CAR_Public/130819.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 19, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 163

                             Headlines


1 PROSPECT PARK: Court Issues Memo on Assisted Living Industry
APPLE INC: May 2013 Damages Trial Set in E-Book Price-Fixing Suit
APPLICA CONSUMER: Renews Recall of Black & Decker Coffeemaker
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Homebuyers
BC HYDRO: Progress in Wireless Smart Meter Class Action Slow

BITINSTANT: Sued Over False Claims About Speed of Bitcoin Services
BLACK HILLS: Borrowers' Loan Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
BOEING CO: Faces Suit Over July 6 Asiana Airlines Crash
CHAR-BROIL LLC: Recalls Patio Bistro Gas Grills Due to Burn Hazard
CHICAGO, IL: Public Housing Residents Sue Over Annual Drug Tests

CITIMORTGAGE: Faces Suit Over Foreclosing Homes Across Country
CPT RICH SUEY: Court Denies Motions to Join "Bailey" Suit
DIRECTV INC: Order Compelling Arbitration With Best Buy Reversed
DIRECTV INC: Faces Class Action Over Violating Labor Laws
DUANE READE: Court Reconsiders Class Cert. Ruling in "Jacob" Suit

ECOTALITY INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
ELITE INT'L: Recalls Margaritaville Sweet French Style Dressing
ERNST & YOUNG: Court Okays Settlement in IndyMac Shareholders Suit
ERNST & YOUNG: District Court Ruling in "Sutherland" Suit Reversed
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Tosses Insider Trading Claims in IPO Suit

GADSDEN, AL: Wins Summary Judgment in Firefighters Suit
GAMESTOP CORP: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss CFA Class Action
GIANT BICYCLE: Recalls XtC Bicycles & Seatposts Over Fall Hazard
HOME DEPOT: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Chochorowski" Suit Upheld
IKEA: Recalls Junior Beds Due to Laceration Hazard

JP BODEN: Recalls Children's Sandals Due to Fall Hazard
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Inflation of Stock Price
MOLYCORP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
NEW YORK: "Buckley" Suit Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim
OCHSNER CLINIC: Sued Over Defective DePuy Hip Replacement

ORTHOFIX INT'L: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
PFIZER INC: Judge Refuses to Bar Evidence of Settlements
PHH CORP: Court Allows Villalon to Intervene in "Munoz" Suit
PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Endura and Ambient LED Bulbs
POLY PREP: Plaintiffs in Sex Abuse Suit Sue Outside Counsel

PRIMO WATER: N.C. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
SPECIALTY COMPOUNDING: Voluntarily Recalls Sterile Products
TIME WARNER: Faces Class Action Over Two-Week CBS Blackout
TRACFONE: Faces 2nd Suit Over False Claims of "Unlimited" Use
UNITED STATES: Class Action v. SEC Over Stanford Scheme Nixed

* FDA Examines Safety of Super-Caffeinated Beverages After Deaths


                             *********


1 PROSPECT PARK: Court Issues Memo on Assisted Living Industry
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein issued a memorandum and
order on the background of assisted living industry in preparation
for argument on motion for summary judgment and class
certification in BOYKIN v. 1 PROSPECT PARK ALF, LLC.

The memorandum and order was issued to assist the parties in
briefing and arguing motions for summary judgment and for
certification of the proposed class action.

The case is SAMUEL BOYKIN, as administrator of the Estate of JOHN
L. PHILLIPS, and MELVIN DOZIER and KEVIN DOZIER, as Co-Guardians
of IRENE DOZIER, an Incapacitated Person, and MELVIN DOZIER and
KEVIN DOZIER, and GEORGIA LEWIS as administrator of the Estate of
MARY JOAN BARNETT, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 1 PROSPECT PARK ALF, LLC,
PROSPECT PARK RESIDENCE HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., PROSPECT PARK
RESIDENCE LLC, KOHL ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., and KOHL PARTNERS, LLC
Defendants, NO. 12-CV-6243, (E.D.N.Y.)

A copy of the District Court's August 8, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/A6ZAP1from Leagle.com.

Hunter Jay Shkolnik, Adam Julien Gana, Christopher L. Lufrano,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, New York, NY.

Dennis Kelly, John O'Hara, Glen Head, NY, For Plaintiffs.
Joel A. Drucker, Randolph, NJ.

Luigi Spadafora -- Spadafora.L@wssllp.com -- Kenneth A. McLellan
-- McLellan.K@wssllp.com -- Keith Robert, Martin Roussel Winget,
Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP, New York, NY. for Defendants.


APPLE INC: May 2013 Damages Trial Set in E-Book Price-Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Bray, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
trial has been set for next May to determine potential monetary
damages against Apple Inc. after a federal judge found last month
that the technology company colluded with publishers to drive up
the price of electronic books.

In court papers earlier last week, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote
in Manhattan set a May 2014 jury trial to determine damages in a
lawsuit brought by 33 state attorneys general, who are seeking to
recover money on behalf of consumers who paid higher prices for
e-books.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which brought a separate antitrust
lawsuit against Apple, separately has asked the judge to give the
U.S. government broad oversight of products distributed by Apple's
iTunes Store and App Store beyond e-books, including the sale of
music and television shows.  Five major U.S. publishers, who
settled with the Justice Department and the states, have objected
to the U.S. proposal, saying it would effectively alter their
existing settlements with the U.S. government.

Apple and the Justice Department declined to comment.

"We are pleased to be moving forward to determine the amount of
damages that Apple must pay to consumers for its violation of
antitrust law," said Jaclyn Falkowski, a spokeswoman for
Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, whose office is
helping lead the litigation.

In July, Judge Cote found that the evidence at trial was clear
that Apple, despite its claims that it negotiated fiercely and
separately with each publisher in 2010, was at the center of the
conspiracy.  The trial centered on the discussions that led Apple
to adopt a so-called agency model, in which the publishers, rather
than Apple, set the retail price for books.  Apple has said it
plans to appeal.

As part of its deals with the publishers, Apple received a 30%
commission on each book sold and the publishers had to match the
price of Amazon or other competitors if the competitor's price was
lower.  The Justice Department alleged that the prices for best
sellers and new releases rose from $9.99 to between $12.99 and
$14.99 as a result.

As part of its proposed remedies, the Justice Department said
Apple should be prevented for five years from entering new e-book
distribution contracts that would restrain Apple from competing on
price.

At a recent hearing, the judge suggested that she was considering
preventing Apple from negotiating with more than one publisher at
once as part of any remedies she would impose on the technology
company.


APPLICA CONSUMER: Renews Recall of Black & Decker Coffeemaker
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Applica Consumer Products Inc. of Miramar, Fla., announced a
voluntary recall of about 641; (159,000 units were recalled in
June 2012) Black & Decker Spacemaker 12-Cup Programmable Under-
the-Cabinet Coffeemakers.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The coffee pot handle can break, causing cuts and burns to the
consumer.

The firm has received more than 1,607 reports of handles breaking,
including more than 83 reports of burns and/or cuts.

The recalled coffee maker is designed to mount under a cabinet.
It is available in white or black and has the words "BLACK &
DECKER SPACEMAKER" printed in the top right-hand corner of the
product.  The coffeemakers have a digital time display in the top
left corner and five round buttons above the water reservoir for
programming.  The 12-cup coffee pots are glass with a molded
handle the same color as the machine and a silver metallic bracket
running around the glass near the bottom.  The model number is
printed on the underside of the coffeemaker, directly below the
water reservoir.  Model number SDC 740 was previously recalled
with other eight models in 2012.  After the recall announcement,
an additional 641 units continued to be sold.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at True
Value Hardware Stores nationwide from July 2008 to June 2013 for
about $50 to $80.

Consumers should immediately stop using the coffeemakers and
contact Applica for a full refund of the under-the-counter
coffeemaker.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Homebuyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of America continues to
defraud homebuyers under the federal HAMP program, in defiance of
court orders, a RICO class action claims in Federal Court.


BC HYDRO: Progress in Wireless Smart Meter Class Action Slow
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Nagel, writing for Peace Arch News, reports that opponents of
BC Hydro's wireless smart meters are scrambling to quickly
assemble enough people willing to be part of a planned class-
action lawsuit they hope delivers a permanent opt-out from the
program.

Victoria resident Sharon Noble, with the group Citizens for Safe
Technology, said success in convincing a judge to certify the
class action may hinge on how many people take part.

She estimated on Aug. 14 that 100 to 150 people are registered --
a start she called slow -- but added hundreds more sign-ups are
likely in progress.

Given the number of people who have blocked smart meter
installation or had one installed against their wishes, she said,
it would be surprising if thousands don't join the lawsuit.

"The courts would be very influenced by having a large number,"
Ms. Noble said, adding a judge could soon begin considering
whether to certify the class action.

"The more people we have signed on by then, the more likely the
courts would look on this as being a very significant movement, as
opposed to a movement of a handful."

About 60,000 households have refused smart meters or less than
four per cent of all BC Hydro customers.

BC Hydro has not yet issued its response to the claim filed
July 25 on behalf of representative plaintiff Nomi Davis.

It demands free choice "without extortive fees, coercion or
conditions designed to intimidate."

Registering with the lawsuit costs C$100.

The provincial government has indicated those who still have
analog power meters they want to keep will be able to pay around
$20 a month extra to continue manual meter readings.

Opponents aren't happy with the fees or Hydro indications that
smart meters may still replace analog ones as they break down.

They also say those with smart meters should have the ability to
turn off wireless transmissions.

"The opt-out option that Hydro is offering needs to be a
legitimate one," White Rock resident Linda Ewart said.  "What they
need to say is 'If you don't want one of these meters, you don't
need to have them.'"

Another concern over choice is what happens when someone moves to
a new home and a smart meter is already installed.

Many objectors claim health concerns or sensitivity to radio-
frequency waves, even though third-party tests have found
emissions from smart meters are low compared to other sources.

BC Hydro officials say the lead plaintiff's analog meter was
broken and had to be replaced for safety reasons.

"BC Hydro will work through the judicial process to explain why we
are obligated to replace a customer's meter when there is
potential for a safety hazard," said Greg Reimer, executive vice-
president of transmission and distribution, in a statement.

He said both the B.C. Court of Appeal and B.C. Utilities
Commission have previously dismissed smart meter legal challenges
and that Hydro has "acted at all times within the law."


BITINSTANT: Sued Over False Claims About Speed of Bitcoin Services
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Spaven, writing for CoinDesk, reports that three bitcoiners
have filed a class action lawsuit against BitInstant claiming the
company misled them with false representations about its services.

The class action complaint was received by BitInstant on July 8th,
shortly before the company's website closed for maintenance.

Plaintiffs Leandro Icono, Deborah Collins and Ulysses McGhee are
being represented by Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart LLP in
their assertions that BitInstant made false claims about the speed
of its service and the refund of fees.

The class action complaint states:

"BitInstant purports to provide a means to rapidly pay funds to
bitcoin exchanges far faster than other bitcoin processing
services.  In fact, BitInstant claims that customers can receive
'coins within an hour or two'.  Those representations are
disingenuous.

BitInstant also promises that it will refund its fees to customers
who experience undue delays in the processing of their
transactions.  Those representations are also disingenuous."

Bitcoin traders Charlie Shrem and Gareth Nelson founded the New
York City-based company in 2011, but it was earlier this year that
it raised $1.5 million in a seed funding round led by Winklevoss
Capital -- a tech investment company owned by Cameron and
Tyler Winklevoss.

At the time of the investment, Cameron Winklevoss told TechCrunch:
"One of the most exciting things about people who are into Bitcoin
is that they're a really passionate community, and Charlie is a
passionate entrepreneur.  He would be in that category of someone
who lives, breathes, and sleeps Bitcoin."

There are mixed reviews of BitInstant on bitcointalk.org and
Reddit, with some users reporting long delays in transactions or
missing funds, but others praising the company for the speed of
their payment processing.

Last month, bitcointalk.org forum member RoadTrain said: "They
held my $300 I sent in 2 transactions for 2 weeks.  Recently I got
the first $200 to bitstamp.  They charged fees though somewhere I
heard that they don't charge fees when the payment is delayed.
Now I am waiting for the remaning (sic) $100 but not getting any
replies."

Reddit user montseayo had a more positive experience: "My cash
directly to Bitcoin wallet transaction for $50 USD went through
almost instantly.  Had a couple of confirmations within 20
minutes."

Charlie Shrem told CoinDesk: "We have not had a chance to review
the [class action] complaint with our lawyers, so we can't comment
on its details.

"As everyone in the bitcoin community knows, though, we're
dedicated to doing right by all of our customers and are surprised
to learn that any have unresolved support issues.  We are
committed to demonstrating that to the bitcoin community every
day."

BitInstant has been in the news already this week after it was
reported to have received a subpoena from the New York Department
of Financial Services requesting information about the way in
which it operates.


BLACK HILLS: Borrowers' Loan Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chet Brokaw, writing for Associated Press, reports that a Rapid
City couple's lawsuit alleging a credit union and an insurance
company improperly raised the rates for insurance that covers loan
payments if borrowers become disabled can be handled as a class
action, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled on Aug. 15.

A trial judge had ruled the lawsuit against the Black Hills
Federal Credit Union of Rapid City and CUNA Mutual Insurance
Society could not be handled as a class action, but the state's
high court said there's no evidence that handling the dispute as a
class action would harm the interests of the other borrowers.
Issues related to whether borrowers waited too long to sue also
can be handled in a class action, the justices said.

A lawyer for the couple bringing the lawsuit has argued that the
case should be handled as a class action because it would be
impractical for 4,461 borrowers to file individual lawsuits.
Attorneys for the credit union and insurance company have
contended that the dispute cannot be tried as a class action
because each borrower would have to testify about whether each had
waited too long to sue.

The lawsuit alleges that the credit union and insurance company
improperly changed the terms and rates for disability insurance
without giving borrowers sufficient notice.

Rapid City lawyer James Leach, who's representing Ed and Kathy
Thurman, the couple who filed the lawsuit, said on Aug. 15 he
believes more than 4,000 borrowers were cheated by the credit
union and insurance company.

"It's appropriate that this can proceed as a class action so they
can recover their losses," Mr. Leach said.

Lawyers for the credit union and insurance company did not
immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

Court documents indicate that people who borrowed money and bought
the disability insurance before July 1, 1999, had been told they
would be notified before any premium rate was increased.  The
lawsuit alleges a quarterly advertising newsletter sent to credit
union members contained a notice that said the insurance terms
would change and premium rates would increase on July 1, 1999, but
the suit says few people would be able to understand that the
change would double the amount they would pay for the insurance.

The Thurmans discovered the change in 2009 when they decided to
pay off their home equity loan early, but learned they owed more
than $10,000 instead of $4,260, according to court documents.
Their monthly payment had not changed, but the loan was being paid
off more slowly because more of the payment was going to insurance
rather than the loan principal.

The state Division of Insurance told CUNA it had acted illegally
because the newsletter notice did not comply with requirements.
The division then asked the insurance company to waive the extra
amount owed by the Thurmans, but the Thurmans instead filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of other borrowers.

Court documents indicate credit union officials were surprised
when they discovered the insurance change had substantially
increased the amount borrowers had to pay over the life of their
loans.

The credit union and the insurance company argue that the
borrowers waited too long to sue because state law requires such
claims to be made within six years of an alleged wrong.  The
borrowers contend they can still sue because they have six years
to file after they discovered the wrong.

Circuit Judge Robert Mandel ruled the case could not be handled as
a class action because potential differences in the facts of each
borrower's case could create conflicts of interest.  But the state
Supreme Court said Mandel failed to identify those potential
conflicts or explain why such conflicts exist.

The justices said the case can proceed as a class action because
there is no evidence that possible differences in the borrowers'
cases would result in the Thurmans' failing to protect the
interests of other borrowers.

The alleged notice of the insurance change was given to each
borrower through common methods, so the question of when borrowers
got actual notice of the change can be handled in one trial, the
high court said.


BOEING CO: Faces Suit Over July 6 Asiana Airlines Crash
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the first lawsuits have been filed against The Boeing Co.,
manufacturer of the Asiana Airlines jet that crashed on July 6
while landing at San Francisco International Airport.

The first two lawsuits brought over the crash, which killed three
passengers and injured about 180 others, were filed against Asiana
Airlines Inc. in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of three
passengers of Flight 214.  Residents of the United States, and
foreign passengers who purchase their tickets in the United States
or whose final destination is the United States, are entitled to
damages against Asiana, based in South Korea, under an
international treaty called the 1999 Montreal Convention.  Each of
the suits, filed by Bowles & Verna in Walnut Creek, Calif., seeks
$5 million.

This month, Boeing became the defendant in three additional
lawsuits filed in federal court in San Francisco by Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy of Burlingame, Calif.  In those suits, 10 injured
passengers, all U.S. residents, allege Asiana failed to properly
train the pilots of Flight 214.  The suits also allege that
Boeing, as the manufacturer of the 777 commercial airliner, is
liable for a defective auto throttle control system, on which the
pilots relied, and ineffective warnings that failed to alert the
pilots as the aircraft's speed slowed just before landing.

"This crash and its aftermath should never have occurred," wrote
Frank Pitre -- fpitre@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett Pitre, who filed
the federal actions.  "It was a by-product of reckless inattention
by the Asiana pilots in combination with dangerous shortcomings
with auto flight modes and low airspeed warning systems
incorporated into the Boeing aircraft."

Mr. Pitre and Boeing spokesman John Dern did not return calls for
comment.

Another suit, by Chicago's Ribbeck Law Chartered in Cook County,
Ill., Circuit Court, was filed this month against Boeing on behalf
of an unnamed passenger from Pinole, Calif.

Flight 214 carried 291 passengers and 16 crew members, most of
whom are residents of China or South Korea.  The cause remains
under investigation, but initial findings by the U.S. National
Transportation Safety Board indicated that the plane was coming in
too slowly and crashed after clipping a sea wall.  Plaintiffs'
lawyers, recognizing that most foreign passengers would be unable
to sue Asiana in U.S. courts under the Montreal Convention, have
zeroed in on potential liability against Boeing, which is based in
Chicago.  The venue is important because U.S. courts offer
significantly higher damages awards than do overseas
jurisdictions.

Cotchett Pitre's suits describe the crash as a "horrific,
unforgettable nightmare" that "tossed and bounced the passengers
like rag dolls."

"In a matter of seconds, what should have been a routine landing
turned into a chamber of horrors for the unsuspecting passengers,"
Mr. Pitre wrote.

The suits cite past crashes involving Asiana and Boeing, noting
that for the past decade the NTSB has urged the U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration to require aircraft manufacturers to
install certain airspeed warning systems, the suits say.

In addition to the auto throttle control system and warning
defects, the federal actions assert that Boeing failed to
adequately train the pilots under its 2002 contract with Asiana.
Furthermore, passenger injuries would have been fewer and less
severe had the aircraft installed shoulder and lap belts in all
seats, not just for those in business and first class.

The suit in Illinois, filed on August 5, makes similar allegations
against Boeing, plus additional claims that the aircraft's
emergency oxygen system and the evacuation slides were improperly
designed.

Ribbeck Law, which filed a petition for discovery on July 15
against Boeing on behalf of 30 passengers, claims that it plans to
add Asiana Airlines as a defendant in the case and seek $1.2
billion in damages -- about half of Asiana's insurance coverage,
primarily provided by American International Group Inc.  "We will
request that the Court order AIG to tender the policy immediately
to pay our clients' damages," Kelly said in a press release.

In one of the suits filed against Asiana last month, on behalf of
a Korean citizen with U.S. residency and her 8-year-old son, both
passengers on the plane, Asiana has denied the allegations.  The
airline asserted that the plaintiffs' damages were due to their
own "negligence or other wrongful acts or omissions," or the
"wrongful acts or omissions of a third party."

"The incident alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, and the damages
Plaintiffs allege they sustained as a result of the incident, if
occasioned by fault, are attributable to the conduct of third
persons or entities that Asiana had no control over at any time
relevant hereto," Asiana attorney Frank Silane --
fsilane@condonlaw.com -- a partner in the Los Angeles office of
New York's Condon & Forsyth, wrote in an August 9 filing.


CHAR-BROIL LLC: Recalls Patio Bistro Gas Grills Due to Burn Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Char-Broil, LLC, of Columbus, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 69,300 in the U.S. and 1,900 in Canada Char-Broil Gas Patio
Bistro Grills.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The electronic ignition on the grill can ignite unexpectedly,
posing a burn hazard.

Char-Broil has received 26 reports of the burner flame going out
and then unexpectedly reigniting when the consumer turned the
control knob to "OFF."  The 26 reports include four reports of
burns, including one with burns to the nose, chin and hair, and
seven other reports of "burned" or "singed" hair.

The recall involves two Char-Broil(R) Gas Patio Bistro(R) Grills:
the model 240 Full Size grill and the model 180 Table Top grill.
Both are single-burner propane gas grills equipped with a battery-
operated integrated electronic ignition and intended only for
outdoor use.  The grills have round black bodies with
silver/aluminum trim.  The words "Char-Broil" and "Patio Bistro"
are printed near the thermometer on the grill's lid and near the
control knob on the front of the grill.  The grills have a rating
label on the bottom support on the back of the unit that states
"Char-Broil, LLC," the model number and other information.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Hardware stores and other retailers nationwide, including Ace
Hardware, Home Depot, Sears, Target, True Value and online from
Amazon.com from September 2010 to June 2013 for about for about
$175 for the full size grill and $135 for the table top grill.

Consumers should immediately stop using the grills and contact
Char-Broil for instructions on how to order and install a free
repair kit.


CHICAGO, IL: Public Housing Residents Sue Over Annual Drug Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tarm, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
policy forcing residents in Chicago's public housing developments
to submit to annual drug tests violates privacy and other
constitutional rights, according to a class-action lawsuit filed
on Aug. 15 that seeks a court order halting the practice, which
critics say is rare nationally.

The ACLU filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Chicago on
behalf of Joseph Peery, a 58-year-old resident of the Parkside of
Old Town development.  He doesn't use drugs, but says having to
urinate into a cup once a year to renew his lease is degrading.

"He finds it humiliating and invasive, and it makes him feel
stigmatized as a presumptive criminal and drug user," the lawsuit
says.  Mr. Peery has passed all four tests he has taken, it adds,
and submits to them because he could be evicted if he refuses.

The development is in an area once known as Cabrini Green, a
violence-plagued project that was a national symbol of failed
public housing in the '80s and '90s.  In a city plan to improve
living conditions, authorities demolished Cabrini Green, replacing
it with smaller units catering to low- and middle income families.

The lawsuit names the Chicago Housing Authority, or CHA, which
provides public housing for more than 50,000 low-income Chicago
residents.  ACLU Chicago spokesman Ed Yohnka says it's one of the
only public housing agencies in the nation to require such tests
as a condition of qualifying for or renewing a lease.

"It is very rare," Mr. Yohnka said.  "We are not aware of any
other agency anywhere in the country requiring this."

CHA spokeswoman Wendy Parks released a three-sentence statement in
response, saying only that public house tenants are required to
"follow property rules."  Reached later by phone, she declined to
comment on why the rules are in place or what the objectives of
the policy might be.

Residents of some public housing developments in Chicago are not
subject to drugs tests, and Mr. Yohnka says it is not clear what
criteria the agency employees to decide which ones are.

Mr. Yohnka also challenged the notion such testing might be a
legitimate tool to minimize risks of crime, saying law enforcement
operations targeting drug dealers or street gangs was the proper
approach.  He also argued that singling out lower income residents
was not only unconstitutional, but also unfair and of no practical
value.

"Whether to qualify for a mortgage subsidies or a tax deduction,
you don't have to take a urine test for that," Mr. Yohnka said.
"And people use drugs across race and demographics, so there's
just no rational basis for this invasive policy."


CITIMORTGAGE: Faces Suit Over Foreclosing Homes Across Country
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CitiMortgage foreclosed on
homes across the country while the homebuyers "were protected from
such actions by bankruptcy stays ordered by federal bankruptcy
judges," a woman claims in a federal class action.


CPT RICH SUEY: Court Denies Motions to Join "Bailey" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge C. W. Hoffman, Jr. denied a motion for
reconsideration filed by non-Party Andre King-Hardiman in BAILEY
v. SUEY.

Mr. King-Hardiman claims a prior Court order granting the
Defendants' motion to strike was clearly erroneous because he
suffers from the same allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions
as the Plaintiff in this case and has an interest in this case. As
noted in the prior order, this is not a class action. Indeed, the
motion for class certification was denied.

According to Judge Hoffman, contrary to Mr. King-Hardiman's
position, he has not been denied access to the court or precluded
from raising his claims. He has simply been precluded from joining
the case. As stated in the prior order, if Mr. King-Hardiman
wishes to file suit based on the inadequacy of conditions related
to his confinement, he must do so separately and in full
compliance with applicable statutes and rules, he added.

In a separate matter, Judge Hoffman entered a similar order
denying non-Party Jerome A. Sears Motion for Joinder.  Mr. Sears,
identifying himself as a member of the class and an interested
party in this matter, seeks to join this case.

Judge Hoffman pointed out that this is not a class action. "If Mr.
Sears wishes to file suit regarding the conditions of his
confinement, he must do so separately and in compliance with all
applicable statutes and rules," he said.

The case is ANTHONY BAILEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CPT. RICH SUEY,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-01954-JCM-CWH, (D. Nev.)

Copies of the District Court's August 7, 2013 Orders are available
at http://is.gd/77PymEand http://is.gd/BgOJslfrom Leagle.com.

Anthony Bailey, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

John Scott, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Norman Belcher, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Gabriel Yates, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cpt. Rich Suey, Defendant, represented by Thomas D Dillard --
tdillard@ocgas.com -- at Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo &
Stoberski.

Lt. Flippo, Defendant, represented by Thomas D Dillard, Olson,
Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski.

Lt. Kelso, Defendant, represented by Thomas D Dillard, Olson,
Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski.

Sgt. Aspiazu, Defendant, represented by Thomas D Dillard, Olson,
Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski.


DIRECTV INC: Order Compelling Arbitration With Best Buy Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an
opinion in JOHN MURPHY; GREG MASTERS; ROBERTA WEISS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. DIRECTV, INC.; DIRECTV MERCHANDISING, INC.; DIRECTV
ENTERPRISES, LLC; DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC; THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.;
BEST BUY STORES, L.P., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 11-57163.

This putative consumer class action, filed before AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), was decided, but pending in the
district court when Concepcion issued, charges satellite
television provider DirecTV and electronic retailer Best Buy with
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law  and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

The Ninth Circuit was tasked to decide whether Concepcion applies
to the unique arbitration clause in the customer service agreement
between DirecTV and individuals who believed they purchased
DirecTV equipment from Best Buy stores and, if so, whether Best
Buy, which is not a party to that agreement, is entitled to the
benefit of the arbitration clause. The district court compelled
arbitration of all claims against DirecTV and Best Buy.

In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court held that
Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the State of
California's rule rendering unenforceable -- as unconscionable --
arbitration provisions in consumer contracts that waive collective
or class action proceedings, reasoning that "[r]equiring the
availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental
attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent
with the FAA."

The Ninth Circuit held that fundamentally, its task in cases like
this is to "ensur[e] that private arbitration agreements are
enforced according to their terms."  The Ninth Circuit pointed out
that the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims against
DirecTV. They did not agree to arbitrate their claims against Best
Buy.  Notwithstanding the parties' many imaginative legal
arguments, in this case they remain bound by the agreements they
made and not by any they did not make, said the Court.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order
compelling Plaintiffs to arbitrate with DirecTV, and reversed its
order compelling them to arbitrate with Best Buy.

A copy of the Circuit Court's July 30, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/u7KG7kfrom Leagle.com.

F. Paul Bland, Jr. -- pbland@publicjustice.net -- (argued), at
Public Justice, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Leslie A. Bailey --
lbailey@publicjustice.net -- at Public Justice, P.C., Oakland,
California; Robert S. Green -- rsg@classcounsel.com -- at Green &
Noblin, P.C., San Francisco, California; and Michael R. Reese --
mreese@reeserichman.com -- at Reese Richman LLP, New York, New
York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Melissa D. Ingalls -- melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com (argued), Robyn
E. Bladow -- rbladow@kirkland.com -- and Shaun Paisley --
shaun.paisley@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los
Angeles, California, for Defendants-Appellees DirecTV, Inc.,
DirecTV Merchandising, Inc., DirecTV Enterprises, LLC, DirecTV
Holdings LLC, and The DirecTV Group, Inc.

Roman M. Silberfeld -- rmsilberfeld@rkmc.com -- (argued), Michael
A. Geibelson -- mageibelson@rkmc.com -- and Rebecka M. Biejo, at
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, Los Angeles, California, for
Defendant-Appellee Best Buy Stores, L.P.


DIRECTV INC: Faces Class Action Over Violating Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that DirecTV stiffs its
technicians and installers for overtime and violates other labor
laws, a class action claims in Superior Court.


DUANE READE: Court Reconsiders Class Cert. Ruling in "Jacob" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Paul Oetken granted, in part, and denied, in
part, a motion for reconsideration seeking to decertify the class
in JACOB v. DUANE READE, INC.

Plaintiffs brought claims against Duane Reade, Inc. and Duane
Reade Holdings (DR), asserting that DR failed to compensate its
assistant store managers (ASMs) for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law Sections
650 et seq.  On March 20, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, certifying Plaintiffs as a class
with regard to their NYLL claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and appointing Outten & Golden, LLP, Klafter Olsen &
Lesser, and Gottlieb & Associates as class counsel.  DR filed a
motion for reconsideration, which seeks to decertify the class in
light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Comcast v.
Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013).

Judge Oetken ruled that Plaintiffs' class remains certified as to
liability, but is decertified for damages purposes, in light of
the need for individualized proof necessary to determine monies
potentially owed each ASM.

The case is MANI JACOB et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DUANE READE, INC. and
DUANE READE HOLDINGS INC., Defendants, NO. 11 CIV. 160 (JPO),
(S.D.N.Y.).

A copy of the District Court's August 8, 2013 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/wOcJADfrom Leagle.com.

Mani Jacob, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T Klein --
atk@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP, Justin Mitchell
Swartz, Outten & Golden, LLP, Lewis M. Steel --
ls@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP, Michael John Palitz,
Klafter, Olsen & Lesser, LLP, Michael Joseph Scimone, Outten &
Golden, LLP, Molly Anne Brooks, Outten & Golden, LLP, Paul W.
Mollica -- pwmollica@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP,
Rachel Aghassi, Klafter Olsen & Lesser, Rachel Megan Bien --
rmb@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP, Sally Jasmine
Abrahamson, Outten & Golden & Sandra Elizabeth Pullman --
spullman@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP.

Lesleena Mars, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T Klein, Outten &
Golden, LLP, Fran L. Rudich, Klafter, Olsen & Lesser, LLP, Mark W.
Gaffney, Mark Gaffney, Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP, Seth Richard Lesser, Klafter, Olsen & Lesser, LLP,
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Gottlieb & Associates, Jeffrey Michael
Gottlieb, Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq., Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP, Molly Anne Brooks, Outten & Golden, LLP,
Rachel Aghassi, Klafter Olsen & Lesser, Rachel Megan Bien, Outten
& Golden, LLP, Sally Jasmine Abrahamson, Outten & Golden & Sandra
Elizabeth Pullman, Outten & Golden, LLP.

Ousmane Diop, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Forbes M. Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Sanjeev Farid, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Hanna Saddik, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Fitzroy Beresford, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell
Swartz, Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen
& Lesser, LLP.

Laurel R. DeMarco, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell
Swartz, Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen
& Lesser, LLP.

Mohammed Solaiman, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell
Swartz, Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen
& Lesser, LLP.

Habibul Islam, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Kumar Bharat, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Usha B. Mehta, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Ali Nassereddin, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Carlos Echevarria, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell
Swartz, Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen
& Lesser, LLP.

Manuel M. Mendez, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell
Swartz, Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen
& Lesser, LLP.

Golam Faruk, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Carmen Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John Palitz, Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Scott Mallahan, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Jonathan Cody, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks --
mbrooks@outtengolden.com -- at Outten & Golden, LLP.

Janice Baez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Sherri Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Larry Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Taneka Clayborn, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Lawrence Daggett, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Carol Denizard, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Sally Eagle, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Azucena E. Estribor, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Gary Fearon, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Cindy Gonzales, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

William K. Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Richard Guerrero, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Shavonese T. Gunter, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Elroy S. Ham, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Raymond Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Bertrand Hospedales, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Noel Ithier, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Saumitra R. Ivan, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Lashante James, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Mario Jarrett, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Marie C. Joseph, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Tatiana Lake, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Leslie-Ann Lawrence, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Maria I. Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Robin Marcano, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Linda E. Napolitano, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Myriam G. Pierre-Louis, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne
Brooks, Outten & Golden, LLP.

William E. Purvis, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne
Brooks, Outten & Golden, LLP.

Antoine Ramsey, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Abul K. Rashid, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

William Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Rosa Rosario, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Michael J. Rowman, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Theodor Sarantidis, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Noman Siddque, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Fatima Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Andy R. Soondarlal, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Jason Soto, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Tyrone Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Kiomnara Vazquez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Allen M. Vuchetich, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Lizabeth Webster, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Devon Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Lukasz Zurawski, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

William J. Randolph, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Nizamuddin Ahmed, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Randolph Arias, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Mark Ban, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Charles Barikdar, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Ali A. Chowdhury, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Alphonse Conner, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Esther Crooks, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Elijah Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Jacques A. Diouf, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Marques Edwards, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Markel Faison, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Francesca Farin, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Cleasin Frederique, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Angelo Gambale, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Geoffrey M. Gaynor, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Abraham Hamid, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Precious L. Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Sandeep Kaur, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Aldorida Kera, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Elizabeth Loren, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Alexandra Maruri, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Thomas McCallum, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Ari D. McCarthy, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Patricia McGill, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Silvia Medina, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Prabir K. Mukhopadhyay, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne
Brooks, Outten & Golden, LLP.

Joshua M. Namisnak, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Oleg Pavlov, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Ramanan J. Ramdath, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Dane O. Ramsay, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Barbary Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Dawn Steele, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Jose A. Strong, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Robert J. Tronolone, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Azad M. Usman, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Shireene M. Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Antonio F. Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Jennifer Caliolo, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Otis Canton, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Francisco Carrasco, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Roman Chernyak, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Nicole K. Collins, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Sherley Darius, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Samnarine Darsan, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Jannette B. DeJesus, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Oumar Diamanka, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Sean W. Dolan, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Matthew N. Excell, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Raymund A. Flore Binas, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne
Brooks, Outten & Golden, LLP.

Trevis George, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Hany F. Georgy, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Gavin Gerald, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Amanda Grant, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Craig Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Gloria Grimes, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Bertilue A. Grullon, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Oscar Guadron, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Marc Hilaire, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Neil Hurlock, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Lionell G. Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Allistier Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Kassabagnin Kossi, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Jimmy Char-Min Lau, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Kam Leung Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Roxanne Lescio, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Tiffany M. Marcano, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

AKM Rezaul Masud, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Rose Mary Medina, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Emmanuel Nina, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Sophie Nisbett, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

John R. Parry, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Gina Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Ashley Persaud, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Indra Rajasingam, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Ana E. Ramos-Ferradgi, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne
Brooks, Outten & Golden, LLP.

Amin E. Ramzan, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Mohammad S. Rana, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Jason E. Rigelon, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Marvin E. San Nicolas, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne
Brooks, Outten & Golden, LLP.

Christopher Schultze, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Douglas C. Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Tessa M. Simmons, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Yervant Taghalian, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Judith E. Tejada, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Patricia E. Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Mario Vigorito, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Latasha Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

George Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Juan Acosta, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Gloria Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Jonathan Castro, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Manica Chattergoon, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Mirza A. Ehsan, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Thomas J. Letizia, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Kevin Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Babacar Loum, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Malik Manning, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Kinda McEachern, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Mohammed Nasir, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Laura Nunez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Tania Polanco, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Laneshia B. Pryor, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Monica Rajcoomari, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Umer M. Rana, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Edwards A. Randy, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Mahmoud Shehata, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Shaun M. Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Evelyn Aguilar, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Denise Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Juan J. Bouwer, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Denise Bridges, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Lucinda W. Briggs, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Jonathan Cedeno, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Maria F. Chiarappa, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Herman Chpatchev, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Teresa Colamussi, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Shakeena Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Jennifer De Jesus, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Nicole DePoalo, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Phillip M. Howland, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Terry R. Ifill, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Shawnice N. Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Gautam Kumar, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Oliver R. Laureano, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Cory Littles, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Benjamin Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Robert W. Neuner, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Nicole S. Penado, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Md. Bazlur Rahman, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Mohammed M. Rahman, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Deivy Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Robert Russo, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Michael J. Sowers, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Benjamin Tetteyfio, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Xiao Di Zhang, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Carolyn D. Alcindor, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Michal Dowal, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Xavier Gilbert, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

James Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Saul Ramos Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Elaine Tyler, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Eric Baez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Howard L. Baucom, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Pratik Bhattacharya, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Hang H. Fong, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Camilo A. Jimenez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Ilette E. Joseph, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Jessica Kudrna, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Edgardo Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Richard Luke, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Djuana Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Tasleema Saleem, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Nathan Jackman, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Alton D. Calhoun, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Christopher Clarke, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Carlos Del Valle Correa, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne
Brooks, Outten & Golden, LLP.

Betty E. Lashley, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Lawrence T. Loadholt, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Jerry L. Long, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Alejandro Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Hanif Mahammad, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Sarwar J. Mostafa, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Diana P. Olavarria, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Daniel A. Orellana, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Pablo Ortega, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Upton Pryce, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Ryan N. Riccio, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Erick Sassone, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Brian Tluczek, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Zobeida Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Kevin Tsai, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Stephan Young, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Wayne Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Amanda L. Dominicci, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Michael P. Dunning, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Carnel C. Graham, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Desiree Guzman, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Michael A. Joseph, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Alec G. Katsnelson, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Ifty Khan, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Rossi Maharajh, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Algelica Martial, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Bhabatosh Kumar Mitra, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne
Brooks, Outten & Golden, LLP.

Leah Outlaw, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Rishiram Parmesar, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Noelia Peralta, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Farhad Rashid, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Jorge Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten
& Golden, LLP.

Marc Roy, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks, Outten &
Golden, LLP.

Louis J. Scagnelli, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Shakiea L. Stanley, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Amaari Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Vishwanand M. Apana, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Marisol Collazo, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Mariama Diagouraga, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Odetta Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Anne Brooks,
Outten & Golden, LLP.

Darnell Forde, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz --
jms@outtengolden.com -- at Outten & Golden, LLP & Michael John
Palitz -- mpalitz@klafterolsen.com -- at Klafter, Olsen & Lesser,
LLP.

Duane Reade, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Robert Benson
-- Cbenson@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C., Christine
Lee Hogan -- clhogan@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Stephen Andrew Fuchs -- sfuchs@littler.com -- at Littler
Mendelson, P.C..

Duane Reade Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Robert
Benson, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Christine Lee Hogan, Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Stephen Andrew Fuchs, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Walgreen Co., Defendant, represented by Craig Robert Benson,
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Christine Lee Hogan, Littler Mendelson,
P.C. & Stephen Andrew Fuchs, Littler Mendelson, P.C..


ECOTALITY INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 15 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
ECOtality, Inc. common stock during the period between April 16,
2013 and August 9, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 15, 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/ecotality/

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 ECOtality and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
ECOtality is an electric transportation and storage technologies
company that sells electric vehicle ("EV") supply equipment (or
"EVSE") through its customer-facing brand of smart EV chargers,
Blink.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and future prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants concealed the following material adverse
facts from the investing public during the Class Period: (a) due
to design and manufacturing defects, some of ECOtality's charging
systems had been causing overheating and even the melting of
connector plugs when charging vehicles; (b) despite efforts
undertaken to transition the Company's business model from
subsidizing installations of EVSEs under the Department of
Energy's ("DOE") EV Project to regular commercial sales and
installations, ECOtality was not achieving enough commercial sales
and installations to sustain operations in the second half of
2013; (c) due to "unacceptable performance shortfalls during
prototype verification testing," ECOtality was not on track to
meet the scheduled release of a new Minit Charger product for
industrial customers in the second half of 2013; (d) due to would-
be potential investors' unwillingness to provide additionally
needed financing, ECOtality was unable to obtain the requisite
financing to meet its short-term and long-term capital needs and
would be unable to meet its obligations to the DOE's EV Project
and the DOE would suspend all payments to the Company; and (e) due
to non-compliance with the nation's labor laws, the Company was
liable to the U.S. Department of Labor for $855,000 for the
payment of back wages and damages.

On August 12, 2013, before the opening of trading, ECOtality
announced that the Company had hired a "restructuring" adviser to
evaluate options, including new financing, a possible sale of the
Company or bankruptcy filing.  The Company's Current Report filed
with the SEC on Form 8-K that day emphasized, in pertinent part,
that a bankruptcy filing could be made "in the very near future"
following, among other things, disappointing sales and suspension
of payments from the federal government.  On this news, the price
of ECOtality common stock, which had traded as high as $2.40 per
share in intraday trading during the Class Period, plummeted more
than 87% from that level to close at $0.30 per share when trading
resumed on August 12, 2013.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
ECOtality 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.


ELITE INT'L: Recalls Margaritaville Sweet French Style Dressing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        August 9, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                          Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:                Class 3
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Elite International Foods
                                      Inc.
Distribution:                         Alberta, British Columbia,
                                      Manitoba, Northwest
                                      Territories, Ontario
                                      Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail
CFIA reference number:                8216

Affected products:

Brand name      Common name   Size    Code(s) on product  UPC
----------      -----------   ----    ------------------  ---
Margaritaville  Sweet French  414 ml.  12128C11321   Best Before
                 Style Dressing                        13/NO/07 0
                                                    72736 03226 6


ERNST & YOUNG: Court Okays Settlement in IndyMac Shareholders Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George H. Wu approved a settlement of the action
captioned MICHAEL B. COADY and ROBERT HAKIMIAN, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MICHAEL W. PERRY, A. SCOTT KEYS, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP,
Defendants, NO. CV 08-03812-GW(VBKX), (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Wu ruled that the settlement is, in all respects, approved
as fair, reasonable and adequate, meets the requirements of due
process, and is in the best interests of the Settlement Class.

The Action may proceed as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of
a Settlement Class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. common stock
between March 1, 2007 and May 12, 2008, through and inclusive, and
who were damaged thereby.

The Court finally certifies for purposes of settlement only Lead
Plaintiffs Michael B. Coady and Robert Hakimian as Settlement
Class Representatives and appoints Berger & Montague, P.C. and
Susman Godfrey L.L.P., as Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement
Class.

The Court dismisses the Complaint and the Action (and all actions
consolidated into the Action) with prejudice and in their
entirety, as against the Settling Defendants, without costs
(except as provided in the Stipulation), such dismissal to be
binding on Lead Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members.

Entry of final judgment and final approval of the Settlement
settles and disposes of and discharges all Claims that have been
asserted or could have been asserted in the Action against the
Settling Defendants and the Released Parties.

Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Action are awarded attorneys' fees in
the amount of $1,625,000, amounting to 25% of the Settlement Fund,
plus interest on such amount at the same rate as earned by the
Settlement Fund from the date hereof to the date they are actually
paid to Co-Lead Counsel. Plaintiffs' Counsel are further awarded
reimbursement of expenses (including experts' fees and expenses)
in the amount of $352,507, plus interest on such expenses at the
same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund from the date hereof to
the date they are actually paid to Co-Lead Counsel. The foregoing
awards of fees and expenses will be paid out of, and will not be
in addition to, the Settlement Fund.

A copy of the District Court's July 29, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/3eP3Rifrom Leagle.com.

MARC M. SELTZER -- mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com -- at SUSMAN GODFREY
L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, SHERRIE R. SAVETT -- ssavett@bm.net --
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ARTHUR STOCK -- astock@bm.net -- (Admitted
Pro Hac Vice) PHYLLIS M. PARKER -- pparker@bm.net -- (Admitted Pro
Hac Vice) at BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Lead
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class.


ERNST & YOUNG: District Court Ruling in "Sutherland" Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed
a district court ruling in SUTHERLAND v. ERNST & YOUNG LLP.

The question presented in the appeal filed in the case was whether
an employee can invalidate a class-action waiver provision in an
arbitration agreement when that waiver removes the financial
incentive for her to pursue a claim under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.

The Second Circuit held that:

(1) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 does not include a
"contrary congressional command" that prevents a class-action
waiver provision in an arbitration agreement from being enforced
by its terms; and

(2) In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in American
Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S.Ct. 2304 (2013),
Stephanie Sutherland's argument that proceeding individually in
arbitration would be "prohibitively expensive" is not a sufficient
basis to invalidate the class-action waiver provision at issue
here under the "effective vindication doctrine."

For these reasons, the Second Circuit reversed the March 3, 2011
order of the District Court, which denied defendant-appellant
Ernst & Young's motion to dismiss or stay the proceedings, and to
compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9
U.S.C. Section 1, et seq., and remanded the cause to the District
Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The case is STEPHANIE SUTHERLAND, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNST & YOUNG
LLP, Defendant-Appellant, DOCKET NO. 12-304-CV.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 9, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/owrv2Hfrom Leagle.com.

REX S. HEINKE -- rheinke@akingump.com  -- (Gregory W. Knopp --
gknopp@akingump.com -- Katharine J. Galston --
kgalston@akingump.com -- Daniel L. Nash -- dnash@akingump.com --
on the brief), at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Los Angeles,
CA and Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant Ernst & Young LLP.

MAX FOLKENFLIK -- max@fmlaw.net -- (H. Tim Hoffman --
hth@hoffmanandlazear.com -- Arthur W. Lazear --
awl@hoffmanandlazear.com -- Ross L. Libenson --
rll@hoffmanandlazear.com -- at Hoffman & Lazear, Oakland, CA, on
the brief), Folkenflik & McGerity, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-
Appellee Stephanie Sutherland.

P. David Lopez, Lorraine C. Davis, Daniel T. Vail, Paul D.
Ramshaw, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of
General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

M. Patricia Smith, Steven J. Mandel, Paul L. Frieden, Edward D.
Sieger, Dean A. Romhilt, United States Department of Labor, Office
of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States
Department of Labor.

Dan C. Getman -- dan.getman@nrel.gov -- Michael J.D. Sweeney --
msweeney@getmansweeney.com -- Lesley Tse, at Getman & Sweeney
PLLC, New Paltz, NY; Rebecca M. Hamburg, National Employment
Lawyers Association, San Francisco, CA, for Amici Curiae National
Employment Lawyers Association, the National Employment Law
Project, The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy.


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Tosses Insider Trading Claims in IPO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that it's not
often that plaintiffs lawyers will fight to include fewer claims
in a big class action.  But that's just what happened in the
consolidated securities litigation over Facebook Inc.'s May 2012
initial public offering, when a pair of major plaintiffs firms
complained that smaller firms were encroaching on their territory.

The edged-out firms, Harwood Feffer and The Law Office of
James Bashian, lost a bid on Aug. 13 to create and helm their own
class action against the banks that underwrote the Facebook IPO.
A federal judge in Manhattan denied the request, ruling that the
plaintiffs lawyers are bound by Labaton Sucharow and Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann's decision not to bring insider
trading claims as lead plaintiffs counsel in pending multidistrict
litigation over the bungled IPO.

Facebook's stock price dropped 50% after its much-hyped May 2012
IPO, which was underwritten by Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase &
Co., and Goldman Sachs & Co.  As investors lost money, the banks
made $100 million.

The securities plaintiffs bar reacted to Facebook's public company
debut with a deluge of shareholder class actions complaints.  Of
the 31 cases filed, 29 accused Facebook and its underwriters of
misrepresenting the company's financial condition in violation of
various sections of the Securities Act of 1933.  Only two
complaints accused the underwriter-banks of trading based on non-
public information, a violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Harwood Feffer filed one of the Exchange
Act complaints.  Bashian brought the other.

All the cases were funneled into an MDL before Judge Sweet.
Harwood Feffer and Bashian urged Judge Sweet to create two
separate class actions with distinct leadership structures -- one
for their Exchange act claims and one for the '33 Act claims.  In
December 2012, Judge Sweet denied the request and consolidated all
31 complaints.  Two months later, he appointed BLBG and Labaton
lead counsel.

In their February 28 amended complaint, the two lead firms opted
not to pursue the Exchange Act claims, possibly because doing so
would require marshaling proof that the banks intended to defraud
investors.

The decision prompted further protests by Harwood Feffer and
Bashian.  They argued that Judge Sweet consolidated the complaints
because he presumed that lead plaintiffs counsel would pursue the
Exchange Act claims on behalf the class.  On April 16, the two
small firms moved to sever the two cases they filed, arguing that
BLBG and Labaton failed to comply with "the plain language of this
court's order that [the Exchange Act claims] were to be included"
in the consolidated complaint.

The severance request was opposed not only by BLBG and Labaton,
but also by Facebook's lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis and the
underwriter defendants' lawyers at Davis Polk & Wardwell.  These
strange bedfellows all argued that, under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiffs counsel have broad
discretion to control MDLs.

In the Aug. 13 ruling, Judge Sweet wrote that Harwood Feffer and
Bashian misunderstood his intentions.  "[T]here was no mandate by
this Court to include the Exchange Act claims in the Consolidated
Complaint," he wrote.  "Lead Plaintiff has the sole authority to
determine what claims to bring on behalf of the class."

Harwood Feffer name partner Joel Feffer -- jcfeffer@hfesq.com --
declined to comment.  Bernstein Litowitz partner Steven Singer --
steven@blbglaw.com -- was not available for comment.


GADSDEN, AL: Wins Summary Judgment in Firefighters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment in JOE TAYLOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF GADSDEN, AN ALABAMA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 4:11-CV-3336-VEH, (N.D. Ala.).

Joe Taylor, Jeff Mayben, Lecil Harrelson, Jeff Morris, John A.
Calvert, David Putman, and Derreck Sherrill are firefighters
employed by the City of Gadsden. They filed this putative class
action lawsuit against the City and Gadsden Mayor, Sherman Guyton,
in his official capacity. The complaint alleges that mandatory
increases to their required pension contributions, imposed by a
recent act of the Alabama Legislature, and resolutions of the
City, violate Article I, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution and
Section 22 of the Alabama Constitution.

The case is before the court on the cross motions for summary
judgment filed by the defendants and the plaintiffs.  Also before
the court is the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain evidence
which was submitted in support of the defendants' motion for
summary judgment.  Finally, although not set out as separate
motions to strike, each party has "denied" many factual statements
offered by the other in support of the motions for summary
judgment. Because most of these denials actually dispute the
admissibility of the evidence offered in support of the fact, the
court includes a section of its opinion treating those denials
also as motions to strike.

Judge Hopkins granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment
and denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  The
plaintiffs' motion to strike will also be granted, says the Court.

"[T]his case will be DISMISSED, with prejudice, costs taxed as
paid," Judge Hopkins said.

A copy of the District Court's July 29, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/7OFrOZfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Joe Taylor, Jeff Mayben, Lecil Harrelson, Jeff Morris,
John Alan Calvert, David Putman, Derreck Sherrill are represented
by Raymond P Fitzpatrick, Jr. -- rpfitzpatrick@fcclawgroup.com --
at FITZPATRICK & BROWN LLP.

Defendants City of Gadsden and Sherman Guyton are represented by H
Edgar Howard -- ed@fordhowardcornett.com -- at FORD HOWARD &
CORNETT PC.


GAMESTOP CORP: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss CFA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert B. Kugler denied a motion to dismiss a
second amended class action complaint in FARLEY v. GAMESTOP CORP.

Judge Kugler held that the Plaintiffs have standing to sue and
have pled their claim alleging violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act with the requisite particularity. The
Plaintiffs have also alleged sufficient facts to state each of the
claims they assert, he added.

The case is JOHN FARLEY, JAMAR McGHEE, HAKANA OZDINCER,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals
Plaintiffs, v. GAMESTOP CORP., GAMESTOP, INC., Defendants, CIVIL
NO. 12-4734 (RBK/JS), (D. N.J.).

A copy of the District Court's August 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/sTw0Yqand http://is.gd/yJLSDYfrom Leagle.com.

JOHN FARLEY, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH A. OSEFCHEN --
josefchen@denittislaw.com -- at DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C. & STEPHEN
P. DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at DENITTIS OSEFCHEN,
PC.

GAMESTOP CORP., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY J. GREENBAUM --
jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com -- at SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C. &
CHARLES J. FALLETTA -- cfalletta@sillscummis.com -- at SILLS
CUMMIS & GROSS.

GAMESTOP.COM, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY J.
GREENBAUM, SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C..

GAMESTOP, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY J. GREENBAUM,
SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C. & CHARLES J. FALLETTA, SILLS CUMMIS &
GROSS.


GIANT BICYCLE: Recalls XtC Bicycles & Seatposts Over Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Recall date: August 08, 2013
Recall number: 13-261

Recall Summary
Name of product:

Giant Bicycle Recalls XtC Bicycles and Seatposts Due to Fall
Hazard

Hazard:

The bicycle seatposts on the affected bicycles and the after-
market seatposts can crack, posing a fall hazard.

Remedy:
Replace

Consumer Contact:

Giant Bicycle Inc., toll-free at (866) 458-2555 from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m. PT Monday through Friday or online at www.giant-bicycles.com-
en-us/ and click on Recall Information at the bottom of the page
for more information.

Recall Details

Description

This recall includes 2013 model year Giant XtC Advanced SL 29er 0
and 29er 1 series bicycles and 27.2 mm carbon fiber seatposts sold
separately.  The SL 29er 0 model bicycle is white, black and blue.
The SL 29er 1 model is white, black and red.  The letters "XTC"
appear on the down tube of the frame on both bicycles.  The name
"Giant" and "Contact SLR" appear on the 27.2 mm carbon fiber
seatposts.

Incidents/Injuries

Giant Bicycles received five reports of the bicycle seatposts
breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

Remedy

Consumer should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
seatposts and contact a Giant Bicycle dealer for a free
replacement seatpost.

Sold at

Bicycle stores nationwide between November 2012 and May 2013 for
between $4,300 and $7,700 for the bicycles and $200 for the
seatpost sold separately

Manufacturer

Giant Manufacturing Co. Ltd., of Taiwan

Distributor

Giant Bicycles Inc. of Newbury Park, Calif.

Manufactured in

Taiwan


HOME DEPOT: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Chochorowski" Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patricia Breckenridge of the Supreme Court of Missouri
affirmed a trial court judgment in JANET CHOCHOROWSKI,
INDIVIDUALLY and as the REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY-
SITUATED PERSONS, Appellant, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., d/b/a THE HOME
DEPOT, Respondent, NO. SC92594.

Janet Chochorowski filed a class-action lawsuit against Home
Depot, claiming that Home Depot violated the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), section 407.010 et seq., by
automatically including a damage waiver fee in its tool rental
agreement that Ms. Chochorowski signed when she rented a garden
tiller.  She also claimed the tool rental contract did not make
clear that the damage waiver fee was optional and the damage
waiver was of no value, allegedly unfair practices in violation of
the MMPA.  Home Depot filed a motion for summary judgment, which
the trial court sustained. Ms. Chochorowski appealed. After an
opinion by the court of appeals, the Supreme Court of Missouri
granted transfer.

"Because the damage waiver in the rental contract was clearly
optional and provided a benefit of value to Ms. Chochorowski, the
undisputed material facts show that Home Depot did not engage in
any unfair practice prohibited by MMPA and is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. The trial court's judgment is affirmed," ruled
Judge Breckenridge.

A copy of the Supreme Court's July 30, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/wY4Xrzfrom Leagle.com.


IKEA: Recalls Junior Beds Due to Laceration Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 22,000 in U.S. and 18,000 in Canada
KRITTER and SNIGLAR Junior Beds.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The metal rod connecting the guard rail to the bed frame can break
in use, posing a laceration hazard.

There has been one report in the U.S. and one report in Canada of
the metal rod on the beds breaking.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled IKEA junior beds include the KRITTER and SNIGLAR
models with a guard rail on one side.  The pine wood KRITTER beds
have animal cut-outs, such as a dog and cat on the headboard and a
date stamp of 1114 to 1322 representing the year and week of
production (YYWW).  The SNIGLAR natural beech wood beds have a
white painted fiberboard insert on the headboard and footboard of
the bed and a date stamp of 1114 to 1318.  The beds measure about
65 inches long by 30 inches wide with a 22 to 26 inch high
headboard.  The date stamp appears on a label attached to either
the headboard or the underside of the bed.  Model numbers included
in the recall are 600.904.70 for the KRITTER and 500.871.66 for
the SNIGLAR, supplier number 15361 (KRITTER) and 19740 or 18157
(SNIGLAR) printed on the same label as the date stamp.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/QU8SQ2

The recalled products were manufactured in Poland, Bosnia
Herzegovina and Romania.  The recalled products were sold
exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide and online at
http://www.ikea-usa.comfrom July 2005 through May 2013 for
between $60 and $90.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled KRITTER and
SNIGLAR junior beds and contact IKEA to receive a free repair kit.


JP BODEN: Recalls Children's Sandals Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
JP Boden Services Inc., of Pittston, Pa., announced a voluntary
recall of about 900 boys' and girls' sandals.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The cork sole can detach from the sandal and cause a child to trip
and fall.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involved JP Boden boys' and girls' sandals with cork
soles Continental sizes 24 through 37 (children's USA sizes 8
through 5).  The boys' sandals are brown leather with large
buckles and a camouflage print on the inside sole of the shoe.
The girls' sandals are blue, green or pink suede with a suede
ruffle.  "Mini Boden" and the sandal size are printed on the
inside sole of the shoe.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/0oE9x0

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Boden catalog nationwide and online at http://www.bodenusa.com
from January 2013 through June 2013 for between $44 and $48.

Consumers should take the sandals away from children immediately
and contact JP Boden to receive a postage paid label to return the
shoes and receive a full refund.  JP Boden is contacting
purchasers of the sandals directly.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Inflation of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Microsoft inflated its stock
price from April 18 to July 18 by concealing the "unmitigated
disaster" of the introduction of its Surface RT tablet, a
shareholder claims in a federal class action.


MOLYCORP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 14
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Molycorp, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 13 CIV 5697, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Molycorp between August 2, 2012 and
August 7, 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 Molycorp securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 14, 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.

Molycorp produces and sells rare earth and metal materials in the
United States and internationally.  The Company's Resources
segment extracts rare earth minerals, including rare earth
concentrates; rare earth oxides (REO), such as lanthanum, cerium,
neodymium, praseodymium, and yttrium; heavy rare earth
concentrates, which include samarium, europium, gadolinium,
terbium, dysprosium, and others; and SorbX, a line of proprietary
rare earth-based water treatment products.  This segment's
products are used in oil refinery catalyst, glass polishing,
automotive, water purification, and energy efficiency lighting
applications.

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's reported inventory was materially understated; (2)
the Company overstated its income tax benefit in the first quarter
of 2013 by approximately $6.5 million; (3) the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 8, 2013, the Company disclosed that, on August 6, 2013,
the Audit and Ethics Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors, based upon a recommendation from management, determined
that its unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for
the three months ended March 31, 2013 should no longer be relied
upon because they contained an error with respect to the
reconciliation of its physical inventory to the general ledger,
which resulted in a cumulative overstatement of costs of sales and
understatement of current inventory of approximately $16.0
million.  This error also caused the income tax benefit in the
first quarter of 2013 to be overstated by approximately $6.5
million, the disclosure of the consolidated assessment of normal
production levels to be understated by approximately $17.4
million, and the consolidated total write-down of inventory to be
overstated by $18.0 million.

On this news, shares fell $0.71, approximately 9.72%, to close of
$6.69 per share on August 9, 2013.

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.


NEW YORK: "Buckley" Suit Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt granted a motion to dismiss the
case captioned ROBERT S. BUCKLEY, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW YORK,
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK, SAMUEL L. STANLEY,
JR., MARK MURPHY, SAMANTHA THOMAS, JAMES O'CONNOR, TERRENCE
HARRIGAN, BARBARA CHERNOW, and LYNN M. JOHNSON, Defendants, NO.
11-CV-5512 (ADS) (AKT), (E.D.N.Y.).

The Defendant filed the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

The Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice and the Court
directed the Clerk of the Court to close the case.

A copy of the District Court's August 7, 2013 Memorandum of
Decision and Order is available at http://is.gd/4WZhZyfrom
Leagle.com.

Joseph C. Stroble, Esq. -- joe@stroblelaw.com -- Sayville, NY.
Attorney for the Plaintiff

Assistant Attorney General Ralph Pernick, New York State Attorney
General, Nassau Regional Office, Mineola, NY, Attorneys for the
Defendants.


OCHSNER CLINIC: Sued Over Defective DePuy Hip Replacement
---------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
local hospital is being sued by a patient who claims he received a
defective hip replacement.

Louis M. Scholle filed suit against Ochsner Clinic Foundation in
the 24th Judicial District Court on June 4.

Mr. Scholle claims that he received a DePuy prosthetic hip
replacement that he received from Ochsner on Sept. 15, 2009.  The
plaintiff claims that before he received the hip replacement
numerous studies had revealed that the DePuy device had numerous
problems including failure of crucial mechanisms, metal debris
found in patients, contributing the formation of tumors and
resulting in hip fractures.  In one study the lawsuit asserts that
the DePuy device carried a four times the risk of similar devices
for necessitating further surgery.  On Aug. 24, 2010, DePuy issued
a manufacturer's recall on the hip replacement Mr. Scholle had
received and mentioned that hospitals in charge of the implants
should keep a close watch on their performance.

The plaintiff claims that he began to suffer severe discomfort and
pain in the hip replacement and it was found that the device had
failed and had to be removed on March 1, 2011.

The defendant is accused of selling a defective product, knowing
of the defects, fraud and detrimental reliance.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for economic losses,
medical expenses, pharmaceutical expenses, injuries, disabilities
and disruption of routine daily life.

Scholle is represented by Leola M. Anderson of the New Orleans-
based Gertler Law Firm.

The case has been assigned to Division B Judge Cornelius E. Regan.

Case no. 727-595.


ORTHOFIX INT'L: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 14 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Orthofix International N.V. common stock during the period between
May 5, 2011 and July 29, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 14, 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/orthofix/

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 Orthofix and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Orthofix, a medical device company headquartered in Curacao,
Netherlands Antilles, designs, develops, manufactures, markets,
and distributes medical equipment used principally by
musculoskeletal medical specialists for spine and orthopedic
applications.  The company operates through two segments, Spine
and Orthopedics.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects.  In
particular, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them: (a) certain revenues recognized
during 2011 and 2012 should not have been recognized or should not
have been recognized during the periods in which they were
recognized; (b) Orthofix's previously issued consolidated
financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended December
31, 2011 and December 31, 2012 (as well as the interim quarterly
periods within such years), and for the interim quarterly period
ended March 31, 2013, should not be relied upon; (c) Orthofix's
financial statements during 2011, 2012, and the first quarter of
2013 were materially false and misleading and violated generally
accepted accounting principles and Orthofix's publicly disclosed
policy of revenue recognition; (d) Orthofix's Forms 10-Q and 10-K
for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, as well as for the first quarter
of 2013, failed to disclose then presently known trends, events or
uncertainties associated with the Company's revenues that were
reasonably likely to have a material effect on Orthofix's future
operating results; (e) Orthofix's disclosure controls and
procedures over financial reporting were materially deficient and
its representations concerning them during the Class Period,
including certifications issued by defendants, were materially
false and misleading; and (f) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about the Company's financial performance and outlook during the
Class Period.

On July 29, 2013, Orthofix issued a press release announcing,
among other things, that it was delaying the release of its
financial results for the second quarter of 2013 and that
additional time was needed to review matters relating to revenue
recognition for prior periods.  In response to this announcement,
on July 29, 2013, the price of Orthofix shares declined from
$27.40 per share prior to the announcement to $22.71 per share, or
a drop of 17%, on July 30, 2013, on extremely heavy trading
volume.  Then, on August 6, 2013, Orthofix issued a press release
stating that it would restate its financial statements for fiscal
years 2011 and 2012 and the first quarter of 2013.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Orthofix 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.


PFIZER INC: Judge Refuses to Bar Evidence of Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has handed Pfizer an important evidentiary
ruling in the long-running antitrust case over its epilepsy drug
Neurontin.

While denying summary judgment to both sides, U.S. District Judge
Faith Hochberg refused to bar evidence of settlements Pfizer has
received in infringement suits against generic drug makers.

Pfizer wants to use that evidence to refute claims that the suits
were shams, brought to block competition.

Judge Hochberg also ruled that the plaintiffs may obtain discovery
into the reasons those defendants settled.

Neurontin, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1993,
was developed and marketed by Warner-Lambert Co., which became a
Pfizer subsidiary in 2000.

Suits filed in 2002, and consolidated as In re Neurontin Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1479, accuse Pfizer and Warner-Lambert of a
scheme to obtain and keep a monopoly on the sale of the drug's
active ingredient: gabapentin.

The scheme allegedly entailed filing meritless patent suits
against generic drug makers to delay their entry into the market
and keep prices high and attempting to increase monopoly profits
by illegally promoting Neurontin to doctors for nonapproved uses.

The plaintiffs include a certified class of individuals and
entities that bought Neurontin from Pfizer between Dec. 11, 2002,
and Aug. 31, 2008, and also purchased gabapentin.

Additional plaintiffs are CVS Pharmacy, Rite-Aid, Walgreens,
Kroger Co., Safeway, American Sales Co., Supervalu and HEB Grocery
Co.

In 2004, Warner-Lambert pleaded guilty in the District of
Massachusetts to federal criminal charges over the off-label
marketing, admitting it promoted the drug to treat neuralgia,
migraines, bipolar disorder, attention deficit disorder and Lou
Gehrig's disease.

It agreed to pay a $430 million penalty and institute a corporate
compliance program to prevent a repetition.

Pfizer and Warner-Lambert have also been ordered to pay $142.1
million over the marketing of Neurontin in a civil racketeering
suit in which Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. and Kaiser
Foundation Hospital claimed they were induced to buy Neurontin for
treating migraines and bipolar disorder.

A jury awarded $47.3 million in March 2010, and U.S. District
Judge Patti Saris in Boston subsequently trebled the damages to
more than $142 million.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed on April 13 of this year.

The antitrust plaintiffs in New Jersey sought summary judgment
based on direct evidence -- allegations that Pfizer priced
Neurontin at 13 times the cost of production before generic makers
entered the market and that within six months after lower-priced
generic alternatives were available, Neurontin sales dropped 60
percent and Pfizer began selling its own cheaper generic version.

Judge Hochberg, however, held that proof of supracompetitive
pricing was not enough to show monopoly power without evidence as
to why Pfizer could get away with charging so much, such as
deliberately restricting output, and she denied summary judgment
because of disputed facts.

She also declined to grant it under the indirect evidence method,
which allows monopoly power to be inferred from market structure
and composition, citing disputed issues of fact about the contours
of the market.

The plaintiffs tried to leverage the criminal plea, the
racketeering case and unsuccessful patent suits brought against
generic makers, asking that Pfizer be collaterally estopped from
disputing and relitigating factual findings from those matters.

Judge Hochberg agreed that collateral estoppel applied to the
facts from the criminal and RICO cases.

But because the parties disagreed regarding what Warner-Lambert
pleaded guilty to, she gave them 45 days to file a joint report
clarifying their disagreement.

She warned that she would shift costs to whomever wasted the
court's time and said she expected that "the criminal guilty plea
will speak for itself" and that "the issues in dispute will be
narrowly circumscribed."

In addition, Judge Hochberg held that both sides can make use of
prior rulings in other cases to bolster or undercut the claim that
Pfizer's suits against generic manufacturers like Apotex and Teva
were sham litigation, but added that whether those facts meet the
burden of proof in this case remains to be decided.

The plaintiffs had asked Judge Hochberg to prevent Pfizer from
defending against the sham suit allegation through evidence that
some of those suits were successful because the defendant settled.

In the alternative, they sought full discovery of any such
settlement agreements.

Judge Hochberg said the evidence could be used but she would allow
"appropriately circumscribed discovery" on the settlements to
determine why the defendants agreed to them.

A call to Pfizer counsel Michael Zogby -- Michael.Zogby@dbr.com --
of Drinker Biddle & Reath in Florham Park was referred to the
company.

It provided a statement calling Judge Hochberg's opinion a
preliminary one allowing the litigation to proceed and Neurontin
"an important innovation in the treatment of seizures [that] has
benefited patients across the country."

Plaintiff attorneys Richard Kilsheimer --
rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com -- of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer in New
York, Joseph Opper -- jopper@garwingerstein.com -- of Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher in New York, Jonathan Clemente of Clemente
Mueller in Cedar Knolls and Barry Refsin -- brefsin@hangley.com --
of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller in Philadelphia, did
not return calls.


PHH CORP: Court Allows Villalon to Intervene in "Munoz" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In MUNOZ v. PHH CORP., which is an action for violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Marcella Villalon moves to
intervene as a proposed class representative pursuing claims
against PHH Corporation, and PHH's affiliated reinsurer, Atrium
Insurance Corporation. Specifically, Ms. Villalon seeks to
intervene as a proposed class representative on behalf of putative
class members whose claims fall outside RESPA's one-year statute
of limitations and would require claim tolling.

Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe grants Ms. Villalon's Motion
to Intervene saying Ms. Villalon has significant protectable
interests in the instant litigation and denying her Motion to
intervene would, as a practical matter, impair or impede her
ability to protect her substantial interest in this litigation.

The Court set a telephonic Status Conference for Aug. 14, 2013, at
9:30 AM, in Courtroom 8, before Magistrate Judge Barbara A.
McAuliffe, and added that the parties should be prepared at that
time to agree upon a deadline to complete discovery, and to
establish a supplemental briefing schedule on class certification.

The case is EFRAIN MUNOZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHH CORP. et. al,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:08-CV-0759-AWI-BAM, (E.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's July 29, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/n2XUbi from Leagle.com.

Efrain Munoz, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik --
aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com -- at Bramson Plutzik Mahl &
Birkhaeuser, LLP, Amanda R. Trask -- atrask@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Donna Siegel Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com
-- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Eric G Calhoun --
eric@travislaw.com -- at Travis and Calhoun, P.C., James Maro --
jmaro@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Jennifer S
Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com -- at Bramson, Plutzik,
Mahler & Birkhaeuser, Johnston de F. Whitman -- jwhitman@ktmc.com
-- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Robert M. Bramson,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Edward W. Ciolko, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- at Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP & Terence S. Ziegler --
tziegler@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Leona Lovette, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson
Plutzik Mahl & Birkhaeuser, LLP & Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP.

Leona Lovette, Plaintiff, represented by Eric G Calhoun, Travis
and Calhoun, P.C..

Leona Lovette, Plaintiff, represented by James Maro, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, Jennifer S Rosenberg, Bramson, Plutzik,
Mahler & Birkhaeuser, Johnston de F. Whitman, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP, Edward W. Ciolko, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP & Terence S.
Ziegler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Stephanie Melani, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik,
Bramson Plutzik Mahl & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Donna Siegel Moffa,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Eric G Calhoun, Travis and
Calhoun, P.C., James Maro, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Jennifer S Rosenberg, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser,
Johnston de F. Whitman, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Robert
M. Bramson, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Donna Siegel
Moffa, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Edward W. Ciolko,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP & Terence S. Ziegler, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP.

Iris Grant, Plaintiff, represented by Johnston de F. Whitman --
jwhitman@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP &
Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP.

John C. Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by Johnston de F. Whitman,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Edward W. Ciolko, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Daniel M. Maga, II, Plaintiff, represented by Johnston de F.
Whitman, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Edward W. Ciolko,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

PHH Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by David M.
Souders -- souders@wbsk.com -- at Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider PC,
Joseph S. Genshlea -- joe@genshlealaw.com -- at Joe Genshlea Law
and Mediation & Sandra B. Vipond -- vipond@thewbkfirm.com -- at
Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider PC.

PHH Corp., Defendant, represented by David M. Souders, Weiner
Brodsky Sidman Kider PC, Joseph S. Genshlea, Joe Genshlea Law and
Mediation & Sandra B. Vipond, Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider PC.

PHH Home Loans, LLC, Defendant, represented by David M. Souders,
Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider PC, Joseph S. Genshlea, Joe Genshlea
Law and Mediation & Sandra B. Vipond, Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider
PC.

Atrium Insurance Corp., Defendant, represented by David M.
Souders, Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider PC, Joseph S. Genshlea, Joe
Genshlea Law and Mediation & Sandra B. Vipond, Weiner Brodsky
Sidman Kider PC.

Marcella Villalon, Intervenor, represented by Edward W. Ciolko at
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.


PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Endura and Ambient LED Bulbs
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Philips Lighting Co., of Somerset, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 99,000 Endura and Ambient LED dimmable light
bulbs.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A lead wire in the bulb's housing can have an improper fitting,
which can electrify the entire lamp and pose a shock hazard.

No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Endura 12-watt and Ambient 12.5-watt LED
dimmable light bulbs.  The bulbs are orange in color and have
"MADE IN CHINA," "Fabrique in Chine" followed by a slanted "S,"
and the model number 9290001829 printed on the gray plastic band
on the neck of the bulbs.  The date codes, 2L for the Endura bulbs
and 2K or 2L for the Ambient bulbs, are printed on the metal screw
base.  The bulbs give off a white light and are used indoors to
replace incandescent bulbs.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/cOo05g

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home
Depot, grocery and home center stores nationwide, online
retailers, including Amazon.com and through electrical
distributors between October 2012 and May 2013 for between $15 and
$30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled LED bulbs,
unplug the fixture, remove the bulb and contact Philips for free
replacement bulbs.


POLY PREP: Plaintiffs in Sex Abuse Suit Sue Outside Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
former students who settled a lawsuit alleging a prestigious
private school in Brooklyn covered up a football coach's years of
sexual abuse are now suing the school's outside counsel at
O'Melveny & Myers for allegedly trying to "deceive" the court with
"fraudulent evidence" and "materially false and fraudulent
statements."

Naming O'Melveny and Jeffrey Kohn, managing partner of the firm's
New York office, as defendants, the action argues they "should not
be allowed to escape sanction for their grievous and oft-repeated
falsehoods."

The lawsuit, Zimmerman v. Kohn, 652826/2013, was filed Aug. 11 in
Manhattan Supreme Court.  It demands that, in addition to other
things, O'Melveny reimburse the plaintiffs for $2 million in legal
fees expended to achieve a confidential settlement.  In addition,
the plaintiffs are seeking that all fees paid to O'Melveny by Poly
Prep Country Day School be turned over to the plaintiffs.

O'Melveny scoffed at the claims.

"The underlying case was concluded nine months ago with a
settlement voluntarily entered into by the plaintiffs.  These
claims are completely baseless and without merit," the firm said
in a statement.

The current suit arises from a lawsuit 10 alumni and two former
summer camp participants filed against the school and its
officials in 2009 for allegedly concealing abuse that occurred
from 1966 to 1991 by coach Philip Foglietta.  The coach died in
1998 after working 25 years at the school.

After Eastern District Judge Frederic Block ruled last August that
some claims could proceed in Zimmerman v. Poly Prep Country Day
School, 09-cv-4586, the parties reached a confidential settlement
in December.  Philip Culhane, a partner at Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett, was among the plaintiffs.

The current suit's claims include a violation of the state's
Judiciary Law Sec. 487, which prohibits attorney misconduct toward
a court that includes "deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive
the court or any party."

It was brought by 11 of the 12 plaintiffs, except for Mr. Culhane,
and especially targets the firm's defense of the school with a
focus on Kohn and the firm's description of an internal probe the
school conducted in 2002.

Between May and July 2002, attorneys for two victims,
David Hiltbrand and John Paggioli, contacted the school to say
their clients had been abused.

Mr. Hiltbrand initially contacted the school in 1991, but the
school maintained he asked that Mr. Foglietta not be fired -- a
claim Hiltbrand denied.

In any event, in September 2002, the school hired Peter Sheridan
of Tarrytown, a former federal prosecutor, to probe whether school
faculty members or administrators knew of Mr. Foglietta's conduct.

The suit said Mr. Sheridan interviewed at least seven
administrators and faculty members, but the school "abruptly
terminated and short-circuited" the investigation in February
2003.  Mr. Sheridan later discarded his notes.

The school first retained O'Melveny in November 2004 after one of
the plaintiffs in the federal suit initially filed an action in
Brooklyn Supreme Court that was later dismissed on statute of
limitation grounds.

When the federal suit was filed in 2009, the school retained Kohn,
according to the complaint.

As litigation proceeded in the case, Eastern District Magistrate
Judge Cheryl Pollak in June 2012 ordered an evidentiary hearing to
consider the former students' claims the school and the firm
perpetrated a fraud on the courts.

In calling for the hearing, she said "serious questions" had been
raised "as to whether defendants and their counsel were simply
engaged in a good faith effort to vigorously defend this lawsuit
or whether certain of the alleged conduct was in furtherance of an
effort to conceal the extent of the school's knowledge and to
hinder plaintiffs' efforts in pursuing their case."

The school and the firm -- in court papers written by Debevoise &
Plimpton -- objected to the hearing, saying it was "not justified
in these circumstances."

The former students advanced "several speculative and tenuous
allegations in support of their claim of fraud on the Court," the
firm and the school argued.

The school noted that Sheridan said in a declaration that before
Mr. Hiltbrand came forward in 1991, no one had made specific
allegations.

"The fact that these witnesses had heard of rumors does not make
Mr. Sheridan's sworn statement that no witness was aware of any
substantiated allegations of abuse prior to 1991 false or
misleading," Poly Prep said in the objection.  "Indeed, Mr.
Sheridan swore to the truth of the Declaration under penalty of
perjury, and reaffirmed the substance of this statement at his
deposition."

The hearing never occurred because Block issued his ruling on Poly
Prep's dismissal motion months later and the parties subsequently
settled.

The complaint in the new suit says O'Melveny and Kohn's "false and
deceptive acts and omissions" included "myriad false statements,"
saying "in substance, no one at Poly Prep knew of any sexual abuse
allegations against Mr. Foglietta" until Mr. Hiltbrand's contact
in 1991.

It claims Mr. Sheridan's interviews uncovered "a plethora of
allegations and complaints" about Foglietta before 1991 but those
revelations were "intentionally conceal[ed]."

It points to Sheridan's declaration, which said, "None of the
individuals that I interviewed could substantiate any of the
claims against Mr. Foglietta made in the letters by Mr. Hiltbrand
and Mr. Paggioli, and none knew of any additional alleged abuse
victims."

But the complaint says the defendants "knew that evidence was
materially false or, at best, consisted of false and misleading
half-truths."

The complaint also faults the defendants for "false
representations" that Mr. Sheridan had made a final determination
when investigating the abuse allegations.

As O'Melveny fought a sanctions motion in the course of the
underlying litigation, it asserted in court papers that Mr.
Sheridan's probe was not prematurely ended and that he and the
school's headmaster "understood the [Sheridan] investigation to
encompass the interviews that Mr. Sheridan conducted and the
provision of that information to Poly Prep, nothing more and
nothing less."

But the complaint responds, "This statement was patently false,
contradicted by numerous statements from Mr. Sheridan himself, and
nothing short of offensive."

The complaint points to depositions where Mr. Sheridan said, for
example, there "were more than one thread" open when his
investigation ceased.


PRIMO WATER: N.C. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Primo Water Corporation disclosed that on August 14, 2013, the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities
class action lawsuit brought against the Company.  The Court
dismissed all claims asserted in the case with prejudice, and
entered judgment in the Company's favor.

"We are pleased with the Court's ruling to dismiss the lawsuit as
it was our belief from the beginning that this case was without
merit, and it is rewarding to see that the Court has rejected the
plaintiffs' unfounded claims," said Billy Prim, Primo's Chief
Executive Officer.

                    About Primo Water Corporation

Primo Water Corporation (Nasdaq:PRMW) -- http://www.primowater.com
-- is a provider of multi-gallon purified bottled water, self-
serve filtered drinking water and water dispensers sold through
major retailers throughout the United States and Canada.


SPECIALTY COMPOUNDING: Voluntarily Recalls Sterile Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
WXYZ reports that the FDA has announced a recall that could affect
thousands.

Specialty Compounding LLC is voluntarily recalling its full line
of sterile products used to inject drugs. The company cited
concerns about bacterial bloodstream infections.

The FDA says if there is microbial contamination in products
intended to be sterile, patients are at risk of serious infections
which may be life threatening.

The FDA says none of the products purchased after May 9 should be
used.

The recalled products were distributed directly to patients in all
50 states, except for North Carolina. They were also distributed
to hospitals in Texas.

To return product or request assistance related to this recall,
users should contact Specialty Compounding at 512-219-0724, Monday
through Friday, between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CDT.


TIME WARNER: Faces Class Action Over Two-Week CBS Blackout
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Ben Block, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
in a lawsuit filed on Aug. 14 in Los Angeles Superior Court by
lead plaintiffs James Armstrong, Michael Pourtemour and Vatsana
Bilavarn, the Southern California residents say they were enticed
into subscribing to TWC service by the promise of CBS-owned
channels CBS, Showtime, Movie Channel and Los Angeles station KCAL
but have been unable to access them due to the two-week blackout.

CBS and TWC are locked in a nasty standoff over CBS' request to
increase carriage fees for its channels.  As a result, CBS has
pulled its channels in several big markets, including the Los
Angeles area.

The plaintiffs claim in the suit that if they had known there
might be a program blackout, they would not have become TWC
subscribers.  Mr. Pourtemour says he would not have purchased
TWC's Internet services either if the cable TV service was not
offered "to his satisfaction."

The suit alleges that Messrs. Armstrong and Portemour complained
to TWC that they were not able to watch Big Brother, the PGA
Championship, Dexter and Ray Donovan because of the blackout.
They cite ads taken out by TWC in Oct. 2012 promising them six
free months of Showtime for signing up to TWC basic cable
services.

"The courtesy replacement programming," says the suit, "is not a
reasonable substitute for programing blacked out, as it does not
include a fungible offering of programs relative to CBS and
Showtime."

The plaintiffs want an unspecified reimbursement for subscription
fees paid.  The suit claims causes of action for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment and violations of California's
business and professions code.  The class action also seeks to
encourage other TWC customers to join the suit.

Time Warner Cable declined to comment on the suit.


TRACFONE: Faces 2nd Suit Over False Claims of "Unlimited" Use
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Tracfone and Wal-Mart sell
cell phones with false claims of "unlimited" use, a second class
action claims in Federal Court.


UNITED STATES: Class Action v. SEC Over Stanford Scheme Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene and Max Stendahl, writing for Law360, reports that a
Florida federal judge on Aug. 12 threw out a class action accusing
the Securities and Exchange Commission of negligence for failing
to report that Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion fund was a Ponzi
scheme, ruling the regulatory commission was exempt from liability
under federal tort law.

The putative class, led by Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz,
alleged the SEC of conducting several investigations of the
Stanford Group 1997 and 2004, according to the Aug. 12 decision.
With each investigation, it concluded the Stanford Group was a
Ponzi scheme but failed to report the investigations to the
Securities Investor Protection Corp., according to the decision.

The class was seeking to hold the SEC responsible for its losses
on the grounds that the agency is responsible for reporting the
findings of its investigations to other regulatory and consumer
protection authorities.

Yet U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola ruled on Aug. 12 that the
SEC was not liable because it failed to communicate its findings
rather than conducting a faulty investigation.  That distinction
exempts it from liability under an exception in federal tort law,
the judge found.

"The plaintiffs' cause of action in this case is limited to the
SEC's lack of communication to the Securities Investor Protection
Corporation regarding Stanford's company," Judge Scola wrote in
the Aug. 12 decision.  Because the SEC's only wrongdoing here was
not telling the correct authorities about its findings, it isn't
liable for the plaintiff's investments under a rule in the Federal
Tort Claims Act called the Misrepresentation Exception, the judge
found.

The exception states that a government agency cannot be held
liable for the actions of employees whose job it is to inspect or
grade a product in the event the employees' inspection was not
properly represented or reported, according to the law.

In this case, the judge determined that the SEC properly conducted
an investigation but that its employees failed to report the
investigation's results.  That failure to report qualifies for the
misrepresentations exception, exempting the agency from liability,
the judge wrote in the Aug. 12 decision.

Zelaya and Glantz claimed they bought fraudulent offshore
certificates of deposit from a business run by Mr. Stanford.
According to the suit filed in Florida federal court in December
2011, Mr. Stanford, a dual citizen of Antigua and Texas, promised
investors unreasonably high rates of return on the investments,
which essentially are just savings certificates with fixed low-
interest coupons that charge a penalty if the customer wants to
withdraw.

Mr. Stanford pled not guilty in June 2009 to an indictment
claiming he misappropriated billions of dollars in investor funds,
including some $1.6 billion he allegedly moved to a personal
account.  He was found guilty of 13 counts of mail fraud, wire
fraud, conspiracy and obstruction in March 2012.

However, the investors claimed in the suit, the SEC conducted
several investigations over the course of a decade that concluded
Stanford's business was a Ponzi scheme and that it failed to
report this to the Securities Investor Protection Corp., the
organization responsible for protecting buyers when a broker-
dealer fails.

Zelaya and Glantz claimed in their suit that their losses would
have been avoided if the SEC had reported its findings properly.

The SEC in its motion to dismiss didn't challenge the investors'
allegations, instead asking the judge to recognize that it was
exempt from liability under the Misrepresentation Exception.

The judge granted with prejudice the motion to dismiss, saying the
SEC qualified for the exception.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Gaytri Kachroo, said the class would
appeal the decision.

"We are disappointed in the ruling as are the thousands of
investors defrauded by Allen Stanford," Ms. Kachroo told Law360 on
Aug. 13.  "However, this decision gives us an opportunity to
squarely resolve this fundamental and historic jurisdictional
hurdle so that the litigation can proceed without further review
based upon an appeals decision in the Fourth Circuit."

Representatives for the SEC did not immediately respond to
requests for comment Monday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Brandon R. Levitt, Gaytri D.
Kachroo -- info@kachroolegal.com -- and John H. Ray III of Kachroo
Legal Services PC.

The case is Carlos Zelaya et al. v. U.S., case number 0:11-cv-
62644, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


* FDA Examines Safety of Super-Caffeinated Beverages After Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Pittman, Washington Correspondent for MedPage Today, reports
that no clear consensus exists on the safety of new uses of
caffeine such as energy drinks, making it difficult for the FDA to
plan its next move on the stimulant, an agency official said on
Aug. 6.

"Caffeine is an extraordinarily complex scientific puzzle,
regulatory puzzle, public health puzzle for us," Michael Taylor,
JD, deputy commissioner for foods at the FDA, said on Aug. 6.  "To
solve it, we're well aware of the need to work with the scientific
community, the industry community, and with consumers to get this
right."

Mr. Taylor told an Institute of Medicine (IOM) workshop on
caffeine consumption in foods and dietary supplements that the
agency has to understand the best available science before
determining how or if it should regulate the stimulant.

The FDA asked the IOM to convene the 2-day workshop as part of the
agency's information-gathering process on caffeine safety.  The
FDA has publicly acknowledged it is examining the safety of super-
caffeinated beverages like Monster Energy following multiple
reported deaths in children.

However, Mr. Taylor said, the FDA hasn't come to a conclusion yet
and is still in a fact-finding mode.  "Getting the science right
and getting our understanding of the public health issue in this
new environment are the first crucial steps," he said.

But there were differing opinions on the risks and benefits of
caffeine in diets among panelists at the IOM workshop.

For example, Stephen Schaffer, PhD, a pharmacologist at University
of South Alabama College of Medicine in Mobile, argued that other
ingredients in energy drinks -- such as ginkgo biloba and taurine
-- offset the potential harm high-caffeine consumption may have.

Andrew Smith, PhD, psychologist at Cardiff University in Wales,
noted that excessive caffeine consumption may be problematic
"especially in sensitive individuals," children included.

Energy drink advocates said on Aug. 6 that a safety signal should
be clear by now, if there was one, after 50 billion products have
been consumed.  There would be clusters of issues in certain
populations if, in fact, high-energy drinks were unsafe in those
people, they said.

Steve Lipshultz, MD, pediatric cardiologist at the University of
Miami, disagreed with audience members including representatives
of Monster Energy in saying that evidence shows the drinks
increase children's risk of seizures, cardiac dysrhythmias, and
behavioral abnormalities.

"There's absolutely a safety signal," Mr. Lipshultz said.  "It's
consistent in every study we looked at."

He referenced his 2011 study in Pediatrics that found that of the
nearly 5,500 caffeine overdoses reported to the U.S. National
Poison Data System in 2007, 46% were younger than 19.

Other panelists called for a national registry to better track
caffeine-related adverse events, rather than relying on spotty,
voluntarily reported data to poison control centers.

If it chooses to, the FDA can regulate caffeine through one of two
laws, Mr. Taylor said.

A 1990 law on dietary supplements -- the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act -- states that the FDA must prove a significant or
unreasonable risk from a dietary supplement like caffeine to take
action.  A 1958 law on food additives says a company must prove
with reasonable certainty that their product causes no harm.

"Under either law if we can meet the legal standard, then we do
have options," Mr. Taylor said.  "We can potentially restrict
levels of caffeine in products.  We can restrict conditions of use
in some circumstances."

Health Canada has limited caffeine intake in children under age 12
to 2.5 mg/kg per day.  It has done the same with pregnant women
with the threshold set at 300 mg per day.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2011 said children shouldn't
consume energy drinks and in June, the American Medical
Association said energy drinks shouldn't be marketed to children
under 18.


                             *********

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  * * *