CAR_Public/130121.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, January 21, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 14

                             Headlines



ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: About 15,000 Former Miners to Join Class Action
ARRIMAGE DU QUEBEC: Faces Class Action Over Red Dust Cloud
BOMBAY PALACE: Refuses to Pay Employees' Minimum Wage, Suit Says
CANADA: Human Resources Dept. Sued Over Student Loan Data Breach
CHEMTALL: May 1 "Floc" Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

DELL COMPUTER: California Consumers Get Class Settlement Notices
ELECTROLUX: Faces Class Action Over Defective Ice Makers
EPOCH HOLDING: Faces TD Merger-Related Class Suit in New York
FIRSTMERIT BANK: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed
FOREST CITY RATNER: Customers File Suit Over Unauthorized Meters

HITACHI LTD: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lithium Ion Batteries
INSTAGRAM INC: Accused of Accessing Users' Data Without Consent
INTERMEC INC: Faces Acquisition-Related Class Suit in Delaware
ISB MEHTA: Sued For Failing to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
LG CHEM: Conspired to Fix Lithium Ion Battery Prices, Suit Says

LISA STEED: Sued Over Hundreds of Bogus DUI Arrests
MASSAGE ENVY: Failed to Reimburse Business Expenses, Suit Says
NOVA SCOTIA: March 31 Seniors' Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
OPTIMUM FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in Georgia for Malicious Retaliation
SAN ANTONIO SPURS: Heat Fan Files Class Action Over Nov. 29 Game

SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Suit For Making Employees Work Off The Clock
SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Class Certification Denied in False Ad Suit
WELCH FOODS: Accused of False and Misleading Labeling Practices
ZYNGA: Employees File Class Action Over Labor Law Violations

* D.C. Legal Aid Society Gets $40,000 From Class Action Settlement


                          *********



ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: About 15,000 Former Miners to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Jamasmie, writing for MINING.com, reports that Motley Rice
human rights attorney, Michael Elsner on Jan. 15 said that close
to 15,000 former miners suffering from lung disease are expected
to join South Africa's biggest ever class action lawsuit against
some of the world's leading gold producers.

The affidavits, filed in the High Court of South Africa in
December, claims the miners contracted severe occupational lung
ailments, such as tuberculosis and silicosis, while working in
underground mines, and are demanding millions of US dollars in
compensation from the mining companies.

The litigation alleges that the 30 named South African gold mining
companies, including big names such as AngloGold Ashanti,
Goldfields and Harmony Gold, knew of the dangers posed to miners
by silica dust for more than a century and alleges 12 specific
forms of neglect and endangerment, including willfully ignoring
and/or failing to execute almost all of the recommended steps
mandated in regulations and legislation designed to protect the
miners from silica dust.

"If approved as a class action, the suit would be an unprecedented
means of recovery for the country.  Very few class actions have
been brought in South Africa, and none have been filed for sick
workers.  Approval would ensure meaningful access to justice for
thousands of indigent and rural workers who are dying from this
incurable disease," said Mr. Elsner.

According to the law firm, such type of legal action was -- until
recently -- not possible. The Constitutional Court of South Africa
issued a landmark ruling in March 2011 in another of Spoor's
cases, Mankayi v. AngloGold Ashanti Limited, filed by now-deceased
gold miner Thebekile Mankayi.

He claimed he contracted silicosis and tuberculosis at Vaal Reefs
mine, operated by AngloGold and was given a limited payout for his
injuries under the terms of South Africa's Occupational Diseases
in Mines and Works Act (ODIMWA).  However, he had filed the suit
under common law for his full loss of wages, damages and medical
expenses.

The Constitutional Court's decision, which overruled the previous
decisions of both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeals,
affirmed injured workers' rights to sue employers for fair
compensation.

This ruling, says the law firm, broke new legal ground not only
for workers' rights but also for the South African legal system
and public health.

Little research has been conducted into the incidence of lung
disease amongst South African miners, and the few studies
undertaken by mining companies so far have focused largely upon
white workers.


ARRIMAGE DU QUEBEC: Faces Class Action Over Red Dust Cloud
----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Quebec woman has filed a class-action
lawsuit in connection with an incident at a cargo-handling company
that resulted in a red cloud of dust settling over parts of Quebec
City.

In October, an error at Arrimage du Quebec, a company located in
the Port of Quebec, led to the release of red dust over several
neighborhoods in the city.

Veronique Lalande, who lives in the city's Vieux-Limoilou
neighborhood, has filed a class action lawsuit against Quebec
City's Port Authority and Arrimage du Quebec, on behalf of the
residents living in the five neighborhoods she says were affected.

The cargo-handling company has already admitted responsibility for
the release of the dust.

In a December interview with CBC's Quebec AM, spokesman for
Arrimage Quebec Richard Thibault said the company was going to put
in place a C$7 million plan to ensure that kind of incident would
not happen again.

Ms. Lalande says about 50,000 people live in the area where the
red dust settled, but she doesn't yet know how many will be part
of the suit.  She said residents shouldn't have to foot the bill
for the company's mistake.

She said she will be asking for C$5,000 in compensation for
stress, damages and cleaning costs.

For her part, Ms. Lalande said it cost $2,000 to clean her home.
Ms. Lalande's law firm, Lauzon Belanger Lesperance, said Arrimage
Quebec tried to settle with some residents, but people felt the
settlement didn't cover their cleaning costs.

They will be seeking authorization for the lawsuit next month.

In November, Ms. Lalande ordered tests from samples of the dust
she collected from her balcony.

According to the results, Ms. Lalande said the dust contained
traces of iron, zinc, copper, arsenic and nickel.

Renee Levaque is the public health ministry's regional coordinator
of environmental health.

"It [was] a red cloud of iron-oxide dust, that does contain
certain amounts of other heavy metals," she told CBC's Quebec AM
in November.

Ms. Levaque said while some people with respiratory conditions may
have been affected by the dust, there is no concern for
irreversible health affects from exposure to the dust on a short-
term or mid-term.

Ms. Levaque said there is more concern for potential long-term
exposure.

"We don't like to see heavy metals . . . in the air of residential
neighborhoods," she said.

Ms. Levaque said there could be some concern for children and the
elderly.

But, according to spokesman Mr. Thibault, the red dust is not
toxic or dangerous.


BOMBAY PALACE: Refuses to Pay Employees' Minimum Wage, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Everest, Amrit Singh, Kazi Mohammad J. Uddin, Kishore
Naik, Augustine Gomes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bombay Palace, Chatwal Hotel & Resorts, LLC,
30 W 52 Restaurant, LLC and Shabri, LLC, Case No. 1:12-cv-09027
(S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2012) was filed by all "tipped" non-
management employees of the Defendants, including waiters,
busboys, runners, expeditors, floor managers, captains, maitres d'
and bartenders.

Mr. Everest alleges that they were denied payment of (i) minimum
wage, (ii) overtime premium compensation, (iii) "spread of hours"
pay, (iv) earned wages, which were subject to improper deductions
in the form of unlawful "tip pooling," and (v) unlawful retention
of earned service gratuities for catering/banquet events.

Mr. Everest is a resident of Queens, New York.  Mr. Singh is a
resident of Yonkers, New York.  Mr. Uddin is a resident of Queens,
New York.  Mr. Naik is a resident of Fairview, New Jersey.  Mr.
Gomes is a resident of Jamaica, New York.  The Plaintiffs are or
were employees of the company.

Bombay Palace is a New York corporation.  Bombay Palace is a fine
dining Indian restaurant.  Chatwal Hotels is a domestic limited
liability corporation organized and existing in the state of New
York.  30 W 52 is a domestic limited liability corporation.
Shabri is a New York domestic limited liability corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory N. Filosa, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          20 West 55th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 571-2000
          E-mail: greg@ottingerlaw.com


CANADA: Human Resources Dept. Sued Over Student Loan Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Star reports that a Newfoundland lawyer was set to file a
class-action lawsuit on Jan. 16 against the federal department
that lost the personal information of 583,000 student loan
borrowers late last year.

Bob Buckingham, who is based in St. John's and specializes in
privacy breach claims, said the decision to move forward with the
lawsuit against Human Resources and Skills Development Canada was
made on Jan. 14.

"This is huge," the lawyer said of the amount of information lost.
"It's valuable to (those) who want to wreak havoc with
individuals' lives or be involved in identity theft.

A representative fielding inquiries by student loan borrowers told
the Star those compromised need to monitor their bank accounts and
credit cards for suspicious activity.  The representative also
recommended contacting Equifax and Transunion, both credit
agencies, and ask to be monitored for suspicious transactions.

In the last 24 hours, Mr. Buckingham said his staff has been
swamped with people contacting the office wanting to be involved
in the lawsuit.

By his estimation, nearly 1,600 student loan borrowers from across
Canada have contacted him by phone, e-mail and their Facebook
page.

Human Resources and Skills Development announced on Dec. 11 that
the external hard drive contained the private details of borrowers
from 2000 to 2006.

Sean Hooper, a student loan borrower between 2004 and 2006, found
out on Jan. 15 his personal information was on the hard drive.
The 29-year-old University of Windsor graduate said he doubts the
government is taking it seriously.

"If this were a private industry handling personal information,
there would be serious repercussions from all sides, including
loss of business/clientele and government intervention," he said.
"But being a government slip up, it kind of feels like they're
saying "oops, I did it again" . . . we'll try better next time."

Mr. Hooper added he's not sure he'd go as far as to participate in
a class-action suit, "but it does concern me that personal
information is being kept unencrypted, and on external, removable
hard drives."

Minister Diane Finley has said new regulations and policy are in
place to make sure this type of data loss doesn't happen again.

The minister expressed disappointment in the situation, calling it
unacceptable and avoidable.

Staff at a Gatineau, Que. office noticed the hard drive missing on
Nov. 5.  Information on the hard drive, used as a backup storage
option, contained student names, dates of birth, social insurance
numbers, addresses and student loan balances from borrowers across
the country.

No banking or medical information was on the device, which
included the personal contact information of 250 department
employees.

The lawsuit, Mr. Buckingham said, will have to go before the
courts to be approved as a class-action lawsuit, before people
interested in joining can sign on.

This is the second time in as many months human resources
department staff has lost personal information of Canadians.  In
late 2012, the department informed the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner of a lost, unencrypted USB key that contained
information on more than 5,000 residents.

Think you might be affected? The government has set up a toll-free
number for inquiries about the lost data: 1-866-885-1866 (or 416-
572-1113 for those outside of North America).


CHEMTALL: May 1 "Floc" Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that the
founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness says a recent
settlement in Marshall County that provides medical monitoring and
millions of dollars in fees for attorneys appears unfair.

Ted Frank, who founded the CCAF in 2009 and is an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute, says his project doesn't solicit
clients but would consider helping any class member who wishes to
object to the settlement before an April 1 deadline.

The settlement, reached in Marshall County Circuit Court, provides
up to $6.6 million in medical tests for individuals who worked at
coal and water treatment plants who were possibly exposed to a
chemical called polyacrylamide, often referred to as "flocculent"
or "floc."

The lawsuit said workers at plants that used the chemical have a
higher risk for sensory or autonomic nervous system deficits but
doesn't allege any injuries have yet occurred.

Plaintiffs attorneys plan to request one-third of the $13.95
million and almost $2 million in costs.

Money left in the $6.6 million medical monitoring fund after a
court-approved deadline will be given to the Blanchette
Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute in Morgantown and the Center
for Rural Health at the Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine at
Marshall University.

"A settlement fee request where the attorneys propose to get $6.62
million and the class members get $6.58 million is unfair on its
face -- especially when it appears structured so that much of that
$6.58 million will actually end up in the hands of third parties
long after the attorneys have collected their checks," Mr. Frank
said.

"One hopes that a class member objects to this disproportionate
distribution, and that, whether or not such a class member comes
forward, West Virginia courts provide protection for innocent
class members being taken advantage of by their attorneys."

The defendants were manufacturers and distributors of the chemical
and included Chemtall, CIBA Specialty Chemicals, Cytec Industries,
G.E. Betz, Hychem, Ondeo Nalco, Stockhausen and Zinkan
Enterprises.

Class members must file a claim form to get a medical examination.
A deadline to do so has not been determined yet, but attorneys
involved say it could be as early as March 1, 2014.

Class members cannot exclude themselves from the settlement, which
means they can't sue as individuals for free examinations.
However, should a class member develop an injury, he or she will
still be able to file a lawsuit.

Class members may object to the settlement by April 1.  A fairness
hearing is scheduled for May 1.

The defendants have not admitted liability.  The settlement notice
will be published in newspapers and a 30-second radio spot is
being aired.

Representing the plaintiffs is R. Dean Hartley of Hartley &
O'Brien.  He did not return a phone message seeking comment.


DELL COMPUTER: California Consumers Get Class Settlement Notices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CPA Practice Advisor reports that more than four million notices
are being mailed to California consumers informing them of two
class action settlements reached in a decade-long lawsuit over the
collection of sales tax on purchases of computer hardware service
contracts from Dell Computer.

Under the terms of the respective settlements, which cover
purchases made between April 8, 1999 and June 30, 2008, funding
for the settlements will be provided by Dell and the California
State Board of Equalization.  The settlements followed a 2006
trial court's decision, later affirmed on appeal by the California
Court of Appeals in 2008, ruling that optional service contracts
sold by Dell were not subject to California sales or use tax, as
they did not constitute tangible personal property and were
readily separable from the computer hardware with which they were
sold.

A similar class action lawsuit brought on behalf of taxpayers in
the State of Washington was settled in 2006.

"These settlements represent an important victory for California
consumers and businesses," said Fredric Ellis, a Boston attorney
appointed as class counsel for the California settlement classes.
"After a long fought battle, including a trial and multiple
appeals, we are thrilled that the taxes which were wrongfully
collected by Dell will finally be returned to California
taxpayers."

Under the two settlements, which are awaiting final approval by
the court, customers of Dell who purchased and paid tax on service
contracts covering computer hardware during the class action
period will be entitled to a full refund of all such taxes that
they paid.

Over $275 million in refunds will be available to be claimed.  The
notices mailed to customers inform them of the amounts of refunds
available to them and instructions for the timely filing of
claims.

California consumers wishing additional information about the
settlements may visit the settlement Web site --
http://www.sctaxsett.com


ELECTROLUX: Faces Class Action Over Defective Ice Makers
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Electrolux makes Frigidaire
refrigerators with defective ice makers in the upper French door
that do not make ice and don't keep ice frozen, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


EPOCH HOLDING: Faces TD Merger-Related Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Goldman TTEE GSS 508 Trust dated May 16, 2008, individually,
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Epoch Holding
Corporation, Allan R. Tessler, William W. Priest, Enrique R.
Arzac, Jeffrey L. Berenson, John I. Cecil, Peter A. Flaherty,
Timothy T. Taussig, and The Toronto-Dominion Bank Group, Case No.
654341/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 11, 2012) arises from the
contemplated sale of Epoch to TD, which was publicly announced on
December 6, 2012.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Epoch directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with entering into the Proposed
Acquisition, including the duties of loyalty, good faith, candor,
and due care to fully inform themselves of the true value of Epoch
and act in the best interests of all of the Company's
shareholders.  The Trust adds that the Proposed Acquisition is
opportunistic and provides for no meaningful premium to Epoch's
public shareholders, will result in a change of control, and
shareholders will be deprived of the Company's solid prospects
going forward.

The Trust is a shareholder of Epoch.

New York-based Epoch conducts its operations through Epoch
Investment Partners, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company and a registered investment adviser.  Investment
management and investment advisory services are the Company's sole
lines of business.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

TD Bank Group consists of The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its
subsidiaries, and is the sixth largest bank in North America by
branches and serves approximately 22 million around the globe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Martin E. Restituyo, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4657
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4758
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
                  restituyo@whafh.com


FIRSTMERIT BANK: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Tycko & Zavareei LLP on Jan. 15 disclosed that Judge Eugene A.
Lucci has ruled that customers who allege that they were
improperly assessed overdraft fees by FirstMerit Bank may
prosecute their case together as a class action against the Bank.
Judge Lucci rejected FirstMerit Bank's claims that customers
should each have to sue individually because there were too many
factual and legal issues unique to each customer for the case to
proceed as a class action.

The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiffs, and other FirstMerit
customers in Ohio, were charged additional overdraft fees because
of FirstMerit's unfair and deceptive standardized practice of
posting debit card transactions to customer accounts from the
highest dollar amount to the lowest dollar amount, regardless of
the chronological order in which the transactions were actually
made by the customer.  The Plaintiffs also allege that, in order
to maximize the fees that it could charge its customers,
FirstMerit also grouped together customer's debit card
transactions with checks and other non-check debits for purposes
of posting.  According to the lawsuit, these practices breached
FirstMerit's agreement with its customers as well as constituted
fraud by the bank.  FirstMerit, who claims its mission is to
"improve and preserve the financial well-being of [its] customers,
shareholders, and the communities [it] serve[s,]" has nearly 200
branches in the Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and Chicago, Illinois
areas.

"We are pleased with Judge Lucci's decision to permit FirstMerit's
customers to band together in order to fight these abusive banking
practices.  FirstMerit should not be allowed to prey on its own
customers by unfairly manipulating the manner in which
transactions are posted and overdraft fees are charged," said
Hassan Zavareei, a partner at the Washington D.C. law firm of
Tycko & Zavareei, which represents the named Plaintiffs, Emily
Jacobs and James Glavic.  The Plaintiffs are also represented by
Patrick Perotti of Dworken & Bernstein and Stuart Scott of
Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber LLP.

Tycko & Zavareei has successfully sued several other banks
nationwide over improperly charged overdraft fees.  "We are
continuing to fight these harmful banking practices.  Customers
must be compensated for policies that cause millions of dollars in
improperly charged overdraft fees," said Mr. Zavareei.

A copy of the complaint and the decision granting class
certification is available upon request from Tycko & Zavareei.


FOREST CITY RATNER: Customers File Suit Over Unauthorized Meters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Gustafson, writing for The Journal News, reports that two
Ridge Hill customers are demanding their money back in a class-
action lawsuit filed on Jan. 15 in the wake of revelations that
the northeast Yonkers shopping center cashed in on fees from more
than 100 unauthorized parking meters.

Kathy Andersen of Congers and Maria Lena Felidi of Yonkers filed
suit in state Supreme Court in Rockland County against developer
Forest City Ratner Cos. and First New York Partners Management,
which helped operate the meters.

The women allege that Ridge Hill and its management arm engaged in
"wrongful business practices in deceiving the public consumers
into believing they were legally required to pay for parking
meters" that appeared to be municipally enforced.

The lawsuit comes after The Journal News revealed on LoHud.com on
Jan. 14 that the shopping center, according to current and former
City Council members, never got city authorization for meters that
it is now removing from its private streets.

Forest City collected an undisclosed amount of fees from the
meters and possible payments of its private parking tickets --
some for as much as $75 -- over more than a year before ceasing
its operation in the fall at the city's request.

Ms. Andersen and Ms. Felidi claim in their lawsuit that they were
duped into feeding the shopping center's "unlawful and fraudulent"
meters on many occasions.

"Our clients were very appalled from learning they were deceived,"
said their White Plains attorney, Daniel Szalkiewicz.  "They were
shopping all this time (at) Ridge Hill and thought these were
mandatory meters from the city."

Ms. Andersen also claims to have received a bogus mall-issued
parking ticket for an expired meter.

Their lawsuit is the first known class action taken against the
developer over the meters.

Mr. Szalkiewicz was unable to specify how much his clients are
seeking in damages, but said it was a nominal fee.

"They are looking for the developer to return what they paid," he
said.

Still, that sum could total hundreds of thousands of dollars,
depending on how many people sign on for the class action.

The lawsuit says the number of plaintiffs could be thousands.

A Forest City spokeswoman said the developer would review the
lawsuit before commenting.

She declined to reveal how much the developer collected from the
meters or tickets, but she did say the developer was keeping the
meter revenue.


HITACHI LTD: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lithium Ion Batteries
------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Ranola, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., Maxell Corporation
of America, LG Chem, Ltd., LG Chem America, Inc., Panasonic
Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America (f/k/a
Matushita Electric Corporation of America), Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd., Sanyo North America Corporation, Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.,
Samsung SDI America, Inc., Sony Corporation, Sony Energy Devices
Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-06422 (N.D.
Calif., December 19, 2012) arises out of an alleged contract,
combination or conspiracy among the Defendants to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the prices of Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries purchased directly from one of the Defendants or their
affiliates by the Plaintiff and other persons during the period
from January 1, 2002, to the present.

Mr. Ranola alleges that the Defendants entered into an agreement
with the purpose and effect of manipulating or stabilizing the
prices for, and allocating markets and customers with respect to,
Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries during the Class Period.  The
Plaintiff further alleges that, during the Class Period, as result
of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, he and other members of the
Class paid artificially inflated prices for Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries.

Mr. Ranola is a resident of Oakland, California.  During the Class
Period, he purchased Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries directly
from one or more of the Defendants.

Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company based in Tokyo, Japan.  Hitachi
Maxell is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan, and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd.  Maxell is a New Jersey
corporation based in Woodland Park, New Jersey.

LG Chem is a Korean corporation based in Seoul, South Korea.  LG
Chem is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate LG Electronics.
LG Chem America is a Delaware corporation based in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Chem.

Panasonic Corp. is a Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.
Panasonic Corp. was formerly known as Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co.  Panasonic manufactures and sells Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries under the Panasonic name and also under the
name of Defendant and wholly owned subsidiary Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.  Panasonic Corporation of North America, formerly known as
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, is a Delaware
Corporation based in Secaucus, New Jersey, and a wholly owned and
controlled subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation.  Sanyo is a
Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.  Sanyo North America
Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego,
California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.

Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Suwon, South Korea,
and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate Samsung Electronics, Inc.
Samsung SDI America is a California corporation based in San Jose,
California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung SDI.

Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan.
Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan.
Sony Energy is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation.
Sony Electronics is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego,
California and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries throughout the United States and the world.
The Defendants collectively controlled approximately two-thirds or
more of the worldwide market for Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries throughout this period, and over 80 percent of the
market in the early part of this period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Janice S. Yi, Esq.
          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: ecp@girardgibbs.com
                  ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  jsy@girardgibbs.com
                  smg@girardgibbs.com


INSTAGRAM INC: Accused of Accessing Users' Data Without Consent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Instagram, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-06550 (N.D. Calif., December 27,
2012) accuses Instagram of violating the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act, the California
Computer Crime Law, and the California's Invasion of Privacy Act,
among other laws.

The nature of this action includes a sequence of events wherein
the Defendant gained access to, and use of, the Plaintiff and
Class Members' mobile devices to obtain and store contact address
data, including personal identifying information of minor children
that was within the contact address book, Mr. Gutierrez explains.
He contends that the Defendant perpetuated this fraudulent
activity knowingly, or in the alternative, negligently with utter
disregard for its user's privacy, with the intent to obtain data,
including the mobile browsing activities of its users, which
include the Plaintiff and Class Members.

Mr. Gutierrez is a resident of Dallas County, Texas.

Instagram is a privately held Delaware corporation headquartered
in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Strange, Esq.
          STRANGE & CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-5055
          Facsimile: (310) 826-3210
          E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net

               - and -

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 943-6100
          Facsimile: (214) 943-6170
          E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com


INTERMEC INC: Faces Acquisition-Related Class Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. Bickley Foster, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Intermec, Inc.; Honeywell International
Inc.; Allen J. Lauer; Keith Barnes; Eric J. Draut; Gregory K.
Hinckley; Lydia H.  Kennard; Stephen P. Reynolds; Steven B.
Sample; Oren G. Shaffer; Larry D. Yost; and Hawkeye Merger Sub
Corp., Case No. 8105- (Del. Ch. Ct., December 13, 2012) is a
shareholder class action brought to enjoin the acquisition of the
publicly owned shares of Intermec common stock by Honeywell.

The complaint says in facilitating the acquisition of Intermec by
Honeywell for an inadequate consideration and through a flawed
process, each of the Defendants breached and aided the other
Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The Plaintiff
contends that instead of working to maximize shareholder value as
required, the Defendants are agreeing to hand over the Company and
its future prospects to Honeywell for an unfair price.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Intermec.

Intermec is a Delaware corporation based in Everett, Washington.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.  Honeywell is a Delaware corporation based in Morristown,
New Jersey.  Hawkeye is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Honeywell.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          Gregory F. Fischer, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West St., 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
                  gfischer@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
          Thomas E. N. Shea, Esq.
          GILMAN LAW LLP
          Beachway Professional Center Tower
          3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 307
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 221-8301
          Facsimile: (239) 676-8224


ISB MEHTA: Sued For Failing to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Ramirez, on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. ISB Mehta Corp, Vipul J. Mehta; and Does 1 through
30, inclusive, Case No. 1-12-CV-237735 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara Cty., December 13, 2012) involves restaurant workers, who
were paid a salary, performed non-exempt duties over 50% their
work day, and worked significant overtime hours.

The Defendants' violations of the Unfair Competition Law revolve
around their failure to pay all wages when due, failure to pay
employees minimum and overtime wages; failure to comply with rest
and meal period requirements; and failure to comply with the
record-keeping, wage statement and payment deadline provisions of
California law.

Mr. Ramirez is a California resident.  During the class period, he
was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee at their
various food service counter style restaurants.

Defendants Vipul J. Mehta and Does 1 through 15 own and control
various restaurants owned or operated by the corporate Defendants.
Mr. Mehta is the owner and alter ego of ISB Mehta Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
          CASA LEGAL
          84 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 790
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 317-1100
          Facsimile: (408) 315-0150
          E-mail: margainlaw@hotmail.com


LG CHEM: Conspired to Fix Lithium Ion Battery Prices, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corie Levy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LG Chem, Ltd., LG Chem America, Inc., Panasonic
Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Sanyo
Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America Corporation, Sony
Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation, Sony Electronics,
Inc., Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc., Hitachi,
Ltd., Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., and Maxell Corporation of America,
Case No. 3:12-cv-06446 (N.D. Calif., December 20, 2012) is brought
as a proposed class action against the world's largest
manufacturers of Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries for engaging
in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix and artificially raise the
prices of those batteries.

The Plaintiff and the proposed class consists of consumers, who
(1) indirectly purchased a stand-alone Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Battery containing a cell manufactured by a Defendant, or (2) a
Lithium Ion Rechargeable Battery Product containing a Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Battery containing a cell manufactured by a
Defendant, during the period from January 1, 2002, through 2011.
Ms. Levy contends that the Defendants engaged in conduct both
inside and outside the U.S. that caused, direct, substantial and
reasonably foreseeable and intended anti-competitive effects upon
interstate commerce within the United States.

Ms. Levy is a resident of New York.  During the Class Period, she
purchased a Sony notebook computer containing a Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Battery containing a cell manufactured by a
Defendant.

LG Chem is a Korean corporation based in Seoul, South Korea.  LG
Chem is an affiliate of Seoul-based conglomerate LG Electronics.
LG Chem America is a Delaware corporation based in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, and a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Chem.

Panasonic Corp. is a Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.
Panasonic Corp. was formerly known as Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co.  Panasonic manufactures and sells Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries under the Panasonic name and also under the
name of Defendant and wholly owned subsidiary Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.  Panasonic Corporation of North America, formerly known as
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, is a Delaware
Corporation based in Secaucus, New Jersey, and a wholly owned and
controlled subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation.  Sanyo is a
Japanese corporation based in Osaka, Japan.  Sanyo North America
Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego,
California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.

Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan.
Sony Energy is a Japanese corporation based in Fukushima, Japan.
Sony Energy Devices Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.  Sony Electronics is a Delaware corporation
based in San Diego, California and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Sony Corporation.

Samsung SDI is a Korean corporation based in Gyeonggi, South
Korea, and 20% owned by the Korean conglomerate Samsung
Electronics, Inc.  Samsung SDI America is a California corporation
based in Irvine, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Samsung SDI.

Hitachi Ltd. is a Japanese company based in Tokyo, Japan.  Hitachi
Maxell is a Japanese corporation based in Tokyo, Japan, and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd.  Maxell is a New Jersey
corporation based in Woodland Park, New Jersey.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Lithium Ion
Rechargeable Batteries throughout the United States and the world.
The Defendants collectively controlled approximately two-thirds or
more of the worldwide market for Lithium Ion Rechargeable
Batteries throughout this period, and over 80 percent of the
market in the early part of this period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602
          Facsimile: (212) 952-0608
          E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Blvd., Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com
                  service@braunlawgroup.com


LISA STEED: Sued Over Hundreds of Bogus DUI Arrests
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in Davis
County Court claims Utah Highway Patrolwoman Lisa Steed, who was
featured in a recent New York Times story, falsely arrested
"dozens and maybe hundreds" of people on bogus DUI charges.


MASSAGE ENVY: Failed to Reimburse Business Expenses, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette R. Balderas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC; Envee Estep Enterprise,
Inc. dba Massage Envy of Alameda Towne Centre; and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. RG12651952 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.,
October 15, 2012) is brought by massage therapists for the
Defendants' unlawful employment scheme that denies the therapists
the wages and benefits to which they are lawfully entitled to
under California law.

According to Ms. Balderas, Massage Envy hired her and class
members, deducted thousands of dollars for business expenses from
their wages but failed to reimburse them, hence, denying them
wages and benefits.  She asserts that the Defendants violate
multiple provisions of the California Labor Code and California
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 2-2001.

Ms. Balderas is a resident of Emeryville, California, who worked
as a massage therapist for the Defendants at Massage Envy of
Alameda Towne Centre.

Envee Estep is a California corporation.  Massage Envy is a
company headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, with over 700
Massage Envy and Massage Envy Spa locations nationwide.  The Doe
Defendants are persons or entities whose true names and identities
are currently unknown.

The Company removed the lawsuit on December 13, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
members of the proposed class are citizens of a state different
from the Defendants.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:12-cv-06327 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-0333
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
          E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com

               - and -

          Kathryn S. Landman, Esq.
          Laura M. Mazza, Esq.
          LANDMAN & MAZZA LLP
          1840 Gateway Drive, Ste. 200
          San Mateo, CA 94404
          Telephone: (650) 378-1472
          Facsimile: (650) 763-3933
          E-mail: katie@landmanmazza.com
                  laura@landmanmazza.com
                  information@landmanmazza.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Luanne Sacks, Esq.
          Hope Anne Case, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 836-2500
          Facsimile: (415) 836-2501
          E-mail: luanne.sacks@dlapiper.com
                  hope.case@dlapiper.com


NOVA SCOTIA: March 31 Seniors' Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy King, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that seniors who
had to pay for medical care while they lived in a Nova Scotia
nursing home have until the end of March to opt out of a class-
action lawsuit.

The lawsuit was certified as a class action at the end of last
year.  Michael Dull, a lawyer with Wagners Law Firm, said it is
open to Nova Scotia nursing home residents, their spouses and
their estates.

In February 2001, the province changed its policy regarding
admission of seniors to nursing homes.  If it was deemed that the
person could afford to pay for nursing home, the lawsuit alleged
part of the per diem they paid covered medical-care costs, which
is a universal right of other members of society, Mr. Dull noted.

"Other nursing home residents -- ones who the province didn't
require private payment -- they had that universal coverage as
well," he said.

The lawsuit also alleges the province didn't have statutory
authority to make the initial policy change.

The policy remained in place for about four years, ending Jan. 1,
2005.

All seniors who had to pay for their nursing care during that
period are considered part of the class action and are represented
by Wagners unless they choose to opt out by March 31.  The class
is about 1,300 people.

Newspaper advertisements have appeared advising of the lawsuit and
efforts are also being made to contact seniors individually.  The
court required the firm to make its best efforts to inform
potential class members of the action.

"The default is that, unless they opt out, we represent them and
their interest in this class action, for good or for bad, so if
the action is successful on the merits then that applies to them;
if it's not successful, that applies to them as well," Mr. Dull
said.

The representative plaintiffs have entered into a contingency fee
arrangement with Wagners and if the lawsuit is successful the firm
will receive 15-25 per cent of the net settlement, subject to
court approval.

For more information, or to opt out of the lawsuit, Wagners Law
Firm can be contacted at Suite PH301, Historic Properties, 1869
Upper Water St., Halifax, N.S., B3J 1S9, or by phone at 1-800-465-
8794.


OPTIMUM FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in Georgia for Malicious Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caesare Demone Haynes, Individually and as representative of all
others similarly situated v. Optimum Financial, Inc.; GTL of
Norcross # 3, LLC; and Brenda Johnson, Case No. 2012CV225115 (Ga.
Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., December 19, 2012) concerns the alleged
malicious retaliation by the Defendants over a loan given to the
Plaintiff in which he pledged his car as security for the loan.

The Plaintiff relates that he was unable to repay the loan.
However, instead of exercising their repossession remedy, the
Defendants, in an attempt to harass and intimidate him to pay on
the loan that he could no longer afford, wrongfully threatened and
initiated criminal prosecution for his failure to pay, Mr. Haynes
says.

Mr. Haynes is a resident of Gwinnett County, Georgia.

GTL is a domestic corporation and maintains its registered office
in Fulton County, Georgia.  Optimum Financial is a domestic
corporation.  Ms. Johnson is a resident of Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Burkhalter, Esq.
          Blair A. Andrews, Esq.
          MJ PATEL LAW GROUP
          3715 Northside Parkway
          Building 400, Suite 230
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (678) 974-1503
          E-mail: bburkhalter@mjpatellaw.com
                  bandrews@mjpatellaw.com


SAN ANTONIO SPURS: Heat Fan Files Class Action Over Nov. 29 Game
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. De Leon, writing for Project Spurs, reports that a
Miami Heat fan is suing the San Antonio Spurs because coach Gregg
Popovich elected to send several of the team's players home prior
to their November 29 game against the Heat.

Mr. Popovich sent Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Danny
Green home prior to the game to rest his players early in the
season during a grueling road trip that had them playing their
fourth game and five days.

For most fans, an apology and public tongue-lashing of the Spurs
from David Stern and then a $250,000 fine would have been enough,
especially considering it took a late Ray Allen three-pointer for
the Heat to get past a mostly reserve Spurs unit.

Darren Rovell of ESPN is reporting that attorney Larry McGuinness
has filed a class action lawsuit against the Spurs in Miami-Dade
County.

On Jan. 14, Larry McGuinness filed a class action suit in Miami-
Dade County, stating that the team's head coach, Gregg Popovich,
"intentionally and surrepticiously" sent their best players home
without the knowledge of the league, the team and the fans
attending the Nov. 29 game against the Heat.  Mr. McGuinness
contends that he, as well as other fans, "suffered economic
damages" as a result of paying a premium price for a ticket that
shouldn't cost more.

In Mr. Rovell's report, he notes that ticket prices are often
higher against better teams, which hardly seems like the Spurs
fault.  Mr. McGuinness also compared paying a premium for the
Spurs-Heat game to paying for a premium steak and getting a
substandard cut instead.

"It was like going to Morton's Steakhouse and paying $63 for
porterhouse and they bring out cube steak," said Mr. McGuinness,
who said he bought his ticket on the resale market.  "That's
exactly what happened here."


SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Suit For Making Employees Work Off The Clock
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sears Roebuck makes employees
work off the clock, a class action claims in Superior Court.


SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Class Certification Denied in False Ad Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard L. Gordon, Esq. and Kaveri B. Arora, Esq. of Venable LLP
announced that a New York federal judge denied class certification
in a case alleging false advertising of the Skinnygirl Margarita,
finding that Plaintiff's claims fail to meet Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a)'s typicality prerequisite, and therefore,
Plaintiff does not adequately represent the proposed class.  This
decision may help keep the plaintiff's bar on the rocks for a bit.

In 2009, the Skinnygirl Margarita -- a low-calorie alternative to
traditional margarita mixes -- was developed by health-conscious,
reality TV star, Bethenny Frankel, and her partner David Kanbar.
On September 20, 2011, Christopher Rapczynksi brought a suit in
Southern District of New York against Skinnygirl Cocktails,
L.L.C., SGC Global, L.L.C. and Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc.
alleging that the Defendants caused "millions of purchasers of
'Skinnygirl Margarita' to purchase that product under the false
pretenses that it was 'All-natural,'" when, in fact, it contained
sodium benzoate, and mixto, a tequila byproduct.  Ms. Frankel
waged a "come on" defense in press statements saying "I'm not
making wheatgrass here.  If I could put an agave plant and some
limes on a shelf I would.  The Skinnygirl Margarita is as close to
nature as possible, while still being a shelf-stable product."
Mr. Rapczynksi accused Defendants of false advertising under New
York General Business Law Sec. 349 and New York Agriculture and
Markets Law.  Additionally, Mr. Rapczynksi asserted claims for a
breach of express warranty and promissory estoppel and moved for
class certification seeking to represent a class of Massachusetts
and New York individuals.

Judge J. Paul Oetken denied class certification, finding that
Plaintiff's claims failed to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)'s typicality requirement, which provides that "the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims
or defenses of the class.  The judge noted, "[w]here the
particularities of the lead plaintiff's own allegations separate
his claim from those of other putative class members, a court
cannot certify the class."

First, the judge found that the New York laws that Mr. Rapczynksi
invokes only apply to transactions that occur within New York.
However, Mr. Rapczynksi only purchased the Skinnygirl Margarita in
Massachusetts, "which means the laws he invokes do not protect his
purchases."  Thus, Mr. Rapczynksi "is unable to assert the typical
class member's claim" and therefore cannot adequately represent
the proposed class.

The judge also found typicality issues with respect to
Mr. Rapczynksi's assertions of a breach of warranty and promissory
estoppel -- both which require a showing of reliance on the
purchaser's promise.  Here, Mr. Rapczynksi would need to show that
he relied on the Skinnygirl Margarita's "All-natural" advertising
in his decision to purchase the product.  However, as the judge
pointed out, Mr. Rapczynksi admitted in his deposition, in a
moment of incredible candor familiar to husband's everywhere, that
he bought the product to "appease his wife," and that he would
have bought the product regardless of its price to appease said
wife.  Whether Mr. Rapczynksi believed the product was natural was
irrelevant to his decision to purchase the Skinnygirl Margarita.
As a result, the judge found that these claims also fail to meet
Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement.  Perhaps Mr. Rapczynski will
amend his complaint to represent a class of husbands who bought
the product to appease their wives.

As consumer class actions proliferate, companies will need to
continue to challenge the appropriateness of class certification
with a cocktail of defenses.  This decision contrasts with a
decision last year from the Northern District of California that
certified a class against the makers of Arizona Iced Tea premised
on allegedly deceptive "all natural claims."  In that case, the
judge found that the named plaintiffs had adequately shown that
they had relied on the "all natural" advertising in making their
respective purchases so as to make their claims typical of those
alleged on behalf of the class in the complaint.


WELCH FOODS: Accused of False and Misleading Labeling Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Park and Carolyn Otto, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Welch Foods Inc., a Cooperative, Case
No. 5:12-cv-06449 (N.D. Calif., December 20, 2012) is brought on
behalf of those who purchased the Defendant's products unlawfully
labeled with "No Sugar Added" or bearing improper nutrient content
or health claims, or false representations that the products are
"all natural" and, thus, free from artificial colors, flavors or
preservatives.

This case is about a company that flouts federal and California
laws, which require truthful, accurate information on the labels
of packaged foods, and sells misbranded food to unsuspecting
consumers, the Plaintiffs contend.  They assert that the
Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices are designed
to increase sales and justify the premium prices of their products
at issue.

Ms. Park is a resident of Los Gatos, California, while Ms. Otto is
a resident of San Jose, California.  The Plaintiffs have purchased
the Defendant's misbranded food products in California.

Welch is a foreign corporation headquartered in Concord,
Massachusetts.  Welch is the food processing and marketing arm of
the National Grape Cooperative Association, and is a leading
producer of foods and beverages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com


ZYNGA: Employees File Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Zynga stiffed workers for
overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court.


* D.C. Legal Aid Society Gets $40,000 From Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, The Legal Aid Society of D.C. announced on Jan. 15 that it
had received a $40,000 award in the form of leftover funds from a
class action settlement.

The underlying case involved claims against a company that
acquired consumer debt and then pursued legal action against the
debtors.  The company was accused of purchasing the debt with
insufficient proof that the debt was valid and in some cases where
there was evidence that the time-limit on the debt had expired,
according to Legal Aid.

The company settled with plaintiffs, agreeing to pay each eligible
resident $1,500 and not to pursue any debts purportedly owed by
class members.  The award given to Legal Aid, known as a cy pres
award, came from settlement funds that went unclaimed or couldn't
be distributed to class members.

The class action was handled by the Friedman Law Offices and the
nonprofit Legal Counsel for the Elderly.  According to Legal Aid,
the organization was presented with the award on January 10.

"The receipt of the award is critical to our ability to continue
the important work of our consumer unit -- which focuses on
combating abusive debt collection practices as well as helping
families avoid unnecessary foreclosures," Legal Aid Society
Executive Director Eric Angel said in a statement.

Cy pres awards have come under fire in the past, with critics
contending that they can benefit lawyers and charities to the
detriment of class members.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was part
of an advocacy effort last year to convince Congress to get rid of
such awards.


                           *********

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. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *