---

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

             Monday, February 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 23


                             Headlines

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ADVANCE BUREAU: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
APPLE INC: Suit Over Defective Logic Boards in Macbooks Dismissed
APPLE INC: Suit Over Use of Location Device on iPhones Dismissed
ASPLUNDH TREE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging FCRA Violations

AVNET INC: Received $3.0 Million in LCD Class Action Settlement
B&M INC: Recalls HT Traders Seasoning Blends Due to Peanuts
B&M INC: Recalls Target Archer Seasoning Blends Due to Peanuts
BARCLAYS BANK: Judge Tosses Antitrust Claims in Libor Class Suit
BEAR NAKED: Faces Class Action Over Real Nut "Natural" Labeling

BEATS ELECTRONICS: Accused of Copyright Infringement in Calif.
BP PLC: Seeks Lower Civil Penalty in Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
CALIFORNIA: Judge Certifies Class of Judges in Salary Suit
CAREMARK PHC: Removes "Dimauro" Suit to Northern District of Ohio
CARNIVAL CRUISE: Deceptively Created Fees and Charges, Suit Says

CITIBANK NA: Wins Dismissal of Class Actions by Filed Homeowners
CLASSIC COOKING: Recalls Garden Lites(R) Products Due to Peanuts
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
COMCAST CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Credit Checks
COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

CON YEAGER: Recalls Multiple Cumin Brands Due to Peanuts
CONDIES FOODS: Recalls Bold and Zesty & Dr. J's Salsa Brands
COVIDIEN PLC: Agreement Reached in Consolidated Shareholder Suit
COVIDIEN PLC: Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motion Denied
DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Class Action

DES MOINES, IA: Lawyers to Seek State Supreme Court Review
FRANKLIN FARMS: Recalls Chili-Bean Veggiburgers Due to Peanuts
FTS INT'L: "Agnew" Class Suit Transferred From W.D. to N.D. Texas
GFI GROUP: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
GILSTER-MARY LEE: Recalls Market Pantry Ready to Eat Cereals

GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Propose $415-Mil. "No-Poach" Settlement
H-E-B: Recalls White Corn Tortilla Due to Foreign Material
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Schaefer" Suit to S.D. Illinois
HJ HEINZ: Osem Warns About Ketchup Product Labeling
HOOTERS OF TRUSSVILLE: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violation

HOSPIRA INC: Recalls 250 mL 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection
IC SYSTEM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
INVENTURE FOODS: Recalls Rader Farms(R) Fresh Start Blends
ISC INC: Accused by SEC of Operating "Ponzi Scheme"
JJ FUDS: Recalls Multiple Chicken Tender Chunks Pet Food

LABOSMILE USA: Sued in N.J. for Violating Communications Act
LOWE'S HOME: Court Approves $6.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
MANHEIM INVESTMENTS: Latest Remand Order in "Ibarra" Suit Vacated
MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Jones" Suit to Tennessee District Court
MORGAN KEEGAN: Settles Investor Class Action Over Sweetener Plant

NAC FOODS: Recalls Ground Cumin Due to Undeclared Peanuts
NASON MEDICAL: OT Suit Granted Conditional Class Action Status
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Denies Consolidation of Sex Bias Suits
NATIONWIDE LIFE: March 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NAVISTAR INC: SCMI Class Suit Included in MaxxForce Engines MDL

NORTHERN TIER: Recalls Twix Bismarck Doughnuts Due to Peanuts
OAKLAND, CA: Occupy Protesters Win Prelim. OK of $1.3-Mil. Deal
OHIO CITY PASTA: Recalls Mislabeled Cheese Pasta Products
OLIVET NAZARENE: Ex-Football Player Sues Over Brain Injuries
OMA'S PRIDE: Recalls Purr-Complete Feline Poultry Meal

OMEGA REFINING: Dumped Toxins Into Mississippi River, Suit Says
OPTIVER US: May 19 NYMEX Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PACIFIC PREMIER: Says $1.7MM Accrual Made in Baker Class Action
PENNSYLVANIA: Sued by Inmates Over "One Good Eye" Policy
PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Second Class Action Over Medicaid Overhaul

PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Flushable Wipes
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive IPO
SHAMROCK TOWING: Settles Class Action Over Illegal Towing Fees

SIGNAL INT'L: Trial in Suit Alleging Human Trafficking Begins
SONY PICTURES: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Data Breach Cases
ST. LOUIS, MO: High Court Set to Rule on Red Light Camera Suit
STARK & STARK: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
SYNGENTA AG: Faces Kaffenbarger Suit Over Trademark Infringement

SYNGENTA AG: Faces "Hahn" Suit Alleging Trademark Infringement
SYNGENTA AG: Faces Winslow Suit Alleging Trademark Infringement
SYNGENTA AG: Class Action Over GMO Corn Seed Ongoing
TARRIER FOODS: Recalls 316 Chopped Twix Cases Due to Peanuts
TEL AVIV, ISRAEL: Class Action Prompts Enforcement of Smoking Ban

TERMINIX INT'L: Removes "Eubank" Class Suit to S.D. California
TILLY'S INC: Removes "Ortiz" Suit to California District Court
TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Allows Punitive Damages in Acceleration Suit
TRUMP PLAZA: Removes "Agudelo" Suit to Florida District Court
UNITED STATES: Sued by Refugee Kids Over Illegal Detention Policy

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA: Men's Hockey Team Launches Class Action
US BANK: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Loan Insurance
VOLCANO CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Royal, Suit Claims
WARNER BROS: Accused of Firing Worker Seeking Disability Deals
XOOM CORP: Investors Blame $30.8 Million Fraud on Poor Controls

* Class Action Lawsuit Scams Prevalent, Group Says
* Minnesota May Emerge as Venue of Choice for Data Breach Suits


                            *********


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yitzchok Stern, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00331 (E.D.N.Y., January 21, 2015) is brought over
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


ADVANCE BUREAU: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randolph Jones, Jr., individually and for all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Bureau of Collections LLP d/b/a Advance
Bureau of Collections, Kenneth M. French, Evelyn T. Trimble, David
J. Aldrich, Lee Ann Barrett, Mia H. Ferruzzo-Obrien and T Patat,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00016-MTT (M.D. Ga., January 21, 2015) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David F. Addleton, Esq.
          PO Box 416
          Macon, GA 31202
          Telephone: (404) 797-7166
          E-mail: dfaddleton@gmail.com

               - and -

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          650 Oglethorpe Ave., Suite 6
          Athens, GA 30606
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          Steven H. Koval, Esq.
          Building 15, Suite 1020
          3575 Piedmont Rd
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 513-6651
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


APPLE INC: Suit Over Defective Logic Boards in Macbooks Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class of consumers can't prove Apple knowingly sold
defective logic boards in its MacBooks, reports Philip A. Janquart
at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed a putative class
action that claimed Apple CEO Tim Cook knew about the defective
logic boards in 2011 but failed to act, "willfully and
intentionally" concealing the defects despite complaints received
through online customer reviews.

Lead plaintiffs Uriel Marcus and Benedict Verceles filed the class
action in May 2014 in the Southern District of Texas, alleging
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law; the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act; the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act; and claims of fraud under Texas common law, breach
of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and breach
of implied warranty of merchantability.

Apple made an unopposed motion for change of venue, then re-filed
its motion to dismiss in California's Northern District.

Alsup granted the motion on all claims on Jan. 8, finding that the
plaintiffs were unable provide any support for their claims.

"Plaintiffs provide no other specific facts as to Apple's alleged
violation of the . . . statutes," Alsup wrote in a 16-page order.
"Merely naming the statutes is insufficient.  The complaint
therefore does not state with required particularity how Apple's
alleged conduct was unlawful."

Alsup said the plaintiffs were unable to show that Apple's logic
boards were "unfit" for their intended purpose.

"Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Apple's logic boards were
unfit for their ordinary purposes or lacked a minimal level of
quality," Alsup ruled.  "Both plaintiffs were able to adequately
use their computers for approximately 18 months and two years,
respectively."

Finally, Alsup said they failed to show that Apple misrepresented
the performance and technical innovations of its MacBook.

"The only averment stating that plaintiffs relied on Apple's
representations appears in the complaint's recitation of the
elements of common law fraud," Alsup wrote.  "The complaint does
not allege which of Apple's representations were relied upon, when
they were relied upon, or by whom."

Alsup gave the plaintiffs until Jan. 22 to file for leave to
amend.

"The motion should clearly explain how the amended complaint cures
the deficiencies identified . . . and should include as an exhibit
a redlined or highlighted version identifying all changes," Alsup
ruled.  "If such a motion is not filed by the deadline, this case
will be closed."

The case is Uriel Marcus and Benedict Verceles, on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:14cv03824WHA,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


APPLE INC: Suit Over Use of Location Device on iPhones Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the Plaintiff on January 8 voluntarily dismissed a class action
accusing Apple of using the "location device" on iPhones to spy on
customers.

Plaintiffs' attorney Adam Wang filed a 1-page voluntary dismissal
without prejudice on Jan. 8.

Lead plaintiff Chen Ma sued Apple in July 2014 for a putative
class of 100 million iPhone users, claiming that the location
tracking software violated their privacy .

The software comes preinstalled on the iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone
5C and iPhone 5S, and cannot be turned off without impairing the
performance of several other functions, according to the original
complaint.

Among other things, the software allows the device to "track its
users' whereabouts down to every minute, record the duration that
users stay at any given geographical point, and periodically
transmit these data stored on the users' devices to Apple's
database for future references," the complaint stated.

Ma claimed that Apple did not adequately inform customers about
the tracking software.  Ma said she learned of the software while
watching an investigation by China's Central Television (CCTV).
Apple allegedly told CCTV that iPhones transfer customers' private
information into a database, but claimed that it would not
disclose that information to third parties, according to the
complaint.

But Ma claimed Apple had received several demands for access to
people's private data from third parties, including more than
1,000 such demands from the U.S. government.

Attorney Wang did not reply to requests for comment by the close
of business hours on January 8.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Wang, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ADAM WANG
          12 S. First Street, Suite 708
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 421-3403
          Facsimile: (408) 416-0248
          E-mail: adamqwang@gmail.com

The case is Chen Ma, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Apple Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1 to
10, inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-03344-RMW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


ASPLUNDH TREE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfredo Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all similarly-
situated individuals v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., Case No. 8:15-
cv-00124-EAK-TBM (M.D. Fla., January 21, 2015) seeks relief under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVNET INC: Received $3.0 Million in LCD Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avnet Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 23, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 27, 2014, that the Company filed a proof of
claim in the settlement of a class action proceeding that sought
damages from certain manufacturers of LCD flat panel displays. A
settlement was reached in the proceedings and in the first quarter
of fiscal 2014 the federal district judge overseeing the
proceeding issued an order approving the distribution of
settlement funds to the class claimants and the Company received
an award payment of $19.1 million. In the third quarter of fiscal
2014, the federal district judge overseeing the proceedings issued
an order approving a final distribution of funds and the Company
received a final award payment of $3.0 million. The award is
classified within "gain on legal settlement" in the consolidated
statements of operations.


B&M INC: Recalls HT Traders Seasoning Blends Due to Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------
B&M, Inc. of Mount Vernon, Missouri is recalling certain seasoning
blends that contain ground cumin that may contain undeclared
peanut protein, an allergen that is not declared on the product's
ingredient statements. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled
product has been distributed by Harris Teeter.

B&M, Inc. was notified by one of their suppliers that one lot of
Cumin Ground Conventional and some of the seasonings containing
this lot had potentially been contaminated with peanut protein.

The products were shipped to retailers on December 1, 2014. The
following products with lot codes and Best By dates listed below
are subject to the recall.

  Brand/Product Name                   Best By
  & Description        Lot Number      Date         UPC
  ------------------   ----------      -------      ---
Harris Teeter,       3301401R        Best By:     0-72036-71232-5
HT Traders Blue                     28 MAY 2017
Cheese Jalapeno
Seasoning is
packaged in a 6oz
clear square glass
bottle with a
black metal cap and
a label weight of
3.7oz (104.9g).

The lot number and best by date can be found on the bottom of the
bottle.

No other spices and seasonings manufactured by B&M, Inc. for

Harris Teeter have been affected by this FDA recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
FDA recall. Consumers in possession of this FDA recalled product
should discard it or return it to the store at which it was
purchased for a full refund. Consumers or media with questions
should contact B&M, Inc. at 1-877-321-5852 (Monday - Friday, 8:30
am - 4:30 pm CST).

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430714.htm.


B&M INC: Recalls Target Archer Seasoning Blends Due to Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
B&M, Inc. of Mount Vernon, Missouri is recalling certain seasoning
blends that contain ground cumin that may contain peanut, an
allergen that is not declared on the products' ingredient
statements. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. The recalled products
have been distributed by and are sold by Target and The Fresh
Market.

B&M, Inc. was notified by one of their suppliers that one lot of
Cumin Ground Conventional and some of the seasonings containing
this lot had potentially been contaminated with peanut protein.

The products were shipped to retailers from December 1, 2014
through January 7, 2015. The following products with lot codes and
Best By dates are subject to the recall.

  Brand/Product Name                   Best By
  & Description        Lot Number      Date         UPC
  ------------------   ----------      -------      ---
Target Archer Farms   3381403F      Best By:      0-85239-02549-9
Cumin Ground is                     05 JUN 2017
packaged in a 6oz
clear square  glass
bottle with a
silver metal cap
and a  label weight
of 2.8oz (79g).

Target Archer Farms   3421406F      Best By:      0-85239-02549-9
Cumin Ground is                     09 JUN 2017
packaged in a 6oz
clear square glass
bottle with a silver
metal cap and a label
weight of 2.8oz (79g).

The Fresh Market      3581405R      Best By:      7-37094-01841-2
Dark Chili Powder                   25 JUN 2017
is packaged in a 5x7in
clear square bag with
a zipper seal and a
label weight of 2.24oz
(63.5g).

The Fresh Market      3641401R      Best By:      7-37094-01841-2
Dark Chili Powder is                01JUL2017
packaged in a 5x7in
clear square bag with
a zipper seal and a
label weight of 2.24oz
(63.5g).

The Fresh Market Dark Chili Powder is packaged in a 4oz clear
square glass bottle with a silver metal cap and a label weight
of1.85oz (52.4g). 0021503A Best By: 04 JUL 2017 7-37094-20425-9

The lot number and best by date can be found on the bottom of the
bottle or front of bag.

No other spices and seasonings manufactured by B&M, Inc. for
Target and The Fresh Market have been affected by this FDA recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
FDA recall.

Consumers in possession of this FDA recalled product should
discard it or return it to the store at which it was purchased for
a full refund.  Consumers or media with questions should contact
B&M, Inc. at 1-877-321-5852 (Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm
CST).

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430719.htm.


BARCLAYS BANK: Judge Tosses Antitrust Claims in Libor Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Brandon Lowrey and Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge on Jan. 12 tossed a
borrower's claims accusing Barclays Bank PLC in a putative class
action of manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate to drive
up mortgages, ruling her injury wasn't of the variety that
antitrust laws were intended to prevent.

Granting a motion for summary judgment by Barclays Bank and
Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc., doing business as HomEq
Servicing, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney said plaintiff
Helen Galope's injury stemmed from supposed misrepresentations or
omissions by Barclays, not from any competition-reducing aspect of
its conduct.

Ms. Galope, whose amended suit also named Deutsche Bank AG, among
others, claimed Barclays asserted she wouldn't have entered into a
2006 loan had she known it was manipulating Libor, a benchmark
used to set interest rates for borrowing between banks.  But Judge
Carney decided the plaintiff hadn't shown that her default was in
any way caused by Barclays' conduct regarding its Libor
submissions.

"Rather, it is undisputed that plaintiff defaulted when her
interest payment was based on a fixed rate established by the loan
originating documents, not linked in any way to Libor," the order
said.  "Thus, even assuming an antitrust violation by the Barclays
defendants, plaintiff has not shown any injury 'that flows from
that which makes defendants' acts unlawful.'"

Ms. Galope sued Deutsche Bank AG subsidiary Deutsche Bank National
Trust Co. and loan trustee Western Progressive LLC in March 2012
and subsequently amended her complaint multiple times. She added
antitrust claims against loan servicers Barclays and Ocwen Loan
Servicing LLC in the wake of Barclays agreeing to pay regulators
in the U.K. and U.S. more than $450 million to settle allegations
that it had helped manipulate Libor.

The Ninth Circuit in March affirmed the dismissal of Libor-related
claims against DBNTC, ruling Ms. Galope failed to prove it had
control over the Libor manipulation.  In November, Judge Carney
tossed claims against Deutsche Bank, saying Ms. Galope failed to
show it was subject to personal jurisdiction in the court.

On Jan. 12, the judge said the relationship between Barclays'
conduct and Ms. Galope's injury was too remote, indirect and
speculative to confer antitrust standing.  She didn't take out the
loan from Barclays, thus the information at issue couldn't have a
causal connection with Ms. Galope's decision to enter into the
loan, the judge said.

Judge Carney also didn't find a direct connection between
Barclays' submission of favorable Libor quotes and the plaintiff's
injury.

"The direct victim of Barclays' Libor submissions would presumably
be the party on the other side of the particular interest rate
swaps transaction the Barclays traders sought to influence," the
Jan. 12 order said, adding that Ms. Galope didn't claim to be such
a party.

Judge Carney nixed Ms. Galope's allegations that Barclays broke
California's Unfair Competition Law and California's False
Advertising Law and engaged in fraud, saying the plaintiff hadn't
shown that she relied on any misrepresentation or omission
attributable to Barclays. He also tossed her implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing claims.

Lenore L. Albert of Law Offices of Lenore Albert, which is
representing the plaintiffs, noted to Law360 on Jan. 13 that the
court last month gave them the option of filing a motion for
reconsideration when challenging Deutsche Bank's dismissal upon
the outcome of the instant motion for summary judgment.

"Plaintiffs are now weighing the option of moving for
reconsideration, new trial or an appeal," Ms.  Albert said.  "This
is not the end."

The plaintiffs are represented by Lenore L. Albert of Law Offices
of Lenore Albert.

Barclays is represented by Matthew Porpora --
porporam@sullcrom.com -- Adam S. Paris, David H. Braff, Yvonne S.
Quinn and Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP and David L. Zifkin and Jonathan D. Schiller --
jschiller@bsfllp.com -- of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.

The case is Helen Galope et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust
Co. et al., case number 8:12-cv-00323, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division.


BEAR NAKED: Faces Class Action Over Real Nut "Natural" Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that two Florida residents sued Bear Naked,
Inc. on January 15, over allegations that the whole grain food
product manufacturer used misleading labeling on some of its
products.

William Gerard Barden and Sonsaray Stansfield filed a class action
complaint against the La Jolla, Calif.-based company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida in
Tallahassee, Fla., alleging that the company's Real Nut Energy
Bars, which are labeled as "100% Natural," contain synthetic
chemical compounds.

Having purchased more than $25 worth of Bear Naked Real Nut Energy
Bars bars at Publix and Walmart grocery stores between August and
November, Messrs. Barden and Stansfield state that they were
willing to pay a higher price for the products based on the belief
that they were all natural and therefore better for their health.
They alleged they purchased the items without knowledge that they
contained three specific synthetic chemical ingredients:
tocopherols, glycerin and lecithin.  The product labels disclose
these ingredients, but do not identify them as synthetic.

The suit contends that all the company's Real Nut Energy Bars
Products are misbranded; that the labeling fails to comply with
various Florida State food safety regulations, consumer protection
statutes and advertising law; that the defendant intentionally
deceived consumers; and that the plaintiffs' purchase damaged them
because, in their opinion, misbranded products are illegal and
have no economic value.

Messrs. Barden and Stansfield are demanding a trial by jury.  They
seek punitive damages as well as coverage of legal fees and costs.
They also want Bear Naked to launch a corrective ad campaign.

The plaintiffs are represented by Tim Howard, of Howard &
Associates, P.A., in Tallahassee, Fla.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
case no. 4:15-cv-00007


BEATS ELECTRONICS: Accused of Copyright Infringement in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zenbu Magazines LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Beats Electronics, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00464 (C.D.
Cal., January 22, 2015) asserts claims for copyright infringement.

Zenbu is a New York limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Brooklyn, New York.  Zenbu alleges that it
owns all right, title and interest, including common law
copyright, in and to a library of pre-1972 sound recordings, which
includes at least one recording that Beats has reproduced,
distributed, and performed without paying Zenbu any royalties or
licensing fees, specifically "Sin City," by The Flying Burrito
Brothers, off the Album, "The Gilded Palace of Sin," which was
fixed in 1969.

Beats Electronics, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business located in Culver City,
California.  Beats operates and offers to the general public a
streaming music service called Beats Music, which is available
through an Internet browser, as well as through applications for
Android, Apple (iOS), and Windows smartphones and tablets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Tran Nguyen, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


BP PLC: Seeks Lower Civil Penalty in Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that BP was set to call witnesses on
Jan. 26 as it makes its case for a civil penalty lower than the
$13.7 billion the federal government is seeking for the 2010 Gulf
of Mexico oil spill.

The second week of a three-week trial was set to begin in New
Orleans.  Government experts have testified about environmental,
economic and social damage arising from the spill. BP attorneys
disputed much of that testimony, and have argued the recovery of
the environment and the Gulf economy has been strong.

Also at issue in the trial is whether a heavy penalty would put
too much financial strain on BP Exploration and Production -- also
known as BPXP.  That's the affiliate in the BP corporate group
deemed responsible for the spill.

The government has argued in briefs that other BP companies'
resources should be considered when the judge weighs the effect of
a penalty on BPXP's economic health.

Among the first witnesses BP attorneys are expected to call are BP
executive Laura Folse and Frank Paskewich, a retired Coast Guard
captain familiar with oil spill cleanup work.  They are expected
to counter government witness testimony downplaying the
effectiveness of BP's oil recovery efforts.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier is presiding over the case.  He
isn't expected to rule until April at the earliest.  Based on two
earlier trial phases, he has already ruled that BP acted with
"gross negligence" in the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig
at BP's Macondo well.  BP is appealing that finding.

Judge Barbier also ruled recently that 3.19 million barrels of oil
was discharged as a result of the disaster.  The government wants
a maximum penalty of $4,300 per barrel, or about $13.7 billion.
Under the federal RESTORE Act, passed after the spill, 80 percent
of the Clean Water Act penalties would be set aside for
environmental and economic restoration projects along the Gulf
Coast.  The remaining dollars will go into a federal trust fund to
cover costs tied to any future oil spills.

BP estimates it has already piled up $42 billion in costs related
to the spill, including cleanup costs, criminal penalties and
settlements with businesses affected by the spill.

In addition to pushing for the hefty BP penalty, the government
has suggested a $1 billion-plus penalty for Anadarko, a minority
partner in the Macondo well.  Anadarko is fighting that penalty,
noting it was a non-operational partner in the well.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Certifies Class of Judges in Salary Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a Los Angeles judge on Jan. 15 certified a class of more than
3,000 active and retired California state judges who allege they
were illegally deprived of salary increases in the years following
the 2008 recession.

Judge Elihu Berle granted certification from the bench during a
hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  Judge Berle, a
potential class member in the case, is overseeing the case under
the doctrine of necessity, said Raoul Kennedy --
raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- of counsel to the Palo Alto office of
New York-based Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.  He
represents the named plaintiff, former Second District Court of
Appeal Justice Robert Mallano.

"We're pleased with the result," Mr. Kennedy said following the
hearing.  California Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Rich, who is
defending the action, declined to comment.

Justice Mallano, who was in court for the hearing, filed the suit
a year ago on behalf of about 1,600 sitting trial and appellate
judges and 1,800 retired judges and beneficiaries.  He claims that
state Controller John Chiang and the California Public Employees
Retirement System (CalPERS), which administers two judicial
retirement systems, failed to increase salaries as required under
California law starting during fiscal year 2008-2009 and
continuing to fiscal year 2012-2013.

"The controller's role in the matter is purely ministerial because
the controller cuts the state's checks," said Garin Casaleggio, a
spokesman for Chiang's office.

In opposing certification, the state defendants challenged
Justice Mallano's adequacy to serve as a class representative
since the defendants "play no substantive role in the
determination of judicial salaries."  Citing depositions of
representatives of the controller's office, CalPERS and the
California Department of Human Resources, Rich wrote that the
decision to raise judicial salaries involves numerous departments
and entities, including the Judicial Council and the California
Department of Finance.

"Under these circumstances, plaintiff is not asserting claims
reasonably expected to be raised by the members of the class, and
therefore is not an adequate class representative," he wrote.
Judge Berle, noting that the defendant made similar claims on a
dismissal motion he denied last year, said there were "major
flaws" in those arguments.

"There's no indication on the record or any evidence the plaintiff
is antagonistic to the class," he said.  "Plaintiff and his
counsel adequately represent the class."

Neither lawyer offered arguments during the hearing.

Most state court judges across the country went without salary
increases after the recession, said Jarrett Hann, an analyst at
the National Center for State Courts.

"Over the recessionary years, there was a big freeze on any pay
increase," Mr. Hann said.  "And now we're seeing, in the last two
or three years, things are getting back to where they were before
the recession."

As of Jan. 1, 2014, California's appellate judges earned the
highest salaries in the nation.  The state's trial judges made
$181,292, the fifth highest in the country -- although when
adjusted for the cost of living, they brought in $134,615.

But under California law, judicial salary increases should have
been mandatory to mirror the percentage raises given to state
employees after fiscal year 2008-09, according to the complaint.
Justice Mallano, who retired on Feb. 28, said that in November he
received a 1.4 percent salary increase retroactive to 2013 but not
for earlier years.

The next hearing in the case is March 17.


CAREMARK PHC: Removes "Dimauro" Suit to Northern District of Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Dimauro v. Caremark PhC, L.L.C., Case No. CV
14 837822, was removed from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
(Cleveland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
00125 to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff earned overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Plaintiff also alleges age discrimination and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Paula Gallito-Shakelton, Esq.
          Peter C. Mapley, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com
                  paula.gallito.shakelton@spitzlawfirm.com
                  peter.mapley@spitzlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kelly L. Hamilton, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          127 Public Square, Suite 4100
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 241-6100
          Facsimile: (216) 357-4733
          E-mail: kelly.hamilton@ogletreedeakins.com


CARNIVAL CRUISE: Deceptively Created Fees and Charges, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Cruise Lines deceptively created certain fees and
inflated others charged to customers trading in timeshare "points"
for discounts, a class action filed in Miami-Dade County claims,
reports Monica Pais at Courthouse News Service.

The lawsuit in the latest action filed by Daniel Finerman, a
Flagler County, Fla., resident, who sued Marriot Vacations
Worldwide Corporation, and International Cruise Excursion Gallery
Inc. in September 2014, claiming the companies overcharged members
of it time-share program through bogus fees.

That case was filed in the Flagler County circuit court, but was
later removed to the Jacksonville Federal Court.  In November,
Finerman voluntarily dismissed claims against the International
Cruise Excursion Gallery.  His claims against Marriot are pending.

In his latest complaint, Finerman says he and his wife booked a
six-day Caribbean cruise with Carnival using accumulated points
from his Marriot Vacation Club timeshare.  The cruise was
scheduled to depart from Ft. Lauderdale on November 9, 2014.

"In addition to his points, plaintiff paid to Carnival Corporation
the sum of $566.17, which consisted of the following: $159 each
for Port fees, $114.11 each for government fees, and a processing
fee of $19.95," the complaint states.

Finerman says he contacted Marriot Vacation Club to question the
high charges, and was advised the extra fees were not covered by
his timeshare points, and that they were assessed by Carnival
Corporation.  Still questioning the additional costs for
government and port fees, Finerman says he then checked the
Carnival Web site, and followed online the booking steps for the
same cruise.

Finerman claims that "when booking through the Carnival
Corporation website, rather than through Marriot Vacation Club,
the total governmental and port fees quoted for plaintiff and his
wife on the identical cruise amounted to $253.08."  Therefore, he
says, he was overcharged $311.14 when he booked the cruise using
his timeshare points.

Government fees are taxes assessed by the government, and it
varies depending on the itinerary.  On the other hand port charges
are taxes charged by the port so that ships can tie their pier.
The complaint says that "both fees are charged per person, and are
the same for each passenger on the particular cruise."

Finerman claims Carnival deceptively charged he and other members
of the purported class illusionary government and port fees to
increase its profits, violating the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N Franklin St., Floor 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 275-5272
          Facsimile: (813) 275-9295
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


CITIBANK NA: Wins Dismissal of Class Actions by Filed Homeowners
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two classes of homeowners failed to prove that Citibank and JP
Morgan Chase banks conspired with property inspection companies to
charge excessive fees, reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling.

In dismissing both class actions on Jan. 6, U.S. District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wrote that the homeowners could not show
"the existence of an association-in-fact enterprise united for the
as-alleged common purpose."

Lead plaintiff Gloria Stitt, who sued Citibank, and Diana Ellis,
who sued Morgan Chase, both in July 2012, claimed the banks
colluded with subsidiaries, affiliates and vendors to profit from
inspections that they routinely assessed on delinquent homes.
Stitt claimed that Citibank ordered unnecessary monthly property
inspections through a vendor called Safeguard. One class member's
home allegedly was inspected more than 30 times in three years.

But Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that the classes failed to show a
RICO conspiracy between the banks and vendors.

"Plaintiffs' allegation that Safeguard 'conducted the inspections
according to policies and procedures developed collaboratively
with Citi,' does not render plausible plaintiffs' claim that the
members of the Citi Enterprise associated for the alleged, and
fraudulent, common purpose," the judge wrote.

In dismissing the action against Chase, Rogers found: "Plaintiffs
have offered no factual allegations to render plausible their
claim that the enterprise members actually knew of the alleged
fraudulent common purpose, or that they 'formed' the enterprise to
participate in performing 'unnecessary property inspections" --
much less that they "devised a scheme to defraud borrowers . . .
by means of false pretenses.' "

She added: "Indeed, aside from these conclusory allegations, the
[first amended complaint] is notably lacking in the way of
substantive allegations concerning the third-party enterprise
members. Instead, the FAC focuses entirely on the Chase
defendants' intent, knowledge, and actions.  For example, it was
Chase that assessed fees for inspections, allegedly concealed the
true nature of those fees, and that undertook to implement a
computerized automated mortgage loan management system that
requested property inspections that were allegedly unnecessary."

Rogers said the plaintiffs proved only that the vendors had
contracts with Chase and Citi. She said it was too late to grant
either class leave to amend.

"At this late juncture, near the close of discovery, leave to
amend is not permitted," Rogers wrote.  "Although plaintiffs have
had well over a year to engage in discovery intended to uncover
facts supporting their RICO theory, the FAC offers even less in
the way of substantive allegations of fraud and wrongdoing than
did the original complaint."

The Stitt case is Gloria Stitt, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al.,
Case No. 4:12-cv-03892-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


CLASSIC COOKING: Recalls Garden Lites(R) Products Due to Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garden Lites(R), The Delicious Vegetable Company(TM) owned and
operated by Classic Cooking LLC, is issuing a voluntary recall of
several products due to the fact that they contain undeclared
peanuts. The ingredient cumin provided by a third party vendor was
contaminated with peanut allergen. Individuals who have severe
sensitivity to peanuts should not consume the designated products
as they may run the risk of a serious and even life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

These products were distributed nationwide in retail stores.

The recall affects products with the following lot numbers and UPC
codes:

  PRODUCT NAME        SIZE   LOT#       EXP DATES   UPC
  ------------        ----   ----       ---------   ---
Garden Lites Kale   7 oz   32914      5/25/2016   7-04863-01730-3
& Quinoa Souffle           33014      5/26/2016
                           35714      6/23/2016

Garden Lites        7 oz   27814      4/5/2016    7-04863-01720-4
Southwestern               32214      5/18/2016
Souffle                    32314      5/19/2016

Garden Lites Veggie 7 oz   29914      4/26/2016   7-04863-01726-6
Chili & Cornbread
Melt

Garden Lites Kale & 9 oz   28014       4/7/2016   7-04863-03611-3
Brown Rice Veggie          28114       4/8/2016
Bites                      30114       4/28/2016
                           30214       4/29/2016
                           27414       4/02/2016

Classic Cooking     6.75   32314       5/19/2016   7-4863-32511-8
Kale & Quinoa       lbs    33614       6/2/2016
Veggie Cakes               36314       6/29/2016
                           27414       4/1/2016

To date, no illnesses have been reported in connection with this
recall.

Customers seeking a refund are asked to send a digital image
displaying the UPC code and expiration date on the package/s
affected to info@garden-lites.com or they can mail the product
packaging to Classic Cooking Attn: RECALL at 165-35 145th Dr.,
Jamaica, NY 11434 in exchange for a refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 718-439-0200 ext. 627, Mon -
Fri 9:00AM To 5:00PM.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430561.htm


COAST PROFESSIONAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Izabella Treitli, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Coast Professional Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:15-cv-00458-AET-LHG (D.N.J., January 22, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMCAST CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Credit Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Zara, writing for International Business Times,
reports that a new class-action lawsuit asserts that Comcast Corp.
helped itself to a customer's credit report without authorization,
even after he specifically paid the cable giant to prevent the
disclosure of his financial information.

The lawsuit, filed on January 13 in U.S. District Court in
Northern Illinois, says Keith Santangelo of Chicago set up new
Internet service with Comcast late last year.  During a chat
session with a Comcast representative, Mr. Santangelo was told the
company would have to issue a credit inquiry to establish new
service.

Mr. Santangelo instead opted to pay a $50 deposit to waive the
inquiry, the lawsuit states, but a credit inquiry was performed
anyway -- this despite the deposit and despite Santangelo
expressly refusing to authorize Comcast to pull the report.

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act prohibits companies from
obtaining consumer reports without authorization.

Mr. Santangelo does not appear to be alone.  The lawsuit suggests
that Comcast routinely performs unauthorized credit checks, and
cites "numerous reports of customers experiencing a credit inquiry
from Comcast after deposit to avoid said inquiry."  The legal
complaint contains links to a number of Comcast customer forums in
which users complain of having their credit reports pulled even
after they paid a deposit.  In some posts, customers accused
Comcast of initiating a so-called hard pull, which can downgrade
credit scores and remain on a person's score for two years.

The suit claims Comcast benefits from the practice by pocketing
customer deposits. A spokesperson for Comcast declined to comment.

Given the size of Comcast's footprint, Mr. Santangelo believes
hundreds or perhaps thousands of customers may have experienced a
similar situation, his lawyers wrote.  The lawsuit was filed as a
class action, meaning other similarly situated Comcast customers
could potentially join it.


COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard B. Gonon, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Community Management Services, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00085-SEB-DKL (S.D. Ind., January 21, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Murphy, Esq.
          ABRAHAM MURPHY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          22 E. Washington Street, Suite 610
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 248-5570
          Facsimile: (317) 248-5571
          E-mail: murphy@abrahammurphy.com


CON YEAGER: Recalls Multiple Cumin Brands Due to Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------------
Con Yeager Spice Company has issued a voluntary recall for
multiple sized packages under multiple brand names of ground cumin
and multiple seasoning blends (containing ground cumin) due to
undeclared Peanut allergens in the ground cumin.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run
the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products. To date, there have been no consumer
complaints or reports of allergic reactions at this time. Con
Yeager Spice Company is asking customers at risk for peanut
allergies to discontinue using the product immediately.

Con Yeager Spice Company was notified by the supplier Morris J.
Golombeck Inc. that the ground cumin product had tested positive
for traces of peanut protein. This spice is used in a variety of
Con Yeager Spice Company seasoning blends and sold as a single
ingredient product. Product packaging includes clear plastic bag
in a box, clear plastic minijar, pint, quart, gallon jug
containers and plastic bags. Our product identifiers are the
product's 5 digit item key and 6 digit item lot number beginning
with a decimal point located on the labeling.

Production and distribution of all affected product has been
suspended until the FDA and the company are certain that the
problem has been corrected.

The recalled products were distributed nationwide in direct sales
to customers, retail stores and through web orders. Consumers who
have purchased any of the products on the below list from a retail
store are urged to return product immediately to the point of
purchase for a full refund. Web order customers should contact the
company to process a return for a full refund. Direct sale
customers will be contacted by the company to make arrangements
for a refund and for the return of product. Consumers with any
questions may contact Con Yeager Spice Company's customer service
at 1-800-222-2460 (Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST).

The affected products include:

  BRAND              ITEM DESCRIPTION         ITEM KEY   ITEM LOT
  -------            ----------------         --------   --------
A K C, INC           WING & FRY DUST SSNG     31165      .215271
                     PT 11.29oz
BADURIK'S BUTCHER    MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE  37045      .212348
BLOCK                PT 12oz
BADURIK'S BUTCHER    MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE  37045      .216433
BLOCK                PT 12oz
BADURIK'S BUTCHER    MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE  37045      .218471
BLOCK                PT 12oz
BADURIK'S BUTCHER    MOJO SEASONING           30438      .218476
BLOCK                PT 10.56oz
BELL'S (JACK)        BBQ BEEF RUB             30890      .214783
MEAT & POULTRY       PT 13.1oz
BELL'S (JACK)        CUMIN GROUND IR          31049      .219323
MEAT & POULTRY       PT 7oz
BELL'S (JACK)        VENISON BBQ RUB          30788      .214779
MEAT & POULTRY       PT 13.1oz
BELL'S (JACK)        VENISON BBQ RUB          30788      .219313
MEAT & POULTRY       PT 13.1oz
BELL'S (JACK)        WING & FRY DUST SSNG     31165      .210164
MEAT & POULTRY       PT 11.29oz
BELL'S (JACK)        WING & FRY DUST SSNG     31165      .210896
MEAT & POULTRY       PT 11.29oz
BELL'S (JACK)        WING & FRY DUST SSNG     31165      .214776
MEAT & POULTRY       PT 11.29oz
BELL'S (JACK)        WING & FRY DUST SSNG     31165      .219309
MEAT & POULTRY       PT 11.29oz
BI LO FOODS,         WING & FRY DUST SSNG     30967      .215128
JOHNSONBURG          HG 50oz
BI LO FOODS,         WING & FRY DUST SSNG     30967      .215132
JOHNSONBURG          HG 50oz
BI LO FOODS,         WING & FRY DUST SSNG     30254      .215132
JOHNSONBURG          JUG 8#
BI LO FOODS,         WING & FRY DUST SSNG     31165      .215128
JOHNSONBURG          PT 11.29oz
BI LO, RIDGWAY/      CUMIN GROUND IR HG 28oz  30851      .215118
ELK COUNTY FOODS
BI LO, RIDGWAY/      WING & FRY DUST          30967      .211195
ELK COUNTY FOODS     SSNG HG 50oz
BI LO, RIDGWAY/      WING & FRY DUST          30967      .215123
ELK COUNTY FOODS     SSNG HG 50oz
BI LO, RIDGWAY/      WING & FRY DUST          31165      .211205
ELK COUNTY FOODS     SSNG PT 11.29oz
BI LO, RIDGWAY/      WING & FRY DUST
ELK COUNTY FOODS     SSNG PT 11.29oz          31165      .215096
BI LO, VALESKI'S     CHILI POWDER DARK        31009      .212909
(GROCERY)            PT 9.61oz
BI LO, VALESKI'S     CUMIN GROUND IR          30491      .217102
(GROCERY)            MJ 1.5oz
BI LO, VALESKI'S     WING & FRY DUST SSNG     31165      .217110
(GROCERY)            PT 11.29oz
Bill Bateman's       MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE  37045      .215754
Bistro               PT 12oz
Bill Bateman's       TACO SUPREME SSNG        37351      .217740
Bistro               QRT 21.8oz
Bill Bateman's       WING & FRY DUST SSNG     30254      .215759
Bistro               JUG 8#
Bill Bateman's       WING & FRY DUST SSNG     30016      .215759
Bistro               QRT 26.2oz
Bill Bateman's       WING & FRY DUST SSNG     30016      .217666
Bistro               QRT 26.2oz
BILL BATEMAN'S       WING & FRY DUST SSNG     30016      .218322
BISTRO               QRT 26.2oz
BRINGHURST MEATS,    BRINGHURST CATERING      37827      .208995
INC.                 BBQ RUB BL
BRINGHURST MEATS,    CHILI POWDER DARK        31009      .212265
INC.                 PT 9.61oz
BURNING ASPHALT      BBQ BEEF RUB MJ 3.68oz   30923      .217210
SAUCES
BURNING ASPHALT      BBQ BEEF RUB MJ 3.68oz   30923     .217728
SAUCES
BURNING ASPHALT      BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz   30890     .217210
SAUCES
BURNING ASPHALT      WING & FRY DUST SSNG     30556     .217211

SAUCES              MJ 2.88oz
BURNING ASPHALT     WING & FRY DUST SSNG       30556    .217726
SAUCES              MJ 2.88oz
BURNING ASPHALT     WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .217211
SAUCES              PT 11.29oz
BURNING ASPHALT     WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .217915
SAUCES              PT 11.29oz
BUTLER FARM MARKET  BBQ BEEF RUB               30890    .213793
                    PT 13.1oz
BUTLER FARM MARKET  CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .217391
                    PT 9.61oz
BUTLER FARM MARKET  WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .209993
                    PT 11.29oz
C W MEATS           WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .218723
                    PT 11.29oz
CAL'S               WING & FRY DUST SSNG       30254    .216113
                    JUG 8#
CATULLO PRIME MEAT  CATULLO BUCKEYE BTCHR      38729    .215527
                    JUG 7.6#
CATULLO PRIME MEAT  CATULLO BUCKEYE BTCHR      38357    .215527
                    PT 11.2oz
CATULLO PRIME MEAT  CATULLO KNSS CTY BBQ       38786    .219286
                    BTR RUB J
CATULLO PRIME MEAT  CATULLO KNSS CTY BBQ       38842    .219286
                    BTR RUB J
CATULLO PRIME MEAT  CATULLO KNSS CTY BBQ       38787    .219286
                    BTR RUB P
CONRAD WHOLESALE    TACO SUPREME SSNG          37351    .219457
                    QRT 21.8oz
CONRAD WHOLESALE    WING & FRY DUST SSNG       30016    .219456
QRT 26.2oz
CORNERSBURG ITALIAN CHILI POWDER DARK QRT 20oz 30085    .215803
SPECIALTIE
COUNTRY SMOKEHOUSE  VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz  30788    .216840
COUNTRY SMOKEHOUSE  VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz  30788    .219693
COUNTY MARKET       CHILI POWDER DARK PT       31009    .212974
                    9.61oz
COUNTY MARKET       CHILI POWDER DARK PT       31009    .217497
                    9.61oz
CUBA CHEESE SHOPPE  TACO SUPREME SSNG          37351    .216592
                    QRT 21.8oz
DARRENKAMPS         MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE    37045    .215349
                    PT 12oz
ERNST MARKET        CHILI POWDER DARK          30171    .216211
                    JUG 6.75#
FERRARI, JAMES      WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .218967
AND SONS            PT 11.29oz
FISHERTOWN COUNTRY  CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .215855
STORE               PT 9.61oz
FISHERTOWN COUNTRY  CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz     31049    .215849
STORE
G & E SUPERMARKET   MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE    37045    .208914
                    PT 12oz
G & E SUPERMARKET   MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE    37045    .211551
                    PT 12oz

GILLILAND'S MARKET  CHILI POWDER DARK          30483    .212577
                    MJ 2.08oz
GILLILAND'S MARKET  CHILI POWDER DARK          30483    .216485
                    MJ 2.08oz
GODSHALLS QUALITY   GODSHALL'S S0111 --        36959    .212497
MEATS               36959 BULK
GOODE'S COUNTRY     CHILI POWDER DARK          30171    .212836
MARKET              JUG 6.75#
GREAT LAKE BUTCHER  BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz     30890    .213257
SUPPLY
GUYTON'S FOOD       WING & FRY DUST SSNG       30016    .211153
WAREHOUSE           QRT 26.2oz
H TRUMANS STORE     WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .214994
                    PT 11.29oz
H&H MARKET PLACE    VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz  30788    .213335
HAWK'S GROCERY      CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .218441
                    PT 9.61oz
HOFFMAN'S MARKET    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .212185
                    PT 9.61oz
HOG'S GALORE        CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz     31049    .219446
HOUTZDALE SHOP      CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .215830
N SAVE EXPRESS      PT 9.61oz
HOUTZDALE SHOP      WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .211295
N SAVE EXPRESS      PT 11.29oz
HUMBERT'S QUALITY   WING & FRY DUST SSNG       30556    .210174
MEATS               MJ 2.88oz
IDEAL MARKET,       CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .215535
MERCIK'S            PT 9.61oz
IDEAL MARKETS #764  WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .216080
                    PT 11.29oz
IDEAL MARKETS #764  WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .219332
                    PT 11.29oz
JACOB & SON         WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .211237
WHOLESALE MEATS     PT 11.29oz
JACOB & SON         WING & FRY DUST SSNG       31165    .215141
WHOLESALE MEATS     PT 11.29oz
JAK'S FINE FOODS    CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz     31049    .216795
JIMMY P'S BUTCHER   BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz     30890    .213483
SHOP
JIMMY P'S BUTCHER   BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz     30890    .217661
SHOP
K BEATRICE FOOD     WING & FRY DUST SSNG       30016    .218762
SERVICE             QRT 26.2oz
KEVIN'S QUALITY     WING & FRY DUST SSNG       30556    .209897
MEATS               MJ 2.88oz
KEVIN'S QUALITY     WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .217982
MEATS               MJ 2.88oz
KEVIN'S QUALITY     WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .217984
MEATS               QRT 26.2oz
LA SPICERIA         CUMIN GROUND IR MJ 1.5oz  30491    .217061
LA SPICERIA         TACO SUPREME SSNG         37349    .217049
                    MJ 2.72oz
LAUDERMILCH MEATS   WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .216020
BUTCHER SHOP        MJ 2.88oz
LIVINGSTON PACKING  BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .213306
CO.
LIVINGSTON PACKING  MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE   37048    .217401
CO.                 JUG 8#
M & S MEATS         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .209838
                    QRT 26.2oz
MACKS HOMETOWN      CHILI POWDER DARK         30483    .212543
MARKET              MJ 2.08oz
MAK'S MEATS &       CHILI POWDER DARK         30085    .212801
CHEESE              QRT 20oz
MAMIE'S CAFE        CHILI POWDER DARK HG 36oz 30811    .215650
MARKET BASKET, INC  MOJO SEASONING MJ 3.04oz  30651    .218823
MARKET BASKET, INC  WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .209855
                    QRT 26.2oz
MARKET BASKET, INC  WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .218803
                    QRT 26.2oz
MCANENY BROTHERS    CHILI POWDER DARK         30085    .215641
INC.                QRT 20oz
MCGINNIS SISTERS    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .217901
                    MJ 2.88oz
MILLER MEATS & FOOD WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .217852
SERVICE             MJ 2.88oz
MILROY FARMS        WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .217648
                    MJ 2.88oz
MORGAN'S GROCERY    CHILI POWDER DARK         30483    .216763
                    MJ 2.08oz
MORGAN'S GROCERY    CUMIN GROUND IR MJ 1.5oz  30491    .216762
NAPPIE'S FOOD       WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .211372
SERVICE             QRT 26.2oz
NAPPIE'S FOOD       WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .216039
SERVICE             QRT 26.2oz
NASER FOODS         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .211114
                    MJ 2.88oz
NASER FOODS         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .214988
                    MJ 2.88oz
NASER FOODS         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .215752
                    MJ 2.88oz
NASER FOODS         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .219586
                    MJ 2.88oz
NASER FOODS         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .209850
                    PT 11.29oz
NASER FOODS         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .215752
                    PT 11.29oz
NASER FOODS         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .217903
                    PT 11.29oz

NASER FOODS         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .219586
                    PT 11.29oz
NASER FOODS         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .219874
                    PT 11.29oz
NASER'S GROCERY     CHILI POWDER DARK         30085    .218848
                    QRT 20oz
NASER'S GROCERY     CUMIN GROUND IR MJ 1.5oz  30491    .214544
NASER'S GROCERY     WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .218853
                    MJ 2.88oz
OLEAN WHOLESALE     CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .212653
GROCERY CO-OP       PT 9.61oz
OLEAN WHOLESALE     CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .216805
GROCERY CO-OP       PT 9.61oz
OLEAN WHOLESALE     VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz 30788    .217262
GROCERY CO-OP
OLEAN WHOLESALE     WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .215047
GROCERY CO-OP       MJ 2.88oz
OLEAN WHOLESALE     WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .216621
GROCERY CO-OP       MJ 2.88oz
O'NEILL COFFEE      CHILI POWDER DARK         30171    .216378
COMPANY             JUG 6.75#
O'NEILL COFFEE      CHILI POWDER DARK         30085    .212329
COMPANY             QRT 20oz
O'NEILL COFFEE      CHILI POWDER DARK         30085    .216388
COMPANY             QRT 20oz
O'NEILL COFFEE      CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049    .216386
COMPANY
O'NEILL COFFEE      CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049    .219791
COMPANY
PALUMBO MEATS       WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .215890
                    QRT 26.2oz
POTTEIGER MEATS     BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .219779
RAY'S RECIPES       RAY'S RUB MJ 3.28oz       32768    .210656
RAY'S RECIPES       RAY'S RUB MJ 3.28oz       32768    .213261
RAY'S RECIPES       RAY'S RUB PT 12oz         32519    .210656
RAY'S RECIPES       RAY'S RUB PT 12oz         32519    .213261
RIVERSIDE, TOM'S    CUMIN GROUND IR MJ 1.5oz  30491    .217974
RIVERSIDE, TOM'S    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .217969
                    MJ 2.88oz
SCHRADER FARMS MEAT BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .219542
MARKET
SCHRADER FARMS MEAT CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .215744
MARKET              PT 9.61oz
SCHRADER FARMS MEAT TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350    .219544
MARKET              PT 9.4oz
SCHRADER FARMS MEAT WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .219520
MARKET              PT 11.29oz

SHADY MAPLE FARM    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .216095
MARKET              MJ 2.88oz
SHERMAN PROVISION   BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .213686
SHERMAN PROVISION   TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350    .217787
                    PT 9.4oz
SHERMAN PROVISION   WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .217799
                    PT 11.29oz
SHILOH GENERAL      CHILI POWDER DARK         30483    .217002
STORE               MJ 2.08oz
SHOP N SAVE,        CHILI POWDER DARK         30483    .216248
MOUNT PLEASANT      MJ 2.08oz
SHOP N SAVE,        CHILI POWDER DARK         30483    .217469
MOUNT PLEASANT      MJ 2.08oz
SHOP N SAVE,        CUMIN GROUND IR MJ 1.5oz  30491    .215254
MOUNT PLEASANT
SHOP N SAVE,        CUMIN GROUND IR MJ 1.5oz  30491    .216086
MOUNT PLEASANT
SHOP N SAVE,        CUMIN GROUND IR MJ 1.5oz  30491    .216246
MOUNT PLEASANT
SHOP N SAVE,        WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .215636
MOUNT PLEASANT      MJ 2.88oz
SHOP N SAVE,        WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .217454
MOUNT PLEASANT      MJ 2.88oz

SHOP N SAVE,        WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .215195
MOUNT PLEASANT      PT 11.29oz
SHOP N SAVE,        WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .215694
MOUNT PLEASANT      PT 11.29oz
SHOP N SAVE,        CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049    .216002
NEW CASTLE
SHOW AND EXPO       BBQ PITT BEEF MRND &      38767    .212023
(IN STATE)          RUB 12oz
SMITH'S COUNTRY     CHILI POWDER DARK         30483    .218773
STORE               MJ 2.08oz
SPORTSMAN'S OUTLET  MOJO SEASONING MJ 3.04oz  30651    .219084
SPORTSMAN'S OUTLET  WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .219085
                    MJ 2.88oz
TATE'S MARKET       CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .217359
                    PT 9.61oz
TATE'S MARKET       WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .217344
                    PT 11.29oz
THOMA MARKET        WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .217777
                    PT 11.29oz
THOMAS SMOKED MEATS WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .219442
                    PT 11.29oz
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .213446
INC.
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .212475
INC.                PT 9.61oz
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .213441
                    INC. PT 9.61oz
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .216717
INC.                PT 9.61oz
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .218195
INC.                PT 9.61oz
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .218341
INC.                PT 9.61oz
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .218605
INC.                PT 9.61oz
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049    .214614
INC.
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049    .216712
INC.
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049    .217839
INC.
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049    .218596
INC.
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350    .216675
INC.                PT 9.4oz
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350    .217818
INC.                PT 9.4oz
THORNE MANAGEMENT,  TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350    .218576
INC.                PT 9.4oz
THREE PINES TAVERN  MOJITO LIME RUB &         37040    .214294
                    MARNDE BULK
THREE PINES TAVERN  WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .219587
                    MJ 2.88oz
THREE PINES TAVERN  WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .219587
                    PT 11.29oz

THREE PINES TAVERN  WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .219587
                    QRT 26.2oz
TRADER HORN         BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .213757
TRADER HORN         BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .215475
TRADER HORN         BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .218332
TRADER HORN         CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .212090
                    PT 9.61oz
TRADER HORN         CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .213768
                    PT 9.61oz
TRADER HORN         CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .215488
                    PT 9.61oz
TRADER HORN         VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz 30788    .213770
TRADER HORN         VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz 30788    .213938
TRADER HORN         VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz 30788    .215491
TRADER HORN         VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz 30788    .217692
TRADER HORN         VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz 30788    .219209
TRADER HORN         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .209868
                    MJ 2.88oz
TRADER HORN         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .209868
                    PT 11.29oz
TRADER HORN         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .211085
                    PT 11.29oz
TRADER HORN         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .215476
                    PT 11.29oz
TRADER HORN         WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .218333
                    PT 11.29oz
TURNER'S HEMLOCK    CHILI POWDER DARK         30085    .212758
FARM & HOME         QRT 20oz
TURNER'S HEMLOCK    CHILI POWDER DARK         30085    .216781
FARM & HOME         QRT 20oz

WARRINGTON FARMS    CHILI POWDER DARK         30085    .216155
                    QRT 20oz
WARRINGTON FARMS    CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049    .216156
WARRINGTON FARMS    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .219714
                    PT 11.29oz
WARRINGTON FARMS    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .219714
                    PT 11.29oz
WARRINGTON FARMS    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .216158
                    QRT 26.2oz
WARRINGTON FARMS    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .219714
                    QRT 26.2oz
WARRINGTON FARMS    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016    .219714
                    QRT 26.2oz
WHOLEY, ROBERT      WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .209954
                    MJ 2.88oz
COMPANY
WHOLEY, ROBERT      WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556    .219099
COMPANY             MJ 2.88oz
WHOLEY, ROBERT      WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .209954
COMPANY             PT 11.29oz
WHOLEY, ROBERT      WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .218052
COMPANY             PT 11.29oz
WILSON BEEF FARMS   CHILI POWDER DARK         31009    .212304
                    PT 9.61oz
WILSON BEEF FARMS   TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350    .216183
                    PT 9.4oz
WILSON BEEF FARMS   VENISON BBQ RUB           30788    .216189
                    PT 13.1oz
WINGS & THINGS,     WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165    .218432
INC.                PT 11.29oz
WOODROW, JASON      PAPA WOOD BBQ AP RUB      38755    .219098
                    JAR 5.12oz
WOODROW, JASON      PAPA WOOD BBQ AP RUB      38756    .219098
                    PINT 12oz
WOODSMEN'S          WOODSMEN'S AMERICAN SS    35765    .212281
                    MJ 3.2oz
WOODSMEN'S          WOODSMEN'S AMERICAN SS    32489    .212281
                    PT 13oz
Con Yeager Spice    ATRIA STEAK & PATTY*      32055    .212025
Company             RUB BULK
Con Yeager Spice    ATRIA STEAK & PATTY*      32055    .213824
Company             RUB BULK
Con Yeager Spice    ATRIA'S RIB RUB BULK      32390    .208678
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BACK STREET BBQ           31755    .213240
Company             #1132 24oz
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ BEEF RUB BULK         32276    .209799
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ BEEF RUB BULK         32276    .209799
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ BEEF RUB BULK         32276    .209799
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ BEEF RUB BULK         32276    .213909
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ BEEF RUB MJ 3.68oz    30923    .217082
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ BEEF RUB MJ 3.68oz    30923    .217884
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ BEEF RUB MJ 3.68oz    30923    .218374
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .215778
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .214818
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ BEEF RUB PT 13.1oz    30890    .218422
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ OLE FASHIONED #8 BULK 34333    .213145
Company
Con Yeager Spice    BBQ SP RIB RUB BULK       37636    .215294
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CAJUN SAUSAGE W/O         32744    .208946
Company             MSG BULK
Con Yeager Spice    CAJUN SAUSAGE W/O         32744    .208946
Company             MSG BULK
Con Yeager Spice    CAJUN SAUSAGE W/O         32744    .208946
Company             MSG BULK
Con Yeager Spice    CHICKEN CUBAN CHORIZO     37494    .210742
Company             SS 6.8oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211404
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .207778
Company

Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211404
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .207778
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211404
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211404
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211017
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211017
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .207778
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .207778
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211017
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211404
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211404
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211017
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .215301
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .207778
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211404
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .215301
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .207778
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .207778
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211017
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211404
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211017
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211017
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK BULK    32341    .211404
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK HG 36oz 30811    .218313
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         30483    .217329
Company             MJ 2.08oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         30483    .213079
Company             MJ 2.08oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         30483    .216864
Company             MJ 2.08oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         30483    .215581
Company             MJ 2.08oz

Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          30483    .213141
Company             MJ 2.08oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          30483    .217158
Company             MJ 2.08oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          30483    .219013
Company             MJ 2.08oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          30483    .217879
Company             MJ 2.08oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          30483    .215959
Company             MJ 2.08oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          30483    .219572
Company             MJ 2.08oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .218062
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .218319
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .212030
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .213546
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .216315
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .218614
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .212168
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .213079
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .213026
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .215506
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .212210
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .213478
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          3100     .216273
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .215992
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .219567
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .212508
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .217413
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .212125
Company            PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .218247
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .216576
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .216933
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK          31009    .215461
Company             PT 9.61oz

Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         31009     .211822
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         31009     .215843
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         31009     .213528
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         31009     .218418
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         31009     .216343
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         31009     .218719
Company             PT 9.61oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         30085     .215714
Company             QRT 20oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         30085     .213079
Company             QRT 20oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         30085     .213245
Company             QRT 20oz
Con Yeager Spice    CHILI POWDER DARK         30085     .217551
Company             QRT 20oz
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR BULK      33385     6820
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR BULK      33385     6820
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR BULK      33385     6820
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR BULK      33385     6820
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR BULK      33385     6820
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR BULK      33385     6820
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR BULK      33385     6820
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR MJ 1.5oz  30491     .218400
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR MJ 1.5oz  30491     .217751
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR MJ 1.5oz  30491     .218560
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049     .218091
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049     .215187
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049     .216060
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049     .219606
Company
Con Yeager Spice    CUMIN GROUND IR PT 7oz    31049     .218423
Company
Con Yeager Spice    FAJITA SSNG FOR BEEF      34356     .213847
Company             STPS BULK
Con Yeager Spice    FFM FIREHOUSE CHILI       38018     .213599
Company             RM000405 3
Con Yeager Spice    FFM FIREHOUSE CHILI       38018     .213599
Company             RM000405 3
Con Yeager Spice    FFM FIREHOUSE CHILI       38018     .213600
Company             RM000405 3
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982     .218777
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982     .219072
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982     .217685
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982     .217685
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982     .217685
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982      .217685
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982      .215619
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982      .216467
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982      .218777
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982      .217685
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982      .217685
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982      .215613
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - GOURMET        37982      .219237
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .218888
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .215618
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .217647
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .217687
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .217687
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .217687
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .216466
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .216466
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .218008
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .217687
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .215618
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .217687
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .218778
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .218008
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981      .218778
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981     .217687
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981     .215612
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GIFT BOX - KITCHEN        37981     .217687
Company             ASSORTMENT
Con Yeager Spice    GODSHALL'S S0111 -- 36959 36959     .212497
Company             BULK
Con Yeager Spice    GRANDPA HAMMANN'S BBQ     32799     .211410
Company             RUB BULK
Con Yeager Spice    HOG FATHERS RIB RUB 10#   36810     .212998
Company
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MAR     37046     .211849
Company             QRT 26.4
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MAR     37046     .215174
Company             QRT 26.4
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MAR     37046     .216503
Company             QRT 26.4
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MAR     37046     .218751
Company             QRT 26.4
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MAR     37046     .219423
Company             QRT 26.4
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MAR     37046     .219619
Company             QRT 26.4
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB &         37040     .208001
Company             MARNDE BULK
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB &         37040     .208001
Company             MARNDE BULK
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB &         37044     .217084
Company             MRNDE MJ 3.6
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB &         37044     .210258
Company             MRNDE MJ 3.6
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB &         37044     .210617
Company             MRNDE MJ 3.6
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB &         37044     .210808
Company             MRNDE MJ 3.6
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB &         37044     .213895
Company             MRNDE MJ 3.6
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB &         37044     .213895
Company             MRNDE MJ 3.6
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB &         37044     .215724
Company             MRNDE MJ 3.6
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE   37045     .212160
Company             PT 12oz
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE   37045     .216057
Company             PT 12oz
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE   37045     .219602
Company             PT 12oz
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE   37045     .210212
Company             PT 12oz
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE   37045     .217021
Company             PT 12oz
Con Yeager Spice    MOJITO LIME RUB & MRNDE   37045     .214726
Company             PT 12oz
Con Yeager Spice    MOJO SEASONING MJ 3.04oz  30651     .218363
Company
Con Yeager Spice    MOJO SEASONING PT 10.56oz 30438     .218877
Company
Con Yeager Spice    MOJO SEASONING PT 10.56oz 30438     .218296
Company
Con Yeager Spice    SHIRKS CAJUN ANDOUILLE    38725     .210704
Company             5.9# PK
Con Yeager Spice    SHIRKS CAJUN ANDOUILLE    38725     .210705
Company             5.9# PK
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG 258     37347     .212451
Company             BULK
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG 258     37347     .212451
Company             BULK
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG 258     37347     .212451
Company             BULK
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG 258     37347     .212451
Company             BULK
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG 258     37347     .212451
Company             BULK
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG         37349     .218867
Company             MJ 2.72oz
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG         37349     .218352
Company             MJ 2.72oz
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350     .218012
Company             PT 9.4oz
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350     .216651
Company             PT 9.4oz
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350     .219065
Company             PT 9.4oz
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350     .216888
Company             PT 9.4oz
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350     .217332
Company             PT 9.4oz
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG         37350     .217009
Company             PT 9.4oz
Con Yeager Spice    TACO SUPREME SSNG QRT     37351     .219279
Company             21.8oz
Con Yeager Spice    VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz 30788     .213331
Company
Con Yeager Spice    VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz 30788     .218759
Company
Con Yeager Spice    VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz 30788     .218201
Company
Con Yeager Spice    VENISON BBQ RUB PT 13.1oz 30788     .219257
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .208003
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211416
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211010
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211416
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .215943
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .216578
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .208003
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211416
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .208002
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211416
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211416
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .208002
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211010
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .208003
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .208002
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211011
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .208002
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211011
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211012
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .213862
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG BULK 32081     .211416
Company
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .219108
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .211373
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .215946
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .219561
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .211289
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .215529
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .219639
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .217364
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .215946
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .218892
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .218326
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30254     .214891
Company             JUG 8#
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .214891
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .216672
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .215708
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .214825
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .217862
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .216458
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .218224
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .217721
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .211149
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .219554
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .217338
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .218304
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .218212
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .211557
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .209939
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .216418
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .210929
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30556     .216406
Company             MJ 2.88oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .217366
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .218055
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .218784
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .210127
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .211472
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .215702
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .214729
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .210019
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .215150
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .217251
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .218634
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .215498
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .217990
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .216262
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .215985
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .214944
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .216148
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .218459
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .215620
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .217623
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .218421
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .217405
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .216883
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .217909
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .215584
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .218894
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .218652
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .217938
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .219880
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .215226
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      31165     .216335
Company             PT 11.29oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .216137
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .218010
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .219134
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .219561
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .216669
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .217142
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .215317
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .219598
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .218662
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .214970
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .214578
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .219561
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WING & FRY DUST SSNG      30016     .219880
Company             QRT 26.2oz
Con Yeager Spice    WINGS N THINGS MIX        32021     .216583
Company             #1 BULK
Con Yeager Spice    WINGS N THINGS MIX        32016     .216582
Company             #3 BULK


CONDIES FOODS: Recalls Bold and Zesty & Dr. J's Salsa Brands
------------------------------------------------------------
Condies Foods, Inc. of Salt Lake City, Utah is recalling Condies
brand "Bold and Zesty" salsa with USE THRU dates from 10/29 (2014)
to 1/27 (2015) and Dr. J's brand "Mild" and "Medium" salsas with
USE THRU dates from 10/29 (2014) to 2/4 (2015), because they
contain the recalled spice cumin which may contain undeclared
peanut protein. People who have an allergy to peanuts run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The salsas were distributed to retail stores in the state of Utah.

The salsas are packed in round, opaque plastic tubs. The Condies
brand "Bold and Zesty" salsa is packed 14 oz. to a tub and are
labeled with UPC number 050777442206. The Dr. J's brand "Mild" and
"Medium" salsas are packed 15 oz. to a tub and are labeled with
UPC number 793573078148 for the "Mild" and 793573939166 for the
"Medium". USE THRU information can be found near the bar codes on
the labeling located on the side of the container.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after Condies Foods discovered through
the FDA Recalls, Withdrawals and Safety Alerts that a certain lot
of cumin used in Condies products had been recalled. The supplier
of the cumin indicates that subsequent lots of the cumin are not
implicated in the recall.

Consumers of the implicated products are advised to discard the
salsa if they have allergies to peanuts. Arrangements may be made
for refunded or replaced product and questions regarding the
recall may be addressed to Scott Black at 801-969-1448 between
7:00 AM and 3:00 PM MST.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430307.htm


COVIDIEN PLC: Agreement Reached in Consolidated Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 23, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 26, 2014, that the
defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in a
consolidated shareholder class action.

Putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by purported shareholders of Covidien under the captions Taxman v.
Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-12949, Lipovich v. Covidien plc, et
al., 14-cv-13308 and Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. Covidien plc,
et al., 14-cv-13490. On October 20, 2014, the plaintiff in the
Rosenfeld action and another purported shareholder of Covidien
filed a motion seeking to consolidate the Taxman, Lipovich and
Rosenfeld actions, and on November 14, 2014, the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted that
motion consolidating the actions (the "Consolidated Action").

On December 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, and that
agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, Covidien agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed transaction with Medtronic,
which are contained in Covidien's Current Report on Form 8-K filed
on December 23, 2014. The memorandum of understanding contemplates
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval. In the event that the
parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought by
Covidien shareholders challenging any aspect of the proposed
transaction, the negotiation or consideration of the Transaction,
the Transaction Agreement, dated as of June 15, 2014, by and among
Medtronic, Covidien, Kalani I Limited (since renamed Medtronic
Holdings Limited), Makani II Limited, Aviation Acquisition Co.,
Inc., and Aviation Merger Sub, LLC, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith, including in the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement, except
that the released claims will not include the claims currently
asserted in In re Medtronic, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 27-CV-
14-11452, in the District Court, Fourth Judicial District of
Hennepin Count, Minnesota or the claims currently asserted in In
re Medtronic, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 14-cv-3540, in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
described on pages 157 and 158 of the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus. In addition, in connection with the
settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties shall
negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorneys' fees
and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel in
connection with the actions. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will approve the settlement even if the parties were
to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.


