
said.

"And it had never ever got into the front yards."

His father Tom Cuffe said he would join a class action to cover
his losses.

"This area is not supposed to be in a flooded area," he said.

Mr. Cuffe -- who wears an iron shoe on a shortened leg, came home
on May 1 after visiting his wife in Caboolture Hospital to find
the water coming in to his house.

"I was just sitting watching TV and then I saw it coming in the
front door and then in through the back door," he said.

"I rang 000 and a bloke had to come and help me out.  The leg is a
bit hard to swim with," he said.

"I wouldn't have got out.  I would have drowned."

Tom's house filled with a metre of dirty floodwater on May 1.

"I've never seen anything like. It just rose and rose," he said.

Mr. Cuffe says he is clear about the problem.

"I'll put my hand up straightaway.  It is where they are building
the bridge (Saltwater Creek); there's no getting away from it."

"We've had big rain, but we've never had water in here before like
that."

Further up Deception Bay's Major Street, Carlos Reyes and wife
Elvira -- who also had a meter of floodwater through their home --
said they would be interested if a class action began.

"The water it backed up in the drainage so fast, since they put in
the railway and they put in the big wall.  That is what I have
heard from other people," Mr. Reyes said.

Mr. Reyes said they had never had flood problems before.

Thiess Pty Ltd won the Department of Transport and Main Roads
contract for the construction and in October 2014 began building a
340-metre rail bridge over Saltwater Creek, between Mango Hill
East and Rothwell stations.

The Department of Transport and Main Roads was contacted for their
view on the likely class action.

In State Parliament on May 8, Deputy Premier and Transport
Minister Jackie Trad announced an independent inquiry into the
residents' claims about the flooding would be run by hydraulic
modelling firm, Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation.

Who are Maddens Lawyers

Maddens Lawyers has successfully secured millions of dollars in
compensation for hundreds of victims  from Victoria's Ash
Wednesday fires in 1983 and Black Saturday on 7 February 2009.

The firm is also now acting for families and businesses in
Callide, near Biloela, where hundreds of homes and businesses
affected when Sunwater's Callide Dam overflowed.

Local residents can contact Maddens Lawyers on 1800 815 228.

The Queensland Government on May 4 said 106 homes were
"uninhabitable" after Emergency Services minister Jo-Ann Miller
inspected the damage.

Transport and Main Roads response

"We have engaged Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC),
an Australian engineering firm with expertise in flood studies,
flood plain management and hydrological and hydraulic modelling,
to undertake a review of the project following the extreme weather
on 1 May, 2015.

"The terms of reference are being developed and will be made
available as part of the review.

"We expect the review to be completed over the next 12 weeks and
will provide advice to the concerns raised, specifically Saltwater
Creek catchment.

"Once completed, the review will be made public.

"Comprehensive modelling was previously completed for the Moreton
Bay Rail corridor.

"Construction around the 320-metre rail bridge, between the new
Mango Hill East and Rothwell stations, and the Anzac Avenue
intersection to the new access road, has been designed to mitigate
flooding in Saltwater Creek."


TINDER INC: Sued for Not Telling Subscribers of Right to Cancel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that for 4 years Tinder didn't
inform subscribers of their right to cancel, a class action claims
in San Luis Obispo County Court.


TRIANGLE FIRE: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Osvaldo Lopez and other similarly situated individuals v. Triangle
Fire, Inc., Orlando Alfonso, and Raquel Cano, Case No. 1:15-cv-
22209-JLK (S.D. Fla., June 10, 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 shop that offers fire protection
and fire safety needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Settles Insurance Class Action for $11.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that a lawsuit filed by physicians and the Connecticut State
Medical Society against United Healthcare that has been pending
for nearly 15 years has finally settled for $11.5 million.

The doctors and the organization that represents them were unhappy
with the reimbursement practices of the largest health carrier in
the country.  And so United HealthGroup, the parent of United
Healthcare, will spend at least $9 million in extensive
enhancements to its self-service website, with the objective of
increasing efficiencies and reducing delays in the areas of claims
management and resolution.  The new website should be up and
running later this year.

"We're pleased to be able to obtain this settlement on behalf of
the medical society to bring further relief to physicians in the
area of transparency of payment practices," said the plaintiffs'
lawyer, Edith Kallas -- ekallas@whatleykallas.com -- of Whatley
Kallas in New York.  "That's what these website enhancements are
really designed to do."

Dr. Karen Laugel, a board-certified pediatrician specializing in
pediatric head trauma, brought the lawsuit in 2001 as the lead
physician plaintiff from Connecticut.

The settlement includes the medical societies of four states --
Connecticut, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee.

Ms. Kallas said the lawsuit was brought because the insurer was
routinely reducing the reimbursement amount provided to physicians
for rendering services to patients; sometimes, the insurer was
denying payments altogether for commonly covered medical
treatments.  "Nobody knew what was happening because it was done
through a software system," said Ms. Kallas.

The lawsuit claimed doctors had to spend a good deal of time
straightening out the problems on the phone with insurance company
representatives, and that the reimbursements would finally come
after the time periods allotted by state law.  This, the
plaintiffs said, cost the medical providers millions of dollars.

"The relationship between a physician and patient depends on
reimbursement adequate to cover the costs of delivering the health
care services patients have been promised by defendants," read the
2001 complaint.  "Defendants' failure to provide reimbursement to
physicians which is adequate to cover the costs of delivering
healthcare services to United [Healthcare] enrollees has resulted
in tremendous hardships for [Connecticut State Medical Society]
physicians."

The lawsuit alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

Shortly after the suit was filed, the defendants moved the case to
U.S. District Court in Connecticut.  From there, it was
transferred to multidistrict litigation in Florida.  "There was a
lot of litigation over reimbursement practices all over the
place," Ms. Kallas explained.

The Florida class action involved similar complaints against other
insurers, including Anthem, Cigna and Aetna.  The basic
allegations were that these health insurance companies
systematically denied, delayed or reduced payment to physicians
who had delivered services to covered patients.  Seven settlements
with national health insurers have been reached to date.

The Connecticut case was referred to as a "tag-along" case that
was sent back to Connecticut federal court in 2008 after the
multidistrict case was resolved.  Due to various motions and
appeals, it then took seven more years for the two sides to reach
a resolution.

In addition to calling for United Healthcare to upgrade its
provider website, the settlement provides for the insurer to pay
additional monies to the Connecticut State Medical Society
Physicians Health and Education Fund for educational programs for
society members.  Those programs will focus on topics such as
medical billing and coding, medical review audits and appeals, and
electronic claims submission and processing.  The insurer will
also create a Physician Advisory Council in Connecticut, which
will consist of at least 10 members and meet at least four times a
year for at least three years.

The settlement's additional $2.5 million is for the plaintiffs'
attorney fees and costs to be divided among the four state medical
societies that were involved.

United Healthcare was defended by Jeffrey Klein --
jeffrey.klein@weil.com -- of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in New York
City.  Mr. Klein referred comment to his client.

Daryl Richard, vice president of corporate communications for
United HealthGroup, issued the following statement: "We are
pleased to have resolved this nearly 15-year-old litigation and
look forward to collaborating in new ways with the Connecticut
Medical Society.  Physicians will have simpler and more
comprehensive access to claims management information through
enhancements we are making to our physician web site."


UNITED RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Shaffer" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Shaffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United Recovery Systems, LP, Case No. 2:15-cv-04409-
DMG-JC (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of contacting the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephone
using an automatic telephone dialing system.

United Recovery Systems, LP is engaged in the business of
collecting a debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


UNIV OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Proposes $6.2MM Frozen Sperm Case Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Nixon, writing for The Ubyssey, reports that University of
British Columbia has proposed a $6.2 million settlement to
compensate hundreds of cancer patients whose frozen sperm was
accidentally destroyed in a power failure.

In 2002, a circuit break tripped, cutting off the power to a
freezer holding sperm that UBC had been paid to store -- the alarm
failed to kick in and the sperm was destroyed.

"For a lot of these men this was a very severe and significant
personal blow," said Art Grant, a lawyer for the class action
suit.  "So I'm glad that for those who are still surviving we're
able to get some sort of compensation if we can get this
approved."

Howard Lam, the class-action representative, directed his lawyers
to accept the settlement, but its approval is subject to a June 10
court hearing.  There, a judge will hear any concerns from members
of the class-action lawsuit.

Over 400 men are part of the class action, mostly cancer patients
who stored sperm with the UBC Andrology Lab.  Under the current
settlement, their lawyers expect less than 200 of the claims to be
viable.

Originally, the civil suit outlined damages sought: $20,000 to
$100,000 for each of the men involved.  This settlement would
split $6.2 million between all the viable claims and award $1.86
million in court costs plus disbursements.  If there are only 200
viable claims like the lawyers expect, a full, successful claim
may be worth closer to $300,000.

Viability of a claim depends on demonstrating impaired ability to
have children without significant personal cost.  Claims are
awarded based on a points system, which is affected by the
severity of damage to sperm health, occurrence of a vasectomy, age
and unpaid storage fees.  The amount each successful claim
receives will be based on the total number of claims, weighted by
their rank on the point system.

This settlement, if accepted, is the end of a 12-year legal saga.
The B.C. Supreme Court initially denied the class-action suit in
2002.  The B.C. Court of Appeal overturned that decision in 2011
and the lawsuit crawled forward.

The case then depended on whether the court would decide that
sperm counts as property.  UBC's defense depended on an exemption
liability clause they made the men sign in order to store their
sperm -- but property cannot be exempted under the Warehouse
Receipt Act, meaning UBC would be liable.

The B.C. Supreme Court found that sperm was, in fact, property.
UBC appealed and the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the decision in
January 2015.

April 27 was the first court date in the negligence hearing since
the appeal was upheld.  Mr. Grant said they would have made the
argument that "the system [UBC] used was inappropriate, the backup
system was non-existent, the checks and balances nonexistent."

A representative of Forma Scientific Inc., the company that made
the freezer in 1987, told The Ubyssey that they recommend their
freezers be replaced every 10 years.

Instead of defending the negligence allegations in court on
April 27, UBC proposed this settlement.

Susan Danard, UBC Spokesperson, said in a statement the school
took the matter seriously and is pleased a mutually agreeable
resolution was reached: "The university recognizes this was an
unfortunate incident and we empathize greatly with the men and
their families involved in this case."


USAA CASUALTY: Removed "Byorth" Suit to Montana District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Byorth and Ann McKean, on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company and John
Does I-X, Case No. DV 15-00511, was removed from the MT 13th
Judicial District Court Yellowstone County to the U.S. District
Court District Of Montana (Billings). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00051-SPW-CSO to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Heenan, Esq.
      BISHOP AND HEENAN
      1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste 1
      Billings, MT 59102
      Telephone: (406) 839-9091
      Facsimile: (406) 839-9092
      E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com

         - and -

      Colette B. Davies, Esq.
      DAVIES LAW, PLLC
      1631 Zimmerman Tr., Suite 2
      Billings, MT 59102
      Telephone: (406) 839-9093
      E-mail: cdavies@davieslawmt.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jessica G. Scott, Esq.
      WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
      370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 244-1800
      Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
      E-mail: scott@wtotrial.com

         - and -

      Ian McIntosh, Esq.
      Kelsey E. Bunkers, Esq.
      CROWLEY FLECK
      1915 South 19th Avenue, PO Box 10969
      Bozeman, MT 59719-0969
      Telephone: (406) 556-1430
      Facsimile: (406) 556-1433
      E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com
              kbunkers@crowleyfleck.com


VON BROTHERS: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ariana Sanchez v. Von Brothers LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01061-SRB
(D. Ariz., June 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Von Brothers LLC operates as an insurance broker but also provides
notary public, home inspection, private investigator, and
janitorial services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


W2007 GRACE: Sept. 11 Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
W2007 Grace Acquisition I, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, a hearing on final
approval of a class action settlement is scheduled for September
11, 2015.

In September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (the Johnson
Lawsuit) was filed in the Tennessee Chancery Court, Shelby County,
Tennessee by several current and former holders of the preferred
stock. Plaintiffs allege that, since October 2007, the defendants
named in the complaint have engaged in a scheme to oppress and
then squeeze-out the holders of the preferred stock, including by
allegedly suppressing the marketability of the shares, causing the
Company to cease paying dividends, and purchasing 58.8% of the
shares in a series of alleged "creeping" tender offers beginning
in 2012. The complaint names as defendants the Company, the
members of our board of directors, the majority shareholders of
the Company (Grace I, Whitehall and PFD Holdings), the GS Group
and Goldman Sachs Realty Management L.P. (RMD). The complaint
asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting, and for violations of the Tennessee Blue Sky
laws and the Tennessee Business Corporations Act.

On October 4, 2013, defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. On
November 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to
state court. The defendants filed their opposition on December 6,
2013. The remand motion was fully briefed on December 20, 2013.

On July 28, 2014, the court denied the remand motion. The
defendants also moved to dismiss the Johnson Lawsuit on January
23, 2014. The court entered a scheduling order governing further
proceedings in the litigation on February 14, 2014, as amended on
June 19, 2014 and July 28, 2014, and the parties engaged in merits
and class certification discovery. Also, pursuant to the schedule,
plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' dismissal motion
on March 21, 2014, and defendants filed their reply papers in
further support of their motion on April 25, 2014. Plaintiffs
moved for class certification on May 16, 2014.

After the Company announced the Original Purchase Agreement with
ARCH on June 2, 2014, defendants and plaintiffs engaged in
settlement negotiations. Thereafter, plaintiffs made requests for,
and defendants provided to plaintiffs, information regarding the
transaction contemplated by the Original Purchase Agreement (the
ARCH Transaction). Among other information provided, the Company
estimated a reasonable fair present value of the proceeds that
could be distributed to holders of the preferred stock as a result
of the ARCH Transaction, as announced, to be approximately $18.50
per share of preferred stock. Plaintiffs retained and consulted
with two financial advisors with regard to the ARCH Transaction.
During this period, the parties to the Johnson Lawsuit continued
to engage in both merits and class certification discovery. On
August 20, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) containing the key terms of a proposed
settlement. On August 22, 2014, the parties held a telephone
conference with the court, in which the court agreed that, in
light of the MOU, the parties would no longer be subject to the
pending deadlines in the then current scheduling order. For the
court's convenience in managing its docket, the defendants agreed
to withdraw their pending motion to dismiss without prejudice. On
September 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
withdraw its motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew. The
defendants may renew their motion to dismiss in the event that the
proposed settlement of the Johnson Lawsuit does not become final.

The stipulation, which was submitted to the court on October 9,
2014 and amended on December 4, 2014, would settle claims with
respect to two classes described in the Johnson Lawsuit: (1) the
"Holder Class" consisting of any and all persons who, as of August
22, 2014 and through the effective time of the merger contemplated
by the stipulation, hold the preferred stock, excluding defendants
and their affiliates, persons who opt out of the Holder Class and
holders of dissenting shares and (2) the "Seller Class" consisting
of all persons who sold some or all of their shares of preferred
stock between October 25, 2007 and October 8, 2014, inclusive, and
suffered a loss, excluding the defendants, their affiliates and
persons who sold shares to PFD Holdings, and persons who opt out
of the Seller Class. The stipulation was preliminarily approved by
the court on April 30, 2015 and remains subject to final approval
by the court. A hearing on final approval is scheduled for
September 11, 2015.

In October 2013, a similar lawsuit was filed by another plaintiff
in the same Circuit Court (the Dent Lawsuit), alleging similar
breaches against several of the same defendants named in the
Johnson Lawsuit, in addition to a former member of the Company's
board of directors. The plaintiffs and defendants in the Dent
Lawsuit agreed to stay this case until the motion to remand in the
Johnson lawsuit was decided. As stipulated by the parties,
plaintiff must file any response to defendants' motion to stay
within ten business days after notice of the federal court
decision denying the remand motion. Defendants notified plaintiff
of the resolution of the remand motion in the Johnson Lawsuit, and
plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to stay. The
proposed settlement in the Johnson Lawsuit purports to encompass
the claims asserted in the Dent Lawsuit.


W2007 GRACE: Summary Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN
DIVISION


DAVID JOHNSON, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

W2007 GRACE ACQUISITION I, INC., et al.

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2777 (SHM/DKV)

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:
ALL PERSONS WHO OWN(ED) 8.75% SERIES B CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK
("SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK") AND/OR 9.00% SERIES C CUMULATIVE
PREFERRED STOCK ("SERIES C PREFERRED STOCK") (COLLECTIVELY,
"PREFERRED STOCK") OF W2007 GRACE ACQUISITION I, INC. ("W2007
GRACE") AND EITHER: (1) HELD PREFERRED STOCK AS OF AUGUST 22, 2014
AND CONTINUE TO HOLD THROUGH THE MERGER EFFECTIVE TIME (THE
"HOLDER CLASS"); AND/OR, (2) SOLD SOME OR ALL OF THEIR PREFERRED
STOCK BETWEEN OCTOBER 25, 2007 AND OCTOBER 8, 2014, INCLUSIVE, AND
SUFFERED A LOSS (THE "SELLER CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned action (the
"Action") has been preliminarily certified by the Court to proceed
as a class action and that the parties have reached a proposed
Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") that fully and
completely releases the Classes' claims in consideration of the
following: For the Holder Class, W2007 Grace shall present for
approval by the holders of Preferred Stock, pursuant to a Proxy
Statement, a merger transaction whereby W2007 Grace will be merged
with and into another entity and all Preferred Stock (except for
Excluded Shares, as defined in the Stipulation) shall be converted
into the right to receive $26.00 per share (the "Merger").  In the
aggregate, approximately $62 million is to be paid to eligible
members of the Holder Class who are not affiliated with
Defendants; and for the Seller Class, W2007 Grace shall establish
a Seller Class Settlement Fund consisting of $6 million in cash
which, after the deductions of certain fees and expenses, shall be
distributed on a pro rata basis to eligible Seller Class members
who suffered a recognized loss based on the Plan of Allocation.

YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT a hearing will be held before
the Honorable Samuel H. Mays in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee, 167 North Main Street,
Memphis, Tennessee 38103 at 9:30 a.m., on September 11, 2015 in
Courtroom 2, to consider whether the proposed Settlement,
conditionally approved Class Certification, Plan of Allocation,
and/or counsel's application for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
expenses and payment of case contribution awards to the Plaintiffs
should be granted final approval as fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF EITHER OR BOTH CLASSES, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED AND YOU  MAY  BE  ENTITLED TO  SHARE  IN THE SETTLEMENT
CONSIDERATION.  To participate in the Holder Class, you MUST
timely submit your stock certificate(s) and a completed Letter of
Transmittal which will be mailed by Computershare Trust Company,
N.A. to all known holders of record immediately prior to the
Merger Effective Time.  If you have not received the Letter of
Transmittal, please contact Morrow & Co., LLC at (203) 658-9400 or
call toll-free (800) 662-5200.  To participate in the Seller
Class, you MUST timely submit a valid Proof of Claim postmarked no
later than September 18, 2015.  If you have not yet received the
Notice of Proposed Settlement and/or Proof of Claim Form, visit
www.chimicles.com/W2007GraceLitigation or call Class Counsel toll-
free (866) 399-2487.  Class members who do not submit a complete
Letter of Transmittal and/or Proof of Claim Form will be bound by
the Settlement, but will not share in the Settlement
consideration.

Any objections to the proposed  Settlement,  proposed  Plan  of
Allocation, and/ or counsel's application for attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses and payment of case contribution awards
to Plaintiffs MUST be filed with the Court and delivered to
counsel so that they are received by August 21, 2015.

Alternatively, class members have the right to request exclusion
(or opt-out) from either or both Classes by submitting a written
request to the Claims Administrator, which must be received no
later than August 21, 2015.  Objections and requests for
exclusions MUST be completed in accordance with the detailed
instructions in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Direct your inquiries to:

Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith and Catherine Pratsinakis of Chimicles
& Tikellis LLP

361 W. Lancaster Avenue, Haverford, PA 19041

www.chimicles.com/W2007GraceLitigation or call toll-free (866)
399-2487

Dated: May 28, 2015   By Order of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee


WARDLAW CLAIMS: "Hill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis K. Hill v. Wardlaw Claims Service, L.L.P. and William
Wardlaw, Case No. 6:15-cv-00193 (W.D. Tex., June 10, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, injunctive
relief, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Wardlaw Claims Service, L.L.P. is a Texas corporation that
provides catastrophic and other insurance adjusting services to
insurance companies throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      ROSS LAW P.C.
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: charles@rosslawgroup.com


WESTSIDE RENTALS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Roshangah, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Mark Verge d/b/a Westside Rental Connection,
Koa Lei, Inc. d/b/a Westside Rentals, WestsideRentals.com, DOES
1-50 inclusive, Case No. BC584457 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 8, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate rental agency in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric A. Boyajian, Esq.
      PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
      136 Main Street, Suite A
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 290-3095
      Facsimile: (866) 264-7880


WILLOWICK, OH: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Sewer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Read, writing for The News-Herald, reports that a class-
action lawsuit filed by Willowick residents who claimed city
officials did not do enough to stop the sewer system from backing
up into hundreds of people's homes after a rainstorm has been
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

"It's very good news," City Law Director Michael Lucas said
May 12.  "There was no settlement.  The city and the mayor were
very pleased to hear there was a dismissal."

However, resident Kimberley Ragazzo retains the right to refile
the suit at some point in the future in Lake County Common Pleas
Court.

"It's not necessarily the end," Mr. Lucas added.  "The potential
is there for a refiling."

Ms. Ragazzo could not immediately be reached for comment. Her
attorney, Phillip Ciano, did not immediately return a phone
message seeking comment.

The original plaintiff was Micasa Court resident Dominic Trinetti,
who filed the suit in July 2013 on behalf of himself and others.

According to the suit, about 200 Willowick homes became flooded
with sewage, pollutants, water, feces, dirt, debris and noxious
odors several times since June 2010, and the city failed to take
necessary steps to fix the situation.

A July 20, 2013, rainstorm resulted in structural damage of homes,
destruction of personal property, a reduction in market value of
their properties, lost wages and emotional stress, the suit
stated.

The lawsuit asked Judge Richard L. Collins Jr. to find the city
liable for all damages and a ruling stating officials violated
their duty to properly maintain and repair the sewer system.

The plaintiffs also were seeking a jury trial.

The case was later transferred to Judge Vincent A. Culotta.


YAHOO INC: Judge Allows Email Spying Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge
ordered Yahoo Inc to face a nationwide class-action lawsuit
accusing it of illegally intercepting the content of emails sent
to Yahoo Mail subscribers from non-Yahoo Mail accounts, and using
the information to boost advertising revenue.

In a decision on May 26, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose,
California said people who sent emails to or received emails from
Yahoo Mail subscribers since Oct. 2, 2011 may sue as a group under
the federal Stored Communications Act for alleged privacy
violations.  She also said a class of non-Yahoo Mail subscribers
in California since Oct. 2, 2012 may sue as a group under that
state's Invasion of Privacy Act.

Holders of non-Yahoo Mail accounts accused Yahoo of copying and
then analyzing their emails, including keywords and attachments,
with a goal of creating "targeted advertising" for its estimated
275 million Yahoo Mail subscribers, in addition to detecting spam
and malware.  They sought an injunction barring the alleged
interceptions, as well as damages.  Yahoo in 2014 generated 79
percent of its revenue from search and display advertising.

A class action can make it easier to obtain larger damages and
more sweeping remedies at lower cost.  The plaintiffs estimated
that the nationwide class of non-Yahoo Mail subscribers has more
than 1 million members.

Rebecca Neufeld, a Yahoo spokeswoman, said the Sunnyvale,
California-based company cannot comment on active litigation.

Judge Koh rejected Yahoo's arguments that some plaintiffs
consented to its activity by emailing Yahoo subscribers even after
learning how it used the information, and that the alleged
injuries were too disparate to justify class certification.

She distinguished the case from her March 2014 refusal to certify
a similar class action against Google Inc on behalf of Gmail and
non-Gmail subscribers because it was hard to determine which users
consented to Google's activity.

"Yahoo may have to, as a practical matter, adjust its scanning
practices on an individual basis," Judge Koh wrote.  "That
does not, however, change the fact that plaintiffs seek uniform
relief from a common policy that Yahoo applies to all class
members."

Daniel Girard, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, declined to comment.


YINGLI GREEN: Faces Securities Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, one of the world's
leading solar panel manufacturers, known as "Yingli Solar," on
May 29 announced that it has become aware of the filing of a
purported securities class action lawsuit against the Company and
certain of its senior officers on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders of the Company in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.

The Company has reviewed the claims asserted in the complaint and
believes that they are without merit.  While the Company has not
yet been served with a copy of the complaint, it intends to
vigorously defend itself in this matter.


* Consumers Still Face Huge Overdraft Fees Despite Regulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Vasel, writing for KWCH12, reports that despite regulation
that aims to curb banks from charging customers overdraft fees
without their consent, people are still getting hit with large
fees -- about $35 a pop -- for overdrawing their accounts.

Banks are getting better at disclosing their checking account
terms and fees, but some customers are still getting hit with
overdraft fees, according to a new report from The Pew Charitable
Trusts.

The report showed that 84% of banks charge overdraft fees for ATM
or debit card transactions. Pew looked at disclosure documents for
45 out of the 50 biggest banks in the U.S. that hold around 66% of
all domestic deposits.

As of 2010, federal law now requires banks give consumers the
option to "opt-in" to an overdraft program that would cover a
purchase.  But a 2014 Pew study found more than half of the people
who overdrew their checking accounts in the past year didn't
remember consenting to the overdraft service.

This shows the law isn't enough, said Susan Weinstock, director of
Consumer Banking, The Pew Charitable Trusts.

"It doesn't sufficiently protect consumers."

Overdraft fees arise when you spend more than what's available in
your checking account.  The mistake can be costly since banks can
charge a fee for covering the transaction on top of whatever was
originally charged.  The Pew report found the median overdraft
penalty is currently $35 -- the same since 2013.  Even a small
purchase, like a $10 lunch, could end up costing closer to $50.

For customers who don't opt in, the bank will decline any ATM
withdrawals and debit card transactions that exceed the amount
available in the account at the time of purchase.  But they can
still charge a fee for those who do consent to the coverage.

Ms. Weinstock said that most people would rather their card be
declined, than have to pay a fee.

"The vast majority of consumers, 68%, would rather have a
transaction declined than go through for a $35 fee," she said.

Nearly 60% of banks charge an extended fee if an overdraft charge
isn't paid off within a set amount of time, the report showed.

A report from The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that
costumers dished out more than $34 billion in service charges in
2012, with 61% stemming from overdraft or nonsufficient fund
issues.

What's more, consumers' abilities to legally challenge a bank's
practices have narrowed, Ms. Weinstock said.  Among the 45 banks
in the study, 64% have an arbitration clause, which means a third
party resolves a dispute.

"It's disturbing that consumers' options for suing over disputes
are being lessened," Ms. Weinstock said.


* Employees Pay Big Price for Keeping Right to Sue Companies
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Weber, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
companies have been aggressively trying to stem the costs of
lawsuits by asking and sometimes requiring employees to give up
their right to take the boss to court.

The U.S. arm of German pharmaceuticals firm Boehringer Ingelheim
recently took the idea one step further, barring employees from
receiving sales commissions if they didn't agree to pursue
complaints against the company in arbitration, rather than in
court.

Employees could keep the right to sue the company, but they would
pay a steep price: They became ineligible to receive 2014
incentive compensation.  That commission-based pay could amount to
as much as 25% of a person's annual salary, or typically $20,000
to $40,000 per employee, according to a person who has seen the
policy.

"At the end of the day, no one can afford not to sign it," said
the person, who wished to remain anonymous because he was
discussing company policies without authorization.  "It just
doesn't seem fair. It seemed they were taking a right away.  That
was bothersome, but when you add on the part of having commissions
taken away, that adds insult to injury."

Boehringer's policy was first sent to staffers who were eligible
for incentive pay, such as sales employees, according to memos
reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

In a statement to The Journal, Boehringer said the company
"instituted the employee arbitration agreement in an effort to
resolve employment disputes quickly, fairly, inexpensively, and as
amicably as possible."

Arbitration is a method of resolving conflicts that bypasses the
court system.  Opposing parties go before a neutral person --
usually a retired judge or attorney -- to present their sides. The
arbitrator then issues a binding decision.

Employers prefer arbitrations to lawsuits because they are cheaper
and simpler to manage.  They also tend to favor companies over
individuals, as a Cornell University study found in 2011.  In
2014, 66% of U.S. companies had some form of arbitration clause
for employees, customers, or both, according to a survey of nearly
350 businesses conducted by management-side law firm Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt LLP.

A significant share of arbitration agreements also prohibit
employees from joining class actions, which can be especially
complex and expensive for employers.  Last year 43% of companies
barred employees from joining class action, up from 16% in 2012,
according to the Carlton Fields survey.

Boehringer said that its policy permits some types of class
actions, such as ERISA claims.

Some Boehringer employees have declined to sign the policy,
according to the company.  Refusal to sign only affected 2014
compensation, a spokeswoman said.  Future pay, including 2015
commissions, won't be affected, she said.

Attorneys who represent employees in lawsuits say that
Boehringer's policy is highly unusual, since it penalized those
who didn't agree to the policy with a significant loss of income.

They also note that most arbitration agreements are voluntary in
name only, since companies often require hires to sign off on the
agreements before beginning work.  For example, drivers who want
to join Uber Technologies Inc.'s taxi platform must agree to the
firm's arbitration policy first; there is no opportunity to
negotiate that aspect of the contract.

At Boehringer, "employment for new hires is contingent on a number
of factors, including passing a drug screening and background
check, verification of eligibility to work in the U.S., and
signing a number of policies and agreements, including the
Company's nondisclosure agreement and arbitration agreement,"
according to the firm's statement.

"Making people's livelihood attendant on them agreeing to give up
core legal rights is a very troubling approach to your workers,"
said Paul Bland, director of Public Justice, a Washington, D.C.
organization that has brought legal challenges against companies
using arbitration clauses.

Boehringer has rolled out the policy to all of its approximately
10,000 U.S. employees, and now asks all new hires to sign it.
Existing employees received money or additional paid time off if
they signed the policy. Those who signed in the first phase of the
rollout received $500 in extra pay.


* Indian Union Finance Minister Favors Class Action Proposals
-------------------------------------------------------------
KNN reports that in the wake of growing e-commerce trade in India,
Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on May 29 proposed revamp of
the Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the rights of consumers
amid evolving changes in the trade sector especially e-commerce.

The government has initiated a major step to rewrite the Consumer
Protection Act so as to remove various lacunae in the Act that has
been noticed over the last 28 years of its enforcement,
Mr. Jaitley said while addressing the national conference on
effective functioning of Consumer Fora.

With increase in consumer spending in view of Indian economy
transforming in past 20 years, he said the Consumer Protection Act
needs to be taken to the "next stage", giving powers to consumers
to file Class Action suits.

"Globally the best practice is you allow a class action in these
cases.  You also have to regulate the extent of reviews and
appeals and the grounds on which multiple appeals can be filed,"
he said.

The need to amend the Consumer Protection Act has also become
inevitable after the boom in e-commerce.

"As we pass by, the volume of trade in ecommerce is going to
increase . . . So that's how the trade is going to change. So
under these circumstances we need a very powerful and efficient
(consumer) fora," he said.

As we pass by, the volume of trade in ecommerce is going to
increase . . . So that's how the trade is going to change. So
under these circumstances we need a very powerful and efficient
(consumer) fora," he said, while addressing the national
conference on effective functioning of Consumer Fora.

With the concept of jurisdiction is getting diluted with goods
being traded on ecommerce platform, he said that some judicial
pronouncement or legislative intervention will have to determine
those factors.  These are the changes that are taking place.

The government is amending the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to
protect consumers, including those who are buying products from
ecommerce platforms. As there is no direct contact between the
seller and the buyer in ecommerce business, Mr. Jaitley said, the
manner in which representations are made and the underlying
principle of buyer being aware of the nature of goods and services
itself will now have to be rewritten.  He also said although the
concept of Class Action suit was there in the Act, it has never
been used.  Such suits can be filed by a group of people when
there is a class or category of goods which is defective and a
very large number of people have been deceived by it.

The Consumer Affairs ministry has factored in the concerns of
stakeholders while drafting the amendments to the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.  Many changes have been proposed in the
current law to protect consumer rights and simplify the judicial
process to ensure speedy and inexpensive justice.  The Act
provides for better protection of consumers interest. Under the
law, consumer forums have been set up for the settlement of
disputes.


                            *********

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  * * *