/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140319.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 19, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 55


103W77 PARTNERS: Dovetail's Back-of-the-House Staff Seeks OT Wages
ADP TOTALSOURCE: Class Seeks to Recover Damages and Backpay
AVAYA INC: Did Not Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
BARCLAYS PLC: AIS Sues Over Alleged Gold Price-Fixing
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Sued for Injuries Suffered From Plavix

CHICAGO BEEF: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Class Says
CINCINNATI BENGALS: Minnillo & Jenkins Files Wage Class Action
COLOPLAST A/S: To Settle Mesh Lawsuits for $16 Million
CORAL SANDS: Couple Seeks Class Action Status for Timeshare Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removed "DeCarlo" Suit to S.D. California

DIRECT ENERGY: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Late Payment Fees
DOW EMPLOYEES' PENSION: Sued for Miscalculating Pension Benefits
EQUAL ENERGY: Being Sold to Petroflow for Too Little, Suit Claims
FAMILY DOLLAR: Removed "Randall" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
FARMERS TEXAS: Non-Party Witnesses Want Arduous Subpoena Quashed

FIRST NATIONAL: Supreme Court Snubs Bid to Nix EFTA Claims
GC SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
GENERAL MOTORS: Safety Regulators Record 303 Recall-Linked Deaths
GENERAL MOTORS: Owners of Recalled Cars Outraged
GENERAL MOTORS: Offers Discounts for Owners of Recalled Cars

GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Children's In-App Purchases
HARTFORD, CT: Superior Court Approves Class Action Settlement
HARTFORD FIRE: Analysts Sue Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
INDYMAC BANCORP: Court Set to Rule on Securities Claims Filing
INTEL CORP: April 30 Pentium 4 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

LA TAN ENTERPRISES: Failed to Pay Workers' Overtime, Suit Says
LOWE'S HIW: Removed "Asfaw" Employment Suit to C.D. California
MEMBER SOLUTIONS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
MT. GOX: Wins Temporary Protection; Hearing Set for April 1
NATIONAL SECURITY: False Premise Led to Data Destruction Order

NATURAL ORGANICS: Falsely Promotes Betaine HCl, Suit Claims
NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces "Wong" Suit in California Over Data Breach
NU SKIN ENTERPRISES: Faces "Zapata" Securities Suit in Utah
PFIZER INC: Faces "Howard" Suit in Missouri Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Faces "Gaiton" Suit in S.D. Ohio Over Lipitor Drug

PROMPT RESTORATION: Accused of Systematic Wage Payment Violations
SAGE MANAGEMENT: Tenants File Class Action Over Illegal Late Fees
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit in Massachusetts
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: CEO Says Policy Holders Should Talk to Insurer
STATE FARM: Knocks 7% Off Totaled Vehicles' True Value, Suit Says

TARGET CORP: CommunityBank of Texas, FNBT.com Sue Over Data Theft
TARGET CORP: Umpqua Bank Sues Over Consumer Data Breach
TARGET CORP: Faces "Chang" Suit in Minnesota Over Data Breach
TRIPLE CROWN: Misclassified Technical Recruiters, Class Claims
UNITED STATES: Victim Sues Educ Dept Over Sexual Harassment Law

WALTER INVESTMENT: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action

* 9th. Cir. Rejects Three Class Actions Under Shine the Light Law
* FDA to Revisit 2009 Draft Guidance Following Cane Juice Suits
* Florida Supreme Court Rejects Medical Malpractice Caps
* Shareholder Class Actions to Increasingly Focus on Disclosures


103W77 PARTNERS: Dovetail's Back-of-the-House Staff Seeks OT Wages
Albino Galvez and Juan Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. 103W77 Partners, LLC, Smokin' JFraser
Inc., and John Fraser, Case No. 1:14-cv-00530-AT (S.D.N.Y.,
January 29, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-
of-hours pay, and other wages for the Plaintiffs and their
similarly situated co-workers -- dishwashers, cooks, and all other
"back-of-the-house employees" -- who work or have worked at

Dovetail is a restaurant located at 103 West 77th Street, in New
York.  Dovetail is owned, operated, and controlled by the
Defendants.  The Corporate Defendants are New York domestic
limited liability companies headquartered in New York.  John
Fraser is the chef and owner of Dovetail.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
          E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carolyn Diane Richmond, Esq.
          James M. Lemonedes, Esq.
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 878-7983
          Facsimile: (212) 692-0940
          E-mail: crichmond@foxrothschild.com

ADP TOTALSOURCE: Class Seeks to Recover Damages and Backpay
Stephen Gill, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. ADP TotalSource, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a ADP
TotalSource, a Professional Employer Organization, and The Kessler
Enterprise, Inc., a Georgia corporation, d/b/a The Kessler
Collection, Case No. 1:14-cv-00270-REB-BNB (D. Colo., January 29,
2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act along with analogous state statutes by failing to
pay regular and "time and one-half" premium pay for all straight
time and overtime hours worked.

The action seeks to recover damages and backpay to compensate all
current and former employees of Kessler/ADP for these wage
violations.  The Plaintiff, a former employee of Kessler/ADP, is a
former resident of the state of Colorado.  He currently resides in

ADP TotalSource, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its corporate
offices located in Miami.  The Kessler Enterprise, Inc. is a
Georgia corporation with its corporate offices located in Orlando,
Florida.  Kessler/ADP has conducted businesses in the state of
Colorado.  Kessler/ADP operates a chain of 10 luxury hotels
located in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, New Mexico and North

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Telephone: (970) 212-4665
          Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

AVAYA INC: Did Not Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
Junior Stanley Jonathas, on his own behalf and all similarly
situated individuals v. Avaya, Inc., a foreign profit corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20351-JEM (S.D. Fla., January 29, 2014) alleges
that no payments, and provisions for payment, have been made by
the Defendant to properly compensate the Plaintiff at the
statutory rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for
those hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.

Avaya Inc. is a Foreign Profit corporation engaged in business in
Florida, with a place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elliot Kozolchyk, Esq.
          Richard Celler, Esq.
          KOZ LAW, P.A.
          320 S.E. 9th Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (786) 924-9929
          Facsimile: (786) 358-6071
          E-mail: ekoz@kozlawfirm.com

BARCLAYS PLC: AIS Sues Over Alleged Gold Price-Fixing
Francesca Freeman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that a U.S. investment-management firm has filed a lawsuit against
the five banks that set the London benchmark gold price, alleging
that the banks conspired to manipulate the price of gold for their
own gain.

Documents seen by The Wall Street Journal show that AIS Capital
Management, based in Connecticut, filed a class-action complaint
on March 10 against Barclays PLC, Deutsche Bank, HSBC Holdings
PLC, Bank of Nova Scotia and Societe Generale SA in the U.S.
district court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit is on behalf of AIS and other investors who held or
traded gold and gold derivatives that were settled based on the
gold fix, or who held or traded COMEX gold futures or options,
from 2004 to present.

The London gold fix is a global benchmark for the spot price of
gold that is used, for example, by jewelers and central bankers to
price deals and help determine the value of securities tied to
gold, such as exchange-traded funds.  That process, which plays a
crucial role in the $20 trillion-a-year gold market, is under
review by regulators in the U.K. and Germany.

A spokesman for Deutsche Bank said: "We believe this suit is
without merit and will vigorously defend against it."

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Sued for Injuries Suffered From Plavix
Mark Simpson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Sanofi-Aventis U.S.,
L.L.C., Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc., Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc.,
McKesson Corporation, and Does 1-100, Case No. 3:14-cv-00634-FLW-
TJB (D.N.J., January 29, 2014) is brought for injuries suffered as
a result of ingesting the pharmaceutical drug, Plavix.  The
Plaintiff says he began Plavix therapy in 2004 for treatment of
coronary artery disease.

The injuries is allegedly a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, distribution, labeling, and sale of Plavix.

The lawsuit is a potential tag-along action and should be
transferred to the United States District Court of New Jersey for
inclusion in In Re: Plavix Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation (No. II) (Hon. Freda L. Wolfson).

New York-based Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a pharmaceutical
manufacturing and marketing company that partners with Sanofi-
Aventis (now Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi-Aventis U.S, Inc.)
to manufacture and market Plavix in the United States.  The
Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged,
promoted, marketed, distributed, labeled, and sold Plavix.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin P. Schrama, Esq.
          993 Lenox Drive
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2389
          Telephone: (609) 896-9060
          Facsimile: (609) 895-7395
          E-mail: mschrama@stark-stark.com

CHICAGO BEEF: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Class Says
Rafael Chavez-Sanchez, Juan Jose Chavez Sanchez, Abraham Chavez,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons,
known and unknown v. Chicago Beef, Inc., d/b/a Al's Beef, Adriano
Martino, Marco Caso, and David C. Howey, Jr., individually, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00656 (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2014) seeks redress for
the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees earned minimum
wage and overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a week.  The Plaintiffs worked at the Defendants' Al's Beef
restaurant located in Chicago Heights, Illinois.

Chicago Beef, Inc., doing business as Al's Beef, is an Illinois
corporation.  The Individual Defendants are officers or owners of
the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

CINCINNATI BENGALS: Minnillo & Jenkins Files Wage Class Action
Attorneys Christian A. Jenkins and John J. Williams of Minnillo &
Jenkins, CO. LPA, on March 11 filed a federal minimum wage class
action lawsuit in the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of
former Bengals Cheerleader Alexa Brenneman.  The lawsuit alleges
that Ms. Brenneman and the other Bengal Cheerleaders receive an
effective wage of approximately $2.85 per hour -- far less than
the legally mandated minimum wage -- when all of their duties are
taken into consideration.  The result of this pending high profile
case may have lasting ramifications for cheerleaders employed by
professional sports teams.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Brenneman was a member of the
"Ben-Gals" employed by the Cincinnati Bengals for less than two
years.  During this period, she alleges that she was compensated
at a maximum rate of $90 for each home game at which she was
selected to appear on field.  However, according to the lawsuit,
between public appearances, practices, pregame time at the
stadium, calendar posing and promotions, she averaged more than
300 hours a year for the organization, resulting in an affective
hourly rate of approximately $2.85 per hour of work.  Ohio's
minimum wage for 2013 was $7.85 per hour, meaning that, according
to the lawsuit, the Cincinnati Bengals underpaid Ms. Brenneman and
the other Ben Gals by about $5.00 per hour for every hour worked.

The suit alleges that the Cincinnati Bengals are in violation of
federal wage laws and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The proposed class action seeks to recover for cheerleaders
employed by the team at any time from February 10, 2011, to the
present.  Members of the class action lawsuit hope to recover back
pay plus liquidated damages, injunctive relief requiring the
Bengals to properly compensate cheerleaders in the future and
attorney fees.

                About Minnillo & Jenkins, CO. LPA

The law firm of Minnillo & Jenkins, CO. LPA, is a full service law
firm for individuals and small business based in the Hyde Park
neighborhood of Cincinnati, Ohio with additional offices in
Dayton, West Chester, Mason and Eastgate.  The firm's attorneys
handle a wide variety of matters including labor and employment,
bankruptcy and debt relief, DUI & criminal defense, domestic
relations & family law, consumer law, and class actions.

Minnillo & Jenkins, CO. LPA, can be reached at 513-723-1600 and
online at http://www.mjbankruptcy.comand www.minnillojenkins.com

COLOPLAST A/S: To Settle Mesh Lawsuits for $16 Million
Jef Feeley, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Coloplast A/S
(COLOB), the Danish maker of medical products, agreed to pay about
$16 million to settle lawsuits accusing it of injuring women with
its vaginal-mesh inserts, three people familiar with the accord

Officials of Humlebaek, Denmark-based Coloplast agreed in January
to resolve about 400 suits over the inserts, which are designed to
support internal organs, said the people, who asked not to be
identified because they weren't authorized to speak publicly about
the settlement.  The accord will provide an average payment of
about $40,000 for each claimant, they said.

Settlement talks are continuing with other manufacturers facing
thousands of suits over their vaginal-mesh inserts, including C.R.
Bard Inc. and a unit of Endo Health Solutions Inc., the people
said.  Some implant makers, such as Johnson & Johnson, the world's
biggest maker of health-care products, have declined to discuss
out-of-court settlements, the people added.

"It appears that momentum is building for some type of global
resolution as more of these vaginal-mesh cases settle,"
Carl Tobias, who teaches product-liability law at the University
of Richmond in Virginia, said in an e-mail.

Ulla Lundhus, a spokeswoman for Coloplast, declined to comment on
the report of a settlement.

                       Case Consolidation

Coloplast is best known as a maker of ostomy and urine bags for
post-surgical use.  In January, the company raised its sales
forecast after reporting double-digit growth in all business units
during its first quarter.

Many of the cases against Coloplast and other implant makers in
federal courts around the U.S. have been consolidated before U.S.
District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia, for
information exchanges and bellwether trials.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Coloplast, Johnson &
Johnson, Bard and more than 30 other vaginal-implant makers in
2012 to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to
the implants.

J&J officials have said in court filings that more than 1 million
women have received the inserts during the past 15 years to help
hold up internal organs or treat incontinence.

Women contend they've suffered organ damage and pain after the
implants eroded and have sued New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J,
Natick, Massachusetts-based Boston Scientific Corp., Malvern,
Pennsylvania-based Endo and Bard, which is based in Murray Hill,
New Jersey.

                         Settlement Talks

Officials of Bard, Endo and Boston Scientific are continuing
discussions about resolving vaginal-mesh lawsuits as part of a
global settlement of cases, the people said.

Scott Lowry, a Bard spokesman, Endo spokesman Blaine Davis and
Denise Kaigler, a Boston Scientific spokeswoman, didn't return
calls seeking comment on whether they are continuing settlement

Matthew Johnson, a spokesman for J&J's Ethicon unit, said the
company doesn't comment on legal strategy.  Ethicon makes J&J's
lines of vaginal-mesh inserts.

Coloplast executives have declined to seek a blanket settlement of
cases over the company's implants and instead are settling
inventories of cases collected by individual plaintiffs' lawyers,
according to the people.

Coloplast has been sued over implants including the Novasilk-
Synthetic Flat Mesh System and the Aris-Transobturator lines,
according to court filings.

                            'Buy Peace'

Lana Varney, one of Coloplast's lawyers, told Goodwin this year
that the medical-device maker had "reached a resolution with one
major inventory of cases," according to a transcript of a Jan. 9
hearing in West Virginia.  She didn't specify how many cases were
being settled or for what amounts.

The judge said the plaintiffs' lawyers' inventory of cases that
settled "was fairly large, though, several hundred cases, wasn't
it?" according to the transcript.

"Yes, your honor, a significant size," Ms. Varney replied.

Coloplast's lawyer told the judge the company had made "offers to
five other groups and we are optimistic we will be able to reach
agreement on resolution" of some of the lawyers' inventories,
according to the transcript.

Varney also said Coloplast's goal was to work out comprehensive
settlements with individual lawyers that resolve all vaginal-mesh
cases over her client's products.

"We'd like to address the entire inventory so that we can buy our
peace and move on down the road," she said, according to the

The consolidated cases are In Re: Coloplast Corp Pelvic Support
System Products Liability Litigation, 12-md-2387, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).

CORAL SANDS: Couple Seeks Class Action Status for Timeshare Suit
Dan Burley, writing for The Beaufort Gazette, reports that an
Atlanta couple who allege they were misled by a Hilton Head Island
timeshare company have asked that their lawsuit be treated as a
class action.  Hundreds of others potentially have similar
complaints about the company, their lawsuit says.

Foster and Janice Watkins were deceived during a sales pitch, and
signed a contract with Coral Sands Resort that didn't reflect what
they were told, according to the lawsuit filed in February.
Promises made to the Watkinses -- such as a unit by the pool,
waived maintenance fees, an available timeshare every Thanksgiving
-- turned out to be false, the lawsuit says.

Coral Sands is run by Coral Resorts LLC, which also operates Port
O'Call at Shipyard Plantation, Island Links and Coral Reef

The couple sued for unfair trade practices and filed a motion for
class-action status that would allow those with similar complaints
to join the lawsuit.  That motion is pending.

Coral Resorts' attorney Nekki Shutt said she intends to ask that
the case be dismissed.  "This lawsuit has no merit," she said in a

The Watkinses' attorney, Joe DuBois, said he and law partner
Zach Naert have 17 pending cases against the company, all alleging
misrepresentation of product and unfair trade practices.  Messrs.
Naert & DuBois filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which is
pending, according to federal court records.

Mr. DuBois would not comment specifically on the class-action
case, but said his office gets "numerous calls every day" with
complaints about the company.

In December, Coral Resorts sued Mr. DuBois' firm over its alleged
use of the company's registered trademarks to generate hits on the
law firm's website.

The timeshare company accused the law firm of purchasing keywords
related to the resorts through search engines such as Google.
Those purchases drive the law firm's website to the top of the
list when the resorts are searched, the federal complaint says.
The resorts lost business because potential customers were led to
assume there was an affiliation between the law firm and the
timeshares, according to the lawsuit.

Coral Resorts has faced scrutiny over its practices before.  In
2005, the S.C. Real Estate Commission met with Coral Resorts
representatives to discuss sales practices after it received a
number of complaints that were "alarming and far in excess of any
reasonably acceptable norm," according to a letter from the
commission to the company.  Though there was no formal agreement
or sanctions, the company promised to hire additional sales staff
and an attorney to dispense independent legal advice to buyers.
The company stopped keeping a lawyer on site in 2009, its previous
attorney Dean Pierce has said.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removed "DeCarlo" Suit to S.D. California
The class action lawsuit styled DeCarlo v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2013-00074221-CU-MC-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the state of California, County
of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-00202-JAH-BLM to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that during eye examinations at the
Defendant's retail locations, the examining optometrists obtain
medical information from patients that the optometrists then
provide to the Defendant's retail employees for nonmedical reasons
without authorization.  The Plaintiff alleges that this practice
violates the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which
prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of confidential medical

Plaintiff Jason DeCarlo is represented by:

          Kevin Frederick Quinn, Esq.
          2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92103-6625
          Telephone: (619) 236-9363
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9653
          E-mail: quinn@tbmlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lauren L. Wroblewski, Esq.
          Rebekah Kaufman, Esq.
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 268-6458
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: lwroblewski@mofo.com

               - and -

          Don G. Rushing, Esq.
          12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-2040
          Telephone: (858) 720-5100
          Facsimile: (858) 720-5125
          E-mail: DRushing@mofo.com

DIRECT ENERGY: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Late Payment Fees
CBC News reports that an Alberta judge has certified a class
action lawsuit against Direct Energy Regulated Services, alleging
the company's late payment practice sometimes violates the
Criminal Code and Canada's Interest Act.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Debby Allen, a grandmother and
property manager, who was charged a late payment penalty of $1.30
on an $86.82 gas bill that she paid eight days after the due date.
The lawsuit alleges the effective annual interest rate is 91 per
cent, much higher that what is allowable under Canadian law.

In an email on March 10, a Direct Energy Regulated Services
spokesperson wrote that the Alberta Utilities Commission approved
the late payment penalties.

"None of the allegations have been proven in court and Direct
Energy denies the allegations.  Direct Energy will be defending
the case on its merits at the time of hearing."

The class action was filed on behalf of gas and electric customers
who paid one or more late payment penalties between May 4, 2004,
and March 2, 2014.

Lawyers are asking for the money back, plus interest and costs.
All Alberta customers who paid the late fees are already included
in the lawsuit and must "opt out" if they don't want to
participate by contacting the law firm Docken Klym.

"Consumers get how many bills in a month? If they had to go over
every bill with a microscope, they wouldn't have a life.  This is
why you have class actions," said Ms. Allen's lawyer Bill Klym.
"Just because the amounts may be too small for individual
consumers to argue about, that is no free pass to a corporation."

The value of the claim is $60 million and if they win the lawsuit,
the funds might go to a worthy cause, he said.

An actuary has reviewed Allen's bill and the $1.30 she was charged
was wrong for two reasons, Mr. Klym alleges.

"If they were charging interest, which is what they had authority
to charge, they should have prorated it because interest accrues
on a daily basis," he said.

"What violates section 347 (of the Criminal Codes) is the fact
that it is too high, provided somebody pays within the first 11
days.  They can charge 59 per cent, the equivalent rate of
interest, and that's fine.  It's still high and exorbitant, but
it's not unlawful."

DOW EMPLOYEES' PENSION: Sued for Miscalculating Pension Benefits
Robert Johnston, individually and on behalf of a class of all
other persons similarly situated v. Dow Employees' Pension Plan,
and Dow Chemical Company Retirement Board, Case No. 1:14-cv-10427-
TLL-CEB (E.D. Mich., January 29, 2014) is brought on behalf of a
class of similarly situated current and former employees of The
Dow Chemical Company and a former Dow joint venture, DuPont Dow

Mr. Johnston and the class members worked first for Dow, then
transferred to DDE, and finally returned to Dow upon the
dissolution of DDE as a joint venture in mid-2005.  He now alleges
that his and the class members' pension benefits have been
miscalculated under the Dow Employees' Pension Plan.  Upon or
after the DDE dissolution, he alleges that Dow amended the Dow
Plan in an effort to replace the plan's existing proration method
for calculating benefits for employees, who transfer between Dow-
affiliated employers with a less favorable reduction method.

Dow Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" within the meaning
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  Dow Plan
is a defined benefit plan, meaning that the Plan consists of a
general pool of assets rather than individual dedicated accounts
and the employee, upon retirement, is entitled to a fixed periodic
payment.  The Dow Plan provides pension benefits to employees of
Dow and affiliated companies.

Dow Chemical Company Retirement Board is the designated Appeals
Administrator under Section 7.2 of the Dow Plan, and in that
capacity is the named fiduciary charged with making final
determinations of benefits under the Dow Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. June, Esq.
          415 Detroit Street, 2nd Floor
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1117
          Telephone: (734) 481-1000
          E-mail: bobjune@junelaw.com

               - and -

          Teresa S. Renaker, Esq.
          Jacob Richards, Esq.
          RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
          476 - 9th Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 839-6824
          Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
          E-mail: trenaker@lewisfeinberg.com

EQUAL ENERGY: Being Sold to Petroflow for Too Little, Suit Claims
Andrew Cooke, on behalf of the Andrew R. Cooke 1998 Trust,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 1.
Equal Energy Ltd., 2. Petro Flow Energy Corporation, 3. Petro Flow
Canada Acquisition Corp., 4. Michael Doyle, 5. Don Klapko, 6. Lee
Canaan, 7. Michael Coffman, 8. Victor Dusik, 9. Kyle Travis and
10. Robert Wilkinson, Case No. 5:14-cv-00087-C (W.D. Okla.,
January 29, 2014) arises from the proposed sale of Equal to

Equal is an oil and gas exploration and production company
incorporated in Alberta, Canada, and based in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.  Petroflow will acquire the Company for $5.43 per share
in cash.  Petroflow Energy Corporation is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Petroflow Canada Acquisition
Corporation is an Alberta, Canada corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Petroflow Energy Corporation, existing solely to
facilitate the Proposed Acquisition.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren B. Derryberry, Esq.
          4800 North Lincoln Boulevard
          Oklahoma City, OK 73105
          Telephone: (405) 528-6569
          Facsimile: (405) 528-6462
          E-mail: dderryberry@derryberrylaw.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-4568
          Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900
          Facsimile: (214) 239-8901
          E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com

FAMILY DOLLAR: Removed "Randall" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
The class action lawsuit titled Randall v. Family Dollar Stores of
Florida, Inc., Case No. CACE-14000631 21, was removed from the
17th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-60233-RSR to the proceeding.

The case alleges labor law violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Kleppin, Esq.
          GLASSER & KLEPPIN, P.A.
          8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 105
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 424-1933
          Facsimile: (954) 474-7405
          E-mail: ckleppin@gkemploymentlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica Theresa Travers, Esq.
          333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: jtravers@littler.com

FARMERS TEXAS: Non-Party Witnesses Want Arduous Subpoena Quashed
Non-Party Kelly Pruitt and Non-Party Maranda Martin ask the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) to
quash non-party subpoenas with brief brought against them in
connection with the purported class action lawsuit styled Morawski
v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
2:13-cv-00102-JRG, currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff Theodore Morawski subpoenaed two
non-party witnesses to appear for deposition and to produce
documents at the offices of Jackson Walker, L.L.P., in Dallas,
Texas, on January 31, 2014.  Non-Party Witnesses Pruitt and Martin
contend that the subpoenas should be quashed in their entirety
because the Plaintiff did not comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  The Plaintiff subpoenaed the Non-Party Witnesses
to provide deposition testimony and produce documents in the E.D.
Texas lawsuit, which is brought against various affiliated
insurance company defendants, alleging the Defendants
intentionally failed to pay reimbursements required under various
insurance coverages and contracts.

Kelly Pruitt, a resident of Cedar Hill, Texas, is a Claims
Training and Development Specialist employed by Farmers Insurance.
Maranda Martin, a resident of Euless, Texas, is the Med/PIP Texas
Circle of Excellence Staff Manager employed by Farmers Insurance
Exchange.  Neither of the Non-Party Witnesses is named defendant
in the E.D. Texas Lawsuit, nor is any of them employees of any of
the Defendants named in that lawsuit.

The Non-Party Witnesses ask the N.D. Texas Court to quash both
subpoenas in their entirety because (a) the subpoenas were not
properly served on the non-party witnesses; (b) the subpoenas do
not allow for a reasonable time to comply; and (c) the subpoenas
are unduly burdensome to the non-parties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald S. Vickery, Esq.
          210 S. Broadway, Suite 230
          Tyler, TX 75702
          E-mail: ron@vickerylawfirm.com

               - and

          Eric H. Findlay, Esq.
          Brian Craft, Esq.
          6760 Old Jacksonville Highway, Suite 101
          Tyler, TX 75703
          E-mail: efindlay@findlaycraft.com

The Non-Party Witnesses and Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas T. Rogers, Esq.
          Bill Cobb, Esq.
          100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 236-2000
          Facsimile: (512) 236-2002
          E-mail: trogers@jw.com

               - and

          David Folsom, Esq.
          6004 Summerfield Drive
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 255-3250
          E-mail: dfolsom@jw.com

The N.D. Texas case is Morawski v. Farmers Texas County Mutual
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 3:14-mc-00021-D-BN, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

FIRST NATIONAL: Supreme Court Snubs Bid to Nix EFTA Claims
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on March 10 once again passed on a chance to decide whether
class actions under consumer protection statutes can advance even
when the alleged misconduct caused no direct financial harm,
leaving intact suits against two banks over allegedly improper ATM

The high court justices refused to take up a petition from First
National Bank of Wahoo and Mutual First Federal Credit Union that
sought to nix class claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
on the grounds that a "bare, technical" violation of the statute
was, by itself, insufficient to confer the lead plaintiff with
Article III standing.

The Eighth Circuit reinstated those claims last year following a
district court's dismissal, reasoning that Congress created a
cause of action to remedy violations of the EFTA even when those
violations caused no particularized economic injury.

The banks, however, maintain that while Congress can furnish
standing to private plaintiffs based on an existing, de facto
injury, it cannot "manufacture" standing when the underlying
injury otherwise fails to qualify under Article III.

The same "important and recurring" question of Article III
standing was at the heart of the First American Financial Corp. v.
Edwards case, which the Supreme Court took up in 2010 but
abandoned two years later without having ruled, according to the
banks' petition for writ of certiorari.

"This case is about whether Article III's injury-in-fact
requirement -- the 'irreducible constitutional minimum' for
standing -- is satisfied by a mere injury-in-law," the petition
said.  "The court should grant review to make clear that the
federal courts may decide only genuine cases and controversies."

Plaintiff Jarek Charvat's suits alleged that Nebraska-based First
National and Mutual First breached the EFTA by failing to post
physical messages on the outside of ATMs advising consumers that
if they didn't hold an account with the banks they would be
charged a $2 transaction processing fee.

In 2012, the EFTA was amended in 2012 to remove this requirement,
but Mr. Charvat brought claims for transactions before then for
economic injury from the purportedly illegal fees and an
informational injury due to the banks' failure to provide the
statutorily required fee notice.  As the banks argued, though, he
suffered no economic loss because he affirmatively consented to
the fee through a digital notice during the transaction.

A district court tossed the suits in their entirety for lack of
standing, but the Eighth Circuit reversed last year, saying that
regardless of whether the $2 fee he paid injured Charvat, the
informational injury he allegedly sustained provided him with
standing to pursue damages.

"At the time of Charvat's transactions, the EFTA created a right
to a particular form of notice before an ATM transaction fee could
be levied," the appeals panel said.  "If that notice was not
provided and a fee was nonetheless charged, an injury occurred,
and the statutory damages are directly related to the consumer's

On appeal, the banks argued that the injury-in-fact requirement
for Article III standing is not satisfied when the only harm
alleged is a technical violation of a federal statute.  The Sixth,
Eighth and Ninth circuits have said that it does, while the
Second, Fourth and Tenth circuit disagree, the petition said.

Attorneys had gotten their hopes up for a broad ruling on the same
question when the Supreme Court agreed to hear First American,
which hinged on Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claims that
were untethered to direct economic injury.

If the justices had reversed the Ninth Circuit in that case and
held that plaintiffs must prove particularized personal injury
instead of merely a statutory violation, consumers' ability to
collect damages under not only RESPA but also a host of other
similar statutes -- including the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act, the Credit Repair Organizations Act and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- would have been severely

Instead, the high court took the unusual step in June 2012 of
dismissing the appeal as improvidently granted.

The banks are represented by Andrew J. Pincus --
apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Archis A. Parasharami --
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Richard B. Katskee --
rkatskee@mayerbrown.com -- James F. Tierney --
JTierney@mayerbrown.com -- and Donald M. Falk --
dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP, Kenneth W. Hartman --
khartman@bairdholm.com -- of Baird Holm LLP and Monica L. Freeman
-- mfreeman@woodsaitken.com -- and Todd W. Weidemann --
tweidemann@woodsaitken.com -- of Woods & Aitken LLP.

Mr. Charvat is represented by Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptabeck.com
-- and Gregory A. Beck -- greg@guptabeck.com-- of Gupta Beck PLLC,
Michael Lewis -- mlewis@lewis-firm.com -- of The Lewis Firm PLLC
and Tracy Hightower-Henne -- tracy@hrlawomaha.com -- of Hightower
Reff Law LLC.

The case is Mutual First Federal Credit Union et al. v. Charvat,
case number 13-679, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

GC SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
Allen Goldman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00618-PKC-RLM (E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          383 Kingston Avenue #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Safety Regulators Record 303 Recall-Linked Deaths
Paul Lienert, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. safety
regulators have recorded 303 deaths when airbags failed to deploy
in 1.6 million compact cars recalled last month by General Motors
Co, according to a study released on March 13 by a safety watchdog

The new report and higher death toll ratchet up the pressure on
GM, which has said it has reports of 12 deaths in 34 crashes in
the recalled cars.

GM did not recall the cars until February, despite learning of
problems with the ignition switch in 2001 and issuing related
service bulletins to dealers with suggested remedies in 2005.  The
auto maker is facing increasing pressure to compensate victims and
create a $1 billion fund, even if some would-be plaintiffs are
barred from suing under the terms of GM's emergence from
bankruptcy in 2009.

The Center for Auto Safety said it referenced crash and fatality
data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS).

GM said late on March 13 that the new report was based on "raw
data" and "without rigorous analysis, it is pure speculation to
attempt to draw any meaningful conclusions."

Clarence Ditlow, the center's executive director, said, "NHTSA
could and should have initiated a defect investigation to
determine why airbags were not deploying in Cobalts and Ions in
increasing numbers."

GM recalled the cars because when the ignition switch is jostled,
a key could turn off the car's engine and disable airbags,
sometimes while traveling at high speed.

The safety agency has been criticized for not pressing GM to
recall the cars with defective switches, despite receiving
hundreds of consumer complaints in the past 10 years and
implementing its own investigations of two fatalities related to
the faulty ignition switches.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx on March 13 promised an
"aggressive investigation" into whether GM was slow to report to
the federal government problems with ignition switches on the
2005-2007 Chevrolet Cobalt and 2003-2007 Saturn Ion.

The U.S. attorney in Manhattan has opened a criminal probe, and
House and Senate committees have pledged to hold hearings about GM
and NHTSA's behavior.

                          Red Flags in Data

Mr. Ditlow said the center's study, conducted by Friedman Research
Corp of Austin, Texas, also cross-referenced fatality data
supplied by GM to NHTSA's Early Warning Reporting (EWR) database.

"Combining EWR and FARS data as (the center) did should have
raised a red flag to NHTSA," Mr. Ditlow said in a letter sent on
March 13 to the safety agency.

In a review of the EWR filings, Reuters found GM reports of three
fatal crashes involving the Saturn Ion in 2003 and 2004, well
before the first confirmed fatality in a Chevrolet Cobalt.  Two of
the three Ion crashes involved non-deployment of airbags,
according to the center's analysis of the data.

A GM spokesman on March 13 declined to provide specifics on the
early warning crash reports or confirm whether the deaths in those
crashes were among the fatalities counted by the company as

GM said its investigation into the massive recall and the impact
of the defective switch is "ongoing."

GM's slow recall, 13 years after the company first saw signs of a
problem, is the subject of several investigations, including by
Congress and by NHTSA, which investigated a 2005 crash in Maryland
of a 2005 Cobalt in which Amber Marie Rose was killed.

GM engineers also were aware of four fatalities in crashes
involving the 2004 Saturn Ion, GM said in filings published on
Wednesday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
GM did not give dates of those crashes.

The Reuters review of the Early Warning Reporting database,
includes reports of at least two fatal crashes involving the 2004
Ion, one in December 2003 in Connecticut, the other in November
2004 in Texas.  The database cites airbag issues in both
incidents, without providing details.

A third report provided by GM to NHTSA involved the May 2004 crash
of a 2003 Ion in Pennsylvania, citing engine problems, but no
further details.

In a statement on its website, NHTSA said some information
provided by automakers to the EWR database remains confidential,
including "warranty claims, consumer complaints to the
manufacturer, field reports" and the full vehicle identification
number in death and injury claims.

GENERAL MOTORS: Owners of Recalled Cars Outraged
Marilyn W. Thompson and Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, report
that as details emerge about how General Motors Co. dealt with
faulty ignition switches in some of its models, car owners are
increasingly angry after learning that the automaker knowingly
allowed them to drive defective vehicles.

Saturn Ion owner Nancy Bowman of Washington, Michigan, said she is
outraged that GM allowed her to drive a "death trap."  She said
her car had so many ignition problems she was afraid to resell it
to an innocent buyer.

She bought the 2004 model car new and still drives it after
extensive repairs and multiple run-ins with a Saturn dealer she
called dismissive.

"Five times the car died right out from under me after hitting a
bump in the road," she wrote in a 2013 posting on a complaint
website, arfc.org, that says it sends information to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

"Every time I brought it in they said it was an isolated incident.
Couldn't find the problem, so they acted like I was an idiot."

GM recalled 1.6 million cars last month because a faulty ignition
switch could turn off a car's engine, disable its airbags and make
steering difficult.  The recall involves six models from years
ranging from 2003 to 2007.  The problem has been linked to 12
deaths, the company says.

Documents released by GM last week revealed that the automaker
knew about the ignition problem as early as 2001.  Auto safety
advocates say GM should have ordered a recall years ago, and GM
has apologized as investigations by government agencies, Congress
and the company itself have multiplied.

Angry customers are taking to social media to vent their
frustrations.  GM's company Facebook "fan page" is scattered with
complaints amid enthusiasts' comments and the company's updates on
its activities.  Comments on one post last week featuring a photo
of a proud owner and his "Chevy Family" of three cars included
sarcastic references about the recall.

The financial costs of the recall and GM's legal liability are
still being calculated.

Under terms of its 2009 bankruptcy, the "new" GM is not
responsible for any legal claims relating to incidents that took
place before July 2009.  But GM is facing pressure from some
consumer groups that say the arrangement would be unfair to
victims and want the automaker to establish a trust fund to pay

Since the recall, GM has said its customers' safety and
satisfaction are top priorities.

"We are deeply sorry to our customers and for the circumstances
surrounding this recall.  We are doing all we can today to take
care of our customers and to ensure their peace of mind," GM
spokesman Greg Martin said.

GM North America President Alan Batey acknowledged last month that
the length of time between the first reports of a possible defect
and the recall announcement "shows that the process employed to
examine this phenomenon was not as robust as it should have been."

                          Long Silence

The company's long silence has outraged those who endured poor
service or worse.

Megan Phillips, who was the driver of a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt that
crashed in Wisconsin, said that until last month's recall she
blamed herself for a 2006 accident in which two teenaged friends
were killed when her car left the road and hit a clump of trees.

Accident investigators hired by the NHTSA found that the key had
moved to the "accessory" rather than the "run" position, turning
off the engine and disabling the airbags before impact.  None of
the girls wore seatbelts.

Ms. Phillips, 24, said that the families of her deceased friends
blamed her for the crash and would not talk to her.  Since the
recall, Ms. Phillips said, they have begun communicating.

"I don't have the answer for them.  GM has the answer for them,"
she said.

Ms. Phillips said she does not understand why GM did not order a
recall earlier.

"I don't understand why they would wait 10 years to say something.
And I want to understand it but I never will."

                      "Really Ridiculous"

As part of the recall, the automaker has offered $500 to owners
toward buying or leasing another GM car.  The recall involves
2005-2007 Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 compact cars, 2003-2007
Saturn Ion compact cars, 2006-2007 Chevy HHR midsized cars, and
2006-2007 Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky sports cars.

Mike Andrews, an attorney with the Alabama firm Beasley Allen,
which is weighing possible recall-related lawsuits, called GM's
response "really ridiculous."

"They've known about this for years, and their response is $500,"
Andrews said.

Even after repairs, GM warns customers to use only the key and fob
on the key ring.  The weight on the key is believed to be one of
the causes of the ignition jarring out of the "run" position.

The NHTSA has opened a probe into the timing of the recall, and
two congressional committees plan to hold hearings.  The FBI and
the U.S. attorney in Manhattan are also investigating.

GM has said it is fully cooperating.

GM Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra, an engineer who took the
job in January, has apologized publicly and started an internal

Fitch Ratings said in a note on March 14 that the recall and
federal probe may pose a risk to GM's reputation but are not
likely to be a financial burden.  Fitch said lawsuits could pose
more of a problem for GM.

Attorney Robert Hilliard of the Texas firm Hilliard Munoz
Gonzales, who is representing Phillips and other families of
victims in the Wisconsin crash, said GM owners now contacting him
are angered by "the insidiousness of hiding the defect."

"We're developing coalitions and associations to help in this
battle," he said.

A proposed class action lawsuit was filed against GM in federal
court in Texas on March 14.  It claims GM knew about the problem
since 2004 but failed to fix it, creating "unreasonably dangerous"
conditions for drivers of the affected models.

Dennis Hillstead, a former St. Croix County sheriff who
investigated the Phillips accident, said it appears "someone
dropped the ball" on alerting the public.

"It's a sad commentary, perhaps, on large corporations that fail
to take the public's well-being into consideration when making
their decisions," he said.

GENERAL MOTORS: Offers Discounts for Owners of Recalled Cars
Doron Levin, writing for TIME, reports that General Motors'
massive recall is the latest in the auto-making giant's string of
headaches.  The company is now offering a $500 discount on new or
leased cars for the owners of the 1.6 million vehicles the company
recalled last month.  The announcement comes as federal
investigators begin looking into the ignition-related recall
linked to 12 deaths.  Here's what you need to know:

1. The defective ignition switches were installed on Chevrolet
Cobalt, Pontiac G5, Saturn Ion, Pontiac Solstice, Chevrolet HHR
and Saturn Sky models built between 2003 and 2007.  If a driver
puts several extra keys or heavy items on a key chain, or jars it
inadvertently, the ignition key could slip out of "run" to
"accessory" or "off," shutting off the engine and safety equipment
such as the airbag.

2. The ignition defect covering approximately 1.6 million General
Motors Co. cars is relatively inexpensive and easy to fix.  It
will be carried out free of charge to customers who bring the
recalled vehicles to GM dealers.  Delphi Automotive Systems LLC,
an auto parts maker whose history aligns closely with GM's, said a
replacement for the defective parts will cost $2 to $5 to produce
and will take a service technician a few minutes to install.

3. GM last month released a detailed chronology of the events
leading to the recall, stretching back to 2004, when the automaker
first learned of the problem and determined not to take immediate
action.  On March 12, the automaker acknowledged to the Wall
Street Journal that it began to learn of ignition problems as
early as 2001, during testing of the Saturn Ion.

4. GM says that it believes 12 people have died in accidents that
can be linked to the ignition problem.  An earlier report of 13
deaths involved one case of double-counting.

5. The Southern District of New York office of the U.S. Justice
Department has begun a probe into GM's handling of the defective
ignitions, news agencies reported, without citing a named source.
A criminal investigation by federal authorities could relate to
the so-called Tread Act, passed into law in 2000 after the Ford
Explorer/Firestone inquiry into rollover accidents.

6. Mary Barra, GM's chief executive officer since January, is
handling the crisis as the first major test of her tenure.  She
has pledged to take personal responsibility for GM management's
response to the safety defect.  In a March 4 email to employees,
Barra outlined the steps GM has taken, including cooperation with
regulators, an apology to customers, an internal review of events,
creation of a working team of senior executives and coordination
with suppliers to create replacement parts for dealers as quickly
as possible.

7. GM said last week that any owner of an affected vehicle, prior
to bringing the vehicle to a dealer for service, should endeavor
to remove extraneous keys and ornaments and use only the key and
its fob during operation.

8. The dozen deaths that can be attributed to the GM ignition
problem can be seen in the context of roughly 30,000 deaths
annually in the U.S., according to the National Highway Traffic
and Safety Administration.  The World Health Organization says
about 1 million people are killed annually in automobile-related

9. U.S. newspaper stories published in 2005 told of automotive
reviewers discovering a problem with ignitions in the Cobalt.  The
stories include responses from GM spokespersons explaining why it
happened and how to restart the engine if it stopped while

10. At least two Congressional hearings are planned for coming
weeks; one by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by
Rep. Fred Upton; and by the Senate Commerce subcommittee on
product safety, chaired Sen. Claire McCaskill.

GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Children's In-App Purchases
Loek Essers, writing for PCWorld, reports that Google is facing a
lawsuit over unauthorized in-app purchases on Android devices by

The class action suit is brought on behalf of all persons in the
U.S. who paid for unauthorized purchases of game currency by their
minor children through the Google Play app store.  It was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
one of the law firms that filed the suit said on March 10.

Many games in the Google Play store are offered free but are
designed to induce in-app purchases of virtual supplies,
ammunition, fruits and vegetables or cash, the class action law
firms involved in the case noted in the complaint.

"These games are highly addictive, designed deliberately so, and
tend to compel children playing them to purchase large quantities
of game currency, amounting to as much as $100 per purchase or
more," according to the complaint.

Google requires users to authenticate their accounts by entering a
password prior to purchasing an app or buying in-game currency.
But when the password is entered, Google permits the user to make
in-app purchases for up to 30 minutes without reentering the
password, even if it is a minor, according to the filing.

This enables minors to make expensive in-app purchases without
entering a password, "causing Google to pocket millions of
dollars" from such transactions with minors, according to the
complaint.  This is done without the authorization of their
parents, whose credit cards or PayPal accounts are automatically
charged for the purchases, it added.

The lawsuit, which asks for a jury trial, is seeking damages for
affected parents.

The case against Google is similar to one brought by the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission against Apple over children's in-app
purchases.  That case was settled in January and Apple agreed to
pay at least $32.5 million to customers.

Unlike Google, Apple changed its practices so that its users must
enter their password to make all in-app purchases, law firm Berger
& Montague noted in a news release.

HARTFORD, CT: Superior Court Approves Class Action Settlement
On February 28, 2014, the Housing Session of the Superior Court in
the Judicial District of Hartford Court approved a settlement
agreement in a class action lawsuit called Serrano et al. v.
Gaitor et al, CVH-519.  This notice is to inform your potential
rights under the agreement and Connecticut's Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 8-266 et seq.).

In order to qualify for this assistance, City of Hartford
officials must have informed you that you have to move out of your
apartment as a result of fire, damage to your building, structural
defects, or other emergency or safety related issues.  For some
parts of the assistance, you must have lived in the residence from
which you are being displaced for 90 days or more.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, if, on or after
April 10, 2012, you were ordered to leave your apartment by the
City of Hartford, or left as a direct result of code enforcement
activities by the City of Hartford, you may be eligible for
retroactive relocation assistance.  You may also be eligible for
relocation assistance benefits if you are ordered to vacate your
apartment by City of Hartford officials now or in the future. The
following assistance may be available:

    * temporary emergency housing, paid for by the City of

    * help in finding permanent replacement housing;

    * actual reasonable moving costs and related expenses. Or you
can choose to be paid fixed moving and dislocation expense
allowances, up to the statutory limits of $300.00 (moving
allowance) and $200.00 (dislocation allowance);

    * some rental assistance (including help with the security
deposit and/or the difference between the rent for a new residence
and the rent for the residence you were displaced from) to a
maximum of $4,000.

To receive this assistance, you must apply to the Hartford
Department of Health and Human Services, located at 131 Coventry
Street, Hartford, CT 06112.  You may need to provide the City of
Hartford with documents such as bills or a proof of a lease to
establish length of residency in the dwelling from which you were
displaced, as well as receipts and other evidence to establish
eligibility for other related expenses.

If, after applying with the City of Hartford, you feel that you
were treated unfairly please contact Statewide Legal Services at
(860) 344-0380, or (800) 453-3320.

HARTFORD FIRE: Analysts Sue Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
Debra Monserrate, Kelly Birchell, Shawn Craft, Vivian Edwards,
Bill Faber, Reid Maybeck, Susan O'Hearn, Farrell Prudent, and
Pamela Ward, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, a Foreign for Profit
Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00149-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla.,
January 29, 2014) is brought in connection with the Company's
violation of the Federal Wage and Hour Laws on behalf of former
and current employees of the Company, referred collectively as
"Analysts," which include the Plaintiffs.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company, a Foreign for Profit Corporation,
operating a business located, among other locations, in Orange
County, Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
          David Victor Barszcz, Esq.
          LYTLE & BARSZCZ
          543 N Wymore Rd., Suite 103
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 622-6544
          Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
          E-mail: mlytle@orlandoemploymentlawyer.net

INDYMAC BANCORP: Court Set to Rule on Securities Claims Filing
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court on March 10 agreed to consider whether class action
claims against underwriters of securities issued by a unit of the
now-defunct IndyMac Bancorp Inc. should be able to proceed.

The court will rule on whether the three-year window for filing
certain securities claims is suspended if investors can show they
would have been parties in a previously filed class action lawsuit
had it not been dismissed.  Lower courts are split on the

Various institutional investors, including the Wyoming state
retirement fund, sued over what they said were untrue statements
and omissions concerning mortgage-backed securities issued by
IndyMac subsidiary IndyMac MBS Inc.  The bank failed in July 2008.

The defendants in the case are banks that were underwriters for
the offerings.  They are units of Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche
Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley.

A federal district judge in New York and the 2nd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, in a June 2013 ruling, both ruled for the

The public employee retirement system of Mississippi, the
plaintiff seeking high court review, was not part of the lawsuit
at the time it was dismissed, but said it could revive the case
because it would have been a member of the class if the litigation
had been allowed to continue.  The fund cites a 1974 Supreme Court
case, American Pipe & Construction Co v. Utah, which said that the
filing of a class action lawsuit before the deadline keeps the
claims of all potential class members alive.

The banks counter that the 1933 Securities Act states that the
specific claims at issue in the case cannot be brought more than
three years after the securities were offered to the public.

The court will hear oral arguments and issue a decision in its
next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2015.

The case is Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, v.
IndyMac, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-640.

INTEL CORP: April 30 Pentium 4 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
If you purchased a new computer with a certain Pentium 4 processor
for personal, family, or household use between November 20, 2000
and June 30, 2002, a pending class action lawsuit may affect your

                 What is the Class Action About?

Purchasers of computers containing a certain Pentium 4 processor
are suing Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company.  The
lawsuit claims that Intel manipulated the performance scores for
its first-generation Pentium 4 processor (codenamed Willamette)
and that HP helped Intel.  The Plaintiffs want the Court to stop
Intel from using this practice in the future.  Plaintiffs also
want Intel and HP to repay the Class any money the companies may
have received as a result of those business practices.

Intel and HP have denied any liability and all claims of
misconduct.  No money or benefits are available now because the
court has not yet decided whether Intel or HP did anything wrong.
In addition, the Court has stayed the case as to HP pending
resolution of the claims against Intel.  There is no guarantee
that money or benefits will ever be obtained.

                    Who are Class Members?

The Class includes all residents of the United States, other than
those residing in Illinois, who (i) purchased a new computer
equipped with a Pentium 4 processor, (ii) purchased the computer
between November 20, 2000 and December 31, 2001, and (iii)
purchased the computer for personal, family, or household use; and
all residents of the United States, other than those residing in
Illinois, who (i) purchased a new computer equipped with a first-
generation (Willamette) Pentium 4 processor or a Pentium 4
processor at speeds below 2.0 GHz, (ii) purchased the computer
between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2002, and (iii) purchased the
computer for personal, family, or household use.

If you are a California resident and purchased your computer from
HP, you are also in the HP Subclass defined by the Court.

                    Your Rights and Options

You have to decide whether to stay in the Class and, if
applicable, the HP Subclass, or ask to be excluded and you have to
decide this by April 30, 2014.  You cannot wait to see the result
of any trial before making this decision.  If you think you are a
class member, you can get detailed information about the class
action, its potential effects on you and your rights by visiting

                   To Remain a Class Member

If you don't do anything, you will stay in the Class and, if
applicable, the HP Subclass and you will be bound by the Court's
rulings in the lawsuit, including any final settlement or
judgment.  If you do not exclude yourself from the Class and, if
applicable, the HP Subclass, you can have your own lawyer appear
in Court for you if you want someone other than the lawyers
representing the Class to speak for you.  If the Plaintiffs obtain
money or other benefits, another notice will be issued that will
explain what you need to do to receive any benefits from this

To Exclude Yourself from the Class, and if Applicable, the HP

If you exclude yourself, or get out of the Class and, if
applicable, the HP Subclass, you will retain you right to sue
regarding the subject of this class action.  To ask to excluded
from the Class and, if applicable, the HP Subclass, you must send
an "Exclusion Request" letter by mail stating that you want to be
excluded from the Class and, if applicable, the HP Subclass in
Skold v. Intel.  If you are a member of the HP Subclass and only
ask to be excluded from the "Class," you will also be excluded
from the HP Subclass.  Be sure to include your name and address,
and sign the letter.  Exclusion Requests must be postmarked by
April 30, 2014 and mailed to: Girard Gibbs LLP, Skold v. Intel
Exclusions, 601 California Street, 14th Floor, San Francisco, CA

Questions? Call 1-855-763-9447 or visit

LA TAN ENTERPRISES: Failed to Pay Workers' Overtime, Suit Says
Amanda Davis, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. LA Tan Enterprises, Inc.,
Sona Lisle Tan, Inc., and Nimesh Patel, Case No. 1:14-cv-00657
(N.D. Ill., January 29, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff, and other
similarly situated persons, all of their earned overtime wages for
the period between January 1, 2012, and the present.

Nimesh Patel and LA Tan Enterprises, Inc. own and operate more
than 50 tanning salons in Illinois all operating under the name
"LA Tan," including Sona Lisle Tan, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          David E. Stevens, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Baiocchi, Esq.
          1755 S. Naperville Road, Suite 100
          Wheaton, IL 60789
          Telephone: (630) 983-4200
          E-mail: mbaiocchi@baiocounsel.com

LOWE'S HIW: Removed "Asfaw" Employment Suit to C.D. California
The class action lawsuit titled Alemayehu Asfaw v. Lowe's HIW,
Inc., et al., Case No. BC529475, was removed from the Superior
Court for the state of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-00697-JAK-AJW to the proceeding.

In his complaint, Mr. Asfaw asserts causes of action for: (a)
failure to pay meal period and rest break: compensation; (b)
failure to pay overtime compensation; (c) failure to furnish
accurate wage statements; and (d) failure to maintain accurate pay

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence W. Freiman, Esq.
          Michael J. Freiman, Esq.
          FREIMAN LAW
          100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 940
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 917-1024
          Facsimile: (888) 835-8511
          E-mail: lawrence@freimanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Phillip J. Eskenazi, Esq.
          Kirk A. Hornbeck, Esq.
          Yeongyo A. Suh, Esq.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Telephone: (213) 532-2000
          Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
          E-mail: peskenazi@hunton.com

MEMBER SOLUTIONS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
Geraldine Irizarry, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Member Solutions, Inc., Burns & Kasmen PC
and Andrew S. Kasmen, Case No. 2:14-cv-00628-FSH-MAH (D.N.J.,
January 29, 2014) stems from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Member Solutions, Inc. is a for-profit Pennsylvania corporation
based in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, and doing business in New
Jersey.  Burns & Kasmen, PC is a Pennsylvania professional
corporation based in Bala Cynwyd that provides legal services in
Pennsylvania.  Andrew S. Kasmen is a principal of Burns & Kasmen.
He is an attorney licensed to practice in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          697 Valley Street, Suite 2d
          Maplewood, NJ 07040
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-0866
          E-mail: pstern@philipstern.com

               - and -

          David C. Ricci, Esq.
          51 JFK Parkway, First Floor West
          Short Hills, NJ 07078
          Telephone: (973) 218-2627
          Facsimile: (973) 206-6955
          E-mail: dricci@njconsumerlawyer.com

MT. GOX: Wins Temporary Protection; Hearing Set for April 1
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
granted collapsed bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox temporary protection on
March 10, 2014, from U.S. lawsuits in the wake of a security
breach and believed theft of approximately 744,000 bitcoins.

The Tokyo-based cryptocurrency exchange filed for bankruptcy
protection in Japan last month, shutting down after more than $470
million worth of the currency disappeared from the site.

Mt. Gox had allowed users to buy and sell the digital currency,
which is largely unregulated by governments or central banks.  The
price of bitcoins is highly violatile, topping $1,000 in November.

On March 9, 2014, Mt. Gox filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy
protection, asking a Dallas federal judge to halt two pending
lawsuits while its bankruptcy in Japan unfolds.  It lists between
$10 million and $50 million in assets and between $50 million and
$100 million in liabilities.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Harlin Hale granted the request the next
day, ordering Mt. Gox to return to court on April 1 to determine
if an extension is needed.

Mt. Gox was sued months earlier in Seattle by Bitcoin business
incubator CoinLab, which seeks more than $75 million for breach of

After the bankruptcy filing in Japan, a man hoping to represent a
class of investors who lost their bitcoins in the security breach
sued Mt. Gox in Chicago.  Lead plaintiff Gregory Greene said the
Tokyo-based exchange touted itself as the "world's largest bitcoin
exchange," handling "over 80% of all bitcoin trade."  But the
price on Mt. Gox plummeted after the exchange froze bitcoin
withdrawals while it purportedly investigated a "bug" or
"technical glitch," the lawsuit claims.

Mt. Gox is represented by:

          David W. Parham, Esq.
          John Mitchell, Esq.
          BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
          2300 Trammell Crow Center
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 978-3099
          E-mail: david.parham@bakermckenzie.com

               - and -

          Erin E. Broderick, Esq.
          BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
          300 East Randolph Drive, Suite 5000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 861-8000
          Facsimile: (312) 861-2899
          E-mail: erin.broderick@bakermckenzie.com

NATIONAL SECURITY: False Premise Led to Data Destruction Order
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a "false
premise" led the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court to order
the destruction of data secretly collected by the National
Security Agency, opponents of the spying said.

Several groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have filed civil suits to
end NSA's broad surveillance of American citizens.

The FISC ruled March 7, 2014, that the NSA must destroy any
telephone metadata that it collects within five years.  Just one
business day later, however, the federal judge overseeing Jewel v.
NSA, a class action challenge to the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance
Program, followed up with a restraining order preventing this

Mark Rumold, an EFF attorney who represents the plaintiff in
Jewel, spoke to Courthouse News on these conflicting rulings from
Chief FISC Judge Reggie Walton and U.S. District Judge Jeffrey
White in San Francisco.

"The District Court is not obligated to follow a ruling of the
FISC," Rumold said.  "Unfortunately, the FISC's order was premised
on the fact that there was no evidentiary preservation order
already ordered.  That was a false premise.  The government has
been under court order in Jewel, Schubert and predecessor cases to
preserve evidence since roughly 2006 when the initial
multidistrict litigation was filed against the government."

The government should have been aware of this, Rumold added.

"When we saw that the government's filings did not mention this,
we immediately contacted the government," he said.  "We brought it
to the FISC's attention."

With the NSA facing two conflicting orders, Rumold implied that
the FISC ruling is ineffective.

"Right now they can maintain it for five years without searching
it," he said.  "What the government had proposed to the FISC was
that after five years it would be segregated and stored only for
evidentiary purposes, not to search.  We haven't sorted out the
details of how that would work. This preservation order does not
change that."

The EFF isn't alone in bringing the FISC ruling to the attention
of White in San Francisco, Rumold said.

"I'm sure the government will too since they're under somewhat
conflicting court orders on account of their own failure to inform
the FISC of those other lawsuits," he said.  "There is a hearing
scheduled on Judge White's order next week."

Attorneys at Keker and Van Nest, a private firm backing the EFF's
efforts did not immediately return a request for comment.

NATURAL ORGANICS: Falsely Promotes Betaine HCl, Suit Claims
Troy Kelly, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Natural Organics Laboratories, Inc. a/k/a Nature's
Plus, Case No. 2:14-cv-00704-DDP-CW (C.D. Cal., January 29, 2014)
is a California statewide class action complaint brought to
challenge the Company's false promotion of its Betaine
Hydrochloride and Golden Years Multi-Vitamin Tablets products as,
inter alia, consisting of "Betaine HCl" or betaine hydrochloride
from "beet molasses" when it is a scientific certainty that
betaine hydrochloride can only be created synthetically and is not
naturally derived or able to be derived from beet molasses or
sugar beets, unlike betaine anhydrous, which may be derived from
natural food sources such as sugar beets.

Natural Organics Laboratories, Inc., also known as Nature's Plus,
is a New York corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company
is a manufacturer and retailer of a variety of dietary supplements
in the United States, including a product called Betaine
Hydrochloride in 90 tablet count bottles where each tablet
purports to contain 600 mg of betaine HCl, and Golden Years Multi
Vitamin & Mineral Supplement in 180 tablet count bottles where
each tablet purports to contain 175 mg of betaine HCl.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces "Wong" Suit in California Over Data Breach
Christina Wong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-00703-SJO-JC
(C.D. Cal., January 29, 2014) arises from the data breach at the
Company's stores.

The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Neiman Marcus is an
American luxury specialty department store.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

NU SKIN ENTERPRISES: Faces "Zapata" Securities Suit in Utah
Juan Ignacio Zapata, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Nu Skin Enterprises Inc., Ritch N. Wood, and
M. Truman Hunt, Case No. 2:14-cv-00062-DN (D. Utah, January 29,
2014) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Nu Skin securities
between July 10, 2013, and January 14, 2014, inclusive.

Nu Skin is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Provo,
Utah.  Nu Skin purports to manufacture and distribute personal
care products and nutritional supplements under the Nu Skin and
Pharmanex brand names in dozens of global markets, including Asia,
Europe, the Americas and Africa.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Steven P. Harte, Esq.
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Charles T. Conrad, Esq.
          36 South State Street, Suite 2400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 533-0400
          Facsimile: (801) 363-4218
          E-Mail: cconrad@dkolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel E. Barnett, Esq.
          Robert S. Clark, Esq.
          185 S State St., Suite 800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-7840
          E-mail: dbarnett@parrbrown.com

PFIZER INC: Faces "Howard" Suit in Missouri Over Lipitor Drug
Wanda Howard, 10211 Monarch Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63136 v.
Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case
No. 4:14-cv-00160-RWS (E.D. Mo., January 29, 2014) is an action
for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known
chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as

Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
Pfizer produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes,
supplies, and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for
resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristine K. Kraft, Esq.
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-7151
          E-mail: kkraft@uselaws.com

               - and -

          Brad Seidel, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Vic Feazell, Esq.
          Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard, Building C-101
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark C. Hegarty, Esq.
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: mhegarty@shb.com

PFIZER INC: Faces "Gaiton" Suit in S.D. Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
Kim G. Gaiton, 4841 Moreland Drive, West, Columbus, Ohio 43220 v.
Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00105-MHW-MRA (S.D. Ohio, January 29, 2014) is an
action for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor
(also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as

Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
Pfizer produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes,
supplies, and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for
resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny Unkraut Hendy, Esq.
          909 Wright Summit Parkway, Suite 210
          Ft. Wright, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 578-4444
          Facsimile: (859) 578-4440
          E-mail: phendy@pschachter.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julie A. Callsen, Esq.
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-2286
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: julie.callsen@tuckerellis.com

PROMPT RESTORATION: Accused of Systematic Wage Payment Violations
Estefany Chavez-Franco, 119 Webster Avenue, Patterson, NJ 07501;
and Angelica Salazar, 119 Webster Avenue, Patterson, NJ 07501, On
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Prompt
Restoration, Inc., 6675 Business Parkway, Suite D, Elkridge, MD
20175; Premier Insurance Solutions, Inc., 6675 Business Parkway,
Suite D, Elkridge, MD 20175; James J. Martin, 1700 Bayside Beach
Road, Pasadena, MD 21122; Omar Elias, 7432 W. Park Drive,
Hyattsville, MD 20783; and Jamie L. Chenoweth, 7432 W. Park Drive,
Hyattsville, MD 20783, Case No. 1:14-cv-00294-WDQ (D. Md.,
January 29, 2014) is brought on behalf of those who were or are
employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees alleging that
the Defendants engaged in systematic wage payment violations
against employees, who worked for the Defendants in Maryland and
the District of Columbia.

The Defendants failed to pay overtime at the rate of "time and
one-half" of each the Plaintiff's and Class Member's regular rate
for every hour worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek,
according to the complaint.

Prompt Restoration, Inc. is a Maryland corporation with its
principal place of business in Elkridge, Maryland.  The Defendants
provide emergency, 24-hour, on-call, disaster and recovery
services to homes and businesses that were damaged or destroyed by
natural disasters, fires, or floods, including emergency "board
up" services, mitigation and reconstruction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Katz, Esq.
          Laura E. Varela-Addeo, Esq.
          1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 608-0880
          Facsimile: (301) 608-0881
          E-mail: dkatz@ggilbertlaw.com

               - and

          Sheena Wadhawan, Esq.
          8151 15th Avenue
          Hyattsville, MD 20783
          Telephone: (240) 491-5743
          Facsimile: (301) 408-412:3
          E-mail: swadhawan@casamd.org

SAGE MANAGEMENT: Tenants File Class Action Over Illegal Late Fees
Yvonne Wenger, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that tenants
at Sage Management apartments and townhouses in Baltimore filed a
class action lawsuit on March 9 against the property management
company for allegedly charging illegal late fees, according to a
complaint filed in the city's Circuit Court.

The 29-page lawsuit -- which is open to current and former tenants
since January 2004 -- claims the company routinely charges tenants
who are late on their rent a 5 percent penalty along with agent,
court and eviction fees that trap the families in a cycle of debt.

"I have met dozens and dozens of Sage Management tenants from East
Baltimore and West Baltimore; what they have in common is they
come to us very confused," said Zafar Shah, a staff attorney with
Public Justice Center, which filed the lawsuit.

"There is a hopelessness that the cycle is not going to stop
. . . .  This is a way to stop the bleeding."

Right to Housing Alliance also is helping in the effort to
challenge Sage's alleged practices.

The lawsuit, which seeks $75,000 and a court action to stop Sage's
allegedly illegal billing and collection practices, claims when a
tenant pays rent after the fifth of the month, the company legally
assesses a 5 percent late fee and, by the 15th of the month, files
court action against the tenant.

The company also adds court and agent fees of $38 to the tenant's
balance, even if no agent fee was incurred, according to the
lawsuit.  That's at least $11 more than the cost of the court

In some cases, Sage also allegedly adds an "eviction and agent
fee" on tenants' accounts that exceed the company's court costs.

Sage routinely sues at least 200 of its tenants in the city's
housing court each month, according to housing advocates.

Mr. Shah said landlords filed nearly 157,000 lawsuits for
nonpayment in Baltimore's rent court last year, far exceeding any
other type of lawsuit filed in city courts.  The lawsuit further
claims the fees, charges and penalties continue to appear on
Sage's accounting records after the tenants have paid the rent
that's due and even when the payment has resulted in the dismissal
of legal actions by the district court.  What's more, the suit
says, Sage applies the tenants' next rent payments to cover the
fees and charges, resulting in a partial rental payment, and
continuing the cycle.

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit in Massachusetts
Daniel Baradarian, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Chris
Garabedian, Sandy Mahatme and Ed Kaye, Case No. 1:14-cv-10225-RWZ
(D. Mass., January 29, 2014) is a federal securities class action
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the
Defendants, who purchased Sarepta securities during the period
beginning July 24, 2013, through and including November 12, 2013,
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Sarepta is an Oregon corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Sarepta describes
itself as a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and
development of unique RNA-based therapeutics for the treatment of
rare and infectious diseases.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher G. Green, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY - MA
          Prudential Tower
          800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7000
          Facsimile: (617) 951-7050
          E-mail: cgreen@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Alexia R. De Vincentis, Esq.
          211 Congress Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 482-3170
          E-mail: alexia.devincentis@ropesgray.com

SOUTHERN RESPONSE: CEO Says Policy Holders Should Talk to Insurer
In response to news that Christchurch law firm GCA Lawyers expects
to shortly progress a full class action against insurer Southern
Response, its CEO Peter Rose issued a public statement suggesting
that policy holders should not look to embark on a class action
without first talking to the insurer because such action would
involve them in litigation that could 'last years' and which would
be 'very expensive.'

Grant Cameron, the partner managing the legal claim, commented on
March 10 that "Mr. Rose clearly doesn't understand that one of the
principle benefits of a class action is that cost is generally
irrelevant.  With only 100 people, each claimant can expect to be
paying on 1% of the overall costs and of course, with 1000
members, the cost is inconsequential.  In this case it seems there
are more than 5000 unresolved cases so cost will not be any
obstacle to action."

"In regard to how long the proceedings will take, Mr. Rose needs
to consider the fast track process in the High Court at
Christchurch as that will ensure a very early trial date.  The
recent Quake Outcasts trial was completed about three months after
the case was [fi]led and this class action is likely to be
processed within a very similar timeframe," he said.

"As claimants have been vigorously seeking responses from their
insurer over 3 years, it seems a bit rich for Mr. Rose to now seek
a discussion with litigants about the issue.  However Mr. Rose is
always welcome to come and chat with me if he would like to
explore a mutually acceptable path forward" said Mr. Cameron.  "In
the meantime, claimants will receive full advice about the class
action at a meeting to be held on Thursday, March 13, where
claimants who have registered their interest will receive full
advice as to the path forward."

Claimants wanting to attend the meeting need to contact Laura at:

  -- laura@gcalawyers.com or
  -- 03 365 1347

STATE FARM: Knocks 7% Off Totaled Vehicles' True Value, Suit Says
Courthouse News Service reports that State Farm, et al., knock 7%
off the true value of totaled vehicles, a class action claims in
Minnesota Federal Court.

TARGET CORP: CommunityBank of Texas, FNBT.com Sue Over Data Theft
CommunityBank of Texas, N.A., and FNBT.com, Inc., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation,
Case No. 0:14-cv-00271-PAM-JJK (D. Minn., January 29, 2014)
alleges that the security breach at Target stores was the direct
and foreseeable result of the Company's failure to implement and
maintain reasonable and industry-standard security measures to
protect its customers' credit card, debit card, and personal

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
          2116 2nd Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55404
          Telephone: (612) 746-4646
          Facsimile: (612) 454-2678
          E-mail: ram@westrikeback.com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095-0927
          Telephone: (662) 834-9168
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
          12870 U.S. Hwy. 98, W. Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Mike Roberts, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20 Rahling Circle
          P.O. Box 241790
          Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
          Telephone: (501) 821-5575
          Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
          E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us

               - and -

          Thomas Walter Umphrey, Esq.
          Michael A. Havard, Esq.
          490 Park Street, PO Box 4905
          Beaumont, Texas 77701
          Telephone: (409) 299-5178
          Facsimile: (409) 838-8888
          E-mail: wu@pulf.com

               - and -

          Debra G. Josephson, Esq.
          Jana K. Law, Esq.
          Stephanie Egner Smith, Esq.
          20 Rahling Circle
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Telephone: (501) 821-5575
          E-mail: debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us

               - and -

          Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
          12870 U.S. HWY 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
          E-mail: courtdocs@lovelacelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: wendy.wildung@faegrebd.com

TARGET CORP: Umpqua Bank Sues Over Consumer Data Breach
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Umpqua
Bank on March 10 hit Target Corp. with a proposed class action
accusing the retail giant of failing to maintain adequate data
security protocols, resulting in the massive recent hack that
compromised millions of customers' personal information, despite
having suffered two nearly identical data breaches in the
preceding years.

The lawsuit claims that in an effort to prevent a mass exodus of
customers, Target has assured consumers that they will not be held
financially responsible for any credit and debit card fraud.  But
Umpqua said it is the nation's financial institutions -- not
Target -- ensuring that such is the case.

In the Target breach, up to 70 million customers had information
such as their names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses
hacked between the end of November and the middle of December, and
as many as 40 million customers may have also had credit or debit
card information stolen.  Target has not said how much overlap
there may be between the two groups.

"As details of the data breach emerge, security experts profess
bewilderment by the level of negligence exhibited by defendant in
maintaining the security of highly sensitive consumer financial
data.  Reports proliferate of Target's 'astonishingly' vulnerable
security systems, which 'lack the virtual walls and motion
detectors found [as a matter of course] in secure networks,'" the
complaint said.

Umpqua alleged it and other financial institutions making up the
proposed class have incurred costs associated with protecting its
customers' accounts, particularly in the form of providing notice
to customers, reissuing payment cards and refunding fraudulent
charges associated with bank accounts of customers who used their
cards at Target during the period of the latest data breach.

It noted that a recent study conducted by the Consumer Bankers
Association and the Credit Union National Association estimates
the costs of card replacements at around $200 million.

"This figure does not, however, include costs associated with
reimbursing customers for fraudulent charges or costs associated
with lost transactional opportunities arising from decreasing
consumer confidence in the security of payment cards," the
complaint said.

The suit said that between 2005 and 2007, a criminal masterminded
a coordinated data breach that compromised more than 170 million
credit and debit card accounts.  Most of the payment card
information stolen was obtained from the networks of the payment
processor Heartland Payment Systems and the retailer TJ Maxx.
Target ultimately admitted that it too had been a victim of the

Then in April of 2011, Target informed its customers that their
names and email addresses had been exposed in a data breach
suffered by Epsilon, a third-party marketing firm hired by Target.

And the suit claimed that in the months leading up to the holiday
season data breach, Target received multiple warnings from Visa --
first in April and then in August -- stating that the credit card
company had "seen an increase in network intrusions involving
retail merchants."

The Target breach has had repercussions outside the industry, as
Attorney General Eric Holder last month urged Congress to create a
national standard for alerting consumers whose information may be
compromised in data breaches.

Umpqua is represented by Richard A. Lockridge --
ralockridge@locklaw.com -- Gregg M. Fishbein --
gmfishbein@locklaw.com -- Robert K. Shelquist --
rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- and Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-
kauf@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP; Hank Bates --
hbates@cbplaw.com -- Allen Carney and David Slade of Carney Bates
& Pulliam PLLC; and Jeffrey D. Boyd and Deborah M. Nelson of
Nelson Boyd PLLC.

The case is Umpqua Bank v. Target Corp., number 0:14-cv-00643, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

TARGET CORP: Faces "Chang" Suit in Minnesota Over Data Breach
Winston Chang, Michael Ackerman, Margaret Young, Deanna Brant, and
Sheri Peterson, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-00273-
PAM-JJK (D. Minn., January 29, 2014) arises from the data breach
at Target stores, which incident is one of the largest data
breaches in United States history.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 278-2600
          Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
          E-Mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-5335
          Facsimile: (310) 407-5338
          E-mail: info@alexanderfirmpc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Montpetit, Esq.
          901 Marquette Avenue, Suite 500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-9762
          E-mail: jeffrey.montpetit@knowyourrights.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Ponto, Esq.
          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com

TRIPLE CROWN: Misclassified Technical Recruiters, Class Claims
Nathan Alderman and John Roche, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Triple Crown Consulting, LLC, Ravi
Arimilli, Sunkara Padma Arimilli a/k/a Padma Sunkara, Sabatino
Guerriero, and David Smith, Case No. 1:14-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex.,
January 29, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying the Plaintiffs as exempt and
failing to pay them at time and one-half their regular rates of
pay for all hours worked within a workweek in excess of 40 hours.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiffs, and those similarly
situated, as Technical Recruiters and paid them a salary plus
commissions but did not pay them overtime pay as required by the
FLSA, the Plaintiffs allege.

Triple Crown Consulting, LLC is a Texas corporation.  The
Individual Defendants were and are the owners and operators of
Triple Crown.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Meredith Mathews, Esq.
          LEE &BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Edward M. "Ted" Smith, Esq.
          Elizabeth "Betsy" S. Chestney, Esq.
          1607 West Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 328-1540
          Facsimile: (512) 328-1541
          E-mail: tsmith@cornellsmith.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Katherine J. Walters, Esq.
          Sheldon E. Richie, Esq.
          RICHIE & GUERINGER, P.C.
          100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1750
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 236-9220
          Facsimile: (512) 236-9230
          E-mail: drichie@rg-austin.com

UNITED STATES: Victim Sues Educ Dept Over Sexual Harassment Law
A woman who claims the University of Virginia brushed aside her
sexual assault claim filed a federal class action challenging the
Campus SaVE Act, a federal law she claims undermines the rights
victims of sexual assault and harassment, according to Ryan
Abbott, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Jane Doe sued the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary Arne
Duncan in Federal Court, pleading to stop enforcement of the law,
which took effect March 7, 2014.  It is short for the Sexual
Violence Elimination Act.

"Certain provisions of SaVE have the purpose and effect of
subjecting the redress of violence against women at post-secondary
schools to inherently unfair legal standards and standards more
burdensome and less protective than those applied to the redress
of violence on the basis of other protected class categories such
as race, color and national origin," the complaint states.

"In so doing, SaVE violates equal protection and due process, and
the rights protected under Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972 and its implementing regulation."

Doe claims she's a University of Virginia student who was sexually
harassed severely, but the school "failed to provide prompt and
equitable redress" in its investigation.

Not only did they stall the investigation, she says, but the
school "destroyed and/or withheld from consideration by its Sexual
Misconduct Board . . . critical photographic evidence depicting
Jane Doe's vaginal injuries."

One in four to one in five women is victimized by rape or
attempted rape during college, according to the lengthy complaint.

"Given that approximately 916,000 women graduated from post-
secondary schools in 2009, this means about 60,000 women are
victimized by rape or attempted rape during college."

The Campus SaVE Act will make things worse for victims of sexual
harassment and assault by allowing institutions to drag out
investigations and lowering reporting standards, Doe says.

SaVE mandates that schools conduct prompt investigation and
resolution of such claims, but fails to force schools to come to a
prompt final determination, Doe says.

In practice," the complaint states, "this means the 'final
determination' of a student's complaint alleging violence on the
basis of her sex can remain open for years."

The complaint adds that schools do not have to notify victims of
any changes to an initial decision regarding the responsibility
and punishment of an accused student.

Doe also claims that SaVE authorizes schools to not comply with
annual statistical reporting, as schools won't have to report
credible third-party and anonymous complaints.  But schools still
must report such complaints in instances of violence against other
protected class categories such as race and national origin.

"In practice this means school officials can ignore with impunity
violence on the basis of sex when not reported, even if the
violence is sufficiently obvious that officials 'should know' or
actually do know about it," states the complaint.  "However, if
violence occurs on the basis of any other protected class
category, such as race, color or national origin, officials must
respond and measure for statistical purposes even if the incident
is not reported, so long as they knew or should have known that
the incident occurred."

The complaint adds: "To the extent Congress has authority to
regulate violence against women, it cannot do so in an
unconstitutional manner by authorizing the redress of such
violence under less protective standards compared to the redress
of violence that occurs on the basis of other protected
categories, such as race, color and national origin."

This isn't the first time Congress has been criticized for a bill
meant to protect women from violence.  In 2012, Democrats blasted
the Republican-backed House of Representatives' version of the
Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a bill
Democrats said was weak and wouldn't protect illegal immigrants
and Native Americans.

The House ultimately passed the Senate bill in 2013, extending
protection to same-sex couples and Native Americans.

The class expects that SaVE will have much the same effect as the
2012 House Republican bill would have had, creating a law
masquerading as broad protection for women while making it harder
for victims to seek recourse.

Doe claims the law violates equal protection rights, First
Amendment rights, the Administrative Procedure Act and Title IX of
the 1972 Education Amendments.

She wants the judge to stop the application of the provisions of
the law in question until the resolution of her complaint, and
declaratory judgment that those aspects of the law are

A second, virtually identical class action was filed the same day.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Marsh, Esq.
          PO Box 4668 #65135
          New York, NY 10163-4668
          Telephone: (212) 372-3030
          E-mail: jamesmarsh@marshlaw.us

WALTER INVESTMENT: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
Pomerantz LLP on March 10 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Walter Investment Management Corporation
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Middle District of Florida, and docketed
under 1:14-cv-20880, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Walter
Investment securities between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014,
both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated

If you are a shareholder who purchased Walter Investment
securities during the Class Period, you have until May 6, 2014 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at

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

Walter Investment is a loan servicer and business solutions
provider focused on generating recurring, fee-based revenues from
an "asset-light" platform.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
accounting and compliance with applicable laws; (2) the Company's
internal controls were not effective; (3) the Company's financial
statements contained false and misleading statements; (4) the
Company had failed to disclose material weaknesses in the internal
controls of its recently acquired subsidiary, RMS; (5) the Company
had overstated the value of its RMS acquisition; (6) the Company
was in violation of applicable laws, rules and regulations; (7)
the Company's business practices violated consumer financial
protection laws, thereby jeopardizing future revenues and profits;
and, (8) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 18, 2013, the Company shocked investors by disclosing
that, based on an evaluation by the Company's Board of Directors
and management, "our management, including our Chief Executive
Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, has identified a material
weakness in our internal control over financial reporting.  As a
result of this material weakness, management has concluded that,
as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form
10-K, our internal control over financial reporting was not

On this news, the Company's shares fell $8.61 per share to close
on March 19, 2013 at $32.98 per share, a drop of over 20%.

On February 27, 2014, the Company announced in a Securities and
Exchange Commission Form 8-K filing that the Federal Trade
Commission issued a Civil Investigation Demand to Green Tree
Servicing LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
requesting information on a broad range of subjects relating to
the company's operations.

On this news, shares of Walter Investment fell from $28.28 to
$25.90, more than 8%, on unusually heavy trading volume, on
February 27, 2014.

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

* 9th. Cir. Rejects Three Class Actions Under Shine the Light Law
Jordan D. Grotzinger, Esq. -- grotzingerj@gtlaw.com -- at
Greenberg Traurig, LLP reports that consumer products companies
increasingly do business online, which means they frequently
collect, and sometimes share, customers' personal information.
That practice makes companies potential class action targets under
various privacy laws.  Recently, the Ninth Circuit rejected three
similar putative class actions under California's "Shine the
Light" law (STL), Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 1798.83-1798.84, and Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq.

In three unpublished opinions, Baxter v. Rodale, No. 12-56925,
2014 WL 667474 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2014), King v. Conde Naste
Publications, No. 12-57209, 2014 WL 607385 (9th Cir. Feb. 18,
2014) and a companion case, the same three-judge panel affirmed
dismissal of class actions under these statutes because the
plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, since they failed to plead that
they asked the defendants whether their information had been
shared with third parties.  Therefore, the plaintiffs did not
sufficiently plead injury.

                    Privacy Consumer Protection

The STL "requires businesses, which disclose customers' personal
information to third parties for direct marketing purposes, to
respond to a customer's request to learn the identity of the third
parties and the types of personal information revealed to them."
Baxter, 2014 WL 667474 at *1.  To enable these customer requests,
businesses must inform the customers how they can make the
requests, either via customer service employees, the company's web
site, or posted physical notice at the place of business.
"Alternatively, a business is excused from [the STL's] requirement
to respond to customer requests, if it adopts a privacy policy
informing customers of their right to prevent disclosure of their
personal information and provides a cost-free means to do so or
evinces a policy of not disclosing customers' personal information
to third parties for direct marketing purposes."  Id.

The STL allows for three statutory remedies: (1) a civil action
for damages for a customer injured by a violation, (2) a civil
penalty for an intentional or reckless violation and (3)
injunctive relief.  Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1798.84.  "The California
Court of Appeal recently interpreted these provisions and
concluded that 'a plaintiff must have suffered a statutory injury
to have standing to pursue a cause of action under the STL,
regardless of the remedies he or she seeks.'"  2014 WL 667474 at
*1, quoting Boorstein v. CBS Interactive, Inc., 165 Cal. Rptr. 3d
669, 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).  To plead a sufficient statutory
injury, "a plaintiff must have made, or attempted to make, a
disclosure request in order to have standing under the STL."  Id.
at 673.

Thus, "[b]ecause Baxter has failed to allege that she submitted a
request to Rodale under the STL law, or that she would have, had
accurate contact information been provided, the district court
erred when it found she had statutory standing."  2014 WL 667474
at *1.  Moreover, the UCL requires the plaintiff to have "suffered
injury in fact and ha[ve] lost money or property as a result of
the unfair competition."  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17204.
"Baxter has failed to allege an injury in fact, because (1)
California does not recognize informational injury,  . . .  and
(2) Rodale's compliance with the STL law was not a 'benefit of the
bargain' when she subscribed to Runner's World magazine."  2014 WL
667474 at *1.

The King and companion decisions were essentially identical.

What this means for consumer products companies is that it will be
harder, but not impossible, for customers to state viable claims
under the STL.  A customer can't just allege a technical violation
without sufficiently alleging injury.  However, California
businesses and businesses that collect and share California
customers' information should be aware of this law and implement
compliance policies so that even better-pled lawsuits against them
won't survive.

* FDA to Revisit 2009 Draft Guidance Following Cane Juice Suits
Justin J. Prochnow, Esq. -- prochnowjj@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg
Traurig, LLP reports that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
announced on March 8 that it is revisiting a draft guidance issued
in 2009 that generated a significant amount of class action
litigation over the last year. In 2009, the FDA issued a draft
guidance outlining its position regarding the use of "evaporated
cane juice" to describe sweeteners derived from sugar cane syrup.
In the draft guidance, the FDA indicates that describing the
sweeteners as juice "fail[s] to reveal the basic nature of the
food and its characterizing properties" and therefore considers
the use of "evaporated cane juice" to be misleading under the
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the FDCA).

On March 5, the FDA indicated that it is reopening the comment
period on its 2009 draft guidance to obtain additional data and
information to better understand the basic nature and
characterizing properties of the ingredient, the methods of
producing it, and the differences between the ingredient and other
sweeteners.  The FDA is seeking comments regarding whether others
agree with its determination that the term "evaporated cane juice"
does not convey the basic nature of the ingredient.  It is also
interested in how "evaporated cane juice" compares to other
sweeteners derived from sugar cane, such as raw sugar and cane
sugar, that use "sugar" or "syrup" in their name.

Although the 2009 draft guidance is not law, plaintiff lawyers
have used the draft guidance as a "roadmap" for class action
litigation over the use of the terminology.  Class actions have
been filed against numerous companies, including major brands like
Chobani and Nestle USA.  As in other food litigation, courts have
treated these cases inconsistently.  Some courts have found cases
regarding the labeling of ingredients to be preempted by the FDCA.
Recently, a court dismissed a case against Chobani, finding that
the plaintiff failed to allege how the representation, even if
mislabeled, could have actually deceived the plaintiff.  Other
courts have rejected companies' contentions that consumers'
"evaporated cane juice" mislabeling claims are preempted by the
FDCA, such as the recent case in which a California federal judge
preserved a class action accusing Yucatan Foods LP of misleadingly
listing "evaporated cane juice" instead of sugar on guacamole
products, finding the suit avoids preemption because it does not
seek to impose labeling requirements that could clash with federal

Companies involved in current litigation or utilizing the
ingredient in their products may benefit from submitting comments,
as it appears the FDA may be looking to update or finalize the
guidance on "evaporated cane juice" labeling.  Because the 2009
draft guidance has been a focal point of the litigation in this
area, any revisions to the draft guidance could have a significant
effect on future litigation on this issue.

* Florida Supreme Court Rejects Medical Malpractice Caps
Brendan Farrington, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
caps placed on how much money people can receive in cases where a
doctor's mistakes led to a patient's death were declared
unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court on March 13.

The lawsuit limits were part of a law then-Republican Gov. Jeb
Bush pushed in 2003 in an effort to lower the cost of malpractice
insurance rates and to keep doctors from moving out of state.
Supporters at the time called skyrocketing insurance rates a

In a 5-2 decision, the court said the caps in such cases violate
the equal protection guarantee in the state's constitution.

"The cap on non-economic damages serves no purpose other than to
arbitrarily punish the most grievously injured or their surviving
family members," the court wrote.

Thirty-five states have some type of cap on medical malpractice
awards, according to the National Conference of State
Legislatures.  Florida becomes at least the seventh state to
declare medical malpractice award limits unconstitutional.  The
ruling doesn't affect other states because it is based on the
Florida constitution.

The case involved a lawsuit filed against the federal government
by the parents of Michelle McCall, who died after giving birth in
2006 while being treated by U.S. Air Force doctors at Fort Walton
Beach Medical Center.  A jury awarded her parents and son $2
million, but a federal court lowered the award to $1 million,
citing the state law.

"If you had seen this mother during the trial, crying wretchedly
the whole time, it's just so wonderful to see the court agreed
that the statute should be overturned and there shouldn't be a cap
on damages in cases like this," Henry Courtney, the lawyer who
represented the family, said in a phone interview.

Mr. Courtney said Mrs. McCall's parents kept their daughter's
bedroom, which was prepared for the arrival of the baby, intact
after her death.

"The family has never recovered.  Mrs. McCall in particular
really, really has suffered tremendously as a result of the loss
of her daughter," he said.  "It's going to be helpful to other
people in similar situations."

Non-economic damages are for pain and suffering, among other
things. Economic awards, which have no cap, refer to lost wages or
medical costs.

Florida law capped doctors' liability for non-economic damages at
$500,000 in most malpractice cases and $1 million in cases
involving deaths.

In its ruling, the court questioned whether there was ever a
crisis that needed to be addressed, but said even if there was, it
no longer exists.

The Florida Medical Association said rising insurance costs were
driving doctors out of Florida and that may happen again because
of this ruling.

"Thanks to the Florida Supreme Court, we can be sure that patients
will face an intensified access to care crisis.  The likely
outcome will be that trial lawyers will refocus their sights on
physicians, meritless lawsuits will clog our courts and physicians
will move to states with a more favorable litigation climate,"
Dr. Alan Harmon, the group's president, said in a statement.

Debra Henley, executive director of the Florida Justice
Association, which represents personal injury lawyers, said caps
on damages are fundamentally unfair to the victims of medical

"When little kids lose their mommy or daddy because of medical
malpractice, they're absolutely victims," she said.

The ruling doesn't address caps in malpractice cases where the
patient doesn't die.  Ms. Henley said she expects that aspect of
the law will be before the court at some point.

* Shareholder Class Actions to Increasingly Focus on Disclosures
Jemima Whyte, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports
that shareholder class actions will increasingly focus on breaches
of continuous disclosure as lawyers and litigation funders seek
more cases, lawyers say.

In interviews with Nine Network's Financial Review March 9
program, lawyers warn that Slater & Gordon's planned class action
signals the increased focus on the continuous disclosure regime
and underscores a greater willingness by investors to pursue
companies even as they try to improve struggling businesses.

"One area that class actions didn't usually focus upon is where
the company was proceeding into financial distress," Herbert Smith
Freehills partner Jason Betts said.

"So you'd often see a company on the brink that looks like it's a
target for a class action not be attacked because the class action
promoter knows that by bringing the claim they are tipping the
company over and ultimately robbing themselves of the funds they
want.  We are seeing a new class action focusing on D and O
(directors and officers) insurance."

Slater & Gordon partner Ben Phi said about 400 investors, mainly
institutions, were supporting the Billabong class action and they
expected more to join.

Herbert Smith Freehills' Mr. Betts added that even the prospect of
a class action was now hurting the target company's share price,
noting that the possibility of a well funded class action was seen
as legally, reputationally and financially damaging.  He added
that a continuous disclosure case had yet to receive a court
judgment because settlements had been reached.

"I think merit is almost secondary to the discussion.  If the
class action in economically viable, you've got a problem
irrespective of merit," he said.

IMF Bentham executive director John Walker said litigation funders
provided an important service, and were unlikely to fund spurious
cases because of the prospect of having to pay the losing side's
legal costs.

"Because you've got to put about $10 million to fund a claim and
because you've got to be big enough and ugly enough to pay the
other side's costs if you lose, then running vexatious or
frivolous actions is only done by people who don't have anything
to lose, who don't know what they're doing," he said.


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 2014. 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 202-241-8200.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *