---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 16, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 75

                             Headlines


495 PRODUCTIONS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
ADT LLC: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
ALLEN SOSSAN: Half-Dozen Medical Malpractice Suits Pending
ALLIED NEVADA: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Nevada
AMERICAN INT'L SPECIALTY: Yahoo! Lawsuit Stayed

AMERICAN SPECIALTY: ACA Intends to Appeal Class Action Dismissal
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Questions Adapter Litigation Settlement
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Misrepresentation of Drug
B & C RESTAURANT: Accused of Not Paying Minimum & Overtime Wages
BANANA REPUBLIC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Sale Signs

BLYTH INC: Conn. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Has Settlement Agreement in "Howard" Suit
CONDE NAST: Settles Former Interns' Class Action
CONSTELLIUM ROLLED: Still Faces Suit by Retirees in West Virginia
D T & C GLOBAL: Took Illegal Deductions From Wages, Drivers Claim

DANA AIRLINES: Judge Separates Plaintiffs by Birth Origin
DART CHEROKEE: SC to Hear Suit Over Underpayment of Royalties
DELTA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Faces Class Action Over Student Fees
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Will Pay $8.7MM to Settle Robo-call Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Certifies Class in "Thorpe" Suit

EAGLE ROCK: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Action Claims
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: "Garcia" Plaintiffs May Amend Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Dismisses Putative Class of Minors
FIRST INT'L: Suit Wants Payday Lenders Barred From Info Access
FLORIDA: Faces "Grimes" Suit Alleging ADA Violations

FORD MOTOR: To Face Suit on Concealing Defective Coolant Pumps
FORD MOTOR: Removed "Holt" Suit to Western District of Arkansas
FREDERICK'S OF HOLLWOOD: To Fund Accord by Second Half of 2014
FRONTIER NATURAL: Recalls Organic Black Peppercorns
GENERAL MOTORS: Fails to Respond to NHTSA Recall Questions

GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Suit
GOLF & TENNIS: Faces Consumer Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Hip Implant
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Groat" Suit Over Hip Implant
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Whitmore" Suit Over Hip Implant

HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Alcantar" Suit Over Hip Implant
HY-VEE INC: Sued by Nebraska Consumer of NNW Healthy 100% Whey
JERSEY MIKE: Court Denies Class Cert. in "Ryan" Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Paying $218 Million to Former BLMIS Customers
KIRBY INLAND: Faces Class Action Over March 22 Fuel Oil Spill

KOLBE AND KOLBE: Accused of Selling Defective Non-Vinyl Windows
LOUISIANA TANK: Tank Cleaner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Judge to Dismiss Luon Pants Class Action
MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action in Calif.
MONTICELLO CITY, MN: Sued Over Telecommunications Bond Offerings

NATURE'S BOUNTY: Manufacturing Supervisor Wants Overtime Payment
NEW JERSEY: Judge Refuses to Enforce Bridgegate Subpoenas
NEXTEL RETAIL: Made Unauthorized Advertising Calls, Class Says
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Dismisses Ginsberg's Class Action
PATTERSON RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says

PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Illegally Calls Class Members, Suit Claims
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Amended Claim Allowed in "Anderson"
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing Dates to be Set in "Michaeli"
PERFORMANCE PORTFOLIO: Sued for Violating Debt Collections Act
PERRY JOHNSON: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Auditor Claims

PFIZER INC: Faces "Means" Suit in S.D. Texas Over Lipitor Drug
REBEKAH BROOKS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
REVEL AC: Faces Class Action Over Slot Machine Promotion
RHODE ISLAND: Retirees File "Breach of Contract" Lawsuit
RUBINA SHAH: 7-Eleven Owners Sued by Clerks Over Unpaid Overtime

SEQWATER: Maurice Blackburn to File Flood Class Action in NSW
SILVER STATE: Faces Class Action Over Misrepresentation
SOLID WASTE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Accused of Illegally Calling Class Members
SUPERIOR PHARMACY: Faces Insurance-Related Claims in Florida

SWATCH GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
TACO & BURRITO: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Bielory" Suit Transferred to Lafayette
TILLY'S INC: Court Disallows Amendment in Suit v. World of Jeans
TILLY'S INC: Pursues Motion to Compel Arbitration in Labor Suit

TILLY'S INC: Settles Suit Over Gift Card Redemption Policies
TRIPLE LEAF: Faces Class Action Over "Senna Diet Products"
TSM PROPERTIES: Cooks and Others Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Will Not Face Shareholder Claims, Judge Rules
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit in Los Angeles Superior Court

UTI WORLDWIDE: Final Approval Granted in Antitrust Suit Accord
VIACOM INC: Former MTV Intern's Class Action Can Proceed
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Dismisses Suit on Misleading Product
WAL-MART STORES: Judge Tosses Class Action Dismissal Appeal
WALTER INVESTMENT: Pomerantz Firm Files Class Action in Florida

YUHE INT'L: June 9 Fairness Settlement Hearing Set


                             *********


495 PRODUCTIONS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Ben Block, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
a former video editor has filed a class action lawsuit against
495 Productions, the company behind Jersey Shore and other
reality programs, charging it with unfair business practices and
saying it failed to pay for overtime work, violated minimum wage
laws and acted improperly in other ways.  He says he was paid
$1,250 per week and was only paid overtime if he worked more than
60 hours in a single week.

The suit describes what it calls "a pay scheme" that forces
non-exempt employees (those who are hourly and not managers) to
accept a flat salary for 60 hours of work a week.  The suit says
it is positioned as 40 hours plus overtime, but in reality it is
a fixed salary for everyone in Pucci's situation.

"This is done in order to make it falsely appear the defendants'
pay scheme complies with California overtime laws," says the
suit.  The suit says 495 Productions markets itself as "one of
the television industry's most formidable hit factories" and says
it has a commitment to "exploring new post workflows through
'faster-than-realtime' and off-site capabilities."

Other charges in the lawsuit include failure to pay the minimum
wage for hours worked, failure to pay all wages in a timely
manner and failure to provide accurate itemized statements to the
employees.

The suit claims the number of employees in the class are "so
numerous" it would not be feasible to identify all of them at the
time the action was filed. It estimates there are at least 100
others impacted by the practices.

The production company said in a statement from their attorney,
Alan S. Feldman of Lydecker Diaz: "495 Productions denies any and
all allegations of the complaint and will vigorously defend this
meritless lawsuit."


ADT LLC: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on April 4 tentatively ruled that ADT LLC can't
escape a putative nationwide class action alleging the home
security company ripped off customers with misleading contracts,
saying that whether the company properly disclosed fee provisions
is a triable issue of fact.

At a hearing in Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee
issued a written tentative ruling that she would deny ADT's
motion for summary judgment of a plaintiff's claims that the home
security company violated the federal Truth in Lending Act, which
requires disclosure of terms and costs of consumer credit
products.

Lawrence Fischer of Bursor and Fischer LLP, representing the
plaintiffs, told the judge that the case law showed that TILA can
be applied to more than just banks or credit cards and that ADT
violated it by not disclosing fee increases included in service
contracts.

"There is no dispute they didn't make the price increase
disclosures," he said.  "[TILA] is designed to protect consumers
[and] make sure they get sufficient disclosure."

The complex putative class action was filed in December 2012 on
behalf of several named plaintiffs representing subclasses in
California, Maryland and the rest of the country, alleging ADT's
early termination fees -- charged to a customer for canceling a
contract before a set term, usually three years -- violate
California and Maryland law, as well as alleging that unilateral
fee hikes violate TILA.

On April 4, Judge Gee also said the plaintiffs representing a
Maryland subclass met the higher burden of Article III standing
-- which requires a plaintiff to show they suffered an injury
from the alleged misconduct -- needed to bring claims under the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act in federal court.  The judge
said that counter to ADT's argument, plaintiff Jackie Warncke
could still have suffered injury even if she hadn't paid the
early termination fee ADT charged because the impact on her
credit rating was real.

"It wasn't that they relied on hearsay -- she received calls,
calls from debt collectors . . .  a reasonable inference can be
drawn," the judge said.

Judge Gee said her tentative ruling was to deny ADT's motion for
summary judgment of a putative subclass of California customers'
early termination fee claims under the state's unfair competition
law and its Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Dominic Surprenant of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP,
representing ADT, told the judge that ADT should be granted
judgment on the CLRA claim because the fees were properly
disclosed in the customers' contracts.  Judge Gee said she would
accept additional briefing on the issue.

But Judge Gee also said that she was likely to grant ADT summary
judgment on the plaintiffs' claims under California Civil Code
1671(d) that allege ADT's early termination fee is an illegal
liquidated damages provision.  Judge Gee's tentative ruling was
that while ADT's fee was 75 percent of the remaining value on a
customer's contract, it wasn't a "penalty" and thus was legal as
an alternative means of fulfilling the contract.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher and
Annick Marie Persinger of Bursor and Fisher PA.

ADT is represented by Dominic Surprenant --
dominicsurprenant@quinnemanuel.com -- and Paul Joseph Slattery --
paulslattery@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP.

The case is John Adamson et al. v. ADT LLC et al., case number
2:12-cv-10558, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


ALLEN SOSSAN: Half-Dozen Medical Malpractice Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ellis, writing for ArgusLeader.com, reports that
Frances Bockholt went to the operating table at Avera Sacred
Heart Hospital in Yankton convinced that an earlier back surgery
needed to be fixed.

The surgeon who convinced her of that, Dr. Allen Sossan, promised
that she would be free of back pain after undergoing the complex
spinal procedure.  Ms. Bockholt let Dr. Sossan operate on her,
even though the surgeon who had done her first operation five
years earlier said there was no need for the 79-year-old to have
another procedure.

But rather than make her pain-free, the surgery on March 17,
2010, was the first of many.  She had two additional back
surgeries within a month.  Then another in May and another in
July when she was opened up from the front. Infections developed
in her spine. The surgeries caused a hernia, which required more
surgery, which created additional complications.

All told, she underwent more than a dozen surgeries.  The
Nebraska farm woman who had loved to garden died in agony in a
Yankton nursing home.  It was March 15, 2011.

In November, a Yankton jury awarded more than $930,000 to
Ms. Bockholt's children, finding that Dr. Sossan performed
unnecessary surgeries on their mother.  About a half-dozen other
medical malpractice lawsuits against Dr. Sossan are pending,
including one that's in the process of being settled in Nebraska.

But despite the lawsuits and numerous complaints made to
licensing boards in Nebraska and South Dakota by patients and
doctors, no public disciplinary action ever has been taken
against Dr. Sossan.  He remains licensed in Nebraska and
California.  His license in South Dakota expired when he didn't
renew it last year, but he was never sanctioned by the state for
the Bockholt surgery or for any of the others he's accused of
botching.

State laws around the country provide a screen of confidentiality
to medical licensing boards.  Because of the secrecy, the public
has to trust that the boards are adequately policing doctors and
other medical professionals.  In addition, the process known as
peer review, where doctors review the care provided by their
fellow doctors, also is legally protected from public disclosure.


ALLIED NEVADA: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 3 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of
Allied Nevada Gold Corp. common stock during the period between
January 18, 2013 and August 5, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from April 3, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel
H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900
or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/alliednevada/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Allied Nevada and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Allied Nevada is a U.S.-based gold mining and exploration
company focused on mining, development and exploring properties
throughout the State of Nevada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects and failed
to disclose adverse facts, including: (a) that one of its three
impermeable leach pads, the Lewis leach pad, was beset with
undisclosed operating defects and production deficiencies,
including, but not limited to, an insufficient supply of fresh
water to leach ore and an inadequate solution pumping and piping
infrastructure; (b) that in order to remediate the operating
defects and production deficiencies at the Lewis leach pad, the
Company would need to double the amount of fresh water available
at the facility, replace the existing irrigation tubing, piping
and pumping infrastructure and seek various regulatory approvals;
(c) that the recurring operating defects and production
deficiencies at the Lewis leach pad were having a materially
adverse effect on the Company's production costs and operating
cash flows; (d) that the Company's operations were not generating
the cash flow necessary to proceed with the construction of the
Hycroft Mine mill; (e) that the costs to remediate the operating
defects and production deficiencies at the Lewis leach pad were
reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's future production, production costs and cash flows; (f)
that, while Allied Nevada's newly installed carbon columns
increased its solution processing capacity, silver recovery from
that process was approximately one-third of the Company's
historical recovery rate; (g) that the Company's disclosure
controls, and the certifications regarding those disclosure
controls, were materially false and misleading; and (h) that,
based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about Allied Nevada's leach pad
solutions processing capacity, the Hycroft Mine mill expansion,
and the Company's expected gold and silver production and its
expected operating income and cash flows.

According to the complaint, in August 2013, approximately seven
months after the beginning of the Class Period, defendants
shocked the market when they revealed that the Company's
production costs had soared, and would continue to do so, because
of systemic operating defects at the Lewis leach pad.  Defendants
revealed that the Company would have to double the amount of
fresh water available at the Lewis leach pad and replace the
existing irrigation tubing, piping and pumping infrastructure to
remedy the defects and production deficiencies, as well as obtain
various regulatory approvals to undertake these corrective
actions.  In addition, defendants stated that the Company would
indefinitely suspend its planned expansion at the Hycroft Mine
due to the Company's inability to generate sufficient cash flows
from operations, which was the result of amassed ore going
unprocessed at the defective Lewis leach pad.  In response to
these revelations, the price of Allied Nevada common stock
plummeted over a two day period from $5.90 per share at the close
of trading on August 5, 2013 to $3.73 per share on August 7,
2013, representing a drop of more than 40%, on unusually heavy
trading volume.  Just weeks prior to these adverse revelations,
however, the Company sold $150.5 million shares in a secondary
public offering at artificially inflated prices.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Allied Nevada common stock during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


AMERICAN INT'L SPECIALTY: Yahoo! Lawsuit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal issued an order staying the case
captioned YAHOO! INC., Petitioner, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Respondents, CASE NO.
5:13-CV-05846-PSG, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the March 31, 2014
ruling is available at http://is.gd/zAqG2Ffrom Leagle.com.

This case concerns Yahoo!'s claim for reimbursement of defense
fees from four class action cases filed against it in 2005 and
2006 involving its Sponsored Search Pay-Per-Click (PPC)
advertising program.  Two years ago, the parties in this case
struck a deal to stay a New York state court case challenging an
interim arbitration award until 30 days after a final award
issued. The final arbitration award was issued late last year.
Less than one week after the final award was issued, but before
the deadline for lifting the stay in the state court case had
passed, Yahoo! filed a petition in California federal court to
confirm the final arbitration award.

According to the magistrate judge, the predicate question is
whether Yahoo! should be bound by a stipulation in the New York
case into which it freely entered.  Citing Colorado River Water
Conservation Dist. v. U. S., 424 U.S. 800, 818 (1976), Magistrate
Judge Grewal concluded that under both the plain language of the
stipulation and Colorado River, the appropriate course is to stay
this case in deference to the case in New York.

"This case shall be stayed subject to complete resolution of the
New York action. The parties shall lodge one page status reports
with the court every ninety days to keep this court appraised of
the New York state proceeding. With that action resolved, the
court will lift the stay and address any live disputes between
the parties," he concluded.

Yahoo! INC., Petitioner, represented by Ann Marie Mortimer --
amortimer@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams & William Taewook Um --
wum@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP.

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company,
Respondent, represented by Michael James Hartley --
mhartley@bautelaw.com -- BAUTE CROCHETIERE & GILFORD & Peter A.
Stroili -- PStroili@damato-lynch.com -- D'Amato & Lynch LLP.

Illinois Union Insurance Company, Respondent, represented by
Darren Burke Le Montree -- Darren.LeMontree@londonfischer.com --
London Fischer LLP.

Columbia Casualty Company, Respondent, represented by Dean
Anthony Pappas -- dpappas@ropers.com -- Ropers Majeski Kohn &
Bentley.

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg, PA, Respondent,
represented by Michael James Hartley, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & GILFORD
& Peter A. Stroili, D'Amato & Lynch LLP.


AMERICAN SPECIALTY: ACA Intends to Appeal Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Chiropractic Association on April 3 announced its
intention to appeal the recent dismissal of its claims against
American Specialty Health Inc. and American Specialty Health
Networks Inc., and CIGNA Corporation and Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company.  Significantly, the dismissal was based upon a
variety of procedural considerations -- not the substance of
ACA's claims.

ACA's legal counsel is optimistic about the chances of a
successful appeal, noting that this area of the law is the
subject of increasing judicial focus.

"Recently, there have been several significant rulings
recognizing that providers are entitled to assert claims under
ERISA to challenge benefit determinations by insurers, including
with regard to recoupments of previously issued payments"," said
Brian Hufford, Esq. -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- of Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, who represents ACA in the class action suit.  "We
believe that federal courts are increasingly recognizing that
individual providers and associations such as the ACA have
standing to assert the claims brought in this action."

ACA's litigation against ASHN and CIGNA alleges, among other
things, that CIGNA -- in violation of ERISA -- failed to comply
with terms and conditions of its plan to afford subscribers or
their health care providers an opportunity to obtain a "full and
fair review" of denied or reduced reimbursement, and failed to
make appropriate and non-misleading disclosures to subscribers or
their health care providers.

"ACA took this action against ASHN and CIGNA because it is
patients who suffer most when doctors must choose between
providing necessary care and adhering to requirements imposed by
payers," said ACA President Anthony Hamm, DC.  "We will not rest
until patients receive the care they need and have paid for
through their insurance premiums."

Providers who believe they and/or their patients have been
affected by ASHN and/or CIGNA's improper practices can visit the
Chiropractic Networks Action Center http://is.gd/YmgLPUto submit
a complaint to ACA.


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Questions Adapter Litigation Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that a class
action settlement over faulty Apple laptop power adapters sounded
dead on arrival on April 8 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

Neither U.S. District Judge James Ware's approval nor a
declaration from mediator Fern Smith attesting to the arm's-
length nature of the negotiations sounded likely to spare In re
Apple MagSafe Power Adapter Litigation from remand for further
hearings on the $3.1 million attorney fee award.

Ninth Circuit Judge William Fletcher pointed out that Judge
Ware's order signing off on the settlement appeared to have been
prepared by counsel.  "Did the district judge make any changes to
the proposed order other than striking out the word 'proposed'?"
he asked Morrison & Foerster partner Deanne Maynard --
dmaynard@mofo.com -- representing Apple.

Ms. Maynard and class counsel Helen Zeldes -- helenz@zhlaw.com --
said Judge Ware actively participated in both a settlement
hearing and a fairness hearing, where objectors had a full
opportunity to air their concerns.

"My question is not whether you argued them," Judge Fletcher
said. "My question is what the district judge did in response to
the arguments."

Objector counsel Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action
Fairness said the answer is not much.  "The only thing the judge
said is the objections are overruled," Mr. Frank told the Ninth
Circuit.

Apple acknowledged in 2008 that the magnetic power adapters it
developed for MacBooks had a tendency to fray, and offered to
replace them for free.  San Diego-based Zeldes & Haeggquist and
Washington, D.C.'s Mehri & Skalet brought a class action the next
year.  Following mediation before Mr. Smith of JAMS, Apple agreed
to refund between $35 and $79 for anyone who had paid for a
replacement adapter within three years of a laptop purchase.  The
company also promised to replace existing adapters for up to
three years if they failed.

Class counsel received $3.1 million in fees.  Mr. Smith, a former
district court judge, filed a declaration stating the
negotiations were in good faith and at arm's length, with no
discussion of attorney fees until after settlement was reached,
at least to her knowledge.

Judge Ware signed off in April 2012, a few months before he
retired from the Northern District and started his own mediation
practice.  "We got cash refunds for them," class counsel Zeldes
told the Ninth Circuit on April 8, plus two additional years of
warranty coverage.  "This is not some kind of cy pres [award]."

Furthermore, Ms. Zeldes said, "we had a declaration from a
mediator, which is a factor that goes against the argument of
collusion."  Mr. Frank argued that class counsel achieved little
beyond what Apple was already providing, and that owners of
adapters more than 3 years old were shut out.  The "token cash
relief" is "dwarfed by what the attorneys collected for
themselves," he said.

Judge Fletcher and Judge Barry Silverman seemed to agree that, at
a minimum, Ware had not made necessary findings about settlement
value as required by In re Bluetooth Headset Product Liability
Litigation, a leading Ninth Circuit case on self-dealing in class
actions.

Bluetooth is "the one I can't get around," Judge Fletcher told
Ms. Zeldes.  "I think the district judge just didn't properly go
through and analyze under Bluetooth, and I'm inclined to remand."

But Judge Fletcher sounded exasperated with Mr. Frank at times,
too.  "Let's say the $3 million is excessive," he said.  Given
that Apple has already promised to make class members whole, what
would Frank do with those funds? "Are you just going to give them
free money?" Judge Fletcher did not appear to assign much weight
to mediator Mr. Smith's declaration.  "What, if any, importance
should we attach to the fact that the settlement was achieved
with . . . the assistance of a very experienced former district
judge?"
Judge Fletcher asked Mr. Frank.  None, Mr. Frank said.  "The
mediator has no duty to the parties that aren't at the table," he
said, "and that's the absent class members."


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Misrepresentation of Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Aveo Pharmaceuticals and its
board misrepresented the prospects of the cancer drug tivozanib,
and the share price dropped precipitously when the truth came
out, a class action claims in Federal Court in Boston.


B & C RESTAURANT: Accused of Not Paying Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Montez-Freeman, On behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated v. B & C Restaurant Corporation, d/b/a
The Hereford House and Skivers Corporation, d/b/a Anderson
Restaurant Group, Case No. 4:14-cv-00144-DGK (W.D. Mo.,
February 12, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay
minimum wage and overtime compensation.

The Hereford House operates five restaurants -- three in Missouri
and two in Kansas.  The Hereford House is a fictitious entity,
owned and operated by B & C Restaurant Corporation.  B & C
Restaurant Corporation is a Missouri Corporation located in
Kansas City, Missouri.

The Anderson Restaurant Group is a fictitious entity, owned by
Skivers Corporation.  Skivers Corporation is a restaurant
management company located in Kansas City, Missouri.  Skivers
Corporation manages various restaurants in Kansas City, Missouri;
Independence, Missouri; Leawood, Kansas; Shawnee, Kansas; and
Lawrence, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          Michael A. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
                  mwilliams@williamsdirks.com


          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          6 NW Main St.
          Lee's Summit, MO 64063
          Telephone: (913) 890-3529
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com


          Paul A. Bullman, Esq.
          BULLMAN LAW FIRM
          4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 286-2860
          Facsimile: (816) 286-2813
          E-mail: paul@attorneyforworkers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel Owen Herrington, Esq.
          WHITE GOSS BOWERS MARCH SCHULTE & WEISENFELS
          4510 Belleview, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 753-9200
          Facsimile: (816) 753-9201
          E-mail: dherrington@whitegoss.com


BANANA REPUBLIC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Sale Signs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Banana Republic tricks
consumers into its stores with misleading signs that indicate
everything is on sale, though it isn't, a class action claims in
Superior Court in Los Angeles.


BLYTH INC: Conn. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael P. Shea issued an order dismissing the
case captioned MUSAB ABUHAMDAN and BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT FUND, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLYTH, INC., ROBERT B. GOERGEN, ROBERT
H. BARGHAUS, VISALUS HOLDINGS, LLC, VISALUS, INC., and NICK
SARNICOLA, Defendants, NO. 3:12CV1597 (MPS), (D. Conn.).

The Plaintiffs brought this class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased common stock of Blyth, Inc., between January 13,
2012 and November 6, 2012, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Judge Shea, in his March 31, 2014 ruling, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/NFWZ5Ifrom Leagle.com, granted the
motion to dismiss filed by Defendants saying it does not appear
that the Plaintiff possesses factual material in support of its
claims. Because the Court already gave the Plaintiffs a chance to
amend -- and stated that it would not allow further amendments --
a request to file an amended complaint is denied.

The Court ordered the Clerk of court to enter judgment for
Defendants and to close the case.

Musab Abuhamdan, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan J. Kelson --
JKelson@dmoc.com -- Disaerio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni LLP,
Jonathan P. Whitcomb -- JWhitcomb@dmoc.com -- Diserio, Martin,
O'Connor & Castiglioni & David A. Rosenfeld -- djr@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP-NY.

Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, on Behalf of Themselves
and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
P. Whitcomb, Diserio, Martin, O'Connor & Castiglioni.

Blyth, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alfred U. Pavlis --
apavlis@fdh.com -- Finn Dixon & Herling, Andrea J. Robinson,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, Andrew Dulberg --
andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr, David Lesser -- david.lesser@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Harold Bolton Finn, III --
hfinn@fdh.com -- Finn Dixon & Herling, Peter A. Spaeth --
peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr & Tony Miodonka -- tmiodonka@fdh.com -- Finn Dixon &
Herling.

Robert B Goergen, Defendant, represented by Alfred U. Pavlis,
Finn Dixon & Herling, Andrea J. Robinson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr, Andrew Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr,
David Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Harold
Bolton Finn, III, Finn Dixon & Herling, Peter A. Spaeth, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr & Tony Miodonka, Finn Dixon &
Herling.

Robert H Barghaus, Defendant, represented by Alfred U. Pavlis,
Finn Dixon & Herling, Andrea J. Robinson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr, Andrew Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr,
David Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Harold
Bolton Finn, III, Finn Dixon & Herling, Peter A. Spaeth, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr & Tony Miodonka, Finn Dixon &
Herling.

ViSalus Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alfred U.
Pavlis, Finn Dixon & Herling, Andrea J. Robinson, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr, Andrew Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr, David Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP, Harold Bolton Finn, III, Finn Dixon & Herling, Peter A.
Spaeth, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr & Tony Miodonka, Finn
Dixon & Herling.

ViSalus, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alfred U. Pavlis, Finn
Dixon & Herling, Andrea J. Robinson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
& Dorr, Andrew Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr,
David Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Harold
Bolton Finn, III, Finn Dixon & Herling, Peter A. Spaeth, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr & Tony Miodonka, Finn Dixon &
Herling.

Nick Sarnicola, Defendant, represented by Alfred U. Pavlis, Finn
Dixon & Herling, Andrea J. Robinson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
& Dorr, Andrew Dulberg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr,
David Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Harold
Bolton Finn, III, Finn Dixon & Herling, Peter A. Spaeth, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr & Tony Miodonka, Finn Dixon &
Herling.


CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Has Settlement Agreement in "Howard" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. on April 4 announced a Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement regarding the class action suit of Francis
Howard v. Chanticleer Holdings, Inc., Michael D. Pruitt, et al.

On March 31, 2014, a fully executed settlement agreement was
filed with the court as to all matters raised in the suit and to
dismiss it on the merits and with prejudice.  The terms of the
settlement are a cash settlement of $850,000, of which $837,500
will be paid by the Company's insurance carrier, XL Specialty
Insurance Company, and $12,500 to be contributed by Creason &
Associates, PLLC.  It is subject to preliminary and final court
approval with the United States District Court in the Southern
District of Florida.

"We are pleased with this agreement, which will put this matter
behind us, so that we may focus our attention on growth. We look
forward to opening our scheduled Hooters and Just Fresh locations
in the coming months as we continue expanding in both
international and domestic markets," commented Mike Pruitt, CEO
and President of Chanticleer Holdings.

                 About Chanticleer Holdings, Inc.

Headquartered in Charlotte, NC, Chanticleer Holdings (HOTR),
together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates restaurant
brands in the United States and internationally.  The Company is
a franchisee owner of Hooters(R) restaurants in international
markets including England, South Africa, Hungary, and Brazil, has
joint ventured with the current Hooters franchisee in Australia,
and recently acquired two Hooters restaurants in the United
States. The Company also owns and operates American Roadside
Burgers, Spoon Bar & Kitchen and owns a majority interest in Just
Fresh restaurants in the U.S.


CONDE NAST: Settles Former Interns' Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Vingan, writing for Fashionista, reports that Conde Nast
would be shuttering its internship program in 2014 following a
class action lawsuit filed by two former interns -- one at W and
one at The New Yorker -- who claimed that they were paid below
minimum wage.  As of now, none of Conde Nast's titles are
accepting interns for the summer and beyond.

In an internal memo sent to Conde Nast staffers on April 4,
CEO Chuck Townsend announced that the lawsuit -- filed by
Lauren Ballinger and Matthew Leib in June of 2013 -- is being
settled outside of court.

"We are, and have always been, extremely proud of the internship
experiences that were offered at Conde Nast," Mr. Townsend wrote
in the memo.  "Our internships were considered some of the best
in the industry, providing students with unparalleled learning
opportunities outside of the classroom.  The training and
contacts our interns received at Conde Nast helped many begin
successful careers here and elsewhere."

Mr. Townsend continued, "We believe that settling the lawsuit at
this time is the right business decision for Conde Nast.  The
settlement will allow us to devote our time and resources towards
developing meaningful, new opportunities to support up-and-coming
talent."

Conde Nast would not disclose how much the suit was settled for,
as (per Townsend's memo) its attorneys are still working out the
details of the settlement.


CONSTELLIUM ROLLED: Still Faces Suit by Retirees in West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC continues to face a
suit filed by retirees, according to Constellium N.V.'s Dec. 10,
2013, Amendment No. 1 to FORM F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On February 20, 2013, five retirees of Constellium Rolled
Products-Ravenswood LLC and the United Steelworkers union filed a
class action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products-
Ravenswood LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia,
alleging that Ravenswood improperly modified retiree health
benefits.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Constellium
Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC was obligated to provide retirees
with health benefits throughout their retirement at no cost, and
that Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC improperly
capped, through changes that went into effect in January 2013,
the amount it would pay annually toward those benefits. In 2013,
the caps will result in additional costs of $5 per month for
approximately 1,800 retiree health plan participants. The parties
are currently engaged in discovery, which will end in January
2014 and dispositive motions are due in February 2014. The
company believes that these claims are unfounded, and that
Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC had a legal and
contractual right to make the applicable modifications.


D T & C GLOBAL: Took Illegal Deductions From Wages, Drivers Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Krantz and William Dunne, on behalf of themselves and other
persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. D T & C Global
Management LLC d/b/a Town & Country Limousine, Town & Country
Limousine, Inc., and John Jansen, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00998 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime pay to the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated persons.

The Plaintiffs, who worked as drivers for Town and Country
Limousine, also allege that the Defendants violated the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act by taking unauthorized deductions
from the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated person's wages.

The Defendants operate a business known as "Town and Country
Limousine."  The Defendants represent themselves as "the premier
provider of corporate ground transportation in Chicago."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DANA AIRLINES: Judge Separates Plaintiffs by Birth Origin
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
American families of people killed when a jet crash-landed in
Nigeria in 2012 can continue their lawsuit against the pilot's
estate in Florida, but foreign-born families must try their
lawsuits in Nigeria, a federal judge ruled.

"This is a complex, mass-tort case that will contribute
significantly to this court's already crowded docket," U.S.
District Judge Robert N. Scola wrote.  "And even if liability can
be determined through one trial, there will need to be multiple
trials on damages. ... The burden on the jury-serving public of
South Florida will be significant."

Dana Airlines crash-landed at the Murtala Muhammed Airport in
Nigeria in June 2012, killing 153 on board and 10 on the ground.
The flight was traveling from Abuja, Nigeria, to Lagos.

Christina Onita-Olojo, of Missouri City, Texas, is the lead
plaintiff of class action filed on behalf of her daughters, who
were traveling to Nigeria for a wedding.  The class was to
consist of those Americans, but includes people born or living in
Nigeria.

The plaintiffs must to be separated by origin of birth, Scola
wrote.  "(T)his court finds that Nigeria is the more appropriate
and convenient form for this case to proceed with respect to the
foreign plaintiffs; and that the United States is the more
appropriate and convenient forum for this case to proceed with
respect to the United States plaintiffs," Scola wrote.

Plaintiffs had argued that the case should be tried in the United
States because Nigerian courts are "corrupt," and that the
country is "unsafe," but "similar travel warnings from the State
Department were in effect at the time of the accident and every
decedent in this case either lived in Nigeria, or voluntarily
traveled to Nigeria and nearly all were actively traveling within
the country when this accident occurred," Scola wrote.  He added:
"In any event, these arguments are unpersuasive because none of
the safety concerns specifically relate to this case or the
individuals involved in this litigation."

To make their case that the courts in Nigeria are corrupt,
plaintiffs retained a retired justice of the Nigerian Supreme
Court as their expert.  But doing so "undermines this argument,"
the judge wrote.

"Regardless, these are exactly the types of 'generalized,
anecdotal complaints of corruption' that are insufficient to
declare that a country cannot serve as an adequate forum,'" Scola
wrote.  He added that Nigerian plaintiffs will be "unfairly
prejudiced" if their case continues in an American court because
"this court cannot compel non-party witnesses in Nigeria to
produce documents or to provide testimony."

"This unfairness is magnified because the plaintiffs will be able
to use documents and testimony provided by cooperative witnesses
in Nigeria, but Sellers will not be able to compel evidence from
uncooperative witnesses," Scola wrote.

In the end, "Nigeria clearly has a more compelling interest than
the United States in resolving these lawsuits, since this
accident is among one of the worst aviation disasters in the
country's recent history."


DART CHEROKEE: SC to Hear Suit Over Underpayment of Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that The Supreme Court on took up a class action alleging
underpayment of royalties for certain wells in Kansas.

Brandon Owens filed the 2012 lawsuit in Wilson County, Kans.,
against Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company LLC and Cherokee
Basin Pipeline LLC, but the defendants removed the action to U.S.
District Court.  The complaint alleges underpayment of royalties
from wells in which the defendants have a working interest in
Kansas wells, dating back to Jan. 1, 2002.

Claiming that it operates approximately 700 wells in Kansas, and
that there are approximately 400 royalty owners with interests in
the 700 wells at issue, Dart Cherokee said that the amount in
controversy exceeded $8.2 million, thus satisfying the threshold
for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

After mediation proved unsuccessful, U.S. District Judge Julie
Robinson remanded the case to state court in May 2013.  The
ruling notes that the Owens never specified monetary damages in
his petiton and that the defendants offered no documentation or
affidavits explaining how they arrived at the $8.7 million
figure.

Since the plaintiffs did not include a claim based on statutory
liability nor a claim for punitive damages, the evidence simply
does not support that the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million, the judge found.

A month later, the 10th Circuit shot down a request by the
defendants to appeal. The brief order noted that one of the three
judges on the panel would have green-lit the appeal.

In granting the defendants a writ of certiorari, the Supreme
Court followed its custom of not issuing any comment.  It noted
only that the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
could file a brief as amicus curiae.


DELTA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Faces Class Action Over Student Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
CTV Vancouver reports that one of Canada's top class-action
lawyers says B.C. school boards have been wrongfully charging
student fees for years -- and parents should be reimbursed.

B.C. mother-of-three Susan Fetterkind has launched a proposed
class-action lawsuit on behalf of herself and other parents who
have paid for workbooks, activities and school supplies over the
past 15 years.  Ms. Fetterkind said this year alone she paid more
than $200 for things like physics and calculus workbooks, student
activity fees and graduation activities for her two secondary-
school aged children.  She said the fees break provincial laws,
and wants her costs reimbursed.

Lawyer Tony Merchant, whose firm has won dozens of national
class-action suits, called the fees "wrong" and says they must be
repaid to parents and students.

"Some people with three to four children are facing C$600, C$700
every year to have children go to school," he told CTV News from
Regina.  "It's not allowed by law and [it's] bad social policy."

The Delta School District has a few weeks to file a legal
response.  The district declined to be interviewed, and said it
cannot comment on potential legal cases.

The B.C. Ministry of Education said school boards can charge fees
for exercise books, but if they do, they must have a financial
hardship policy in place.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Will Pay $8.7MM to Settle Robo-call Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Discover will pay $8.7 million to settle a federal class
action over its autodialing system that allegedly called
consumers without permission.

Andrew Steinfeld and Walter Bradley are lead plaintiffs in the
amended complaint filed against Discover Financial Services and
Discover Bank in May 2013 after having reached a settlement of
their individual class actions.  Their complaint noted that the
Federal Communications Commission had cited Discover in June 2007
for violations of the Communications Act and FCC rules governing
telephone solicitations and unsolicited advertisements.

That citation warned Discover that future violations of that
nature could lead to "monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000
for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation."

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco granted final
approval to the parties' settlement, which includes a provision
that effectively prevents Discover from using the autodialing
system in the future.

"The settlement agreement provides for 'prospective practice
changes,' by which settlement class members can submit a
revocation request to end all automated or auto-dialed telephone
calls from defendants," White wrote.

More than 8 million prospective class members received notice of
the $8.7 million deal.

Distribution of that fund depends on how many people submit
claims. In addition to covering settlement cots, a possible cy
pres feature would distribute unclaimed settlement funds among
organizations most likely to benefit class members.

Gary Sibley had been one of several class members to
unsuccessfully challenge the settlement, which he claimed
provided "inadequate" relief.

"The court finds that the class definition is sufficiently
definite and readily ascertainable, and it overrules the
objections," White wrote.  "The court finds that the settlement
agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate."

In a separate order, White awarded more than $2.1 million in
attorneys' fees and $2,000 in incentive awards for each named
plaintiff.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, did not return a request for comment.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Certifies Class in "Thorpe" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUALYN THORPE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2250 (ESH), (D. D. C.) is an
Olmstead action, wherein the plaintiffs, who include nine current
and former nursing facility residents, claim that the District of
Columbia provides Medicaid-funded long-term care services to
individuals with physical disabilities in a manner that results
in the unnecessary segregation of such individuals in nursing
facilities in violation of Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 12131 et seq., and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 794 et
seq.  Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 607 (1999).

Before the Court is plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification, seeking to certify a class of nursing facility
residents who allegedly are "stuck" in nursing facilities due to
the District's lack of an "effective system of transition
assistance."  The defendant opposes the motion and has moved to
dismiss the complaint.

In a memorandum opinion dated March 29, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/Rc7pVIfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Ellen Segal Huvelle denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and
granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Judge Huvelle cited a recent district court ruling in New
Hampshire in a similar case which stated that:

Reasonable minds may of course differ as to whether the
traditional approach taken in ADA integration cases (or related
disability cases) of certifying broad classes of persons with
different specific disabilities, needs, and preferences (an
approach taken both before and after Wal-Mart), is in tension
with Wal-Mart's recent procedural commands.

Kenneth R., 293 F.R.D. at 271.

Judge Huvelle said she agrees with that court's conclusion that
plaintiffs in an Olmstead case can "meet Wal-Mart's demands"
where they:

have defined the class more narrowly than is usually done in ADA
integration cases; their class claims are limited to parallel
claims under the ADA and RA; they challenge alleged deficiencies
related to a discrete set or class of services; and they seek a
single declaration or injunction aimed at correcting a systemic
discriminatory imbalance (not mini-injunctions for each class
member . . . .

"Plaintiffs have met this standard, and therefore, their motion
for class certification, with minor modifications to the proposed
class definition, will be granted and the District's motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint will be denied," Judge
Huvelle concluded.

LARRY MCDONALD, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara S. Wahl --
barbara.wahl@arentfox.com -- ARENT FOX, LLP, Iris Y. Gonzalez,
AARP FOUNDATION, Kelly R. Bagby -- kbagby@aarp.org -- AARP
FOUNDATION LITIGATION, Lyndsay Ayanna Niles -- lniles@uls-dc.org
-- UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Marjorie Lynn Rifkin --
mrifkin@uls-dc.org -- UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Alison L.
Andersen --  alison.andersen@arentfox.com -- ARENT, FOX LLP,
Brian D. Schneider, ARENT, FOX LLP, Jennifer Rachel Lav --
jlav@uls-dc.org -- UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. & Victoria L.
Thomas, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES.

ROY FOREMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Iris Y. Gonzalez --
igonzalez@aarp.org -- AARP FOUNDATION, Jennifer Rachel Lav,
UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Lyndsay Ayanna Niles, UNIVERSITY
LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Alison L. Andersen, ARENT, FOX LLP, Brian
D. Schneider, ARENT, FOX LLP & Victoria L. Thomas, UNIVERSITY
LEGAL SERVICES.

DONALD DUPREE, on behalf of themselves and all other similary
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Iris Y. Gonzalez, AARP
FOUNDATION, Jennifer Rachel Lav, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
Lyndsay Ayanna Niles, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Alison L.
Andersen, ARENT, FOX LLP, Brian D. Schneider, ARENT, FOX LLP &
Victoria L. Thomas, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES.

CURTIS WILKERSON, Plaintiff, represented by Iris Y. Gonzalez,
AARP FOUNDATION, Jennifer Rachel Lav, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES,
INC., Lyndsay Ayanna Niles, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
Alison L. Andersen, ARENT, FOX LLP, Brian D. Schneider, ARENT,
FOX LLP & Victoria L. Thomas, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES.

JACQUALYN THORPE, Plaintiff, represented by Iris Y. Gonzalez,
AARP FOUNDATION, Jennifer Rachel Lav, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES,
INC., Lyndsay Ayanna Niles, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
Marjorie Lynn Rifkin, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Alison L.
Andersen, ARENT, FOX LLP, Brian D. Schneider, ARENT, FOX LLP &
Victoria L. Thomas, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a municipal Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Bradford Collins Patrick, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Chad Alan Naso, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Interested Party, represented by Joy
Levin Welan, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


EAGLE ROCK: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Eagle
Rock Energy Partners' "midstream business" too cheaply through an
unfair process to Regency Energy, for $1.27 billion, shareholders
claim in Federal Court in Houston.


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: "Garcia" Plaintiffs May Amend Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sandra Brown Armstrong entered an order approving
a notice of consent to file a first amended complaint and a
stipulation extending defendants' time to respond to an amended
complaint in MIGUEL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS,
INC. d/b/a Zimride, a Missouri corporation, and LYFT INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00596-SBA,
(N.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), Defendants
Lyft, Inc. and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. provided their written
consent for Plaintiff Miguel Garcia to amend his class action
complaint, which will be filed contemporaneously with the Notice.

Furthermore, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(b), the Parties
stipulated that Defendants Lyft, Inc. and Enterprise Holdings,
Inc. will have until April 28, 2014, to file responsive pleadings
to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The extended response time will
not alter any other deadlines set by Court order in the action,
and mirrors the extension the Parties agreed to following the
filing of Plaintiff's original complaint.

A copy of the March 31, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/XsEHXYfrom Leagle.com.

Mark Eisen, EDELSON PC, Los Angeles, California, Jay Edelson
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice), Rafey S. Balabanian (Admitted Pro Hac
Vice), Benjamin S. Thomassen (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), Jack D.
Yamin (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), Chandler R. Givens (Admitted Pro
Hac Vice), EDELSON PC, Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for Plaintiff
and the Putative Classes.

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP, RACHAEL E. MENY, JENNIFER A. HUBER,
MICHELLE S. YBARRA, San Francisco, CA, DEFENDANT ENTERPRISE
HOLDINGS, INC.

CROWELL & MORING LLP, J. Daniel Sharp, San Francisco, CA.


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Dismisses Putative Class of Minors
------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
group of children who accused Facebook of misappropriating their
names and likenesses failed to present "a viable legal theory," a
federal judge ruled.

Though Facebook paid $20 million in Fraley v. Facebook to settle
claims over its "Sponsored Stories" feature in 2012, that deal
didn't appeal to all users.  The class in Fraley covered nearly
125 million users unhappy that Facebook publicized their "likes"
of advertisers, without compensation or a way to opt out.  One
subclass of Fraley included minors, and C.M.D. led a faction of
this group who opted out of the settlement.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco, however,
that the spun-off action fell flat.  "All four claims require
plaintiffs to have a tenable basis for challenging the
enforceability of Facebook's statement of rights and
responsibilities (SRRs) that purport to govern the use of the
Facebook site," the ruling states.  "Because plaintiffs have not
articulated a viable legal theory on which the SRRs could be
found unenforceable, the complaint must be dismissed."

Facebook has contended that it did nothing more than take
information users voluntarily shared with friends and republished
it to the same friends, "sometimes alongside a related
advertisement," according to the ruling.

Ultimately the plaintiffs failed to present facts showing they
suffered any "legally cognizable harm" from the alleged conduct,
Seeborg gound.

The judge declined to credit assertions that "the consent
provisions in the SRRs are legally unenforceable as to the
putative class of minors because they represent a type of
contract into which a minor cannot legally enter under California
Family Code S6701."

Likening the dispute to "garden-variety rights a contracting
party," Seeborg noted that the minors had the power to contract.

"The consent Facebook users give for use of their names and
profile pictures in certain ways on the site simply is not
tantamount to appointing Facebook as an agent for users, or to
delegating to it any power to be exercised on behalf of those
users," the eight-page ruling states.  "While Facebook may obtain
'powers' under the SRRs to utilize the names and pictures in
certain ways, that is no different from garden-variety rights a
contracting party may obtain in a wide variety of contractual
settings.  Plaintiffs have not shown how it would be a delegation
of power within the meaning of the statute.  Rather, Facebook
users have, in effect, simply granted Facebook the right to use
their names in pictures in certain specified situations, in
exchange for whatever benefits they may realize from using the
Facebook site."

As to the plaintiffs seeking relief under Illinois law, where
they originally filed the case, Seeborg said they had effectively
conceded that their claims were dependent on a conclusion that
the service terms were invalid.


FIRST INT'L: Suit Wants Payday Lenders Barred From Info Access
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action wants
First International Bank & Trust and Mutual Omaha Bank prohibited
from allowing illegal payday lenders access to the Automated
Clearing House to collect usurious loans in California.


FLORIDA: Faces "Grimes" Suit Alleging ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Sara Grimes, Individually, and for all similarly situated
individuals v. The State of Florida, Case No. 6:14-cv-00244-JA-
KRS (M.D. Fla., February 12, 2014) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


FORD MOTOR: To Face Suit on Concealing Defective Coolant Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Ford Motor Company must face a class action accusing it of
actively concealing defective coolant pumps in certain hybrid
models from 2005 to 2008.

A federal judge granted the car manufacturer only partial
dismissal on March 28, 2014, in a case brought by three drivers
who say their Ford hybrids shut down in traffic because of a
defective coolant pump.

Plaintiffs Jean MacDonald, Veronica Aguirre and Brian Barbee
bought or leased 2005 to 2008 Ford Escape Hybrids, or 2006 to
2008 Mercury Mariner Hybrid vehicles.  They claim that their
vehicles equipped with the Motor Electronic Cooling System (MECS)
"contain defective coolant pumps that cause the vehicles to
unexpectedly shut down," and that Ford knew of the defect since
at least 2005, but "actively concealed and failed to disclose" it
to consumers.

MacDonald says she was driving her 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid on the
freeway in December 2012 when a safety light came on, and the
vehicle inexplicably shut down.  The hybrid had about 43,000
miles on the odometer.

A Ford dealership ultimately identified a defective MECS coolant
pump and fixed the problem for about $767.

The other lead plaintiffs had similar experiences, with Barbee's
car trouble manifesting after about 47,000 miles.  Aguirre's
happened at 62,000 miles and again at 125,000 miles, forcing two
separate repairs at a cost of more than $1,500.

Ford refused to pay for the repairs, the car owners claim.  They
sued the company in June 2013 for alleged violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Ford moved to dismiss all four counts for failure to state a
claim.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the warranty claims as
time-barred, but allowed the CLRA and UCL claims to proceed.

"Plaintiffs allege a number of facts to support their claim that
Ford was aware of the coolant pump defect," Tigar wrote.  "These
include allegations that Ford had access to pre-production
testing, pre-release testing data, early consumer complaints made
exclusively to Ford, high levels of repair order and warranty
reimbursements, testing conducted in response to complaints,
replacement part sales data and aggregate data from Ford
dealers."

The plaintiffs also cite complaints taken from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration and a 2006 interview with
Ford's Hybrid Electric Vehicle Propulsion System Engineering
Manager Tom Watson.

In the interview, Watson "mentions problems with the coolant
pump, as well as three internal Technical Service Bulletins
detailing problems that Ford had with the coolant pump, one from
2005, before the plaintiffs' purchases, and two others from July
and November 2008, post-dating their purchases," Tigar explained.

He said the specifics provided in the complaint "allow the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged."

"One plausible inference that can be drawn from the three
[bulletins] is that Ford was generally aware of problems with the
coolant pump and that despite this awareness it continued to sell
vehicles containing the defective part," Tigar wrote.

He gave the plaintiffs 14 days to amend their warranty claims.


FORD MOTOR: Removed "Holt" Suit to Western District of Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Holt v. Ford Motor Company, Case
No. CV2012-165-2, was removed from the Miller County Circuit
Court to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas (Texarkana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:14-cv-04030-SOH to the proceeding.

Kevin Holt alleges that the Company's Ford Focus vehicles contain
a suspension defect, manifested from day one off of the assembly
line and existing throughout the vehicle's warranty period and
thereafter which affects the alignment of Class Vehicles and
causes, among other things, uneven and premature tire wear and
handling concerns.  He contends that the uneven and premature
tire results from the contact area of the tire being dragged at
an angle on the road that is different from the vehicle's
intended path.

Ford Motor Company, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Dearborn, Michigan.  The Company is a foreign for-profit
corporation registered to do business in Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Wyly, Esq.
          Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
          WYLY- ROMMEL, PLLC
          4004 Texas Blvd.
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 334-8646
          Facsimile: (903) 334-8645
          E-mail: jwyly@wylyrommel.com
                  srommel@wylyrommel.com

               - and -

          David W. Crowe, Esq.
          John William Arnold, Esq.
          BAILEY CROWE KUGLER L.L.P.
          901 Main Street, Suite 6550
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 231-0555
          Facsimile: (214) 231-0556
          E-mail: jarnold@bcklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edwin L. Lowther, Jr., Esq.
          Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
          200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 371-0808
          Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
          E-mail: elowther@wlj.com
                  gmarts@wlj.com


FREDERICK'S OF HOLLWOOD: To Fund Accord by Second Half of 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick's Of Hollywood Group Inc. expects that funding of
payment of the settlement of Kassandra Harvey-Smith, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Frederick's of
Hollywood Group Inc. et al, Case No. BC497673 will occur in the
second half of fiscal year 2014, according to the company's Dec.
10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 26, 2013.

On December 18, 2012, a former California store employee filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court,
County of Los Angeles, against the Company, Frederick's of
Hollywood, Inc. and Frederick's of Hollywood Stores, Inc.
(Kassandra Harvey-Smith, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. et al,
Case No. BC497673).  The complaint alleges, among other things,
violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination
compensation, various additional wage violations and violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law. The first amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class
certification of the lawsuit (the class being defined as all
California part-time sales associates), unspecified damages,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other
relief as the Court might find just and proper.  The parties
agreed to stay discovery proceedings, engaged in mediation, and
on September 25, 2013, the parties entered into a Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and Release, which was later modified
to change the administrator and the amount.  Without admitting or
denying liability, the Company has agreed to pay a gross
settlement amount of $95,000,000.  The hearing for the Court's
preliminary approval of the settlement has not yet been
scheduled, but is expected to occur within the next 60 to 90
days, after which a final approval hearing date will be set.
After preliminary approval, class members will receive notice of
the settlement and will have an opportunity to elect not to
participate or file objections to the settlement.  The Company
expects that funding of payment of the settlement will occur in
the second half of fiscal year 2014.

The Company also is involved from time to time in litigation
incidental to its business.  The Company believes that the
outcome of such litigation will not have a material adverse
effect on its results of operations or financial condition.


FRONTIER NATURAL: Recalls Organic Black Peppercorns
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Teton County officials are
warning that organic black peppercorns sold at a Jackson grocery
store could be contaminated with salmonella.

County spokeswoman Charlotte Reynolds said on April 8 that
Jackson Whole Grocer has pulled the peppercorns made by Frontier
Natural Products Co-op.  She's asking anyone who bought the
peppercorns in 2.12-ounce jars with a lot number 3288 printed on
the bottom to return the product to the store, which also sold
the peppercorns in bulk.

On April 4, Frontier voluntarily recalled several products
manufactured with the peppercorns.

Salmonella poisoning can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections.


GENERAL MOTORS: Fails to Respond to NHTSA Recall Questions
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a government safety agency is
fining General Motors $7,000 a day, saying the company failed to
fully respond to its requests for information about a faulty
ignition switch by an April 3 deadline.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a
letter to GM that the company already owes $28,000 in fines, and
they will accrue at $7,000 per day until it provides all the
requested information.

In February, the agency began investigating whether GM was slow
to provide information and respond to problems with the switch
that has been linked to at least 13 deaths.  GM has admitted
knowing that the switch was defective at least a decade ago, but
failed to start recalling 2.6 million compact cars worldwide
until this year.

In a two-page letter to GM North America vice president and legal
counsel Lucy Clark Dougherty, NHTSA's chief counsel, O. Kevin
Vincent, said the company frequently stated that it did not
respond to all the agency's requests because of an investigation
being done for GM by former U.S. attorney Anton Valukas.

But Mr. Vincent objected, saying GM's reasoning wasn't valid.
"Mr. Valukas' investigation is irrelevant to GM's legal
obligation to timely respond to the Special Order and fully
cooperate with NHTSA," he wrote.

The fines are a sign of a deepening rift between GM and the
safety agency.  During congressional hearings early this month,
NHTSA Acting Administrator David Friedman blamed GM for a failure
to act sooner to warn consumers about the faulty switches.  Mr.
Friedman testified that GM had information connecting defective
switches to the non-deployment of air bags, but didn't share it
with the agency until last month.

GM said in a statement it has fully cooperated, and will keep
providing responses as soon as they are available.  "We will do
so with a goal of being accurate as well as timely," the
statement said, giving no indication of when GM would fully
comply.  GM said it has produced nearly 21,000 documents totaling
over 271,000 pages.

Mr. Vincent did acknowledge that the safety agency had agreed to
extend the deadline on certain technical questions, but
criticized GM for failing to answer questions that weren't
technical in nature.  He said there were several unanswered
questions about the approval of changes in the suspect ignition
switch.

NHTSA told GM that it was aware of GM's approval of a design
change on April 26, 2007, and the agency asked the company if
there were any other changes.  But Mr. Vincent's letter said GM
did not answer the questions.

"It is deeply troubling that two months after recalling the
vehicles, GM is unwilling or unable to tell NHTSA whether the
design of the switch changed at any other time," Mr. Vincent
wrote.

On March 4, NHTSA demanded from GM pictures, memos, electronic
communications, engineering drawings and other data to answer 107
questions about the recall.  The reply, which must be signed
under oath by a company officer, was due on April 3.

Mr. Vincent's letter says that if GM doesn't fully comply and
hand over the information, the agency could refer the matter to
the Justice Department, which would seek a court order to comply
with the request as well as civil penalties.

GM says the ignition switches can slip from the "run" position to
"accessory" or "off" while the cars are being driven.  If that
happens, drivers lose power-assisted steering and brakes and the
air bags won't inflate in a crash.  In many crashes linked to the
problem, drivers inexplicably lost control of their cars and
veered off the road or into other vehicles.

The vehicles being recalled include: Chevrolet Cobalts and
Pontiac G5s from the 2005 through 2007 model years; Saturn Ion
compacts from 2003 through 2007; and Chevrolet HHR SUVs and
Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky sports cars from 2006 and 2007.
Most of the cars were sold in the United States, Canada and
Mexico.


GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on April 4 disclosed that the
firm filed a class action lawsuit against Global Geophysical
Services, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
Global Series A preferred stock either in or traceable to,
Global's December 3, 2013 registration statement for an
underwritten offering.  The lawsuit seeks remedies under the
federal securities laws.

To join the GGS class action, go to the website at
http://www.bernardmgross.comor call Susan Gross, Esq. or
Debbie Gross, Esq. toll-free at 866-561-3600 or email
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or
jen@bernardmgross.com for information on the class action.  The
lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Civil Action No. 14cv00873.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT.  YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

Less than four months after the offering, on March 25, 2014,
Global filed for bankruptcy protection.  Previously March 17,
2014 Global announced it was restating its annual financial
statements for the years ended December 31 2009, 2010, 2011, and
2012, as well as its quarterly statements for the first three
quarters of 2013.  For the three months ended September 30, 2013,
the most recent quarterly filing, Global announced that it would
restate its financial statements to decrease revenues by $5.0
million.  The restatement indicates that Global's prior financial
statements for these periods were materially inaccurate.  On
March 18, 2014, Global filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, concerning
the restatement. The March 17 and 18 announcements shocked the
market, Global's stock's trading price fell from a close of $1.17
on March 17 to $0.46 on March 18, a decline of $0.71, or 61%,
damaging investors. That same day, the trading price of Global's
preferred stock fell from $16.95 to $4.06, or 76%, damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than May 19, 2014.  If you wish to join the litigation
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact, Susan Gross, Esq. or Debbie Gross, Esq.
toll-free at 866-561-3600 or email susang@bernardmgross.com or
debbie@bernardmgross.com or jen@bernardmgross.com for information
on the class action.  Law Offices Bernard M. Gross represents
investors concentrating its practice in securities class actions
and shareholder derivative litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or rights or interests with respect to
these matters,


GOLF & TENNIS: Faces Consumer Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Reed, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc., a Georgia corporation,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00895-SDW-MCA (D.N.J., February 12, 2014) is a
consumer class action based upon the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The action is brought on behalf of all persons to whom the
Defendant provided an electronically printed receipt at the point
of sale or transaction, in a transaction occurring after June 3,
2008, which receipt displayed the expiration date of the person's
credit or debit card.

Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. is a Georgia corporation, doing
business as PGA Tour Superstore, and conducts business in
Paramus, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 West-Plaza One
          250 Pehle Ave., Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
          E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jack T. Spinella, Esq.
          NICOLL DAVIS & SPINELLA LLP
          95 Route 17 South, Suite 316
          Paramus, NJ 07652
          Telephone: (201) 712-1616
          E-mail: JSpinella@ndslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Debra Marie Albanese, Esq.
          TRAFLET & FABIAN, ESQS.
          264 South Street
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 631-6222
          E-mail: dalbanese@trafletfabian.com


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Hip Implant
--------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Allen & Roger Allen, husband and wife v. Howmedica
Osteonics d/b/a Stryker Orthopaedics, Stryker Corp., Stryker
Sales Corporation and Stryker Ireland Limited, Case No. 0:14-cv-
00374-DWF-FLN (D. Minn., February 12, 2014) is an action for
damages relating to the Defendants' design, research,
development, testing, assembling, manufacturing, packaging,
labeling, preparing, distributing, marketing, advertising,
promoting, supplying, and selling of the defective product sold
under the name "The Rejuvenate(R) System," and the "ABG(TM) II,"
which includes the Rejuvenate(R) Modular Primary Hip System and
ABG(TM)II Modular Femoral Hip Implant System.

The Defendants developed, manufactured, promoted and sold the
Rejuvenate(R) and the ABG(TM) II to be sold and placed into women
and men's hips as a replacement implanted device.  The
Defendants' Hip Stems were placed into the stream of interstate
commerce and were implanted in Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Diamond, Esq.
          D. Greg Sakall, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & OSBORNE
          33 North Stone, Suite 900
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 620-3975
          E-mail: Ddiamond40@aol.com
                  gsakall@aol.com
                  jpeshut@1800theeagle.com


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Groat" Suit Over Hip Implant
--------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Groat, on her own behalf v. Howmedica Osteonics d/b/a
Stryker Orthopaedics, Stryker Corp., Stryker Sales Corporation
and Stryker Ireland Limited, Case No. 0:14-cv-00387-DWF-FLN (D.
Minn., February 12, 2014) is an action for damages relating to
the Defendants' design, research, development, testing,
assembling, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, preparing,
distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, supplying, and
selling of the defective product sold under the name "The
Rejuvenate(R) System," and the "ABG(TM) II," which includes the
Rejuvenate(R) Modular Primary Hip System and ABG(TM)II Modular
Femoral Hip Implant System.

The Defendants developed, manufactured, promoted and sold the
Rejuvenate(R) and the ABG(TM) II to be sold and placed into women
and men's hips as a replacement implanted device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Diamond, Esq.
          D. Greg Sakall, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & OSBORNE
          33 North Stone, Suite 900
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 620-3975
          E-mail: Ddiamond40@aol.com
                  gsakall@aol.com
                  jpeshut@1800theeagle.com


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Whitmore" Suit Over Hip Implant
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth S. Whitmore, on her own behalf v. Howmedica Osteonics
d/b/a Stryker Orthopaedics, Stryker Corp., Stryker Sales
Corporation and Stryker Ireland Limited, Case No. 0:14-cv-00388-
DWF-FLN (D. Minn., February 12, 2014) is an action for damages
relating to the Defendants' design, research, development,
testing, assembling, manufacturing, packaging, labeling,
preparing, distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting,
supplying, and selling of the defective product sold under the
name "The Rejuvenate(R) System," and the "ABG(TM) II," which
includes the Rejuvenate(R) Modular Primary Hip System and
ABG(TM)II Modular Femoral Hip Implant System.

The Defendants developed, manufactured, promoted and sold the
Rejuvenate(R) and the ABG(TM) II to be sold and placed into women
and men's hips as a replacement implanted device.  The
Defendants' Hip Stems were placed into the stream of interstate
commerce and were implanted in Plaintiffs.

A total hip replacement replaces the body's natural joint with an
artificial one, usually made out of metal, plastic, or ceramic.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Diamond, Esq.
          D. Greg Sakall, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & OSBORNE
          33 North Stone, Suite 900
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 620-3975
          E-mail: Ddiamond40@aol.com
                  gsakall@aol.com
                  jpeshut@1800theeagle.com


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces "Alcantar" Suit Over Hip Implant
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angela Marie Chacon Alcantar, on her own behalf v. Howmedica
Osteonics d/b/a Stryker Orthopaedics, Stryker Corp., Stryker
Sales Corporation and Stryker Ireland Limited, Case No. 0:14-cv-
00383-DWF-FLN (D. Minn., February 12, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of selling the defective product sold under the name
"The Rejuvenate(R) System," and the "ABG(TM) II," which includes
the Rejuvenate(R) Modular Primary Hip System and ABG(TM)II
Modular Femoral Hip Implant System.

The Defendants developed, manufactured, promoted and sold the
Rejuvenate(R) and the ABG(TM) II to be sold and placed into women
and men's hips as a replacement implanted device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Diamond, Esq.
          D. Greg Sakall, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & OSBORNE
          33 North Stone, Suite 900
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 620-3975
          E-mail: Ddiamond40@aol.com
                  gsakall@aol.com
                  jpeshut@1800theeagle.com


HY-VEE INC: Sued by Nebraska Consumer of NNW Healthy 100% Whey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Ruhlman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hy-Vee, Inc. and NNW, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00048-
JMG-CRZ (D. Neb., February 12, 2014) is a putative class action
on behalf of consumers, who purchased a whey protein product from
Hy-Vee from 2009 until 2013 called NNW Healthy 100% Whey.

Whey protein is a highly popular product given its ability, among
other things, to aid in building and maintaining muscle mass,
weight management, immune support, and bone health.  The lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants misrepresented the contents of the
Product.

Hy-Vee, Inc. is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of
business in West Des Moines, Iowa.  NNW, LLC is a Nebraska
limited liability company with its principal place of business in
Gretna, Nebraska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Guastello, Esq.
          THE GUASTELLO LAW FIRM, LLC
          4010 Washington, Suite 501
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 753-7171
          Facsimile: (816) 753-7227
          E-mail: david@guastellolaw.com


JERSEY MIKE: Court Denies Class Cert. in "Ryan" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roger T. Benitez granted a motion to deny class
certification in SEAN RYAN, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. JERSEY MIKE'S
FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, a New Jersey corporation; KENNY BROTHERS,
INC., dba JERSEY MIKE'S SUBS, a California corporation; CLUB
TESTING, INC. dba EZ TEXTING INC., a New York corporation; SKYPOP
PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES I
though 50, Defendants, CASE NO. 13 CV-1427-BEN (WVG), (S.D.
Cal.).

Defendants Jersey Mike's Franchise Systems and Kenny Brothers,
Inc. filed the Motion to Deny Class Certification.

According to Judge Benitez, it is apparent that class cannot be
certified in this matter.  The Court has considered Plaintiff's
request to conduct additional discovery and file a motion for
class certification. However, he said, it is apparent from the
facts before the Court that discovery will not yield additional
facts that could change this conclusion, and that Plaintiff
cannot define an appropriate class.  Although the Plaintiff can
pursue such claims in an individual capacity, he cannot serve as
a representative of absent class members, concluded Judge
Benitez.

A copy of the March 27, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/rdkjKTfrom Leagle.com.

Sean Ryan, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M Tomasevic --
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig
McKenzie Nicholas -- cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and
Tomasevic, George Rikos -- George@georgerikoslaw.com -- Law
Offices of George Rikos & Mei-Ying M. Imanaka --
mimanaka@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP.

Jersey Mike's Franchise Systems, a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Douglas Patrick Smith --
dsmith@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & Jason R Dawson --
jdawson@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.

Kenny Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason R Dawson,
Gordon & Rees LLP.

Club Texting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael L. Turrill
-- michael.turrill@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox, LLP.

SkyPop Partners, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Michael Paul Cutler --
mcutler@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli Shughart LLP.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Paying $218 Million to Former BLMIS Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. have agreed to
enter into settlements with the court-appointed trustee for
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC or BLMIS (the
"Trustee") and with plaintiffs representing a class of former
BLMIS customers who lost all or a portion of their principal
investments with BLMIS, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2014,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As part of these settlements, the Firm and the Bank have agreed
to pay the Trustee a total of $325 million in exchange for a
release of all claims relating to or arising from certain
transfers received directly or indirectly from BLMIS. Separately,
the Firm and the Bank have agreed to pay the class action
plaintiffs $218 million, as well as attorneys' fees, in exchange
for a release of all damages claims relating to BLMIS. Pursuant
to the terms of these settlements, both the Trustee and class
settlement amounts will be distributed to victims of the BLMIS
fraud. The settlements with the Trustee and the class action
plaintiffs are subject to court approval.


KIRBY INLAND: Faces Class Action Over March 22 Fuel Oil Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action from
shrimpers and fishermen blames Kirby Inland Marine and Cleopatra
Shipping Agency for the 168,000-gallon March 22 fuel oil spill in
Galveston Bay.


KOLBE AND KOLBE: Accused of Selling Defective Non-Vinyl Windows
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haley and Michael Haley, Leslie Banks and James Hal Banks,
Annie Buinewicz and Brian Buinewicz, Gary Samuels, and Matthew
Deller, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc. and John Doe Insurance
Carrier, Case No. 3:14-cv-00099-bbc (W.D. Wis., February 12,
2014) alleges that Kolbe's non-vinyl window products (including
both allwood and wood and aluminum product lines) are defective,
as they are prone to chronic air and water infiltration following
installation, and as the wood portions of the Windows are
inadequately preserved or protected.

Kolbe is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of
business in Wausau, Wisconsin.  Kolbe designed, manufactured,
warranted, advertised, and sold the alleged defective windows
that were installed on the Plaintiffs' homes and those of
thousands of putative class members in Wisconsin and the United
States.  John Doe is an insurance carrier that issued a general
liability insurance policy to Defendant Kolbe.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dixon R. Gahnz, Esq.
          James A. Olson, Esq.
          LAWTON & CATES, S.C.
          Ten East Doty Street, Suite 400
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 282-6200
          Facsimile: (608) 282-6252
          E-mail: DGahnz@lawtoncates.com
                  jolson@lawtoncates.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0211
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          One South Dearborn, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 212-4383
          Facsimile: (973) 877-3845
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Bonnie J. Prober, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  bprober@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: danielc@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main St., Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Craig S. Davis, Esq.
          Matthew B. Johnson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  csdavis@locklaw.com
                  mbjohnson@locklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gordon Davenport, III, Esq.
          Michael D. Leffel, Esq.
          Matthew D. Lee, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          150 East Gilman Street
          P.O. Box 1497
          Madison, WI 53701-1497
          Telephone: (608) 257-5035
          Facsimile: (608) 258-4258
          E-mail: gdavenport@foley.com
                  mleffel@foley.com
                  mdlee@foley.com


LOUISIANA TANK: Tank Cleaner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rusty Istre v. Louisiana Tank Specialties, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00339-SM-DEK (E.D. La., February 12, 2014) is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and on behalf of individuals, who previously
worked or currently work for Louisiana Tank as tank cleaners and
who were not paid overtime.  The Plaintiff brings individual
claims for unpaid overtime during periods he worked for the
Defendant as a driver and ranch hand.

Louisiana Tank Specialties, LLC, is a Louisiana company that does
business in the Parish of Lafourche, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Judge to Dismiss Luon Pants Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Lululemon Athletica Inc. appeared
poised to defeat a class action lawsuit filed against the company
over a recall of its black Luon pants last year because they were
too sheer.  U.S. Judge Katherine Forrest released a draft
decision on April 4 that proposes the case be dismissed.

The lawsuit by shareholders accused the Vancouver-based athletic-
wear company of failing to disclose the quality defects in its
Luon yoga pants, which resulted partly due to cost cutting.  It
also accused the company of making misleading statements and
omissions that caused its stock price to become artificially
inflated.

However, the draft decision by Judge Forrest says many of the
statements were "simple puffery" by the company and that no
reasonable investor would base decisions on them.

"Statements too general to support a reasonable investor's
reliance are not actionable," Judge Forrest wrote in the draft.

She also agreed with Lululemon that some excerpts cited by the
plaintiffs in the case as false were taken out of context,
including a statement on the company's website that the quality
of its products are the "highest in the industry."

In context, it is unreasonable to read the website statement
regarding 'highest in the industry' as a guarantee of no product
defects," Forrest wrote of one example.

Lululemon took a beating in the wake of the recall last year and
the sudden departures of both chief product officer Sheree
Waterson and chief executive Christine Day.

Shares in the company fell more than 15 per cent after Ms. Day
announced that she was leaving the yoga wear maker in June 2013.

Lululemon blamed the sheerness of their pants on a style change
and production problems.  It later hired a new team to oversee
the manufacturing of the pants.

In court documents, Mr. Forrest also proposed dismissing a second
lawsuit against 13 current or former Lululemon directors or
executives for breaking securities laws.

In that case, the executives and directors including Day and
chairman Chip Wilson are accused of breach of their fiduciary
duty and gross mismanagement.

Mr. Forrest is expected to hold a hearing to review the proposed
decisions before making them final.


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP on April 4
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Montage Technology Group Limited who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between
September 26, 2013 and February 6, 2014, inclusive.

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  Plaintiff seeks to
recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Montage's publicly
traded securities during the Class Period.  If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by April 8, 2014. If
you would like to discuss this action, have any questions
concerning this notice, or your rights or interests, please
contact lead analyst Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- at
619-814-4471.

The complaint charges Montage and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Montage is a global fabless provider of analog and mixed-signal
semiconductor solutions addressing the home entertainment and
cloud computing markets.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations, its business, and its financial results.
As a result of defendants' alleged false statements, Montage's
securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, with its stock price reaching a high of $25.63 per
share on January 17, 2014.  The complaint alleges that while
Montage's stock price was artificially inflated, the Company was
able to complete a follow-on public offering of 5,350,000
ordinary shares at a price of $21 per share.

On February 6, 2014, Gravity Research Group published a report
contending that Montage greatly exaggerated its true financial
performance, asserting that one of Montage's largest
distributors, LQW Technology Company Limited, was a shell company
used to fabricate Montage's financial results.  Additionally, the
report stated that the Company's largest "end" customer was an
undisclosed related party.  As a result of this news, Montage's
stock price fell to as low as $14.51 per share before closing at
$17.45 per share on February 6, 2014, a one day decline of nearly
18% and a decline of nearly 32% from its Class Period high.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholders' rights law firm with offices
in New York, New York and San Diego, California.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits.


MONTICELLO CITY, MN: Sued Over Telecommunications Bond Offerings
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Dean, individually, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. City of Monticello, Minnesota, Case No.
0:14-cv-00376-DWF-JSM (D. Minn., February 12, 2014) arises from
the alleged fraudulent offering and sale on June 19, 2008 of
$26,445,000 in face value of Telecommunications Revenue Bonds
Series 2008 issued by the City.

The Bonds were issued by the City to provide funds to finance the
development, acquisition, construction and installation of a
"fiber to the premises" broadband communications network, which
provides cable television services, Internet access and telephone
services.  The FTTP Project is owned, developed and constructed
by the City.

William Dean is a resident of Bloomington, Minnesota.  He is a
semi-retired consultant, who purchased $30,000 in Bonds in the
original offering and another $20,000 within a month after the
original offering.

The City of Monticello is a political subdivision of the state of
Minnesota.  The City is the issuer of the Bonds and the owner of
the FTTP Project.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Potter, Esq.
          Archana Nath, Esq.
          OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP
          Campbell Mithun Tower, Suite 2000
          222 S. Ninth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 607-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 607-7100
          E-mail: dpotter@oppenheimer.com
                  anath@oppenheimer.com


          Geoffrey H. Coll, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          901 K Street NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 778-6432
          Facsimile: (202) 778-6460
          E-mail: gcoll@schiffhardin.com

          Rick L. Frimmer, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 258-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 258-5600
          E-mail: rfrimmer@schiffhardin.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Clifford M. Greene, Esq.
          Kathryn N. Hibbard, Esq.
          GREENE ESPEL PLLP
          222 S 9th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 373-0830
          Facsimile: (612) 373-0929
          E-mail: cgreene@greeneespel.com
                  khibbard@greeneespel.com


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Manufacturing Supervisor Wants Overtime Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Blas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nature's Bounty, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00948-JFB-WDW
(E.D.N.Y., February 12, 2014) seeks to recover overtime
compensation for the Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-
workers, who are manufacturing supervisors and who have been
employed by the Defendant in New York.

Nature's Bounty, Inc., is a New York domestic business
corporation headquartered in Ronkonkoma, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Cayea, Esq.
          DONALD J. CAYEA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          150 Motor Parkway, Suite 401
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (646) 824-7000
          Facsimile: (646) 417-6800
          E-mail: cayea@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy Laura Ventry-Kagan, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          290 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 293-4525
          Facsimile: (631) 293-4526
          E-mail: aventry@littler.com


NEW JERSEY: Judge Refuses to Enforce Bridgegate Subpoenas
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
New Jersey judge has refused to enforce Bridgegate subpoena
compliance against two top aides to Gov. Chris Christie, finding
their exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege valid.

Mercer County Assignment Judge Mary Jacobson held on April 9 that
the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee on Investigation
cannot compel Christie's former deputy chief of staff,
Bridget Kelly, and his two-time campaign manager, Bill Stepien,
to provide documents that could be used against them in an
ongoing criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

The committee's lawsuits sought declaratory judgments that
Mr. Stepien and Ms. Kelly must comply with the subpoenas.  Judge
Jacobson dismissed both complaints.

Ms. Kelly and Mr. Stepien have been subpoenaed for documents
relating to their role in last fall's closure of local access
lanes to the George Washington Bridge.

Although the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
usually involves answering questions posed by prosecutors,
"courts have long recognized that individuals may also assert the
right in response to a demand for documents," Jacobson said.

She found that both Mr. Stepien and Ms. Kelly were within the
"zone of danger" of possible prosecution.  "The unique facts of
these cases reveal a prospect of a criminal investigation that is
not merely hypothetical," she said, noting that a federal
investigation has been launched concerning the same subject
matter and the federal government is authorized to prosecute
state criminal offenses, such as official misconduct.

"Under these circumstances, it is reasonable for Mr. Stepien and
Ms. Kelly to fear that they currently face the hazard of
prosecution in the concurrent federal investigation," Jacobson
said.

"It is possible that either Mr. Stepien or Ms. Kelly could be
prosecuted for such conduct as a result of the documents
requested by the subpoenas, either as principals or accomplices,"
she added.
Jacobson noted that the subpoenas are "extremely broad" in nature
and that she is in no position to determine whether the documents
could possibly contain incriminating information.

Judge Jacobson further found, contrary to the committee's
contention, that it has the power to offer Ms. Kelly and
Mr. Stepien use and derivative-use immunity from criminal
liability.  She said N.J.S.A. 52:13-3, which provides immunity to
witnesses appearing before legislative committees, applies to
subpoenas for document production, not just to witnesses'
appearances before committees.

Moreover, the 1968 Code of Fair Procedures, N.J.S.A. 52:l3E-l to
-10, allows any legislative committee to grant "to witnesses
appearing before it, or to persons who claim to be adversely
affected by testimony or other evidence adduced before it, such
further rights and privileges as it may determine."

Judge Jacobson said that if the committee offers use and
derivative-use immunity, "Mr. Stepien and Ms. Kelly would have to
comply with the subpoenas in their entirety to avoid being held
in contempt.  [They] would then be immunized from the use of any
produced evidence that is incriminating in any subsequent
prosecution, including any prosecution resulting from the ongoing
federal grand jury investigation."

Reacting to the ruling, Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Middlesex,
the committee co-chair, said, "The committee felt it was very
much in the public interest to seek to compel the production of
these documents, but as we've said before, there's more than one
method to gather information in an investigation, and we will
consider alternatives."

Mr. Stepien's lawyer, Kevin Marino of Chatham's Marino,
Tortorella & Boyle, calls the ruling "vindication" for his
client.  "In its zeal to achieve a blatantly political goal
having nothing to do with Mr. Stepien, the committee disregarded
the fundamental constitutional rights of this innocent man,"
Marino says.  "In the process, it wasted the taxpayers' money --
and the nation's time -- on a frivolous lawsuit to enforce a
clearly invalid subpoena.  That lawsuit has now been properly and
roundly rejected."

Ms. Kelly's lawyer, Michael Critchley, of Critchley, Kinum &
Vazquez in Roseland, says the ruling should deliver a message to
"naysayers" who maintained their invocation of the Fifth
Amendment would not stand.  "I suggest they read Judge Jacobson's
opinion as a free tutorial on what the Fifth Amendment means to
all citizens," he said.


NEXTEL RETAIL: Made Unauthorized Advertising Calls, Class Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Andermann and Anna Andermann v. Nextel Retail Stores, LLC
d/b/a Sprint, Case No. 1:14-cv-01004 (N.D. Ill., February 12,
2014) challenges Sprint's alleged practice of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in furtherance of Sprint's
marketing efforts by making unsolicited and unauthorized
advertising calls to non-customer cellular phones without consent
via an automatic dialing system.

Sprint is a Delaware corporation and maintains its headquarters
in Overland Park, Kansas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          John Auchter, Esq.
          Andrew Charles Murphy, Esq.
          John Robert McInerney, Esq.
          Patrick Doyle Austermuehle, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.
          17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com
                  psl@ditommasolaw.com
                  jauchter@ditommasolaw.com
                  amurphy@ditommasolaw.com
                  jrm@ditommasolaw.com
                  paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Dismisses Ginsberg's Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Northwest Airlines need not face claims that it booted a
rabbi from its frequent-flier program for complaining too much,
the Supreme Court ruled.

Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg had filed a class action against the
airline, which Delta acquired in 2009, after it dismissed him
from the WorldPerks frequent-flier program.  The airline
justified its June 2008 expulsion of the rabbi based on his
supposed "abuse" of frequent-flying perks.

It wrote that the rabbi had complained 24 times in the last six
months about supposed travel problems, including nine incidents
of his bag arriving late at the luggage carousel.

"Since December 3, 2007, you have continually asked for
compensation over and above our guidelines," the letter stated.
"We have awarded you $1,925.00 in travel credit vouchers, 78,500
WorldPerks bonus miles, a voucher extension for your son, and
$491.00 in cash reimbursements. . . . Due to our past generosity,
we must respectfully advise that we will no longer be awarding
you compensation each time you contact us."

Ginsberg claimed that the cancelation of his membership amounted
to breach of contract, bad faith and misrepresentation.  He
sought $5 million in damages, but U.S. District Judge Janis
Sammartino in San Diego dismissed the case, finding that the
Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) pre-empted most of the rabbi's
claims.  The remaining contract claim meanwhile failed under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

A three-judge appellate panel of the 9th Circuit revived the bad-
faith claim in 2011 because it found that the virtues of
deregulation do not trump the common law.

After taking up the case in May 2013, the Supreme Court said
Wednesday that the case had been properly dismissed.

"When the application of the implied covenant depends on state
policy, a breach of implied covenant claim cannot be viewed as
simply an attempt to vindicate the parties' implicit
understanding of the contract," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for
the court.

"For these reasons, the breach of implied covenant claim in this
case cannot stand."

The court declined to go further and "hold that all such claims,
no matter the content of the law of the relevant jurisdiction,
are pre-empted."

"A state's implied covenant rules will escape pre-emption only if
the law of the relevant state permits an airline to contract
around those rules in its frequent flyer program agreement, and
if an airline's agreement is governed by the law of such a state,
the airline can specify that the agreement does not incorporate
the covenant," Alito wrote.  "While the inclusion of such a
provision may impose transaction costs and presumably would not
enhance the attractiveness of the program, an airline can decide
whether the benefits of such a provision are worth the potential
costs."

Ginsberg's attorney, Adina Rosenbaum with Public Citizen,
highlighted this silver lining while complaining how the ruling
"gives airlines greater freedom to act in bad faith in performing
their contracts with consumers, to the detriment of the millions
of consumers."

"Particularly in states in which the covenant of good faith
cannot be waived, consumers will be unable to bring such claims
when airlines breach the covenant in cases concerning prices,
routes and services," Rosenbaum said in a statement.

Alito had emphasized that a free-market economy protects the
rights of consumers, who can always enroll in rival programs that
they deem more favorable.

Ginsberg's breach-of-contract claim alone did not give rise to
pre-emption issues, but the court said it could not consider that
dismissal because the appeal concerned only the bad-faith count.


PATTERSON RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Thilberg and Brian Overly, On behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v. Patterson Restaurant Group, a limited
liability corporation; Patterson Finance Company, a limited
liability corporation, All d/b/a Patterson Cafe; and Michelle C.
Krause, an individual; Michael Patterson, an individual, Case No.
1:14-cv-00139-MRB (S.D. Ohio, February 12, 2014) accused the
Defendants of willfully failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated individuals with minimum wages and overtime
compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Patterson Restaurant Group, LLC and Patterson Finance Company,
LLC are Ohio for-profit domestic limited liability corporations
headquartered in Oxford, Ohio.  The Individual Defendants have
ownership interest in Patterson.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF ANDREW BILLER
          Easton Town Center
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: 614) 583-8107
          E-mail: andrewbilleresq@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Wesley Hawkins, Esq.
          Cori R. Stirling, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          1900 Chemed Center
          255 E 5th Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 977-8200
          Facsimile: (513) 977-8141
          E-mail: michael.hawkins@dinsmore.com
                  cori.stirling@dinsmore.com


PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Illegally Calls Class Members, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Silver, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, dba
FedLoan Servicing, Case No. 3:14-cv-00652-NC (N.D. Cal.,
February 12, 2014) is brought for damages and other remedies
resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in
negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, doing business
as FedLoan Servicing, is a Pennsylvania corporation whose
principal place of business is in the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite 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
          2221 Camino Del Rio S #101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Amended Claim Allowed in "Anderson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
again granted lead plaintiff in Anderson v. Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx) a
leave to file an amended complaint, according to the company's
Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against the
company and certain of the company's executive officers and one
consultant (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of certain
purchasers of the company's common stock. The complaints have
been brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in
general, include allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the interim results of
the company's bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's common
stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.

On November 27, 2012, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed
motions to consolidate, appoint a lead plaintiff and appoint lead
counsel. On February 5, 2013, the court consolidated the related
actions with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson v.
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG
(FMOx)), appointed James T. Fahey as lead plaintiff, and
appointed Mr. Fahey's counsel as lead counsel. The lead plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated complaint on April 15, 2013.

On June 14, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. On July 15, 2013, lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss and separately moved
to strike certain exhibits attached to Defendants' motion. On
August 19, 2013 the court held a hearing on Defendants' motion to
dismiss and on lead plaintiff's motion to strike.

On August 23, 2013, the court issued its order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying lead plaintiff's motion
to strike. In its order, the court gave lead plaintiff leave to
amend his complaint on or before September 16, 2013. On September
16, 2013 lead plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. On
October 3, 2013, Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint.

Briefing on that motion concluded in early November 2013 and, on
November 22, 2013, the court issued an order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The court again
granted lead plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which
was due no later than January 22, 2014.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing Dates to be Set in "Michaeli"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted the
stipulation of parties in Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al.,
C.A. No. 8994-VCL to set a briefing schedule regarding
defendants' response to the complaint, according to Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 31, 2013.

On October 10, 2013, a derivative and class action complaint,
captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL,
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against certain of the company's executive officers and
directors. The complaint alleges that the Company's directors and
executives breached their respective fiduciary duties in
connection with certain purportedly improper compensation
decisions made by the Company's Board of Directors during the
past three fiscal years, including: (i) the grant of a stock
option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-
based stock option grant to the Company's directors, executives,
all other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012;
and (iii) the payment, during the past three fiscal years, of
compensation to the Company's non-employee directors.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking
stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially false
and misleading proxy statement for the Company's 2013 annual
meeting of stockholders.

On December 2, 2013, the Chancery Court granted the parties'
stipulation to set a briefing schedule regarding defendants'
response to the complaint. Pursuant to that order, defendants
were to serve an answer or motion to dismiss the complaint by
January 20, 2014. If defendants move to dismiss the complaint,
then plaintiffs were to file and serve an opposition brief by
February 17, 2014, and defendants were to file and serve their
reply by March 3, 2014.


PERFORMANCE PORTFOLIO: Sued for Violating Debt Collections Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Hicks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Performance Portfolio Management, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-00952-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y., February 12, 2014) is brought
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Mauro, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
          306 McCall Avenue
          West Islip, NY 11795
          Telephone: (631) 669-0921
          Facsimile: (631) 669-5071
          E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


PERRY JOHNSON: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Auditor Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Williams-Bell, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc. and Terry
Boboige, Case No. 1:14-cv-01002 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2014) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and class members, who have
worked for the Defendants as auditors and lead auditors and who
were not paid overtime pay when they worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc. is a full service registrar that
provides registration services to customers in the state of
Illinois and across the country.  Terry Boboige is the president
of PJR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael A. Warner, Jr., Esq.
          FRANCZEK RADELET PC
          300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 786-6118
          E-mail: maw@franczek.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Means" Suit in S.D. Texas Over Lipitor Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon L. Means v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00024 (S.D.
Tex., February 12, 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
statins.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies,
and medical practitioners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Vic Feazell, 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
                  vic@feazell-tighe.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hunter Kirkendoll Ahern, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY BACON LLP
          600 Travis St., Suite 3400
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-8008
          E-mail: hahern@shb.com


REBEKAH BROOKS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In an order issued Monday, March 31, Judge Gardephe of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
claims against Kobre & Kim LLP client Rebekah Brooks, the United
Kingdom-based former Chief Executive Officer of News
International, News Corp., and several other top executives in a
securities class action alleging they defrauded U.S. shareholders
by concealing an extensive hacking scandal.

In particular, Judge Gardephe found that the court lacked
personal jurisdiction over Ms. Brooks, who is from the United
Kingdom, and that there was insufficient evidence to establish
that Brooks knew that her statements would be relied upon by U.S.
investors.

The Court granted plaintiffs until April 30, 2014 to file an
amended complaint.

The case is Wilder vs. News Corporation et al., case number 1:11-
cv-04947, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

                       About Kobre & Kim LLP

Kobre & Kim LLP is a conflict-free international law firm focused
exclusively on litigation, arbitration, and investigations.
Operating out of offices in New York, London, Hong Kong, Cayman
Islands, British Virgin Islands, Miami and Washington DC, Kobre &
Kim LLP is a premier firm for international disputes.

Kobre & Kim LLP -- http://www.kobrekim.com-- maintains one of
the largest U.S. law litigation groups based in London, along
with a substantial conflict-free English litigation and
arbitration practice headed by three English Queen's Counsel.


REVEL AC: Faces Class Action Over Slot Machine Promotion
--------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alston, writing for Law360, reports that Atlantic City,
N.J., casino Revel was hit on April 2 with a putative class
action suit stemming from a slot machine promotion that has been
credited with helping the casino stabilize after emerging from
bankruptcy, but has drawn several lawsuits from players who say
they were defrauded.

Howard Stern of Middletown, N.J., filed suit in New Jersey
federal court April 2, claiming he was drawn to Revel by its "You
Can't Lose" promotion in July 2013, in which advertisements told
gamblers the casino would reimburse them for losses incurred
through slot machine play.

According to the complaint, Revel's promotion sounds simple
enough but was anything but, as the promotion's onerous terms
require players to return to the casino to gamble on a weekly
basis so as not to lose stored credits that were refunded in the
form of free plays, not cash, and parceled out over 20 weeks.

"Although the advertising and marketing of the 'You Can't Lose
Promotion' are very clear, the terms of the offer show the
promotion to be deceptive and a misrepresentation," the complaint
said.

"First, you must lose more than $100 and all losses must be
tracked by the use of a Revel Card during the losses.  Second,
gamblers do not get refunded their losses, they do not receive
cash back for the cash they lost.  They receive a casino loss
refund coupon that may be used towards gambling on slots and
electronic gaming machines again."

Stern said he lost $100 in credits, the promotion's eligibility
threshold, when he failed to return to the casino in a given
week. The putative class would include any player who lost at
least $100 in slot machine play in July 2013, according to the
complaint.

The suit includes counts of breach of contract and violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Truth-in-Consumer Contract
Warranty and Notice Act.  Stern's suit is only the latest filed
over the "You Can't Lose" promotion.

Margaret and Nicholas Peragine of Lake Grove, N.Y. filed suit
against Revel in September in New Jersey federal court, claiming
they too lost money in the promotion after failing to adhere to
its series of complex requirements spelled out in "nearly
unreadable" fine print.

The promotion created a windfall for Revel, which enjoyed a 32
percent increase in slot machine revenue over July 2012, yielding
more than $23 million in July 2013 in slot revenues alone,
according to the Peragines' complaint.  According to reports, the
promotion led to the casino's most successful month since it
opened in April 2012.

After motioning for class certification in September, the
Peragines withdrew their suit, but may refile later in a New York
federal court, according to a Court order.   If moved, it would
join the first action over the slot refund promotion, filed in
August in New York federal court.

Revel emerged from bankruptcy in May 2013, two months after
filing for protection and a week after it secured approvals from
the New Jersey Casino Control Commission and a New Jersey
bankruptcy court on its restructuring plan, which called for
cutting Revel's debt by $1.2 billion through an exchange of debt
for equity.

"We view this as a significant milestone for Revel and now turn
our undivided attention toward growing our casino revenue base
and are singularly focused on attracting guests to the property
through an expanding range of amenities and exciting new
programming," Revel's interim CEO Jeffrey Hartmann said in a
statement after the restructuring was complete.

Mr. Stern is represented by Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz
Goldhamer & Graifman PC and Michael S. Green of Green &
Associates LLC.

Revel is represented by David G. Hille of White & Case LLP.

The case is Howard Stern v. Revel AC Inc., et al., case number
14-cv-02056, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


RHODE ISLAND: Retirees File "Breach of Contract" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Gregg, writing for Providence Journal, reports that
more than four dozen retired state workers and public school
teachers filed a new "breach of contract" lawsuit on April 3, in
which they vehemently object to being lumped into a "class-
action" settlement of the state's pension fight with its public
employees unions.

April 3 was the deadline for the return of ballots in the first-
round of voting on the proposed settlement of the lawsuit that
the unions and other retirees group filed.  Any one of the
24,000-plus ballot that is not returned will be counted as a yes.

The new lawsuit, filed by attorney Sean T.O'Leary, in Superior
Court, begins where the original lawsuits did, by arguing that
retirement benefits -- and annual "cost of living" increases
known as COLAs specifically -- were contractual promises that
state cannot arbitrarily break.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, promissory estoppel and
violations of the due process and contract clauses within the
state Constitution.

Bottom line: "The Plaintiffs have a contractual right to receive
the vested Benefits in existence at the time of their respective
retirements."

"The Plaintiffs' contractual and/or constitutional right(s) to
receive the vested Benefits in existence at the time of their
respective retirements cannot be retroactively decreased or
altered by the State . . . No legitimate public purpose exists
for the State to impair the Plaintiffs' contractually-promised
Benefits, including, without limitation, the COLA."

"A class comprised of all retirees, regardless of the respective
retirees' date of retirement, cannot fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the Plaintiffs, all of whom retired
prior to the enactment" of the 2011 pension law at issue.

More specifically, the retirees argue:

"The state was required to and did promise all of the Plaintiffs,
upon retirement, a three-percent compounded cost-of-living
retirement adjustment . . . for the duration of the Plaintiffs'
respective lives.

"The [COLA] was a direct result of the Plaintiffs' agreement to
forego other benefits and/or substantial compensation . . .
[that] comprised a substantial portion of the respective
Plaintiffs' employment agreements with the State."

The fight centers on proposed cutbacks in benefits in the pension
overhaul approved by the lawmakers in 2011, and specifically the
suspension of these annual COLAs until the retirement system is
80 percent funded, with opportunities for intermittent increases
every 5 years.

The proposed settlement would provide more frequent increases for
retirees, but it would not restore the arrangement in place
before lawmakers -- seeking to curb the exploding taxpayer cost
of public employee pensions -- sought to rein in the size of the
"cost of living increases".

Many, if not most, of these retirees left work when the state
retirement system was still providing retirees with guaranteed
3 percent compounded COLAs every year.

The lawsuit states, "Unless and until the [Employee Retirement
System of Rhode Island] reaches eighty-percent funding, the
Plaintiffs shall receive a COLA only once every five years . . .
[and then] the non-compounded COLAs provided to the Plaintiffs
shall range between zero and four percent . . . [so] irrespective
of the ERSRI's reaching eighty-percent funding, the non-
compounded COLAs provided to the Plaintiffs . . . , will not, in
any event, reach three percent . . . [and] will apply only to the
first $25,000 of the Plaintiffs' respective allowances."

The retirees seek a declaratory judgment that they are not -- and
do not have to be -- a part of the "class action" settlement that
prevents them from pursuing their own legal claims.

They seek a jury trial.

Spokeswomen for Chafee and Raimondo issued this response on
April 3: "Upon initial review there appears to be no new
information in this complaint compared to the previous lawsuits.
We won't be commenting on this pending litigation, and will
continue to work toward completion of the process laid out in the
settlement agreement which is in the interest of all parties."

Raymond Sullivan, spokesman for the plaintiffs in the earlier
lawsuits that led to the proposed settlement, issued this
statement:

"The lawsuit filed April 3 appears to include many of the same
arguments pertaining to changes made to the state-administered
pension system that were asserted by the original plaintiff group
of unions and retiree coalitions.

"The terms in the settlement agreement are not perfect, but they
are tangible, predictable and immediate.  While we continue to
believe in the fundamental strength of our legal argument, a
successful outcome cannot be guaranteed.

"If this settlement agreement is not approved, the litigation
will continue.  If the litigation is unsuccessful, any member
benefit changes or improvements achieved through the mediation
process would, in all likelihood, be negated -- and that's a
reality no member or retiree should be forced to live with.

"The plaintiff organizations have a responsibility to act in the
best interests of their members and assert that this settlement
agreement gives impacted families and individuals an opportunity
to plan for the future."


RUBINA SHAH: 7-Eleven Owners Sued by Clerks Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ehsan Ullah, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated  v. Rubina Shah and Arshad Aijaz, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00947-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y., February 12, 2014) seeks to recover
overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and his similarly
situated co-workers, who are or were clerks and who have been
employed by the Defendants in New York.

The Defendants are owners and operators of 7-Eleven Store #25520B
located in Huntington Station, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Cayea, Esq.
          DONALD J. CAYEA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          150 Motor Parkway, Suite 401
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (646) 824-7000
          E-mail: cayea@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nadia M. Pervez, Esq.
          PERVEZ LAW
          68 South Service, Suite 100
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 427-0700
          Facsimile: (631) 824-9020
          E-mail: npervez@pervezlaw.com


SEQWATER: Maurice Blackburn to File Flood Class Action in NSW
-------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Viellaris, writing for The Australian, reports that
Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie has said it is too hard to launch
class actions in Queensland, and that it is now time to
"rebalance the scales of justice back in favor of victims".

But his plans to remove the barriers to group litigation will be
not be in place before victims sue the government for over the
2011 floods.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn is representing 3200 clients impacted
by the 2011 floods and will in weeks file a class action -- in
NSW.  The law firm on April 4 refused to reveal how much it was
seeking from Seqwater, Sunwater and the State of Queensland for
failing to operate the dams competently.

The Courier-Mail can reveal that the Bar Association of
Queensland wrote to Mr Bleijie in January to outline
"deficiencies" in the law and the need for reform.  Class actions
generally have seven or more plaintiffs.  Queensland has no
similar provisions compared with other jurisdictions that allow
class actions.

Mr. Bleijie said: "We made a commitment to Queenslanders during
the election that we would rebalance the scales of justice back
in favor of victims.

"Under the state's current legislation and uniform civil
procedure rules, it's very difficult, almost impossible to launch
a class action in Queensland.

"If a group of Queenslanders feel that they have been wronged,
why can't they launch legal action in their own state? I think
that's a fair question to ask.

"Right now, they have to make claims in other states . . . which
means they have to either watch from afar or spend even more
money on travel.  That doesn't seem right."

The Queensland Bar Association's vice-president, Shane Doyle QC,
stated: "There is a degree of urgency in these steps being
undertaken if possible to avoid the likelihood of significant
numbers of Queensland plaintiffs being compelled to litigate
their disputes interstate."


SILVER STATE: Faces Class Action Over Misrepresentation
-------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that thousands of Nevada residents have paid for insurance
policies under the state's health exchange but still lack
coverage due to problems with the online system, according to a
class action in state court.

More than 10,000 Nevadans "have paid for health insurance through
Nevada Health Link, yet either do not have health insurance
coverage to date, or received a coverage effective date different
than that for which they paid," according to the lawsuit in Clark
County Court.

Lead plaintiff Lawrence Basich sued Nevada ex rel. Silver State
Health Insurance Exchange and Xerox State Healthcare after he was
denied coverage for his triple bypass surgery, despite having
paid his health insurance premiums.  He alleges negligence,
negligence misrepresentation, conversion, and violations of
Nevada Revised Statutes.

The state established the exchange to facilitate purchase and
sale of qualified health plans to individuals and small
businesses, reduce the number of uninsured people in Nevada, and
provide a transparent marketplace for consumer education on
health insurance.

Xerox was awarded a $75 million contract to build and operate
Nevada Health Link, the exchange's website, through which
Nevadans can compare and buy health insurance plans.

However, "the exchange and Xerox have utterly failed to create a
system that works as advertised, and as a result, thousands of
Nevadans remain uninsured despite payment of insurance premiums,"
the complaint states.

Basich says he started his application for health insurance
through Nevada Health Link in Oct. 1, 2013, but numerous errors
and problems with the website prevented him from completing the
process immediately.

In November, Basich says, he selected Health Plan of Nevada as
his provider and chose and paid for a plan with an effective date
of Jan. 1, 2014.

Basich suffered a heart attack on Dec. 31 and underwent triple
bypass surgery on Jan. 3.  He was treated on and off at the
hospital until Jan. 24 and had to attend numerous follow-ups,
racking up $400,000 in medical bills, he says.

"Despite selecting Health Plan of Nevada as his insurance
carrier, and despite timely payment of his health insurance
premiums through Nevada Health Link, Basich was denied health
insurance coverage from January 1, 2014 through February 28,
2014," according to the complaint.

Xerox and the exchange allegedly failed to submit Basich's
application and premium to Health Plan of Nevada, leaving him
without coverage.

Basich claims that thousands of other Nevadans may be in similar
circumstances based on Xerox's and the exchange's failure to
process applications and premiums, to ensure that those who
applied were provided with health insurance.

Basich and co-plaintiff Lea Swartley seek actual and punitive
damages.

They are represented by Matthew Callister --
jclv@mattcallister.com -- with Callister, Immerman & Associates.

The Nevada Health Link website was offline early.  A note on the
site stated that the "system is currently down.  We apologize for
any inconvenience."


SOLID WASTE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony McKinney, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, 315 West Poplar Street, Apt. A, Norristown, PA 19401;
William Millsip, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, 2709 Cranston Road, Philadelphia, PA 19131; Gregory
Pharr, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, 1908
South Crosky, Philadelphia, PA 19145; and Derrick Trawick, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, 19 South 54th
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19139 v. Solid Waste Services, Inc.
d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons, Inc., 2650 Audubon Road, Audubon, PA
19403; and John Does 1-10 c/o Solid Waste Services, Inc. d/b/a
J.P. Mascaro & Sons, Inc., 2650 Audubon Road, Audubon, PA 19403,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00927-WY (E.D. Pa., February 12, 2014) is an
individual and collective action for unpaid overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs minimum wage and proper overtime compensation, and
failed to implement a system to track the number of hours worked
each workweek, in violation of the FLSA and Pennsylvania Wage
Laws.

Solid Waste Services, Inc., doing business as Mascaro & Sons,
Inc., is an entity operating a trash and recycling business.  The
Doe Defendants are presently unknown persons.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Ste. 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Accused of Illegally Calling Class Members
------------------------------------------------------------
Suresh Bazaj, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Credit Systems L.P., Case No. 3:14-cv-
00670-EDL (N.D. Cal., February 12, 2014) accuses the Company of
negligently contacting the Plaintiff and the class on their
cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Southwest Credit Systems L.P. is a consumer debt recovery
business entity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Drive, Suite 415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


SUPERIOR PHARMACY: Faces Insurance-Related Claims in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland Casualty Company, a Maryland corporation v. Superior
Pharmacy LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Florida First
Financial Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, individually and as
the purported representative of a class of similarly situated
persons; Ike C. Okeke; Yvonne Okeke; Hilda Anadiume; and Old
Dominion Insurance Company, a Florida corporation, Case No. 8:14-
cv-00375-SDM-TBM (M.D. Fla., February 12, 2014) asserts
insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley S. Fischer, Esq.
          Perry R. Goodman, Esq.
          LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          200 SW 1st Ave., Suite 910
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 728-1280
          Facsimile: (954) 728-1282
          E-mail: fischer@lbbslaw.com
                  perry.goodman@lewisbrisbois.com


SWATCH GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Reed and Michael Asta, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. The Swatch Group (Us) Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00896-ES-MAH (D.N.J.,
February 12, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
          COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLC
          Park 80 West-Plaza One
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddlebrook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
          E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert H. Solomon, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400
          E-mail: rsolomon@nagelrice.com


TACO & BURRITO: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Segundo Tamay, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
persons v. Taco & Burrito House #4, Inc., and Fermin Salinas,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00971 (N.D. Ill., February 12,
2014) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff federal- and state-mandated minimum wages and overtime
wages for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants have operated a restaurant and have done business
as Taco & Burrito House in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yolanda Carrillo, Esq.
          Lydia Colunga-Merchant, Esq.
          WORKING HANDS LEGAL CLINIC
          401 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 795-9115
          E-mail: ycarrillo@workers-law.org
                  lcolungamerchant@workinghandslegalclinic.org

               - and -

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          401 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121
          Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
          E-mail: cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Bielory" Suit Transferred to Lafayette
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Bielory, et al. v Takeda Pharmaceuticals
USA Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-0236, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Alexandria Division to Lafayette Division.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-00236-RFD-PJH to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that as result of using the Defendants'
ACTOS product, Plaintiff Abraham M. Bielory was diagnosed with
bladder cancer in December 2012.  He was prescribed ACTOS for
type II diabetes in April 2011.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation
headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul D. Rheingold, Esq.
          RHEINGOLD, VALET, RHEINGOLD McCARTNEY & GIUFFRA LLP
          113 East 37th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 684-1880
          Facsimile: (212) 689-8156
          E-mail: prheingold@rheingoldlaw.com


TILLY'S INC: Court Disallows Amendment in Suit v. World of Jeans
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, struck an
amendment to a suit filed by plaintiffs Kristin Christiansen and
Shellie Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated against World of Jeans & Tops, according to Tilly's
Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013.

On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this matter filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging
violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which
prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification
information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card
and recording such information, subject to exceptions. In June
2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike portions
of the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to
amend. Plaintiffs amended to add a new named plaintiff, which the
Court struck on the Company's motion. The Company has denied the
allegations of the complaint and intends to defend this case
vigorously.


TILLY'S INC: Pursues Motion to Compel Arbitration in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. appealed the denial of the motion to compel
arbitration in a suit filed by Maria Rebolledo individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public vs. Tilly's, Inc.; World of Jeans & Tops in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case
No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-CXC, according to Tilly's Inc.'s Dec.
10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this matter filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest
break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among
other things. An amended complaint was filed on February 28,
2013, to include enforcement of California's private attorney
general act. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages
and penalties. In April 2013, the Company filed a motion to
compel arbitration, which was denied in May 2013. The Company has
appealed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The
Company intends to defend this case vigorously.


TILLY'S INC: Settles Suit Over Gift Card Redemption Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. entered into a settlement of the litigation Deborah
Lyddy v. World of Jeans & Tops and Tilly's, Inc. filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (37-2011-
00098812-CU-BT-CTL), according to the company's Dec. 10, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In October 2011, plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company alleging various causes of action based on
its California gift card redemption policies. In October 2013,
the Company entered into a settlement of the litigation that
included, among other things, a payment to the plaintiff.


TRIPLE LEAF: Faces Class Action Over "Senna Diet Products"
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Triple Leaf Tea's mislabeled
"Senna Diet Products" are laxatives that do not help with weight
loss but cause severe intestinal cramps, a class action claims in
Federal Court in San Francisco.


TSM PROPERTIES: Cooks and Others Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ildefonso Vara, Sandra Estrada, Yazmin Nava, Mario Espinoza,
Gilberto Ramirez, Ricarda Nava and Jose Vara, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TSM Properties,
LLC d/b/a Costa Vida LT, Disciple Foods, LLC, Costa Vida-Lone
Tree, LC, Costa Vida-Lone Tree, LLC and Spencer Bowen, Case No.
1:14-cv-00390-BNB (D. Colo., February 12, 2014) is brought as a
collective action for unpaid wages.  The Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated are or were employed as prep cooks, line
cooks, tortilla-makers, cashiers, dishwashers and managers in the
Defendants' Mexican restaurants.

TSM Properties, LLC, doing business as Costa Vida LT, is a
registered foreign limited liability company doing business in
Lone Tree, Colorado.  Disciple Foods, LLC is a registered
Colorado limited liability company doing business in Englewood,
Colorado.  Defendant Costa Vida-Lone Tree, LC is a registered
foreign limited liability company doing business in Lone Tree,
Colorado.  Costa Vida-Lone Tree, LLC is a registered Colorado
limited liability company doing business in Lone Tree, Colorado.
Spencer Bowen is the owner and operator of the Costa Vida
restaurants operating in Lone Tree and Englewood.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
          595 Canyon Boulevard
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 440-8780
          Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Keith Townsend, Esq.
          Scott DuWayne Kumpf, Esq.
          KUMPF, CHARSLEY & HANSEN, LLC
          9635 Maroon Circle, Suite 230
          Englewood, CO 80112
          Telephone: (720) 473-8000
          Facsimile: (866) 557-1561
          E-mail: jtownsend@kch-law.com
                  scott@kch-law.com


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Will Not Face Shareholder Claims, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a maker of broadband wireless devices plagued by a massive
counterfeiting operation need not face shareholder claims, a
federal judge ruled.

Steven Bell hoped to represent a class in San Francisco after
shares in Ubiquiti Networks plummeted when it acknowledged in May
2012 that a former distributor, Kozumi USA Corp., "had stolen
source codes and proprietary designs for the company's popular
and profitable AirMax line of products and was engaged in a
scheme to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Ubiquiti
products in South America and other emerging markets in direct
competition with the company."

Ubiquiti won a permanent injunction against Kozumi this past
October, with Ubiquiti CFO John Ritchie telling the court that
the knockoffs caused an 88 percent decline of sales for Argentina
between the second and third quarters of 2012.

Bell meanwhile claimed that Ubiquiti had filed "false and
misleading" statements with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, despite its knowledge of the "widespread" knockoff
problem.

He said Ubiquiti had characterized the counterfeiting scheme as a
"mere potential risk or contingency" in its registration
statement, though it knew that the counterfeiting scheme was an
actual and growing problem.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the
complaint last week, however, after finding that the registration
statement did elaborate on the scheme and revealed the potential
for future problems.

"The difficulty with this position, as defendants point out, is
that the registration statement divulges that Ubiquiti had, at
the time of the registration statement, 'found and expect[ed] in
the future to find counterfeit goods in the marketplace being
sold as Ubiquiti products,'" the March 26 opinion states.

Shareholders may amend their claims, however, that Ubiquiti CEO
Robert Pera was misleading in a Jan. 31, 2012 statement.

"With respect to Pera's representation of Jan. 31, 2012,
regarding consistent results that 'drove the upside' in 2Q12,
plaintiffs adequately plead material misstatement because it is
plausible that a reasonable listener could interpret Pera's
statement to mean that sales orders in Argentina had remained
consistent between 1Q12 and 2Q12 when, plaintiffs allege, they in
fact had dropped," Rogers wrote.  "However, the court ultimately
concludes that plaintiffs fail to plead that Pera made the
accused statement with scienter."

Plaintiffs have until April 21 to file a second amended
complaint.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit in Los Angeles Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that lacking any in-network
urgent-care clinics in California, United Healthcare Services
Inc. forces its insurers to go out of network and incur a higher
co-pay, a class claims in Los Angeles Superior Court Central
District.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Final Approval Granted in Antitrust Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York
granted final approval of the settlement in Precision Associates,
Inc., et. al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et.
al.), according to UTi Worldwide Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

The Company (along with numerous other global logistics
providers) was named as a defendant in a federal antitrust class
action lawsuit filed on January 3, 2008 in the U.S. District
Court of the Eastern District of New York (Precision Associates,
Inc., et. al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et.
al.). Following a hearing on August 9, 2013, in which no one
opposed the Company's settlement, the Court granted final
approval of the settlement with the Company as well as
settlements with nine other logistics providers, which settlement
resolved the entire portion of the lawsuit against the Company.


VIACOM INC: Former MTV Intern's Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Couch, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that a
former MTV intern's proposed class action lawsuit against the
network and parent company Viacom will move forward, with the
company's interns from the previous three years eligible to join.

United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled on April 4
that Casey O'Jeda has demonstrated that he and the company's
other unpaid interns may have been victims of policies that
violated labor laws.

In a January filing, Mr. O'Jeda had sought back pay for himself
and other Viacom and MTV interns who had worked from August 2007
to the present.  But Judge Furman's ruling said only interns who
had worked in the program in the previous three years would be
eligible to join the lawsuit.

Mr. O'Jeda says he held a position as an unpaid intern at MTV
from September 2011 to January 2012, working on the network's
mobile website.  He claims MTV practices violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York labor laws.


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Dismisses Suit on Misleading Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James I. Cohn issued a 12-page order dismissing
the case, ADAM KARHU, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
d/b/a VPX SPORTS, Defendant, Case No. 13-60768-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
(S.D. Fla.).

On March 18, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff Adam Karhu to show
cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.  The Court has considered Karhu's
Response to Order to Show Cause and Defendant's Response to
Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause.

In his March 27 Order, the Court determines that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over Karhu's claims in light of its
recent denial of class certification, and accordingly will
dismiss this action without prejudice.

Vital Pharmaceuticals is a Florida corporation that manufactures
and markets a dietary supplement called VPX Meltdown Fat
Incinerator.  VPX advertises that consumers can use Meltdown to
"burn fat" and achieve rapid fat loss.

Karhu, a New York resident who purchased Meltdown, claims that
the product is ineffective for its advertised purpose.  On April
3, 2013, Karhu filed this lawsuit to recover damages based upon
VPX's alleged false advertisements, and to enjoin any further
misrepresentations.  In the operative pleading, Karhu asserts the
following claims: (1) breach of express warranty under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301, et
seq.; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; (4)
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Fla. Stat. Sec. 501.201, et seq.; and (5) violation of New
York General Business Law Sec. 349.

Karhu styled his case as a class action, purporting to sue on
behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased Meltdown
for purposes other than resale since April 4, 2008.  On March 3,
2014, however, the Court denied Karhu's Motion for Class
Certification.  Karhu now maintains this suit only in his
individual capacity, asserting his various claims to recover
amounts he overpaid when he purchased a bottle of Meltdown for
$23.34, and still seeking the attendant injunctive relief.


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Tosses Class Action Dismissal Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The City Wire reports that accusations of gender bias have
followed Wal-Mart Stores for years culminating in the 2011 class
action lawsuit -- Dukes versus Wal-Mart Stores.  After several
years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court decertified the Dukes
class of 1.5 million women in June 2011.

"Every one of the five regional class action claims filed
following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dukes have failed to
move forward." said Wal-Mart corporate spokesman Randy Hargrove.

The most recent of those class denials was handed down by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit -- Love versus
Wal-Mart Stores.  The Florida appeals court, "has denied the
plaintiffs' petition for an interlocutory appeal of the district
court's dismissal of the class claims.  We've said all along that
if someone believes they've been treated unfairly, they deserve
to have their timely, individual claims heard in court," Mr.
Hargrove said.

Another claimant, Stephanie Odle, of Norman, Okla., got court
approval to proceed with her individual case against the retail
giant.  The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on March 31
allows this case to move forward.

Ms. Odle told The Dallas Morning News following the March 31
decision that this has been a 15-year battle.  Her lawsuit claims
that she was unjustly fired and replaces by a man, who wanted to
transfer into her position while working at Sam's Club in
Lubbock, Texas.

Wal-Mart moved to dismiss Ms. Odle's case, on the basis that time
had lapsed beyond limits in the law.  The U.S. District Court in
Dallas granted Wal-Mart's motion and dismissed Ms. Odle's claim.
But, Ms. Odle appealed, and on March 31, the appeals court said
the district court should rehear her case.

Mr. Hargrove said the appeals court decision a procedural step
that allows the case to go forward on an individual basis.

"'We've said all along that if someone believes they've been
treated unfairly, they deserve to have their individual claims
heard in court.  The allegations in this case just don't match
the positive experiences that hundreds of thousands of women have
had working at Walmart."

He said Wal-Mart has a strong policy against discrimination, and
is are proud of the opportunities it provides for women to work
and advance.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Pomerantz Firm Files Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 4 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
thereunder.

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
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

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 effective."

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.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz,
known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm
pioneered the field of securities class actions.


YUHE INT'L: June 9 Fairness Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by GOLD BENNETT CERA &
SIDENER LLP pursuant to an Order of the United States District
Court, Central District of California:

JEFF FEYKO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiff,
            v.

YUHE INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
                                     Defendants

Case No.: 11-cv-05511-DDP (PJWx)



Ad PARTNERS LP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
      v.
RODMAN & RENSHAW, LLC, et al.,
                                     Defendants.



ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,
                Cross-Claimants,
      v.
CHILD, VAN WAGONER & BRADSHAW, PLLC, et al.,
                          Cross-Defendants.


SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT
FAIRNESS HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:       ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK
OF YUHE INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("YUHE") DURING THE PERIOD FROM
DECEMBER 31, 2009 THROUGH JUNE 17, 2011 AND WHO WERE DAMAGED
THEREBY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED (1) that the above-captioned action has
been certified as a class action for purposes of a proposed
settlement on behalf of the Class identified above, except for
certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by
definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, and (2) that Lead Plaintiff aAd Partners LP and
defendants Yuhe International, Inc., Zhentao Gao, Jiang Yingjun,
Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw, PLLC, Roth Capital Partners, LLC,
Brean Murray, Carret & Co., LLC, and Global Hunter Securities,
LLC have entered into a proposed settlement for U.S. $2,700,000
in cash.  If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in
the Action.

A hearing will be held on June 9, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, 312 North Spring Street,
Courtroom 3, Los Angeles, CA 90012, to determine whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of Lead
Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses.  The Court may change the date of the hearing without
providing additional notice to Class Members.

IF YOU ACQUIRED YUHE COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM
DECEMBER 31, 2009 THROUGH JUNE 17, 2011, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN
THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS.

If you are a member of the Class in order to be eligible to share
in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, you
must submit a Proof of Claim Form no later than July 31, 2014.
You will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action whether
or not you submit a Claim Form.  If you have not received the
Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement,
Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses or Claim Form, you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting:  Feyko v. Yuhe
International, Inc., c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O. Box 5100,
Larkspur, CA 94977-5100, or toll-free at 1-877-266-0916.  Copies
of the Notice and Claim Form may also be downloaded from:
www.yuhesecuritiessettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Notice, may also
be made to Lead Counsel:

          Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP
          Solomon B. Cera, Esq. or Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          scera@gbcslaw.com or pmarkert@gbcslaw.com

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must file a
request for exclusion by May 19, 2014, in the manner and form set
forth in the Notice.  All members of the Class who do not request
exclusion will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or
Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of litigation expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered
to counsel for the parties no later than May 19, 2014, at the
addresses provided in, and in the manner and form set forth in
the Notice.

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

Dated March 10, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


                             *********

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  * * *