COVIDIEN PLC: Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motion Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 23, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 26, 2014, that a state
court denied the class action plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion.

A putative shareholder class action complaint was filed on July 2,
2014, in the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, of Hennepin
County, Minnesota (the "State Court"), by a purported shareholder
of Medtronic under the caption Merenstein v. Medtronic, Inc., et
al., 27-CV-14-11452, and on August 21, 2014, a putative
shareholder class action complaint was filed in that same court by
a purported shareholder of Medtronic under the caption Steiner v.
Richard H. Anderson, et al., 27-CV-14-14420, which actions were
later consolidated together with all cases subsequently filed or
transferred into State Court into a single action under the
caption In re Medtronic, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 27-CV-14-
11452.

On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint challenging
certain transactions to be taken by Medtronic in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Covidien by Medtronic, and on October
10, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss such complaint.

On December 5, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated State
Court action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking
to, among other things, enjoin the defendants from effectuating
the acquisition in the absence of additional disclosure prior to
the Medtronic shareholder vote. On December 30, 2014, a hearing
was held in the State Court on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 2,
2015, the State Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion.


DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC on Jan. 14 disclosed that on
January 7, 2015, a class action was commenced on behalf of all
holders of Dawson Geophysical Company or the common shares in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
relating to the proposed acquisition by TGC Industries, Inc.

If you are a Dawson common shareholder and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
January 14, 2015.  If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jason Brodsky or Evan Smith of
Brodsky & Smith, LLC at (877) LEGAL-90 or via e-mail at
investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com

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.

Dawson provides onshore seismic data acquisition and processing
services in the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that Dawson, the Board and TGC breached
their duties, and/or aided and abetted such breaches, in
connection with their attempt to consummate the Proposed
Transaction pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price.
In addition, the complaint alleges Dawson and the Board
disseminated a false and misleading Registration Statement on Form
S-4 (the "S-4") in violation of Sec. 14(a) of the 1934 Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

On October 8, 2014, Dawson and TGC announced the entry into a
definitive agreement (the "Merger Agreement") whereby, prior to
completion of the merger, each holder of shares of Dawson common
stock will be entitled to receive 1.760 shares of TGC common stock
for each share of Dawson common stock owned, after giving effect
to the proposed 1 for 3 reverse stock split to be effectuated by
TGC, as well as cash payable in lieu of fractional shares pursuant
to the terms of the merger agreement.  Thereafter, on November 6,
2014, defendants caused the S-4 to be filed with the SEC and
disseminated in connection with the February 9, 2015 shareholder
vote on the Proposed Transaction.  The complaint alleges the S-4
contains a number of false and misleading statements that are
material to shareholders who are expected to rely upon the S-4 to
determine whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.  The S-4
omits a number of material facts necessary to make statements made
therein not false and misleading, including the events leading to
the Merger Agreement, the analyses conducted by the Board's
financial advisor, and Dawson's prospective financial information.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of all
Dawson shareholders.  Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law
firm with extensive expertise representing shareholders throughout
the nation in securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys
at Brodsky & Smith have been appointed by numerous courts
throughout the country to serve as lead counsel in class actions
and successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and
shareholders.


DES MOINES, IA: Lawyers to Seek State Supreme Court Review
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a split Iowa Court of Appeals
panel has upheld a $7 million fee for three attorneys who won a
class-action lawsuit against the city of Des Moines for charging
improper franchise fees.

The attorneys appealed a Polk County judge's decision awarding
them less than half of the $15 million they sought from the $40
million the city must refund citizens for charging unlawful fees
on utility bills.  The lawyers say they took significant risk in
the case for which they have spent more than 10,000 hours over 10
years.

Appeals Judge Gayle Vogel is the dissenting opinion in the 2-1
decision released on January 14.  She says the work expended and
the result achieved for Des Moines citizens justifies a bigger
paycheck.

The attorneys will seek an Iowa Supreme Court review.

                           *     *     *

Grant Rodgers, writing for The Des Moines Register, reported that
judges on the Iowa Court of Appeals was set to rule of Jan. 14 on
whether a judge's $7 million award to attorneys who battled the
city of Des Moines' franchise fee for more than a decade will
stand.

Attorneys Brad Schroeder, Bruce Stoltze and Steve Brick won a $40
million judgment in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Des Moines
ratepayers who were charged an illegal fee by the city on gas and
electric bills after a 14-day trial in 2009.  In September 2013,
the attorneys asked Polk County District Court Judge Joel Novak
for $15 million in fees for their work on the case, which would be
paid from the overall judgment.

Judge Novak awarded the attorneys less than half of their request,
ruling that the $7 million award was more fair for ratepayers, who
will also receive refunds from the $40 million pool.  The
attorneys appealed the award, arguing it was well below the
standard one-third fee attorneys typically seek in contingency fee
cases.

If the $7 million award stands, the precedent could "chill"
attorneys from bringing time-consuming and challenging class-
action lawsuits against public wrongdoers, said Jamie Buelt,
speaking for the attorneys.  City officials have said the award
was fair for the attorneys and ratepayers.

The appeals court could send the issue back to a district court
judge for another hearing and a new ruling on the fees, Schroeder
said.  However, the judges could also decide a fee themselves and
either raise or lower the award from the original $7 million.


FRANKLIN FARMS: Recalls Chili-Bean Veggiburgers Due to Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Farms is issuing a voluntary recall of certain code dates
of Chili-Bean Veggiburgers because they may contain undeclared
peanut.

Franklin Farms was notified by a third party supplier that one of
the spice ingredients used in Chili-Bean Veggiburgers may
inadvertently contain peanut, an allergen that is not declared on
the products' ingredient statements. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume products containing
peanut.

This recall affects the following products:

  Description
  (Retail)        UPC Code     Size         Use/Freeze By Dates
  -----------     --------     ----         -------------------
Franklin Farms   044325120050  10 oz (4 ct) 08/03/14 to 09/07/14
Chili-Bean
Veggiburger

Franklin Farms   044325120050  10 oz (4 ct) 11/09/14 to 03/01/15
Chili-Bean
Veggiburger

  Description
  (Food Service) UPC Code       Size            Lot #s
  -------------- --------       ----            ------
Franklin Farms   705723300306   10.5 lb         170161, 170343
Chili-Bean                      case (48 ct)
Veggiburger

The date code for retail products can be found on the side of the
package sleeve. These products were distributed in the states of
CT, FL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, and PA and sold through both retail
stores and through foodservice channels.

Though testing has shown no detectable levels of peanut in the
products, Franklin Farms has issued a voluntary recall of these
products as a precaution. No illnesses have been reported to date
in connection with this recall.

Consumers with questions or seeking to return product may contact
us at 973-808-1540 from Monday - Friday, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430573.htm


FTS INT'L: "Agnew" Class Suit Transferred From W.D. to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Agnew v. FTS International
Services, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00393, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth).
The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00052-
O to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that FTS does not pay its sand coordinators
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Instead,
Stephen Agnew contends, the Company pays them a salary plus shift
(or day) rate for each shift worked, with no overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77000
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  ADunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Russell D. Cawyer, Esq.
          Sharon Fast Fulgham, Esq.
          KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
          201 Main Street, Suite 2500
          Fort Worth, TX 76102-3194
          Telephone: (817) 332-3562
          Facsimile: (817) 878-9280
          E-mail: russell_cawyer@khh.com
                  sharon.fulgham@kellyhart.com


GFI GROUP: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, and Jack I. Zwick, Esq. filed
the only class action complaint on behalf of investors who sold
their shares of the common stock of GFI Group, Inc. between
July 30, 2014 and September 8, 2014, inclusive.  The action seeks
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  While other
law firms have issued press releases announcing the filing of the
lawsuit, Scott+Scott and Jack I. Zwick are the only attorneys who
have actually filed a lawsuit on behalf of a GFI shareholder.
Prior to filing the lawsuit, Scott+Scott and Jack I. Zwick
researched the law and facts necessary to file this unique
seller's case on behalf of their client.  If you sold GFI stock
during this time period and would like additional information
about the action or are interested in being a lead plaintiff,
please contact one of the attorneys listed below.

On July 30, 2014, the Company announced that it had entered into
an acquisition agreement with CME Group, Inc. ("CME"), in which
CME would acquire all outstanding shares of GFI.  Furthermore, CME
would turn around and sell portions of GFI's business back to
certain of GFI's executives.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that GFI and the
other defendants knew or should have known that there were other
suitors for GFI, including BGC Partners, Inc., that had the
financial wherewithal to make a higher offer for GFI than CME, and
in fact did, in violation of the federal securities laws, causing
those who sold prior to the disclosure of the truth to sell their
shares at artificially deflated prices.

Any member of the class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of its choice or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you are interested
in serving as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by
January 27, 2015.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-
5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


GILSTER-MARY LEE: Recalls Market Pantry Ready to Eat Cereals
------------------------------------------------------------
Gilster-Mary Lee of Chester, Illinois, is voluntarily recalling
one lot of Market Pantry Honey & Oat Mixers Ready to Eat cereal
because it may contain undeclared almonds. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to almonds run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The only lot involved is Market Pantry Honey and Oat Mixers Ready
to Eat Cereal, packaged in 18-oz. cartons which have a Best By
date of SEP 30 15 P4 (UPC# 85239-90824). Consumers should return
the product to the store for a full refund or discard it.

The product is sold exclusively at Target Stores and was
distributed nationwide Gilster-Mary Lee Corp. became aware of the
mispackaging after receiving a customer complaint. No illnesses
have been reported to date in connection with this cereal.

For questions, consumers can call Gilster-Mary Lee Corp. at 618-
826-2361 ext. 3283 or 3035, 573-547-1083 ext. 4135 from 8:00 am to
4:30 pm CST Monday - Friday.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430389.htm


GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Propose $415-Mil. "No-Poach" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh took a rare and controversial step when
she got in the way of a settlement between tech workers and four
of Silicon Valley's biggest employers last summer.  But her
approach, which ultimately bagged the workers an extra $90
million, may stand as a warning to litigants expecting judges to
wave through settlements without probing too deeply.

On Jan. 15 plaintiffs lawyers submitted to the court a proposed
deal in which Google Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and
Intel Corp. would pay a combined $415 million to settle claims
that they illegally agreed not to recruit each other's employees.

Acknowledging the rocky road to settlement in Judge Koh's
courtroom, lawyers for the companies said there should be no
argument that the new deal -- one of the largest ever in an
employee class action, they say -- surpasses the bar for
preliminary approval.

The new settlement comes after Judge Koh rejected the parties'
first $324.5 million offer in August.  She said the number was too
low in proportion to an earlier settlement reached over the same
claims with smaller defendants Pixar Animation Studios Inc.,
Lucasfilm and Intuit Inc.  Judge Koh suggested a fair deal would
reach at least $380 million.

"Settling defendants disagree with the court's 'benchmark'
approach and methodology and have sought writ relief from the
Ninth Circuit," defense lawyers grumbled in a brief supporting the
new accord.  "Nonetheless, the new $415 million settlement exceeds
even the court's statement benchmark by about $35 million."

In an email, colead plaintiffs lawyer Kelly Dermody of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein said the team was "pleased that this
settlement exceeds the benchmark for approval previously set by
the court, and more importantly provides guaranteed, meaningful
relief to the class."

Most of the additional funds will go directly to plaintiffs, as
class counsel are not seeking to augment their fees.  Plaintiffs
lawyers Dermody and Joseph Saveri have requested $81 million in
fees and $1.2 million in costs, according to the motion to approve
the settlement.

Girard Gibbs partner Daniel Girard has requested $4.5 million for
his work representing objector Michael Devine, a former Adobe
engineer who served as a named plaintiff.  The lawyers have asked
for $80,000 for each of the five class representatives, including
the estate of Brandon Marshall, who was killed by a Santa Clara
County sheriff's deputy in December 2013.

Payouts for the rest of the class members would be determined on a
sliding scale based on their salaries.

Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said the company continues to deny
the allegations that it formed "no-poach" pacts with the other
defendants.

"We elected to settle the matter in order to avoid the risk,
burdens and uncertainty of ongoing litigation," he said in an
email.

Mr. Saveri said he's optimistic about the new deal, which he
attributed to hard work and determination on both sides.
"There were times when it didn't look like we were going to have a
deal," he said in an interview. "But things moved along and
everybody worked hard, and we achieved this agreement."

Part of that hard work was getting Mr. Devine back on their side,
which Mr. Saveri thinks will make Judge Koh more likely to approve
the deal.

Mr. Devine was "an active participant in the settlement
negotiations," said his lawyer, Mr. Girard, "and he believes at
this point that the revised settlement is one that he does not
think he should stand in the way of."

The parties arrived at the new settlement figure after reviewing
Judge Koh's rejection of the first deal, according to the January
15 court filing.  They also considered the risks posed by
defendants' appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, which is currently set for arguments in March.

Judge Koh's denial of the settlement made it clear she thinks
plaintiffs had strong evidence against the defendants.  That gave
class lawyers a big edge when negotiating the new settlement, said
Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness in
Washington, D.C.

"I think that changed the value of the litigation to all the
parties involved," he said.

At the same time, the pending appeal posed a significant risk for
plaintiffs that the Ninth Circuit might side with the companies.
The court might even have felt compelled to remand the case to
another judge less sympathetic to the plaintiffs, Mr. Frank said.

Morrison & Foerster partner Sean Gates -- sgates@mofo.com -- who
represents the four companies in the appeal, said he stands by his
argument that
Judge Koh's unprecedented denial of the settlement will make it
harder for future cases to settle.

"What Koh's ruling has done is to essentially foreclose certain
parts of the range of possible settlements," Mr. Gates said.  "And
so in this case, yeah, they ended up in a settlement.  But in
other cases, if you had that rule it could preclude settlements."

Plaintiffs lawyer Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who
is not involved in the case, said he hopes that by rejecting the
first settlement, Judge Koh is joining the ranks of judges who
insist on carefully reviewing class settlements.  He likened her
to U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who Mr. Berman says has a
reputation for scrutinizing proposed settlements.

"I know a lot of lawyers on both sides now want to stay clear of
Judge Alsup, but frankly I admire him for it even if he puts me
through the paces," Mr. Berman said in an email.  "There are
simply too many low-ball settlements where not enough attention is
being paid to the merits and what the class is getting back."


H-E-B: Recalls White Corn Tortilla Due to Foreign Material
----------------------------------------------------------
H-E-B has issued a voluntary and precautionary recall specifically
for the H-E-B Homestyle White Corn Tortillas due to the possible
presence of foreign material. There have been no reported
illnesses related to this precautionary recall.

H-E-B discovered the issue on January 13, 2015 during quality
assurance product reviews at our manufacturing facility. This
recall is specific to only the 12 count and 30 count packages of
H-E-B Homestyle White Corn Tortillas with a Best Buy Date of
January 22, 2015 and earlier. No other H-E-B tortilla products are
impacted by this voluntary precautionary recall.

There have been no consumer complaints or reports of illness at
this time. H-E-B is asking customers that may have purchased the
impacted product to return it to their H-E-B store for a full
refund.

The affected products include:

-- H-E-B Homestyle White Corn Tortillas 12 ct. packages with
    Best By dates of January 22, 2015 and earlier

-- H-E-B Homestyle White Corn Tortillas 30 ct. packages with
    Best By dates of January 22, 2015 and earlier

Expanded Southern Style Spice Recall

As an update to the voluntary and precautionary recall for select
items containing seasoning provided by Southern Style Spice,
H-E-B is expanding the recall to include H-E-B Texas Ranch
Casserole and H-E-B Gumbo due to undeclared peanut allergens in
the spice blend ingredient components possibly used for these
specific items. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to peanuts run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. There have been no
consumer complaints or reports of allergic reactions at this time.

The affected products include:

Retail packed H-E-B Texas Ranch Casserole purchased from an H-E-B
Deli on, or before, January 13, 2015 with a scan code beginning
with 279075 or 279108

Retail packed H-E-B Gumbo purchased from an H-E-B Deli on, or
before, January 13, 2015 with a scan code beginning with 27909
"H-E-B takes every precaution necessary to ensure the integrity
and quality of the products sold in our stores," said Winell
Herron, Group Vice President of Public Affairs and Diversity.
"These voluntary recalls have been issued in an abundance of
caution to maintain the highest standards of food safety for our
customers."

Any product purchased from the lists above should be returned to
any H-E-B store for a full refund. Customers with concerns or
questions may contact H-E-B Customer Relations at 210-938-8357 or
1-800-432-3113 between the hours of 8AM and 5PM Monday through
Friday.


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Schaefer" Suit to S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Schaefer v. HealthPort
Technologies LLC, Case No. 14L779, was removed from the Circuit
Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00069-DRH-DGW to the proceeding.

Mr. Schaefer alleges that HealthPort charged him and his attorneys
unlawful fees for electronic copies of his medical records in
violation of the Illinois Compiled Statutes.  He asserts three
theories of recovery: a private right of action; violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act; and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON & NELSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
          420 North High Street
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 277-4000
          E-mail: dnelson@nelsonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
          8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109
          St. Louis, MO 63411
          Telephone: (314) 258-0212
          E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Potts, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2000
          Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
          E-mail: jonathan.potts@bryancave.com


HJ HEINZ: Osem Warns About Ketchup Product Labeling
---------------------------------------------------
Adi Dovrat-Meseritz, writing for Haaretz, reports that it looks
like ketchup and tastes like ketchup, and for much of the world
it's even synonymous with ketchup.  But according to Israeli food
maker Osem, the stuff that H.J. Heinz Co. makes isn't ketchup, at
least according to Israeli standards.

In a warning letter to the country's supermarkets, Osem claimed
that a lab test it conducted showed that the Heinz ketchup
distributed in Israel contains only about 20% tomato concentrate,
much less than the 61% minimum required by Israeli regulations.

That's not all. Osem claimed that Heinz's 907-gram (32-ounce)
bottles are labeled as containing 39% tomato concentrate but were
found in lab tests to contain just 17%.  That, the company said,
meets standards in the U.S. and Europe but not in Israel, which
requires ketchup to contain at least 10% tomato solids. Osem says
tomato concentrate must make up at least 35% of the product to
reach that level.

Osem, whose brand of ketchup is Israel's top seller with a 66%
market share, asserted in the letter that marketing the Heinz
product as ketchup amounts to consumer fraud.

In addition, two lawyers, Yaacov Spiegelman and Amit Ido, have
filed a motion for a class-action suit on behalf of consumers who
purchased Heinz ketchup in Israel over the past seven years.  The
lawsuit seeks 73 million shekels ($18.5 million) in damages.

Tempest in a tomato patch?

Diplomat Group, which distributes Heinz ketchup in Israel and also
received the warning letter, on Jan. 13 claimed that the lab tests
must have produced erroneous results.  But even if they were
correct, Diplomat contended, the regulation Osem is citing is not
binding on Heinz ketchup sold in Israel.

"Heinz ketchup is sold as ketchup in 130 countries, but according
to Osem, in Israel it's not legal," the company said.  "It's clear
that monopolistic Osem would be happy if only its product could be
sold in Israel, but Osem's claims are without substance.  It is
relying on a standard that is not official and is not mandatory.
This determination is backed by a legal opinion."

Diplomat added that H.J. Heinz Co., which is based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, had assured it that the labeling on Heinz ketchup
sold in Israel is accurate in stating that the Heinz product
contains 39% tomato concentrate.

And Diplomat said that Osem -- which is controlled by the Swiss
foods giant Nestle -- has not provided the laboratory results on
which it is basing its claim.

The testing, Diplomat claimed, produced an estimate rather than
data from measurement equipment.

According to the website at Heinz, which is controlled by Warren
Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway and by the New York investment firm
3G Capital, the company started selling ketchup 138 years ago, in
1876.  It sells more than 650 million bottles of the stuff
annually in more than 140 countries, booking sales of more than
$1.5 billion.

Diplomat recently began distributing 700-gram bottles of the
iconic ketchup brand, sitting alongside Osem's 750-gram bottles.
The similarly sized Osem and Heinz ketchups now sell for about the
same price at discount supermarket chains, although the Osem
bottles contain 7% more ketchup.

If Osem is seeing red over Heinz, Israel's supermarkets aren't.

"I don't understand what the idea is here," one senior grocery
chain executive, who asked not to be identified, told TheMarker.

"It's not fair on Osem's part. If you have a problem, then address
it to the [responsible] regulatory agency and not to the
supermarket chains themselves."


HOOTERS OF TRUSSVILLE: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that two former Alabama Hooters servers
filed a class action lawsuit against the owner of their restaurant
on Jan. 6 over allegations that the business violated the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Brooke Pearman and Jodi Lee filed the suit against Hooters of
Trussville, LLC.  According to the complaint, Ms. Pearman and Ms.
Lee were employed by Hooters of Trussville in Alabama as servers
between 2009 and 2014.  They alleged Hooters failed to pay them
wages earned, along with unpaid compensation and overtime.

Ms. Pearman and Ms. Lee also alleged Hooters of Trussville
required the servers to perform non-server duties such as washing
windows, cleaning sections, wiping down areas, making tea and
filling condiment containers.  Hooters of Trussville allegedly
compensated the servers the wage of a tipped employee at $2.13 per
hour despite their performing non-server duties.  Ms. Pearman and
Lee also alleged Hooters of Trussville required servers to
contribute a part of their tips to staff personnel who do not
directly service customers.

Ms. Pearman and Lee seek unpaid compensation and benefits, along
with attorney's fees and costs.

Ms. Pearman and Ms. Lee are represented by Daniel E. Arciniegas,
of Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb, LLC in
Birmingham, Ala.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
case number: 2-14-cv-0015


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls 250 mL 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection
----------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. (NYSE: HSP) initiated a voluntary nationwide recall
of one lot of  0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP, 250 mL (NDC
0409-7983-02, Lot 44-002-JT, Expiry 1AUG2016) to the user level
due to one confirmed customer report of particulate in a single
unit. Hospira has identified the particulate as a human hair,
sealed in the bag at the additive port area.  Hospira has not
received reports of any adverse events associated with this issue
for this lot.

In the unlikely event that the particulate breaks and pieces are
able to pass through the intravenous catheter, injected
particulate material may result in local inflammation, phlebitis,
and/or low-level allergic response. Capillaries which may be as
small as the size of a red blood cell, approximately seven microns
in diameter, may become occluded. Patients with preexisting
condition of trauma or other medical condition that adversely
affects the microvascular blood supply are at an increased risk.

This lot was distributed nationwide from September 2014 through
November 2014. Hospira has initiated an investigation to determine
the root cause and corrective and preventive actions.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop
use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately.
Customers should notify all users in their facility. Customers who
have further distributed the recalled product should notify any
accounts or additional locations which may have received the
recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the
product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the
consumer level. Hospira has notified its direct customers via a
recall letter and is arranging for impacted product to be returned
to Stericycle in the United States. For additional assistance,
call Stericycle at 1-877-877-0164 between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. ET, Monday through Friday. Hospira will provide allocation
credits and make replacement product available for contracted
customers.

For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the
information provided below.

Hospira Contact  Contact Information     Areas of Support
Hospira Global   Complaint Management    1-800-441-4100 (8am-5pm
CT, M-F)(ProductComplaintsPP@hospira.com)

To report adverse events or product complaints Hospira Medical
Communications 1-800-615-0187 or medcom@hospira.com (Available 24
hours a day/7 days per week)

Medical Inquiries

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm  or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

About Hospira

Hospira, Inc. is the world's leading provider of injectable drugs
and infusion technologies, and a global leader in biosimilars.
Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is uniquely
positioned to Advance Wellness(TM) by improving patient and
caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. The company is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill. Learn more at www.hospira.com.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430930.htm


IC SYSTEM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Menachem Vogel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00354
(E.D.N.Y., January 22, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INVENTURE FOODS: Recalls Rader Farms(R) Fresh Start Blends
----------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona, has issued a
precautionary recall of its RADER FARMS(R) Fresh Start Smoothie
Blend, Fresh Start Sunrise Refresh Fusion, and Fresh Start Daily
Power Fusion because of a potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

These recalled blends themselves did not test positive for
Listeria monocytogenes.  However, Listeria moncytogenes was
detected on spinach and/or kale ingredients on another lot which
is currently placed on hold.  These spinach and kale ingredients
used to manufacture the recalled blends were supplied by the same
outside party.

Fresh Start Smoothie Blend is distributed in 48 oz. (3 lbs.)
packages at Costco in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and
in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan of
Canada.

The Fresh Start Sunrise Refresh Fusion and Fresh Start Daily Power
Fusion products are distributed in 35 oz. packages at Walmart in
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

The packages carry the Rader Farms and Fresh Start logos and are
sold in the frozen fruit aisle of the store. The products being
recalled are identified in the table below:

Product Name  Retailer  Size   Item       UPC         Lot Code(s)
                               Number

Fresh Start   Costco    48 oz. 91188588   4038851489   30055A0201
Smoothie                                               30055B0220
Blend                                                  30065A0201
                                                       30065B0220
                                                       30075A0201
                                                       30075B0220
                                                       30145B0220
                                                       30155A0201
                                                       32794A0201
                                                       32794B0220
                                                       33034B0220
                                                       33044A0201
                                                       33044B0211
                                                       33074A0201
                                                       33074B0220
                                                       33084A0201
                                                       33094A0201
                                                       33094B0220
                                                       33154A0201
                                                       33154B0220
                                                       33424A0205
                                                       33424B0220
                                                       33434A0205
                                                       33434B0220
                                                       33554A0220
                                                       33554B0211

Fresh Start   Blend    48 oz. 911885    884038851489   30075A0201
Smoothie      Costco                                   30145A0201
              Canada                                   30145B0220
                                                       32674A0201
                                                       32674B0220
                                                       32764A0218
                                                       32684A0201
                                                       32684B0220
                                                       32674B0220
                                                       32764B0211
                                                       32674B0220
                                                       32684A0201
                                                       32684B0220
                                                       32764B0211

Fresh Start   Walmart   35 oz. 552888783 884038851533  32274A0201
Daily Power
Fusion
32584A0201
33644A0220

Fresh Start   Walmart   35 oz. 552888782 884038851540 33644A0220
Sunrise                                               32274A0201
Refresh                                               32284A0201
Fusion                                                32584A0201




There are no known illnesses linked to consumption of Rader Farms
Fresh Start Blends to date.

Consumers who have purchased Rader Farms Fresh Start Blends are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Inventure Foods Customer
Service department at 866-890-1004, Mon.-Fri., 8 a.m.-4 p.m. PST,
email info@inventurefoods.com or visit
RaderFarms.com/FreshStartRecall

About Inventure Foods, Inc. and Rader Farms

Rader Farms is a division of Inventure Foods, Inc. and has
operated in the Pacific Northwest since 1941.

With manufacturing facilities in Arizona, Indiana, Washington,
Oregon and Georgia, Inventure Foods, Inc. (Nasdaq: SNAK) is a
marketer and manufacturer of specialty food brands in better-for-
you and indulgent categories under a variety of Company owned and
licensed brand names, including Boulder Canyon FoodsTM, Jamba(R),
Seattle's Best Coffee(R), Rader Farms(R), TGI FridaysTm , Nathan's
Famous(R), Vidalia Brands(R), Poore Brothers(R), Tato Skins(R),
Willamette Valley Fruit CompanyTM, Fresh FrozenTM and Bob's Texas
Style(R).  For further information about Inventure Foods, please
visit www.inventurefoods.com

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430738.htm


ISC INC: Accused by SEC of Operating "Ponzi Scheme"
---------------------------------------------------
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Loren W.
Holzhueter, and ISC, Inc. (d/b/a Insurance Service Center) and
Honefi, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00045-jdp (W.D. Wis., January 21,
2015) centers on an alleged fraudulent scheme perpetrated by
Defendant Loren W. Holzhueter and the insurance brokerage business
that he owns and controls -- ISC, Inc.

The SEC alleges that in raising funds for ISC, Mr. Holzhueter and
ISC have (a) lied to prospective investors about the nature of
their investment and the use of their funds, and (b) operated a
classic Ponzi scheme -- using funds from new investors to pay
returns to old investors.

Loren W. Holzhueter, age 69, is a resident of Jefferson County,
Wisconsin.  He is the president, Chief Executive Officer, majority
owner and registered agent of ISC, and is part-owner and managing
member of Honefi.

ISC, Inc., is a Wisconsin corporation formed in 1985 and
headquartered in Watertown, Wisconsin.  ISC is an insurance
brokerage  that sells homeowners, auto, farm, and life insurance
policies and the investments described in this lawsuit.  Honefi,
LLC, is a Wisconsin limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Watertown, Wisconsin.  Mr. Holzhueter owns
Honefi along with his wife and controls its operations.

The SEC is represented by:

          Timothy S. Leiman, Esq.
          Robert Moye, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Peltz, Esq.
          Ariella O. Guardi, Esq.
          Chicago Regional Office
          175 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 353-7390
          E-mail: Leimant@sec.gov
                  Moyer@sec.gov
                  PeltzJ@sec.gov
                  Guardia@sec.gov


JJ FUDS: Recalls Multiple Chicken Tender Chunks Pet Food
--------------------------------------------------------
J.J. Fuds in Valparaiso, IN is recalling a select lot and product
of J.J. Fuds Chicken Tender Chunks Pet Food because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.
Animals' ill with Listeria will display symptoms similar to the
ones listed above for humans. People who have concerns about
whether their pet has Listeria should contact their veterinarian.

The recalled product was distributed regionally in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois to wholesale and retail
customers. The product can be identified by the batch ID code
(manufactured date) and UPC code printed on the back of the
individual plastic bag or on the master case label. This product
is a frozen raw poultry product (see Safe Handling Instructions on
package) and has a shelf life of one year if kept frozen.

The recalled product is as follows:

J. J. Fuds Premium Natural Blends, Chicken Tender Chunks
All 5 lb. bags with:
Product UPC Number: 654592-345935
Manufacture/Lot Code Date: 5/5/14

The recall was a result of a routine sampling program by the
Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development resulting
in a positive test for Listeria monocytogenes. The company has not
received any reports of dogs experiencing nausea and diarrhea that
may be associated with these specific products. The company has
received no reports of human illness as a result of these
products.

J.J. Fuds, Inc. will immediately start working with distributors
and retailers to properly dispose of any affected product left on
freezer shelves. The company will also be working with
distributors and retailers to recall this product from pet owners
to ensure the proper disposal of any affected product that has
been purchased.

J.J. Fuds is issuing this action out of an abundance of caution
and sincerely regrets any inconvenience to pet owners as a result
of this announcement.

The recalled product should not be sold or fed to pets. Pet owners
who have the affected product at home should return to retailer
for a refund and proper disposal.

For further information or questions regarding this recall, please
contact us at jjfuds.com or by phone at 888-435-5873 Monday-Friday
8AM-4PM CST.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm431434.htm


LABOSMILE USA: Sued in N.J. for Violating Communications Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marcus, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Labosmile USA, LLC d/b/a Zircolabo, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00449-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., January 22, 2015) seeks relief under the
Communications Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-6667
          Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
          E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


LOWE'S HOME: Court Approves $6.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Reibstein, Esq., Lisa B. Petkun, Esq., and Andrew J.
Rudolph, Esq. of Pepper Hamilton LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that a $6.5 million settlement between Lowe's Home Centers
and a class of its home improvement contractors was recently
approved by a federal court judge in California.  The contractors
claim that they had been misclassified as independent contractors
instead of employees.  The maximum settlement amount, depending on
the number of contractors who file claims, is $6,500,000. In
addition, the court awarded plaintiffs' class counsel $1,625,000
in legal fees. Shepard v. Lowe's HIW, Inc., No. 12-CV-03893-JSW
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015).  The settlement of this lawsuit permits
us to focus on four takeaways (i.e., lessons) for other businesses
that rely upon the use of independent contractors to supplement
their workforce or that utilize an independent contractor or 1099
model.  Those lessons can be best addressed following a brief
description of the lawsuit and its settlement.

The Lawsuit and Settlement

As first reported in our May 28, 2014 blog post, the plaintiffs in
this case were home improvement contractors comprised of both
individuals and businesses.  They alleged that Lowe's Home Centers
offered its customers the opportunity to hire contractors to
install products purchased from Lowe's.  Such products included
appliances, kitchens, bath and plumbing fixtures, flooring, doors
and windows, garage doors, lighting, outdoor fixtures, and
insulation.  The complaint, which was originally filed in state
court, alleged that Lowe's had the right to control, and did in
fact control, all aspects of installation jobs by, including
requiring that the installers to identify themselves as
"installers for Lowe's" or by saying "I work for Lowe's"; wear
Lowe's hats and shirts at work sites; use signs stating "Lowe's
Installation"; attend training by Lowe's; and comply with Lowe's
production requirements.

The complaint also alleged that:

Lowe's Production Office managed each installation project;

Lowe's set the fees to be earned by each home improvement
contractor;

Lowe's imposed a non-compete covenant on installers; and
Lowe's marketed the contractors' services on its website on an
"Installation" page that provided "Let Us Do The Installation For
You" with our "trained installers," who services were "guaranteed
by Lowe's warranty."

The installers further alleged that Lowe's failed to provide the
installation contractors with an array of benefits that were
available to employees, including comprehensive group medical
insurance, prescription drug coverage, vision care, group life
insurance, paid sick leave, paid vacation, tuition reimbursement,
employee discounts for purchases, short and long term disability
coverage, a stock purchase plan, and a matching 401(k) savings
plan.  They also claimed they were entitled to reimbursement, as
employees, for all necessary expenses incurred in performing their
services.

Lowe's denied the allegations and has maintained that the
installers are independent contractors.  After numerous motions
and extensive discovery including the exchange of thousands of
pages of documents and depositions of both the class
representatives and Lowe's personnel, the parties settled their
disputes at a private mediation.

Had the case gone to trial, the maximum amount recoverable for the
class would be approximately $33 million.  Plaintiffs' counsel
acknowledged, though, that the case presented "complex legal and
factual issues" including the risk that class certification would
be denied.  Those issues, the plaintiffs' counsel claim, make the
maximum settlement amount of $6.5 million for class members a fair
and reasonable compromise that is in the best interests of the
class members.


MANHEIM INVESTMENTS: Latest Remand Order in "Ibarra" Suit Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two new rulings from the 9th Circuit on separate labor class
actions side with employers that say the litigation implicates at
least $5 million in damages, reports Rose Bouboushian at
Courthouse News Service.

Jose Ibarra filed the first of the complaints at issue in
California state court on Dec. 22, 2011, claiming that Nevada-
based Manheim Investments failed to pay minimum wage and overtime,
among other issues.

Claiming that the claims, involving a possible class of all
current and former non-exempt hourly Manheim employees since
December 22, 2007, Manheim removed the case to federal court under
the Class Action Fairness Act.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo remanded the case in 2013,
however, based on Manheim's failure to show that the amount in
controversy exceeded $5 million.  In the time since Manheim failed
twice more to keep the case in Bencivengo's court.

The Supreme Court put this analysis into question last month with
its ruling in Dart Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, which says a
defendant seeking to remove a class action to federal court needs
only to "plausibly" assert the amount of the controversy exceeds
$5 million.

Citing this case, the 9th Circuit vacated the latest remand order
on January 8.

"A 'pattern and practice' of doing something does not necessarily
mean always doing something," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the
three-judge panel.

The judge later added: "Because the complaint does not allege that
Manheim universally, on each and every shift, violates labor laws
by not giving rest and meal breaks, Manheim bears the burden to
show that its estimated amount in controversy relied on reasonable
assumptions."

Remand lets both sides submit evidence related to damages, the
ruling states.

"Here, Manheim relied on an assumption about the rate of its
alleged labor law violations that was not grounded in real
evidence," Gould wrote.  "Ibarra contested the assumption, but did
not assert an alternative violation rate grounded in real
evidence, such as an affidavit by Ibarra asserting how often he
was denied meal and rest breaks.  We remand on an open record for
both sides to submit proof related to the disputed amount in
controversy, and the district court must then determine if a
preponderance of the evidence shows that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million."

Citing its new holding in Manheim, the same panel vacated the
remand of a different class action, in this case truck drivers
suing Transportation Inc. and Knight Truck and Trailer Sales LLC.

Knight estimates the amount in controversy, which would require
reimbursing the drivers for lease-related and fuel costs, at more
than $44 million.

U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal had remanded the case to
California state court after finding that Knight's calculations
relied on a flawed assumption that all drivers worked 50 weeks a
year.

The 9th Circuit's January 8 ruling sides with Knight.

Because Knight "relied on a reasonable chain of logic and
presented sufficient evidence to establish that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million, defendants have met their burden
of proof," Gould wrote.

The appellate case is Ibarra, et al. v. Manheim Investments Inc.,
et al., Case No. 14-56779, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The District Court case is Ibarra, et al. v.
Manheim Investments Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00857-CAB-BLM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Jones" Suit to Tennessee District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Jones v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-000271-15, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
(Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
02054 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was injured by her physician's off-
label use of Medtronic's Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered
Fusion Device.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MORGAN KEEGAN: Settles Investor Class Action Over Sweetener Plant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys said an investment
firm settled a federal class-action lawsuit Jan. 14 that accused
it of bilking investors across the United States out of $39
million in bonds in a botched plan to build an artificial
sweetener plant in Missouri.  The terms of the agreement weren't
disclosed.

The settlement, announced the same day opening statements in the
trial were scheduled, came after less than an hour of private
discussions and ended the lawsuit against investment banking firm
Morgan Keegan.

Morgan Keegan was accused of misrepresenting the failed project's
chances of success to bondholders.  The case pitted the investment
firm and legal adviser Armstrong Teasdale against 133 people who
bought bonds for the plant.  Investors from 19 states were
represented.

Attorneys for Morgan Keegan and Armstrong Teasdale declined to
comment on the settlement on Jan. 14.

The factory had been touted as an economic boon for the central
Missouri town of less than 14,000 residents.  Gov. Jay Nixon had
announced in July 2010 that Mamtek's plant for the low-calorie
sweetener sucralose would bring 600 jobs to Moberly.

Missouri lawmakers authorized up to $17.6 million in tax credits
and other incentives for the plant, although no credits were
issued.

The Moberly Industrial Development Authority agreed to issue $39
million in bonds in 2010 to pay for the plant's construction.
Morgan Keegan purchased the bonds as the underwriter and sold them
to investors.

But plans for the plant disintegrated after Mamtek failed to make
a $3.2 million bond payment, and the partially built factory was
abandoned.

Moberly's credit rating plummeted after the town refused to make
payments on the bonds, which cost Moberly at least $300,000 in
insurance premiums and other expenses.

A slew of lawsuits followed, including the one filed in 2012 by
Alabama investor John Cromeans that was settled on Jan. 14.  A
federal judge had granted the case class-action status, allowing
Mr. Cromeans to sue on behalf of all bondholders involved.

Mr. Cromeans claimed Morgan Keegan didn't verify the financial and
patent claims made by Mamtek and assured investors that Moberly
would repay the debt.

"These parties must be satisfied," said Alabama attorney Tim
Francis, who led the team representing the bondholders.

Former Mamtek CEO Bruce Cole was sentenced in November 2014 to
seven years in prison for stealing more than $700,000 from the
project.


NAC FOODS: Recalls Ground Cumin Due to Undeclared Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------
NAC FOODS of Palisades Park, NJ is recalling Ground Cumin, because
it may contain undeclared Peanut Protein. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to Peanut run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The affected Ground Cumin was distributed and sold to retailers
located in NJ, NY, and PA.

The recalled products are packaged in plastic containers under the
brands Mimi's Products and Rosa Maria. Recalled products can be
identified by LOT# 2948E which is located under the Expiration
Date 3/2017.

-- MIMI'S PRODUCTS GROUND CUMIN 1 OZ UPC 707425-054242 - LOT
    #2948E - EXP.DATE 3/2017

-- MIMI'S PRODUCTS GROUND CUMIN 9 OZ UPC 707425-032318 - LOT
    #2948E - EXP.DATE 3/2017

-- ROSA MARIA GROUND CUMIN 6 OZ UPC 707425-160417 - LOT #2948E -
    sEXP.DATE 3/2017

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers are urged to return product to place of purchase or to
NAC Foods located at 239 Commercial Avenue, Palisades Park, NJ
07649 for a full refund. Consumers can contact the company at 201-
592-8920 Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 AM and
6:00 PM EST.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430354.htm


NASON MEDICAL: OT Suit Granted Conditional Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Sausser, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that a
lawsuit filed last fall by a Nason Medical Center physician
assistant was granted conditional collective action status by a
federal judge on Jan. 12.  The case, which claims employee Daniel
Caskie was denied overtime compensation for several years, may now
apply to some 40 current and former workers who may choose to opt-
in, if they wish.

The lawsuit alleges Mr. Caskie was required to clock out for
lunch, but often had to skip the actual break.  He typically
worked more than 40 hours a week, but was not paid time-and-a-half
for the extra hours, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, his
attorneys argue.

Attorney Hal Frampton, who represents Mr. Caskie, said his firm
now needs to notify other physician assistants who currently or
formerly worked at Nason Medical Center that they may join the
lawsuit.  He could not gauge how much money this group is
collectively owed.

"We've got to do a detailed analysis of the time records,"
Mr. Frampton said.  "It's very hard to put a number on it until we
do that."

Attorneys for Nason Medical Center previously filed a response to
the original complaint, denying that their clients owe these
physician assistants any money.

"Our pleadings speak for themselves," said attorney Allan Holmes,
who represents the business.

Mr. Holmes said he did not know how much money is at stake in the
case.

In September, a spokesman for the company told The Post and
Courier that the Fair Labor Standards Act "is intended to protect
blue collar workers by insuring that they are paid the minimum
wage and overtime" and that it "was not passed to protect
physician assistants who earn more than $100,000 per year.  In
fact, the FLSA specifically exempts such highly compensated
employees."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Denies Consolidation of Sex Bias Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alston and Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, report that a
New Jersey federal judge has denied the consolidation of a
putative class action, siding with the NCAA, which argued
procedural rules barred the combination of federal and state
actions claiming female athletes had their scholarships rescinded
due to NCAA rules that disproportionately affect women.

In a Jan. 9 order, U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo denied a
motion to consolidate filed by Shannon Pedersen, Emily Cristaldi
and Jaclyn Janicky, who sought to combine a federal class action
with a state action filed by Janicky in New Jersey Superior Court.
The judge ruled in favor of the NCAA, which said the two actions
couldn't be consolidated due to procedural and jurisdictional
barriers.

In its opposition brief, the NCAA said the consolidation was
prohibited under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, which says
consolidation is warranted "if actions before the court involve a
common question of law or fact."  "Before the court" is the
operative language, the league said, arguing the rule requires the
actions to be pending in the same federal district court.
Ms. Janicky's claim was filed in Ocean County in New Jersey
Superior Court.

The league said the actions would not be appropriate for
consolidation even if not for the jurisdictional issues, arguing
the cases don't involve the same issues of facts and include
different sets of defendants.

"Although both cases involve Kean University's 2011 decision to
rescind the Dorsey scholarship previously awarded to plaintiffs if
they continued playing intercollegiate athletics, the similarities
end there," the brief said.

"As noted above, the Janicky state court action involves claims
for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith against Kean University and university
officials who are not defendants here," it added.  "None of these
claims is present in the pending case against the NCAA."

The plaintiffs filed their motion to consolidate in late October,
claiming the separate actions could result in inconsistent rulings
in different courts to the detriment of judicial efficiency.
Despite the jurisdictional concerns, the plaintiffs said
consolidating the cases is within the court's discretion.

According to the complaint, Ms. Pedersen, Ms. Cristaldi and
Ms. Janicky, all student athletes at Kean University, allege they
and eight other student athletes at Kean University had their
scholarships taken away after the school was put on notice for
NCAA violations.  Because nine of the 11 students were women, the
plaintiffs say, the NCAA's policies are discriminatory in nature.

The plaintiffs say the school was put on notice of an NCAA
violation on Sept. 28, 2011, regarding off-season athletics
activities in Europe.  Two days later, Ms. Pedersen, Ms. Cristaldi
and Ms. Janicky were removed from their respective sports teams or
forced to forfeit their scholarship money without any hearing or
any other less severe alternative.

The proposed class includes all female student athletes who were
prevented from participating in sports during the 2011 school year
or were not paid their scholarships because of the NCAA's policies
and procedures that have a disparate impact on female student
athletes.

The federal complaint brings counts of a violation of the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination, deliberate indifference to
policies in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, a violation of
the public policy of the state of New Jersey and several others.

The plaintiffs are represented by Timothy J. McIlwain.

The NCAA is represented by Michael W. McTigue Jr. --
Michael.McTigue@dbr.com -- Kathryn E. Deal -- Kathryn.Deal@dbr.com
-- and Jennifer B. Dempsey -- Jennifer.Burke@dbr.com -- of Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP.

The case is Pedersen et al. v. NCAA et al., case number 2:14-cv-
02544, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: March 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
If you are a current or former trustee of a retirement plan
covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")
that had (1) group or individual variable annuity contracts with
Nationwide Life Insurance Company at any time between January 1,
1996 and September 30, 2014, or (2) trust, custodial, services, or
program agreements and/or arrangements with Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc., or its affiliates, at any time between January
1, 2009 and September 30, 2014, your plan may benefit from this
class action settlement.

This is a summary. See below for more information.

What is this about?

A Settlement has been reached in Haddock v. Nationwide Life
Insurance Co., a class action lawsuit against Nationwide Life
Insurance Company ("Nationwide Life") and Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc. ("NFS") (collectively, "Defendants").  The
Settlement resolves claims made by trustees of retirement plans
covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").
The trustees claimed that Defendants violated ERISA when they
arranged for, received or retained payments from mutual funds
("mutual fund payments" or "revenue sharing") offered as
investment options on their Annuity Contracts and Trust Platforms.
Defendants deny that they engaged in any improper conduct
and maintain that the mutual fund payments they received
benefitted the Plaintiffs, and the retirement plans and
participants they represent, because the payments were used to
reduce administrative fees paid by the plans and participants, and
to compensate Defendants lawfully and appropriately for its
services.  Defendants have agreed to settle to avoid the expense
and distraction of further continued litigation.  Both Parties
agree that the Settlement provides meaningful and carefully-
tailored relief to the Class that relates directly to the
allegations in Plaintiffs' case.

What does the settlement provide?

A Settlement Fund of $110,000,000 has been created for the benefit
of trustees of plans that held Annuity Contracts with Nationwide
Life between January 1, 1996 and September 30, 2014, and that are
subject to ERISA.  A Settlement Fund of $30,000,000 has been
created for the benefit of trustees of plans that held Trust
Platforms with Nationwide between January 1, 2009 and
September 30, 2014, and that are subject to ERISA.  Defendants
have also agreed to enhance certain business practices that
allegedly relate to the mutual fund payments it receives.

Who represents me?

The Court has appointed three law firms to represent you and other
Class Members: the Stanley Law Group, Lackey Hershman, LLP, and
Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, PC.  These lawyers are called Class
Counsel.  Marc R. Stanley of the Stanley Law Group and William
Bloss of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, PC have been appointed as Lead
Settlement Counsel.  You will not be charged for the work of these
lawyers.  If you want to be represented by a different lawyer in
this case, you may hire one at your own expense.

What are my rights?

To receive a payment, your Plan must submit a completed Claim Form
by May 20, 2015.  If you do nothing, you will remain in the Class
but receive no money.  You do not need to do anything to get the
benefit of new business practices.

You may exclude yourself from the Settlement by sending a letter
to the address below postmarked no later than March 21, 2015.
Your Plan cannot get any money from this Settlement if you do so.

You may object to the Settlement by filing an objection with the
Court by no later than March 21, 2015.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court, Class Members who do
not exclude themselves from the Class will give up any claims
covered by the Settlement and will be bound by the Court's orders
and judgment in the case.

The Court will hold a hearing on March 31, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. to
consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and to consider the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses.

To request a copy of the full Class Notice or a Claim Form, or for
further information:

Call: 1-866-894-0420
Visit: www.nwclassaction.com
Write: Haddock v. Nationwide Class Action Administrator
P.O. Box 43247
Providence, RI 02940-3247


NAVISTAR INC: SCMI Class Suit Included in MaxxForce Engines MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Southern California Moving, Inc.
v. Navistar International Transportation Corp., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00008, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00615 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Navistar MaxxForce Engines Marketing, Sales Practices and
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2590.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
alleged defects in Navistar's Advanced EGR emission control system
that was used in Navistar's MaxxForce diesel engines.  The
Plaintiffs allege that trucks or other heavy-duty vehicles in
which these engines were installed suffered repeated failures and
fault warnings, resulting in costly and time-consuming repairs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Lyle Coffman, Esq.
          THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
          505 Orleans St., Suite 505
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 833-7700
          Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
          E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
          WELLER GREEN TOUPS & TERRELL
          2615 Calder, Suite 400
          Beaumont, TX 77704
          Telephone: (409) 838-0101
          E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com


NORTHERN TIER: Recalls Twix Bismarck Doughnuts Due to Peanuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Tier Bakery LLC of St. Paul Park, MN is voluntarily
recalling Twix Bismarck doughnuts due to the possibility of an
undeclared peanut allergen in the Twix topping sourced from a
third party. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
peanuts may run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

The Twix Bismarck was distributed and sold between January 1,
2015, and January 14, 2015, at retail convenience stores in
Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Twix Bismarck is a white frosted
doughnut with a chopped Twix topping.

The recall was initiated after peanut allergen was discovered in
the chopped Twix product distributed to Northern Tier Bakery by a
third party in packaging that did not reveal the presence of
peanuts. Production of the Twix Bismarck has been suspended.

No illnesses have been reported to date, and there currently is no
evidence that any Twix Bismarck distributed for sale contains a
peanut allergen. Nonetheless, this recall has been issued by
Northern Tier Bakery in an abundance of caution, to ensure the
safety of consumers. Northern Tier Bakery takes every precaution
necessary to ensure the integrity and quality of its products.

Consumers who have purchased a Twix Bismarck are urged to return
it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers may call
1-855-468-6972 with any questions.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430903.htm


OAKLAND, CA: Occupy Protesters Win Prelim. OK of $1.3-Mil. Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 360 Occupy Oakland protesters who claim they were falsely
arrested and subjected to unconstitutional jail conditions after a
January 2012 protest have been granted class certification and a
tentative settlement, reports Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News
Service.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins on Jan. 5 gave the class
preliminary approval for a settlement of more than $1.3 million.

Lead plaintiff Steven Angell complained that Oakland's police
officers "corralled and trapped" the protesters in front of the
Oakland YMCA on Broadway, where they were "pushed, clubbed and
driven into a shrinking space."  Angell claimed that the entire
group was arrested without probable cause.

Police said the protesters were arrested for failure to disperse,
but Angell said the group had been given no notice or opportunity
to do so.  Once under arrest, they were forced to stand or sit on
the street for hours, were not allowed to use restrooms or take
necessary medications, then taken to various Alameda County jails,
where they were held for 12 to 85 hours, according to the
complaint.  The group's attorneys estimated that the total
incarceration time was 13,500 hours.

In jail, the class claims, they were subjected to "overcrowded and
inhumane conditions" and were denied phone calls and access to
legal counsel.

Yolanda Huang, the class's lead attorney, said in a telephone
interview that the lawsuit has caused the Oakland Police
Department to implement positive policy changes in the way it
handles protests.

"Protesters should not be hauled off to jail for long periods of
time," she said.  "They should be recognized for minor penal code
violations, cited and released, rather than being forced to go
through the formal booking process at jail.

"The OPD has made those changes, and kudos to them for following
through."

The defendants could not be reached for comment.

The preliminarily approved settlement stipulates that the City of
Oakland and the County of Alameda will pay the class more than
$1.3 million, which will be divided equally among the class
members after attorneys' fees and class representatives' awards
are deducted.

Cousins ruled that the class counsel would receive $350,000, and
that each of the eight class representatives would receive $9,000.

The settlement also requires sealing and destruction of the arrest
records, police reports and other documents pertaining to the
class members' arrest.

The case is Steven Angell, and others v. City Of Oakland, and
others, Case No. 3:13-cv-00190-NC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.


OHIO CITY PASTA: Recalls Mislabeled Cheese Pasta Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Ohio City Pasta discovered through customer emails that some of
our cheese pasta products were mislabeled and may contain seafood
ravioli. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
shellfish run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. However, no illnesses
have been reported to date.

Consequently, Ohio City Pasta are recalling lot no. 14351 and
14346 from the market. This product has been distributed to retail
stores in Cleveland Ohio and surrounding suburbs specifically
Heinens, Regos, and Ohio City Pasta at the Westside Market.
Chicago Illinois specifically Heinens grocery. Pittsburgh PA
specifically Ohio City Pasta at Pittsburgh public market. Other
lots are not involved.

Please inspect and or return any products you may have purchased
between 12/11/2014 and 1/3/2015 for replacement or refund.

The Ravioli are retail packed in clear containers with a top label
stating Ohio City Pasta four cheese ravioli, and a nutritional
panel on back with UPC # 38735-00011; or a 2"x9" label sealing the
container that says Ohio City Pasta Four Cheese Ravioli code#
14346 or Ohio City Pasta Smoked Mozzarella Ravioli code# 14351.

Please examine your stocks immediately to determine if you have
any of Lot No. 14351, 14346 or UPC # 38735-00011 on hand. If so,
discontinue distributing the lot and promptly return via parcel
post, to our Cleveland Ohio Plant, ATTENTION: RETURNED GOODS 3117
Detroit Ave Cleveland Ohio 44113.

If you have further distributed any of Lot No. 14351, 14346 or UPC
# 38735-00011, please immediately contact your accounts, advise
them of the recall situation, and have them return their
outstanding recalled stocks to you. Return these stocks as
indicated above. You will be reimbursed by check or credit memo
for the returned goods and postage.

If you have any questions, please contact us at (216) 696-3388.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the US Food and
Drug Administration.

Ohio City Pasta appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm429812.htm


OLIVET NAZARENE: Ex-Football Player Sues Over Brain Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Rodriguez, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
man who played college football in Illinois during the 1980s says
in a lawsuit filed on Jan. 13 that concussions he suffered as a
result of bad coaching and improper helmet use led to his
diagnosis of traumatic brain injuries.

Nathaniel Seth Irvin and his wife, Lisa Marie Thomas, filed the
suit in Cook County Circuit Court against his alma mater, Olivet
Nazarene University; its football program's governing body, the
National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics; and several
athletic equipment makers, including Russell Brands LLC.  In the
suit, the Pennsylvania couple say those parties contributed to
multiple head injuries he suffered while playing linebacker from
1986 to 1989.

"On multiple occasions, after hits to the head, Mr. Irvin
exhibited symptoms of concussions including, vomiting, lack of
physical control, dizziness, confusion, blackouts, amnesia, and
chronic headaches," the suit alleges.

Immediately after and during the days following each concussion,
the university's coaching staff improperly assessed Mr. Irvin's
condition and instructed him to return to play, according to the
suit.

The suit claimed that while suffering blows to the head, Mr. Irvin
wore helmets improperly and was never provided adequate
instructions on wearing the helmets, either from the university or
from the helmet-making companies.  He was also taught improper
tackling techniques, according to the suit.

"Using the techniques taught by Olivet coaches, Mr. Irvin
regularly initiated contact during a tackle with his helmet and/or
face mask," according to the suit.

Until recently, the suit claims, Irvin was unaware of the dangers
of concussions.  In March 2014, Irvin was diagnosed with multiple
traumatic brain injuries, including post-traumatic epilepsy, major
depressive disorder with anxiety and early Alzheimer's disease.
Not until recently, after his symptoms became worse and the issue
of athletics-related concussions entered the national spotlight,
did he associate his conditions with his college football career,
according to the suit.

Traumatic brain injury has become a big issue in college and
professional football.

In October 2013, the NFL reached a $765 million settlement with
more than 4,500 former players who had filed suit against the
league, accusing it of hiding the dangers of brain injury while
profiting from the game's violence.  The NFL admitted no
wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement, which does not include
current players.

In December, a federal judge denied a proposed $75 million class-
action settlement by the NCAA after former college athletes
claimed to have suffered long-term harm from concussions.

The NAIA, the Olivet football program's governing body, declined
to immediately comment on the Jan. 13 lawsuit.

Olivet could not be reached for comment on Jan. 13.  Nor could
Russell Brands, which acquired the company cited in the lawsuit as
having made helmets worn by Irvin.


OMA'S PRIDE: Recalls Purr-Complete Feline Poultry Meal
------------------------------------------------------
Oma's Pride of Avon, CT is recalling Purr-Complete Feline Poultry
Meal because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and
there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products,
especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after
having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping, and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these
signs after having contact with this product should contact their
healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

Purr-Complete Feline Poultry Meal was distributed nationwide
through retail stores, distributors, and directly to consumers.
Purr-Complete Feline Poultry Meal is sold frozen.  It is packaged
in clear 12 oz. (UPC: 8 79384 00017 9) and 2 lb. (UPC: 8 79384
00018 6) plastic packaging under the Oma's Pride brand as a
poultry blend with code #1524.  It was manufactured on September
12, 2014 with a use by recommended date of September 12, 2015.

There have been no illnesses reported to date.

The recall was as the result of a routine sampling program by
Pesticide and Plant Pest Management Division of the Michigan
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development resulting in a
positive test for Salmonella. Oma's Pride has ceased the
production and distribution of the product as FDA and the company
continue their investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Purr-Complete Feline Poultry Meal are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Oma's Pride Monday through
Friday, 9:00am - 4:30pm, at 1-800-678-6627.

Photo of the Recalled Products available at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm430727.htm


OMEGA REFINING: Dumped Toxins Into Mississippi River, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Louisiana used oil recycling refinery dumped hydrochloric acid
and other poisons into the Mississippi River for two years and
tried to conceal it, a class of 1,000 people claim in state court,
reports Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Stacy Davis claims the Omega Refining has dumped
thousands of pounds of noxious substances such as hydrochloric
acid, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide since
January 2012, and concealed extent of its pollution.

Omega did not properly report the discharges as required by state
law, and/or reported inaccurate information about the discharges
to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, according to
the Jan. 6 lawsuit in Jefferson Parish Court.

The refinery is "within the general vicinity of dozens of schools,
churches, hospitals, and residential and retirement communities"
and is "continuously endangering the health and damaging the
quality of life of its class members," the class claims.  The
refinery on the Mississippi River receives used motor oil and
other hazardous materials by train and barge and recycles it using
a multistage distillation process.

Since early 2012, the refinery has repeatedly failed to prevent
"frequent, foreseeable, and preventable breakdowns," Davis claims.
She claims it also violated its hourly permit emission limits for
hydrochloric acid, nitrogen oxide and dioxide, sulfur dioxide and
hydrogen sulfide.

Since 2012, Davis claims, the refinery has failed to report an
emergency condition at its refinery due to too many harmful
chemicals being released on nine occasions, and has failed to
report all chemicals and the proper levels released on 10
occasions.  She claims the plaintiffs had no idea the discharges
were occurring until August 2014.

Omega Refining did not reply to a request for comment.

Davis et al. seek class certification and damages for personally
injuries, physical and emotional distress.

Also named as defendants are Vertex Refining and plant manager
Stacy Lucas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy Falcon, Esq.
          FALCON LAW FIRM
          5044 Lapalco Blvd.
          Marrero, LA 70072
          Telephone: (504) 341-1234


OPTIVER US: May 19 NYMEX Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased, sold or held NYMEX Light Sweet Crude Oil, NYMEX
New York Harbor Heating Oil or NYMEX New York Harbor Gasoline
futures contracts at any time from March 2, 2007 through March 26,
2007, inclusive, then your rights will be affected and you may be
entitled to a benefit.

A Settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit
concerning the allegedly improper trading of three futures
contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") from
March 2, 2007 through March 26, 2007, inclusive.  The Settlement
will provide $16.75 million to pay claims from Persons who bought,
sold, or held the referenced futures contracts at any time from
March 2-26, 2007. If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim
form to potentially get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from
the Settlement, or object to it.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this
notice.  Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Fairness
Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement.

Who's Included?
You are a "Settlement Class Member" if you purchased, sold or held
NYMEX Light Sweet Crude Oil futures contracts, NYMEX
New York Harbor Heating Oil futures contracts or NYMEX New York
Harbor Gasoline futures contracts at any time from March 2,
2007 through March 26, 2007, inclusive.  Excluded from the
Settlement Class are (i) members of the judiciary assigned to this
case, including their immediate family members; (ii) Class Counsel
and their employees; (iii) Defendants and any parent, subsidiary,
affiliate, employee or agent of any Defendant, including
Defendants' counsel; and (iv) Opt Outs.

Contact your futures broker or futures commission merchant to see
if you purchased, sold or held the referenced contracts.  If
you're not sure you are included, you can get more information,
including the Settlement Agreement, Mailed Notice, Plan of
Allocation, Proof of Claim and other important documents, at
www.nymextassettlement.com ("Settlement Website") or by calling
toll free 1-866-778-9470.

What's This About?
The lawsuit claims that Defendants Optiver US LLC, Optiver Holding
B.V., Optiver VOF, Christopher Dowson, Bastiaan van
Kempen, and Randal Meijer ("Defendants") caused and aided and
abetted the causation of artificial prices of certain futures
contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange from March 2-26,
2007, inclusive, by amassing dominant NYMEX trading at settlement
("TAS") contract positions and offsetting such positions through
NYMEX futures contracts transactions in the opposite direction of
the TAS positions during the closing period for the futures
contracts at the end of the day.  Defendants deny any wrongdoing
that Plaintiffs allege in the lawsuit and maintain that they have
complied with their legal obligations.

The Court did not decide which side is right.  But both sides
agreed to the Settlement to resolve the case and get benefits to
potentially affected market participants.  The two sides disagree
on how much money could have been won if the Plaintiffs had
prevailed at trial.

What Does the Settlement Provide?
Under the Settlement, Defendant Optiver US agreed to pay $16.75
million into a Settlement Fund.  If the Court approves the
Settlement, potential Settlement Class Members who qualify and
send in valid Proof of Claim forms will receive a share of the
Settlement Fund, after it is reduced by the payment of certain
expenses.  The Settlement Agreement, available at the Settlement
Website, describes all of the details about the proposed
Settlement.

The exact amount each qualifying Settlement Class Member will
receive from the Settlement Fund cannot be calculated until
(1) the Court approves the Settlement; (2) certain amounts
identified in the full Settlement Agreement are deducted from the
Settlement Fund; and (3) the number of participating Class Members
and the amount of their Allowed Claims are determined.  In
addition, each Settlement Class Member's share of the Settlement
Fund will vary depending on the information the Settlement Class
Member provides on their Proof of Claim form.  Generally, however,
if you bought, sold or held more contracts, you will get more
money.  And if you bought, sold or held fewer contracts, you will
get less money.

The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case
to case.  If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a
Proof of Claim form, you could get more money.

How Do You Ask For a Payment?
If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may seek to participate
in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim to the Settlement
Administrator at the address below postmarked no later than
August 3, 2015.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the Settlement
Website or by calling the toll free number referenced above.  If
you are a Settlement Class Member but do not file a Proof of
Claim, you will still be bound by the releases set forth in the
Settlement Agreement if the Court enters an order approving the
Settlement Agreement.

What Are Your Other Options?
If you don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
exclude yourself by April 14, 2015, or you won't be able to sue,
or continue to sue, Defendants about the legal claims in this
case.  If you exclude yourself, you can't get money from this
Settlement.  If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it
by April 27, 2015.  All objections to or requests to be excluded
from the Settlement must be made in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the formal Mailed Notice.  The Mailed
Notice available at www.nymextassettlement.com explains how to
exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in this case (In re:
Optiver Commodities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-06842-LAP) on
May 19, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 12A, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and a request by the lawyers
representing all Settlement Class Members (Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., and Robins
Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.) for an award of attorneys' fees of
no more than one-third (i.e., 33 1/3%) of the Settlement Fund for
investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the
Settlement, and for reimbursement of their costs and expenses in
the amount of no more than approximately $275,000.  The lawyers
for the Settlement Class may also seek additional reimbursement of
fees, costs and expenses in connection with services provided
after the Fairness Hearing.  These payments will also be deducted
from the Settlement Fund before any distributions are made to the
Settlement Class.

You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you don't have
to.  For more information, call toll free 1-866-778-9470, visit
the Website www.nymextassettlement.com or write to IN RE OPTIVER
COMMODITIES LITIGATION SETTLEMENT, c/o A.B.
DATA, LTD., PO BOX 170500, MILWAUKEE, WI 53217-8091.


PACIFIC PREMIER: Says $1.7MM Accrual Made in Baker Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an exhibit to Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc.'s Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 23, 2015, Steve Gardner, President and CEO of Pacific
Premier Bancorp, said: "We delivered strong performance in the
fourth quarter which was highlighted by our success in business
development that resulted in more than 20% annualized growth in
both loans and deposits.  However, we had a couple of items that
negatively impacted our bottom line.  The first item was $864,000
in merger related expense in connection with our Independence Bank
acquisition.  The second item was a $1.7 million accrual we made
in connection with the Baker class action lawsuit.  The bank was
named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit back in 2004
alleging various violations of Missouri law relating to alleged
excessive loan origination fees in closing costs, involving
approximately 16 residential loans.  Various motions to dismiss
the lawsuit were denied in 2005 and 2006."


PENNSYLVANIA: Sued by Inmates Over "One Good Eye" Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mcauley, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Pennsylvania faces a federal class action over its policy of
allegedly denying surgical treatment to inmates if they have at
least "one good eye."

"The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, by policy and
practice systematically denies necessary medical care for inmates
with serious eye conditions including severe cataracts, thereby
condemning them to partial or total blindness," the Jan. 2
complaint states.

Richard Hollihan, a ward of the state Corrections Department since
1986, brought the class action over Pennsylvania's alleged failure
to give him a second cataract surgery.

Though the state removed the cataract from Hollihan's right eye in
2001, the same year he was transferred to Somerset, he says
doctors have been recommending that he undergo cataract surgery in
his left eye since 2008.

The problem is so severe that Hollihan has trouble reading and
writing, will "frequently walk into people and objects," and is
substantially limited in his ability to perform manual tasks,
according to the complaint.

"On information and belief, defendant DOC [Department of
Corrections], has adopted an official policy and practice that
denies necessary surgical treatment to inmates with a severe eye
disease in one eye, but with another eye that provides some level
of vision that defendant DOC claims to be adequate," the complaint
states.  "This policy is referred to as the 'One Good Eye' policy.

"As a consequence of defendant DOC's 'One Good Eye' policy,
inmates are denied necessary surgical treatment for cataracts and
other conditions and are forced to languish with serious eye
conditions, which can cause legal or total blindness in the
diseased eye."

Hollihan says the policy is medically unjustified.

"Reducing expenditures by denying necessary medical care is not an
appropriate justification for the 'One Good Eye' policy," the
complaint states.

The system's guidelines allegedly include four exceptions to
refusing cataract surgery: if the inmate's vision tests at 20/50
or worse, despite corrective devices; if there is a potential for
undetected retinal disease; if the cataract is hypermature; or if
the inmate's activities are "significantly compromised" and cannot
be corrected by eyeglasses lighting.

Hollihan says that the department actually does not follow the
guidelines, refusing necessary surgery to inmates "including those
who have a hypermature cataract in one eye and vision that is
worse than 20/50 in the better-seeing eye."  Cataracts cause
"reversible blindness," Hollihan claims, adding that they may grow
larger and more dense over time, resulting in increased clouding
of the lens and decreased vision.

"Waiting to perform surgery until a cataract is hypermature may
result in a worse surgical outcome than if surgery had been
performed earlier," the complaint states.

Hollihan also says that the policy means that inmates "will stay
blind in an eye that could be surgically corrected to provide good
vision."  The cataract in Hollihan's left eye "prevents the
detection of retinal disease and optic nerve health," according to
the complaint.  Hollihan also says that his "better-seeing eye is
deteriorating due to the stress caused by the loss of sight in his
cataract-afflicted eye."

In addition to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
defendants to the action include two prison officials, Wexford
Health Sources, and three doctors.

The class seeks punitive damages for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Schmidt III, Esq.
          Eric Rothschild, Esq.
          Eric Wolfish, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA  19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: schmidtt@pepperlaw.com
                  rothschilde@pepperlaw.com
                  wolfishe@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING & FEINBERG
          The Cast Iron Building
          718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South
          Philadelphia, PA  19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-4400
          E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Second Class Action Over Medicaid Overhaul
--------------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Matt Fair, writing for, Law360, report that
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett's administration has been hit with a
second putative class action alleging that a recent overhaul in
Medicaid benefits violated Pennsylvania regulations requiring
state administrative agencies to go through a public rule-making
process.

Community Legal Services filed the suit in Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court on Jan. 9 against the Pennsylvania Department
of Human Services on behalf of Caroline Rodriguez and other state
residents who recently had Medicaid benefits reduced as a result
of the so-called Healthy Pennsylvania initiative.

Under the plan, recipients of medical assistance with serious
health needs were assigned to the "Healthy Plus" benefits package,
while those with less significant needs were assigned to one of
two plans known as "Healthy" and "Healthy PA PCO."

CLS alleged that the benefit cuts violate the Public Welfare Code
and the Commonwealth Documents Law, which require agencies such as
the DHS to go through a formal rule-making process that provides
public notice and time for public input.

"The benefit limits in the Healthy and Healthy PA PCO benefit
packages restrict recipients' eligibility for benefits and
announce a substantive rule which has the force of law and is
binding on the agency," the complaint said.  "Therefore, they
constitute a binding norm which must be properly promulgated as a
regulation in order to be valid."

The class action, which said nearly 200,000 low-income or
vulnerable Medicaid recipients were affected, seeks that the
changes be declared invalid and illegal and that the DHS be
enjoined from reducing plaintiffs' benefits.

DHS spokeswoman Kait Gillis said the department disagreed with the
claims made in the state class action.

"Thousands of Pennsylvanians now have access to quality health
care coverage through Healthy PA, a program that went through a
significant public comment period with stakeholders and the
general public and was approved by the federal government," she
said in a statement.  "While we have a common mission of ensuring
all Pennsylvanians have access to quality health care coverage,
the department disagrees with the allegations made in the
lawsuit."

In a separate class action filed by CLS in federal court in
December, the advocacy group alleged that the state violated due
process rights of its residents by relying on an undisclosed
process of calculating which recipients would be assigned to a
certain benefit package.

The plaintiffs are represented by Pamela Walz of Community Legal
Services Inc.

The case is Caroline Rodriguez, et al. v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, case number 12 MD 2015,
in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.


PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, Andrew Scurria and Michael Lipkin, writing for
Law360, report that a Michigan federal judge on Jan. 12 denied
Physicians Healthsource Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a
class action alleging Stryker Corp. violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending faxes promoting orthopedics
seminars, saying the medical practice hadn't shown they were
advertisements.

U.S. District Judge Robert J. Jonker found that as a matter of
law, the faxes were unsolicited, but that there were still issues
of material fact that precluded Physicians Healthcare and
Stryker's motions for summary judgment.  The judge denied their
motions, saying that whether the seminars promoted in the faxes
were primarily educational and promotional couldn't be decided as
a matter of law, and that Physicians Healthcare hasn't shown that
the unsolicited faxes were advertisements for these seminars.

"On the one hand, a factfinder could conclude that any references
to Stryker . . . were for the purpose of discussing how medical
devices can be used to treat orthopedic conditions, and were thus
part of the overall educational design of the presentation," the
judge said.  "On the other, a factfinder could conclude that the
references to Stryker . . . were for the purpose of advertising
the commercial availability and quality of Stryker's products in
the hopes that primary care physicians would undertake steps to
stimulate demand for Stryker products."

The judge said that the fax was unsolicited because it didn't
include opt-out language as required by the Federal Communications
Commission and it wasn't sent with Physicians Healthcare's express
permission.

The judge rejected Stryker subsidiary Howmedica Osteonics Corp.'s
argument that the faxes weren't unsolicited because a Physicians
Healthcare doctor gave his contact information and his express
written consent to receive fax advertisements associated with the
licensed use of the American Medical Association's physician
database when he signed up with the AMA's census.

The judge said that any consent given to receive faxes was, at
most, indirect.

"At a minimum, no one -- not plaintiff or any of its employees --
gave any direct consent to the sender of the fax at issue here, or
to the marketing company that provided the fax list to the
sender," the judge said.  "Defendants' theory here would
effectively say that once a single doctor in a multi-doctor
practice gave consent to the AMA in an annual survey, faxes from
anyone that the AMA sold the number to would be 'solicited' and
beyond the TCPA, at least until all doctors in the practice
withheld consent in separate communications to the AMA."

The judge also rejected Stryker's contention that FCC regulation
violates the First Amendment by banning commercial speech.

"Neither Congress nor the FCC is drawing any content-based line
tied to the subject of the advertisement," the judge said.
"Rather, they are simply ensuring that an advertiser not impose
the costs of the fax itself on the target."

The suit, lodged in July 2012, argues that Stryker's faxes ran
afoul of a 2006 Federal Communications Commission rule that
updated the TCPA to clarify that even faxes sent to businesses
with an existing business relationship with the sender must
contain contact information for recipients who want to opt out of
future messages.

The company allegedly sent out more than 15,000 messages during
the class period, none of which contained the required opt-out
notice.

The judge granted class certification in December 2013.

The plaintiffs are represented by Brian J. Wanca and Ryan M. Kelly
of Anderson & Wanca.

Stryker is represented by David S. Almeida --
dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, and Anthony J. Anscombe of Sedgwick LLP.

The case is Physicians Healthsource Inc. v. Stryker Sales Corp. et
al., case number 1:12-cv-00729, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Flushable Wipes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge found most of
a consumer class action against Proctor & Gamble over "flushable"
wipes should be handled in state court, but kept the issue of
whether clogged pipes cause injury alive at the federal level.

David Machlan v. Procter & Gamble Company, et al., Case No. 3:14-
cv-01982-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abba Gordon, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
consumers v. Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00335 (E.D.N.Y., January 21, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive IPO
------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, reports that Roka Bioscience
Inc. has been slapped with a proposed class action lawsuit
alleging that the company failed to disclose an impending decline
in demand for its main product ahead of its almost $60 million
initial public offering this past summer.

The suit, filed in New Jersey federal court at the tail end of
last month but made public on Jan. 13, accuses Roka Bioscience of
misleading the public prior to the IPO in order to inflate its
share price.  According to the complaint, the company -- whose
main product, the Atlas instrument, tests for foodborne pathogens
such as Salmonella -- did not note in its registration statement
or prospectus that the market for the product was slowing to a
halt, despite trends indicating a slowdown was on the horizon.

"The offering documents were false and misleading because
defendants failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties about
the company's sales," the complaint says.  "Defendants were aware
of, but failed to disclose, the downward trend of demand for its
Atlas System and its poor -- or rather non-existent -- sales when
the offering documents were filed with the [U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission]."

Roka Bioscience went public on July 17, selling about 5 million
shares at $12 apiece.  According to lead plaintiff Wei Ding's
complaint, the registration statement and prospectus touted the
company's Atlas instrument, detailing a rise in sales that had
occurred over the previous two years.  What the company didn't
disclose, the complaint says, is that the number of Atlas systems
being sold had stagnated. In fact, the company made it appear that
continued growth was imminent, according to the complaint.

"The offering documents state that 'we expect the food safety
testing market to grow due to enactment of new government
regulations to improve food safety, quality improvement
initiatives by food processors and consumer demand for safe food,"
the complaint says.  "'We believe we are uniquely positioned to
gain share in the food safety testing market given our key
strengths.'"

But in early November, Roka Bioscience suddenly and without
warning revealed in a press release that no Atlas instruments had
been purchased since at least June 30, noting that the company had
posted $9.1 million in losses in the third quarter, according to
the complaint.  After the press release was issued, the company's
stock plummeted immediately by 64 percent, the complaint says.

The complaint requests that the court certify the class and award
compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.  In
addition, the plaintiffs seek reasonable costs and expenses, as
well as further relief as the court deems just.

A representative for Roka Bioscience did not immediately respond
to a request for comment on Jan. 14.

The proposed class is represented by Laurence Rosen of The Rosen
Law Firm PA and Patrick Donovan and Gregory Stone of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Counsel information for Roka Bioscience was not immediately
available.

The case is Wei Ding, et al., v. Roka Bioscience, et al., case
number 3:14-CV-08020 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


SHAMROCK TOWING: Settles Class Action Over Illegal Towing Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Futty, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that tow
trucks come and go at the City of Columbus Parking Violations
Bureau and police impound lot.

Drivers who were illegally charged administrative fees when their
vehicles were towed from private property by one of two Columbus
towing companies can receive partial reimbursement under a
settlement agreement.

The settlement talks began after a Franklin County judge ruled in
April that Shamrock Towing and Camcar Towing had violated state
law by charging a $30 or $35 fee on top of the state-authorized
towing and storage fees.

Five people had challenged the fee in a class-action lawsuit filed
against the towing companies in August 2012.

The settlement payments will range from $23 to $28 per tow, based
on when the vehicle was towed and by which company, said
Fred Gittes, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

The settlement applies to drivers whose vehicles were towed from
private tow-away zones by the companies between Sept. 1, 2008, and
July 17, 2014, and who were charged fees in excess of $90 for
towing and $12 a day for storage.

As many as 50,000 people might be eligible for payments, Mr.
Gittes said.

Class members who want to receive payment must submit claim forms
to a class-action administrator.  Anyone whose name and address
were in the towing-company records will receive claim forms in the
mail in the next few weeks, assuming that the person's address
hasn't changed, Mr. Gittes said.

Even those who think they are eligible but have no record of the
tow or payment can apply by submitting a notarized form.

The parties have established a website --
www.ohiotowclasssettlement.com -- with information about the
settlement and a claim form that can be downloaded and either
mailed or emailed to the administrator.  Information also is
available by calling one of the law firms for the plaintiffs --
the Gittes Law Group at 614-222-4735; Kitrick, Lewis & Harris at
614-224-7711; or Robert J. Wagoner Co. at 614-796-4110.

Shamrock Towing and Camcar Towing had argued that they could
charge the fee because it wasn't specifically prohibited in state
law. Common Pleas Judge David E. Cain called that argument
ludicrous in granting summary judgment in favor of those who
challenged the fee.

Although the towing companies could have appealed Judge Cain's
decision, they agreed to enter mediation with the plaintiffs to
reach a settlement.

Any decision by the appeals court probably would have been
appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which would have been costly
and time-consuming, said Erica Probst, an attorney for the towing
companies. "It was more cost-effective to resolve it."

Of those eligible for a settlement in such a class-action case,
fewer than 10 percent generally file a claim, Ms. Probst said.
Settlement payments of $23 to $28 "don't get a lot of action," she
said.

Mr. Gittes is encouraging eligible claimants who don't need the
money to submit a claim and donate the settlement payment to a
charity of their choice.


SIGNAL INT'L: Trial in Suit Alleging Human Trafficking Begins
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that trial
began January 12 in a federal class action accusing Signal
International of human trafficking and labor abuses in the massive
construction work needed after Hurricane Katrina.

Roughly 500 workers, mostly from India and the United Arab
Emirates, claim Signal lured them to the United States with false
promises of permanent U.S. residency and charged them "travel
fees" of as much as $20,000 apiece for jobs at shipyards in
Pascagoula, Miss. and Orange, Texas.

Jury selection began on January 12 morning, followed by opening
arguments.

The class action was filed in 2008 by 12 lead plaintiffs who said
they were forced to work long hours for next to nothing and had
money deducted from their checks each month for housing in an
overcrowded, unsanitary labor camp.

At least five similar lawsuits against Signal have been filed in
Mississippi and Texas courts, alleging Signal trafficked Indian
workers after the hurricane, assigned them the most dangerous jobs
and threatened them with financial ruin and deportation if they
did not comply.

The workers say they paid thousands of dollars apiece as
recruitment, visa and travel "fees," because they were told doing
so would lead to good jobs and permanent U.S. residency.  Many
workers say they sold their houses to get the money, or took out
high-interest loans to get to the United States to work.

But when they arrived in 2006 and 2007, they say, they learned
there would be no green cards, and Signal took more than $1,000 a
month from their paychecks, ostensibly for housing in isolated,
fenced labor camps, where as many as two dozen men shared one
trailer and only two toilets.  They had to pay the money even if
they lived elsewhere, they say.

The workers are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union,
the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Crowell &
Moring, Coschignano & Baker, The Louisiana Justice Institute and
the Southern Poverty Law Center.


SONY PICTURES: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Data Breach Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reports that seven federal class
action lawsuits and two state court claims have been filed against
Sony Pictures Entertainment, blaming the breach of the personal
information of ex-employees on negligence.

Now the plaintiffs in the case, all ex-employees, are seeking to
have their federal cases consolidated in one, which is not
surprising given the similarities in the claims.

A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 9, but Sony is asking that U.S.
District Judge Gary Klausner rule sooner on whether to
consolidate.

For its part, Sony Pictures Entertainment isn't opposed to
consolidating the cases, but it is planning to dispute the
plaintiffs' factual allegations and legal conclusions in the
cases, as well as the notion that any of the cases can be
litigated as a class action, according to a filing by
Christopher Casamassima -- chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com -- of
Wilmer Hale, which is representing the studio.

The plaintiffs also are asking that Keller Rohrback, Girard Gibbs
and Lieff Cabraser be appointed interim co-lead class counsel, and
Keller Rorhback as liaison counsel.

The first case was filed on Dec. 15 by Michael Corona and
Christina Mathis.


ST. LOUIS, MO: High Court Set to Rule on Red Light Camera Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Toler, writing for Daily RFT.com, reports that red light
cameras are still legal in Missouri, but a recent lawsuit
settlement means drivers who paid fines for red light camera
violations can now get a partial refund.

Almost 900,000 drivers are eligible for a 20 percent cash refund
on payments from red light camera tickets in 27 Missouri
municipalities.  The settlement says anyone who got a red light
camera ticket in Missouri on or before November 21, 2014 and paid
the fine can apply.  Since tickets usually cost $100, the refund
will be about $20.

There's one quirk for drivers who were ticketed by a St. Louis
city red light camera.  Because a judge temporarily halted the
city's camera program in February (and then reinstated it with the
promise that everyone will get their money back if the Missouri
Supreme Court stops it permanently), St. Louis drivers are
eligible for a refund on tickets issued on or before February 11,
2014.

St. Louis city is only one of the 27 municipalities with red light
traffic cameras, including Arnold, Bel-Nor, Brentwood, Dellwood,
Creve Coeur, Ellisville and Richmond Heights.

Missouri's Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of
red light cameras once and for all.  The case before the Supreme
Court, Tupper v. the City of St. Louis, comes from two women who
were ticketed by red-light cameras but say they weren't driving
the offending cars at the time.

The class action lawsuit responsible for these refunds argued that
Missouri's red light camera programs violate state law and the
state Constitution.  American Traffic Solutions denies that its
cameras are illegal but agreed to pay partial refunds on behalf of
the 27 Missouri towns with red light cameras in a $16 million
settlement.

The refund only applies to people who paid their fine for red
light camera violations.  If you haven't paid, you don't get a
refund.

How to apply for a refund

If you are eligible, an independent claims administrator will mail
you a postcard about how to claim your refund.  Fair warning: if
you've moved within the last four years, your postcard may be sent
to your old address.

If you haven't gotten a postcard, call the claims administrator at
1-866-681-9151.

To claim your refund, you can fill out this online form or print
and mail it to Missouri Red Light Camera Ordinance Litigation
Settlement office at P.O. Box 1994, Faribault MN 55021-6190.
(We've also attached the form to the bottom of this story.)

The deadline for submitting or mailing a claim application is
February 28, 2015.

If you apply for a claim, you won't be able to sue American
Traffic Solutions or cities with red light cameras over the
legality of your ticket.  If you want to exclude yourself from the
settlement and preserve your right to sue, send a letter by mail
with your name, address, telephone number and signature to
Missouri Red Light Camera Ordinance Litigation Settlement office
at P.O. Box 1994, Faribault MN 55021-6190.


STARK & STARK: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allegra Goldberg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Stark & Stark, Attorneys at Law, and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00446-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., January 22, 2015) is
brought pursuant to alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNGENTA AG: Faces Kaffenbarger Suit Over Trademark Infringement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaffenbarger Farms, Inc., on its own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection
AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta
Biotechnology, Inc., and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00022-WHR (S.D. Ohio, January 22, 2015) asserts claims for
trademark infringement (Lanham Act).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory R. Flax, Esq.
          MARTIN, BROWNE, HULL & HARPER, P.L.L.
          P.O. Box 1488
          Springfield, OH 45501-1488
          Telephone: (937) 324-5541
          Facsimile: (937) 325-5432
          E-mail: greg@flaxlawllc.com


SYNGENTA AG: Faces "Hahn" Suit Alleging Trademark Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hahn d/b/a Bull Hide Creek Farm, on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop
Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case
No. 6:15-cv-00013-WSS (W.D. Tex., January 21, 2015) alleges
trademark infringement (Lanham Act).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Chaney, Esq.
          GRAY REED & MCGRAW, P.C.
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
          Dallas, TX 75201-3714
          Telephone: (214) 954-4135
          Facsimile: (214) 953-1332
          E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com

               - and -

          Andrew F. York, Esq.
          ARMBRUST AND BROWN PLLC
          100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 435-2387
          Facsimile: (512) 435-2360
          E-mail: ayork@abaustin.com

               - and -

          Hugh Alexander Fuller, Esq.
          GRAY, REED & MCGRAW, P.C.
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 954-4135
          Facsimile: (214) 954-1332
          E-mail: afuller@grayreed.com


SYNGENTA AG: Faces Winslow Suit Alleging Trademark Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack H. Winslow Farms, Inc., Ferebee IV Partnership, James H.
Ferebee, III, Joel H. Ferebee and Darrel W. Davenport, on their
own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Syngenta
AG, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. and Syngenta
Seeds, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00016-D (E.D.N.C., January 21, 2015)
asserts claims for trademark infringement (Lanham Act).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. King, III, Esq.
          BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, L.L.P.
          P. O. Box 26000
          400 Beverly Place
          Greensboro, NC 27403
          Telephone: (336) 271-3110
          Facsimile: (336) 232-9110
          E-mail: rking@brookspierce.com


SYNGENTA AG: Class Action Over GMO Corn Seed Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
The AW Smith Law Firm of Columbia Missouri, is working with Gray,
Ritter and Graham of St. Louis, in representing corn farmers
throughout the Midwest, in a class action lawsuit against the
Swedish seed company Syngenta, over their genetically modified
corn seed, Agrisure Viptera and Agrisure Duracade.  The GMO seeds
have a corn trait known as MIR162, a trait that had not been
approved by China.  China, a major market for U.S. corn, is
enforcing their zero tolerance policy for MIR162 and has stopped
accepting shipments from the U.S., causing U.S. corn prices to
plummet.  The financial losses are growing and some estimates are
currently between 3 and 4 billion dollars.  These lawsuits claim
that Syngenta knew, or should have known, that selling seeds with
the trait MIR162, without prior approval, would contaminate the
U.S. corn exports and prevent U.S. corn from being sold to
numerous export markets, including China.  Corn farmers can learn
more and sign up by contacting The AW Smith Law Firm, or through
their website at http://www.CornFarmerClassAction.com
The case filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Missouri (St. Louis) is Wilson Farm Inc., et al v. Syngenta AG et
al, No.4:14-cv-01908.


TARRIER FOODS: Recalls 316 Chopped Twix Cases Due to Peanuts
------------------------------------------------------------
Tarrier Foods of Columbus, OH is recalling 316 cases of Chopped
Twix item 0807, because it may contain undeclared peanuts and
eggs. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts
and eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

The Chopped Twix product was distributed to wholesale warehouses
in Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Florida where it was
distributed to foodservices.

The product can be identified by the item number 0870 on the
outside of the case. The inside contains two bags in white film
marked "CHOPPED TWIX Lot 087034314."

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing peanuts and eggs was distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of peanuts and egg on the ingredient
statement. Subsequent investigations are being performed to
determine the temporary breakdown in the company's production and
packaging processes."

Consumers who have purchased Chopped Twix lot code 080734314 are
urged to return it to the distributor for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact Tarrier Food's Customer Service at
(614) 876-8595.


TEL AVIV, ISRAEL: Class Action Prompts Enforcement of Smoking Ban
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jerusalem Post reports that a successful mechanism for
enforcing the smoking ban in public places has emerged through a
class-action suit against the Tel Aviv Municipality, which is
responsible for fining offenders but itself did not observe the
law on its own property -- the famed Gordon swimming pool.
Smoking at the facility, which is used by celebrities, MKs, and
ordinary people, has resulted in a precedent-setting Tel Aviv
District Court judgment against the city, which was sued for
non-enforcement of the no-smoking law in public places.  The judge
awarded the plaintiffs' lawyers legal fees of NIS35,000 plus
value-added tax, as it was the action of the plaintiff that
brought about the enforcement of the law around the pool.

Tel Aviv District Court Judge Shoshana Almagor accepted the
arguments of plaintiff Elad Shabtai, that prior to the
presentation of the class-action suit the enforcement of the
smoking ban at the Gordon pool was insufficient.  The pool is
owned by the municipality and run by a company founded by the
Jewish Agency.

Mr. Shabtai argued that he had often encountered smoking in the
area surrounding the pool by violators of the smoking ban.

In its defense, the municipality claimed it had posted no-smoking
signs, hired two security guards, and had two people operating the
facility. The city added a statement by a policeman that, at the
beginning of each shift, the staff stressed the prohibition of
smoking and drinking alcohol near the pool and in its gym.

It argued, however, that the facilities are so large that it was
"impossible to enforce the law at all times and in all places
around the pool," an argument which the court rejected.

Nevertheless, Mr. Shabtai argued that, at the beginning of the
summer of 2014 as a consequence of the lawsuit, enforcement had
already improved and he requested the hearing of the case be
postponed till after the summer, so it would become clear whether
the law was being duly enforced by the city.  The court agreed to
the postponement and asked for an update.

In November 2014, Mr. Shabtai told the court that his suit against
the city had achieved its goal, and that signs warning against
smoking and of fines to violators were posted all over the area.

In addition, staffers made the rounds regularly to prevent smoking
and ask those violating the law to leave the premises.

"Everybody who wants to smoke is now leaving the pool area to
smoke outside," said Mr. Shabtai.

The municipality and company running the pool argued that there
had been no actual change in enforcement, but the judge rejected
this.  She also accepted the arguments of Mr. Shabtai -- who was
represented by lawyers Amos Hausner (chairman of the Council for
the Prevention of Smoking) and Eyal Avidan -- that the
municipality could not claim it is beyond its power to enforce the
smoking ban.

Much larger facilities than Gordon, such as open stadiums, had
managed to completely stop illegal smoking, the judge said.  She
added that, if the owners should approach each and every smoker
and still found it difficult to prevent smoking, they should seek
assistance from the police.

The plaintiff and lawyers concluded that there is now an effective
avenue for civil enforcement of the smoking ban.  If one
encounters a smoking violation, and the owners are indifferent to
it, a class-action suit is a proper redress.  It swiftly prevented
smoking in the Gordon pool, and it is capable of ending smoking in
other public places, they claimed.


TERMINIX INT'L: Removes "Eubank" Class Suit to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Eubank v. Terminix International,
Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00042817-CU-OE-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00145-WQH-JMA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michelle Rapoport, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: mrapoport@littler.com


TILLY'S INC: Removes "Ortiz" Suit to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ortiz, et al. v. Tilly's, Inc.,
Case No. 14 CE CG 03359, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Fresno, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00108-MJS to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege they have not received overtime pay to which
they are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or otherwise
did not receive minimum wage for all hours worked.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lenden F. Webb, Esq.
          Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton, Esq.
          WEBB & BORDSON, APC
          466 W. Fallbrook Ave., Suite 102
          Fresno, CA 93711
          Telephone: (559) 431-4888
          Facsimile: (559) 821-4500
          Email: LWebb@WBLawGroup.com
                  ATipton@WBLawGroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron R. Lubeley, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 S. Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: alubeley@seyfarth.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Allows Punitive Damages in Acceleration Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noreen Marcus, writing for Law.com, reports that a Palm Beach
Circuit Court ruling upped the ante in a case against Toyota Motor
Corp. from estimates of $15 million to $20 million to a potential
$135 million to $180 million, the plaintiffs attorney said.

Judge Meenu Sasser decided on Jan. 13 that lawyers for Bret
Quinlan will be allowed to ask for punitive damages against the
automaker in an accident blamed on a faulty acceleration system in
his 2001 Camry.

The products liability lawsuit is one of several hundred in
federal and state courts targeting Toyota's electronic throttle-
control system and claiming it causes cars to accelerate without
warning.

Mr. Quinlan was a student at the University of Central Florida
when his Camry suddenly went out of control on State Road 551 in
Orlando and ran into a building July 17, 2011.  The spinal cord
injury he suffered in the crash left him a quadriplegic requiring
constant care.

"All he can do is blink his eyes," said lead plaintiffs attorney
Ted Leopold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Palm Beach
Gardens.  Trial is set for Nov. 2.

Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. spokeswoman Amanda Rice issued a
statement on Jan. 15 offering sympathy to Mr. Quinlan.  Without
commenting directly on the case, she said, "Multiple independent
evaluations have confirmed the safety of Toyota's electronic
throttle control systems, which are equipped with numerous, robust
fail-safe systems.  Bottom line, there are no real-world scenarios
in which Toyota electronics can cause unintended acceleration, and
we do not believe a brake override system would have prevented
this unfortunate accident."

Ms. Rice noted the vehicle was not covered by company recalls for
floor mat entrapment or sticky accelerator pedals.

The suit filed by Mr. Leopold's firm in 2012 cited spontaneous
acceleration as one possible cause of the accident, along with
defective spot welding that led to a failure of the floor pan
structure.  When the automaker denied its vehicles were
susceptible to acceleration problems, that allegation was dropped,
according to a release from Cohen Milstein.

Two subsequent events brought the litigation's focus back to
unintended acceleration and set the stage for the punitive damage
claim.

In 2013, an Oklahoma City jury awarded $3 million to the victims
of a Camry accident.  In 2007, Jean Bookout, 76, sped out of
control as she exited a highway, and the resulting crash injured
her and killed her passenger Barbara Schwarz, 70.

It was the first loss for Toyota in a spontaneous acceleration
case.  The company had denied there were any defects in
Ms. Bookout's Camry.

More significantly, in another first, the jury decided it would be
appropriate to assess punitive damages against Toyota.  On the eve
of jurors determining the dollar amount, the company settled for
an undisclosed sum.

Internal emails and correspondence that surfaced in the Oklahoma
case showed Toyota officials blamed a problem with floor mats
"when in fact they used that as a guise to cover up the electronic
issue," Mr. Leopold said.  "That's the theme that comes through
loud and clear."

Toyota recalled more than 10 million vehicles for problems
relating to sudden acceleration.  The first recall in 2009
involved 3.5 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles with a defect that
could cause floor mats to jam accelerator pedals.  Toyota settled
suits for economic losses for about $1.6 billion.

The electronic throttle-control problem could have been solved by
installing a brake override system for "a few dollars,"
Mr. Leopold said.  A comparable sum resolved the floor mat issue,
he said.

The second key event occurred in March 2014 when Toyota entered
into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department
and agreed to pay a record $1.2 billion fine.  The company
admitted it misled consumers by concealing and misspeaking about
safety issues that caused spontaneous acceleration, the Cohen
Milstein release said.

At the Quinlan trial, "we certainly intend the jury to hear about
the admission by Toyota that they committed fraud on the U.S.
government by failing to provide information with the purpose of a
cover-up related to the acceleration problem," Leopold said.

In Judge Sasser's order allowing consideration of a punitive
damages claim, she noted the defendants argued Quinlan's lawyers
"commingled facts related to two admitted [mechanical] defects
with those of unsupported allegations of electronics defects."

The court may consider Toyota's evidence refuting Quinlan's claims
"on a different motion," she wrote.

But for now, Florida pleading standards allow a jury to consider
the possibility of awarding punitive damages as well as
compensatory damages for lifetime care.

The plaintiff offered evidence reflecting "facts from which it
could be found that defendants were aware of both the electronic
and mechanical issues, but delayed warning the public of the
electronic issues in order to protect their own interests," Judge
Sasser wrote.  "Such a finding would support punitive damages."


TRUMP PLAZA: Removes "Agudelo" Suit to Florida District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Agudelo, et al. v. Trump Plaza
Doral, et al., Case No. 15-00324CA01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20258-CMA to the
proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that Trump, together with the other named
Defendants, failed to pay the Plaintiffs their minimum hourly
wages from April 15, 2014, to April 23, 2014, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs further allege that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime premiums for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the
FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roderick V. Hannah, Esq.
          RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A.
          1250 South Pine Island Road, Suite 375
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 362-3800
          Facsimile: (954) 362-3779
          E-mail: rhannah@hrhannahlaw.com

               - and -

          Spencer Aronfeld, Esq.
          ARONFELD TRIAL LAWYERS
          3132 Ponce De Leon Boulevard
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 441-0440
          Facsimile: (305) 441-0198
          E-mail: aronfeld@aronfeld.com

Defendant Trump Miami Resort Management LLC is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Beckerman, Esq.
          Jorge Zamora, Jr., Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: jabeckerman@littler.com
                  jzamora@littler.com


UNITED STATES: Sued by Refugee Kids Over Illegal Detention Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Obama administration is imprisoning thousands of children
under an illegal "no release" policy, eight children and mothers
from Mexico and Central America claim in a federal class action.

All eight lead plaintiffs, who are identified only by initials,
are being held at the Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes
City, Texas, 60 miles southeast of San Antonio.

The lawsuit resembles a slew of similar cases brought against the
Reagan administration 30 years ago, when it was imprisoning
children and families fleeing the wars in Central America.

Then, as now, the administration opened up detention centers in
remote places, reducing access to legal counsel, expediting
deportation hearings and denying political asylum to thousands of
people who had well-founded fear of persecution in their
homelands.  The Reagan administration policies led to wide-ranging
federal court judgments in favor of the persecuted people, which
judgments, however, did not come until the Central American wars
were essentially over.

Those policies have been reinstituted, according to the Jan. 6
lawsuit.  The only real difference is that today's refugees are
not fleeing open civil war, but violence from police and drug
cartels fighting for control of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and
Honduras.

Attorneys for the mothers and children in the new lawsuit claim
that each of their clients has been found by an immigration
officer or immigration judge "to have a 'credible fear' of
persecution, meaning there is a 'significant possibility' she or
he will be granted asylum."  But the Department of Homeland
Security holds them in immigration prisons and other holding
centers, under a "no-release policy" "not because they
individually pose a danger to the community or flight risk that
requires their detention, but in order to deter other Central
American migrants from coming to the United States."

Immigration detention is not designed as punishment, the attorneys
say.  It is meant to ensure that people appear for the deportation
hearings, or, in some cases, to protect public safety.  According
to the lawsuit, the Obama administration adhered to these
principles until June 2014, when increased numbers of children and
families entered the United States Southwest.  The DHS then
decided to imprison them, to deter others, the complaint states.

Since then, "DHS has moved to expand its detention capacity from
96 beds to more than 3,000 beds, with plans for further expansion
of the family detention system," the complaint states.

"This detention in a prison-like setting exacerbates the trauma
that plaintiffs have already experienced in their countries of
origin and during their flight to the United States.  Indeed,
mental health experts have condemned family detention because of
the detrimental -- and often permanent -- effect it has on the
psychological well-being of detained children," according to the
complaint.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the no-release policy
violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Due Process
Clause of the 5th Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The families are represented by eight law offices across the
country, led by Dennis Auerbach with Covington & Burling, or
Washington, D.C. Six ACLU offices are co-counsel, as is the
Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law in
Austin.


UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA: Men's Hockey Team Launches Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
CTVNews.ca reports that members of the 2013/2014 University of
Ottawa men's hockey team have launched a class-action lawsuit
against the school for the damages they suffered during an
investigation into sexual assault allegations last year.

Ottawa lawyer Lawrence Greenspon announced that all players from
that team, except for the two players who ended up being charged
following an investigation by Thunder Bay police, are included in
the suit.

The statement of claim says the players are seeking some
$4 million in general damages for breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, misfeasance in public office and other claims, and
another $2 million in punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages.

Mr. Greenspon told reporters on Jan. 13 that the players are
seeking compensation "for what they have and what they will
continue to suffer" due to the school's investigation.

"Sexual assault is a serious crime, but since offenders carry a
huge stigma it is particularly important to make sure that
innocent people aren't accused," Mr. Greenspon said.

"It is unconscionable for the university to tarnish the reputation
of its student athletes in the manner that they did, when they
knew that these students were not involved.  There is a right way
and a wrong way to go about investigating sexual assault.  This
was the wrong way."

The lawsuit stems from an alleged sexual assault that occurred
while the Gee-Gees varsity hockey team was in Thunder Bay for two
weekend games against Lakehead University.

On Feb. 2, 2014 a 21-year-old woman was allegedly sexually
assaulted by two Ottawa team members at their Thunder Bay hotel.
On Mar. 3, university president Allan Rock called a press
conference to announce that the team would be suspended for the
remainder of the season and to announce that an internal
investigation was underway.

In June, Rock held another press conference to announce that the
school's internal investigation had been completed and the team's
suspension would be extended into the 2014-15 season.

The team's head coach was also fired because he did not
immediately inform school officials immediately upon learning of
the incident.

A separate, independent investigation also looked at the events in
Thunder Bay, and whether the players' behavior met the
university's standards.

"A dark shadow of suspicion was thrown over all the players, even
though the university already knew at that point the identities of
the two players alleged to have been involved in an assault,"
Mr. Greenspon said on Jan. 13.

Following an investigation by Thunder Bay police, two players were
charged in August: Guillaume Donovan, 24, and David Foucher, 25.
Former player Andrew Creppin told reporters that he suffered from
anxiety and had trouble sleeping after the allegations first
became public.

"After that, it was like a dark shadow had been cast over us,
especially in the public," Mr. Creppin said on Jan. 13.

"It was hard for us to even wear our coats out in public without
being ridiculed."

Mr. Creppin said he was not at the team's hotel at the time of the
alleged assault.  He was with a handful of other teammates that
had taken a teammate to a nearby hospital.

"They threw us all under the bus," he said of the school.

The university has said it will rebuild its hockey program and put
in place "improved policies, including new behavior guidelines for
student-athletes."


US BANK: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Loan Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against
U.S. Bank on Jan. 8 alleges the bank abused its right to force
borrowers to purchase insurance on some of its mortgage loans.

Jacqueline Barnard, Dennis Sherman and Stacey Payton filed the
lawsuit against U.S. Bank; Assurant, Inc.; Voyager Indemnity
Insurance Company; and American Security Insurance Company
alleging they were charged for forced-placed insurance (FPI), wind
insurance and flood insurance.

Lenders are allowed to use FPI when the loan isn't insured by the
borrower; however, the lawsuit alleged the bank abused that right
by charging borrowers for expired coverage, purchasing backdated,
retroactive FPI policies on behalf of borrowers and arranging for
kickbacks in connection with the FPI.

All three plaintiffs had mortgages through U.S. Bank, and all
three were allegedly required to purchase some form of insurance
through U.S. Bank.

Ms. Barnard said she received a letter in September 2012 from
Assurant that said she didn't have sufficient hazard insurance
coverage. The letter said the insurance cost $1,274 and was
charged to her through an escrow account for her mortgage.  The
coverage was backdated approximately three months, according to
the lawsuit.

Ms. Sherman said he received a letter in October 2012 stating his
insurance didn't include coverage for wind and required him to get
coverage that was retroactive more than seven months.

The suit says Ms. Sherman attempted to contact U.S. Bank to inform
the lender he couldn't find a company that would offer retroactive
wind insurance, but he did get coverage starting in December 2012.
The lawsuit alleged U.S. Bank charged Sherman $3,081 for the
coverage between May and December.

Ms. Payton received a letter in March 2012 stating her insurance
did not cover floods.  The lawsuit alleges she was charged
approximately $759 for coverage that was backdated more than two
months.

The lawsuit seeks class status for borrowers who received
mortgages through U.S. Bank and were required to purchase hazard,
wind or flood insurance.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael J. Boyle, Jr. --
mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- of Meyer Wilson; Kai Richter --
krichter@nka.com -- and Megan Yelle -- myelle@nka.com -- of
Nichols Kaster; and Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- of
Berger & Montague.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio-
Western Division case number 1:15-cv-00008.


VOLCANO CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Royal, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Volcano
Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to Royal Philips, for
$18 per share or $1.2 billion, shareholders claim in Chancery
Court.


WARNER BROS: Accused of Firing Worker Seeking Disability Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Warner Bros. fired a woman
who sought reasonable disability accommodations, she claims in
court, noting a history of migraine headaches and back pain.

Esperanza Evans filed the 15-page complaint on January 6 in Los
Angeles Superior Court against Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.;
Warner Bros. Television; WB Studio Enterprises Inc.; and her
supervisor there.

The Burbank studio allegedly hired Evans on April 2, 2011, and
Evans says that, during her employment, her "disabilities limited
her ability to perform her job duties without reasonable
accommodation."

This past October, Warner Bros. fired the LA-based Evans in
retaliation over her request for reasonable disability
accommodations, according to the complaint.

Evans seeks punitive damages for discrimination, defamation and
emotional distress.  Though the complaint does not say what Evans
did at Warner, her executive profile on Variety's website
describes her as an administrator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Bryant Eisenberg, Esq.
          EISENBERG & ASSOCIATES
          3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 201-9331
          Facsimile: (213) 382-4083
          E-mail: mbe@laborlitigators.com


XOOM CORP: Investors Blame $30.8 Million Fraud on Poor Controls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
poor internal controls facilitated a $30.8 million criminal fraud
at Xoom Corp., an online money-transfer company, a class action in
San Francisco alleges.

Alexander Liu hopes to represent a class thousands of shareholders
against Xoom and its chief officers under the Securities Act.

The nine-page complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court
takes aim at documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in early February 2013, in connection with Xoom's
initial public offering.

"Xoom sold approximately 6.3 million shares from the IPO, raising
proceeds of more than $101 million," the Jan. 6 complaint states.

It is clear Xoom's SEC filings "omitted material facts because it
failed to disclose that Xoom's internal controls were so seriously
deficient that tens of millions of dollars of Xoom's corporate
cash could be fraudulently transferred and stolen without the
company's knowledge," Liu says.

"On January 5, 2015, Xoom announced that a criminal fraud had
taken place at the company, whereby $30.8 million in corporate
cash was illegally transferred to oversea accounts," the complaint
states.

The news allegedly caused Xoom shares to fall 27 cents, "more than
1.6% in intraday trading on January 6, 2015."

Liu names Xoom president and CEO John Kunze as a defendant as well
as CFO Ryno Blignaut.  He notes that Blignaut acted as CFO from
March 2008 to Dec. 1, 2014, but returned as acting CFO on Jan. 5
after his successor suddenly resigned as news of the fraud broke.

Federal law enforcement authorities are pursuing a criminal
investigation, according to the complaint.

Delaware-based Xoom has offices in San Francisco, the complaint
states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
          355 S Grand Ave., Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


* Class Action Lawsuit Scams Prevalent, Group Says
--------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey and Courtney Holmes, writing for ABC15, reports that
Better Business Bureau spokesperson Felicia Thompson said class
action lawsuit scams are making the rounds.

"The (scammers) are going to find something that's happening in
the market place, happening in the news that we know is legitimate
and twist it," said Ms. Thompson.

"People have probably seen those advertisements and those class
action lawsuit commercials, advertising from lawyers saying 'if
you've been involved if you've received a transvaginal mesh
procedure you can be involved in this lawsuit.'"

The lawyers and the law firms are legitimate.  But she says
scammers are using the familiarity of the commercials to trick
actual patients into giving them money.

"Scammers are very smart," said Mr. Thompson.  "They're able to
get these lists and phone numbers and find out who has taken part
in procedures and events and things like that and really target
who they're scamming."

She says the callers claim to have settlement money waiting for
you, but only after you pay them a fee on a prepaid debit, Money
Pak or Green Dot card.

"Once you do it there's no way to trace that money and there's no
way to recoup that money," said Ms. Thompson.


* Minnesota May Emerge as Venue of Choice for Data Breach Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Ann Shepard, Esq. and Marty Solomon, Esq. of Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for JDSupra, report that various
media outlets dubbed 2014 "the Year of the Data Breach."
Unfortunately for businesses, breach of their secure systems by
hackers may be only the beginning of the bad news -- which often
culminates in class action lawsuits.  Although 2014 started
favorably for data breach defendants, with several federal
district courts granting motions to dismiss such claims, December
ended on a high note for the plaintiff's bar, with two Minnesota
federal district decisions holding that most of the claims
asserted by putative classes of consumer and financial institution
plaintiffs against Target survived the retailer's motions to
dismiss.  In the wake of these decisions, federal district courts
in Minnesota -- along with federal district courts in California,
which have long been a hotspot for class action litigation -- may
emerge as a venue of choice for high-stakes data breach
litigation.

The litigation against Target followed a data breach at the
retailer over the 2013 holiday shopping season.  At the request of
the retailer, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated all pending federal court litigation against it as a
result of the data breach in Minnesota federal district court,
where plaintiffs filed two consolidated putative class action
complaints -- one on behalf of consumers and the other on behalf
of financial institutions.

In denying Target's motion to dismiss the consumer class action,
the Court rejected the retailer's argument that the 114 named
plaintiffs lacked standing to sue under Article III of the United
States Constitution because they failed to allege any concrete,
certainly impending injury as a result of the alleged disclosure
of their financial information from Target's payment systems.  In
so holding, the Court declined to conduct a plaintiff-by-plaintiff
assessment of standing, summarily concluding that the standing
requirement was met because some plaintiffs alleged injuries that
included "unlawful charges, restricted or blocked access to bank
accounts, inability to pay other bills, and late payment charges
or new card fees."  The Court thus failed to address plaintiffs'
more controversial assertion that even those plaintiffs who
alleged only the compromise -- as opposed to any actual misuse --
of their financial information had standing to sue.  In addition,
the Court denied Target's motion to dismiss claims under the laws
of Delaware, Maine, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and the District of
Columbia, despite the undisputed fact that none of the 114 named
plaintiffs hailed from those jurisdictions; instead, the Court
indicated that Target could re-assert this argument at the class
certification stage.

In addressing the consumer plaintiffs' substantive claims, the
Court allowed plaintiffs to proceed with their consumer protection
claims under the laws of all states except Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Utah -- where the applicable consumer protection
statutes expressly prohibited class actions.  The Court also
declined to dismiss plaintiffs' allegations under most state data-
breach notice statutes; however, the Court dismissed claims under
the notification statutes of Florida, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada,
Texas, and Rhode Island because those statutes do not provide a
private right of action.  The Court found that plaintiffs'
negligence claims under the laws of Alaska, California, Illinois,
Iowa, and Massachusetts were barred by the economic loss rule, but
allowed the remainder of the negligence claims to proceed.  The
Court dismissed plaintiffs' bailment claims because plaintiffs
failed to allege that Target had agreed to return any personal
financial information to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs had two theories
to support their unjust enrichment claim:  (1) an "overcharge"
theory that prices at Target included a "premium" for adequate
data security, and (2) a "would not have shopped" theory that
plaintiffs would not have shopped at the retailer if it had timely
disclosed the breach.  Although the Court found that the
overcharge theory had no merit, it allowed plaintiffs to proceed
with the unjust enrichment count on the "would not have shopped"
theory.  The Court also allowed plaintiffs to proceed with their
claim for breach of implied contract, but dismissed the claim for
breach of express contract without prejudice and with leave to
file an amended complaint alleging the required elements of the
claim within 30 days.

With regard to the claims of the putative financial services
institutions class, the Court held that plaintiffs could proceed
with their claims for negligence, negligence per se, and violation
of Minnesota's Plastic Card Security Act -- which Act the Court
held was applicable to the retailer's transactions outside the
state of Minnesota.  However, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss the claim for negligent misrepresentation by omission
because plaintiffs failed to plead reliance; the Court stated that
the dismissal was without prejudice and with leave for plaintiffs
to file within 30 days an amended complaint that sufficiently
alleged the reliance element.

Given the receptiveness of California and Minnesota federal
district courts to putative data breach class action claims, one
may wonder: "Will 2015 be the year of the data breach class
action?"


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *