CAR_Public/130731.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 31, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 149

                             Headlines


ALASKA AIRLINES: Appeals Ct. Affirms Judgment in "Nelson" Suit
ALLE PROCESSING: Bid for Pre-Motion Conference in FLSA Suit Denied
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Fenwick & West Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
BC HYDRO: Faces Class Action Over Smart Meters
BEAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Class in FLSA Violation Suit

BRESNAN COMMS: Arbitration Ruling in "Mortensen" Suit Overturned
CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Denial in Shearin Suit Upheld
CHESTER CAREER: Judge Approves $5MM Class Action Settlement
CHICAGO, IL: Retired City Workers Sue to Save Healthcare Subsidy
DEX MEDIA: Awaits Order in Appeal From Dismissal of Employee Suit

DEX MEDIA: Awaits Trial Setting in 2013 in "Buettgen" Suit
DEX MEDIA: Companion Suit Alleging FLSA Violations Filed vs. Unit
DEX MEDIA: Summary Judgment Bids Remain Pending in ERISA Suit
DEX MEDIA: Unit Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim
DOLORES ANTER: Ontario Building Suit to Return to Trial Court

EAST ST. LOUIS, WI: Has Until Aug. 26 to Respond to Class Action
ENCORE ENERGY: Del. Supreme Court Keeps Dismissal of "Allen" Suit
FAMILY VIDEO: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss FACTA Suit
FAST SIGN: Ga. Appeals Court Adopts S.C. Ruling in TCPA Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Use of "Asset Locators" a Fraud, Suit Claims

FORD MOTOR: MyFord Touch System an Unmitigated Tragedy, Suit Says
GLS CAPITAL: Pa. Supreme Court Sends Pentlong Suit to Trial Court
GOOGLE INC: To Pay $8.5MM in Search Query Disclosures Suit Deal
GOOGLE INC: Class Cert. Ruling in Authors Guild Suit Vacated
HDI-GERLING: Ga. S.C. Answers Questions in Taylor Morrison Suit

HOME DEPOT: Recalls Soleil Portable Fan Heaters Due to Fire Risk
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Bid Denial in Avery Suit Upheld
INTUIT INC: Settles Turbo Tax Fee Class Action
IRONBOUND EXPRESS: Wins Dismissal of Amended "Luxama" Suit
JAKKS PACIFIC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action

JOHNSON HEALTH: Recalls Krankcycle Due to Fall Hazard
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Monopoly of Credit Default Swaps
KOHL'S CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
LEAP WIRELESS: Being Sold to AT&T for Too Little, Suit Says
LEGALZOOM.COM: Class Cert. Denial in "Solotko" Suit Upheld

LENNOX HEARTH: Recalls 11,500 Gas Fireplaces Due to Fire Risk
LINN ENERGY: Faces IPO-Related Shareholder Class Suit in Texas
LOTUS: Recalls 14 EVORA S Model
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Judge Certifies Investors' Class Action
MCKESSON CORP: City of Milford Gets Class Action Settlement Award

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Final Approval of DRAM Suit Settlement
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Final OK of Canadian Suits Settlement
MONSANTO CO: GMO Wheat Contaminated Crops in E. Wash., Suit Says
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: District Court Dismisses "Reitz" Lawsuit
NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Judgment in Workers' Suit Partially Upheld

NINE MILE: Four Coal Miners File Warn Act Class Action
OHIO: 6th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment in "Allen" Suit
P.F. CHANG'S: Did Not Provide Employees With Breaks, Suit Claims
PFIZER CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Champix Class Action
PHILIPS ORAL: Settles Class Action Over Philips Sonicare AirFloss

POLYCOM INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
REED ELSEVIER: Accused of Unlawful Annual Maintenance Charges
RELIANT TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Merger-Related Suit Affirmed
RPM PIZZA: Sued by Delivery Drivers for Unpaid Minimum Wages
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Energy Star

SCHENECTADY S.S.: Faces Class Suit Over Food Stamp Applications
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Court Denies Bid to Amend FDCPA Suit
SERVICE CORP: Appeal From Cert. Order in "Garcia" Suit Pending
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend "Sands" Suit in California
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits

SERVICE CORP: Faces "Moulton" Merger-Related Suit in Louisiana
SERVICE CORP: Faces "Rose" Merger-Related Suit in Louisiana
SHFL ENTERTAINMENT: Being Sold to Bally for Too Little, Suit Says
SKYPE INC: Loses Bid to Stay Discovery in "Becker" Class Action
SPRENGER + LANG: Denial of Bid to Vacate Arbitration Award Upheld

TOYS "R" US: Trial Court Judgment in Gift Card Class Suit Upheld
UNDER ARMOUR: Sells Clothes With Bogus Claims, Calif. Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Maryland Judge Dismisses "Allen et al." Class Suit
UNITED STATES: NSA Faces Various Groups' Suit Over Surveillance
VIKING RANGE: Recalls Built-In Refrigerators Due to Injury Hazard

WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over 2-For-1 Coupon Tax
WALTER INVESTMENT: Pomerantz Gross Files Class Action in Florida
WILLOWICK, OH: Faces Class Action Over Sewer System Back-Up

* EU Not Importing US Class Action Rules
* Lead Plaintiffs at Risk of Adverse Cost Penalties
* Pro-Business Supreme Court Rulings Have Long-Term Ramifications


                             *********


ALASKA AIRLINES: Appeals Ct. Affirms Judgment in "Nelson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case is KENNETH DON NELSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO. A136319, the
Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two,
issued an order stating that the opinion filed on June 25, 2013,
will be modified as follows:

"On the last page of the opinion, the second to last sentence of
the paragraph at the top of the page should be modified to read:

Plaintiff fails to show this was an abuse of discretion and
Terminals Equipment Co. indicates that it was not. We so
conclude."

There is no change in the judgment, the Appeals Court said.

Plaintiff Kenneth Don Nelson sued defendant Alaska Airlines in San
Francisco County Superior Court, claiming that defendant was not
entitled to charge him and similarly situated persons an
approximately $22 "Mexican tourism tax" when selling them tickets
for travel between California and Mexico. The Defendant asserted
by demurrers that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Airline
Deregulation Act, and had other defects.

The Plaintiff appealed after the trial court sustained the
defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's first amended complaint
and, after the Court dismissed plaintiff's previous appeal without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, denied his motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint, struck the class allegations in
the first amended complaint, and entered judgment in favor of
defendant. The Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in
concluding that his claims were preempted by the ADA, denying his
motion for leave to file his second amended complaint, and staying
discovery pending the outcome of defendant's demurrers.

The California Appeals Court says it finds no error and affirms
the judgment.

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 15, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/RECjjifrom Leagle.com.


ALLE PROCESSING: Bid for Pre-Motion Conference in FLSA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kingborn Morris, Rafael Mateo, and Darnell Pierre, former
employees of Alle Processing Corporation, brought a class action
against Alle, Albert Weinstock, Edwin Weinstock, Sam Hollander,
and Mendel Weinstock, alleging violations of, inter alia, the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, for failing to pay
earned wages, overtime wages, and spread of hours compensation.

On May 6, 2013, Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, based on the Plaintiffs' NYLL claims.
In this Rule 23 Order, Judge Azrack held that in light of the
Supreme Court's decision in Shady Grove Orthopedics, P.A. v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 130 S.Ct. 1431 (2010), plaintiffs
did not need to waive their NYLL liquidated damages claim to
maintain a Rule 23 class action.

On June 4, 2013, the Defendants requested a pre-motion conference
seeking to move for relief from the Rule 23 Order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) or, alternatively, an
amendment to the Rule 23 Order permitting defendants to seek leave
to appeal.

On June 27, 2013, Judge Azrack held that "case law clearly
supports my Rule 23 Order allowing plaintiffs to maintain their
liquidated damages claims in light of Shady Grove. Defendants have
failed to present a sufficient reason to grant relief from my Rule
23 Order, pursuant to Rule 60(b), and failed to establish a
substantial ground for difference of opinion that would warrant
permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b)."

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion is denied and the parties are
directed to file via ECF a revised notice, as previously
discussed, by July 8, 2013, Judge Azrack saif.

The case is KINGBORN MORRIS, RAFAEL MATEO, and DARNELL PIERRE, on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed
by ALLE PROCESSING CORP., ALBERT WEINSTOCK, EDWIN WEINSTOCK, SAM
HOLLANDER, and MENDEL WEINSTOCK, Plaintiffs, v. ALLE PROCESSING
CORP., ALBERT WEINSTOCK, EDWIN WEINSTOCK, SAM HOLLANDER, and
MENDEL WEINSTOCK, Defendants, NO. 08-CV-4874 (JMA), (E.D. N.Y.)

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/KNQVo6from Leagle.com.

Kingborn Morris, Plaintiff, represented by LaDonna Marie Lusher --
llusher@vandallp.com -- at Virginia & Ambinder LLP & Lloyd Robert
Ambinder -- lambinder@vandallp.com -- at Virginia & Ambinder LLP.

Rafael Mateo, Plaintiff, represented by LaDonna Marie Lusher, at
Virginia & Ambinder LLP & Lloyd Robert Ambinder, at Virginia &
Ambinder LLP.

Darnell Pierre, Plaintiff, represented by LaDonna Marie Lusher, at
Virginia & Ambinder LLP & Lloyd Robert Ambinder, at Virginia &
Ambinder LLP.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by LaDonna Marie Lusher, at
Virginia & Ambinder LLP & Lloyd Robert Ambinder, at Virginia &
Ambinder LLP.

Alle Processing Corp, Defendant, represented by Jeffery A. Meyer
-- jmeyer@kdvlaw.com -- at Kaufman, Dolowich, Voluck & Gonzo, LLP
& Jon S. Brooks -- jbrooks@phillipsnizer.com -- at Phillips, Nizer
LLP.

Albert Weinstock, Defendant, represented by Jeffery A. Meyer, at
Kaufman, Dolowich, Voluck & Gonzo, LLP & Jon S. Brooks at
Phillips, Nizer LLP.

Edwin Weinstock, Defendant, represented by Jeffery A. Meyer, at
Kaufman, Dolowich, Voluck & Gonzo, LLP & Jon S. Brooks, at
Phillips, Nizer LLP.

Sam Hollander, Defendant, represented by Jeffery A. Meyer, at
Kaufman, Dolowich, Voluck & Gonzo, LLP & Jon S. Brooks, at
Phillips, Nizer LLP.

Mendel Weinstock, Defendant, represented by Jeffery A. Meyer, at
Kaufman, Dolowich, Voluck & Gonzo, LLP & Jon S. Brooks, at
Phillips, Nizer LLP.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Fenwick & West Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mona Clee, Esq. -- mclee@fenwick.com -- Allen M. Kato, Esq. --
akato@fenwick.com -- and Daniel J. McCoy, Esq. --
dmccoy@fenwick.com -- at Fenwick & West LLP, reports that in
American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant, a non-
employment case, the Supreme Court enforced a class action waiver
in an American Express ("AMEX") arbitration agreement despite a
restaurant's objection that the waiver effectively prevented a
legal remedy.  AMEX provides merchants with credit card processing
services.  As a condition of such services, merchants agree to
individually arbitrate any disputes and waive the right to bring
class action lawsuits.  Italian Colors Restaurant filed a class
action lawsuit against AMEX for alleged antitrust violations.
Opposing AMEX's motion to compel individual arbitration, the
restaurant argued that its maximum individual recovery was under
$50,000 and the cost of expert evidence to prove the antitrust
claim alone would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. According
to the restaurant, public policy required an affordable and
effective remedy for the federal antitrust violation, and that a
class action was that remedy.

Rejecting the restaurant's argument, the court held that a
stronger public policy favoring arbitration outweighed the
merchant's right to bring a class action antitrust claim.
According to the court, the merchant may seek to vindicate its
antitrust rights but must do so in individual arbitration.

The AMEX case may prove compelling to those California courts
considering employee challenges to class action waivers in
employment arbitration agreements.


BC HYDRO: Faces Class Action Over Smart Meters
----------------------------------------------
Bob Mackin, writing for The Tyee, reports that the operator of a
Salt Spring Island yoga and meditation retreat has taken the first
step in an anti-smart meters, class action lawsuit against BC
Hydro.

A statement of claim filed on July 25 said BC Hydro installed a
smart meter on Aug. 22, 2012 against the wishes of Nomi Davis,
whose requests for removal of the microwave device have been
refused.  The installation was recorded and uploaded to YouTube.

"The installation and operation of the microwave device is an act
that exceeds the scope of the defendant's right to access the
plaintiff's property for the purpose of reading, repairing or
replacing the meter," said the claim, filed by Nelson lawyer
David Aaron.  "By installing the microwave device, the defendant
has added a communication device to the meter that is not
necessary to the functionality of the meter as required by law and
yet has material implications on the rights of the plaintiff."

The claim says the smart meter has disrupted Ms. Davis's quiet
enjoyment of the property and the yoga and meditation sessions at
her residence.

"The presence of a device with bio-effects on the plaintiff's
property has disrupted the integrity of the space as a sanctuary
for meditation, peace of mind and resonant attunement," said the
court filing.

The documents says the microwave device installed in smart meters
emits radiation at 902 to 928 Megahertz and that the World Health
Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer
classified those emissions as possibly cancer-causing.  The filing
concedes that the scientific community is divided on whether
exposure causes harm to humans.

"The defendant uses the threat of cutting of electrical supply to
compel the plaintiff to accept the continued operation of the
Microwave device at the property," said the documents.  "Without
any contractual or statutory right, the defendant has used its
monopoly status to coercively and deceptively impose the microwave
device on the plaintiff against her express wishes."

Aaron will be seeking a judge's certification of the lawsuit as a
class-action, which could open the door to hundreds of thousands
of plaintiffs.  BC Hydro has yet to file a statement of defense.

The lawsuit was filed a week after Energy Minister Bill Bennett
said BC Hydro customers would have the option to use an analog
meter or a smart meter without a radio device.  The additional
charges weren't announced, but approval will be sought from the
B.C. Utilities Commission.

Meanwhile, FortisBC got the regulator's go ahead on July 23 to
install 115,000 smart meters.  The BC Liberals excused BC Hydro
from regulatory oversight for the installation of 1.8 million
smart meters in a loophole contained in the Clean Energy Act of
2010.  BC Hydro says 60,000 people have refused to accept the
devices.

According to Globalnews.ca, the lawsuit was launched with the
support and representation of the Citizens for Safe Technology
Society (CST) & the Coalition to Stop Smart Meters.

It was filed on July 25, and others can join the lawsuit if they
meet the criteria.

"If BC Hydro has forced a Smart Meter on you, threatened to cut
off your power or refused to provide you with power unless you
accepted a Smart Meter, then you may fit within the Class of
persons on behalf of whom this claim is brought," said Steve
Satow, a CST advisory board member.

The criteria is laid out in paragraph 29, and states that the
class member must have communicated to the Defendant (BC Hydro)
that he / she opposes and / or does not consent to the
installation and / or operation of the "Microwave Device" at the
subject's property.

Anyone who wishes to support or participate in the action can
contact www.citizensforsafetechnology.org

Those involved in the lawsuit are looking for an order that BC
Hydro remove unwanted Smart Meters, and a permanent injunction
restraining BC Hydro from exacting payment in exchange for an opt-
out.

Executive director Una St.Clair said they are not going to sit and
wait for the government to decide on its policy over the Smart
Metres.  "If I choose to avoid chemical fertilizers on my property
because I think they're unhealthy, that is my choice," she said.
"The same goes with exposure to Smart Meter radiation.  In a free
and pluralistic society, a possible toxin cannot be forced down
anyone's throat -- or forced onto one's property."

Ms. Davis's lawyer said the lawsuit states the home is a private
domain where free choice and autonomy rule.  "It claims a right of
control over environmental exposures generated from one's own
domestic dwelling; and it alleges that BC Hydro has unlawfully
leveraged its monopoly powers to violate that right by coercively
and deceptively imposing a smart meter on the Plaintiff and other
members of the Class," he said.


BEAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Class in FLSA Violation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Brian C. Wimes granted a motion to conditionally
certify a class in JOHN TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. BEAR COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-01261-BCW, (W.D. Mo.).

The Court finds for purposes of conditional certification that
Mr. Taylor has established a colorable basis for his claim that
the putative class members were victims of a single decision,
policy, or plan implemented by Defendant Bear Communications, LLC
resulting in violations of the FLSA.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/WdNpFEfrom Leagle.com.

John Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Michael T. Miller --
mike@mccauleyroach.com -- at McCauley & Roach, LLC & Morgan L.
Roach -- morgan@mccauleyroach.com -- at McCauley & Roach, LLC.

Bear Communications LLC, Defendant, represented by John Bullock --
jbullock@stevensbrand.com -- at Stevens & Brand LLP & Kana R.
Lydick -- klydick@stevensbrand.com -- at Stevens & Brand LLP.


BRESNAN COMMS: Arbitration Ruling in "Mortensen" Suit Overturned
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an
opinion in MORTENSEN v. BRESNAN COMMUNICATIONS, LLC vacating a
district court's denial of Bresnan's motion to compel arbitration.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), the Ninth Circuit
concludes that Concepcion further limited the Federal Arbitration
Act's savings clause, and therefore holds (1) that the FAA
preempts Montana's reasonable expectations/fundamental rights rule
and (2) that the district court erred in not applying New York law
because a state's preempted public policy is an impermissible
basis on which to reject the parties' choice-of-law selection.

Consequently, the Ninth Circuit vacates the district court's
denial of Bresnan's motion to compel arbitration and remands to
the district court with instructions to apply New York law to the
arbitration agreement.

The case is DALE MORTENSEN; MELISSA BECKER, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BRESNAN COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, Defendant-Appellant, NO. 11-35823,

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 15, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/DPAFTVfrom Leagle.com.

John D. Seiver -- johnseiver@dwt.com -- (argued), Adam S. Caldwell
-- adamcaldwell@dwt.com -- and Ronald G. London --
ronnielondon@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington,
D.C.; William Scott Mitchell -- smitchell@hollandhart.com -- and
Michael P. Manning -- mpmanning@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart,
LLP, Billings, Montana, for Defendant-Appellant.

Scott A. Kamber -- skarmber@kamberlaw.com -- (argued) and David A.
Stampley -- dstampley@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw, LLC, New York,
New York; Deborah Kravitz -- dkravitz@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw,
LLC, Healdsburg, California; Gregory P. Johnson, Johnson Law
Office, Billings, Montana, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Denial in Shearin Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Five, affirmed a trial court ruling denying class certification in
SHEARIN v. BROWN.

Plaintiff and appellant Robert Lopez filed the class action
against defendants and respondents seeking damages for himself and
all others similarly situated for allegedly being detained in
prison beyond their lawful release dates.  He appeals from the
trial court's order denying his motion for class certification, as
well as the trial court's earlier order sustaining demurrers to
plaintiff's causes of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

The Appeals Court held that because there was substantial evidence
supporting the trial court's findings that common issues did not
predominate and that plaintiff's claims were not typical of the
putative class members' claims, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the class certification motion.
The Second Circuit further held that the order sustaining the
demurrers to plaintiff's section 1983 claims is nonappealable.
Therefore, the appeal from this order is dismissed.

The Defendants will recover their costs on appeal.

The case is NICHOLAS SHEARIN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as [state of California] Governor, etc., et
al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B239730.

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 11, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/wkk94tfrom Leagle.com.

Kiesel Boucher Larson, Paul R. Kiesel -- kiesel@kbla.com -- Steven
D. Archer -- archer@kbla.com -- Jeffrey A. Koncius --
Koncius@kbla.com ; Law Offices of Sanford Jossen and Sanford
Jossen for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Sedgwick, Michael F. Healy and Kelly Savage Day for Defendants and
Respondents.


CHESTER CAREER: Judge Approves $5MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Szkotak, writing for Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge has approved a $5 million class action settlement
between a two-year college and thousands of primarily African-
American students saddled with loans in return for what their
attorneys called a sham education in which teachers sometimes
failed to show up for classes.

The settlement involves the former Richmond School of Health and
Technology, now operating as Chester Career College.  The for-
profit school offers classes leading to careers in nursing,
massage therapy and other medical-related fields.

U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney entered a final order on
July 25 requiring the school to establish the fund and to
reimburse more than 4,000 students and for attorneys' fees.

The settlement also requires Chester Career College to institute
changes that will provide prospective students with "much more
transparency" before they enroll, said John P. Relman, the
attorney representing eight students who brought the class action.

The college specifically courted inner city students with ads on
hip-hop stations and other media aimed at their demographic.

"This is where they trolled for business," Mr. Relman said on
July 26.  "They boasted that they were on the bus line.  In
Richmond, that's vernacular for minority community."

The college enrolled "almost exclusively" students who qualified
for federal financial aid, primarily in the form of student loans,
the students' attorneys wrote in the complaint.

Once a prospective student took the bait, Mr. Relman said, the
school helped him or her arrange federal loans for up to $25,000
or more for a nine- or 12-month course.

The college was "defrauding the government by taking these
students' loans and providing what amounted to a sham education,"
Mr. Relman said.  "They didn't deliver any kind of education to
these students. Students could not pass any of the certification
exams.  Teachers didn't show up at classes."

Sade Battle, 26, of Richmond, said that was her experience when
she enrolled in 2006 at Richmond School of Health and Technology
to work as a community home health aide.  She left the school
after 1 1/2 years with a $10,000 loan after the school failed to
deliver on the hands-on education she sought, including the lack
of sheets during lessons on how to care for someone who is bed-
ridden.

"We had to pretend we were putting sheets under the patient," said
Battle, who is now starting her own cleaning business.

The settlement does not mean the college admits any wrongdoing,
Mr. Relman and the college's attorney, Christopher L. Perkins,
said in a joint statement.

Besides the $5 million fund, the settlement also provides for
continued tracking of students and career placement "to strengthen
the school" and its educational mission as it moves forward, the
statement said.

Mr. Relman compared the college's tactics to predatory lending by
a bank and reverse redlining, or the specific targeting of
minority students.  Redlining typically has been a business
practice to exclude black Americans, which has been deemed a
violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.  The school's
enrollment is approximately 75 percent African American, he said.

"In my mind, it is just another version of targeting the minority
community for predatory loans," Mr. Relman said.  "You just have
debt for no good reason."

The class action was brought by the former students cited breach
of contract and violations of the Civil Rights Act and the
Virginia Consumer Protection Act.

One of the students, Kyra Franklin, was enrolled in a surgical
technology program that the college said would pay her up to
$60,000 a year.  She took out more than $20,000 in loans but later
learned she could not get certification because the college had
never obtained the necessary accreditation.

"Although she graduated near the top of her class at RSHT,
Franklin has not been able to find work as a surgical technician,
much less a position that pays more than $50,000 a year," the
lawsuit states.

Under the settlement, Ms. Franklin and the other students named in
the class action will receive nearly $200,000 for their expenses
and liabilities from attending the college.

The settlement covers students enrolled at the school from
July 2004 through February 2013.

Notices will be mailed to thousands of other students who qualify
for claims.  Any money that is not claimed from the remaining
funds in the escrow account after one year will be donated to
nonprofit organizations dedicated to assisting the economically
disadvantaged.


CHICAGO, IL: Retired City Workers Sue to Save Healthcare Subsidy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fran Spielman, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that
Chicago's 30,000 retired city employees are trying to stop
Mayor Rahm Emanuel from saving $108.7 million -- by phasing out
the city's 55 percent subsidy for retiree health care and foisting
Obamacare on them.

One week after an unprecedented, triple-drop in Chicago's bond
rating, retirees have filed a class-action lawsuit against the
city and its four employee pension funds that threatens to make
the financial crisis even worse.

The suit argues that the Illinois Constitution guarantees that
municipal pension membership benefits are an "enforcible
contractual relationship which may not be diminished or impaired."

The Circuit Court suit further contends that retirees "have a
property right to a lifetime health care plan" from the city
"unreduced from the best terms" during their participation.
Anything less would be a "depreciation of property rights"
guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," the
lawsuit states.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is Mike Underwood, a retired
Chicago Police officer with Parkinson's disease, whose service on
the streets of Austin left him with a laundry list of injuries.

"I wasn't hiding behind a desk somewhere.  I earned these
benefits.  I paid for them with my blood.  I was shot in the head
and stabbed.  I broke my hand, my leg, my ankle twice and
fractured a vertebrae, a cheekbone and I can't tell you how many
ribs," Mr. Underwood said on July 25.


DEX MEDIA: Awaits Order in Appeal From Dismissal of Employee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting a court decision in an
appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit initiated by a
former employee, according to the Company's July 8, 2013, Form
8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 3, 2013, Dex Media, Inc., filed a Current Report on Form
8-K (the "Original Report") reporting, among other things, the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Amended and
Restated Merger Agreement, dated as of December 5, 2012, by and
between SuperMedia Inc., Dex One Corporation, Newdex, Inc.
("Newdex"), and Spruce Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Spruce"), including
the merger of Dex One with and into Newdex, with Newdex continuing
as the surviving corporation and changing its name to Dex Media,
Inc., and the merger of SuperMedia with and into Spruce, with
SuperMedia surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Dex Media.
The Company subsequently filed this amendment to amend and
supplement Item 9.01 of the Original Report to include the
historical financial statements of SuperMedia, the business
acquired, and the unaudited pro forma combined financial
information for Dex One and SuperMedia.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against SuperMedia filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of SuperMedia's current
and former officers, directors and members of SuperMedia's
employee benefits committee ("EBC").  The complaint attempts to
recover alleged losses to the various savings plans that were
allegedly caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA") by the
defendants in administrating the plans from November 17, 2006, to
March 31, 2009.  The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants
wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock,
(ii) the defendants made material misrepresentations regarding
SuperMedia's financial performance and condition, (iii) the
defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged
the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to
monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.

At this time, a class has not been certified.  The plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated complaint.  SuperMedia filed a motion to
dismiss the entire complaint on June 22, 2010.  On March 16, 2011,
the court granted the SuperMedia defendants' motion to dismiss the
entire complaint; however, the plaintiffs have repleaded their
complaint.  The SuperMedia defendants have filed another motion to
dismiss the new complaint.  On March 15, 2012, the court granted
the SuperMedia defendants' second motion dismissing the case with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal and
briefing in the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has been
completed.  Oral argument was held on March 7, 2013, and
SuperMedia awaits the ruling of the court.

SuperMedia says it plans to honor its indemnification obligations
and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Newdex, Inc. was incorporated on August 17, 2012, as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Dex One Corporation.  Newdex was formed to
facilitate the merger by and between Dex One and SuperMedia Inc.
On August 20, 2012, Dex One entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with SuperMedia, Newdex, and Spruce Acquisition Sub, Inc.,
a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Newdex.  The Merger Agreement
provides that Dex One will merge with and into Newdex, with Newdex
as the surviving entity and Merger Sub will merge with and into
SuperMedia, with SuperMedia as the surviving entity and becoming a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Newdex.  As a result of the
Mergers, Newdex, as successor to Dex One, is renamed Dex Media,
Inc., and became a newly listed company.


DEX MEDIA: Awaits Trial Setting in 2013 in "Buettgen" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia awaits a trial setting in 2013 in the consolidated
class action lawsuit known as the Buettgen case, according to Dex
Media, Inc.'s July 8, 2013, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 3, 2013, Dex Media, Inc., filed a Current Report on Form
8-K (the "Original Report") reporting, among other things, the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Amended and
Restated Merger Agreement, dated as of December 5, 2012, by and
between SuperMedia Inc., Dex One Corporation, Newdex, Inc.
("Newdex"), and Spruce Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Spruce"), including
the merger of Dex One with and into Newdex, with Newdex continuing
as the surviving corporation and changing its name to Dex Media,
Inc., and the merger of SuperMedia with and into Spruce, with
SuperMedia surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Dex Media.
The Company subsequently filed this amendment to amend and
supplement Item 9.01 of the Original Report to include the
historical financial statements of SuperMedia, the business
acquired, and the unaudited pro forma combined financial
information for Dex One and SuperMedia.

On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate
putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, against certain of SuperMedia's current and former
officers (but not against SuperMedia or its subsidiaries).  The
lawsuits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan
Goldberg as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of
purchasers of SuperMedia's common stock between August 10, 2007,
and March 31, 2009, inclusive.  On May 22, 2009, a putative class
action securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas against two of SuperMedia's
current officers (but not against SuperMedia or its subsidiaries).
The lawsuit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf of purchasers of
SuperMedia's bonds between March 27, 2008, and March 30, 2009,
inclusive.  On August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones case from Arkansas
federal district court was transferred to be consolidated with the
cases filed in Texas.  The complaints are virtually identical and
generally allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading statements regarding
SuperMedia's financial performance and condition.  Specifically,
the complaints allege violations by the defendants of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and Section 20
of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation expenses.
Since the filing of the complaints, all four cases have been
consolidated into one court in the Northern District of Texas and
a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' attorney have been selected
("Buettgen" case).

On April 12, 2010, SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the entire
Buettgen complaint.  On August 11, 2010, in a one line order
without an opinion, the court denied SuperMedia's motion to
dismiss.  On May 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion certifying a class.  Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals denied SuperMedia's petition for an interlocutory
appeal of the class certification order.  Discovery has commenced.
On September 24, 2012, the SuperMedia defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment seeking a complete dismissal which was denied
on February 20, 2013.  SuperMedia awaits a trial setting in 2013.

SuperMedia says it plans to honor its indemnification obligations
and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Newdex, Inc. was incorporated on August 17, 2012, as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Dex One Corporation.  Newdex was formed to
facilitate the merger by and between Dex One and SuperMedia Inc.
On August 20, 2012, Dex One entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with SuperMedia, Newdex, and Spruce Acquisition Sub, Inc.,
a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Newdex.  The Merger Agreement
provides that Dex One will merge with and into Newdex, with Newdex
as the surviving entity and Merger Sub will merge with and into
SuperMedia, with SuperMedia as the surviving entity and becoming a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Newdex.  As a result of the
Mergers, Newdex, as successor to Dex One, is renamed Dex Media,
Inc., and became a newly listed company.


DEX MEDIA: Companion Suit Alleging FLSA Violations Filed vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A companion case was filed against a subsidiary of Dex Media,
Inc., which alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the Company's July 8, 2013, Form 8-K/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 3, 2013, Dex Media, Inc., filed a Current Report on Form
8-K (the "Original Report") reporting, among other things, the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Amended and
Restated Merger Agreement, dated as of December 5, 2012, by and
between SuperMedia Inc., Dex One Corporation, Newdex, Inc.
("Newdex"), and Spruce Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Spruce"), including
the merger of Dex One with and into Newdex, with Newdex continuing
as the surviving corporation and changing its name to Dex Media,
Inc., and the merger of SuperMedia with and into Spruce, with
SuperMedia surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Dex Media.
The Company subsequently filed this amendment to amend and
supplement Item 9.01 of the Original Report to include the
historical financial statements of SuperMedia, the business
acquired, and the unaudited pro forma combined financial
information for Dex One and SuperMedia.

On July 1, 2011, several former employees filed a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action against SuperMedia, all
its subsidiaries, the current chief executive officer and the
former chief executive officer in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  The complaint
alleges that SuperMedia improperly calculated the rate of pay when
it paid overtime to its hourly sales employees.  On July 29, 2011,
SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In response,
the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege that the
individual defendants had "off-the-clock" claims for unpaid
overtime.  Subsequently, SuperMedia amended its motion to dismiss
in light of the new allegations.  On October 25, 2011, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective
action and to issue notice.  On March 29, 2012, the court denied
SuperMedia's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion
to conditionally certify the class.  SuperMedia's motion seeking
permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the order was denied
and a notice has been sent to SuperMedia's former and current
employees. The time for opting into the class has expired. The
plaintiffs that failed to file their opt-ins on time have filed a
companion case with the same allegations.

Newdex, Inc. was incorporated on August 17, 2012, as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Dex One Corporation.  Newdex was formed to
facilitate the merger by and between Dex One and SuperMedia Inc.
On August 20, 2012, Dex One entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with SuperMedia, Newdex, and Spruce Acquisition Sub, Inc.,
a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Newdex.  The Merger Agreement
provides that Dex One will merge with and into Newdex, with Newdex
as the surviving entity and Merger Sub will merge with and into
SuperMedia, with SuperMedia as the surviving entity and becoming a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Newdex.  As a result of the
Mergers, Newdex, as successor to Dex One, is renamed Dex Media,
Inc., and became a newly listed company.


DEX MEDIA: Summary Judgment Bids Remain Pending in ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties' motions for summary judgment in the class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Securities Act remain pending, according to Dex Media, Inc.'s
July 8, 2013, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On May 3, 2013, Dex Media, Inc., filed a Current Report on Form
8-K (the "Original Report") reporting, among other things, the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Amended and
Restated Merger Agreement, dated as of December 5, 2012, by and
between SuperMedia Inc., Dex One Corporation, Newdex, Inc.
("Newdex"), and Spruce Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Spruce"), including
the merger of Dex One with and into Newdex, with Newdex continuing
as the surviving corporation and changing its name to Dex Media,
Inc., and the merger of SuperMedia with and into Spruce, with
SuperMedia surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Dex Media.
The Company subsequently filed this amendment to amend and
supplement Item 9.01 of the Original Report to include the
historical financial statements of SuperMedia, the business
acquired, and the unaudited pro forma combined financial
information for Dex One and SuperMedia.

On November 25, 2009, three former Bell retirees brought a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the
Verizon employee benefits committee and pension plans and
SuperMedia's employee benefits committee ("EBC") and pension
plans.  All three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life
monthly annuity pension benefits.  All complain that Verizon
transferred them against their will from the Verizon pension plans
to SuperMedia pension plans at or near SuperMedia's spin-off from
Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and
SuperMedia defendants failed to provide requested plan documents,
which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under
the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA"); that both
the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants breached their fiduciary
duty for refusal to disclose pension plan information; and other
class action counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants.  The
plaintiffs seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages
and a reversal of the employee transfers.  SuperMedia defendants
filed their motion to dismiss the entire complaint on March 10,
2010.  On October 18, 2010, the court ruled on the pending motion
dismissing all the claims against SuperMedia pension plans and all
of the claims against SuperMedia's EBC relating to the production
of documents and statutory penalties for failure to produce same.
The only claims remaining against SuperMedia are procedural ERISA
claims against SuperMedia's EBC.

On November 1, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed its answer to the
complaint.  On November 4, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed a motion
to dismiss one of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims
against the EBC.  Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs have
obtained class certification against the Verizon defendants and
discovery has commenced.  After obtaining permission from the
court, the plaintiffs filed another amendment to the complaint,
alleging a new count against SuperMedia's EBC.  SuperMedia's EBC
filed another motion to dismiss the amended complaint and have
filed a summary judgment motion before the deadline set by the
scheduling order.  On March 26, 2012, the court denied
SuperMedia's EBC's motion to dismiss.  The parties' summary
judgments remain pending.

SuperMedia says it plans to honor its indemnification obligations
and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Newdex, Inc. was incorporated on August 17, 2012, as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Dex One Corporation.  Newdex was formed to
facilitate the merger by and between Dex One and SuperMedia Inc.
On August 20, 2012, Dex One entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with SuperMedia, Newdex, and Spruce Acquisition Sub, Inc.,
a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Newdex.  The Merger Agreement
provides that Dex One will merge with and into Newdex, with Newdex
as the surviving entity and Merger Sub will merge with and into
SuperMedia, with SuperMedia as the surviving entity and becoming a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Newdex.  As a result of the
Mergers, Newdex, as successor to Dex One, is renamed Dex Media,
Inc., and became a newly listed company.


DEX MEDIA: Unit Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim
------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a counterclaim in its class action lawsuit
seeking declaratory judgment, according to the Company's July 8,
2013, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On May 3, 2013, Dex Media, Inc., filed a Current Report on Form
8-K (the "Original Report") reporting, among other things, the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Amended and
Restated Merger Agreement, dated as of December 5, 2012, by and
between SuperMedia Inc., Dex One Corporation, Newdex, Inc.
("Newdex"), and Spruce Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Spruce"), including
the merger of Dex One with and into Newdex, with Newdex continuing
as the surviving corporation and changing its name to Dex Media,
Inc., and the merger of SuperMedia with and into Spruce, with
SuperMedia surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Dex Media.
The Company subsequently filed this amendment to amend and
supplement Item 9.01 of the Original Report to include the
historical financial statements of SuperMedia, the business
acquired, and the unaudited pro forma combined financial
information for Dex One and SuperMedia.

On June 26, 2012, SuperMedia filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, where SuperMedia seeks a declaratory judgment concerning
SuperMedia's right to enact several amendments that were recently
made to its retiree health and welfare benefit plans, and more
generally SuperMedia's right to modify, amend or terminate these
plans.  Although the court initially consolidated this case with
the case filed by three Bell retirees, it later reversed itself
and kept the case separate.  Several of the defendants have filed
motions to dismiss as well as a counterclaim.  SuperMedia has
filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim.  SuperMedia awaits the
order of the court.

Newdex, Inc. was incorporated on August 17, 2012, as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Dex One Corporation.  Newdex was formed to
facilitate the merger by and between Dex One and SuperMedia Inc.
On August 20, 2012, Dex One entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with SuperMedia, Newdex, and Spruce Acquisition Sub, Inc.,
a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Newdex.  The Merger Agreement
provides that Dex One will merge with and into Newdex, with Newdex
as the surviving entity and Merger Sub will merge with and into
SuperMedia, with SuperMedia as the surviving entity and becoming a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Newdex.  As a result of the
Mergers, Newdex, as successor to Dex One, is renamed Dex Media,
Inc., and became a newly listed company.


DOLORES ANTER: Ontario Building Suit to Return to Trial Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
entered a journal entry and opinion in the case captioned 2115-
2121 ONTARIO BUILDING, L.L.C., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DOLORES
ANTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES [APPEAL BY THERESA JULIA
KRATUS], NO. 98627.

Defendant-appellant, Theresa Kratus, appealed a trial court
decision granting a motion to appoint a receiver filed by
plaintiff-appellee, 2115-2121 Ontario Building, L.L.C. and the
trial court's order detailing the receiver's power and duties over
defendant, the Macron Investment Company.

The Ohio Appeals Court's Opinion affirms the trial court's
appointment of the receiver for the limited purpose of carrying
its judgment into effect and finding that the costs and fees
incurred in connection with those duties are properly charged to
Macron.  However, the Ohio Appeals Court finds that the trial
court abused its discretion in granting the receiver powers and
duties outside the scope of enforcing its judgment. The costs and
fees incurred for duties performed unrelated to the enforcement of
the judgment should be paid by Ontario, notes the Opinion.

Accordingly, judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent
with the Ohio Appeals Court's Opinion.

Appellees and appellant are ordered to share the costs taxed.

The Ohio Appeals Court ordered that a special mandate be sent to
the common pleas court to carry its judgment into execution.

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 11, 2013 Journal Entry and
Opinion is available at http://is.gd/SkLO2Pfrom Leagle.com.

Philip Wesley Lambert, Timothy J. Fitzgerald, James F. Koehler,
Koehler Neal, L.L.C., 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3330, Erieview
Tower, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT.

Richard P. Goddard -- rgoddard@calfee.com -- Alexander B. Reich --
areich@calfee.com -- Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., The Calfee
Building, 1405 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, For 2115-
2121 Ontario Building, L.L.C., David C. Eisler, P.O. Box 1721,
Medina, Ohio 44258, For Dolores Anter, et al., ATTORNEYS FOR
APPELLEES.


EAST ST. LOUIS, WI: Has Until Aug. 26 to Respond to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that U.S. Magistrate Judge Philip Frazier has granted the city of
East St. Louis extra time to respond to a landlord's class action
over trash service.

On July 23, Judge Frazier extended a deadline for the city's
answer from July 24 to Aug. 26.

Lawyer John Sabo, representing the city, had moved for an
extension to Sept. 9.

"The city requires additional time to prepare its response to the
panoply of claims being asserted against it by the plaintiffs,"
Sabo wrote.

Sabo entered his appearance for the city along with James
Clayborne and Michael Wagner, all of Clayborne, Sabo and Wagner in
Belleville.

Belleville lawyer Alvin Paulson filed the action on July 2, on
behalf of three real estate companies of the Sieron family.

Mr. Paulson pleaded 17 counts claiming the city improperly issued
nuisance citations.

"This practice is a form of harassment and unduly burdens low
income individuals and minorities," he wrote.


ENCORE ENERGY: Del. Supreme Court Keeps Dismissal of "Allen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Steele of the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the
Court of Chancery's dismissal of ALLEN v. PARTNERS.

The class action complaint challenges the merger of a limited
partnership with its general partner's controller. The plaintiff
limited partner's complaint alleges that the general partner, its
controller, and its directors took actions during and preceding
the merger negotiations that breached the contractual duties the
limited partnership agreement imposed. The limited partnership
agreement replaces common law fiduciary duties with a
contractually adopted fiduciary duty of subjective good faith and
deems this contractual duty to be satisfied if a committee of
independent directors grants "Special Approval" to a transaction,
so long as the independent directors themselves act with
subjective good faith.

The Delaware Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff's
allegations that the independent directors failed to negotiate
effectively do not permit a reasonable inference that the
independent directors breached their duty to act with subjective
good faith.

"Allen's allegations fail to state a claim against any Defendant,"
Justice Steele added.

The case is WILLIAM ALLEN, Plaintiff Below Appellant, v. ENCORE
ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., ENCORE ENERGY PARTNERS GP LLC, SCOTT W.
SMITH, RICHARD A. ROBERT, DOUGLAS PENCE, W. TIMOTHY HAUSS, DAVID
BAGGETT, JOHN E. JACKSON, MARTIN G. WHITE, and VANGUARD NATURAL
RESOURCES LLC, Defendants Below Appellees, NO. 534, 2012.

A copy of the Supreme Court's July 22, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/ZGOG5Tfrom Leagle.com.

Carmella P. Keener -- CKeener@rmgglaw.com -- at Rosenthal, Monhait
& Goddess P.A, Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: Ethan D. Wohl --
ewohl@wohlfruchter.com -- (argued), at Wohl & Fruchter LLP, New
York, New York for appellant.

Rolin P. Bissell -- rbissell@ycst.com -- Kathaleen St. J.
McCormick -- kmccormick@ycst.com -- and Elisabeth S. Bradley --
ebradley@ycst.com -- at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware for appellees Vanguard Natural Resources,
LLC, Encore Energy Partners LP, Encore Energy Partners GP LLC,
Scott W. Smith, Richard A. Robert, Douglas Pence and W. Timothy
Hauss.

Srinivas M. Raju -- raju@rlf.com -- and Robert L. Burns --
burns@rlf.com -- at Richards Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware for appellees, David Baggett, John E. Jackson, and Martin
G. White.

Of Counsel: Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com -- (argued) and
Elizabeth C. Brandon -- ebrandon@velaw.com -- at Vinson & Elkins
LLP, Dallas, Texas; Ronald L. Oran, Jr. -- roran@velaw.com -- at
Vinson & Elkins LLP, Houston, Texas; J. Clifford Gunter III  --
clifford.gunter@bgllp.com -- and Jonathan Sandlin, at Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, Houston, Texas for appellees.


FAMILY VIDEO: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss FACTA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington issued an opinion and order
denying defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned TODD
BARCEY, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY VIDEO MOVIE CLUB, INC., CASE NO.
13-10242, (E.D. Mich.).

The Court notes that a consumer who establishes a willful
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act is
entitled to statutory damages up to $1,000 plus "the costs of the
action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by
the court."

"[T]he defendant has tendered to the plaintiff a check for $1,500.
The question is whether the offer moots the case. The Sixth
Circuit has not addressed this particular question. But other
courts have (albeit in the context of other consumer protection
statutes). The consensus is that an offer of the maximum amount of
statutory damages plus costs and "reasonable attorney's fees as
determined by the court" moots the case. But an offer which places
a ceiling on the costs and attorney's fees at a fixed amount does
not. Here, because the defendant has tendered a fixed amount for
cost and attorney's fees, the offer has not mooted the plaintiff's
case. The defendant's motion to dismiss will be denied," ruled
Judge Ludington.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/ruft6vfrom Leagle.com.

Todd Barcey, Plaintiff, represented by Ian B. Lyngklip, at
Lyngklip Assoc Consumer Law Center, PLC & Julie A. Petrik,
Lyngklip Assoc Consumer Law Center.

Family Video Movie Club Inc, Defendant, represented by Joel C.
Griswold -- jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker & Hostetler, LLP,
John A. Decker -- johdec@BraunKendrick.com -- at Braun, Kendrick,
& Todd H. Lebowitz -- tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker
Hostetler.


FAST SIGN: Ga. Appeals Court Adopts S.C. Ruling in TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Court of Appeals of Georgia is an appeal from the
judgment entered in a class action litigation involving the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 captioned, AMERICAN HOME
SERVICES, INC. v. A FAST SIGN COMPANY, INC., A11A0719.

In October 2003, A Fast Sign Company, Inc. d/b/a Fastsigns filed a
class action complaint against American Home Services, Inc.,
alleging that AHS had violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited
facsimile advertisements to fax machines. The trial court
certified the proposed class, and the Georgia Appeals Court
affirmed that certification.

The trial court then granted partial summary judgment to
Fastsigns. The court found that the evidence was undisputed that
AHS contracted with Sunbelt Communications, Inc. to send 318,000
fax advertisements to fax machines belonging to businesses and
individuals throughout metro Atlanta. The court found that AHS
sent six particular faxes that were actually received, but that
whether AHS sent other faxes was an issue of fact. It held that
AHS's violation of the TCPA was willful and knowing. It also held
that the businesses with which AHS had an established business
relationship, which can be a defense to allegations of a TCPA
violation, had been removed from the class, so that the
established business relationship defense was not in issue.
Finally, the court held that the class was entitled to an award of
attorney fees, the amount of which would be determined later.
The court then conducted a bench trial to determine the number of
faxes sent, ultimately determining that AHS had sent 306,000
unsolicited fax advertisements to fax machines. Based on that
finding, the court entered judgment against AHS for $459 million,
calculating the award by multiplying 306,000 by $1,500, the
statutory amount of damages per knowing or willful violation of
the TCPA. AHS appealed, and in American Home Svcs. v. A Fast Sign
Co., 310 Ga.App. 315 (713 S.E.2d 396) (2011), the Georgia Appeals
Court vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that the trial
court erroneously entered judgment based on the number of fax
advertisements sent, rather than the number received.

The Supreme Court granted Fastsigns' petition for certiorari and
reversed the Appeals Court's judgment, holding that under the
TCPA, "a sender is liable for the unsolicited advertisements it
attempts to send to fax machines, whether or not the transmission
is completed or received by the targeted recipient." The Supreme
Court remanded the case for the Appeals Court's consideration of
AHS's remaining enumerations of error, which we had not addressed
given the Appeals Court's ruling vacating and remanding the
judgment.

The Georgia Appeals Court now vacates its opinion, adopts the
Supreme Court's opinion as its own, and addresses AHS's remaining
enumerations of error.

The Georgia Appeals concludes, among other things, that the trial
court must determine and then exclude from its calculation those
fax recipients who were excluded from the class. It then must
re-enter the judgment in accordance with OCGA Section 9-11-23
(c)(3).

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 11, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/3rSSS8from Leagle.com.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Use of "Asset Locators" a Fraud, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that
FirstEnergy Corp. defrauds inheritors by making them pay an "asset
locator" to recover stock they already own, a class action claims
in state court.

Lead plaintiff Ronald Bell claims FirstEnergy defrauded Eleanor
Rickett's estate by forcing it to buy back stock she already
owned.  Bell sued individually, as the executor of the estate, and
on behalf of the class, in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.

Bell claims FirstEnergy breached its fiduciary duties to its
stockholders by "treating their stock as unclaimed when it was
not; by failing to update stockholders' address information; and
by allowing third party 'asset locator services' access to private
account information and/or selling them such information."

When Rickett died in 2007 her FirstEnergy Corp. stock was not
unclaimed, and "First Energy had no right to enter an agreement,
or facilitate an agreement, which resulted in plaintiff being
charged for information about the existence or location of the
stock," Bell says in the complaint.

"Despite this, and without the knowledge of Rickett during her
life, or her executor after her death, First Energy released
personal and private information to a third party, about Rickett's
stock ownership in First Energy.

"At the time when this occurred, if First Energy intended to treat
Rickett as a lost asset holder or otherwise dormant and in need of
locating, it had a duty to Rickett and after her death to her
estate to do so in a way which did not prejudice her interests.

"Instead, and with the knowledge and participation of First
Energy, a third party contacted Rickett's estate and falsely
advised them that Rickett had an 'unclaimed' asset which it would
disclose -- if the estate paid them 35 percent of the asset's
value (here, $4,889.59) which the estate did pay, to its damage.

"Upon information and belief, First Energy released confidential,
personal financial information about Rickett to the third party;
in violation of First Energy's duty to its stockholders, contrary
to Ohio's Unclaimed Funds law, and/or in violation of Ohio privacy
laws."

Bell says he was contacted by the asset locator shortly after
Rickett's death, and was "informed that the locator had identified
an 'unclaimed asset' and offered to facilitate the 'recovery' of
that asset," and was eventually told that the company "would
withhold the information about the location of the asset unless
plaintiff paid a fee of 35 percent."

Bell claims that at least 40 stockholders of FirstEnergy Corp.
have had similar experiences.  He seeks compensatory and punitive
damages for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph K. Rosalina, Esq.
          RUSSO, ROSALINA & CO., LPA
          691 Richmond Road
          Richmond Heights, OH 44143
          Telephone: (440) 461-8500
          Facsimile: (440) 461-0861
          E-mail: jrosalina@rrlpa.com

The case is Bell v. FirstEnergy Corp., Case No. CV-13-810608, in
the Ohio Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County.


FORD MOTOR: MyFord Touch System an Unmitigated Tragedy, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Matt Reynolds reports that
Ford's MyFord Touch system is not only unreliable, it's an
"unmitigated disaster" and dangerous for drivers, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

The Center for Defensive Driving accuses Ford of deceptive trade
and consumer law violations.  It claims that that the touch screen
entertainment and communication system is plagued with glitches
that haven't been fixed.

Installed in Ford, Lincoln and Mercury models since 2011, the
system was developed by (nonparty) Microsoft and Ford, and
incorporates GPS navigation, Sirius Satellite Radio, and Bluetooth
communication for mobile devices.

If it does not crash first, the touch system is meant to detect
collisions and automatically contact emergency services, according
to the complaint.

"Ford has touted MyFord Touch as a revolutionary feature in its
vehicles, a feature for which it charges a significant premium,"
the 38-page complaint states.  "However, since its launch in 2011,
the system has been an unmitigated disaster for Ford.  Indeed, the
Internet is replete with complaints from Ford owners who have
experienced significant problems with the system.  Many vehicle
owners complain that, among other things, the system freezes up,
stops working, the screen 'blacks out,' the system fails to
respond to touch commands, and fails to connect to the user's
mobile phone."

During a malfunction, vital features such as navigation and
climate control may stop working, the class claims.

"Additionally, because certain crucial vehicle functions,
including the defroster and the rear-view camera, are routed
through and controlled by MyFord Touch, these features become
inoperable when the MyFord Touch system crashes.  Thus, driving in
winter becomes dangerous because the driver cannot defrost his or
her windshield and other windows, and drivers are more likely to
collide with other cars or pedestrians when moving in reverse
because the rear-view camera fails," the complaint states.

The class claims drivers pay a "hefty premium" for the factory-
installed system.  By some estimates, it costs $1000 as a stand-
alone product, the class says.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally conceded in 2011 that MyFord Touch does not
work as advertised, but glitches remain, the complaint states.

"Ford has also recognized that it has a problem insofar as it has
issued three purported 'updates' which it claimed corrected the
issues plaguing the system.  However, none of these updates have
corrected the issues that the plaintiff and the other class
members have experienced with their MyFord Touch systems," the
complaint states.

The class claims that Ford's own technicians have said, "there is
no fix."

"So rampant are the problems, Consumer Reports recommends that no
consumer purchase Ford vehicles that are equipped with MyFord
Touch," according to the complaint.

The class seeks actual and punitive damages, and costs.

Ford did not immediately respond to an emailed request for
comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 911 01
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: {213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

The case is The Center for Defensive Driving v. Ford Motor
Company, Case No. 2:13-cv-05068-PSG-MAN, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division
- Los Angeles).


GLS CAPITAL: Pa. Supreme Court Sends Pentlong Suit to Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Pentlong v. GLS Capital, Inc., 573 Pa. 34, 820 A.2d 1240 (2003)
(Pentlong II), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on allowance of
appeal from a court decision in the case, held, inter alia, that
because Allegheny County lacked the statutory authority to collect
attorneys' fees from delinquent taxpayers, its assignee of those
tax liens likewise lacked the authority to do so. In response to
Pentlong II, the General Assembly amended the Municipal Claims and
Tax Liens Act in 2003 to authorize municipalities to collect
reasonable attorneys' fees from delinquent taxpayers. The General
Assembly made the law retroactive to January 1, 1996. In Konidaris
v. Portnoff Law Associates, 598 Pa. 55, 953 A.2d 1231 (2008)
(Konidaris II), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the 2003
amendment to the MCTLA was constitutional.

On remand from the Supreme Court in Pentlong II, the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, on summary judgment, held that
notwithstanding Pentlong II, in light of the retroactive amendment
to the MCTLA and Konidaris, the plaintiffs in this class action
litigation cannot prevail on their claim that GLS Capital, Inc.,
as assignee of the County's tax liens, is not authorized to
collect from the Class their reasonable attorneys' fees. In
addition, the trial court held that GLS could collect assignment
and revival fees from the Class. The Class has appealed both
decisions.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirms the trial court's
decision, but only in part, and remands for further proceedings.

Specifically, the portion of the trial court's April 1, 2010 Order
that entered judgment in favor of GLS and against the Class, with
the exception of Pentlong and Weitzel is affirmed. With respect to
those named plaintiffs only, the April 1, 2010 Order will be
reversed and the matter remanded to fashion appropriate relief
consistent with this opinion. The trial court's August 25, 2010
Order is affirmed in all respects.

The case is Pentlong Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, and
Weitzel, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, individually and on
behalf of themselves all others similarly situated, Appellants, v.
GLS Capital, Inc. v. County of Allegheny, NO. 891 C.D. 2012.

A copy of the Commonwealth Court's July 15, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/FgmrW2from Leagle.com.


GOOGLE INC: To Pay $8.5MM in Search Query Disclosures Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that Google
has agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle a consolidated class
action over its alleged disclosure to third parties of users'
search queries.

Paloma Gaos filed the first class action against Google in October
2010, claiming that Google routinely passed on private information
through "referrer headers," which provided the Web site the user
was visiting with the URL of the referring page.  The URL included
the search terms typed in by the user.

Gaos claimed that personal information passed on through these
referrer headers could potentially have included users' names,
their confidential medical information, their race, or information
about their religious beliefs and sexual orientation.  Such
transmissions to third parties allegedly implicated millions of
search queries over the course of just one day.

In some cases, the transmission of search queries also relayed
users' IP addresses, leaving users vulnerable because IP addresses
identify the computers being used, the California-filed lawsuit
had claimed.

Gabriel Privey filed a similar action with the Northern District
of Illinois in February 2012.

The parties then entered mediation, and the parties executed a
settlement about a year later.  In April 2013, the Northern
District of California approved a joint stipulation, which
included a consolidated class action complaint.

On July 19, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of
the settlement, which requires Google to pay $8.5 million into a
settlement fund that will cover administration expenses, incentive
awards to the class representatives, attorneys' fees for class
counsel and cy pres distributions to seven nonprofits that have
agreed to use the funds for public awareness and research related
to Internet privacy.

If approved by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, the proposed
settlement also calls for Google to post disclosures on its
website concerning user search queries, including information
about whether users' search queries are transmitted to third
parties.  The disclosures would appear on Google's FAQs page, Key
Terms page, and Privacy FAQ for Google Web History page.

Other cases alleging privacy violations have reached similar
settlements, according to the filing signed by class counsel
Michael Aschenbrener.

Claims over the alleged disclosure of email contact lists with
Google Buzz netted an $8.5 million settlement, for example, and
privacy claims against Facebook's Beacon program ended with a $9.5
million settlement, the attorney noted.

Likewise, Netflix paid $9 million to settle claims that it stored
customers' personal information.

The cy pres recipients are World Privacy Forum, Carnegie-Mellon,
Chicago-Kent College of Law Center for Information, Society, and
Policy, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard
University, Stanford Center for Internet and Society, MacArthur
Foundation and AARP Inc.

In October 2011, Google began encrypting search queries and
stopped passing them along to third parties if the searcher was
logged into a Google account.  This does not apply, however, when
users click on advertising links.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley Michael Baglien, Esq.
          Christopher Lillard Dore, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: bbaglien@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com

               - and -

          Charles Hyunchul Jung, Esq.
          Kassra Powell Nassiri, Esq.
          NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
          47 Kearny Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 762-3100
          Facsimile: (415) 534-3200
          E-mail: cjung@nassiri-jung.com
                  knassiri@nassiri-jung.com

               - and -

          Michael James Aschenbrener, Esq.
          ASCHENBRENER LAW P.C.
          795 Folsom Street, First Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 813-6245
          Facsimile: (415) 813-6246
          E-mail: mja@aschenbrenerlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Patrick Dillingham, Esq.
          DILLINGHAM LAW GROUP
          100 Pine St., Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 578-2520
          E-mail: mike@dillinghamlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Alex Stepick, IV, Esq.
          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          Mark Anthony Bulgarelli, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
          1 N. LaSalle St.
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717
          Facsimile: (888) 574-9038
          E-mail: alex@progressivelaw.com
                  ichorowsky@gmail.com
                  markb@progressivelaw.com

               - and -

          Kathryn S. Diemer, Esq.
          Peter John Iannuzzi, Esq.
          DIEMER WHITMAN & CARDOSI, LLP
          75 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 290
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 971-6270
          Facsimile: (408) 971-6271
          E-mail: kdiemer@diemerwhitman.com
                  piannuzzi@diemerwhitman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jean Bastian Niehaus, Esq.
          Randall W. Edwards, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Flor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
          Telephone: (415) 984-8842
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: jniehaus@omm.com
                  REdwards@omm.com

The case is In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, Case
No. 5:10-cv-04809-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose).


GOOGLE INC: Class Cert. Ruling in Authors Guild Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated a June 11, 2012 District Court order certifying
plaintiffs' proposed class in the case captioned THE AUTHORS
GUILD, INC., Associational Plaintiff, BETTY MILES, JOSEPH GOULDEN,
and JIM BOUTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant-
Appellant, DOCKET NO. 12-3200-CV.

The Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for
consideration of the fair use issues, without prejudice to any
renewal of the motion for class certification before the District
Court following its decision on the fair use defense.

"In the interest of judicial economy, any further appeal from the
decisions of the District Court shall be assigned to this panel,"
notes the Second Circuit ruling.

The Authors Guild, an association of authors, as well as several
individual authors began the class action suit in 2005, alleging
that Google committed copyright infringement through the Library
Project of its "Google Books" search tool by scanning and indexing
more than 20 million books and making available for public display
"snippets" of most books upon a user's search.  The parties moved
for final approval of an amended proposed class settlement
agreement before the District Court but Judge Chin refused to
approve the ASA on March 22, 2011.

Following the District Court's denial of the motion to approve the
ASA, the plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed class of "[a]ll
persons residing in the United States who hold a United States
copyright interest in one or more Books reproduced by Google as
part of its Library Project, who are either (a) natural persons
who are authors of such Books or (b) natural persons, family
trusts or sole proprietorships who are heirs, successors in
interest or assigns of such authors,"  which the District Court
granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

"Putting aside the merits of Google's claim that plaintiffs are
not representative of the certified class -- "an argument which,
in our view, may carry some force -- "we believe that the
resolution of Google's fair use defense in the first instance will
necessarily inform and perhaps moot our analysis of many class
certification issues, including those regarding the commonality of
plaintiffs' injuries, the typicality of their claims, and the
predominance of common questions of law or fact. . . Moreover, we
are persuaded that holding the issue of class certification in
abeyance until Google's fair use defense has been resolved will
not prejudice the interests of either party during the projected
proceedings before the District Court following remand.
Accordingly, we vacate the District Court's order of June 11, 2012
certifying plaintiffs' proposed class, and we remand the cause to
the District Court, for consideration of the fair use issues,"
ruled the Second Circuit.

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 1, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/WAve4sfrom Leagle.com.

Seth P. Waxman -- seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com -- Louis R. Cohen --
louis.cohen@wilmerhale.com   -- Randolph D. Moss --
randolph.moss@wilmerhale.com  -- Daniel P. Kearney, Jr. --
daniel.kearney@wilmerhale.com -- Ari Holtzblatt --
ari.holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com -- at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellant Google Inc.

Daralyn J. Durie -- ddurie@durietangri.com -- Joseph C. Gratz --
jgratz@durietangri.com -- at Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA,
for Appellant Google Inc.

Robert J. Larocca -- rlarocca@kohnswift.com -- at Kohn, Swift &
Graf, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees The Authors Guild
Inc., et al.

Michael J. Boni -- MBoni@bonizack.com -- Joshua D. Snyder --
JSnyder@bonizack.com -- John E. Sindoni -- JSindoni@bonizack.com
-- at Boni & Zack LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA, for Appellees The Authors
Guild Inc., et al.

Sanford P. Dumain -- sdumaine@milberg.com -- at Milberg LLP, New
York, NY, for Appellees The Authors Guild Inc., et al.


HDI-GERLING: Ga. S.C. Answers Questions in Taylor Morrison Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, a standard commercial general liability (CGL)
policy insures against a liability to pay damages for "'bodily
injury' or 'property damage' [that] is caused by an 'occurrence,'"
subject to certain limits and exclusions.

In TAYLOR MORRISON SERVICES, INC. v. HDI-GERLING AMERICA INSURANCE
COMPANY, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit has certified two questions to the Supreme Court of
Georgia, both of which concern the meaning of "occurrence," as
that term is used in a standard CGL policy, and with respect to
coverage for the potential liabilities of an insured for alleged
"property damage" arising from faulty workmanship in residential
construction.

More specifically, the Eleventh Circuit has asked the Supreme
Court to answer these questions:

  1. Whether, for an "occurrence" to exist under a standard CGL
     policy, Georgia law requires there to be damage to "other
     property," that is, property other than the insured's
     completed work itself.

  2. If the answer to Question One (1) is in the negative,
     whether, for an "occurrence" to exist under a standard CGL
     policy, Georgia law requires that the claims being defended
     not be for breach of contract, fraud, or breach of warranty
     from the failure to disclose material information.

The Supreme Court of Georgia Justice Blackwell answered the first
question in the negative, and the second question in the
affirmative as to fraud and in the negative as to breach of
warranty.

A copy of the Supreme Court's July 12, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/GpqlOqfrom Leagle.com.


HOME DEPOT: Recalls Soleil Portable Fan Heaters Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, announced a voluntary
recall of about 107,000 Soleil portable fan heaters.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The portable fans plastic housing can melt, deform and catch fire
during use, posing a fire hazard.

Home Depot has received 464 reports of the fans melting. No
injuries or property damage have been reported.

The recall involves Soleil portable fan heaters with model number
LH-707.  The model number is printed on the underside of the fan
on a sticker.  The circular table fans are white plastic and are
1500 watts.  Soleil is printed on the center front of the fan.
The fans have a thermostat control on the bottom left front and a
power and fan speed control on the bottom right front.  The fans
measure about 8 inches in diameter by 81/2 inches tall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/ZC1cU9

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Home Depot stores nationwide from September 2012
through May 2013 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fan heaters
and return them to Home Depot for a full refund.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Bid Denial in Avery Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
Three, affirmed a trial court decision denying motions to compel
arbitration in AVERY v. INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

The Defendants and appellants appealed from an order denying their
motions to compel plaintiffs and respondents to individually
arbitrate the wage and hour claims they allege in the class
action. Integrated relies on an arbitration policy contained in an
employee handbook issued by Tenet Healthcare Corporation, the
previous owner of the four hospitals where the Plaintiffs work,
and a revised arbitration policy Integrated issued as part of a
new employee handbook. Integrated contends the Plaintiffs agreed
to the arbitration policy by signing various documents
acknowledging and agreeing to the policy.

The Calif. Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's decision
denying Integrated's motions saying Integrated failed to establish
that the Plaintiffs agreed to the specific arbitration agreement
Integrated submitted to the trial court. Without sufficient
evidence of the actual arbitration policy to which the Plaintiffs
agreed when they signed the acknowledgments and other documents,
Integrated may not enforce the policy against Plaintiffs, said the
ruling.

The case is ALEXANDRA AVERY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants and
Appellants, NO. G046202.

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 23, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/M9xgamfrom Leagle.com.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Richard J. Simmons --
rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Derek R. Havel --
dhavel@sheppardmullin.com -- and Daniel J. McQueen --
dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- for Defendants and Appellants.

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Niall P. McCarthy --
nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com -- Justin T. Berger -- jberger@cpmlegal.com
-- Eric J. Buescher -- ebuescher@cpmlegal.com ; Coughlin Law Firm,
Frank J. Coughlin -- frank.coughlin@fjclaw.com -- Kim-Thao T. Le
-- kim.le@fjclaw.com; Jerry K. Cimmet -- cimmet@att.net; Law
Offices of John M. Kelson, John M. Kelson; and Gerald M. Werksman
-- werksmanlaw@gmail.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents.


INTUIT INC: Settles Turbo Tax Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------
According to Class Action Settlement News, if you used the Turbo
Tax online software to file taxes between the dates of January 12,
2008 and May 28, 2013 and agreed to have charges deducted from
your tax return you might be a part of the Turbo Tax Fee Lawsuit
Settlement.  Please note that the lawsuit also includes people who
paid tax preparation fees or e-filing fees.  The lawsuit is
entitled Smith et al. v. Intuit, Inc. and claims that Turbo Tax
violated California and federal consumer protection laws in
connection with the Refund Processing Service offered through the
online version of TurboTax when they charged customers deceptive
fees related to the their tax returns.  More information about the
case can be requested by writing to: TurboTax Class Action
Settlement Administrator, c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box 220
Philadelphia, PA 19105-0220.  The class Administrators website
provides relevant court documents related to the case to include
the settlement agreement, the class notice and the claim form.
The settlement agreement is estimated to be $6.5 million dollars.

Important dates in the Turbo Tax class action lawsuit are as
follows:

    October 28, 2013: deadline to submit a claim

    September 23, 2013: last day to exclude yourself from the
    terms of the settlement

    August 28, 2013:  objection deadline

    September 27, 2013: settlement fairness hearing date (you do
    not need to attend this hearing)

It is anticipated that each class member who file a valid claim
will receive a settlement payment of over $10.00.  The actual
amount may be more or less depending on the amount of people who
file.  Class Action Settlement News feels Intuit will be more
careful next tax season when disclosing fees for the Refund
Processing Service as a finance charge.  The case will be heard
out of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.


IRONBOUND EXPRESS: Wins Dismissal of Amended "Luxama" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Esther Salas granted a motion to dismiss an amended
class action complaint in VAUDRAL LUXAMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
IRONBOUND EXPRESS, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
11-2224 (ES), (D. N.J.).

Defendants Ironbound Express, Inc., Danny Lastra, and Frank
Borland sought dismissal of Vaudral Luxama, Chandler Luxeus,
Javier R. Garcia, Fredo Bonhomme, Santos Maldonado, and Chanel
Fontin's Amended Class Action Complaint for having failed to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The Court granted leave for the
American Trucking Associations, Inc. and the New Jersey Motor
Truck Association, Inc. to file a brief as amici curiae in support
of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

The Court said the Plaintiffs have 30 days to file an amended
complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined in the District
Court's June 27, 2013 Opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/DuysG8from Leagle.com.

VAUDRAL LUXAMA, Plaintiff, represented by JERRY MAROULES, at
Leanza & Agrapidis, PC & STEVEN I. ADLER -- sadler@msgld.com -- at
Mandelbaum Salsburg Lazris & Discenza.

CHANDLER LUXEUS, Plaintiff, represented by JERRY MAROULES, Leanza
& Agrapidis, PC & STEVEN I. ADLER, Mandelbaum Salsburg Lazris &
Discenza.

JAVIER R. GARCIA, Plaintiff, represented by JERRY MAROULES, Leanza
& Agrapidis, PC & STEVEN I. ADLER, Mandelbaum Salsburg Lazris &
Discenza.

FREDO BONHOMME, Plaintiff, represented by JERRY MAROULES, Leanza &
Agrapidis, PC & STEVEN I. ADLER, Mandelbaum Salsburg Lazris &
Discenza.

SANTOS MALDONADO, Plaintiff, represented by JERRY MAROULES, Leanza
& Agrapidis, PC & STEVEN I. ADLER, Mandelbaum Salsburg Lazris &
Discenza.

CHANEL FONTIN, Plaintiff, represented by JERRY MAROULES, Leanza &
Agrapidis, PC & STEVEN I. ADLER, Mandelbaum Salsburg Lazris &
Discenza.

IRONBOUND EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, represented by ADAM N. SARAVAY
-- asaravay@mccarter.com -- at MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, LISA M.
HANNAN -- lisahannan@mccarter.com -- at MCCARTER & ENGLISH &
SALVADOR PEDRO SIMAO -- ssimao@fordharrison.com -- at FORD &
HARRISON.

DANNY LASTRA, Defendant, represented by ADAM N. SARAVAY, at
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, LISA M. HANNAN, at MCCARTER & ENGLISH &
SALVADOR PEDRO SIMAO, at FORD & HARRISON.

FRANK BORLAND, Defendant, represented by ADAM N. SARAVAY, at
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, LISA M. HANNAN, at MCCARTER & ENGLISH &
SALVADOR PEDRO SIMAO, at FORD & HARRISON.

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., Amicus, represented by
BRENDAN JUDGE -- bjudge@connellfoley.com  -- at CONNELL FOLEY,
LLP.

NEW JERSEY MOTOR TRUCK ASSOCIATION, Amicus, represented by BRENDAN
JUDGE, at CONNELL FOLEY, LLP.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on July 25 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
common stock of JAKKS Pacific, Inc. during the period between
February 21, 2013 and July 17, 2013 seeking to recover damages for
violations of the federal securities laws.

To join the JAKKS class action, visit the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email pkim@rosenlegal.com
or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.  The
lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

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

According to the lawsuit, JAKKS and certain of its officers and
directors issued materially false and misleading statements about
the Company's financial condition and prospects.  On July 17,
2013, JAKKS announced its second quarter financial results,
significantly missing the Company's previously issued guidance,
which had been recently reaffirmed in April 2013.  JAKKS' second
quarter results included charges for license minimum guarantee
shortfalls of $14.1 million and inventory impairment of $12.2
million. JAKKS noted that poor performance of several of the
Company's key properties contributed to the shortfall.  As a
result, JAKKS revised 2013 guidance from earnings of $0.63-
$0.68/share to a loss of $2.56/share. JAKKS also suspended its
dividend.  This news caused JAKKS shares to lose over 39% of its
value on July 18, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 23, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free,
at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


JOHNSON HEALTH: Recalls Krankcycle Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Johnson Health Tech North America, of Cottage Grove, Wis.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 2,200 Johnny G. Krankcycle
by Matrix.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The seat can unexpectedly detach from the Krankcycle's frame
during use, posing a fall hazard to users.

Two injuries from falls when the seat detached have been reported,
including one report of broken ribs and one report of a back
injury requiring surgery.

The recall involves all Johnny G. Krankcycles by Matrix with
detachable seats that can be removed from the frame by lifting up
on the seat.  The Krankcycles have handles that the user turns in
a circular motion for cardio exercise.  Consumers can use the
machine in a seated or standing position.  The Krankcycles measure
about 57 inches tall by 27 inches wide by 42 inches long.  They
are black and silver-colored.  "KRANKcycle" and "Matrix" are
printed on the machines.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/2HdBze

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through
Johnson Health Tech to consumers, health clubs, military
facilities, physical therapists, public parks facilities
nationwide and they were also sold on various websites, including
http://www.bike-on.com,from January 2008 through January 2012 for
between $2,200 and $2,700.

Consumers and exercise facilities should immediately stop using
the recalled Krankcycles and contact Johnson Health Tech North
America to schedule a free repair, which consists of a service
technician permanently bolting the seat to the frame or removing
the seat for which the consumer will receive a refund.  This
includes any Krankcycles sold online.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Monopoly of Credit Default Swaps
----------------------------------------------------------
Value Recovery Fund LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Those
Similarly Situated v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., CitiGroup, Inc., The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank USA, N.A.,
Bank of America Corporation, and Markit Group, Ltd., Case No.
1:13-cv-04928-KPF (S.D. N.Y., July 16, 2013) is an antitrust class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of all persons and entities, who
purchased or sold credit default swaps ("CDS") directly from or to
the Dealer Bank Defendants (all the Defendants except Markit) in
the United States and its territories during the period from
January 1, 2008, until such time as the Defendants' illegal
conduct ceased.

The Dealer Bank Defendants held and continue to hold monopoly
power over the trading of CDS in the United States, the Plaintiff
alleges.  The Plaintiff contends that the Dealer Bank Defendants
agreed among themselves to restrain trade and preserve their
collusive control over CDS trading in the United States for the
purpose of maintaining artificially wide spreads between purchase
and sale prices for CDS and insuring their continued control over
the U.S. CDS trading market.

Value Recovery Fund is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.  The Plaintiff has
standing, by virtue of a valid assignment, to assert the federal
antitrust claims as a direct purchaser and seller of a significant
volume of CDS in the United States directly from and to one or
more of the Dealer Bank Defendants during the Class Period.

Citigroup, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs are Delaware corporations
headquartered in New York.  HSBC Holdings is a bank holding,
United Kingdom public limited company, headquartered in London,
UK.  HSBC Bank is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, with
principal operations, including those responsible for trading in
the U.S. CDS market, located in New York.  Bank of America is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
During the Class Period, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, HSBC
Holdings, HSBC Bank and Bank of America were dealers of CDS,
buying CDS from members of the Class and selling CDS to members of
the Class.

Markit is a privately-held company headquartered in London, United
Kingdom.  Markit is dominated by the Dealer Banks.  Markit was
founded in 2001 to provide daily CDS pricing.  In 2002, the Dealer
Banks and other banks agreed with each other and with Markit to
take a majority share ownership of Markit.  Under this
arrangement, the Dealer Banks agreed to supply Markit with
exclusive information for their CDS trades, and Markit launched
the world's first daily CDS end-of-day valuation service in 2003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
                  aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                  rcappucci@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Gregory Keith Arenson, Esq.
          Richard Jo Kilsheimer, Esq.
          Matthew Powers McCahill, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  garenson@kaplanfox.com
                  rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
                  mmccahill@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          George S. Trevor, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
                  gtrevor@pswplaw.com


KOHL'S CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 24 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Kohl's Corporation common
stock during the period between February 26, 2009 and September
13, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 24, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Kohl's and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Kohl's operates department stores across the United States that
sell moderately priced apparel and home fashions that are targeted
to middle-income consumers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial results.  Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's reported debt was
materially understated; (ii) the Company's reported equity was
materially overstated; (iii) the Company's leverage ratios,
including its debt to equity ratio, were materially understated;
(iv) the Company violated accounting standards associated with the
accounting for and disclosure of leases; (v) the financial
statements issued by the Company during the Class Period were not
fairly presented in conformity with GAAP and were materially false
and misleading; and (vi) the Company's representations about its
internal and disclosure controls and the certifications issued by
defendants thereon were materially false and misleading.

On August 4, 2011, the Company announced that it had identified
certain errors in its accounting for its leases and had "commenced
a detailed review of its historical lease accounting with the goal
of quantifying the impact of these errors for each affected
reporting period."  In response to this announcement, the price of
Kohl's common stock declined nearly 8%, closing at $47.67 per
share on August 4, 2011.  On August 11, 2011, Kohl's filed a Form
8-K with the SEC reporting that as a result of errors related to
its accounting for leases, investors should no longer rely upon
the financial statements included in the Company's 2010 Form 10-K
and first quarter 2011 Form 10-Q.  Then, on September 8, 2011,
Kohl's filed a notification of late filing with the SEC on Form
12b-25 disclosing that the Company was unable to file its Form 10-
Q for the quarter ended July 30, 2011, due to various errors in
its accounting for both store and equipment leases.  In response
to this announcement, the price of Kohl's common stock declined
nearly 2.5%, closing at $43.87 per share on September 8, 2011.

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

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of
shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI's Top SCAS 50 every
year since 2003.


LEAP WIRELESS: Being Sold to AT&T for Too Little, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Booth Family Trust v. Leap Wireless International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8730-VCN (Del. Ch. Ct., July 16, 2013) alleges that the
Company is being sold for too little to AT&T, Inc., through an
unfair process.

Booth Family Trust is a shareholder of the Company.

Leap Wireless is a wireless communications provider that offers
innovative, high-value wireless services under the "Cricket"
brand.  Leap's Cricket service offerings provide its fast-growing,
young, and ethnically diverse customer base with unlimited access
to wireless voice and data services for a flat rate without
requiring a fixed-term contract.  The Company is headquartered in
San Diego, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          Toll Free: 1-888-593-4771
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com
                  racocelli@weisslawllp.com
                  mrogovin@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & BIELLI LLC
          901 N Market St., Ste. 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          Facsimile: (302) 295-2873
          E-mail: RErnst@oeblegal.com


LEGALZOOM.COM: Class Cert. Denial in "Solotko" Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas for the Third District in Austin
affirmed a trial court order denying a motion to certify a
nationwide class in Simon Solotko, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Appellant, v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.,
Appellee, NO. 03-10-00755-CV.

Simon Solotko brought a interlocutory appeal challenging the trial
court's order.

The Texas Appeals Court concludes that the trial court acted
within its discretion by denying Solotko's motion to certify a
class.

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 11, 2013 Memorandum Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/EmDV8Dfrom Leagle.com.


LENNOX HEARTH: Recalls 11,500 Gas Fireplaces Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lennox Hearth Products, of Nashville, Tenn, announced a voluntary
recall of 11,500 Lennox and Superior gas fireplaces.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Defective fireplace gas connectors can leak, posing a fire hazard.

Lennox Hearth Products has received eight reports of gas
connectors leaking in fireplaces. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves natural gas or propane Lennox and Superior
brand fireplaces with the following model and serial numbers.
Lennox model numbers include ELDV, LDV, MLBV-40, MLDVT, MPB, MPD,
MPDP, RHAP54, and SYM.  Superior model numbers include SDV, SLDVT
and SLBV.  Serial number have 10 digits starting with 6412D4,
6412E4, 6412F4, 6412G4, 6412H4, 6412D7, 6412E7, 6412F7, 6412G7 or
6412H7.  The model, serial number and the Lennox or Superior brand
names are printed on the rating plate located in the control box
area of the fireplace.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/GJ1Qvc

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Fireplace stores and by HVAC retailers and installers
nationwide from April 2012 through December 2012 for between
$1,200 and $9,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled gas
fireplaces, turn off the gas to the fireplace and contact Lennox
Hearth Products for a free inspection and replacement of the
leaking gas connector.  Lennox Hearth Products is contacting
purchasers directly.


LINN ENERGY: Faces IPO-Related Shareholder Class Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Gentry, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. LinnCo, LLC, Linn Energy, LLC, Mark E.
Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D.
Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy,
Jeffrey C. Swoveland, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Wells Fargo Securities,
LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., UBS
Securities LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Robert W. Baird & Co., Incorporated, BMO Capital Markets Corp.,
Credit Agricole Securities (USA) Inc., CIBC World Markets Corp.,
Howard Weil Incorporated, and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA),
Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-2014 (S.D. Tex., July 17, 2013) is a
federal securities class action lawsuit brought behalf of a class
consisting of all persons, other than the defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired LinnCo shares between October 12,
2012, and July 1, 2013, and who acquired LinnCo shares pursuant or
traceable to LinnCo's alleged false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus in connection with its October 12, 2012
initial public offering.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business and financial
condition, Mr. Gentry alleges.  Specifically, he adds, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose to LinnCo investors that its subsidiary, Linn Energy,
LLC, was overstating the cash flow available for distribution to
Linn unitholders by, among other things, excluding the cost of
certain hedging transactions from its calculation of adjusted
EBITDA, and understating maintenance capital expenditures.

Mr. Gentry is a holder of LinnCo shares.  He asserts that he
purchased LinnCo shares at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and has been damaged thereby.

LinnCo is a Delaware limited liability company, whose sole purpose
is to own units representing limited liability company interests
in Linn.  Linn is a Delaware corporation and an independent
natural gas exploration and production company.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of LinnCo.

Barclays Capital is a British-based global investment bank, and a
division of Barclays PLC.  Citigroup Global Markets is the
brokerage and securities arm of Citigroup, Inc., and provides
investment banking services to corporate, institutional,
government, and retail clients.  RBC Capital Markets is a
Canadian-based global investment bank, and a part of Royal Bank of
Canada.  Wells Fargo is a provider of capital markets and
investment banking services, and a division of Wells Fargo &
Company.  Merrill Lynch is a registered broker-dealer and
investment adviser and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of
America Corporation.  Credit Suisse provides investment banking
services in the United States.  Raymond James & Associates is a
diversified financial services holding company engaged primarily
in investment and financial planning, investment banking and asset
management.  UBS is a global investment banking and securities
firm.  Goldman Sachs is a full-service global investment banking
and securities firm.  J.P. Morgan is a leading financial services
firm.  Robert W. Baird is a wealth management, capital markets,
asset management and private equity firm.  BMO is a leading, full-
service North American financial services provider offering, among
other services, equity and debt underwriting.

Credit Agricole is a full service institutional broker/dealer, and
a U.S. non-bank subsidiary of the Credit Agricole CIB.  CIBC is
the investment banking subsidiary of the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce, and provides a variety of financial services, including
investment banking advisory services.  Howard Weil is an energy
investment boutique that provides investment banking services, and
is a part of Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., which, in turn, is owned
by Toronto-based Scotiabank.  Mitsubishi provides investment
banking and brokerage products and services to institutional
clients, and is a member of the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group,
Inc., a global Japan-based financial services company.  Barclays,
CGMI, RBC, Wells Fargo, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, Raymond
James, UBS, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Robert W. Baird, BMO,
Credit Agricole, CIBC, Howard Weil and Mitsubishi were
underwriters for LinnCo's IPO, helping to draft and disseminate
the offering documents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
          800 Commerce Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-7211
          Facsimile: (713) 225-0827
          E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Elazar Fruchter, Esq.
          Ethan Wohl, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          570 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 758-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 758-4004
          E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com
                  ewohl@wohlfruchter.com


LOTUS: Recalls 14 EVORA S Model
-------------------------------
Starting date:            July 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Engine
Units affected:           14
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013253
TC ID number:             2013253

Affected products: LOTUS EVORA S 2011 Model

On certain vehicles, an engine oil cooler line could fail, causing
an oil leak.  Oil may contact a hot engine or exhaust component,
which could result in a fire.  Oil may also be sprayed onto the
tires and/or brakes, which could adversely affect vehicles
stability.  As well, engine oil spilt on the roadway could
endanger other road users by making the roadway unexpectedly
slippery.  These issues could result in property damage and/or
personal injury.


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Judge Certifies Investors' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports that an
Ontario judge has certified an investors class action lawsuit
against Manulife Financial Corp.

The plaintiffs claim that Manulife misrepresented and failed to
disclose the size of the company's exposure to equity markets
during the financial crisis of 2008.  The class period starts on
April 1, 2004 and runs until Feb. 12, 2009, which was the day that
Manulife ultimately disclosed the extent of its losses during the
2008 fiscal year.  Manulife shares plummeted in the days following
the Feb. 12 announcement.

The class in the Ontario case is open to all investors, except
those from Quebec, who purchased Manulife common shares during the
class period.  A separate Manulife securities class action for
Quebec investors was certified in that province in 2011.

The judge granted permission for the plaintiffs to seek relief
under provisions of the Ontario Securities Act that allow
investors to sue for "secondary market misrepresentation." The
claim also seeks common law damages for negligence, negligent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs' claims have yet to be proven in court.  The
certification ruling released on July 25 merely allows the case to
move forward to trial as a class action.  It's not a decision on
the merits of the plaintiffs' allegations.

That said, the judge used a fairly rigorous test to determine
whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to seek the
statutory relief available under Ontario's Securities Act.  In his
view, the plaintiffs' case met that hurdle by establishing that
the case raises seriously arguable issues that have a reasonable
possibility of success at trial.  This is an important aspect of
the ruling, since some Ontario judges have granted Securities Act
leave after holding the plaintiffs to a much lower standard.

"I am satisfied that leave should be granted for the statutory
action under the OSA and that the proposed class action, subject
to some modifications, should be certified," wrote Mr. Justice
Edward P. Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court in the 20-page
decision.

"I hasten to add that the certification of a class action is
simply a procedural measure that allows matters to proceed to a
trial where the certified common issues will be adjudicated.
Whether or not the allegations against MFC will prevail is a
matter that will be decided at the common issues trial."
Related

London, Ont.-based Siskinds LLP filed the $500-million claim in
2009 on behalf of the representative plaintiffs, the trustees of
the Ironworkers Ontario Pension Fund and Leonard Schwartz. Judge
Belobaba heard three days of argument on the leave and
certification motion in early June.  The plaintiffs are suing
Manulife Financial Corp., along with former CEO Dominic
D'Alessandro and former CFO Peter Rubenovitch.

Manulife is still reviewing the court's ruling on the
certification and leave motion.  Meanwhile, it denies the
allegations in the claim.  "The company believes that its
disclosure satisfied applicable disclosure requirements, and
intends to vigorously defend itself against any claims based on
these allegations," Manulife spokesman Graeme Harris said in an
e-mail to the Financial Post.

Unless the defendants seek leave to appeal the decision, the case
will move to the discovery phase, in which both sides will
exchange evidence and examine witnesses to prepare for an eventual
trial.


MCKESSON CORP: City of Milford Gets Class Action Settlement Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milford Mirror reports that Mayor Ben Blake announced that
following extensive negotiations, the City of Milford has secured
an award of $72,379.48 from the settlement of a class action
lawsuit.  The filing of the city's claim was handled by the city
attorney's office and came at no extra expense to the taxpayers,
Blake said.

"The office of the city attorney is an invaluable asset to our
community, and this is just one example of the hard work it does
on behalf of our city," Blake said.

It was alleged that McKesson Corporation, a large brand-name
prescription drug wholesaler, conspired with First DataBank to
inflate drug prices, which resulted in a large number of local
governments overpaying on medication for their program
beneficiaries.

The award will be deposited into the city's health insurance fund.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Final Approval of DRAM Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of antitrust class action lawsuits in the U.S.,
according to the Company's July 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 30, 2013.

At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits
have been filed against the Company and other DRAM suppliers in
various federal and state courts in the United States and in
Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a conspiracy
to increase DRAM prices in violation of federal and state
antitrust laws and state unfair competition law, and/or unjust
enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products
during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002.  The
complaints seek joint and several damages, trebled, in addition to
restitution, costs and attorneys' fees.  A number of these cases
have been removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  In July, 2006, the Attorneys
General for approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The complaints allege, among other things, violations
of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states'
consumer protection and antitrust laws and seek joint and several
damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief.  On
October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar
lawsuit in California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of
local California government entities, alleging, among other
things, violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair
competition law.

On June 23, 2010, the Company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases
and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged
DRAM price-fixing in the United States.  Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlements, the Company agreed to pay approximately $67 million
in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period.
The Company had paid the full amount into an escrow account by the
end of the first quarter of 2013 in accordance with the settlement
agreement.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of the matter
and, therefore, cannot estimate the range of possible loss.  The
final resolution of the alleged violations of antitrust laws could
result in significant liability and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations or
financial condition.

Headquartered in Boise, Idaho, Micron Technology, Inc., is one of
the world's leading providers of advanced semiconductor solutions.
Through its worldwide operations, the Company manufactures and
markets a full range of DRAM, NAND Flash and NOR Flash memory, as
well as other innovative memory technologies, packaging solutions
and semiconductor systems for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking, automotive, industrial, embedded and mobile
products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Final OK of Canadian Suits Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of class action lawsuits alleging DRAM price-fixing in
Canada, according to the Company's July 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 30, 2013.

Three putative class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of DRAM
products also have been filed against the Company in Quebec,
Ontario, and British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers, asserting violations of the Canadian
Competition Act and other common law claims (collectively the
"Canadian Cases").  The claims were initiated between December
2004 (British Columbia) and June 2006 (Quebec).  The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in the United States.
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the
British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June 2008,
respectively.  The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal of each
of those decisions.  On November 12, 2009, the British Columbia
Court of Appeal reversed, and on November 16, 2011, the Quebec
Court of Appeal also reversed the denial of class certification
and remanded the cases for further proceedings.  On October 16,
2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement resolving
these three putative class action cases subject to certain
conditions including final court approval of the settlement.  The
settlement amount did not have a material effect on the Company's
business, results of operations or financial condition.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of the matter
and, therefore, cannot estimate the range of possible loss.  The
final resolution of the alleged violations of antitrust laws could
result in significant liability and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations or
financial condition.

Headquartered in Boise, Idaho, Micron Technology, Inc., is one of
the world's leading providers of advanced semiconductor solutions.
Through its worldwide operations, the Company manufactures and
markets a full range of DRAM, NAND Flash and NOR Flash memory, as
well as other innovative memory technologies, packaging solutions
and semiconductor systems for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking, automotive, industrial, embedded and mobile
products.


MONSANTO CO: GMO Wheat Contaminated Crops in E. Wash., Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Monsanto's genetically modified wheat contaminated crops in
eastern Washington.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Sean Biviano, Esq.
          SCOTT LAW GROUP
          926 W Sprague, Suite 680
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 455-3966
          Facsimile: (509) 455-3906
          E-mail: andrewbiviano@me.com

               - and -

          Darrell W. Scott, Esq.
          THE SCOTT LAW GROUP PS
          926 West Sprague, Suite 680
          Spokane, WA 99201-5076
          Telephone: (509) 455-3966
          Facsimile: (509) 455-3906
          E-mail: scottgroup@me.com

The case is Jeske, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 2:13-cv-
00266-TOR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington (Spokane).


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: District Court Dismisses "Reitz" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., dismissed the lawsuit
captioned DONISE REITZ, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12CV117SNLJ, (E.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking recovery
for Defendant Nationstar Mortgage's failure to permanently modify
her home mortgage loan under the federal government's Home
Affordable Modification Program. The Plaintiff sought redress for
herself and the putative class pursuant to claims for breach of
contract (Count I), promissory estoppel (Count II), breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count III), and
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
(MMPA)(Count IV).

Judge Limbaugh granted Nationstar's motion to dismiss the case
saying the Plaintiff has failed to state any claim, as contained
in her complaint, against the Defendant for which relief can be
granted.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/8LMVrp from Leagle.com.

Donise Reitz, Plaintiff, represented by Randall S. Crompton --
scrompton@allfela.com -- at HOLLAND AND GROVES, L.L.C., Charles E.
Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- at LEVIN AND FISHBEIN,
Christopher M. Ellis -- cellis@brelaw.com -- at BOLEN AND POBINSON
& Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com -- at HOLLAND AND
GROVES, L.L.C.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brett J.
Natarelli -- bnatarelli@dykema.com -- at DYKEMA AND GOSSETT PLLC,
Harry N. Arger -- harger@dykema.com -- at DYKEMA AND GOSSETT PLLC,
Richard E. Gottlieb -- rgottlieb@dykema.com -- at DYKEMA AND
GOSSETT PLLC & John M. Hongs -- jhongs@hinshawlaw.com -- at
HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON, LLP.


NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Judgment in Workers' Suit Partially Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
in part and vacated in part a district court judgment in NAKAHATA
v. NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.

Plaintiffs in four related cases took appeal from a single order
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissing their claims: Nakahata v. New York-
Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 2661; Yarus v.
New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., No. 10 Civ. 2662;
Megginson v. Westchester Medical Center, No. 10 Civ. 2683; and
Alamu v. The Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, Inc., No. 10 Civ.
3247. Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc.,
2011 WL 321186 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2011).

Plaintiffs -- current and former healthcare employees -- allege
that the Defendants -- healthcare systems, hospitals, corporate
heads, and affiliated entities -- violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law, Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and New York common law by failing to
compensate Plaintiffs for work performed during meal breaks,
before and after scheduled shifts, and during required training
sessions. The District Court dismissed the four complaints in
their entirety for failing to state a claim pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Second Circuit affirms the dismissal, with prejudice, of the
FLSA gap-time, RICO, and certain common law claims. The dismissal
of the FLSA and NYLL overtime claims is also affirmed, but these
claims are remanded with leave to replead.  The Second Circuit
reserved judgment on the dismissal of the NYLL gap-time claims and
remand for reconsideration. Finally, the dismissal of certain
common law claims is vacated and the claims are remand with leave
to replead.

The case is MASAHIRO NAKAHATA, on behalf of herself and all other
employees similarly situated, DIANA GARDOCKI, on behalf of herself
and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
DIANE LEE SUSSMAN, STEVIE HARISTON, CAROLE TASSY, MARY MAHONEY,
LINDA MARRONE, MARY OLDAK, VOLVICK DESIL, STEPHANIE UHRIG,
Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.,
HERBERT PARDES, NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, WAYNE OSTEN,
Defendants-Appellees, NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN FUND, INC., NEW YORK-
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER, HOLY NAME
HOSPITAL, INC., HOLY NAME MEDICAL CENTER, LAWRENCE HOSPITAL
CENTER, MARY IMOGENE BASSETT, ONAL CARE NEW MILFORD HOSPITAL,
INC., NEW YORK COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF BROOKLYN, INC., NEW YORK
DOWNTOWN HOSPITAL, NEW YORK HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF QUEENS, NEW
YORK METHODIST HOSPITAL, WESTCHESTER SQUARE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
NYACK HOSPITAL, PALISADES MEDICAL CENTER, STAMFORD HOSPITAL,
VALLEY HOSPITAL, WHITE PLAINS MEDICAL CENTER, WINTHROP-UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL, WYCHOFF HEIGHTS MEDICAL CENTER, ST. MARY'S HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM FOR CHILDREN, INC., A. SOLOMON TORRES, NEW YORK SOCIETY FOR
THE RELIEF OF THE RUPTURED AND CRIPPLED, MAINTAINING THE HOSPITAL
FOR SPECIAL SURGERY, MARY IMOGENE BASSETT HOSPITAL, NEW MILFORD
HOSPITAL, INC., NORTHERN WESTCHESTER HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, WHITE
PLAINS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, WYCKOFF HEIGHTS MEDICAL CENTER,
NEW YORK GRACIE SQUARE HOSPITAL, INC., AMSTERDAM NURSING HOME
CORPORATION, Defendants.

JONATHAN YARUS, on behalf of themselves and all other employees
similarly situated, MOHAMED ALI, on behalf of himself and all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
LLOYD BLACKWOOD, on behalf of themselves and all other employees
similarly situated, MARTIN UKEJE, TAE JOO KIM, SHARON CAMPBELL,
JEROME CROMWELL, HELENA ACHAMPONG, ERNESTINE DANIEL, VOLVICK
DESIL, STEPHANIE UHRIG, GAIL WHICKUM, Plaintiffs,
NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, BELLEVUE HOSPITAL
CENTER, KINGS COUNTY HOSPITAL CENTER, JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER,
ELMHURST HOSPITAL CENTER, HARLEM HOSPITAL CENTER, METROPOLITAN
HOSPITAL CENTER, ALAN D. AVILES, LINCOLN MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
CENTER, NORTH CENTRAL BRONX HOSPITAL, CONEY ISLAND HOSPITAL,
WOODHULL MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, QUEENS HOSPITAL CENTER,
Defendants-Appellees.

PATRICIA MEGGINSON, on behalf of herself and all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

HELEN BRUGGER, on behalf of herself and all other employees
similarly situated, MARY OLDAK, MICHELLE ALVAREZ, STEPHANIE UHRIG,
Plaintiffs,

WESTCHESTER COUNTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, WESTCHESTER MEDICAL
CENTER, MARIA FARERI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, MICHAEL D. ISRAEL, PAUL
S. HOCKENBERG, Defendants-Appellees,

KERRY ORISTANO, PAULA REDD ZEMAN, Defendants.

OLUSOLA ALAMU, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated, JACQUELINE COOPER-DAVIS, on behalf of herself
and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL CENTER, INCORPORATED, BRONX-LEBANON
HOSPITAL CENTER-FULTON DIVISION, BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL CENTER-
CONCOURSE DIVISION, MIGUEL A. FUENTES, JR., SHELDON ORTSMAN,
Defendants-Appellees,

SELENA GRIFFIN-MAHON, Defendant.

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 11, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/CamClTfrom Leagle.com.

MICHAEL J. LINGLE (Guy A. Talia, J. Nelson Thomas, on the brief),
Thomas & Solomon LLP, Rochester, New York, for Appellants.

JAMES S. FRANK -- jfrank@ebglaw.com (Kenneth W. DiGia --
kdigia@ebglaw.com -- Kenneth J. Kelly -- kkelly@ebglaw.com -- on
the brief), Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York, New York,
(Terence K. McLaughlin, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York,
New York, on the brief), for Appellees New York-Presbyterian
Healthcare System, Inc., et al.

VICTORIA SCALZO, Assistant Corporation Counsel of the City of New
York, New York, New York (Kristin M. Helmers, Blanche Greenfield,
on the brief), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York, for Appellees New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation, et al.

LEONARD M. ROSENBERG -- lrosenberg@garfunkelwild.com -- and
SALVATORE PUCCIO -- spuccio@garfunkelwild.com -- (Lauren M. Levine
-- llevine@garfunkelwild.com -- on the brief), Garfunkel Wild,
P.C., Great Neck, New York, for Appellees Westchester County
Healthcare Corp., et al.

NANCY V. WRIGHT -- nancy.wright@wilsonelser.com -- (Ricki E. Roer
-- ricki.roer@wilsonelser.com -- Scott R. Abraham, on the brief),
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, New York,
for Appellee Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, Inc., et al.


NINE MILE: Four Coal Miners File Warn Act Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Nola Sizemore, writing for The Harlan Daily Enterprise, reports
that four coal miners from Virginia have filed a federal class
action lawsuit against a Justice-owned coal mine located in Wise
County, Va.

In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Western District of
Virginia, Big Stone Gap Division, coal miners Michael and David
Sullivan, Thomas Robinette and Jeremy Pennington allege Nine Mile
Mining Inc. violated the Warn Act in the discharging of over 100
miners.  The mines are Justice-owned and located in and around
Wise County and other locations near southeastern Kentucky.

Wise County attorney Hugh O'Donnell said he and Roanoke attorney
Paul Beers are representing the four coal miners who are asking to
represent approximately 150 other miners also discharged in
violation of the Warn Act.

"The Warn Act deals with layoffs and closures involving a lot of
people," said Mr. O'Donnell.  "The law says if a corporation is
subject to the Warn Act, and if the layoffs are of such a size
then they have to meet certain requirements.  The strongest
requirement is they have to give 60 days notice to the people who
are being laid off."

Mr. O'Donnell said the miners are alleging the Warn Act was
violated because they were laid off without the 60 days notice,
which is required under the Warn Act.

"The miners are seeking, under the Warn Act, damages for the 60
days of wages and benefits they didn't get, which they would have
gotten if they had been given notice," said Mr. O'Donnell.

West Virginia billionaire Jim Justice has made his fortune in coal
and agriculture and has an estimated worth of $1.7 billion.  His
coal operations in Appalachia are based in Roanoke.  In the last
few years, a large number of lawsuits have been filed by business
owners who claim they have not been paid for work done at Justice
mines.

"I would like people to know about the Warn Act," said
Mr. O'Donnell.  "We think these miners being sent home without any
notice does constitute a violation.  These miners went to work one
day and were just told they no longer had jobs.  Some have worked
in the mines for 30 years or more.  It's devastating for them."

Mr. O'Donnell added the Warn Act also calls for a Rapid Response
Team.  He said the Rapid Response Team in this case did no
advertising for those laid off miners.

"They had a meeting at Mountain Empire Community College in Big
Stone Gap, Va. where 15 people were there to talk to three coal
miners who came to the meeting, of which two of the three were
people I had told about the meeting," said Mr. O'Donnell.  "Two of
the miners there were in their 50s, and for people who are in
their 50s who have worked all their lives in mining be told you
can go to school and learn a new trade, it was truly a surreal
kind of thing.  Someone brought up the Warn Act to the Rapid
Response Team and they didn't know anything about it even though
they exist because of the Warn Act."

For more information about this lawsuit, you may contact
Mr. O'Donnell at (276) 395-3926.


OHIO: 6th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment in "Allen" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirmed a district court judgment entered in ROBERT J. ALLEN, et
al., Plaintiff, DONALD MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TERRY J.
COLLINS, et al., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 10-4152.

The Sixth Circuit held that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in granting summary judgment without permitting
discovery or ruling on the prisoners' motion for class
certification.

Twenty-three parole-eligible prisoners in the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation's custody initiated pro se this putative class
action in district court pursuant to 42 United States Code section
1983, alleging that the Ohio Parole Board's retroactive
application of its parole guidelines, policies, and procedures
violated their rights under the Ex Post Facto and Due Process
Clauses of the United States Constitution. In their amended
complaint, the prisoners sought declaratory and injunctive relief
from: the Parole Board's implementation of the 2007 Guidelines
Manual; the Parole Board's implementation of portions of the
Victims' Rights Statute; other Parole Board policies and
procedures; and the cumulative changes in parole standards and
procedures.

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 1, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/R6qWLofrom Leagle.com.


P.F. CHANG'S: Did Not Provide Employees With Breaks, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa McComas, Individually and as Representative of the Class
of Similarly Situated Persons, and on Behalf of the General Public
v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and
Does 1 through 250, Case No. BC510908 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., June 5, 2013) is brought on behalf of a class of all
present and former non-exempt P.F. Chang's employees, who worked
at PFC's Burbank, and were not provided with, or paid for legally
mandated meal periods, rest periods, accurate wage statements, and
overtime wages.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed, among other
things, to pay wages to class members, including wages for meal
periods and rest periods, and to provide required wage statements.
The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant should pay members
of the class additional compensation for not providing the class
members with meal periods and rest periods.

In April 2010, Melissa McComas commenced her employment at P.F.
Chang's.  She alleges that since at least June 1, 2009, P.F.
Chang's management instructed her and class members to use time
cards that belonged to other individuals to make it appear that
the employee had taken a meal or rest break when the employee did
not actually receive the break.

P.F. Chang's is a Delaware corporation qualified operating
restaurants within Los Angeles County.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Joshua Staub, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF D. JOSHUA STAUB
          P.O. Box 1914
          Santa Monica, CA 90406-1914
          Telephone: (310) 929-5269

               - and -

          Mark J. Leonardo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK J. LEONARDO
          25019 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (310) 456-7373
          Facsimile: (310) 317-7261
          E-mail: mjl4law@earthlink.net


PFIZER CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Champix Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruneau Group Inc. on July 26 disclosed that the Ontario Superior
Court has certified a class action for Canadians who took Champix
between April 2, 2007 and May 31, 2010 and allegedly suffered
certain reactions.  The lawsuit seeks compensation and alleges
that, between April 2, 2007 and May 31, 2010, Pfizer Canada Inc.
failed to adequately warn of the risk of certain psychiatric
adverse events allegedly related to Champix.  Pfizer Canada Inc.
denies the allegations, which have not been established, and is
defending the lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit affects all Canadians who took Champix
during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who,
while taking or after taking Champix to help quit smoking,
experienced any of the psychiatric adverse events or symptoms
listed below:

    thoughts about suicide or dying
    attempts to commit suicide
    new or worse depression, anxiety or panic attacks
    feeling very agitated or restless
    acting aggressive, being angry or violent
    acting on dangerous impulses
    an extreme increase in activity and talking (mania)
    abnormal thoughts or sensations
    seeing or hearing things that are not there (hallucinations)
    feeling people are against you (paranoia)
    feeling confused
    other unusual changes in behaviors

If any Canadian fits the above description, this person is a
member of the "Class".

Any individual that is a relative of a member of the Class who is
entitled to make claims under any of the Dependants Statutes in
Canada as a result of the death or personal injury of their
relative that took Champix, is a member of the "Family Class".

Class members and Family Class members do not need to do anything
at this stage to participate -- they are automatically included in
the class action but are encouraged however to contact Class
Counsel for more information, and to discuss the steps necessary
for preserving medical records needed for any claims that may be
advanced on their behalf.

Opting Out

Class members or Family Class members who do not exclude
themselves by September 20, 2013 will be included in this lawsuit
and will be forever bound by the Court's judgment on the common
issues, whether favorable or not.  The only option that allows
Class members to ever be part of any other lawsuit against Pfizer
regarding the legal claims in this case, is by opting out by no
later than September 20, 2013.

Individuals who do not want to be part of this lawsuit must notify
Class Counsel in writing, by no later than September 20, 2013,
providing their name and address and indicating a clear desire to
not be part of this lawsuit.

Class members who consider it desirable or necessary to seek the
advice or representation of their own lawyers may do so at their
own expense.

Class Counsel

The following law firms represent Class members:

    For residents of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Yukon, North West Territories, Nunavut, and
residents outside of Canada: McPHADDEN SAMAC TUOVI LLP (416) 601-
1020,  KLEIN LYONS LLP (604) 874-7171, DOCKEN KLYM  (403) 269-
3612.

    For residents of Quebec: LAUZON BELANGER LESPERANCE (514) 844-
4646.

For more information: This press release is just a summary of the
certification.  The Court approved Legal Notice is available by
visiting http://www.champixclassactioninfo.ca


PHILIPS ORAL: Settles Class Action Over Philips Sonicare AirFloss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to MySettlementClaims News, if you purchased a Philips
Sonicare AirFloss in California in the last 3 years, you may be
entitled to a class action settlement award worth up to $66.

In Lilia Perkins v. Philips Oral Healthcare, Inc., et al.,
plaintiffs alleged that Philips advertised AirFloss as "An Easier
Way to Floss" and represented that AirFloss replaces flossing.

Eligible class members can claim awards as follows:

    Class members with proof of purchase of a double pack
    Airfloss - $33 voucher (max of 2);

    Class members with proof of purchase of a single pack
    Airfloss - $23 voucher (max of 2);

    Class members without proof of purchase - $7 voucher
    (max of 1).

Vouchers can be used to purchase any

    (i) Philips audio or video products (excluding televisions);
    (ii) Philips Norelco shaving and grooming products;
    (iii) Philips Sonicare oral care products;
    (iii) Philips accessories; and
    (iv) Avent-branded products.


POLYCOM INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on July 26
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Polycom, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
California, and docketed under 13-cv-3476-SC, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Polycom between July 24, 2012 and
June 23, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Polycom securities during
the Class Period, you have until September 24, 2013 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Polycom provides standards-based unified communications and
collaboration (UC&C) solutions for voice and video collaboration.
The Company offers video, voice, and content-management and
content-sharing solutions, such as telepresence and conference
room systems, home/work office solutions, applications for mobile
devices, browser-based video collaboration, cloud-delivered
services, and specialized healthcare video carts.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) The Company's CEO had been
submitting inappropriate and irregular expense submissions, (ii)
the Company's CEO was violating the Company's code of conduct and
was subject to dismissal at all relevant times; (iii) the Company
did not have effective internal controls over their business
operations; (iv) the CEO's improper conduct created a risk that he
would be terminated from the Company, jeopardizing the Company's
future success, (v) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 23, 2013, Polycom announced that its CEO Andrew Miller had
resigned after the board found "irregularities" in his expense
submissions.  The Company stated that Mr. Miller accepted
responsibility for his actions.  On this news, the shares of
Polycom fell 1.69 cents, or over 15% percent, to 9.49 per share on
July 24, 2013, on volume of over 14 million shares.

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


REED ELSEVIER: Accused of Unlawful Annual Maintenance Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herssein Law Group, A Florida corporation, On its own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reed Elsevier Inc.,
A Massachusetts corporation, Case No. 2013-024248-CA-01 (Fla. Cir.
Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., July 17, 2013), is seeking to stop the
Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of charging an Annual
Maintenance Plan ("AMP") fee to purchasers of LexisNexis' PCLaw,
Time Matters and Billing Matters software prior to May 1, 2010,
when AMP became effective.

Purchasers of the software prior to May 2010 were already entitled
to software updates, bug fixes, and software that worked, should
not be required to pay an annual AMP fee for a mere continuation
of services, Herssein contends.  Herssein argues that updates, bug
fixes, and operational software were already bargained for when
the software was purchased prior to May 2010.

Herssein, a Florida corporation and a law firm, has been a
customer of the Defendant since 2007, when it purchased
Defendant's "Time Matters" software.  As a purchaser of this
software prior to May 1, 2010, the Plaintiff asserts that it
relied on the Defendant's representations and implied warranties
that Time Matters worked properly and would continue to work
properly, and that Defendant would provide bug fixes, updates,
etc., as consideration for the sale.

Reed Elsevier is a Massachusetts corporation.  Under the name
"LexisNexis," the Defendant markets office management software to
consumers, including PCLaw, Time Matters and Billing Matters.

The Plaintiff represents itself in the lawsuit:

          Reuven Herssein, Esq.
          HERSSEIN LAW GROUP
          12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 402
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 531-1431
          Facsimile: (305) 531-1433
          E-mail: reuven@hersseinlaw.com


RELIANT TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Merger-Related Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, affirmed a
January 20, 2012 order dismissing, without prejudice, the action
captioned STEVEN SIMON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
ERIC STANG et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. H038036.

Steven Simon, Michael Kallok, and Alexey Terskikh filed the
putative class action on behalf of themselves and the other common
shareholders of respondent Reliant Technologies, Inc. They alleged
that the defendants, including RTI and certain of the company's
officers and directors (respondents Eric Stang, president; Len
DeBenedictis, chief technology officer; and Hank Gauthier,
director), had unlawfully entered into a merger agreement with
Thermage, Inc. that was not in the best interest of RTI's common
shareholders.

In 2010, the defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the
action on the ground of forum non conveniens, arguing that the
mandatory forum selection clause in the merger agreement required
litigation of plaintiffs' claims in Delaware. The trial court
granted the motion to stay the action in its order of September
28, 2010, its amended stay order of November 3, 2010, and its
extended stay order of September 19, 2011. Plaintiffs did not
appeal any of the stay orders.

In May 2011, the trial court issued an order to show cause why the
action should not be dismissed due to plaintiffs' failure to take
any action to litigate their claims in Delaware. On January 20,
2012, the trial court entered its order dismissing the action
without prejudice.

On appeal from the order of dismissal, plaintiffs argue that the
trial court erred in dismissing the action on the basis of an
unenforceable forum selection clause. They also contend that the
court erred in failing to grant them leave to conduct
jurisdictional discovery.

The Second Circuit notes that since the orders staying the action
on the ground of forum non conveniens were appealable and
plaintiffs failed to appeal, it may not review the merits of those
orders or address the request for jurisdictional discovery. Its
review is, therefore, limited to the January 20, 2012 order
dismissing the action without prejudice on the ground of delay in
prosecution in Delaware.

"Having determined that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing the action, we will affirm the order of
dismissal," rules the Second Circuit. "Costs on appeal are awarded
to respondents."

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 11, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/DwgrRbfrom Leagle.com.


RPM PIZZA: Sued by Delivery Drivers for Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Firmin, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons v. RPM Pizza, LLC, Glenn Mueller, Richard
Mueller, Jr., and Richard Mueller, III, Case No. 1:13-cv-00304-LG-
JMR (S.D. Miss., July 23, 2013) is brought as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages
owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
employed by the Defendants.

Instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates,
which method provides an unreasonably low rate beneath any
reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur, that the
drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wage and hours to fall
below the federal minimum wage and hour during some or all
workweeks, the Plaintiff alleges.

Dale Firmin was employed by the Defendants from November 2012
through December 2012 as a delivery driver at their Domino's
restaurant located in Destrehan, Louisiana.

RPM Pizza, a Mississippi limited liability company headquartered
in Gulfport, Mississippi, operates Domino's restaurants in
Mississippi and Louisiana.  The Individual Defendants are sui
juris individuals, who held operating control over RPM employees,
including the power to hire or fire employees, supervise employee
work schedules or conditions of employment, determine the rate or
method of payment, and have maintenance or control over employee
records.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Erik S. Heninger, Esq.
           W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
           William L. Bross, Esq.
           Brandy L. Robertson, Esq.
           Taylor Bartlett, Esq.
           HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
           2224 - 1st Avenue North
           Birmingham, AL 35203
           Telephone: (205) 326-3336
           Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
           E-mail: erik@hgdlawfirm.com
                   wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com
                   wlbross@hgdlawfirm.com
                   brandy@hgdlawfirm.com
                   taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

                - and -

           Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
           Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
           PAUL MCINNES LLP
           2000 Baltimore, Suite 100
           Kansas City, MO 64108
           Telephone: (816) 981-8100
           Facsimile: (816) 981-8101
           E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
                   mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

                - and -

           Mark Potashnick, Esq.
           WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
           11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
           St. Louis, MO 63141
           Telephone: (314) 997-9150
           Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
           E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Energy Star
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Lowe's cannot dismiss
claims they used Energy Star logos to sell refrigerators at higher
prices though they did not meet federal energy-efficiency
standards, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiffs Lynne Avram and Margaret Lark each bought Samsung
model RF26VAB refrigerators, bearing the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE) Energy Star label, from Lowe's Home Centers in
Scottsdale, Ariz. and Maryland in 2009.

Although the allegedly energy-efficient fridges were pricier than
others -- $1,200 to $2,100, including a substantial premium --
they believed they would save money in the long run by reducing
electricity bills.

Just a few months later, however, on February 18, 2010, the DOE
alerted Samsung that the refrigerators did not meet the Energy
Star efficiency requirements under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

After Samsung's own testing failed to persuade the department
otherwise, the DOE referred the matter to the Environmental
Protection Agency, and Samsung eventually agreed to stop
manufacturing and selling the fridges.

Avram and Lark nonetheless filed class actions against Samsung
Electronics America and Lowe's Home Centers in late 2011 and early
2012; the cases were consolidated in the District of New Jersey on
June 20, 2012.

They assert claims for breach of express warranty and implied
warranty of merchantability, violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud under New
Jersey and Maryland law.

Samsung and Lowe's moved to dismiss, arguing that the warranty
claims are preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.

U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty partially denied the motions
Thursday, July 11, 2013, holding that although manufacturers are
required to disclose energy consumption figures under the National
Appliance Energy Conservation Act, Samsung and Lowe's did not have
to affix the Energy Star logo to their noncompliant products.

"Hewing to the text of the provision, as I must, I find that
Avram's and Lark's claims are not preempted," McNulty wrote.  "The
Energy Star program is voluntary; the associated disclosures of
energy efficiency are not 'required to be made' by statute.  Had
Congress intended to preempt warranty claims as to all such
disclosures, it could simply have stated that 'no disclosure made
under the provisions of this part creates a warranty.'  But it did
not; it limited the preemptive effect to disclosures 'required to
be made' under the statute.  I cannot assume that Congress's
insertion of the words 'required to be' was accidental, or that
the words themselves are superfluous and meaningless."

McNulty tossed Samsung and Lowe's claim that the Energy Star logo
was not part of the basis of the bargain.

"Avram, however, alleges that she had decided to purchase only a
refrigerator that sported the Energy Star label," McNulty wrote.
"While Lark did not limit her search in the same way, one can
reasonably infer from her complaint that she knew the Energy Star
label was on the refrigerator, understood its meaning, and paid a
higher price based on it.  Defendants did not [and] indeed, at
this procedural stage, probably could not rebut the allegations by
proving that Avram and Lark were not in fact misled.  That is not
to say that such a rebuttal could not eventually be made, but, at
this stage, I find that Avram and Lark have stated a claim for
breach of express warranty."

The judge dismissed Avram's breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability and the unjust enrichment claims against Samsung,
as well as the state consumer fraud claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6531
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: avozzolo@faruqilaw.com
                  cmarlborough@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
                  jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7127
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James J. O'Hara, Esq.
          John Maloney, Esq.
          GRAHAM CURTIN, P.A.
          4 Headquarters Plaza
          P.O. Box 1991
          Morristown, NJ 07962-1991
          Telephone: (973) 292-1700
          E-mail: johara@grahamcurtin.com
                  jmaloney@grahamcurtin.com

               - and -

          Joseph Christopher Brennan, Esq.
          GRAHAM CURTIN, P.A.
          4 Headquarters Plaza
          P.O. Box 1991
          Morristown, NJ 07962
          Telephone: (973) 401-7139
          E-mail: jbrennan@grahamcurtin.com

The case is Avram V. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:11-cv-06973-KM-MCA, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


SCHENECTADY S.S.: Faces Class Suit Over Food Stamp Applications
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Schenectady County
Department of Social Services is refusing to accept food stamp
applications and delaying responses on those it does accept, a
class action claims in Federal Court in New York.


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Court Denies Bid to Amend FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied a plaintiff's motion to
amend her complaint in the case captioned SHELLY DONNELLY-TOVAR,
On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff,
v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendant, NO. 8:12CV203,
(D. Neb.).

The complaint alleges the Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by sending a collection letter to
Donnelly-Tovar for payment on a debt that was discharged in
bankruptcy.

Judge Zwart ruled that the Plaintiff has not met the threshold
requirement of showing due diligence, and has failed to present
the requisite showing of good cause for extending the pleading
amendment deadline of the court's case management order.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/HTeNnvfrom Leagle.com.

Shelly Donnelly-Tovar, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg
-- Rand@horwitzlaw.com -- at HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A.
Car, at CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, at CAR,
REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth A. Culhane, at FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM, Joseph E.
Jones, at FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM & Thomas M. Hefferon --
thefferon@goodwinprocter.com -- at GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM.


SERVICE CORP: Appeal From Cert. Order in "Garcia" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International's appeal from an order
certifying a class in the lawsuit filed by Reyvis Garcia and
Alicia Garcia remains pending, according to the Company's July 8,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris
Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland
Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. , was
filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No.
04-25646 CA 32.  The Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the
decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park
South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise
Memorial Gardens, Inc.  Initially, the lawsuit sought damages on
the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of
Eloisa Garcia.  The Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor
recordkeeping, spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the
family could not afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the
burial location of the decedent could not be readily located.
Subsequently, the decedent's grave was located and verified.  In
July 2006, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to
certify a class of all persons buried at this cemetery whose
burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this was due to poor
recordkeeping, maps, and surveys at the cemetery.  The Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a third amended class action complaint and
added two additional named plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive
relief.  On May 4, 2011, the trial court certified a class and the
Company is appealing that ruling.  The Company cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be
determined at this time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
all of the lawsuits against it; however, an adverse decision in
one or more of the matters could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--
is a North American provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada.  The
operations of the Houston, Texas-based Company consist of funeral
service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend "Sands" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit filed by F. Charles Sands,
according to the Company's July 8, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al.; Case No.
BC421528; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles - Central District, was filed in September
2009 against SCI and certain subsidiaries regarding the Company's
Eden Memorial Park cemetery in Mission Hills, California.  The
plaintiff seeks compensatory, consequential and punitive damages
as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery
operations.  The plaintiff alleges the cemetery engaged in
wrongful burial practices and did not disclose them to customers.
After a hearing in February 2012, the court in May 2012 issued an
order certifying classes of cemetery plot owners and their
families based on alleged Company misrepresentation, concealment
or nondisclosure of material facts regarding alleged improper
burial practices pertaining to the period from February 1985 to
September 2009.  Pursuant to a court order, the Company may be
precluded from making certain arguments that challenge the
sufficiency of plaintiff's physical evidence, although the extent
to which that order will apply at trial remains unclear.  The case
is scheduled for trial in July 2013.  The Company cannot quantify
its ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be
determined at this time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
all of the lawsuits against it; however, an adverse decision in
one or more of the matters could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--
is a North American provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada.  The
operations of the Houston, Texas-based Company consist of funeral
service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits alleging violations of wage and hour
laws, according to the Company's July 8, 2013, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The cases captioned Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation
International, et al.; Case No. RG-07359593; and Helm, et al. v.
AWGI & SCI; Case No. RG-07359602; in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda.  These cases were filed on
December 5, 2007, were removed to federal court in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco/Oakland Division.  The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-
CV-01190-SI and the Helm case is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI.  On
December 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action.  The
plaintiffs modified and refiled their motion for certification.
On March 9, 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motions
to certify a class in both of the Bryant and Helm cases and
dismissed the Helm case.  The Helm plaintiff is appealing the
court's order decertifying her claims.  The individual claims in
the Bryant case are still pending.  The plaintiffs have also (i)
filed additional lawsuits with similar allegations seeking class
certification of state law claims in different states, and (ii)
made a large number of demands for arbitration.  The Company
cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if any, in these lawsuits.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of the matters cannot be
determined at this time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
all of the lawsuits against it; however, an adverse decision in
one or more of the matters could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--
is a North American provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada.  The
operations of the Houston, Texas-based Company consist of funeral
service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Faces "Moulton" Merger-Related Suit in Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is facing a merger-related class
action lawsuit commenced by Karen Moulton in Louisiana, according
to the Company's July 8, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation
International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil
District Court Parish of New Orleans, was filed as a class action
in June 2013 against SCI and its subsidiary in connection with
SCI's proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.  The
plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in
negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a
subsidiary of SCI.  The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction
against the proposed combination.  The Company cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be
determined at this time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
all of the lawsuits against it; however, an adverse decision in
one or more of the matters could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--
is a North American provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada.  The
operations of the Houston, Texas-based Company consist of funeral
service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Faces "Rose" Merger-Related Suit in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is facing a merger-related class
action lawsuit filed by Philip Joseph Rose in Louisiana, according
to the Company's July 8, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Philip Joseph Rose, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others; Case No. 2013-5887; in the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana, was filed on June 20, 2013, and alleges class action
claims similar to those in the Moulton case.  The Company cannot
quantify its ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any
damages.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be
determined at this time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
all of the lawsuits against it; however, an adverse decision in
one or more of the matters could have a material effect on the
Company, its financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--
is a North American provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada.  The
operations of the Houston, Texas-based Company consist of funeral
service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


SHFL ENTERTAINMENT: Being Sold to Bally for Too Little, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that SHFL Entertainment is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Bally
Technologies, for $23.25 a share or $1.3 billion, shareholders
claim in Hennepin County Court, in Minnesota.

On July 16, 2013, SHFL entertainment, Inc. and Bally Technologies,
Inc. announced that they entered into a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Bally will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of SHFL.

Following the announcement, several law firms announced their
investigations relating to the proposed acquisition.  The Firms
are investigating whether SHFL's board of directors is undertaking
a fair process to obtain maximum value and adequately compensate
its shareholders in the merger.  Among the Firms and their lawyers
are:

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-4568
          E-mail: WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
          E-mail: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com
                  esmith@brodsky-smith.com

               - and -

          BROWER PIVEN, A Professional Corporation
          1925 Old Valley Road
          Stevenson, MA 21153
          Telephone: (410) 415-6616
          E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com

               - and -

          Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (800) 350-6003
          E-mail: ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Zach Groover, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR, LLP
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 North Central Expy., Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (877) 728-9607
          E-mail: zach@powerstaylor.com

               - and -

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          Michael Palestina, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville LA 70447
          Toll Free: (866) 467-1400
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
                  michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW, P.A.
          2131 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 408
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 842-2021
          Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
          Toll-Free: (855) 858-1233
          E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (877) 316-3218
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Willoughby, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100 or 1-888-4-POMLAW
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Henry Young Esq.
          THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
          347 Bridge Street, Suite 201
          Phoenixville, PA 19460
          Toll Free: (888) 452-7252
          E-mail: contact@theyounglf.com


SKYPE INC: Loses Bid to Stay Discovery in "Becker" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denied the defendants' request
for a stay of discovery in the case, CANTON BECKER, JOSEPHINE
ASPLUND, and DARRIN WESLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKYPE INC. ET AL.,
Defendants, NO. C12-06477 EJD (HRL), (N.D. Cal.).

In this putative class action, plaintiffs Becker, Asplund, and
Wesley sued Skype and its reputed owner, Microsoft, over alleged
billing irregularities. They allege they were users of certain
Skype services and products providing internet-based calls and
that their accounts were converted, without their knowledge or
authorization, from non-recurring (meaning their service
terminated at the end of the period they had paid for, unless they
renewed) to automatic renewal (meaning service renewed for another
billing period unless they affirmatively canceled).

The case is still in the pleading stage. The Defendants' motion to
dismiss certain claims is under submission. Their motion to
dismiss Becker on the basis he is not a proper class
representative is set for hearing in October.

The discovery dispute is over whether all discovery should be
stayed until the Court sees whether any of the Plaintiff's claims
survive all pending or subsequently filed motions to dismiss.

Judge Lloyd overruled the Defendants' objection to
producing/answering/appearing on the basis that motions to dismiss
are pending or contemplated.

The Court cautioned the Defendants and their counsel to dial back
on the fog of words that characterizes their discovery responses
to date and to start producing information.

A copy of the District Court's July 11, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/6vsfKefrom Leagle.com.

Canton Becker, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Ellsworth Davis
-- jed@arnslaw.com -- The Arns Law Firm, Jonathan Matthew Jaffe --
jmj@jaffe-law.com -- Jonathan Jaffe Law, Kathryn Ann Stebner,
Stebner & Associates, Robert Stephen Arns -- rsa@arnslaw.com --
The Arns Law Firm, Sarah Colby, Stebner & Associates & Steven
Richard Weinmann -- srw@arnslaw.com -- The Arns Law Firm.

Josephine Asplund, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Ellsworth
Davis, The Arns Law Firm, Jonathan Matthew Jaffe, Jonathan Jaffe
Law, Kathryn Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Robert Stephen
Arns, The Arns Law Firm, Sarah Colby, Stebner & Associates &
Steven Richard Weinmann, The Arns Law Firm.

Darrin Wesley, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Ellsworth Davis,
The Arns Law Firm, Jonathan Matthew Jaffe, Jonathan Jaffe Law,
Kathryn Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Robert Stephen Arns,
The Arns Law Firm, Sarah Colby, Stebner & Associates & Steven
Richard Weinmann, The Arns Law Firm.

Skype Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Edward Addiego, III
-- joeaddiego@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Sam N. Dawood
-- samdawood@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Microsoft Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph Edward
Addiego, III, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Sam N. Dawood, Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP.


SPRENGER + LANG: Denial of Bid to Vacate Arbitration Award Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court
ruling denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award in the
lawsuit captioned DANIEL WOLF and MAIA CAPLAN KATS, Appellants, v.
SPRENGER + LANG, PLLC, et al., Appellees, Nos. 11-CV-1206 AND 11-
CV-1208.

This case concerns arbitration in the District of Columbia
pertaining to the allocation of attorneys' fees awarded after a
settlement in a class action lawsuit that was filed and litigated
in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles. The arbitration involved several attorneys and law firms,
most based in the District of Columbia. After receiving the
arbitrator's award, appellants Daniel Wolf and Maia Caplan Kats
unsuccessfully attempted to reopen the attorneys' fees issue in
the California trial court. When that effort failed on
jurisdictional grounds, Mr. Wolf and Ms. Caplan Kats filed a
motion in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to vacate
the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded
his powers and committed misconduct by denying them due process.
Appellees Sprenger+Lang, PLLC and Jane Lang Paul Sprenger, LLC
opposed the motion. Mr. Wolf and Ms. Caplan Kats appealed the
judgment of the trial court which denied their motion to vacate
the arbitral award and confirmed the award.

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 11, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/aWtaj2from Leagle.com.

William R. Stein -- stein@hugheshubbard.com -- with whom Michael
A. DeBernardis -- debernar@hugheshubbard.com -- was on the brief,
for appellant Daniel Wolf.

Maia Caplan Kats, pro se, who adopted the brief of appellant Wolf
by reference.

Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Daniel B. Edelman, with whom Rebecca S.
Bjork and Stephen R. McAllister were on the brief, for appellees.


TOYS "R" US: Trial Court Judgment in Gift Card Class Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Maxwell and Audrey Miranda filed a class action complaint
against Toys "R" Us-Delaware, Inc., alleging several counts
relating to its gift cards. The trial court certified a class and
conducted the first, nonjury phase of a bifurcated trial. The
court filed a statement of decision finding that plaintiffs failed
to prove their claims and entered a judgment awarding them no
relief on their complaint. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, affirmed the trial court judgment and held that the
plaintiffs misconstrue the court's ruling and have shown no
prejudicial error.

Plaintiffs contended the trial court found that the class
representatives did not adequately represent a particular subclass
and erred by failing to allow plaintiffs to either (1) amend their
complaint to name an additional class representative or (2) modify
the class definition in the judgment so as to exclude claims by
the subclass.

Toys "R" Us is entitled to recover its costs on appeal, the
California Appeals Court concluded.

The case is CINDY MAXWELL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
TOYS "R" US-DELAWARE, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO. B237422.

A copy of the Appeals Court's July 24, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/VQF6wrfrom Leagle.com.

Coleman Frost and Daniel L. Alexander -- daniel@colemanfrost.com
-- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Gregory T. Parks --
gparks@morganlewis.com -- and Joseph Duffy --
jduffy@morganlewis.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


UNDER ARMOUR: Sells Clothes With Bogus Claims, Calif. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Under Armour sells its
clothes, which are merely tight-fitting, with bogus claims that
they "boost stamina, speed and power," a class action claims in
the Superior Court of California.

The case is Raymond Jacques v. Under Armour Inc., Case No.
37-2013-00057894-CU-MT-CTL, in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego.


UNITED STATES: Maryland Judge Dismisses "Allen et al." Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine C. Blake summarily dismissed without
requiring amendment, supplementation, or the issuance of summons,
the case captioned MICHAEL ALLEN, #355086 KENAN K. COFIELD,
#405938 JOHN WESLEY JOHNSON, #188392 Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF
MARYLAND, et al. Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. CCB-13-1839,
(D. Md.)

The "class action" was filed by plaintiffs who are currently
confined at the Eastern Correctional Institution.

Judge Blake stated that the court has unsuccessfully attempted to
determine the nature of the claims from a generous construction of
the papers, but colorable claims cannot be fashioned from the
pleadings. No individual defendants are named, no precise claims
are raised, and no specific relief is sought.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/KnAjqNfrom Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: NSA Faces Various Groups' Suit Over Surveillance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that groups across
the political spectrum sued the National Security Agency in
Federal Court on July 16, 2013, for its dragnet collection of
telephone records; plaintiffs include Unitarian churches, gun
groups and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles and 18 co-plaintiffs
sued the NSA, the FBI, the Department of Justice and their top
officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder.

Details of the NSA dragnet were revealed by former NSA contractor
Edward Snowden, who has been living for three weeks at a Moscow
airport, fearing U.S. prosecution.

The 21-page lawsuit "challenges an illegal and unconstitutional
program of dragnet electronic surveillance, specifically the bulk
acquisition, collection, storage, retention, and searching of
telecommunications information (the 'Associational Tracking
Program') conducted by the National Security Agency and the other
defendants," according to the complaint.

The "vast" program, in operation since at least October 2001, the
plaintiffs say, "collects telephone communications information for
all telephone calls transiting the networks of all major American
telecommunications companies, including Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint,
ostensibly under the authority of section 215 of the USA Patriot
Act, codified at 50 U.S.C. Section 1861."

The complaint continues: "The communications information that
defendants collect in the Associational Tracking Program is
retained and stored by defendants in one or more databases.  The
program collects information concerning all calls wholly within
the United States, including local telephone calls, as well as
calls between the United States and abroad, regardless of a
connection to international terrorism, reasonable suspicion of
criminality, or any other form of wrongdoing.  This information is
stored for at least five years.  Defendants have indiscriminately
obtained, and stored the telephone communications information of
millions of ordinary Americans as part of the Associational
Tracking Program.

"Defendants search and analyze the Associational Tracking
Program's database(s) for various purposes, including but not
limited to, obtaining the communications history of particular
phone numbers, which, when aggregated, reveals those numbers'
contacts and associations over time.

"Defendants' collection of telephone communications information
includes, but is not limited to, records indicating who each
customer communicates with, at what time, for how long and with
what frequency communications occur.  This communications
information discloses the expressive and private associational
connections among individuals and group, including plaintiffs and
their members and staff. . . .

"The bulk collection of telephone communications information
without a valid, particularized warrant supported by probable
cause violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as
statutory prohibitions and limitations on electronic
surveillance."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation -- the plaintiffs' lead counsel
-- said in a statement that the "mass, untargeted collection" of
such information gives the government a "dramatically detailed
picture into our associational ties."

"The First Amendment protects the freedom to associate and express
political views as a group, but the NSA's mass, untargeted
collection of Americans' phone records violates that right by
giving the government a dramatically detailed picture into our
associational ties," the Electronic Frontier Foundation's legal
director Cindy Cohn said in the statement.

"Who we call, how often we call them, and how long we speak shows
the government what groups we belong to or associate with, which
political issues concern us, and our religious affiliation.
Exposing this information -- especially in a massive, untargeted
way over a long period of time -- violates the Constitution and
the basic First Amendment tests that have been in place for over
50 years."

Cohn said that people who hold controversial views must band
together to "advocate effectively" for First Amendment
protections.

"People who hold controversial views -- whether it's about gun
ownership policies, drug legalization, or immigration -- often
must express views as a group in order to act and advocate
effectively," Cohn said.  "But fear of individual exposure when
participating in political debates over high-stakes issues can
dissuade people from taking part.  That's why the Supreme Court
ruled in 1958 that membership lists of groups have strong First
Amendment protection.  Telephone records, especially complete
records collected over many years, are even more invasive than
membership lists, since they show casual or repeated inquiries as
well as full membership."

Rev. Rick Hoyt, of the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, said
the church "has a proud history of working for justice and
protecting people in jeopardy for expressing their political
views."

"In the 1950s, we resisted the McCarthy hysteria and supported
blacklisted Hollywood writers and actors, and we fought
California's 'loyalty oaths' all the way to the Supreme Court.
And in the 1980s, we gave sanctuary to refugees from civil wars in
Central America," Hoyt said in a statement released by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"The principles of our faith often require our church to take bold
stands on controversial issues.  We joined this lawsuit to stop
the illegal surveillance of our members and the people we serve.
Our church members and our neighbors who come to us for help
should not fear that their participation in the church might have
consequences for themselves or their families.  This spying makes
people afraid to belong to our church community."

Additional plaintiffs are the Bill of Rights Defense Committee;
Calguns Foundation; California Association of Federal Firearms
Licensees; Council on American-Islamic Relations - California;
Council on American-Islamic Relations - Ohio; Council on American-
Islamic Relations - Foundation; Franklin Armory; Free Press; Free
Software Foundation; Human Rights Watch; Media Alliance; National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, California Chapter;
Open Technology Institute; People for the American Way; Public
Knowledge; Students for Sensible Drug Policy; TechFreedom; and
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.

They seek an order declaring the Associational Tracking Program
unconstitutional, an injunction prohibiting the continued use of
the program, and fees and costs.

Last week, a federal judge rejected the National Security Agency's
attempt to dismiss a long-pending companion case -- Jewel v. NSA
-- and allowed the class action lawsuit to move forward under the
supervision of a public federal court.

Separately, in June 2013, the ACLU sued the federal government
over the secret phone surveillance program, calling it "akin to
snatching every American's address book."

Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA spying have made
headlines around the world.  But few, if any, reports have
concentrated on why the NSA, the nation's most electronically
powerful and secretive spy agency, would give private, part-time
contractors access to such powerful secrets.  The contracting out
of federal jobs, even military ones, has been promoted since the
1980s as a way for the government to save money.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cindy Ann Cohn, Esq.
          David A. Greene, Esq.
          James Samuel Tyre, Esq.
          Kurt Bradford Opsahl, Esq.
          Lee Tien, Esq.
          Mark Thomas Rumold, Esq.
          Matthew Zimmerman, Esq.
          ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
          815 Eddy Street
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 436-9333
          Facsimile: (415) 436-9993
          E-mail: cindy@eff.org
                  jstyre@jstyre.com
                  kurt@eff.org
                  tien@eff.org
                  mark@eff.org
                  mattz@eff.org

               - and -

          Aram Vazken Antaramian, Esq.
          Attorney At Law
          1714 Blake St.
          Berkeley, CA 94703
          E-mail: aramant@pacbell.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Berkowitz, Esq.
          Michael S. Kwun, Esq.
          Rachael Elizabeth Meny, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: bberkowitz@kvn.com
                  mkwun@kvn.com
                  rem@kvn.com

               - and -

          Richard R. Wiebe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: wiebe@pacbell.net

               - and -

          Thomas Edward Moore, III, Esq.
          THE MOORE LAW GROUP
          228 Hamilton Ave.
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 798-5352
          Facsimile: (650) 798-5001
          E-mail: tmoore@moorelawteam.com

The case is First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, et al. v.
National Security Agency, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03287-JCS, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).


VIKING RANGE: Recalls Built-In Refrigerators Due to Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Viking Range LLC, of Greenwood, Miss., announced a voluntary
recall of about 31,000 Viking built-in refrigerators with bottom
freezers.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The refrigerator's doors can detach, posing an injury hazard to
consumers.

Viking has received 39 reports of falling refrigerator doors,
including 12 reports of injuries involving a fracture, bruises,
strains and cuts, and 25 reports of minor property damage.  The 39
new reports are in addition to 57 reports in the previous recall
of doors detaching, including four reports of injuries involving
bruises, broken toes/fingers, and strains.

The recall involves Viking built-in 36-inch wide refrigerators
with bottom freezers with models and serial numbers/date codes
listed below.  The model and serial numbers are located on the
ceiling of the interior of the refrigerators.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/z4u3BT

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Appliance and specialty stores nationwide from November 2005
through October 2012 for between $5,100 and $7,700.

Consumers should contact Viking immediately to schedule a free in-
home repair.  Consumers should stop using the recalled
refrigerators if the door does not appear to be sealed properly,
the door is sagging or it fails to open or close normally.  If the
door is working properly, consumers can continue to use the
refrigerator until it has been repaired.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over 2-For-1 Coupon Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Huffington Post, citing a report by Consumerist, reports that
a Pennsylvania man has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Walmart alleging the retailer overtaxed him by 21 cents for items
purchased with a coupon.

According to a lawsuit filed in Allegheny County, Pa.,
Brian Farneth purchased two cans of $2.97 shaving cream at a
Walmart with a "buy one, get one free" coupon in June.  The
cashier, Mr. Farneth says, correctly deducted the price of one can
of shaving cream from the total, but failed to deduct the
associated tax, causing him to lose out on 21 cents.

Mr. Farneth alleges that he could be one of many customers at
Walmart's 8,500 stores across the world that the retailer may be
overcharging for coupon purchases.

"Walmart's current systems, with respect to the collection and
remittance of sales tax, are in compliance with Pennsylvania's tax
laws," Walmart Spokesperson Dan Fogleman wrote in an email to The
Huffington Post.  "We have previously sought an opinion from the
state which confirmed this."

Tax codes vary from state to state, but Mr. Farneth claims that
Walmart is specifically in violation of Section 33.2(b)(2) of
Pennsylvania's code.  The section establishes that items purchased
with discounts including "buy one, get one free" will have a "new
purchase price" and be taxed as such.  The lawsuit also points out
that the retailer would benefit financially from overcharging, as
the retailer is entitled to a 1 percent discount on taxes it pays
to the state.

The lawsuit will now be heard in federal court, Mr. Farneth's
attorney, Frank Salpietro, told CBS Pittsburgh.

This is not the first time that Walmart has been accused of
overcharging customers.  Just last year, the big-box retail giant
paid $2.1 million in costs and penalties in California.  In 2005,
the state discovered that 164 Walmart stores were guilty of
charging customers higher prices than those advertised.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Pomerantz Gross Files Class Action in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on July 24
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Walter
Investment Management Corp. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida, and docketed under 13 cv 1916 T27TBM, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Walter Investment
between May 9, 2012 and June 6, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Walter Investment
securities during the Class Period, you have until September 23,
2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Walter Investment is a loan servicer and business solutions
provider focused on generating recurring, fee-based revenues from
an "asset-light" platform.  The Company specializes in offering
creative, structured solutions to owners of less-than-prime, non-
conforming and other credit-challenged mortgage assets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
accounting; (2) the Company's internal controls were not
effective; (3) the Company's financial statements contained false
and misleading statements; (4) the Company had failed to disclose
material weaknesses in the internal controls of its recent
acquisition Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. ("RMS"); (5) the
Company had overstated the value of RMS; and (6) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 18, 2013, the Company shocked investors by disclosing
that, based on an evaluation by the Company's Board of Directors
and management, "our management, including our Chief Executive
Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, has identified a material
weakness in our internal control over financial reporting.  As a
result of this material weakness, management has concluded that,
as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form
10-K, our internal control over financial reporting was not
effective."  On this news the Company's shares fell $8.61 per
share or over 20% percent to close at $32.98 per share on March
19, 2013.

On June 6, 2013, the Company reported that, [s] "Subsequent to the
completion of the RMS Acquisition, the Company discovered a
failure to record certain estimated liabilities to investors
relating to servicing errors by RMS."  The Company concluded after
preliminary review that RMS historical financial statements, and
the related reports of RMS historical independent registered
public accounting firm, "should no longer be relied upon."

The Pomerantz Firm concentrates its practice in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  It has
offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego.


WILLOWICK, OH: Faces Class Action Over Sewer System Back-Up
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Read, writing for The News-Herald, reports that a Willowick
resident has filed a class-action lawsuit claiming city officials
did not do enough to stop the sewer system from backing up into
hundreds of people's homes after a July 20 rainstorm.

Micasa Court resident Dominic Trinetti filed the suit on July 26
in Lake County Common Pleas Court on behalf of himself and others.
He retained two Cleveland law firms, Weisman, Kennedy & Berris Co.
and Ciano & Goldwasser.

Mr. Trinetti's suit states that about 200 Willowick homes became
flooded with sewage, pollutants, water, feces, dirt, debris and
noxious odors several times since June 2010, and that the city
failed to take the necessary steps to properly fix the situation.

Mr. Trinetti is arguing the most recent flooding resulted in
structural damage of homes, destruction of personal property, a
reduction in market value of their properties, lost wages and
emotional distress.

The city knew the system was inadequate and in need of repair, he
said in the suit.

"On Dec. 7, 2010, Council Meeting Minutes reflect concerns voiced
by the Service Director regarding calcifications in the sanitary
sewer lines which were causing blockages and preventing the free-
flow of sanitation," according to the lawsuit.  "Throughout 2011,
concerns continued to be noted by representatives of the City
relative to the condition and maintenance of the sanitary sewer
lines.  Yet, those concerns were never appropriately addressed."

City Law Director Michael Lucas declined comment.

Mayor Rich Bonde and Council President Robert Patton did not
immediately return phone calls.

Mr. Trinetti is asking Judge Richard L. Collins Jr. to find the
city liable for all damages and a ruling stating officials
violated their duty to properly maintain and repair the sewer
system.

He is also seeking a jury trial.


* EU Not Importing US Class Action Rules
----------------------------------------
Walter Olson, writing for Overlawyered, reports that the various
member countries have very different traditions as to "collective
redress" of legal claims, and while some have liberalized the
procedures recently, none is anywhere near as liberal as the
United States in permitting lawyers to assert class actions.
That's not going to change, according to Monique Goyens, director
general of the European consumer organization BEUC, which has
pushed for new collective redress rules: "The key safeguards
against exorbitant awards are in place.  So we are not importing
US class actions."  According to Euractiv, more specifically:
"The safeguards include swiftly ending unfounded cases and
avoiding national systems where lawyers' fees are calculated as a
percentage of the compensation awarded, like current systems in
the US and, to a lesser extent, in some European countries.  The
Commission also advises countries to avoid punitive measures,
inflicted on top of actual damage and compensation for victims."


* Lead Plaintiffs at Risk of Adverse Cost Penalties
---------------------------------------------------
Peter Spiro, in an article for The Huffington Post, says that the
class action lawsuit is an important legal innovation.  It allows
many small players to get together and seek justice if they have
been injured due to the negligence of a large company.  It lets
many individual consumers or small investors who have suffered a
loss make a claim.

Their individual losses are not large enough to make it worthwhile
for any one of them to pursue the claim alone, and they would not
have a hope against the resources of a large corporation. The
class action legislation makes it possible for them to be
certified as a group, and pursue the claim.  Lawyers who represent
the class work on a contingency fee basis.  It overcomes a serious
access to justice issue in our costly legal system.

It also makes the system work better overall.  It gives big
companies an economic incentive to behave well.  The damage to
each individual is small, but the total is a significant amount.
Ensuring that this can come back as a cost to the perpetrator is
generally a good thing.

However, there is one significant gap in the equation.  The class
action, even though it represents a large group, always has to
have one or a few individuals who are called the representative
plaintiff. The representative plaintiff faces a significant legal
liability if the case is lost.

It is traditional in Canada's legal system that the losing side
pays a substantial portion of the legal costs of the winning side.
The rationale behind this is to discourage frivolous lawsuits.  In
the ordinary situation of relatively matched individuals, where
each has a substantial amount at stake, this may be reasonable.

In the case of class actions, it makes no sense.  Certifying a
class to start an action requires the approval of the court, and
that is the appropriate place for the judicial system to winnow
out frivolous claims.

Placing such a burden on the representative plaintiff is clearly
unfair.  If he wins, he will get only a small fraction of what the
class wins.  However, if the class loses, the whole cost falls
onto the representative plaintiff.  That is likely to be enough to
bankrupt most individuals.

The free market has a way of coming up with innovations in
response to problems such as this, but they are not always
socially beneficial innovations.  The innovation here is called
third-party funding.  A number of companies have been formed to
"invest" in lawsuits.  These are very much like the vulture funds
that buy distressed debt.  They know that on some of their
investments they will get zero back, but if they have a
sufficiently large, diversified portfolio, on average they will do
quite well.

There are now a number of international companies that provide
such funding to guarantee the costs of the representative
plaintiff, and they have started to come to Canada.

This issue was raised in a landmark case in 2011, Dugal v.
Manulife.  In that case, Mr. Justice Strathy approved a deal in
which a third-party funder, an Irish Company named Claims Funding
International, would guarantee the plaintiff's costs. In exchange,
it would receive 7 per cent of any settlement won by the class,
with an upper limit of $5 million.  The judge clearly found the
matter distasteful, but he reasoned that it was the lesser of
evils.  He stated some key issues as follows:

"In Ontario, the costs rules applicable to ordinary actions apply
to class proceedings -- the loser pays.  The costs of losing can
be astronomical -- well beyond the reach of all but the powerful
and very wealthy -- not exactly the group the legislature had in
mind when the Class Proceedings Act was enacted.  The grim reality
is that no person in their right mind would accept the role of
representative plaintiff if he or she were at risk of losing
everything they own."

The stakes have risen further recently. Investors have launched a
suit against Kinross Gold Corporation, which wrote down $2.5
billion on a mine in Africa.  In this case, the plaintiffs had to
accept a third-party funding agreement that could give the funder
10 per cent of the winnings, with no cap.

Under the rules set out by the court, the third-party funding
company is not supposed to have any influence on litigation
strategy, or whether a settlement takes place.  That is fine in
theory, but the practice is likely to be different.  Class action
lawyers will want to deal with the same company more than once,
and that is bound to exercise an influence on the way they behave.

The solution to this situation is straightforward, and implicit in
Justice Strathy's comments. Ontario's law should be changed so
that the representative plaintiff is not liable for the other
party's costs, which is already the case in some provinces.  This
will lead to some cases where a winning defendant has to bear the
burden of its own legal costs.  While these can run into the
millions, the amounts involved would not be a significant item in
the budget of the typical large corporate defendant.

Is there a risk that this would increase litigation, including
cases that lack merit? This is doubtful.  The class action lawyers
themselves, who work for nothing if they do not win, are likely to
be reasonably careful gatekeepers.  A foreign vulture fund is
unlikely to make its decision based on the merits of the case, and
would base its decision on factors such as how likely the
defendant is to settle quickly.

Having an ever larger percentage of the class winnings skimmed off
to reward the third party funder will end up making the class
procedure a waste of effort.

It is unlikely that justice will be best served by allowing
speculators a say in the conduct of class actions.  Legislation
ought to be introduced to remove such parties, and to relieve
representative plaintiffs of the risk of adverse cost penalties.
The "grim reality" that Justice Strathy alluded to can be overcome
through shrewd legislative reforms.


* Pro-Business Supreme Court Rulings Have Long-Term Ramifications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court term just ended was good for business -- but
not, percentage-wise, as good as you might think.

The annual Mayer Brown analysis of the high court's business
docket shows that in the 25 cases last term that pitted a business
against an individual or government agency, business prevailed in
16 -- a 64 per cent win rate.  That compares with 86 per cent rate
of victory during the previous term, 48 per cent in 2010 and 62
per cent in 2009.

"This was plainly a good term for business interests," said Mayer
Brown partner Lauren Goldman, who prepared the report.  "But it is
hard to generalize.  You can't discern any pro-business bias.
They decide each case on its own merits."

Some of the business wins this past term were significant ones,
with long-term ramifications -- such as the pro-arbitration
American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant and Comcast v.
Behrend, a defeat for class actions, as well as two pro-employer
workplace discrimination cases, Vance v. Ball State University and
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. (Even
though both sides in the American Express case were businesses, it
was included in the tally because most business groups were on one
side.)

But some of the losses stung too, including FTC v. Actavis, which
strengthened the hand of the Federal Trade Commission in
investigating anticompetitive dealings in the pharmaceutical
industry, and City of Arlington v. FCC, a win for deference to
regulatory agencies.

Bolstering her view that the court is not ideologically slanted
toward business, Ms. Goldman noted that many of the business
decisions were unanimous or nearly so, and some were written by
justices viewed as liberal.  Justice Elena Kagan wrote the 9-0
decision in Bowman v. Monsanto, upholding seed patents, and
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for a unanimous court to restrict
class actions in Standard Fire Insurance v. Knowles.

She also asserted that many of the business cases last term did
not break ground, instead building on established precedents.
American Express was a sequel to AT&T v. Concepcion, Goldman
noted, and the Comcast ruling was a follow-up to Wal-Mart v.
Dukes.  And despite criticism from consumer groups and the
plaintiffs' bar, Goldman said the pro-business rulings won't
prevent plaintiffs from pursuing meritorious claims against
business.  Commentators often say the court's rulings "close the
courthouse doors" to plaintiffs, she said, but in fact the court
is "just enforcing the rules and precedents.  When plaintiffs seek
to circumvent the rules, they will be rebuffed."

The liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, which has
criticized what it sees as the court's pro-business slant, took a
dim view of Mayer Brown's tally.  Using a different filter -- the
win-loss record for cases in which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
participated -- the center came up with an 82 per cent win rate
for business.  It viewed the corporate wins as one of the "big
stories" of last term.

"Mayer Brown's report tries to argue that there is nothing to see
here in the court's business cases, but the facts belie this
argument," center president Doug Kendall said.  "By our count,
eight important business cases this term divided the Justices
along traditional ideological lines, and big business won -- and
individuals and small businesses lost -- every one of these
cases."

Among them were the two employment discrimination cases and
several others issued in the final weeks of the court term.
Mr. Kendall added, "While it's true that these rulings build upon
prior similarly controversial rulings, term by term, they
collectively move the law sharply in a business-friendly
direction, often over blistering dissents by the Court's
progressive justices."


                             *********

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, Valerie Udtuhan, 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  * * *