CAR_Public/130917.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 17, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 184

                             Headlines


2683881 CANADA: Recalls Certain Oysters From Massachusetts
AARON'S INC: Briefing in Summary Judgment Motions Began in July
AARON'S INC: Ga. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations Now in Discovery
AARON'S INC: Class Certified in Suit Over Rent-to-Own Contract
AARON'S INC: Certification Hearing in Privacy Suit Set for Sept.

AARON'S INC: Motions to Junk "PC Rental" Suit Remain Pending
ACCENT MARKETING: "Fry" Suit Gets Conditional Certification
AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Matrix Benefits to "Hart" Affirmed
AMERIDOSE LLC: Two Steroid-Related Meningitis Victims Die in Tenn.
ASSISTED LIVING: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $12 Million

ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Continues to Settle Fla. Overdraft MDL
ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
ATP OIL: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Brokers' Wage Class Action for $2.8-Mil.
BARNES & NOBLE: Customers Lack Standing to Bring Data Breach Suit

BE AMAZING! TOYS: Recalls Monster Science Growing Spider Toy
BLUE MARSH: Recalls Jams and Jellies Due to Undeclared Sulphites
BODY CENTRAL: Store Videotapes Women in Dressing Rooms, Suit Says
BP PLC: Changes View on Oil Spill Class Action Settlement
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: iO Video Subscribers Suit in Discovery

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Yet to Certify Consumer Lawsuit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Seeks to Junk N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
CHOBANI: 89 Illnesses Related to Contaminated Yogurt Reported
CONAGRA FOODS: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Cooking Spray
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Rules in 3 Calif. Motor Fuel Suits

CROWN CRAFTS: Class Action Over Crib Bumper Products Dismissed
DAILY SEAFOOD: Recalls Oysters from Massachusetts
DOLAN DESIGNS: Recalls Ceiling-Mounted Light Fixtures
DUTCH VALLEY: Recalls Honey Roasted Peanuts for Undeclared Milk
ELECTROLUX NA: Toledo Court Issues Opinion on Class Action

ELSEVIER INC: Appeals Court to Decide on Medical Malpractice Suit
FAMILY VIDEO: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class Suit
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 370,000 Cars Over Steering Shaft Corrosion
GALANT FOOD: Recalls Chicken Provance French Puff
GEORGIA: Motion to Decertify and Dismiss ADA Class Suit Denied

GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Junk Wiretap Suit
GOOGLE INC: Mulls Next Steps After Failing to Dismiss Class Action
GREE ELECTRIC: Recalls 12 Brands of Dehumidifiers Due to Fire Risk
HALCON ENERGY: Remand Order in "Vodenichar" Case Affirmed
INTERNAP NETWORK: December 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls 200,000 Bottles of Motrin
MADE EVENT: Sued Over Refunds in Cancelled Electric Zoo Concert
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Merchant Law Firm Files Class Action
MHN GOVERNMENT: Arbitration Bid Denial in "Brown" Suit Upheld
MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears

MONDELEZ CANADA: Recalls Christie Rice Thins Due to Undeclared Soy
NATIONAL BEEF: E. Coli Scare Prompts Beef Products Recalls
NCO FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Holmes" Suit Overturned
NEUTROGENA NATURALS: Settles Class Action for $1.3 Million
NEW YORK: Bid to Dismiss Intervening Claims Denied

NORTHERN LEASING: Aldrich Plaintiffs Get OK to Amend Complaint
OUACHITA PARISH: Desegregation Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
PVF CAPITAL: Judge Tosses Class Action Over $106-Mil. FNB Merger
RAWSON-NEAL PSYCHIATRIC: Faces Class Action Over Patient Dumping
RENT-A-CENTER: Bass Berry Discusses Pro-Arbitration Rulings

RICK'S CABARET: Strippers Entitled to Minimum Wage, Court Rules
RITE AID: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in FLSA Suit
RJ REYNOLDS: Appeals Court Rejects Key Claim in Tobacco Lawsuits
ROADRUNNER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Strike Baughman Suit Tossed
SCHWEBEL BAKING: Recalls Golden Rich Buns With Honey

SOCIETE COOPERATIVE: Recalls Certain Le Canotier De L'isle Cheese
ST-ALPHONSE COLLEGE: 17 Men to Testify in Court in Abuse Suit
STARBOARD SEAFOOD: Recalls Certain Oysters From Massachusetts
TEXAS: Judge Certifies Foster Care System Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 880K SUVs, Lexus Sedans Over Safety Issues

TRESART CACHE: Recalls Hammock-Style Bassinets for Children
UNITED STATES: Bid to Stay May 21 Order in Suit v. LDHH Denied
VNA HOMECARE: Settlement of Workers' Suits Gets Preliminary OK
WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses "Barbosa" Case Without Prejudice
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Sued in Canada Over Defective Kenmore Dishwashers

XCEL ENERGY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Comer" Suit

* Canada Recalls No Name Battery Pack and Battery Charger
* Carlton Fields Discusses Ruling on Several Food Labeling Suits
* Class Action Concept in India's Companies Bill Open to Misuse
* K&L, Kirkland, Littler and Morgan Lewis Are Top Defendant Firms
* Law Firms Wrangling With Insurance Carriers Over Sandy Coverage

* Malls in Maharashtra, India Face Suit Over Sale of Plastic Bags


                             *********


2683881 CANADA: Recalls Certain Oysters From Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 11, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           2683881 Canada Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional, Retail
CFIA reference number:    8310

Affected products: Oysters 100 count with Harvest Zone: V:20
Katama Bay, Massachusetts and with harvest dates from August 1,
2013 to September 9, 2013.


AARON'S INC: Briefing in Summary Judgment Motions Began in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing began in July 2013 on the motions for summary judgment
filed by Aaron's, Inc. in a suit alleging it improperly classified
store general managers as exempt from the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's Aug. 2,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc., filed with the United
States District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Case No.:
2:08-CV-01969-KOB-JEO) on October 22, 2008, plaintiffs alleged
that the Company improperly classified store general managers as
exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").

The case was conditionally certified as an FLSA collective action
on January 25, 2010, and it now includes 227 individuals, nearly
all of whom terminated from the general manager position more than
two years ago. Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages.

On October 4, 2012, the Court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment as to the claims of Kunstmann, the named
plaintiff.  On January 23, 2013, the Court denied the Company's
motion to decertify the class. The Company has since filed two
additional motions for summary judgment, including one that seeks
summary judgment in the entirety on all class members' claims, or
alternatively on matters that will reduce the size of the class or
exposure arising from the class claims. Briefing on these motions
began in July 2013.


AARON'S INC: Ga. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations Now in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the suit Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc., which is
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta Division), is expected to continue
until April 2014, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The matter of Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. was originally filed
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division on October 27, 2011 and was transferred on
February 23, 2012 to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) (Civil No.:1:12-
CV-00563-AT).

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other non-exempt employees
who worked in Company stores, alleges that the Company violated
the FLSA when it automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees'
time for meal breaks on days when plaintiffs allegedly did not
take their meal breaks.

Plaintiff claims he and other employees actually worked through
meal breaks or were interrupted during the course of their meal
breaks and asked to perform work. As a result of the automatic
deduction, plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to account
for all of his working hours when it calculated overtime, and
consequently underpaid him. Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other damages for all similarly situated
employees nationwide for the applicable time period.

On June 28, 2012, the Court issued an order granting conditional
certification of a class consisting of all hourly store employees
from June 28, 2009 to the present. The class size is approximately
1,788 opt-in plaintiffs, which is less than seven percent of the
potential class members. The parties are engaging in discovery.
Discovery is expected to continue until April 2014.


AARON'S INC: Class Certified in Suit Over Rent-to-Own Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
certified a class comprising of all persons who entered into a
rent-to-own contract with Aaron's Inc., according to the company's
Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division
on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in
damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's
lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated
certain New Jersey state consumer statutes.

Plaintiff's complaint seeks treble damages under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, and statutory penalty damages of $100 per
violation of all contracts issued in New Jersey, and also claim
that there are multiple violations per contract. The Company
removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil Action No.:
10-06317(JAP)(LHG)).

Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks
equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees. Discovery on this matter is
closed. On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising
all persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the
Company in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through
March 31, 2011. The Company is currently evaluating its next step.


AARON'S INC: Certification Hearing in Privacy Suit Set for Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion for class certification in a suit against
Aaron's Inc. over alleged privacy violation is tentatively set for
September 2013, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,
filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB),
plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned
and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way")
knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud Abuse
Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide class.
Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software
program called "PC Rental Agent."

The District Court dismissed the Company from the lawsuit on March
20, 2012. On September 14, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint against the Company and its franchisee Aspen Way,
asserting claims for violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and common law invasion of privacy by intrusion upon
seclusion.

Plaintiffs also asserted certain vicarious liability claims
against the Company based on Aspen Way's alleged conduct. On
October 15, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on February 27, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave of the Court to file a third amended complaint
against the Company.  On May 23, 2013, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint,
which asserts the same claims against the Company as the second
amended complaint but also adds a request for injunction and names
additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as
defendants.

Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the Company has
moved to dismiss that complaint on substantially the same grounds
as it sought to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint. That
motion remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 1,
2013, and the Company's response is due on August 2, 2013. A
hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
tentatively set for September 2013. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages as well as injunctive relief.


AARON'S INC: Motions to Junk "PC Rental" Suit Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The motions of Aaron's Inc. to dismiss and strike certain claims
arising out of its alleged use of PC Rental Agent software remain
pending, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims
against the Company and its independently owned and operated
franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John
Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping,
electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law.

Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental
Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and
damages in connection with the allegations of the complaint.

Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative California
class. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the
Byrd litigation. In April 2013, the Company timely removed this
matter to federal Court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a
motion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrd
litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and
a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court
subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and
strike certain allegations remain pending.


ACCENT MARKETING: "Fry" Suit Gets Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine D. Perry conditionally certified as a
collective action the case captioned ROY FRY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACCENT
MARKETING SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant, CASE NO. 4:13CV59 CDP,
(E.D. Mo.).

Mr. Fry was a customer service representative at the Defendant's
call center in Farmington, Missouri.  He alleges that he and other
similarly situated employees were required to perform work duties
before and after their shifts without being paid, and that the
Defendant improperly calculated compensation in other ways, like
failing to include non-discretionary bonus pay when determining
overtime compensation and requiring employees to round their
clock-in/clock-out times to the nearest quarter hour.

Mr. Fry brings the collective action for unpaid compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et
seq., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.  He has
moves for conditional certification of this case as a collective
action under FLSA so that he may notify certain of defendant's
past and present employees of the action and provide them the
opportunity to "opt in" as plaintiffs to this litigation.

The Court conditionally certified a class of all current and
former non-exempt employees of defendant Accent Marketing Services
L.L.C. at its Farmington, Missouri call center who were required
to perform tasks such as booting up and shutting down their
computers and logging in and out of various programs without pay
during their unpaid meal periods and before and after their
scheduled shifts, for a period of three years from the date of the
Court's Order.

The Court directed the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff's
attorneys with the names, employment dates, and last known
addresses of all potential class members, and directed the parties
to file a joint proposed form of notice for the Court's
consideration, consistent with the Order, within 20 days. If the
parties cannot agree on a joint proposed form of notice after good
faith efforts, then the parties must file their own proposed forms
of notice, each with a brief memorandum setting out the areas of
disagreement and support for their position, for the Court's
consideration, ruled Judge Perry.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/0gGp1lfrom Leagle.com.

Roy Fry, Plaintiff, is represented by Charles J. Brown, Esq., and
Jayson A. Watkins, at Brown and Associates, LLC.

Accent Marketing Services L.L.C., Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey A. Calabrese -- jeff.calabrese@skofirm.com -- at STOLL AND
KEENON, PLLC, John O. Sheller, STOLL AND KEENON, PLLC, Joseph A.
Bilby -- joe.bilby@skofirm.com -- at STOLL AND KEENON, PLLC, Stacy
E. Miller -- stacy.miller@skofirm.com -- at STOLL AND KEENON and:

   Brian M. O'Neal, Esq.
   Thomas O. McCarthy, Esq.
   MCMAHON AND BERGER PC
   2730 N. Ballas Road, Suite 200
   St. Louis, MO 63131
   Phone: (314) 567-7350


AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Matrix Benefits to "Hart" Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, NO. 2:16 MD 1203, District Judge
Harvey Bartle, III, issued a memorandum affirming the AHP
Settlement Trust's denial of Lorraine Hart's claim for Matrix
Benefits.

Ms. Hart, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, sought benefits from the
AHP Settlement Trust. The Court must determine whether Ms. Hart
has demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support her claim
for Matrix Compensation Benefits and, if so, whether she met her
burden, of proving that her claim was not based, in whole or in
part, on any intentional material misrepresentation of fact.

Judge Bartle held that Ms. Hart has not met her burden of proving
that there is a reasonable medical basis for finding that she had
moderate mitral regurgitation.

This ruling relates to SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-20593 (E.D. Pa.)

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/L5Qflofrom Leagle.com.

ANGELA JENSEN, Claimant, represented by STEVEN L. BUNOSKI.

JOANN READ, Claimant, represented by STEVEN L. BUNOSKI.

JOYCE MAUDIE, Claimant, represented by MICHAEL L. HODGES --
contact@hodgeslawfirm.com -- at HODGES LAW FIRM, CHARTERED

CINDY SORENSON, Claimant, represented by WAYNE H. BRAUNBERGER --
wbraunberger@cs.com -- at BRAUNBERGER BOUD & DRAPER PC.


AMERIDOSE LLC: Two Steroid-Related Meningitis Victims Die in Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter F. Roche Jr., writing for The Tennessean, reports that only
one new case of infection from a fungus-tainted spinal steroid has
been reported nationally in the past month, but two Tennessee
victims of the national outbreak have been identified for the
first time in newly filed federal court cases.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on
Sept. 5 that the one new case was reported in an Indiana patient,
who has an infection at the site of the steroid injection.

That pushed the total number of cases since the outbreak was first
reported last October to 750 patients affected by the contaminated
steroid shipped from a now-defunct Massachusetts drug compounder.

In Tennessee the number of cases remains at 153, with 15 deaths
reported.  That is second only to Michigan, with 264 patients
affected and 19 deaths.  Indiana has reported 91 patients
affected, with 11 deaths.

Two of those Tennessee victims became known for the first time on
Sept. 5 with suits filed in U.S. District Courts in Nashville and
Boston.

According to the 52-page complaint filed in Nashville,
Elfrieda Wiley, 54, of Gallatin was referred in July 2012 to the
Saint Thomas Outpatient Neurosurgical Center by a physician at the
Howell Allen Clinic, part owner of the neurosurgical center.

She was injected in the spine with methylprednisolone acetate on
July 31, Aug. 14 and Sept. 6 of last year.

On Oct. 15, she went to the emergency room and was diagnosed with
fungal meningitis.  She was then hospitalized for three weeks.

The suit states that although the neurosurgery center had shut
down voluntarily on Sept. 20, it wasn't until early October that
Mrs. Wiley received a letter indicating the center was
investigating several cases of meningitis in patients who had
received injections.

"That letter was the first notice Mrs. Wiley ever received
indicating she was at risk of contracting meningitis," the
complaint states.

The suit names as defendants the neurosurgical center,
Saint Thomas West Hospital and the Howell Allen Clinic, along with
the owners of the bankrupt company that produced the tainted
steroid and related companies, including a testing company that
was hired to test samples of the drug for sterility.

The suit was filed on behalf of Mrs. Wiley and her husband, Elton,
by Nashville attorneys George Nolan and William Leader.

The drugs were shipped all over the country by the New England
Compounding Center, which shut down and filed for bankruptcy late
last year.  A federal judge has officially declared the firm
insolvent.

The complaint charges the defendants with negligence, civil
conspiracy and violations of the state product liability law.

It is the first to specify a civil conspiracy claim by charging
that the Nashville neurosurgery center and its two key employees
"acted in concert with NECC to accomplish the unlawful purpose of
circumventing Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy patient safety
requirements."

The second suit was filed on behalf of Wilma S. Carter of
Crossville, who contracted fungal meningitis after getting a
spinal steroid treatment at the Specialty Surgery Center in
Crossville.

According to the complaint, Ms. Carter became ill in early October
and was eventually hospitalized for treatment of fungal
meningitis.  She later developed an abscess at the injection site
and was hospitalized again from Oct. 30 to Nov. 9.

The suit states that Ms. Carter was out of work for an extended
period ending on Jan. 7 of this year.

Defendants in that suit include Ameridose LLC, the sister company
to NECC, and the individual owners of the two companies. It
charges them with negligence and engaging in deceptive trade and
business practices.

Additional lawsuits are likely in the next few weeks as victims
face a one-year deadline to file claims under the state health
care and product liability laws.


ASSISTED LIVING: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $12 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Oliva, writing for Senior Housing News, reports that
Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. and its former CEO have agreed to
pay $12 million in cash to settle a class action lawsuit alleging
the company's executives misled shareholders as to the operator's
financial footing and regulatory compliance, according to court
documents filed last week in Wisconsin.

Filed in the United States District Court  in the Eastern District
of Wisconsin on Sept. 6, the settlement agreement is awaiting
preliminary court approval and would result in the dismissal of
the litigation. Lead plaintiff the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers called the $12 million settlement "fair,
reasonable, and adequate" in the memorandum, adding that it marks
a "substantial" recovery for the class.

The exact number of class members is not yet known, but is
expected to number in the hundreds of thousands, as there were
more than 10 million outstanding shares of ALC stock when the
company was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Assisted Living
Concepts, formerly traded under the symbol ALC, was delisted after
being acquired by private equity firm TPG in a transaction that
closed in July 2013.

The proposed settlement for the plaintiffs against defendants ALC
and former CEO Laurie Bebo was reached after the lead plaintiff
conducted an "extensive" investigation, including interviews of
more than forty confidential witnesses and analysis of thousands
of documents concerning regulatory proceedings against ALC.

ALC shareholders filed the class action lawsuit against the
company in August 2012, claiming that ALC issued false and
misleading statements regarding the company's financials and its
compliance with state regulatory departments. Both Bebo and ALC
have unsuccessfully motioned to dismiss the lawsuit.

ALC previously settled two other lawsuits, including one involving
Bebo which she brought against the company after being fired in
May 2012.

June filings with the Waukesha County Circuit Court indicate ALC
had settled the suit with Bebo, according to the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel, along with settling another shareholder suit in
Milwaukee County, both with undisclosed terms.


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Continues to Settle Fla. Overdraft MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Banc-Corp is continuing with the process to settle the
suit In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation MDL No. 2036,
which is before the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

A putative class action lawsuit, Harris v. Associated Bank, N.A.
(the "Bank"), was filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin in April 2010, alleging that the
Bank unfairly assessed and collected overdraft fees and seeking
restitution of the overdraft fees, compensatory, consequential and
punitive damages, and costs.

The case was subsequently consolidated into the Multi District
Litigation ("MDL"), In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation
MDL No. 2036 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. A settlement agreement which requires payment
by the Bank of $13 million for a full and complete release of all
claims brought against the Bank received preliminary approval from
the court on July 26, 2012.

By entering into such an agreement, the company has not admitted
any liability with respect to the lawsuit. The settlement amount
was previously accrued for in the financial statements. In the
second quarter of 2012, the Bank settled with an insurer for a
$2.5 million contribution to the settlement amount and partial
reimbursement of defense costs of up to $2.1 million.


ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret West, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Autumn Acquisition
Corporation, James S.J. Manuso, Harren Jhoti, Charles J.
Casamento, Peter Fellner, Thomas V. Girardi, Allan R. Goldberg,
Timothy Haines, Ismail Kola and Walter J. Lack, Case No.
RG13695076 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., September 11, 2013) is
a shareholder class action brought on behalf of holders of the
common stock of Astex to enjoin the acquisition of the publicly
owned shares of Astex common stock by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. and Autumn Acquisition Corporation (collectively, "Otsuka").

On September 5, 2013, Astex announced that it had entered into a
definitive merger agreement under which Otsuka will commence a
tender offer to acquire the Company at a purchase price of $8.50
per share in cash for a total transaction value of approximately
$886 million.  By facilitating the proposed acquisition for
inadequate consideration and through a flawed process, each of the
Defendants breached and aided the other Defendants' breaches of
their fiduciary duties, Ms. West contends.  Hence, she seeks to
enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the
Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual
Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties and from Otsuka.

Ms. West is a continuous stockholder of Astex.

Astex is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dublin,
California.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.  Autumn Acquisition is a Delaware corporation and
a wholly owned subsidiary of Otsuka, a Japanese joint stock
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


ATP OIL: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Before the Court in FIREFIGHTER'S PENSION & RELIEF FUND v. BULMAHN
are competing Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel
pursuant to Section 21D of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint arises out of a proposed securities class action,
brought by Firefighter's Pension and Relief Fund of the City of
New Orleans, on behalf of a Class of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired ATP Oil & Gas Corporation 11.875% Second Lien
Exchange Notes traceable to a December 16, 2010 Exchange of
approximately $1.5 billion in such Notes.  The Defendants in the
current action are: ATP Chairman and Chief Executive Officer T.
Paul Bulmahn; Chief Financial Officer Albert L. Reese, Jr.; Chief
Accounting Officer Keith R. Godwin; Company Directors Chris A.
Brisack, Arthur H. Dilly, Gerard J. Swonke, Brent M. Longnecker,
Walter Wendlandt, Burt A. Adams, George R. Edwards, and Robert J.
Karow; and Exchange underwriter J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.

Motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff were filed by:
Firefighters; Summit Capital Management, LLC; Armada Advisors,
Inc.; and Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund. Summit
filed a notice of withdrawal on August 13, 2013, thereby removing
itself from consideration for appointment as Lead Plaintiff.

District Judge Carl J. Barbier ruled that Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund's motion should be granted because Plumbers
fits the requirements needed to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff.
Armada Advising, Inc.'s and Firefighters Pension & Relief Fund of
the City of New Orleans's motions were denied.

Accordingly, Judge Barbier appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff, and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Downd LLP as lead counsel.

The Court directed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
to file an Amended Class Action Complaint within 45 days of the
entry of the order, and the Defendants to file an answer to
Plumbers' complaint within 45 days of its filing.

The case is FIREFIGHTER'S PENSION & RELIEF FUND OF THE CITY OF NEW
ORLEANS v. T. PAUL BULMAHN, et al., SECTION: "J" (1), CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-3935, (E.D. La.).

A copy of the District Court's August 15, 2013 Order and Reasons
is available at http://is.gd/IDSRfxfrom Leagle.com.

Firefighters Pension & Relief Fund of the City of New Orleans,
Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Allen Lemmon --
andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com -- at Lemmon Law Firm, Donald A Broggi --
drscott@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott LLP, Irma L. Netting
-- irma@lemmonlawfirm.com -- at Lemmon Law Firm & Joseph P.
Guglielmo -- jcohen@scott-scott.com -- Scott & Scott LLP.

T Paul Bulmahn, Defendant, represented by Roy Clifton Cheatwood --
rcheatwood@bakerdonelson.com -- at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell
& Berkowitz, Hamilton P Lindley -- hlindley@deanslyons.com -- Dean
& Lyons, LLP, Matthew A. Woolf -- mwoolf@bakerdonelson.com -- at
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Michael J. Biles --
mbiles@kslaw.com -- at  King & Spalding, LLP, Paul R. Bessette --
pbessette@kslaw.com -- at King & Spalding, LLP, Royale Price --
rprice@kslaw.com -- at King & Spalding, LLP, Tyler W Highful --
thighful@kslaw.com -- at King & Spalding, LLP & Yusuf Bajwa --
ybajwa@kslaw.com -- at King & Spalding, LLP.

Albert L Reese, Jr., Defendant, represented by Roy Clifton
Cheatwood, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Hamilton P
Lindley, Dean & Lyons, LLP, Matthew A. Woolf, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Michael J. Biles, King & Spalding,
LLP, Paul R. Bessette, King & Spalding, LLP, Royale Price, King &
Spalding, LLP, Tyler W Highful, King & Spalding, LLP & Yusuf
Bajwa, King & Spalding, LLP.

Keith R Godwin, Defendant, represented by Roy Clifton Cheatwood,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Hamilton P Lindley,
Dean & Lyons, LLP, Matthew A. Woolf, Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz, Michael J. Biles, King & Spalding, LLP, Paul
R. Bessette, King & Spalding, LLP, Royale Price, King & Spalding,
LLP, Tyler W Highful, King & Spalding, LLP & Yusuf Bajwa, King &
Spalding, LLP.

J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by John
William Hite, III -- jhite@shmrlaw.com -- at Salley, Hite, Mercer
& Resor LLC, Erika Lynn Mullenbach -- emullenbach@shmrlaw.com --
at Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC, Glen Mercer --
gmercer@shmrlaw.com -- at Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC &
Peyton C. Lambert -- plambert@shmrlaw.com -- at Salley, Hite,
Mercer & Resor LLC.

Armada Advisors, Inc., Movant, represented by:

   Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
   GAUTHIER, HOUGHTALING & WILLIAMS
   3500 N. Hullen Street
   Metairie, LA 70002
   Telephone: (504) 456-8600
   Toll Free: (800) 816-1520

Summit Capital Management LLC, Movant, represented by Lewis
Stephen Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLC & Melinda A. Nicholson -- melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com --
at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Movant,
represented by Louis Leo Robein, III -- lrobein@ruspclaw.com -- at
Robein, Urann, Spencer, Picard & Cangemi, APLC & Danielle S Myers
-- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Brokers' Wage Class Action for $2.8-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Merrill Lynch has agreed to pay $2.8 million to
settle a class action that claimed the firm took too long to pay
wages to departing brokers.

The case involves almost 300 brokers in California who resigned in
the years following Merrill Lynch's purchase by Bank of America in
2008.  A former Merrill Lynch broker who left in 2010 initiated
the class action to seek penalties for late payments.  The claim,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, asserted that Merrill Lynch's practice of
disbursing payment commission wages at the next pay cycle violated
California labor laws, which require payment within 72 hours of
the employee's last day.

"This is purely a penalty case," the plaintiffs' attorney,
James Quadra -- jquadra@quadracoll.com -- of Quadra & Coll, says.
"California is very protective of its employees."

BofA Merrill Lynch denied any wrongdoing and argued that it had a
good faith belief that its procedures were not in violation of the
law, according to the settlement agreement.

The firm "has vigorously defended this matter on the grounds that
it had a good faith belief that commission payments were not due
before the regularly scheduled payment times," the settlement
read.  "[They] argued that uncertainty over the applicable law can
constitute a good faith dispute, which defeats claims for
penalties."

A spokesperson for Bank of America declined to offer additional
comment.

Since the case, Merrill Lynch established an official policy in
2011 to pay its departing employees in California within 72 hours
of their last day.

The class includes a total of 275 former Merrill Lynch brokers in
California who resigned between December 2, 2008 and December 31,
2011.

The final settlement of $2,785,000, which was approved by Judge
Claudia Wilken on August 29th, represents 75% of the total
penalties that could have been assessed, had the case gone to
court.  The amount, 25% of which will go to the plaintiff's
attorneys, provides for compensation of no more than $10,000 per
broker.

"We believe it's a fair settlement," Mr. Quadra says.  "Seventy-
five percent is a good return when you avoid any other risk."


BARNES & NOBLE: Customers Lack Standing to Bring Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Privacy & Data Security Law Resource Center,
customers of Barnes & Noble Inc. have not suffered injuries
sufficient to grant them standing in a putative class action
against the book retailer following a data breach, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled Sept.
3, dismissing the case (In re Barnes & Noble Pin Pad Litig., N.D.
Ill., No. 1:12-cv-08617, dismissed 9/3/13).

In October 2012, Barnes & Noble revealed that it had discovered
tampering with the personal identification number pads used to
process payment card transactions at 63 of its stores (11 PVLR
1584, 10/29/12).  The hackers used a technique known as "skimming"
to collect customers' credit and debit card information, the court
said.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint against
Barnes & Noble, alleging the following five causes of action:
breach of contract; violation of the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Secs. 505/2; invasion
of privacy; violation of the California Security Breach
Notification Act, Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 1798.80-1798.82 and
Sec. 1798.84; and violation of California's Unfair Competition
Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200-17210.

According to the plaintiffs, there was a six-week delay between
the time Barnes & Noble learned of the breach and when it publicly
announced the breach.  They also alleged that the company failed
to directly notify its customers.  In addition, they claimed that
the company failed to follow security protocols and regulations
maintained by the payment card industry.

Barnes & Noble moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court,
however, found it unnecessary to analyze the book retailer's
12(b)(6) arguments.

Delayed Notification, Statutory Violations

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss for lack of
standing after finding all of the alleged injuries insufficient to
support standing.

It rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the delay or inadequacy
of the breach notification increased the risk that they would
suffer injuries and therefore supported standing.  "Merely
alleging an increased risk of identity theft or fraud is
insufficient to establish standing," the court said.

"Nothing in the Complaint indicates Plaintiffs have suffered
either a 'certainly impending' injury or a 'substantial risk' of
an injury, and therefore, the increased risk is insufficient to
establish standing," the district court said, quoting the U.S.
Supreme Court's holding in Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 33 S. Ct.
1138 (2013) (12 PVLR 350, 3/4/13).

Allegations that statutes were breached, without any allegation of
actual damages resulting from the breach, were inadequate to
establish standing, the court said.

The alleged improper disclosure of the plaintiffs' personally
identifiable information (PII) was insufficient to establish
standing because the plaintiffs failed to allege that the
information was disclosed, the court said.  For the same reason,
their alleged loss of privacy did not convey standing.
Mitigation Expenses, Fraudulent Charge

Nor did the plaintiffs' alleged time and expenses incurred to
mitigate the risks of identity theft confer standing, the court
concluded.  They failed to allege expenses with specificity, and
Clapper held that such expenses are not actual injuries in the
absence of imminent harm, the court said.

An increased risk of identity theft is also inadequate to support
standing, the court determined, noting that Clapper held that
speculation of future harm is not an actual injury.

The plaintiffs did not allege an actual injury based on the
deprivation of the value of their PII, the court said.
"Plaintiffs do not allege their personal information was sold, nor
do they allege the information could be sold by Plaintiffs for
value," it said.

In addition, anxiety and emotional distress following a breach are
insufficient to confer standing, the court concluded, again noting
the lack of an imminent threat to their PII.

The court found unpersuasive the plaintiffs' argument that the
diminished value of their products and services supported standing
because they "have not pled that Barnes & Noble charged a higher
price for goods whether a customer pays with credit, and
therefore, that additional value is expected in the use of a
credit card."

Finally, a fraudulent charge on one plaintiff's credit card was
insufficient to confer standing because that plaintiff failed to
plead that she suffered a monetary loss resulting from the charge
and failed to connect that charge to the breach, the court said.

Edmund S. Aronowitz -- earonowitz@gelaw.com -- and Adam J. Levitt
-- alevitt@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer PA, in Chicago;
Joseph J. Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC, in
Chicago; Aleksandra M. S. Vold, of Synergy Law Group, in Chicago;
and Ben Barnow, of Barnow and Associates PC, in Chicago,
represented the plaintiffs.  Peter V. Baugher -- baugher@sw.com --
and Kristen E. Hudson -- hudson@sw.com -- of Schopf & Weiss LLP,
in Chicago; and Kenneth L. Chernof -- Kenneth.Chernof@aporter.com
-- and Hadrian R. Katz -- Hadrian.Katz@aporter.com -- of Arnold &
Porter, in Washington, represented Barnes & Noble.


BE AMAZING! TOYS: Recalls Monster Science Growing Spider Toy
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on Sept. 10 disclosed
that consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Recall date: September 10, 2013
Recall number: 13-279

Front side of the Monster Science Growing Spider with monster
"spider eggs" packaging.  The eggs are water-absorbing polymer
balls that can grow to eight times their original size.  Products
sold by Target and Cracker Barrel do not have the "Spirit" name on

Front side of the Monster Science Growing Spider with monster
"spider eggs" packaging.  The eggs are water-absorbing polymer
balls that can grow to eight times their original size.  Products
sold by Target and Cracker Barrel do not have the "Spirit" name on

Recall Summary

Name of product:  Water-absorbing polymer balls

Hazard:  The soft and colorful product can be mistaken by a child
for candy.  When the marble-sized toy is ingested, it can expand
inside a child's body and cause intestinal obstructions, resulting
in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and could be life
threatening.  The toys do not show up on an x-ray and need surgery
to be removed from the body.

Remedy:  View Details
Refund

Consumer Contact:  Be Amazing! Toys toll-free at (877) 798-9795,
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or online at
http://www.beamazingtoys.comthen click on Safety Recall at the
bottom of the page for more information.
Recall Details

Units:  About 26,500

Description:   This recall involves Monster Science Growing Spider
toy sets, with model number 7280 for product sold at Cracker
Barrel Old Country Stores and Spirit Halloween and model number
7289 for product sold at Target.  The sets contain marble-sized
polymer ball "spider eggs" that can absorb from 300 to 800 times
their weight in water and can grow up to eight times their
original size.  The sets consist of one polymer spider and three
"spider eggs".  The Be Amazing! Toys star logo and the words
Monster Science Growing Spider, Ages 8+, Just drop in water, Grow
Giant Spider Eggs and Eggs Grow Up to 8X Original Size are printed
on the front of the packaging.  The model number is on the bottom
of the back of the packaging.  The front and back of the packaging
have warnings not to use the toy without adult supervision.

Incidents/Injuries:  None reported.  CPSC is aware of one incident
with a similar water absorbing polymer ball product in which an 8-
month-old girl ingested the ball and it had to be surgically
removed.

Remedy:  Consumers should immediately take this recalled toy away
from children and contact Be Amazing! Toys for a refund.

Sold at:  Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores nationwide from August
2011 to August 2013, Spirit Halloween stores nationwide from
August 2011 to November 2011 and from August 2012 to November
2012, and Target stores nationwide September to November 2012 for
between $3 and $5.

Importer:  Be Amazing! Toys, of Salt Lake City

Manufactured in:  China

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is still
interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either
directly related to this product recall or involve a different
hazard with the same product.  Please tell us about your
experience with the product on SaferProducts.gov

CPSC is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks
of injury or death associated with the use of the thousands of
consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction.  Deaths,
injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents cost
the nation more than $900 billion annually.  CPSC is committed to
protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire,
electrical, chemical or mechanical hazard.  CPSC's work to ensure
the safety of consumer products -- such as toys, cribs, power
tools, cigarette lighters and household chemicals -- contributed
to a decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with
consumer products over the past 30 years.

Federal law bars any person from selling products subject to a
publicly-announced voluntary recall by a manufacturer or a
mandatory recall ordered by the Commission.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury go
online to http://www.SaferProducts.govor call CPSC's Hotline at
(800) 638-2772 or teletypewriter at (301) 595-7054 for the hearing
impaired.  Consumers can obtain recall information at
http://www.cpsc.govon Twitter @OnSafety or by subscribing to
CPSC's free e-mail newsletters.


BLUE MARSH: Recalls Jams and Jellies Due to Undeclared Sulphites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Blue Marsh Farm & Kitchen
Distribution:             Nova Scotia
CFIA reference number:    8314

Affected products:

   -- Blue Marsh Farm & Kitchen Blueberry & Mint Jam;
   -- Blue Marsh Farm & Kitchen Rhubarb & Ginger Jam;
   -- Blue Marsh Farm & Kitchen Strawberry Jam with Balsamic &
   -- Black Pepper; and
   -- Blue Marsh Farm & Kitchen Lavender Jelly


BODY CENTRAL: Store Videotapes Women in Dressing Rooms, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a Body Central
women's apparel store secretly, and illegally, videotapes women in
dressing rooms, three customers claim in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Trania Pawnell sued Body Central Stores in St.
Clair County Court.  Body Central is a nationwide women's apparel
chain.

The women claim Body Central violated Illinois law by videotaping
them while they tried on clothes in the store's dressing room.

"Without any kind of notice to plaintiffs herein, defendant
unlawfully video recorded plaintiffs, and the class they seek to
represent, while they were taking their clothes off in the
changing rooms provided by defendant," the complaint states.

"At no time did plaintiffs or members of the class give consent to
defendant to record and/or view them in the changing rooms using a
video camera."

The class consists of all customers who were videotaped using the
Body Central dressing rooms at the chain's Fairview Heights, Ill.
outlet since 2008.

They seek an injunction and damages for unauthorized video
recording and live video transmission and intrusion.

Body Central had no comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David I. Cates, Esq.
          CATES MAHONEY, LLC
          216 W Pointe Dr.
          Swansea, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 277-3644
          E-mail: dcates@cateslaw.com


BP PLC: Changes View on Oil Spill Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Frederick T. Kuykendall III, of counsel to Farrell & Patel, P.A.
reports that BP has changed their view on the settlement, which is
highly unusual, says Rick Kuykendall, attorney in Alabama.  BP
began a campaign back in January to challenge many of the
interpretations the claims administrator had placed on a 1,400
page agreement.

Procedurally, says Mr. Kuykendall, it's a complicated matter.  BP
has attacked the judge's rulings in upholding the claims
administrator on multiple occasions and they currently have a case
pending in the fifth circuit court of appeals.  The case has been
argued and is currently under submission, with a decision to come
at any time.

According to Mr. Kuykendall, in class actions, people who
improperly object have the right to make an appeal.  Here, there
were some appeals by the underlying judgment and by disgruntled
plaintiffs.  It is highly unusual that at the end of the process,
BP would have a falling out.  Usually, he says, they're joined at
the hip at this point to get the deal done.

As BP is dissatisfied with the manner in which the administrator
has implemented the settlement, BP has decided to jump on the back
of the plaintiff objectors, says Kuykendall.  He says BP's
position is that the deal they negotiated was fair but no longer
is under the interpretation of the administrator.  BP is now
trying to undo the deal it negotiated.

When looking at this whole thing in total, Mr. Kuykendall says the
claims administrator was dealing with hundreds of thousands of
claims and overseeing an army of claims handlers, making this
whole process very complicated.

The exclusions and opt-outs, which are the cases that were not
included in the settlement, have just been brought back to New
Orleans, after a July review by a multi-district panel in
Portland, Maine.

Mr. Kuykendall believes an opinion on this new twist will be
forthcoming by the end of the year but notes that unless BP
resolves this, this can go on for years.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: iO Video Subscribers Suit in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the suit Marchese, et al. v.
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, according
to Cablevision's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.

After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without
prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third
amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying
the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television
packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by
Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision
compatible set-top boxes.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's
fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.  On September
23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a
decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization
claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state
common law claims to proceed.  Cablevision's answer to the third
amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012.  Discovery is
proceeding.  The Company believes that these claims are without
merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable
to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a
range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Yet to Certify Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification and partial summary judgment in
the Cablevision Systems Corporation Consumer Litigation have been
fully briefed, and a decision by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York is pending, according to the
company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.

On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on
new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored.  Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.

Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a
consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22,
2011.

Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  On March 28, 2012,
the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the
motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but
granting it with regard to the remaining claims, which were
dismissed.

On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract.  The
Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012.  On October 10, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December
13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment.  Both motions
have been fully briefed, and a decision by the Court is pending.

Further discovery, if any, has been deferred until after the Court
rules on the pending motions.  The Company believes that this
claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Seeks to Junk N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation is seeking to dismiss the
securities lawsuit Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corporation,
et al. pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Cablevision and certain current and former officers, by a
Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between
February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011.

The complaint alleges that Cablevision and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements
regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertising
costs, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especially
in the New York area.

The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same alleged
conduct.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys'
fees, and equitable relief.  On March 26, 2012, the Iron Workers
Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
submitted a joint application to serve as lead plaintiffs.  The
Court granted the application on April 13, 2012.  On June 29,
2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On October 11, 2012, the Court issued a ruling permitting the
filing of a motion to dismiss and setting a briefing schedule.
The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed, and a decision by
the Court is pending.  Oral argument on the motion is scheduled
for August 13, 2013.  The Company believes that these claims are
without merit, but is unable to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CHOBANI: 89 Illnesses Related to Contaminated Yogurt Reported
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Cadotte, writing for MagicValley.com, reports that at least 89
people have gotten sick from eating Chobani yogurt, which is under
a voluntary recall, the FDA said on Sept. 9.

Some have described nausea and cramps after eating the yogurt,
said spokeswoman Tamara Ward of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

No cases have been confirmed.

The FDA is not investigating Chobani but is working with the
company to hasten the recall, Ms. Ward said.

The yogurt giant sent orders to grocery stores throughout the U.S.
to destroy 35 varieties of yogurt reported to have been
contaminated by a mold associated with dairy, fruits and
vegetables.

On Sept. 5, company spokeswoman Amy Juaristi said 95 percent of
the tainted product had been destroyed.

The affected yogurt cups have the code 16-012 and expiration dates
Sept. 11 to Oct. 7.

Public health officials said the moldy yogurt was not a public
health threat, but a statement by the company last week read: "The
mold can act as an opportunistic pathogen for those with
compromised immune systems."

In an email on Sept. 9, Chobani said: "We identified the source of
the issue in the plant, and have taken corrective action designed
to prevent this from happening again," said Ms. Juaristi in an
email.

The company has failed to release specifics about where and how
the outbreak occurred in its Twin Falls plant or how the problem
would be remedied to ensure it does not recur.

            Greek Yogurt Recalled Over Quality Concerns

According to The Associated Press, Chobani is pulling some of its
Greek yogurt from supermarket shelves after hearing of "swelling
or bloating" in cups.  The company said it has investigated and
found a type of mold commonly found in dairy that may be to blame.

Chobani said the affected product came from its Idaho facility and
represents less than 5 percent of its total production.  The
company has been working with retailers to remove and replace
containers with the code 16-012 and expiration dates Sept. 11 to
Oct. 7.

Chobani did not say how many of its cups or what varieties were
affected.  The effort was voluntary and it is not issuing a formal
recall.  The New Berlin, N.Y.-based company did not specify what
caused the problem.

A representative for Kroger, the nation's largest traditional
supermarket operator, said Chobani issued a product withdrawal on
Aug. 30.  "It was not a food safety issue," Kroger spokesman Keith
Dailey said in an email.

On Sept. 3, Chobani was responding to people who were complaining
about their yogurt cups on Twitter.  One person described her cup
as "unnervingly fizzy," another said the cups were like "yogurt
soup" and another said it tasted like "wine."

Yet another person said the strawberry flavor they bought tasted
"really old."

Chobani, which says it uses only high-quality, natural
ingredients, has grown rapidly since it was founded in 2005.

Greek yogurt in general has surged in popularity as well, with
fans saying they prefer its thicker consistency and relatively
higher protein content when compared with the sweeter yogurt
varieties that have long been sold in American supermarkets.

The private company had an estimated $244 million in revenue in
2010, according to S&P Capital IQ.

Chobani says customers with the affected code dates should contact
its customer service team at care@chobani.com to get replacement
products.


CONAGRA FOODS: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Cooking Spray
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that
ConAgra's sprayable butter is not the same thing as nonstick
cooking sprays such as Pam, making its nonfat, no-calorie claims
contestable in court, a federal judge ruled in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Erin Allen sued ConAgra in March, claiming it uses
"unrealistically" small serving sizes to understate the amount of
fat and calories in its Parkay Spray.

Conagra advertises the spray as having "0 fat" and "0 calories,"
though one bottle contains 93 grams of fat and 832 calories, Allen
said in her class action.

The Food and Drug Administration allows companies to label
products as "fat-free" if they contain less than 0.5 grams of fat
per serving, and "0 calories" if they have fewer than 5 calories
per serving, according to Allen's complaint.

Parkay Spray lists its serving sizes as 0.2 grams, or one spray,
for cooking, and 1.0 grams, or five sprays, for topping. This
would give an 8-oz, bottle 1,130 one-spray servings and 226 five-
spray servings.

The problem, Allen claims, is that consumers do not use such
artificially small serving sizes, especially when it comes to
butter, so ConAgra's claims are false and misleading.

ConAgra which grosses $20 billion in annual sales, sought
dismissal, claiming the complaint is pre-empted by the Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Nutrition Labeling and Education
Act (NLEA) of 1990. It claims it complies with those laws.

U.S. District Judge John Tigar ruled that the case boils down to
whether Parkay Spray belongs in the "spray type" fat or oil
category, or the "butter, margarine, oil, shortening" category.

ConAgra argued that Parkay Spray is not butter because it does not
contain milk or cream, under the FDCA definition.

Tigar, however, pointed out that serving sizes for imitation and
substitute products must be the same as the foods for which they
substitute.

"Imitation butter, which may contain neither milk nor cream,
therefore belongs in the same reference amount category as
butter," Tigar ruled.  "The court concludes that plaintiff has
adequately alleged that the serving size listed on Parkay Spray
bottles is the wrong serving size."

Tigar found that because Allen is not trying to impose
requirements that differ from those under the FDCA, NLEA or FDA
regulations, her claims are not pre-empted.

"The complaint alleges that Parkay Spray's labels and marketing
are false and misleading because they advertise that Parkay Spray
is 'fat free' and 'calorie free' when it is not," Tigar wrote.
"Plaintiff's allegation that defendant's statements violate FDA
regulation as written is necessary for her claims to avoid pre-
emption, but not necessary for her to establish the underlying
state law causes of action.  The FDCA therefore does not preclude
plaintiff from bringing those claims."

Tigar added that "plaintiff has adequately pled her fraud
allegations, and the question of whether she can prove them is not
for the court to decide at this juncture."

He denied ConAgra's motion for dismissal on the breach of express
warranty claim, but granted dismissal on the unjust enrichment
claim.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPRIO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Ureka Ellie Idstrom, Esq.
          THE EUREKA LAW FIRM
          6744 Holmes Road
          Kansas City, MO 64131
          Telephone: (816) 665-3515
          E-mail: uidstrom@eurekalawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert B. Hawk, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          525 University Avenue, 4th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 463-4008
          Facsimile: (650) 463-4199
          E-mail: robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq.
          MCGRATH NORTH MULLIN & KRATZ, PC LLO
          1601 Dodge Street, Suite 3700
          Omaha, NE 68102
          Telephone: (402) 341-3070
          E-mail: pbrookhouser@mcgrathnorth.com

               - and -

          Stacy R. Hovan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          525 University Avenue, 4th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 463-4183
          Facsimile: (650) 463-4199
          E-mail: stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com

The case is Allen v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-01279-
JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Rules in 3 Calif. Motor Fuel Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kathryn J. Vratil of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas issued a memorandum and order in IN RE:
MOTOR FUEL TEMPERATURE SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL NO. 1840,
CASE NO. 07-1840-KHV.

The ruling relates to: Rushing, et al. v. Alon USA, Inc., et al.,
D. Kan. Case No. 07-2300-KHV, N.D. Cal. Case No. 06-7621-PJH
Lerner, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., D. Kan. Case No.
07-2405-KHV, C.D. Cal. Case No. 07-1216-GHK-FMO, and Wyatt, et al.
v. B.P. Am. Corp., et al., D. Kan. Case No. 07-2507-KHV, S.D. Cal.
Case No. 07-1754-BTM-JMA.

Plaintiffs in the three California cases -- Rushing, Lerner and
Wyatt -- bring class action claims against motor fuel retailers
alleging various claims based on defendants' practice of selling
motor fuel for a specified price per gallon without disclosing or
adjusting for temperature, and without disclosing the effect of
temperature on motor fuel.

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2) and (3), the Court certified
plaintiffs' claims for violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.,
violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1750 et seq., breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.

On July 19, 2013, as to Chevron, the Court sustained defendants'
motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs' four certified claims.
That same day, the Court ordered the parties to show cause whether
and to what extent the summary judgment order can be applied to
plaintiffs' claims against the remaining non-settling defendants,
i.e. Circle K Stores, Inc., Flying J, Inc., Petro Stopping
Centers, L.P., Pilot Travel Centers LLC, TravelCenters of America
LLC, G&M Oil Company, Inc., G&M Oil Co., LLC, World Oil Corp.,
United El Segundo, Inc. and 7-Eleven, Inc.  The Court also asked
the parties to propose how to proceed in the California cases and
to explain what effect (if any) the summary judgment order has on
the proposed class notices and notice plan.

In her memorandum and order, Judge Vratil said that having
sustained defendants' motions for summary judgments on plaintiffs'
certified claims, and having declined to require plaintiffs to
provide class notice regarding those claims, the Court intends to
suggest that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand
to their respective transferor courts plaintiffs' California
claims against the non-settling defendants in Rushing, Lerner and
Wyatt with instructions to enter judgment consistent with the
Court's summary judgment orders.

Judge Vratil further ruled that Defendants' Joint Notice Of Motion
For Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs' California Unfair Competition
Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Florida Deceptive Trade
Practices Act And Breach Of Contract filed November 1, 2011
(Rushing); Defendants' Joint Notice Of Motion For Partial Summary
Judgment On Plaintiffs' Duty Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing,
Unfair Competition Law And Unjust Enrichment Claims filed October
30, 2011 (Lerner); and Defendants' Joint Notice Of Motion For
Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs' Unfair Competition Law And Unjust
Enrichment Claims filed October 30, 2011 (Wyatt) are sustained as
to Circle K Stores, Inc., Flying J, Inc., Petro Stopping Centers,
L.P., Pilot Travel Centers LLC, TravelCenters of America LLC, G&M
Oil Company, Inc., G&M Oil Co., LLC, World Oil Corp., United El
Segundo, Inc. and 7-Eleven, Inc.

In addition, certain Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Based
On Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Preemption And Related
Doctrines, which Circle K Stores, Inc., Flying J Inc., Pilot
Travel Centers, LLC and 7-Eleven, Inc. filed November 1, 2011
(Rushing); and Certain Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment
Based On Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Preemption And
Related Doctrines, which 7-Eleven, Inc. and Circle K Stores, Inc.
filed November 1, 2011 (Wyatt) are overruled in part with respect
to defendants' arguments that plaintiffs' claims are not
justiciable under the political question doctrine.

With regard to the California claims against the non-settling
defendants, the Court will not require plaintiffs to provide
notice to the California classes, Judge Vratil held.

A copy of the District Court's August 14, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/uQtt3tfrom Leagle.com.


CROWN CRAFTS: Class Action Over Crib Bumper Products Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Crafts, Inc. on Sept. 9 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit against the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Crown
Crafts Infant Products, Inc., has been dismissed.

The lawsuit, filed in March 2013, alleged that CCIP's crib bumper
products put children at risk of suffocation or crib death and
that the Company and CCIP concealed and failed to disclose these
purported risks through allegedly false and misleading advertising
and product packaging.  The complaint did not allege that any
child had actually been harmed by these products.  The complaint
alleged violations of various consumer protection laws in
California.  On September 6, 2013, the federal court in Los
Angeles, California dismissed the case without prejudice in its
entirety.

                     About Crown Crafts, Inc.

Crown Crafts, Inc. -- http://www.crowncrafts.com-- designs,
markets and distributes infant, toddler and juvenile consumer
products, including crib and toddler bedding and blankets; nursery
and bath accessories; reusable and disposable bibs and floor mats;
burp cloths; room decor; and disposable placemats, toilet seat
covers and changing mats.  The Company's operating subsidiaries
include Crown Crafts Infant Products, Inc. in California and
Hamco, Inc. in Louisiana.  Crown Crafts is among America's largest
producers of infant bedding, bibs and bath items.  The Company's
products include licensed and branded collections as well as
exclusive private label programs for certain of its customers.


DAILY SEAFOOD: Recalls Oysters from Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 11, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Daily Seafood Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8312

Affected products: Oysters 100 count with Harvest Zone: V:20
Katama Bay, Massachussets and with harvest dates from August 1,
2013 to September 9, 2013.


DOLAN DESIGNS: Recalls Ceiling-Mounted Light Fixtures
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dolan Designs Inc., of Portland, Ore., announced a voluntary
recall of about 8,000 ceiling-mounted light fixture.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fixture's socket wire insulation can degrade and lead to
charged wires becoming exposed, causing electricity to pass to the
metal canopy of the fixture.  This poses a fire and electric shock
hazard to consumers.

The firm has received two reports of defective fixtures.  No
injuries have been reported to the firm.

The recall involves round ceiling-mounted light fixtures sold in
satin nickel, bronze, polished brass, antique brass, white, or
bronze finishes with a domed white or amber glass shade.  The
light fixture is 14 inches in diameter and 5.75 inches high and
has two sockets marked "BO AN" which take 75 watt bulbs.  The 16
recalled light fixtures were sold as Dolan Designs models 502-30,
522-09, 522-14, 522-18, 522-22, 522-30, 522-32, 522-60, 522-78,
5332-133, 5372-66, 5372-78, 5382-20, 5382-55, 5382-100 and 5392-
20.  The brand name and model number are on the inside of the
fixture pan, visible when the glass shade is removed.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Builders Lighting, Globe Lighting, Seattle Lighting and other
lighting showrooms nationwide and on-line at
destinationlighting.com between September 2008 and October 2009
for about $47.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled light
fixtures and return them to the place of purchase to obtain a free
replacement fixture, or contact Dolan Designs to schedule a free
in-home repair.


DUTCH VALLEY: Recalls Honey Roasted Peanuts for Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of an internal review, Dutch Valley is issuing a
recall on Honey Roasted Peanuts due to undeclared Milk and Wheat
Ingredients.  Individuals with food allergies to Milk and or Wheat
may run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

Dutch Valley Food Distributors, Inc. has issued a voluntary recall
for the following product: Item # 050143 Honey Roasted Peanuts
UPC# 8 77245 00143 3

All products with a Best By date prior to and including 1/21/14

Best By date can be located next to nutritional panel

Product is in a clear 11oz. retail packages and was distributed
twelve packages per case.  Pictures of the Products are available
at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm368403.htm

There have been no illnesses or issues reported regarding
consumption of this product to date.

All Items packaged and sold within the parameters mentioned are
subject to this recall, including items sold on our website,
http://www.dutchvalleyfoods.com. These items were distributed
nationwide and affect the following states: CT, DE, IL, KY, MD,
NJ, NY, OH, PA, TX and WI.  Retailers are advised to remove this
product from store shelves based on the Best By Date.  Consumers
who have purchased these products are asked to destroy them or to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions regarding the product listed may call Dutch Valley
Foods at 1-800-733 4191 and speak with customer service, Monday
through Friday 8am - 5pm EST.


ELECTROLUX NA: Toledo Court Issues Opinion on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Krause, writing for Norwalk Reflector, reports that a Toledo
federal district court recently issued an opinion that "helps to
preserve important Ohio consumer rights," according to a press
release from Sandusky law firm Murray & Murray.

In a class action lawsuit brought by Maureen Huffman, she alleged
Electrolux North America Inc. produced and sold Huffman and other
purchasers defective front loading washing machines.

Ms. Huffman seeks to represent a class defined as: "All residents
of Ohio who purchased a front loading washing machine
manufactured, sold and/or distributed by defendant and purchased
for primarily personal, family or household purposes in Ohio and
not for resale."

The legal action against Electrolux claims that the machines do
not drain properly, which causes mold and pervasive foul odors to
later manifest.  The case is captioned Huffman v. Electronic, N.D.
Ohio. No. 3:12-cv-02681-JGC. Huffman is represented by attorney
John T. Murray.

"The court's recent opinion provided two important victories for
Ohio consumer rights," states a press release.  "First, it denied
Electrolux's argument that a class could not be certified, which
was made before the plaintiff was able to obtain evidence through
the discovery process.  Defendant companies increasingly seek to
use early motions to strike class allegations to fight consumer
claims before they have been able to go through the traditional
process of gathering evidence and submitting a motion to certify a
class action.  This opinion, like the recent decision by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals in a class action against Whirlpool,
pushes back against these continued efforts by companies to stop
consumer claims before they start.

"Second, it provided that under Ohio law, one may bring a state
products liability claim without being forced to give up
alternative claims.  The court found consumers may bring Ohio
products liability claims along with common law claims, finding
that otherwise they would be denied their right to open courts
under Article I, Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution."

As Electrolux's Motion to Strike was denied and its Motion to
Dismiss was also denied in large part, the case will now continue
into the class certification discovery phase as to all claims
except for implied warranty, which the court held was barred by
the limitations stated in the Electrolux product warranty.

"This case continues Murray & Murray's long tradition of fighting
to protect Ohio consumer rights," the press release states.

The law firm's phone number is (419) 624-3000.


ELSEVIER INC: Appeals Court to Decide on Medical Malpractice Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal appeals court is weighing whether medical malpractice
plaintiffs who lost birth-injury cases in which the defense relied
on a medical article the plaintiffs believe is false can sue the
doctors who wrote it and the publishers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit must decide
whether to revive the plaintiffs' case under a Massachusetts
consumer protection law that allows for treble damages.

"These plaintiffs did not get the benefit of a fair trial because
of this article," plaintiffs attorney Kenneth Levine of Kenneth M.
Levine & Associates of Brookline, Mass., told the court on
September 11 in A.G. v. Elsevier Inc.

The plaintiffs are two minors who suffered permanent birth
injuries to the brachial plexus, nerves that control the shoulder,
arms and hands.  Each filed claims against their doctors in
Virginia and Illinois.  The role of physician-applied traction was
an issue in each case.

The defense teams relied on a case report written by doctors
Henry Lerner and Eva Salamon and published by Elsevier Inc.  The
article documented a permanent brachial plexus injury that
purportedly happened without doctor-applied traction or in a
situation in which the baby's shoulder was stuck in the birth
canal for too long.

The plaintiffs say they've debunked the article by reviewing the
records in the central case and the doctors' testimony in other
cases.

The Illinois plaintiff lost an appeal to the Illinois Appellate
Court, which ruled in 2010 that the article had not prejudiced his
case.

The October 2011 Massachusetts lawsuit claimed that the "writing,
submitting for publication, publishing, and failing to retract an
article stating false medical conclusions" was tantamount to
unfair or deceptive practices under state law.  Elsevier's
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which published the
article, and the Bond Clinic, where Ms. Salamon practices, are
also defendants.

District of Massachusetts Judge Nathaniel Gorton dismissed the
claim in March 2012.

The plaintiffs' First Circuit brief claimed the doctors'
conclusion was flawed and that "they willfully and fraudulently
represented and further perpetuated" the false article.  They
claimed Elsevier should be liable for refusing to retract the
article or print a clarification.

Elsevier's brief argued that the plaintiffs have produced no facts
showing that any defendant's conduct caused the malpractice jury
trial outcomes.  As for its own role, Elsevier argued that
applying a state consumer protection law to its published material
would violate its free-speech right under the First Amendment.

The doctors made similar arguments.  They claimed the plaintiffs
have no way to prove their state court juries would have sided
with them absent the case report -- and that the consumer
protection law at issue only applies to allegedly unfair business
conduct in Massachusetts.

Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson sat on the panel with senior judges
Kermit Lipez and Bruce Selya.

Mr. Selya told Mr. Levine that he was struggling to see how the
case could possible qualify under the state's consumer protection
law.  Mr. Levine replied that the defendants' actions, in this
case the article, could affect the citizens of Massachusetts,
which is a requirement for bringing consumer protection claims.

After a lengthy interchange about ways the trial lawyers could
have sought to disqualify the article as evidence, Mr. Selya
observed: "You want us to take what seems to me is an end-
justifies-the-means approach."

Later, William Strong of Boston's Kotin, Crabtree & Strong argued
for Elsevier that there's no such thing as publishing malpractice.
"If we go down the road of treating this as a malpractice type of
action, we're getting into very deep water," he said.

Chad Brouillard -- CBrouillard@fosteld.com -- of Foster & Eldridge
in Cambridge, Mass., who represents Dr. Salamon and the Bond
Clinic, boiled his argument down to why the parties from the
various states shouldn't face this case.

"This is the type of case that screams out a personal jurisdiction
problem," Mr. Brouillard said.


FAMILY VIDEO: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Z. Lee granted, in part, and denied, in part,
a motion for class certification in ALINA TAMAS, Individually, and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FAMILY
VIDEO MOVIE CLUB, INC., Defendant, NO. 11 C 1024, (N.D. Ill.).

Alina Tamas brought this putative class/collective action pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
against Family Video Movie Club, Inc.  Ms. Tamas, a former
salaried Store Manager and Manager-in-Training at Family Video,
alleges that she and those who were similarly-situated were
improperly classified as exempt employees and thus deprived of
overtime pay.  Ms.Tamas moved for conditional certification of the
FLSA class and certification of the IMWL class.

Judge Lee held that the Plaintiff's motion for notice to potential
class members is granted in part and denied in part.

This FLSA class is conditionally certified for the purposes of
notice and discovery: "All salaried Managers in Training and Store
Managers who worked for Family Video Movie Club, Inc. at any time
during the past three years."

Judicial notice to the FLSA class in the form proposed by the
Plaintiff will be sent to all putative class members as set forth
in the schedule proposed by the Plaintiff.

The Court directed Family Video to provide the Plaintiff's Counsel
with the contact information for each putative collective class
member within 14 days from the date of the Order.

The Plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members is
denied as to her proposed IMWL class, Judge Lee ruled.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/n6VEeGfrom Leagle.com.

Alina Tamas, Plaintiff, is represented by:

   Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
   Joseph Carter Melugin, Esq.
   Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
   FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
   1150 Bissonnet
   Houston, TX 77005
   Phone: (713) 751-0025
   Toll Free: (888) 751-7050
   Fax: (713) 751-0030

       - and -

Douglas M. Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com -- David Erik Stevens --
dstevens@flsalaw.com -- Maureen Ann Salas -- msalas@flsalaw.com --
at Werman Law Offices, PC.

Family Video Movie Club, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Joel
Christopher Griswold -- jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker &
Hostetler, LLP & Melissa Anne Siebert -- msiebert@bakerlaw.com --
at Baker & Hostetler LLP.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 370,000 Cars Over Steering Shaft Corrosion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Ford is recalling 370,000 cars
due to potential corrosion to their steering shaft that may result
in loss of steering.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The cars include 2005 to 2011 Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand
Marquis and Lincoln Town Cars.  About 355,000 are in the U.S. and
15,000 in Canada.

Dealers will inspect the cars and may replace the lower
intermediate steering shaft and if necessary resecure a lower
steering column bearing and replace the upper intermediate
steering shaft.

States included in the recall are: Connecticut, Delaware, District
of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

Owners in other states can also ask for inspections and repairs.


GALANT FOOD: Recalls Chicken Provance French Puff
-------------------------------------------------
Galant Food Company, a San Leandro, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 420 pounds of Chicken Provance French puff
pastry product because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen.
The products are formulated with an egg wash glaze that contains
egg, a known allergen, which is not declared on the label.

The product subject to recall includes:

   -- 4-oz. of "Chicken Provance French Puff" bearing the
      establishment number "EST. 9014" inside the USDA mark of
      inspection on the label.  Identifying case codes are: 7193,
      9053 and 9093.

The products were produced on July 19, Sept. 5 and Sept. 9, 2013
and shipped to restaurants and cafes in the San Francisco Bay
area.

The problem was discovered during a food safety assessment at the
establishment.  FSIS personnel are responsible for verifying that
establishments are actively labeling the eight most common food
allergens.  The firm recently relocated, and the problem occurred
due to difficulties with label printing equipment at their new
location.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Richard Fairchild, the company's recall coordinator, at
415-552-5475.


GEORGIA: Motion to Decertify and Dismiss ADA Class Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard W. Story denied a motion filed by the
defendants in BELTON v. STATE to de-certify class and to dismiss
for lack of standing.  The Defendants' motion to strike affidavits
was also denied.

Plaintiffs Renita Belton and Matthew Erickson, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, brought the action
pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq., alleging that
the Defendants failed to provide Deaf Georgians access to state-
provided behavioral health and developmental disability services
equal to that afforded to non-Deaf Georgians.

The case is RENITA BELTON and MATTHEW ERICKSON on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE
OF GEORGIA, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-0583-RWS,
(N.D. Ga.).

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/n6VEeGfrom Leagle.com.

Renita Belton, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Leroy Parks, Jr. --
lparks@pcwlawfirm.com -- at Parks Chesin & Walbert, P.C. & David
F. Walbert -- dwalbert@pcwlawfirm.com -- at Parks Chesin &
Walbert, P.C.

Matthew Erickson, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Leroy Parks,
Jr., Parks Chesin & Walbert, P.C. & David F. Walbert, Parks Chesin
& Walbert, P.C.

Gale Belton, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Leroy Parks, Jr.,
Parks Chesin & Walbert, P.C.

Melissa Boggess, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Leroy Parks, Jr.,
Parks Chesin & Walbert, P.C.

State of Georgia, Defendant, represented by Penny Hannah, State of
Georgia Law Department, Shalen S. Nelson, Office of State Attorney
General, Jason S. Naunas, Attorney General's Office & Jennifer
Dalton, State of Georgia Law Department.

Frank Shelp, Defendant, represented by Shalen S. Nelson, Office of
State Attorney General, Jason S. Naunas, Attorney General's
Office, Jennifer Dalton, State of Georgia Law Department & Penny
Hannah, State of Georgia Law Department.

Governor Sonny Perdue, Defendant, represented by Shalen S. Nelson,
Office of State Attorney General, Jennifer Dalton, State of
Georgia Law Department & Penny Hannah, State of Georgia Law
Department.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/RKFdV6from Leagle.com.


GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Junk Wiretap Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Tim Hull reports that Google
cannot use a broad definition of "radio communication" to escape
claims that its Street View cars violated federal privacy laws,
the 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday, September 10, 2013.

Street View cars, which travel the world taking photographs and
capturing data for Google, inadvertently collected some 600
gigabytes of private data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks in more
than 30 countries.  The company collected the data, which included
"personal emails, usernames, passwords, videos, and documents,"
between 2007 and 2010, after which it purportedly corrected the
issue, the court noted.

Upon admitting the mistake, however, Google faced a number of
potential class actions.  The complaints were eventually
consolidated in California, where lead plaintiff Benjamin Joffe
and others sought to certify a class of "all persons whose
electronic communications were intercepted by Google Street View
vehicles since May 25, 2007."

The plaintiffs claimed that Google had violated various points of
the federal Wiretap Act, which prohibits the interception of
"wire, oral, or electronic communication," except in a few
instances.  The law provides an exemption for "electronic
communication made through an electronic communication system"
that is "readily accessible to the general public."  Unscrambled
radio and television broadcasts fall under this exemption.

In a motion to dismiss the proposed class action, Google had
argued that all data transmitted over any Wi-Fi network is an
electronic "radio communication," and thus exempt, just as any
other radio broadcast, from the prohibition on interception the
same.  It supported this argument by defining radio communication
as "any information transmitted using radio wave."  Google also
justified the interception of unencrypted WiFi networks because
they are "readily accessible to the general public."

U.S. District Judge James Ware in San Jose disagreed on all points
and refused to dismiss the complaint, and Google took the issue to
the 9th Circuit.

At oral argument before a three-judge panel in June, the proposed
class's attorney, Elizabeth Cabrader, warned that Google's
interpretation of the law could open a "loophole ... big enough
for massive government intrusion."

Affirming the lower court unanimously on Tuesday, September 10,
2013, the appellate judges said that Google's "expansive"
definition could bring "absurd" results, as it would apply to
"Bluetooth devices, cordless and cellular phones, garage door
openers, avalanche beacons, and wildlife tracking collars" -- all
of which use the radio frequency portion of the electromagnetic
spectrum.

"Google's proposed definition is in tension with how Congress- and
virtually everyone else - uses the phrase," Judge Jay Bybee wrote
for the court.  "In common parlance, watching a television show
does not entail 'radio communication.'  Nor does sending an email
or viewing a bank statement while connected to a Wi-Fi network.
There is no indication that the Wiretap Act carries a buried
implication that the phrase ought to be given a broader definition
than the one that is commonly understood."

Bybee added that, under Google's contention that unsecured WiFi
networks are accessible to public, "the protections afforded by
the Wiretap Act to many online communications would turn on
whether the recipient of those communications decided to secure
her wireless network."

"Lending 'radio communication' a broad definition that encompasses
data transmitted on Wi-Fi networks would obliterate Congress's
compromise and create absurd applications of the exemption for
intercepting unencrypted radio communications," the panel
concluded.

A Google spokesperson called the decision disappointing and said
the Company is considering its "next steps."

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  jsagafi@lchb.com

               - and -

          Mary Ann Geppert, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: mgeppert@srkw-law.com
                  jkodroff@srkw-law.com
                  jmacoretta@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Small, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          David H. Kramer, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          E-mail: dkramer@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Michael H. Rubin, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          One Market Street, Spear St. Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 947-2000
          E-mail: mrubin@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Brian M. Willen, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 999-5800
          E-mail: bwillen@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Caroline E. Wilson, Esq.
          4230 Mason Lane
          Sacramento, CA 95821
          Telephone: (949) 241-5830

The appellate case is Benjamin Joffe, et al. v. Google Inc., Case
No. 11-17483, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The original case is Benjamin Joffe, et al. v. Google
Inc., Case No. 5:10-md-02184-JW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose.


GOOGLE INC: Mulls Next Steps After Failing to Dismiss Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Van Grove, writing for CNET News, reports that Google is
still facing civil damages for accidentally spying on Wi-Fi users
with its Street View cars after a federal appeals court on
Sept. 10 rejected the company's latest appeal in a class action
suit alleging it violated the Wiretap Act.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling affirming
a previous judgment that denied Google's motion to dismiss,
meaning that the company can't yet drive away unscathed from the
scandal.

"We are disappointed in the Ninth Circuit's decision and are
considering our next steps," a Google spokesperson told CNET.

Between 2007 and 2010, Google's Street View cars, equipped with
Wi-Fi antennas, collected and stored "payload data" such as
e-mails, usernames, passwords, videos, and documents that were
sent and received over unencrypted Wi-Fi connections.  Google
collected around 600 gigabytes of data transferred over Wi-Fi
networks in more than 30 countries, according to court documents.

In May 2010, the company apologized for the inadvertent
transgression, but was soon hit with several class action lawsuits
that were eventually consolidated into a single complaint that
accused Google of violating federal and state wiretap statutes.

Google sought to have the suit dismissed, claiming that its
actions were not illegal because data transmitted over a Wi-Fi
network is an electronic radio communication that is "readily
accessible to the general public" and therefore exempt under the
Wiretap Act.  The original district court rejected Google's
argument, as did the federal appeals court, which held that radio
communication excludes payload data transmitted over a Wi-Fi
network.

"Lending 'radio communication' a broad definition that encompasses
data transmitted on Wi-Fi networks would obliterate Congress's
compromise and create absurd applications of the exemption of
intercepting unencrypted radio communications," the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court wrote in its ruling.

"We now hold, in agreement with the district court, that payload
data transmitted over an unencrypted Wi-Fi network is not 'readily
accessible to the general public' and, consequently, that Google
cannot avail itself to the exemption."

With the court discrediting the crux of Google's argument, the
search company can go to trial, settle, ask the court to rehear
the case, or petition the Supreme Court, according to Wired, which
was first to report on the ruling.


GREE ELECTRIC: Recalls 12 Brands of Dehumidifiers Due to Fire Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gree Electric Appliances, of China, announced a voluntary recall
of about 2.2 million in the United States and 52,500 in Canada
dehumidifiers.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The dehumidifiers can overheat, smoke and catch fire, posing fire
and burn hazards to consumers.

The firms have received reports of 165 incidents, including 46
fires and $2.15 million in property damage.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recall involves 20, 25, 30, 40, 45, 50, 65 and 70-pint
dehumidifiers with brand names Danby, De'Longhi, Fedders, Fellini,
Frigidaire, Gree, Kenmore, Norpole, Premiere, Seabreeze, SoleusAir
and SuperClima.  The dehumidifiers are white, beige, gray or black
plastic and measure between 19 and 24 inches tall, 13 and 15
inches wide, and 9 and 11 inches deep.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
AAFES, HH Gregg, Home Depot, Kmart, Lowe's, Menards, Mills Fleet
Farm, Sam's Club, Sears and other stores nationwide and in Canada,
and online at Amazon.com and Ebay.com, from January 2005 through
August 2013 for between $110 and $400.

Consumers should immediately turn off and unplug the dehumidifiers
and contact Gree to receive a full refund.


HALCON ENERGY: Remand Order in "Vodenichar" Case Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
a district court decision in VODENICHAR v. HALCON ENERGY
PROPERTIES, INC.

Defendant Halcon Energy took an appeal from the District Court
Order remanding the case to state court based on the "home state"
exception to subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

The Third Circuit affirmed the ruling but did so based on CAFA's
"local controversy" exception.

The case is JEFFRY S. VODENICHAR; DAVID M. KING, JR. and LEIGH V.
KING, husband and wife; JOSEPH B. DAVIS and LAUREN E. DAVIS,
husband and wife; GROVE CITY COUNTRY CLUB; and RICHARD BROADHEAD,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. HALCON
ENERGY PROPERTIES, INC.; MORASCYZK & POLOCHAK; and CO-EXPRISE, DBA
CX-ENERGY Halcon Energy Properties, Inc., Appellant, NO. 13-2812.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 16, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/XDOScNfrom Leagle.com.

Kevin L. Colosimo -- kcolosimo@burlesonllp.com -- Esq., Burleson
LLP, 501, Corporate Drive, Suite 105, Canonsburg, PA 15317,
Counsel for Appellant.

David A. Borkovic -- dab@jgcg.com -- Esq., Jones, Gregg, Creehan &
Gerace, LLP, 411, Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200, Pittsburgh, PA
15219, Counsel for Appellees.

Richard A. Finberg, Esq., 300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 206-B,
Pittsburgh, PA 15234, Tel. (412) 341-1342, Counsel for Appellees.


INTERNAP NETWORK: December 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP on Sept. 10 issued a statement
regarding the Internap Network Services, Corp. Securities
Litigation.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

CATHERINE ANASTASIO, STEPHEN ANASTASIO, CURTIS WHITAKER, PATRICIA
ESPADA and FRED MATISE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. INTERNAP NETWORK SERVICES
CORP., JAMES P. DEBLASIO and DAVID A. BUCKEL, Defendants.  CIVIL
ACTION NO. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:  ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED INTERNAP NETWORK
SERVICES, CORP. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 3, 2007 AND AUGUST 5,
2008, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia: (1) that the above-
captioned litigation has been certified as a class action on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased common stock in
Internap Network Services, Corp., from May 3, 2007 through
August 5, 2008, inclusive, except for certain persons and entities
who are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement of the Litigation; and (2) that Lead
Plaintiffs in the Litigation have reached a proposed settlement
with the Defendants for $9.5 million in cash, plus interest
thereon if the Settlement is approved by the Court.

YOU ARE FURTHER HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
that a hearing will be held on December 4, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.,
before the Honorable J. Owen Forrester at the Richard B. Russell
Federal Building and Courthouse, 75 Spring Street, SW, Atlanta,
Georgia, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the principal sum
of $9,500,000 in cash, plus accrued interest, should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether,
thereafter, the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement, dated August 5, 2013; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should
be approved; and (4) whether the application of Plaintiffs'
counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred
in connection with the Litigation, and reimbursement awards to
Class Representatives, should be approved.

If you purchased Internap common stock from May 3, 2007 through
August 5, 2008, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, your rights
may be affected by the Settlement of the Litigation.  If you have
not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may
obtain copies by writing to Internap Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box 58548,
Philadelphia, PA 19102-8548, or on the internet by going to
http://www.InternapSettlement.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim
postmarked no later than December 4, 2013, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by November 9, 2013, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above.  All Members of the Class who do not timely and validly
request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of
the Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed or delivered, in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above, such that it is received by each of the following no later
than November 9, 2013:

Court: Clerk of the Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Richard B. Russell Federal Building and
Courthouse 75 Spring Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs: Jeffrey S. Abraham Lawrence D. Levit
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New
York, NY 10119

Counsel for Defendants: John L. Latham ALSTON & BIRD LLP One
Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for the Plaintiffs at the address listed above
or go to the following website: www.InternapSettlement.com.

DATED: September 10, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls 200,000 Bottles of Motrin
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perrone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Johnson & Johnson is recalling 200,000 bottles of Motrin Infants
formula due to the risk that they contain tiny plastic particles.

J&J's McNeil unit said on Sept. 6 that the recall affects three
lots of its popular Motrin Drops Original Berry Flavor, which is
used to lower fever and treat aches and pains in children 2 years
old and younger.  The company warned that the medicine may be
contaminated with specs of PTFE, a plastic also used in Teflon
coatings.

McNeil says it's unclear if the recalled bottles actually contain
the particles, which were found in a different product during the
manufacturing process.  The company decided to issue the recall
because both products contain the same shipment of ibuprofen from
a third-party supplier.  Ibuprofen is a common pain reliever and
fever reducer, also used in Advil.

"From our perspective, during the manufacturing process at the
third party supplier, that's when the particles got into the
ibuprofen," said McNeil Vice President Ed Kuffner, in an interview
with the Associated Press.  Mr. Kuffner declined to identify the
company that made the ibuprofen.

The recalled bottles can be identified by lot numbers: DCB3T01,
DDB4R01 and DDB4S01

McNeil is asking retailers to take the affected products off store
shelves.  Consumers should stop using the affected medicine and
call the company for a refund at 1-877-414-7709.

The recalled Motrin was manufactured at the company's plant in
Beerse, Belgium. McNeil's primary manufacturing plant in
Fort Washington, Pa., has been closed since the spring of 2010
after a string of recalls involving brands like Tylenol, Motrin
and Zyrtec.  That included the recall of more than 136 million
children and infant over-the-counter medicines in April 2010, the
largest recall of its kind.

The Sept. 6 announcement is the latest in about 40 product recalls
announced by the New Brunswick, N.J.-based health care
conglomerate since 2009.

In 2013 alone, J&J has recalled: millions of oral contraceptive
due to flawed tablets, Adept hip implants that were failing and
had to be replaced prematurely, OneTouch VerioIQ blood glucose
meters that shut off rather than issuing a warning when blood
sugar levels get dangerously high, Children's Tylenol made in
South Korea that contained too much acetaminophen and versions of
K-Y Jelly personal lubricant that potentially never got required
regulatory approval.


MADE EVENT: Sued Over Refunds in Cancelled Electric Zoo Concert
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Made
Event LLC owes refunds to people who bought three-day tickets (@
$407.37) to the recent Electric Zoo music festival, the third day
of which was canceled, in New York County Supreme Court.

According to Barbara Ross of the New York Daily News, the
promoters of the Randall's Island rave concert was cancelled after
two people died of suspected drug overdoses and 19 others
collapsed on Labor Day weekend.

Concertgoer Irene Manolias filed her class action in Manhattan.


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Merchant Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group LLP disclosed that it has launched Canada-wide
class action litigation on Sept. 9 against Manulife Financial,
Benesure, and Davis Henderson seeking financial compensation for
all Canadians who paid for "Mortgage Protection Plan" or "Credit
Security Plan" related products.

Lawyer Tony Merchant Q.C. explained one of the key allegations
that will be asserted through this class action litigation:
"People thought they were getting a valuable type of insurance but
our litigation contends they were both being overcharged and not
getting the insurance protection they thought they were buying.
When people tried to use the alleged insurance, they were
systematically denied coverage based on what insiders indicate was
a pre-planned scheme coordinated to deny claims.  Canadians who
were manipulated into buying these products were often paying an
extra fee of 50 or more per month on top of their monthly mortgage
payment but were not receiving the protection or coverage being
promoted."

In October 2012, when Manulife Financial announced it was
purchasing Benesure Canada Inc., Manulife indicated: "With the
announcement of this transaction, Manulife Affinity Markets
becomes Canada's largest provider of creditor insurance solutions
for mortgage brokers, currently earning premiums in excess of 65
million from more than 170,000 Benesure Canada Inc. clients."

In January 2013, Manulife Financial announced it had fully
completed its acquisition of Benesure Canada Inc.

Canadians seeking further information about the Manulife-Benesure
Mortgage Insurance Class Action should provide their contact
information at
https://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/mortgage.php

Merchant Law Group LLP is a Canadian class action firm with 12
offices across Canada.  Merchant Law Group LLP is well known for
its involvement in mass tort and class action cases in Canada
including Residential Schools, Cellular System Access Fees,
Hollinger, Maple Leaf Foods, Toyota, Vioxx, and various other
cases.


MHN GOVERNMENT: Arbitration Bid Denial in "Brown" Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed a trial court decision in
BROWN v. MHN GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., granting plaintiffs'
motion to quash a demand for arbitration and denying MHN
Government Services Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether an arbitration
agreement signed by respondents Barbara Brown and Cindy Hiett is
permeated with unconscionability and therefore unenforceable under
California law.

The Supreme Court held that the forum selection and punitive
damages provisions are not unconscionable and that the arbitrator
selection, statute of limitations, and fee shifting provisions are
unconscionable.

"The unconscionable taint cannot be removed through severance,"
Justice James M. Johnson said. "We hold that because the
arbitration agreement is permeated with unconscionability, it is
unenforceable. We note that our holdings are limited to the facts
of this case because we must apply California law," he added.

The case is BARBARA BROWN and CINDY HIETT, Respondents, v. MHN
GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC.; HEALTH NET, INC., and MHN SERVICES
d/b/a MHN SERVICES CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation,
Appellants, NO. 87953-2.

A copy of the Supreme Court's August 15, 2013 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/yqHI7Ufrom Leagle.com.

George E. Greer -- ggreer@orrick.com -- at Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, 701 5th, Ave Ste 5600, Seattle, WA, 98104-7045,
Timothy J. Long -- tjlong@orrick.com -- Attorney at Law, 400
Capitol Mall Ste 3000, Sacramento, CA, 95814-4497, Robert M.
McKenna -- rmckenna@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, 701 5th Ave Ste 5600, Seattle, WA, 98104-7045, Counsel for
Appellant(s).

Lewis Lynn Ellsworth -- ellsl@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas
Honeywell, 1201 Pacific Ave Ste 2200, PO Box 1157, Tacoma, WA,
98401-1157, Warren Evans Martin -- wmartin@gth-law.com -- Attorney
at Law, PO Box 1157, Tacoma, WA, 98401-1157, Eric Daniel Gilman --
egilman@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell LLP, 1201, Pacific
Ave Ste 2100, Tacoma, WA, 98402-4314, Richard H. Wooster, Kram &
Wooster, P.S., 1901, S I St., Tacoma, WA, 98405-3810, Counsel for
Respondent(s).


MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
--------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until November 8, 2013 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against MiMedx
Group, Inc., if they purchased the Company's securities during the
period between March 15, 2013 and September 4, 2013, inclusive.
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of MiMedx and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- or KSF
Partner Melinda Nicholson -- melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com --
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by November 8, 2013.

About the Lawsuit

MiMedx and certain of its executives are charged with issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements about whether
its AmnioFix product required U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approval to be manufactured and marketed during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On September 4, 2013, MiMedx confirmed receipt of an "Untitled
Letter" the FDA sent to MiMedx on August 28, which stated that
MiMedx's Surgical Biologics unit violated the Public Health
Service Act by unlawfully manufacturing and marketing drugs that
are also a biological product without a valid biologics license.

On this news, the price of MiMedx's shares fell drastically, by
over 36%.

                   About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

To learn more about KSF, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., and other
lawyers with significant experience litigating complex securities
class actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and
individual shareholders, you may visit http://www.ksfcounsel.com

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn
Managing Partner
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com

Melinda Nicholson, Esq.
Partner
E-mail: melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
206 Covington St.
Madisonville, LA 70447


MONDELEZ CANADA: Recalls Christie Rice Thins Due to Undeclared Soy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 10, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Soy
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Mondelez Canada Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8306

Affected products:

   -- Christie Rice Thins - Cheddar 100 g. with All Best Before
      dates up to and including Mar 11, 2014;

   -- Christie Rice Thins - Multigrain 100 g. with All Best Before
      dates up to and including Mar 12, 2014.


NATIONAL BEEF: E. Coli Scare Prompts Beef Products Recalls
----------------------------------------------------------
National Beef Packing Company, a Dodge City, Kan., establishment,
is recalling approximately 690 pounds of beef tongue root filet
products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   -- 30-lb. boxes of "National Beef" Beef Tongue Root Filet,
      Product Code "12753."  These products bear the establishment
      number "EST. 262" inside the USDA mark of inspection and
      include a pack date of "081913A."  The products were
      produced on August 19, 2013, and were shipped to a
      distributor in Amarillo, Texas, for further processing.

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS monitoring which
confirmed a positive result for E. coli O157:H7.  An investigation
determined National Beef Packing Company was the sole supplier of
the source materials used to produce the positive product.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of these products.  Individuals
concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers (including restaurants) of
the recall and to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that
the product is no longer available to consumers.  When available,
the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website
at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidney
failure.  The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune
systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160ø F.  The only way to
confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to
kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures
internal temperature.

Consumers with questions should contact the company at 1-877-857-
4143, or visit National Beef's website at
http://www.nationalbeef.comfor details about the recall and the
company's return and reimbursement policy.  Media with questions
regarding the recall should contact National Beef's Spokesperson,
Keith Welty, at (816) 713-8631.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-
888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


NCO FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Holmes" Suit Overturned
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
a district court's grant of summary judgment in HOLMES v. NCO
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

Harold Holmes appealed the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of NCO Financial Systems, Inc. on his class
action claim. Mr. Holmes alleges that NCO violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1601 et seq., and
California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1785.25, by reporting accounts to a credit reporting
agency without noting that the accounts were disputed.

The case is HAROLD HOLMES, an individual, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
NCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC and DOES, 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 11-56969.

A copy of the Circuit Court's August 16, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/GtX6Bofrom Leagle.com.


NEUTROGENA NATURALS: Settles Class Action for $1.3 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Bond, Esq., at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, reports that
marketers of natural personal care products will want to take note
of a recent nationwide settlement over marketing and advertising
for Neutrogena Naturals.  Plaintiffs filed suit in the Northern
District of California in January of 2012.  They alleged that
product labels and website advertising for Neutrogena Naturals
facial cleansers, body washes, and moisturizers violated
California consumer protection laws.  Specifically, the plaintiffs
alleged that the labeling and advertising implied, falsely, that
the Neutrogena Naturals products were entirely free of synthetic
or synthetically-derived ingredients.  The plaintiffs pointed to

    * the name of the line - Neutrogena Naturals;

    * the following claim, which appeared as part of an emblem on
product labels: "NO harsh chemical sulfates, parabens,
petrochemicals, dyes, [or] phthalates";

    * claims about active "bionutrients" in the products (e.g.,
"Willowbark bionutrient & Jojoba bead scrub detoxifies pores");
and claims related to Neutrogena using "pure" and "naturally
derived" ingredients.

The plaintiffs alleged, separately, that the claim "NO . . .
petrochemicals" was false and misleading, in and of itself, given
the presence of petrochemical residues in the products.

Under the terms of the settlement, Neutrogena will (1) replace
"petrochemicals" with "petrolatum" in the claim, "NO . . .
petrochemicals" and (2) include on product labels, "a statement
regarding the percentage of each product that is naturally
derived."  Neutrogena will pay $1.3 million to a settlement fund.
Following pay-outs to consumers, any remainder "shall be
distributed to an appropriate non-profit or civic entity(ies)
agreed to by the Parties and approved by the Court."  Neutrogena
will pay up to $500,000 to the class counsel and up to $1,500
(total) to three class representatives.

Another "natural" class action in the personal care space is
currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.  That case is
against the maker of Jason Naturals.  The lower court dismissed
the lawsuit, finding that primary jurisdiction over "natural"
claims for cosmetics rests with the FDA.  The FDA has since
provided a letter to the plaintiffs stating that it has no plans
to define the term, "natural," as to cosmetics.


NEW YORK: Bid to Dismiss Intervening Claims Denied
--------------------------------------------------
In the Matter of the Application of QUANISHA SMITH, Petitioner,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 and Section 3001 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. ELIZABETH BERLIN, as Executive
Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance, and ROBERT DOAR, as Administrator of the
New York City Human Resources Administration, and BQNY PROPERTIES,
LLC, Respondents, 2013 NY Slip Op 31911(U), Judge Lucy Billings of
the Supreme Court of New York County granted the plaintiff's
"motion for intervention amendment" of her pleading and class
certification, and denied respondent Berlin's cross-motion to
dismiss the intervening claims.

Ms. Smith commenced the proceeds after the commissioners of the
two agencies reduced her public assistance as a punitive sanction
for her alleged failure to attend a mandatory employment
appointment.

A copy of the Supreme Court's August 14, 2013 Decision and Order
is available at http://is.gd/CJtSKKfrom Leagle.com.

Lester Helfman, Esq., Legal Aid Society, 111 Livingston Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11201, Susan Jacquemot, Esq. --
sjacquemot@kramerlevin.com -- and Matthew B. Moses Esq. --
mmoses@kramerlevin.com -- at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP,
1177 6th Avenue, New York, NY 10036, For Petitioner and
Intervenor.

Stephanie A. Feinberg, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, New
York City Human Resources Administration, 180 Water Street, New
York, NY 10038, For Respondent Doar.

Domenic Turziano, Assistant Attorney General, 120 Broadway, New
York, NY 10271, For Respondent Berlin.


NORTHERN LEASING: Aldrich Plaintiffs Get OK to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in ALDRICH v. NORTHERN LEASING SYS., INC. moved by
order to show cause for leave to amend their complaint in this
purported class action lawsuit. Defendants Northern Leasing
Systems, Inc. and individual defendants Jay Cohen, Steve
Bernardone, Rich Hahn and Sara Krieger opposed the motion.

The proposed amended complaint primarily seeks to add the
allegation that defendants failed to give advance written notice
to plaintiffs prior to accessing their consumer credit reports as
the NYFCRA (GBL Section 380-b[b]) requires.  It also seeks to
streamline plaintiffs' allegations by removing plaintiff Stephanie
Weier from the caption due to her bankruptcy filing, deleting
references to her within the Proposed Amended Complaint and
deleting dismissed Counts I (willful violation of FCRA Section
1681b[f] by accessing CCRs without a permissible purpose), IX (GBL
Section 349) and X (defamation). Plaintiffs contend NLS will not
be "unduly prejudiced" by the amendment since discovery is ongoing
and no further proceedings are presently scheduled.

Judge Martin Shulman of the Supreme Court, New York County held
that amendment is granted subject to the removal of "negligent
impermissible access allegations on behalf of the class as against
the individual defendants."

The Court directed the Plaintiffs to serve the proposed amended
complaint, revised in accordance with the terms of its decision
and order.

The Court directed counsel for the parties to appear for a status
conference on September 10, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., at 60 Centre
Street, Room 325, New York, New York.

The case is BRADLEY C. ALDRICH, MICHAEL ARNOLD, ESTELA SALAS and
STEPHANIE WEIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHERN LEASING SYSTEMS, INC., JAY COHEN
STEVE BERNARDONE, RICH HAHN, SARA KRIEGER AND JOHN DOES 1-50,
Defendants, 2013 NY Slip Op 31880(U).

A copy of the Supreme Court's August 13, 2013 Decision & Order is
available at http://is.gd/RypNhefrom Leagle.com.


OUACHITA PARISH: Desegregation Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR v. OUACHITA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD is a desegregation action
originally brought in 1966 by parents of black students attending
school in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. On January 30, 1970, the
Court issued a desegregation decree, under which the Ouachita
Parish School Board has operated, with modification and amendment,
for more than 40 years.

The desegregation permanently enjoined the School Board from (a)
continuing to refuse to admit minor plaintiffs, or the members of
the class they represent, to the schools which they would attend
if they were white, (b) continuing to assign students to schools
with regard to race or color, (c) continuing to operate a
compulsory bi-racial school system in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana,
(d) continuing to maintain dual school zone or attendance area
lines based on race or color, (e) continuing to approve budgets,
construction programs, policies, curricula and programs designed
to perpetuate, maintain or support a school system operated on a
racially segregated basis.

Before the Court is a motion filed by the Ouachita Parish School
Board for declaration of unitary status and for dismissal, seeking
unitary status in the remaining areas of student assignment and
transportation.

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes granted the motion saying the
School Board has demonstrated that it has achieved unitary status
in the remaining areas of transportation and student assignment;
has exhibited good faith in achievement and maintenance of such
non-discriminatory programs; and is prepared, willing, and ready
to move forward in a constitutionally consistent manner without
direct judicial supervision in these areas. The Court, therefore,
relinquishes its supervision of these areas and returns
supervision to the School Board. All remaining portions of the
Decree and/or orders of the Court are dissolved, and this case is
dismissed with prejudice, ruled Judge Hayes.

The case is JEREMIAH TAYLOR, ET AL. v. OUACHITA PARISH SCHOOL
BOARD, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 66-12171, (W.D. La.).

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Ruling is available
at http://is.gd/gimnppfrom Leagle.com.

Arthur Britton, Sr, Plaintiff, represented by Paul J Verlander --
pverlander@duplass.com -- at Duplass Zwain et al., and:

   Ellen Rose Eade, Esq.
   Louis Granderson Scott, Esq.
   Law Office of Louis G Scott
   510 Pine St.
   Monroe, LA 71201
   Phone: 318-323-8277

      - and -

   Willie Hunter, Jr., Esq.
   Hunter Blue & Johnson
   900 St John St.
   Monroe, LA 71201
   Phone: 318-388-0883

Bertrand Britton, Plaintiff, represented by Paul J Verlander,
Duplass Zwain et al & Ellen Rose Eade.

Jesse Jones, Sr, Plaintiff, represented by Paul J Verlander,
Duplass Zwain et al & Ellen Rose Eade.

Beatrice Pargoud, Plaintiff, represented by Paul J Verlander,
Duplass Zwain et al & Ellen Rose Eade.

Earl Jackson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Earl Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Stephen J Katz, Esq.
   Rankin Yeldell Katz & Lowery
   411 South Washington Street
   Bastrop, LA 71220
   Phone: 318-239-4364

School Board of Ouachita Parish, Defendant, represented by Elmer
Gray Noah, II -- enoah@hamsil.com -- at Hammonds Sills et al & Jay
B Mitchell, Esq.


PVF CAPITAL: Judge Tosses Class Action Over $106-Mil. FNB Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Russell-Kraft and David McAfee, writing for Law360,
report that an Ohio federal judge on Sept. 9 tossed a proposed
class action challenging PVF Capital Corp.'s $106 million all-
stock merger with FNB Corp., finding the complaint, which accused
the PVF Capital board of omitting material information in its U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings, didn't meet the
necessary pleading standards.

In her decision, District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan granted PVF
Capital's motion to dismiss the action, saying the lead plaintiff,
Sylvia Kugelman, had failed to specify which statements in PVF
Capital's latest SEC proxy statement were rendered misleading by
the company's omissions.

"Plaintiff makes no argument that any of the information she
identified as omitted from the proxy statement was required to be
disclosed by an SEC regulation.  Plaintiff's sole basis for a
violation [of] securities law rests on a claim that the omissions
render specific statements in the proxy statement misleading,"
Judge Gaughan wrote in her opinion dismissing Ms. Kugelman's
claims.

FNB said in February it had signed a definitive merger agreement
with PVF Capital, the Solon, Ohio-based parent company of Park
View Federal Savings Bank.  The Schedule 14A proxy statement it
filed with the SEC in July served as a prospectus for the merger.

The complaint, which Ms. Kugelman filed in the Northern District
of Ohio in July, accused PVF Capital's board members of breaching
their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the company's
shareholders by misrepresenting or omitting material information
in the proxy statement.

Ms. Kugelman claimed the proxy statement failed to disclose key
information on PVF Capital's long-term prospects, financial
analyses supporting the merger, information about the lead-up to
the announcement of the proposed merger, and conflicts of interest
affecting both the board and its financial adviser.

Judge Gaughan found these allegations insufficient, saying
Ms. Kugelman had merely pointed to "broad swaths" of statements
that she found misleading, and had failed to plead which specific
statements in the proxy statement were affected by PVF Capital's
omissions.

Ms. Kugelman had also failed to plead that the absence of the
information in question made the company's statements misleading,
Judge Gaughan said.

The judge added that even though Ms. Kugelman might have wanted to
see more information in PVF Capital's proxy statements, she was
not entitled to it by law.

FNB and PVF Capital jointly announced their merger Feb. 19. FNB
said it would acquire PVF Capital in an all-stock transaction
valued at approximately $3.98 per share, or $106.4 million.

The acquisition of PVF Capital would provide FNB an additional
$782 million in total assets, $634 million in total deposits, $600
million in gross loans, and 16 banking offices in the Cleveland
area.  The transaction would expand FNB's Cleveland presence and
give it a top-15 deposit market share in the metropolitan
statistical area, the companies said.

Representatives for both parties could not immediately be reached
for comment on Sept. 9.

Ms. Kugelman is represented by Joshua R. Cohen --
jcohen@crklaw.com -- and James B. Rosenthal -- jbr@crklaw.com --
of Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer.

PVF Capital is represented by Marcel C. Duhamel --
mcduhamel@vorys.com -- Nathan S. Kott -- nskott@vorys.com -- and
Anthony J. O'Malley -- ajomalley@vorys.com -- of Vorys Sater
Seymour and Pease LLP.

FNB is represented by Roy W. Arnold, James L. Rockney, James M.
Doerfler and Lauren M. Kelly of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Kugelman v. PVF Capital Corp. et al., case number
1:13-cv-01606, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.


RAWSON-NEAL PSYCHIATRIC: Faces Class Action Over Patient Dumping
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Hubert and Phillip Reese, writing for The Sacramento Bee,
report that the state of Nevada and its primary psychiatric
hospital "intentionally and wrongfully" foisted the cost of caring
for indigent mentally ill people onto California cities and
counties by issuing patients bus tickets out of town without
making proper arrangements for their care, a lawsuit filed on
Sept. 10 in San Francisco charges.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed the class-action
lawsuit against Nevada, Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las
Vegas and state mental health administrators, seeking
reimbursement for the care of indigent patients he said the system
"dumped" onto California in an effort to save money.

"What the defendants have been doing for years is horribly wrong
on two levels," Mr. Herrera said in a written statement announcing
the lawsuit.  "It cruelly victimizes a defenseless population, and
punishes jurisdictions for providing health and human services
that others won't provide."

In addition to unspecified financial damages, the suit asks for a
permanent injunction preventing Nevada from dispatching
psychiatric patients to California unless they are residents of
the destination city or county, are being sent to family members
who have agreed to care for them, or are being sent to a medical
facility where arrangements have been made for their treatment.

Mary Woods, spokeswoman for the Nevada Department of Health and
Human Services, said on Sept. 10 that her agency would have no
immediate comment on the suit.

The action follows a formal demand Mr. Herrera issued last month
to Nevada officials.  He said he planned to take legal action
within weeks unless the state reimbursed San Francisco $500,000
for care of patients he maintains were improperly bused to the
city since 2008.  Mr. Herrera said an investigation by his office
had identified 24 patients who had been bused to San Francisco
over the past five years, 20 of whom Mr. Herrera said required
emergency treatment upon arrival.

Nevada's attorney general responded last week with a letter
arguing that San Francisco had offered insufficient evidence to
justify its claim.  Records gathered by state health officials and
given to Mr. Herrera "demonstrate that the policies are
appropriate and that only proper discharges were made," reads the
letter, sent on Sept. 9 and signed by Chief Deputy Attorney
General Linda Anderson.

Nevada's mental health system has been in the spotlight for
months, following a Sacramento Bee report published earlier this
year that found Rawson-Neal had bused 1,500 mentally ill patients
out of Southern Nevada from July 2008 through early March 2013.
About 500 were given one-way tickets to California.

The Bee undertook its investigation after one of those patients,
James Flavy Coy Brown, turned up suicidal and confused at a
Sacramento homeless services complex after a 15-hour bus ride from
Las Vegas to the capital city.  Mr. Brown said he knew no one in
Sacramento and that Rawson-Neal doctors advised him to dial 911
once he arrived in the city.

Nevada health officials have acknowledged that they erred in
shipping Mr. Brown to Sacramento without any arrangements for
care.  But they contend his case was an exception and that the
vast majority of patients bused from Rawson-Neal had family or
treatment waiting for them on the other end of their journeys.

They said many of the patients bused to their "home states" were
vacationers who suffered breakdowns or abused drugs.  A Herrera
spokesman disputed that explanation.

"This is about Nevada's state-sanctioned practice of improperly
transporting indigent psychiatric patients," said Matt Dorsey.
"It's not about patients who travel voluntarily between Nevada and
other states."

The lawsuit filed on Sept. 10 charges that Nevada sent mentally
ill people to California in a manner that placed patients, their
fellow Greyhound passengers and residents of the places where they
landed in peril.

"All of the patients were transported without escorts," and often
without "adequate food, water and medication" to sustain them
during lengthy bus trips.  Because the hospital failed to make
proper arrangements for their care, many of the patients "ended up
on the streets of their destination cities without funds or means
of support, shelter or medication," the suit reads.

Although Nevada is required by state law to care for its poor and
indigent, it sent patients out of state "and avoided expending its
own public resources" to provide for them, it says.

The state's aggressive busing practices coincide with funding cuts
that slashed Nevada's mental health budget by 28 percent between
2009 and 2012.  During the same period, the number of psychiatric
patients bused from Rawson-Neal grew by 66 percent.

Since Mr. Brown's case became public, the hospital's discharge
practices have been under scrutiny by an array of regulatory
groups.  Recently, Rawson-Neal lost its coveted accreditation with
the private Joint Commission and remains under investigation by
the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which has
threatened to pull its Medicare reimbursements.  In addition,
Sacramento attorney Mark Merin has filed a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of Brown and others, charging that Nevada's busing policies
violated patients' constitutional rights.

The lawsuit filed on Sept. 10 offers detailed information about
several previously unpublicized cases that Mr. Herrera said
illustrate improper practices by the Nevada system.  In one, a
homeless man with schizophrenia and a history of visits to Rawson-
Neal was bused to San Francisco even though he "had no stable
support system there," the suit says.  Upon arrival, he received
five days of crisis care.

After returning to Las Vegas, the man again wound up at the
psychiatric hospital and got another bus ticket to San Francisco.
Police brought him to San Francisco General Hospital after he
"expressed thoughts of homicide and suicide," according to the
suit.

Other patients shipped to the city from Nevada received public
housing and cash assistance funded by San Francisco in addition to
costly health care, the suit claims.

If successful, San Francisco's claim for reimbursement would
establish a precedent for awarding restitution to cities and
counties across California "able to demonstrate claims for
damages" from improper transfers of patients from Nevada, Herrera
said in his statement.

Lisa Ikemoto, a professor at UC Davis School of Law and a
specialist in health care law, called the litigation very unusual.
"I haven't seen anything like it," she said.

A judge first would have to certify the suit as a class action,
said Ms. Ikemoto.  To win in court, San Francisco would have to
prove that Nevada intentionally "dumped" patients and the cost of
caring for them onto the city, she said.


RENT-A-CENTER: Bass Berry Discusses Pro-Arbitration Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------
M. Jason Hale, Esq., Brian R. Iverson, Esq. and Anthony J.
McFarland, Esq. at Bass, Berry & Sims PLC report that since 2010,
the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals have
issued several influential pro-arbitration rulings which are
beginning to impact financial services litigation.  At least one
district court recently held that a bank's use of an arbitration
provision in a customer agreement is enforceable, requiring the
dismissal of a putative class action being brought by that
customer.

In August 2010, the Supreme Court held that even the question of
enforceability of the arbitration clause was a question for the
arbitrator, not a court, and the Court further limited the ability
of employees and consumers to challenge the fairness of
arbitration provisions.  Rent-A-Center West v. Antonio Jackson,
130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010).  Rent-A-Center is widely viewed as an
important pro-arbitration shift in the law of arbitration clause
enforceability.  Two additional cases have since extended the pro-
arbitration policy to uphold class action waivers in consumer
contracts.

In light of these recent decisions, a Florida federal judge
overseeing multiple overdraft fee lawsuits found that certain
account agreement arbitration provisions were valid and
enforceable.  The judge then dismissed putative class suits by
bank customers whose account agreements included these arbitration
provisions.

The August 28, 2013 decision of the Florida judge came just one
day after the court heard oral argument on the issue.  The court's
decision is particularly significant because it had previously
denied motions to dismiss filed by various banks, and had
permitted bank customers, over the banks' objections, to proceed
with discovery in their lawsuits.  In fact, the judge previously
rebuffed a bank's attempt to enforce its arbitration provision,
holding that the provision was unenforceable and unconscionable
because it contained a class action waiver which he believed
unfairly protected the bank from liability.  The judge further
ruled that the agreement was impermissibly one-sided.

The federal court's reversal is especially noteworthy not only
because it follows and adds to the growing body of law in favor of
arbitration, but also because it upholds an arbitration provision
specifically in favor of financial institutions in a highly-
watched series of overdraft fee class action lawsuits.  The
decision of the Florida court helps widen the door for financial
institutions to use arbitration provisions to avoid costly, time-
intensive and public litigation, especially class action lawsuits,
in favor of private dispute resolution.  Financial institutions
should review their customer agreements and consider whether an
appropriately tailored arbitration clause would help them achieve
their business and litigation strategies.


RICK'S CABARET: Strippers Entitled to Minimum Wage, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
strippers at a New York club are employees and not independent
contractors for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a
federal judge held on Sept. 10.

Southern District Judge Paul Engelmayer said that strippers, or
exotic dancers, who work at Rick's Cabaret in Midtown Manhattan
are entitled to receive minimum wage.  He also ruled that, under
the act and New York Labor Law, the owners of Rick's Cabaret were
unlawfully requesting and receiving part of the dancers' wages and
the tips they received -- either for dancing on stage and
providing intimate "lap" or "table" dances for club clientele at
$20 per dance, or for private sessions in private rooms for as
much as $400 per hour.

Judge Engelmayer's ruling in the class action in Hart v. Rick's
Cabaret International, 09 Civ. 3043, dealt with applying the facts
to the criteria for independent contractors set forth in the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, and the state's
Labor Law, (NYLL), Secs. 190 & 650.

In 2010, Judge John Koeltl denied the club's motion to dismiss and
certified a class, rejecting the claim of Rick's parent company,
Peregrine Enterprises Inc., that it was not an employer.

Judge Koeltl said the plaintiffs had met their pleading
obligations because they alleged the owners had almost complete
control over the club activities of the dancers, including what
music they danced to and the pace and manner of their stripping.

The plaintiff class consists of 41 opt-in plaintiffs under the
FLSA and some 1,900 members under New York law, and it covers the
period between September 2005 and the present.

Judge Engelmayer's ruling on Sept. 10 came on motions for summary
judgment.  The judge said it was important the way dancers were
paid -- they could be paid $20 or more and, if the payment was in
cash, they could retain the entire performance fee.

But if the customer wanted to pay by credit card, he could buy for
$24 each vouchers worth $20 known as "Dance Dollars," with which
to pay the dancers.  The dancers would then redeem to the club the
Dance Dollars for $18 apiece and the club would keep the remaining
$6.

Addressing the FLSA claims first, Judge Engelmayer applied the
"economic realities" test and like Judge Koeltl, found a high
degree of control over the dancers.  He cited several rules by
which the dancers must abide, including no gum chewing ($100
fine), having a bad attitude, using a cell phone while on the
dance floor, carrying a handbag or purse on the floor or using
public restrooms.

The club also controlled when the dancers worked, mandated a
regular eight-hour shift, and fined dancers who cancelled within
24 hours.  Dancers were required to pay a "house fee" to the club
every night, a $6 "promo fee" and nightly "tip-out fees" to the
"housemom," (a supervisor), the disc jockey and management.

And the club dictated hair, makeup and dress choices, required "at
least a 4 inch minimum stiletto heel and ordered that dancers
cover up their tattoos while performing.  The first of two-song
sets were to be performed "with your dress on and second song with
your dress off."  They were also barred from accepting tips in
visits to private rooms with clientele.

Judge Engelmayer said that some rules, such as those barring
"floor work" or pole dancing, are not part of the control analysis
because the defendants have "fairly argued" they were for safety
reasons.

"However, the vast majority of Rick's NY's Guidelines had nothing
whatsoever to do with safety concerns or compliance with the law,"
he said.

"The Club's control of the overall operations of Ricks' NY is
strong evidence of the Club's control over the means by which
dancers could make money from customers," Judge Engelmayer said,
before noting that the investment in the club's operating costs
was made by the owners and "Rick's NY, unlike the dancer, stood to
earn a return on its investment."

Rick's also argued that dancers were independent contractors
because their act required a degree of skill and independent
initiative, but the judge said courts have "consistently held that
there is limited genuine skill required to be an exotic dancer."

He also called "totally unpersuasive" Rick's argument that the
exotic dancers were only one part of the operation and that the
club's restaurant, bar and televisions also served to attract
customers.  The dancers, the judge said, were "integral" to the
club.

Judge Engelmayer then conducted a slightly different analysis for
the New York Labor Law claims -- the common law test that puts
more emphasis on the degree of control and less on the economic
realities.

Here, he called the degree of control over the dancers "far more
than incidental."

"In sum, the 'actual working relationship' between the dancers and
the Club was that of employer and employee," he said.

Having found that the dancers were entitled to receive minimum
wage, Judge Engelmayer held that "performance fees" charged by the
dancers are not "service charges" that can be used to offset
Rick's obligation to pay the minimum wage.

Anna Prakash -- aprakash@nka.com -- Michele Fisher --
fisher@nka.com -- Steven Smith -- smith@nka.com -- and E. Michelle
Drake -- drake@nka.com -- of Nichols Kaster PLLP in Minneapolis,
Minn., represent the plaintiffs.

Jeffrey Kimmel -- jak@msf-law.com -- Racquel Crespi Weintraub --
rcw@msf-law.com -- and Howard Davis -- hd@msf-law.com -- of
Meister Seelig & Fein represent Rick's.


RITE AID: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a
district court ruling in KULISH v. RITE AID CORPORATION.

Thomas Kulish, along with two other individuals who opted-in to
the collective action, appealed the district court's order
granting defendants summary judgment on Kulish's Second Amended
Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. Section 3-401 et seq.

"We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error," the
Third Circuit ruled.

The case is THOMAS B. KULISH, On behalf of himself and on behalf
of all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
RITE AID CORPORATION AND ECKERD CORPORATION, d/b/a Rite Aid; RITE
AID OF MARYLAND, INC. d/b/a Rite Aid, Defendants-Appellees, NO.
13-1044.

A copy of the Circuit Court's August 16, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/Upnckzfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for the Appellant are:

   Martin A. Shellist, Esq.
   Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
   SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
   11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: 832-539-4690
        866-942-9973
   Fax: 713-621-0993

        - and -

   Judd G. Millman, Esq.
   LUCHANSKY LAW
   606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B
   Towson, MD 21204
   Tel: (410) 522-1020
   E-mail: lucky@luchanskylaw.com

Counsel for Appellees are Suzzanne W. Decker, Esq. --
sdecker@milesstockbridge.com -- Michael B. Howard, Esq. --
mhoward@milesstockbridge.com -- at MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C.,
in Baltimore, Maryland.


RJ REYNOLDS: Appeals Court Rejects Key Claim in Tobacco Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson M. Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that Florida
smokers' lawsuits against cigarette makers have cleared a major
hurdle, with a federal appeals court rejecting a key claim of
unfairness by the tobacco companies.

The tobacco companies have argued that it violates their due
process rights for certain 1999 jury findings from a class action
verdict -- such as the conclusion that nicotine is addictive -- to
be used against them in subsequent trials.  Florida state
appellate courts tossed the associated $145 billion punitive
damages award and decertified the class, but they allowed certain
findings from the verdict to be used in the thousands of actions
later filed by individual plaintiffs.

The Sept. 6 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit said the Florida courts' approach may be
"unorthodox" but was not so unfair to the tobacco companies that
it violated their constitutional rights.  The opinion by Judge
William Pryor Jr. included an unorthodox element, too -- his
citation of the Tex Williams song "Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! (That
Cigarette)."

Judge Pryor pointed to the modest nature of the specific verdicts
before the court -- less than $28,000 and $8,000 in two wrongful
death cases -- as evidence that juries are considering the
cigarette makers' other arguments.

Lawyers at Jones Day who have been handling the cases for R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. couldn't be reached for comment.
Richard Lantinberg -- ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- a lawyer with The
Wilner Firm in Jacksonville, Fla., and a member of the plaintiffs'
team, said he expects the tobacco companies will ask the full
Eleventh Circuit to re-examine the latest ruling, then, failing
that, seek U.S. Supreme Court review.

The issue decided by the Eleventh Circuit traces back to a class
action filed against several major cigarette manufacturers in
1994.  A Florida state court jury found in favor of individual
plaintiffs and the class as a whole, awarding $145 billion in
punitives.

When the tobacco companies appealed, state appeals courts upheld
two of the individual verdicts.  But they found that the punitives
award was improper and decertified the class on the grounds that
individual determinations of specific causation and damages
couldn't be established on a classwide basis.

Attempting to avoid re-trying all liability issues in thousands of
cases, however, the Florida Supreme Court found what it called a
"pragmatic solution."  The watershed 2006 decision, Engle v.
Liggett Group Inc., permitted certain findings from the verdict to
be retained in follow-on damage actions, such that some of the
jury's classwide findings would be given preclusive effect in
subsequent individual trials of one-time class members.

Among those findings were the jury's determination that the
tobacco companies marketed cigarettes that were defective and
unreasonably dangerous; that they concealed or omitted material
information about the health and addictive effects of smoking; and
that they failed to exercise the degree of care that a "reasonable
cigarette manufacturer" would have exercised under similar
circumstances.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the tobacco companies'
petition that argued the preclusive use of those findings violated
their due process rights.  In 2010, an Eleventh Circuit panel of
Judges Edward Carnes and Frank Hull and Senior Judge R. Lanier
Anderson said that, as a matter of Florida preclusion law,
individual plaintiffs still would have much to prove to win their
cases, but the panel didn't reach the due process question.

In a 2011 ruling meant to apply to all so-called Engle progeny
cases pending in the Middle District of Florida, U.S. District
Judge Timothy Corrigan rejected the companies' due process
arguments, allowing federal trials to proceed in that district.
Individual lawsuits filed in federal and state courts have
resulted in a range of verdicts, from complete defense wins to
multimillion-dollar awards.

In March of this year, a divided Florida Supreme Court upheld an
individual plaintiff's verdict against several tobacco companies,
rejecting as a matter of both Florida preclusion law and federal
constitutional law the companies' argument that the Engle findings
were too general to be binding on individual actions.

The federal courts are the final word on U.S. constitutional
questions, however, and the tobacco companies appealed federal
jury verdicts in favor of two deceased smokers, Albert Walker and
Sarah Duke, to the Eleventh Circuit.  The jury in Mr. Walker's
case found his spouse had suffered $275,000 in damages as a result
of his death but that Mr. Walker was 90 percent at fault, reducing
the award to $27,500.  The Duke jury found that Duke's estate had
incurred $30,705 in medical or funeral expenses but found Duke 75
percent at fault, reducing the award to $7,676.25.

Gregory Katsas, a Jones Day partner in Washington who made
businesses' Supreme Court argument against the 2010 federal health
care overhaul, appeared on behalf of R.J. Reynolds at the July
arguments before Judge Pryor, Senior Judge James Hill and visiting
U.S. District Court Judge J. Randal Hall of Augusta.  New York
University law school professor Samuel Issacharoff argued for the
plaintiffs.

In his opinion for the unanimous panel, Judge Pryor explained
that, subject to the limits of constitutional due process, the
federal Full Faith and Credit Act requires federal courts to give
state court judgments the same effect as that state's state courts
would.  Under that principle, he said, state court rulings merely
must satisfy "minimum procedural requirements" and not be
arbitrary.  The panel found that the Florida Supreme Court's
approach met that test, Judge Pryor writing that R.J. Reynolds had
failed to point to any other court ruling that said a state court
judgment on what issues were actually decided in prior litigation
was so wrong that it violated due process rights.

Judge Pryor noted that the Florida Supreme Court had allowed some,
but not all, of the findings from the class action verdict to be
carried forward, ruling that jury findings about fraud and
intentional infliction of emotional distress could not be used in
later trials.  He also chronicled R.J. Reynolds' opportunities to
be heard on the issues of common liability, from contesting the
original jury verdict form, to taking the matter to the U.S.
Supreme Court.  Judge Pryor added that R.J. Reynolds "has
vigorously contested the remaining elements of the claims,
including causation and damages" in the subsequent trials, and the
modest verdicts in the Walker and Duke cases "suggest that the
juries fairly considered the questions of damages and fault."

R.J. Reynolds had argued it was impossible to tell whether the
Engle jury determined it had acted wrongfully in connection with
some or all of its brands of cigarettes because the plaintiffs
presented both general and brand-specific theories of liability.
But Judge Pryor said the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of
what Judge Pryor called an "ambiguous" verdict, finding that the
jury had not been asked to decide brand-specific defects, was a
factual determination to which the Eleventh Circuit must defer.
Whether the Florida court used the wrong label for its decision --
claim preclusion -- "is no concern of ours," Judge Pryor wrote.

Judge Pryor closed with a somewhat cryptic paragraph drawing on
various sources, including court rulings and Williams' 1947
recording for the notion that the risks of tobacco had long been
well known. Whether his point was that smokers' suits lacked
merit, that tobacco companies had long ago prepared to shoulder
the financial burden of litigation, or both, was unclear.

"[J]uries often either discounted or rejected the claims of
smokers who sought to hold tobacco companies liable for the well-
known harms to their health caused by smoking," wrote Judge Pryor.
"But a 'wave of suits, brought by resourceful attorneys
representing vast claimant pools' . . . continued.  We cannot say
that the procedures, however novel, adopted by the Supreme Court
of Florida to manage thousands of these suits under Florida law
violated the federal right of R.J. Reynolds to due process of
law."

Mr. Lantinberg, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said that under the
Eleventh Circuit's opinion, the tobacco companies can no longer
argue verdicts against them are improper on due process grounds.
The cases will be tried, and the defendants will continue to raise
the usual objections and appellate arguments, said Mr. Lantinberg.
"But," he said, "they can't argue as a whole that these tobacco
lawsuits shouldn't go forward."  Mr. Lantinberg suggested the
ruling opened the door for cases to be tried in groups -- not as
class actions -- so that the thousands of Florida cases could be
resolved more quickly.

The cases are Walker v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 12-13500,
and Duke v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 12-14731.


ROADRUNNER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Strike Baughman Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In BAUGHMAN v. ROADRUNNER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Senior District
Judge Stephen M. McNamee denied the Defendants' motion to strike
Arizona State Law Rule 23 Class Allegations.

The Plaintiffs have argued that approximately 63 of the Arizona
technicians have opted into the FLSA collective action. Therefore,
based on the size of the putative class, the Plaintiffs contend
that numerosity will be satisfied, given that generally a proposed
class will satisfy the numerosity requirement if it has 40 or more
members.

The Court agreed with Plaintiffs saying that although a court may
"strike class allegations prior to discovery if the complaint
demonstrates that a class action cannot be maintained," the
Defendants have not demonstrated that a class action cannot be
maintained due to a lack of numerosity.

"At this time, even though the Court need not rule that numerosity
is satisfied, Plaintiffs have established that their class
allegations should not be struck due to Defendants' argument that
Plaintiffs lack numerosity," ruled Judge McNamee.

The case is Ray Baughman, Cecil McDole, and Tyler Stimbert,
Plaintiffs, v. Roadrunner Communications, LLC, et al., Defendants,
NO. CV-12-565-PHX-SMM, (D. Ariz.).

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/fC6ImJfrom Leagle.com.

Ray Baughman, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Darrel Scott Jackson, Esq.
   Michelle Ray Matheson, Esq.
   Matheson & Matheson PLC
   15300 N. 90th Street, Suite 550
   Scottsdale, AZ 85260
   Phone: 480-889-8951
   Toll Free: 866-521-0720

Cecil McDole, Plaintiff, represented by Darrel Scott Jackson,
Matheson & Matheson PLC & Michelle Ray Matheson, Matheson &
Matheson PLC.

Tyler Stimbert, Plaintiff, represented by Darrel Scott Jackson,
Matheson & Matheson PLC & Michelle Ray Matheson, Matheson &
Matheson PLC.

Johnny Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Darrel Scott Jackson,
Matheson & Matheson PLC & Michelle Ray Matheson, Matheson &
Matheson PLC.

Richard Axford, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle Ray Matheson,
Matheson & Matheson PLC & Darrel Scott Jackson, Matheson &
Matheson PLC.

Dennis Baldwin, Plaintiff, represented by Darrel Scott Jackson,
Matheson & Matheson PLC & Michelle Ray Matheson, Matheson &
Matheson PLC.

Roadrunner Communications LLC, Defendant, represented by Mona
Mehta Stone -- stonem@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig LLP, Dana
Lauren Hooper -- hooperd@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig LLP,
Darrel Scott Jackson, Matheson & Matheson PLC & James N Boudreau
-- boudreauj@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Brian E Rambo, Defendant, represented by Mona Mehta Stone,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Dana Lauren Hooper, Greenberg Traurig LLP,
Darrel Scott Jackson, Matheson & Matheson PLC & James N Boudreau,
Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Unknown Rambo, Defendant, represented by James N Boudreau,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mona Mehta Stone, Greenberg Traurig LLP,
Dana Lauren Hooper, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Darrel Scott Jackson,
Matheson & Matheson PLC.

Hobie Dufort, Defendant, represented by Mona Mehta Stone,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Dana Lauren Hooper, Greenberg Traurig LLP,
Darrel Scott Jackson, Matheson & Matheson PLC & James N Boudreau,
Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Unknown Dufort, Defendant, represented by James N Boudreau,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mona Mehta Stone, Greenberg Traurig LLP,
Dana Lauren Hooper, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Darrel Scott Jackson,
Matheson & Matheson PLC.

Lonnie M Densberger, Defendant, represented by Mona Mehta Stone,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Dana Lauren Hooper, Greenberg Traurig LLP,
Darrel Scott Jackson, Matheson & Matheson PLC & James N Boudreau,
Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Unknown Densberger, Defendant, represented by James N Boudreau,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mona Mehta Stone, Greenberg Traurig LLP,
Dana Lauren Hooper, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Darrel Scott Jackson,
Matheson & Matheson PLC.


SCHWEBEL BAKING: Recalls Golden Rich Buns With Honey
----------------------------------------------------
Schwebel Baking Company recalled 18,979 units of Golden Rich Buns
with Honey due to mislabeling and undeclared egg.  Through the
package validation process the problem was discovered.  These
Schwebel's Golden Rich Buns with Honey contain egg that is not
declared on the product label.  People who have allergies to egg
run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they
consume products containing this ingredient.  Pictures of the
Products are available at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm368263.htm

The recalled units were distributed to retail outlets and
restaurants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New York, West
Virginia, and Michigan between Sept. 9, 2013 and Sept. 10, 2013.
No other products are involved.

The mislabeled product can be identified as follows:

   -- Golden Rich Buns 18oz. with Best By Sept 21; and

   -- Golden Rich Buns 18oz. with Best By Sept 20.

The company has received no reports of adverse reactions or
illnesses due to the consumption of this product.

The Food and Drug Administration has been notified of this
voluntary recall.

Schwebel Baking Company is committed to producing safe, quality
food products that customers can enjoy every day at home or in
restaurants.  Customers may return affected product to the
retailer where it was purchased for full refund or call Schwebel
Baking Company 24 hour Customer Service line at 1-800-860-2867.


SOCIETE COOPERATIVE: Recalls Certain Le Canotier De L'isle Cheese
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Societe cooperative agricole de l'Ile-
                          aux-Grues
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Societe cooperative
agricole de l'Ile-aux-Grues are warning the public not to consume
the Le Canotier de l'Isle cheese because the product may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

Also affected by this alert is the above product which may have
been sold in smaller packages, cut and wrapped by some retailers.
Consumers are advised to contact the retailer to determine if they
have the affected product.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The manufacturer, Societe cooperative agricole de l'Ile-aux-Grues,
L'Ile-aux-Grues, Quebec, is voluntarily recalling the affected
product from the marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the
effectiveness of the recall.

Affected products: Le Canotier de l'Isle    Le Canotier de l'Isle
Firm cheese surface ripened


ST-ALPHONSE COLLEGE: 17 Men to Testify in Court in Abuse Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that seventeen men who claim they were sexually
abused when they were boys at a seminary near Quebec City are
expected to testify in court as part of a lawsuit against priests.

Court proceedings began on Sept. 9 at the Quebec City courthouse
for the largest sex abuse class-action lawsuit ever launched in
Quebec.  Fifty alleged victims are seeking $100,000 each in
damages, plus interest.

Though there have been other civil lawsuits against Quebec priests
and religious institutions, this class-action lawsuit is the first
to make it to court and be heard by a Quebec judge.  All of the
others were settled out of court.

The day's proceedings started with a visit to the St-Alphonse
Seminary in Ste-Anne-de-Beaupre, just outside the provincial
capital.  The judge, the lawyers and the person who launched the
lawsuit, Frank Tremblay, visited the site where a number of boys
were allegedly assaulted by the seminary's priests in the 1960s,
'70s and '80s.  The visit was followed in court by the testimony
of Raymond-Marie Mr. Lavoie, the only priest to have been
successfully pursued in criminal court.

Lavoie is currently serving a three-year sentence after pleading
guilty in July 2011 to assaulting 13 boys during the era he
supervised the seminary's dormitory.

Another of the St-Alphonse priests, Jean-Claude Bergeron, was
arrested at the same time as Mr. Lavoie and pleaded guilty to
molesting three boys.  He hasn't been sentenced yet.

The others named in the lawsuit are Guy Pilote, Fran‡ois Plourde,
Xiste Langevin, Herve Blanchette, Alexis Trepanier, Leon Roy and
Lucien de Blois. Many of them are dead.

The proceedings are scheduled to last 20 days.


STARBOARD SEAFOOD: Recalls Certain Oysters From Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 11, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Starboard Seafood Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8313

Affected products: Oysters 100 count with Harvest Zone: V:20
Katama Bay, Massachussets and with harvest dates from August 1,
2013 to September 9, 2013.


TEXAS: Judge Certifies Foster Care System Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In an article by State Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, guest
columnist at WacoTrib.com, a federal judge has certified a class
action lawsuit against the state's foster care system, once again
casting state policy on at-risk children in an unflattering light.
Texas has a poor track record when it comes to winning such cases
in the courtroom, but there's an opportunity here to come out on
top in another way.

In her Aug. 27 ruling, U.S. Judge Janis Jack, of Corpus Christi,
granted class action status to a lawsuit that claims abused and
neglected children are being harmed by the very system designed to
protect them.

In a written statement provided to the Houston Chronicle, the
plaintiffs' attorneys said they will prove that "the state fails
to monitor children's safety, putting them in understaffed group
homes and unlicensed homes of relatives who are not given the same
training or support as foster parents or inappropriately placing
them in congregate care when they could be properly served in a
more familylike setting. . . . These deficiencies lead to damaging
consequences, including high rates of maltreatment, frequent and
repeated moves between placements, and unnecessary separation of
children from their siblings and communities."

Jack blamed much of the problem on overburdened caseworkers at the
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, whom she
called " these children's fire alarms."

High caseloads and the job pressures they bring are behind the
soaring staff turnover rate at DFPS -- more than 24 percent in
fiscal 2012.

"There is ample evidence that caseworkers are overburdened, that
this might pose risks to the children . . . and that . . . state
officials had actual or constructive knowledge of these risks and
have not acted to cap or otherwise limit caseloads," the judge
said in her ruling.

With Jack's decision, attorneys for the 12,000 Texas children in
permanent foster care have won the right to present their case in
court.  In the meantime, the state agency responsible for these
kids should begin implementing solutions immediately.

Fortunately, some solutions already have been identified.  This
year, the Legislature passed a budget offering significant
additional funding for child protection and abuse prevention
programs overseen by DFPS.

Mr. Uresti said "I helped pass a new law requiring special
training for Child Protective Services employees who are hired for
or promoted to supervisory positions. The goal is to ensure that
supervisors are well-equipped before they begin their new
responsibilities, which in turn will help reduce the agency's
staff turnover rate."

"I also established a pilot program in Bexar County that will
provide specialized training to foster parents of children with
severe mental health needs or those who have experienced extreme
trauma.

"But new money and programs won't solve all of the problems.  We
need activism from outside the government from dedicated child
advocates in groups like the Blue Ribbon Task Force, United Way,
TexProtects, the Center for Public Policy Priorities, Any Baby Can
and many others.

"There must also be a change in the culture at DFPS that
encourages caseworkers to stay on the job.  Fortunately, the two
people most responsible for the agency are up to the task.

"Dr. Kyle Janek, executive commissioner of the Health and Human
Services Commission, and DFPS Commissioner John Specia Jr. care
deeply about children in foster care.  I have worked with both men
on these issues, and I know they are committed to this goal.

"Too often in the past -- in lawsuits challenging the state's
prison system, school finance system and mental health system --
the state chose not to act until it had a legal ruling pointed at
its head.  Working together with Janek and Specia, we can get in
front of the court this time and keep foster children out of
harm's way."


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 880K SUVs, Lexus Sedans Over Safety Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Toyota is recalling 880,584 RAV4
SUVs and Lexus HS 250h sedans in the U.S. and Canada because a
repair announced last year may not have solved a safety problem.

RAV4s from the 2006 through 2011 model years and the Lexus HS250h
from the 2010 model year are involved in the recall.

Toyota says if rear suspension nuts aren't tightened properly
after a wheel alignment, the rear lower suspension arm can rust
and separate from the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.

At least nine crashes and three injuries related to the problem
have been reported, according to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.  At least 131 owners have complained about
the issue to NHTSA and Toyota.

Toyota recalled the vehicles last August for the same issue, but
spokeswoman Cindy Knight said the repair procedure in the previous
recall was incorrect.  Ms. Knight didn't know if Toyota sent out
the wrong instructions or if technicians at its dealerships didn't
follow the correct procedures.  She said technicians are receiving
additional training.

Toyota is recalling 780,584 vehicles in the U.S. and 100,000 in
Canada.  Owners will be notified over a six-month period starting
this month.

Toyota technicians will inspect the vehicles and replace
suspension arms which are loose or rusted for free.


TRESART CACHE: Recalls Hammock-Style Bassinets for Children
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 13, 2013
Posting date:             September 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35689

Affected products: Hammock-style bassinets for children imported
by the company Tresart Cache

The recall involves hammock-style bassinets for children made by
artisans in Equador.  The head and foot of the bassinet and the
sleeping surface are made of white fabric.  The sides of the
cradle are made of white netting attached to a wooden tie.  The
cradle is hung from cables located in the four corners of the bed.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/f6MThj

Health Canada has determined that the recalled bassinets do not
meet certain labeling, construction and performance requirements
of the Cribs, Cradles and Bassinets Regulations of the Canada
Consumer Product Safety Act.

Neither Tresart Cache nor Health Canada has received reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of these products.

In Canada, 37 recalled products were sold.

The recalled products were manufactured in Ecuador and sold
between March 2013 and August 2013.

Companies:

  Importer     Tresart Cache
               Terrebone
               Quebec
               Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
return them to the point of purchase.


UNITED STATES: Bid to Stay May 21 Order in Suit v. LDHH Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carl J. Barbier denied a motion to clarify and
temporarily stay the Court's May 21, 2013 order in the case
captioned MELANIE CHISHOLM, ON BEHALF OF MINORS, CC AND MC, ET AL
v. KATHY KLIEBERT, INTERIM SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-3274, (E.D. La.).

The motion was filed by Defendant, Kathy Kliebert, Secretary of
the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH).

According to Judge Barbier, all factors weigh against staying the
May 21, 2013 Order. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that LDHH
has not made a strong showing of likely success on appeal.

The May 21, 2013 Order directed LDHH to, among other things, make
provisions for the numerous Board Certified Behavior Analysts who
specialize in Applied Behavior Analysis therapy to enroll as
independent Medicaid providers, to submit claims for their
services, and to be listed as a resource for class members in all
resources informing Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and
Treatment recipients of services governed by orders in the case.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Order and Reasons
is available at http://is.gd/VVcKd7from Leagle.com.

Dao Perez, Plaintiff, represented by

   Ellen Bentley Hahn, Esq.
   Advocacy Center
   600 Jefferson St Ste 812
   Lafayette, LA 70501
   Office: 337-237-7380

      - and -

   David Holman Williams, Esq.
   Southeast Louisiana Legal Services Corporation
   P.O. Drawer 2867
   Hammond, LA 70404

      - and -

   Jane Perkins, Esq.
   National Health Law Program
   E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org

      - and -

   Sarah Hall Voigt, Esq.
   Advocacy Center (New Orleans)
   E-mail: svoigt@Advocacyla.Org

Tara Barrett, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen Bentley Hahn,
Advocacy Center, David Holman Williams, Southeast Louisiana Legal
Services Corporation, Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program &
Sarah Hall Voigt, Advocacy Center.

Kimberly Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen Bentley Hahn,
Advocacy Center, David Holman Williams, Southeast Louisiana Legal
Services Corporation, Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program &
Sarah Hall Voigt, Advocacy Center.

Danielle Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen Bentley Hahn,
Advocacy Center, David Holman Williams, Southeast Louisiana Legal
Services Corporation, Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program &
Sarah Hall Voigt, Advocacy Center.

Kathy Kliebert, Defendant, represented by:

   Nancy Catherine Grush, Esq.
   Kimberly Lacour Sullivan, Esq.
   Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals
   628 N 4th St.
   Baton Rouge, LA 70802
   Phone: 225-342-9500


VNA HOMECARE: Settlement of Workers' Suits Gets Preliminary OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge David R. Herndon issued a preliminary order
approving a class action settlement in these cases:

APRIL BECK, individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
VNA HOMECARE, INC., d/b/a VNA TIP HOMECARE, Defendant.
GAYLE HATFIELD, individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
VNA HOMECARE, INC., d/b/a VNA TIP HOMECARE, Defendant.
MICHELE MARLOW AND TONYA SMITH, individually, and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
VNA HOMECARE, INC., d/b/a VNA TIP HOMECARE, Defendant.
MICHELLE WHITE, individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
VNA HOMECARE, INC., d/b/a VNA TIP HOMECARE, Defendant, NOS. 12-CV-
00330-DRH-PMF, 12-CV-00331-DRH-PMF, 12-CV-00332-DRH-PMF, 11-CV-
00971-DRH-PMF, (S.D. Ill.)

For purposes of Settlement, the Court approved a Rule 23 and
Collective Class defined as: All Plaintiffs and all similarly-
situated individuals who worked as healthcare providers for VNA
HomeCare, Inc. in Illinois and Missouri between April 19, 2009 and
May 25, 2013. "Healthcare Providers" will mean all persons who
worked for VNA at any time during the Class Period in any of the
following positions: (1) Registered Nurses (RNs); (2) Licensed
Practical Nurses (LPNs); (3) Certified Occupational Therapy
Assistants (COTAs); (4) Occupational Therapists (OTs); (5)
Physical Therapists (PTs); (6) Physical Therapy Assistants (PTAs);
(7) Speech Therapists (STs); (8) Home Health Aides (HHAs); and (9)
Certified Nursing Aides (CNAs).

Plaintiffs April Beck, Gayle Hatfield, Michelle Marlow, Tonya
Smith, Michelle White, and Chester Jackson are appointed as the
representatives for the class and the law firms of Maduff &
Maduff, LLC, Touhy, Touhy & Buehler, LLP, and DiTommaso-Lubin,
P.C. are appointed as counsel for the class.

A final fairness hearing will be held on November 25, 2013, at
9:00 a.m. before Chief Judge David R. Herndon, at which time the
Court will consider whether the proposed class settlement should
be given final approval.

The Court directed the Lead Class Counsel to file a motion to
approve the parties' Stipulation of Settlement, a Motion to
Consolidate the lawsuits into Michelle White v. VNA HomeCare,
Inc., No. 3:11-cv-00971-DRH-PMF, and a Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint in Michelle White v. VNA HomeCare, Inc.,
No. 3:11-cv-00971-DRH-PMF, seven days before the Fairness Hearing.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 preliminary order
is available at http://is.gd/pGjxUrfrom Leagle.com.

April Beck, Plaintiff, represented by:

    Aaron Benjamin Maduff, Esq.
    Michael L. Maduff, Esq.
    Walker R. Lawrence, Esq.
    MADUFF & MADUFF, LLC
    205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2050
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Tel: 312-276-9000

VNA Homecare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan D. LeMoine --
LeMoine@mcmahonberger.com -- at McMahon, Berger et al. & Brian M.
O'Neal -- oneal@mcmahonberger.com -- at McMahon, Berger et al..


WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses "Barbosa" Case Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise J. Casper denied a remand motion filed in
ANTONIO J. BARBOSA and JOAN F. BARBOSA, Petitioners v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST SERIES 2007-
OPT1, Respondent, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-12236-DJC, (D. Mass.)

Antonio and Joan Barbosa brought this try title action against
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust
Series 2007-OPT1, under Mass. Gen. L. c. 240, Section 1. Wells
Fargo removed the action to the Massachusetts District Court and
the Barbosas have moved to remand the case to the Massachusetts
Land Court.  Wells Fargo has moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Judge Casper denied the Barbosas' motion to remand, saying the
Barbosas still have an equity of redemption and there is no
adverse claim.  The Court granted Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss
without prejudice but denied Wells Fargo's request for costs.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/PRIS02from Leagle.com.

The Barbosas are represented by:

   Glenn F Russell, Jr., Esq.
   Law Office of Glenn F. Russell Jr.
   Fall River, MA 02818
   Tel: 401-243-3509,

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is represented by Justin M. Fabella --
jfabella@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Maura K.
McKelvey -- mmckelvey@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP & Valerie N. Doble -- vdoble@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Sued in Canada Over Defective Kenmore Dishwashers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Klein Lyons disclosed that a class action was filed on Sept. 10 in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Natalie Bickert against
Whirlpool and related companies.  The lawsuit has been brought on
behalf of Canadian consumers who purchased Whirlpool, KitchenAide
and Kenmore branded dishwashers.  The lawsuit alleges that the
dishwashers are dangerously defective.  Specifically, the
electronic control board on the dishwashers may overheat, causing
a fire.

"I am lucky to be alive", says Ms. Bickert.  On December 11, 2012,
Ms. Bickert's dishwasher ignited, filing her house with smoke.
Ms. Bickert suffered carbon monoxide poisoning and she was rushed
to hospital. There was damage to her home, but she had survived.

"It was a terrifying experience", says Ms. Bickert, "I had no idea
that my dishwasher was a fire hazard.  After the blaze, I started
researching this product on the internet, and I found out that
many other people across North America have had the same problem.
This makes me angry.  The company should recall or repair the
dishwashers, and they should warn consumers.  I don't want anyone
else in Canada to be hurt or maybe even killed by this product."

"We believe that this lawsuit raises important public safety
issues", explains Rick Mallett, one of Ms. Bickert's lawyers.
"Thousands of Canadians have these dishwashers in their homes.  We
are seeking a court order forcing the manufacturers to recall or
repair the dishwashers, to warn consumers, and to refund them."

                       About Klein Lyons

For over 20 years, Klein Lyons -- http://www.kleinlyons.com--
has been helping car accident victims and class-action clients
across Canada.  If you have been injured by no fault of your own,
Klein Lyons offers dedicated expertise in motor vehicle accidents,
personal injury and class action law.


XCEL ENERGY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Comer" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of a suit alleging Xcel Energy Inc.'s CO2 emissions
intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the
damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their property,
according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit filed
a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and
coal companies in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi.

The complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the
strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs
purportedly sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their
claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.

Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc.,
SPS, PSCo, NSP-Wisconsin and NSP-Minnesota.  The amount of damages
claimed by plaintiffs is unknown.  The defendants believe this
lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.

In March 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for
dismissal.  In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  In May 2013, the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of this
lawsuit.

It is uncertain whether plaintiffs will seek further review of
this decision. Although Xcel Energy believes the likelihood of
loss is remote based upon existing case law, it is not possible to
estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in the
event of an adverse outcome of this matter.  No accrual has been
recorded for this matter.


* Canada Recalls No Name Battery Pack and Battery Charger
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 13, 2013
Posting date:             September 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35571

Affected products: Battery pack and battery charger

The recall involves a no name battery pack and battery charger.
The battery pack is black, bears a counterfeit Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) certification mark and a label with warnings and
product rating information.  The battery charger is black, bears a
counterfeit UL certification mark, model number USC7.2-12-0918 and
product rating information.

The battery pack bears a counterfeit UL certification mark for the
United States and the battery charger bears a UL certification
mark for the United States and Canada.  Neither the battery pack
nor the battery charger comply with UL's safety requirements and
may pose a fire or shock hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of these battery packs and battery
chargers.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/9knEPx

The number of units sold is unknown.  The product was known to be
sold at http://www.pitsco.com/store/and may have been sold at
other locations.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and the time period
sold is unknown.

Consumers should stop using the affected battery packs and battery
chargers immediately.


* Carlton Fields Discusses Ruling on Several Food Labeling Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
D. Matthew Allen, Esq. -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- Chris S.
Coutroulis, Esq. -- ccoutroulis@carltonfields.com -- and Robert L.
Ciotti, Esq. -- rciotti@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields
report that the class action is a potentially potent vehicle for
attempting to effect behavioral change, and plaintiffs' counsel
have not been shy about using it creatively.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the food industry context,
where one of the hottest trends is the filing of class actions
against manufacturers of food products on behalf of consumer
classes claiming to have been deceived by product labeling.

For example, plaintiffs are challenging the labeling of snack
crackers as "wholesome" or "healthy," and juice and water drinks
as "natural."  In the last two years alone, reported decisions
reveal a wide variety of claims filed against an array of products
and manufacturers:

     Cereal. Consumers alleged that Puffins brand cereal and snack
products were "unnatural" because they contained genetically
modified corn.

    Cookies. Consumers alleged that several cookies (as well as
biscuits and crescent rolls) sold by Trader Joe's were not all
natural, as labeled, because they contained synthetic or non-
natural ingredients.

    Cooking Oil. Consumers alleged that ConAgra's Wesson oils were
improperly labeled and marketed as "100% Natural" when the oils
purportedly contain genetically modified plants or organisms.

    Cracker Snacks. Consumers alleged that Kraft's Teddy Grahams,
Vegetable Thins, Ritz Crackers, Premium Saltines, Honey Maid
Grahams, and Ginger Snaps were deceptively labeled as wholesome
and sensible snacks when they contained refined sugars and flour.

    Flavored Water and Tea. Consumers alleged that SoBe's vitamin
flavored water beverages and Arizona Beverage's AriZona Iced Tea
were not "all natural" because they contained artificial
ingredients.

    Hazelnut Spread. The suits alleged that the defendant
improperly suggested that Nutella hazelnut spread is healthier
than it actually is.

    Ice Cream. Consumers alleged that Dreyer's, Edy's, and Haagen-
Dazs ice cream products were labeled as "all natural" when they
contained artificial or synthetic ingredients.

    Juice Beverages. Consumers alleged that Naked and Jamba Juice
beverages were not all-natural because they contained synthetic
ingredients and, in the case of Naked products, contained
genetically modified organisms.

    Lunch Meat. Consumers alleged that Hormel lunch meat claimed
to be "95 percent fat free" when this claim was misleading.

    Margarita Mix. The cases alleged that SkinnyGirl Margarita has
been packaged, marketed, and advertised as being "all natural" and
containing "no preservatives," even though the product contains a
synthetic preservative.

    Nutritional Snack Bars. Consumers alleged that ZonePerfect's
nutrition bars were not all-natural, as labeled, because they
contained synthetic and artificial ingredients.

    Orange Juice. These class actions alleged that the defendant
selling orange juice as "All Natural" misled consumers because the
products undergo processing to increase shelf-life.

    Soup. A consumer alleged that Campbell's vegetable soup was
not all-natural because it contained genetically modified corn.

    Yogurt. Consumers alleged that General Mills' Yoplait Greek
yogurt was neither Greek nor yogurt.

Several lawsuits in this vein assert that a "natural" claim on
product packaging or labeling is deceptive because the product
contains ingredients from plants grown from genetically modified
organisms ("GMOs").  Among the products challenged have been
cereal, snack chips, juice beverages, and cooking oil.

GMOs are plants that grow from seeds in which DNA splicing has
been used to place genes from another source into the plant.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits typically allege that GMOs pose a
potential threat to consumers because medical research and
scientific studies ostensibly have yet to determine the long-term
health effects of genetically engineered foods.  Many of the
complaints provide various purported examples of potential health
threats based on studies or research conducted outside of the
United States.

The non-profit organizations and individual plaintiffs bringing
these claims are attempting, through the device of a class action
lawsuit and the accompanying monetary and injunctive exposure to
the company whose packaging and labeling is being challenged, to
advance their conception of what the rules ought to be for the
American food industry.

Plaintiffs bringing these cases have sued under such varied
theories as: (a) violation of a state consumer protection or
deceptive trade practices statute; (b) unjust enrichment; (c)
negligent misrepresentation; (d) intentional misrepresentation;
(e) fraudulent concealment; (f) breach of implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose; (g) breach of express warranty;
and (h) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  Many food
product labeling claims are disposed of on motions to dismiss.
However, state law consumer protection claims frequently survive
motions directed to the face of the pleadings.  That of course
brings these cases to a critical point, which is the focus of this
article:

Is the class action device the right and proper vehicle for GMO
claims to play out? Can a class be certified? And should the rules
for what disclosures are required effectively be established in
the courts through the vehicle of class actions, with the
attendant effects they have on companies who must balance risk and
expense, rather than through the regulatory process?

As of the time of this writing, only a few food product labeling
cases have advanced to the class certification stage, and none of
them are GMO cases.  This article explores how GMO cases in
particular might fare on a motion for class certification.  Based
on the purpose and intent of the class action procedural device as
applied to these kinds of cases, we conclude that, in general,
GMO/natural cases are not well suited for class treatment, and
that the class action device is not the proper vehicle for airing
these issues.  We therefore believe there are ample reasons for
courts applying Rule 23 to refuse to certify these kinds of cases.
GMOs in Food Products

Genetic modification is a technique for plant breeding that
selectively identifies and reinforces particular plant traits.
Also known as "bioengineering," it is a method that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration has, for decades, approved as a safe and
effective means of crop production.  As the FDA's 1992 Statement
of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties explains, the
"FDA believes that the[se] new techniques [for genetically
modifying plants] are extensions at the molecular level of
traditional methods and will be used to achieve the same goals as
pursued with traditional plant breeding.

The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods
derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any
meaningful or uniform way, or that as a class, foods developed by
these new techniques present any different or greater safety
concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding."  The
FDA has on several occasions reaffirmed its policy that for
purposes of food labeling, there is no material difference between
crops grown using bioengineered seeds and those grown using more
traditional cross-breeding methods.  Indeed, it explained that
because bioengineering techniques are "more precise [than
traditional plant breeding methods,] they increase the potential
for safe, better-characterized, and more predictable foods."

Accordingly, the USDA and FDA have allowed bioengineered foods to
become the overwhelming bulk of corn and soy crops grown in this
country.  As the FDA has explained, "Most, if not all, cultivated
food crops have been genetically modified."  USDA statistics show
that 88% of corn and 93% of soy acreage were bioengineered in
2012.  Thus, only food certified as organic is required to be
grown from non-bioengineered seed and segregated from non-organic
crops to minimize pollination from bioengineered crops.

Most recently, President Obama signed into law section 735 of H.R.
933, the so-called "Farmer Assurance Provision," which, as
reported, directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary
deregulation status to allow growers to continue cultivating
bioengineered products that were previously approved while legal
challenges to the approval process proceed.

Plaintiffs in the GMO lawsuits contend that bioengineered food is
not "natural" as advertised.  In 1993, the FDA noted that it had
received a wide range of ideas for it to consider in developing a
definition for "natural." Because of "resource limitations and
other agency priorities," the FDA, however, refused to establish a
rule defining the term "natural."  At the same time, the agency
stated that it intends "to maintain its current policy . . . not
to restrict the use of the term 'natural' except for added color,
synthetic substances, and flavors."

Additionally, it stated that it "will maintain its policy . . .
regarding the use of 'natural,' as meaning that nothing artificial
or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source)
has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not
normally be expected to be in the food."  Thus, in effect, despite
its refusal to issue a rule, the FDA has made a policy
determination that the term "natural" should be restricted only in
a very limited fashion.

Notably, the GMO plaintiffs do not allege that food products
containing GMOs contain artificial or synthetic substances,
flavors, or color additives.  Rather, their claim is that the
presence of GMOs itself makes the products non-natural, and that
under state consumer protection statutes, marketing such products
as "natural" is contrary to the reasonable customer's expectation
as to the meaning of that term. Yet given FDA pronouncements, a
manufacturer of GMO products certainly should argue that the FDA
effectively has created the only generally accepted meaning of the
term "natural," which is the FDA's definition that "nothing
artificial or synthetic . . . has been included in, or has been
added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the
food."

When viewed in light of the regulatory backdrop outlined above,
the question becomes whether a class should be certified based
upon a GMO plaintiff's subjective opinion (if the plaintiff has an
opinion at all) that the challenged products are not "natural" and
should not be so labeled because they are made from the nation's
routinely grown and consumed bioengineered crops.
Class Certification in GMO/Natural Cases

As noted above, a handful of food product cases have advanced to
the class certification stage.

Although none of them to-date involves a challenge to GMOs in
products labeled as "natural," the rationale in the decisions that
have issued should illuminate how courts might treat class
certification of these types of claims.

In addition, the unique regulatory framework of GMOs in food
products bears on the certification analysis.  We see the
following trends flowing from the case law and the regulatory
framework.

A. Proposed National Classes Generally
Should Be Denied Class Treatment

Most courts addressing proposed national classes reject the
argument advanced by plaintiffs that the law of a single
jurisdiction can apply to all class members' claims.  Pursuant to
choice of law principles, these courts typically hold that the law
of the state in which each class member is a resident will apply
to that class member's claims.  This fact usually dooms a finding
of predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).25 In food labeling cases,
several courts have applied these principles to strike allegations
or deny certification of a nationwide class.

One California district judge has bucked this trend and certified
a national class of consumers who purchased liquid dietary
supplements, applying California law to all class members' claims.
In its initial decision, the court explained that it felt free to
apply California law to all class members' claims because it was
the defendants' burden to show that there were material
differences between California consumer protection laws and the
consumer protection laws of other states rather than, as other
courts had done, the plaintiff's burden to show the absence of
such differences.  The court found that defendants' reliance on
statements in other cases indicating material differences among
state laws was insufficient because the defendants had the burden
of showing an actual conflict "on the facts of this case."

After the Ninth Circuit vacated a nationwide class in Mazza v. Am.
Honda Motor Co.,29 the defendant moved for reconsideration.  The
court refused to reconsider its prior decision, reasoning that
"Defendants' briefing in the prior motion differs from that of the
defendants in Mazza."  The court's shifting of the burden of
demonstrating that California law differs from that of other
states is contrary to the prevailing standard on class
certification.  This decision is a wrongly-decided outlier.

B. Challenges to Non-Uniform Claims on Product Labels Should Fail
Commonality, Predominance

Many plaintiffs readily understand the difficulties of certifying
a national class in a food products case and, therefore, limit
their proposed classes to residents of the forum state.  Even in
such a context, however, if the challenged labeling was not
uniformly made across all challenged products or over the entire
class period, certification of a statewide class should be denied.

Red v. Kraft Foods30 is illustrative.  There, the plaintiffs
alleged that certain claims made by Kraft on its cracker products
regarding their healthfulness -- for example, that they were
"wholesome," that they support 'kids' growth and development," and
that they were smart choices" -- were deceptive because the
products contained trans fats.  Plaintiffs sought to certify a
class under several California state consumer protection statutes.

The court held, however, that the class was not adequately defined
and was overbroad because, for large parts of the class period,
most of the challenged statements did not appear on any packaging
or advertisements. Moreover, even when they did appear, they were
used in only some versions of that particular snack.

Although the plaintiffs sought to redefine the class to exclude
some of the challenged products, the court ruled that it was still
too broad to the extent that it necessarily included customers
that were not exposed to allegedly misleading statements.  In
addition, the court held that the plaintiffs failed the Rule
23(a)(2) commonality requirement because the proposed class
consisted of millions of consumers who purchased different
products bearing different labels over the span of a decade.31

C. Inability to Show Injury and Loss May Cause Class to Fail
Typicality, Adequacy, Predominance

In some jurisdictions, food labeling classes cannot be certified
because the plaintiff cannot uniformly show that all class members
suffered injury or loss. For example, if the named plaintiff did
not pay a premium for the product, he or she may fail to establish
the Rule 23(a) requirements of typicality and adequacy.

In addition, though individual damages calculations will not
necessarily defeat class certification, this depends on the
calculations being straightforward such that they can be performed
by a common methodology applicable to each class member.
Particularly in consumer transactions where there often are no
records reflecting individual consumer purchases, damages may well
be individualized.  The price paid by each consumer may vary from
store to store, from customer to customer (as a result of coupons,
loyalty programs, and other promotions), or according to when the
purchase was made.  Where each putative class member paid a
different amount and bought different quantities on numerous
occasions over a period of time, the individual inquiries
necessary to compute individual damages may well predominate over
any possible common questions relating to liability.

D. An Inference of Reliance May Not Be Appropriate in the GMO
Context

Courts sometimes certify classes in non-GMO food product cases
over defendants' objections that consumers had different reasons
for purchasing the products and many of the class members did not
rely on the allegedly misleading statements.  This type of
argument by defendants may be rejected even if the court denies
class certification (as occurred in Red v. Kraft).  This is
because many states, including California where many of the food
product cases are filed, hold that individual reliance is not a
requirement of their consumer protection statutes as long as the
alleged misrepresentation was material.  In other words, reliance
is deemed satisfied if it can be determined that a reasonable
class member would likely be deceived by the product labeling
claim.  Nonetheless, as discussed above, the plaintiffs must
demonstrate common exposure to the misrepresentation (not just the
product) to obtain class certification.

Cases permitting a presumption or inference of reliance appear to
be predicated upon the assumption that there is a single
"reasonable" class member viewpoint as to whether the alleged
misrepresentation is material.  The court in Guido, for example,
called the presumption an "objective" standard.35

The issue of reasonable reliance in the GMO context appears to be
fundamentally different.  Given the regulatory framework discussed
above, it is evident that there is no common consumer
understanding of what "natural" means, and accordingly no
presumption of reliance is warranted.  In fact, products developed
from bioengineered crops are indeed "natural" in any reasonable
meaning of that term because a very high percentage of many U.S.
crops, including soy and corn, are produced using GMOs.

The FDA has considered, but chosen not to adopt, labeling
standards for "natural" products or products using GMOs. The FDA
apparently has prohibited the use only of the term "organic" when
GMOs are involved, but this involves a very different issue from
whether they are "natural."

While the FDA has chosen not to adopt mandatory labeling
requirements, it issued a "guidance" for producers who voluntarily
choose to include information about bioengineered crops or
products in their product information.  In its Guidance for
Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have Or Have
Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering," issued January 2001 (not
having the force of a regulation), the FDA noted that "Data
indicate that consumers do not have a good understanding that
essentially all food crops have been genetically modified and that
bioengineering technology is only one of a number of technologies
used to genetically modify crops."

In other words, the FDA considered whether to adopt mandatory
regulations for the use of "natural" in labeling foods containing
GMOs, and did not do so, choosing instead only to issue non-
binding guidance for companies who elected to include information
about GMOs in their product. As noted, the FDA instead has issued
a limited "policy" defining natural as "meaning that nothing
artificial or synthetic (including color additives . . .) has been
included. . . . " which does not reach bioengineered crops.

In this context, a food manufacturer has strong substantive
arguments that the FDA pronouncements militate in favor of
judgment against the plaintiff because the plaintiff cannot show -
- in the face of the FDA policy -- that the label of the product
is deceptive or misleading.  Beyond this, or perhaps, in light of
it, for class certification purposes, the defendant also should
argue that there is no single "reasonable" consumer understanding
that products containing GMOs are not "natural."

Indeed, as the FDA commentary establishes, there simply is no
common understanding among consumers of what GMOs are, what
bioengineered crops are, or what "natural" means in that specific
context.  This suggests that it is not possible to establish that
the defendants' labels are misleading or deceptive across a broad
class of consumers whose common characteristic merely is that they
bought the defendants' products.

Relatedly, even setting aside the issue of reliance, the issues
concerning the lack of a clear meaning of "natural" in the context
of bioengineered food ingredients may well implicate the threshold
issue of whether the statements appearing on the product packages
are "deceptive" as to each class member in the first place.

Wide variations almost certainly exist among purchasers as to what
they think (if anything) "natural" means in the GMO context.  This
presents both substantive (whether the package was deceptive for
that consumer), and class issues (varying, or no, individual
perceptions of "natural" in this context among class members).

Many of these arguments were previewed -- and not adjudicated --
in Silber v. Barbara's Bakery,36 where the plaintiffs sought a
preliminary injunction against a cereal manufacturer's labeling
practices.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's Puffins
cereal products were deceptively labeled when the packaging touted
the product as "all natural" and "100% Natural" when it contained
corn grown from genetically modified seed.  In favor of their
likelihood of success on the merits, the plaintiffs argued that
the term "natural" had been partially defined by the FDA in its
1993 pronouncement.  The defendant responded that the FDA had
plainly stated that the term "natural" has no defined meaning.

The plaintiffs also contended that consumers expect "natural" food
to be free of genetically engineered ingredients, citing a Hartman
Group study and anecdotal evidence of consumer indignation.  They
also asserted that products derived from GMOs are unnatural by
definition.  The court refused to grant the preliminary injunction
because the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm
and their claimed money damages provided an adequate legal remedy.
Influencing the court's decision was a reluctance to order what
amounted to a product recall to remedy the payment of a small
premium for the product.

The court also noted that, since 2011, efforts to require labeling
of GMOs had been rejected by legislators in more than a dozen
states.  It declined to "render a decision to compensate
Plaintiffs for various state legislatures' failure to act."  The
same could be said of the FDA's decision not to adopt such
regulations.
E. Class Action Arguably Not Superior to Other Means of Resolving
Key Issues in Novel Claim

Manufacturer defendants also should argue that GMO lawsuits are
potentially vulnerable as class actions because they improperly
seek to use the Rule 23 procedural device to have the judiciary
establish for all consumers, in one single lawsuit, what the term
"Natural" or "100% Natural" means in food products created from
crops using GMOs when other means of doing so (or determining that
there is no basis to do so) are superior to the class action
vehicle.

Indeed, because of the absence of any scientific evidence that
such crops are unsafe or otherwise materially different from foods
produced without using such crops, the FDA has determined that
producers of such foods need not "disclose" that they were created
from crops using GMOs.

Plaintiffs in this new breed of class action seek to use the class
device to end-around the FDA's rule-making.  The Silber court
hinted at such rationale in refusing to grant a preliminary
injunction to recall or require a sticker on the label of Puffins
cereal.  The Northern District of California was more explicit in
Cox v. Gruma Corp.,38when it became the first court to refer a
putative GMO class action to the FDA for administrative
determination of whether and under what circumstances food
products containing ingredients produced using bioengineered seed
may or may not be labeled "natural" or "all natural" or "100%
natural."

The issue of what constitutes a "natural" food product in the
context of bioengineered crops used in food products is arguably a
sufficiently "novel" issue that is inappropriate for class
treatment.  Defendants faced with food labeling class actions can
develop strong thematic arguments that determining whether a food
product labeled "100% natural" is deceptive and misleading because
it contains products grown from GMOs involves a number of
potential complex issues.  The resolution of those issues via a
class action is arguably not "superior to other available methods
for adjudicating the controversy."39

The very issue of what "natural" means is subject to debate,
including policy debate, and can have varying meanings, or no
particular meaning at all, for various consumers.  Thus, the
argument exists that there are other, better suited means, which
would most obviously include regulatory means, for resolving these
claims.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs bringing "natural" claims essentially want the courts
to do what the FDA has to-date seen as not appropriate to do: to
regulate the labeling of products containing GMOs.

Indeed, with the potential exposure a class action presents,
allowing these cases to go past the class certification stage in
the face of the Rule 23 problems they present could threaten to
deter food manufacturers from defending them on the merits,
thereby bringing about substantive labeling changes through the in
terrorem effect of the suits themselves rather than a careful
assessment of the underlying merits.

The GMO cases present a paradigm example where a rigorous Rule 23
assessment is appropriate to ensure that square pegs are not
forced into round holes as plaintiffs elect to bypass the
regulatory process in favor of a more potent formula to effect
change.


* Class Action Concept in India's Companies Bill Open to Misuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amish Tandon, writing for Business Standard, reports that among
the various new inductions in the Companies Bill, the concept of
'class action' which is aimed at increasing investor protection is
definitely pronounced.  The concept of class action, which
originated in and is predominant in the US, is sought to be
introduced in India in the Companies Bill, in the aftermath of the
Satyam corporate scandal.  In the Satyam case, wherein numerous
small investors of Satyam Group in India were unable to seek
effective relief against Satyam's management as against their
counterparts in the US who brought class action suits against
Satyam and got recompensed in the process.

A 'class action suit' in common parlance may be defined as a
lawsuit in which a group of shareholders of a company collectively
bring an action in court against an identified group of defendants
belonging to the company.  The Companies Bill mandates the
initiation of class actions suits by the members and depositors of
a company in case they are of the opinion that the management or
conduct of the affairs of the company are being conducted in a
manner prejudicial to the interests of the company or its members
or depositors.  Let us briefly look at some of the salient
attributes of the concept of 'class action suits' under the
Companies Bill:

(a) Under the Companies Bill, class action suits can be commenced
collectively by a minimum of 100 shareholders or depositors, or a
minimum prescribed percentage of such shareholders or depositors,
whichever is less.

(b) A class action suit may be brought against the company, its
directors, auditors or any experts, advisors and consultants for
their inactions and wrongdoings.  Hence, the Companies Bill
attempts to cast a wide net on the erring management of the
company.

(c) Upon admission of a class action application, all similar
applications in any jurisdiction are required to be consolidated
into one single application.  This provision would reduce
multiplicity of litigation on the same subject matter.

(d) However, banking companies have been granted immunity against
a class action.

The features of a class action suit under the Companies Bill
certainly carry benefits for investors of a company.  It provides
investors with a medium to fight as one unit against the errant
company or management, thereby reducing multiplicity of suits,
costs of ligation and increasing their chances of success in the
process.  No doubt, 'class action suits' under the Companies Bill
may prove to be a potent tool to keep the accountability of a
company/management in check and to contain any likely prejudice
against the minority.  However, on the flipside, such a concept
may be open to misuse by unscrupulous minority shareholders in
furtherance of their vested interest thereby hampering the
efficacious functioning of the company.

Suffice to say that courts may need to exercise caution while
hearing and deciding class action suits in order to ensure that a
company is allowed to function effectively while keeping intact
required minority investor protection.


* K&L, Kirkland, Littler and Morgan Lewis Are Top Defendant Firms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that when corporate counsel
are confronted with potential class actions by disgruntled
consumers or investors, there are four law firms they want on
their side, according to a new report.

K&L Gates LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Littler Mendelson LLP and
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP are the firms that in-house counsel
most want to defend them against class actions and mass torts,
according to the BTI Litigation Outlook 2014 report by BTI
Consulting Group Inc. (Wellesley, Mass.).  The firms were named as
powerhouses based on interviews with 300 corporate counsel.

When presented with potential class actions, these four firms
routinely call on their best and most experienced attorneys in the
initial strategy phases before taking any action, which makes
their success rate that much higher, BTI President Michael
Rynowecer told Law360.

"In some firms, whoever gets the lead on a class action keeps it,
whereas in top firms, whoever gets it shares it with the most
experienced," Mr. Rynowecer said.  "Not all firms take that
approach to business development."

Mr. Rynowecer added that the powerhouses are good at listening to
their clients and being able to sort through the multiple voices
that are involved in class actions.

And lawyers in the four firms resoundingly agreed that their
success is partly due to their willingness to seriously study the
substantive legal areas of the industries in which they litigate.

"There is no substitute for expertise in the substantive areas of
the law and intimate familiarity with developing case law,"
John Rotunno, a K&L Gates litigation practice leader, told Law360.

K&L Gates has a broad-ranging class action practice that includes
securities, antitrust, employment, discrimination, product
liability, environmental and consumer litigation.  A focus is the
firm's consumer finance class action practice, which recently
scored a win in a federal jury trial defending Wells Fargo Bank NA
in a mortgage referral kickback class action.

And in recent years, the firm has seen an increase in class
actions accusing home loan servicers of failing to engage in loan
modification and debt collection efforts and alleged unfair and
deceptive practices cases, amongst other mortgage-related actions,
according to R. Bruce Allensworth, a partner in the firm's Boston
office who was instrumental in forming what is now K&L Gates'
financial institutions and services litigation practice group.

Allan King, co-chair of Littler Mendelson's class action group,
told Law360 that his firm's practice has been growing at around 15
percent for the last 7 or 8 years, thanks to the firm's market
position as the nation's largest labor and employment firm and a
broad team of litigators who specialize in nuanced areas, like
statistics and e-discovery.

King said that when he became co-chair about 10 years ago, Littler
Mendelson handled a heavy mix of discrimination cases.  Now, the
firm's class action workload is about 40 percent federal Fair
Labor Standards Act cases, 40 percent California labor code cases
and the remainder discrimination and Employee Retirement Income
Security Act matters, he said.

Kirkland & Ellis, which BTI's 2014 report named as one of the four
most feared litigation firms, was also ranked as a class action
powerhouse in last year's BTI survey. About 250 Kirkland attorneys
are involved in class actions on a regular basis, according to
senior litigation partner Jay Lefkowitz.

"Our clients understandably view litigation as a major distraction
and a means of last resort.  Therefore, we try to use our skills
as trial lawyers to discourage potential litigants from bringing
actions against our clients," Mr. Lefkowitz told Law360.  "Where
that is not achievable, the next best outcome is reach a quick,
cost-effective resolution of any action, whether through motion
practice or negotiation, or if necessary, trial."

This aggressive stance has paid dividends for the firm, which has
successfully defended 24 Hour Fitness, AOL, Hertz Corp., Cigna
Corp., DirecTV Inc., The Dow Chemical Corp. and other major
corporations in an array of class actions in recent years.

"It's very hard for companies to avoid being the target of a
lawsuit, particularly those that may be frivolous, and so they
must react strongly and swiftly, particularly if they're in an
industry where they can be subject to repetitive actions,"
Mr. Lefkowitz added.  "They must demonstrate that they're willing
to take on plaintiffs in a rigorous manner."

For Morgan Lewis, its success in the class action realm is
attributable in part to its belief that class actions are much
more than mere legal issues, J. Gordon Cooney, managing partner of
Morgan Lewis' Philadelphia office told Law360.

"A class action nearly always challenges some aspect of your
client's business and you need to be thinking about the business
impact, not just the litigation," he said.

Some of the broader issues that must be considered are shareholder
issues, customer issues, media coverage and government
investigations, according to Cooney.

"We can handle many, if not all of those areas, and if a client
hires other counsel, we've also been very successful in working
with the client and other firms to help develop a strategy to
address the business problem that the client might have," firm
litigation partner Joseph Duffy added.

BTI's report also named 13 other firms as "standouts" in this
arena.  The firms are Alston & Bird LLP, Bartlit Beck Herman
Palenchar & Scott LLP, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Dechert LLP, DLA
Piper, Hogan Lovells, Jones Day, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP,
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.

Additionally, 41 other firms made BTI's "honor roll" for class
actions and torts.


* Law Firms Wrangling With Insurance Carriers Over Sandy Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for New York Journal, reports that
nearly a year after Hurricane Sandy, law firms are still wrangling
with insurance carriers over denied coverage for loss of business.

Several firms have turned to litigation against insurers that
denied their business interruption claims, among them,
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer; Mintz & Gold; Bamundo, Zwal &
Schermerhorn; Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris; and Shapiro
Beilly & Aronowitz, almost all of them located in downtown
Manhattan.

Generally, the law firms claim they suffered business losses when
they had no access to their building or lost power and
communications in their office.  Some firms said insurers denied
their claims on the basis that power failure resulted from
flooding on Con Ed's property.  Many corporate entities are
pursuing similar suits in New York's state and federal courts.

Meanwhile, some firms are sticking with negotiations.

William McKitty, managing director at insurance broker AON, said
the broker has five large firm clients, with more than 150
attorneys each, with claims involving business interruption.  Some
have settled while others are in the process of doing so, he said.

Robert Juceam -- robert.juceam@friedfrank.com -- of counsel at
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, said he has consulted
three midsized firms on their business interruption claims.

Fried Frank is in the process of resolving its own business
interruption claim, without difficulty, Mr. Juceam said.  The
firm, which had to take temporary space on Park Avenue after
Sandy, moved back to its office in late November at One New York
Plaza.

                       Substation Dispute

Many insurance policies exclude or limit losses caused by damage
to off-site utilities, Mr. Juceam said.  One question is what
exactly happened at a lower Manhattan Consolidated Edison
substation.

Lester Schwab, a 55-attorney litigation firm at 120 Broadway, said
it suffered significant business losses and extra expenses after
it lost some utility service and could not access its office after
the Oct. 29 storm.

The firm, which is alleging $490,000 in damages, said Great
Northern Insurance Co., a Chubb subsidiary, denied coverage on the
basis that the loss of power "was caused by flood damage to the
utility's property."

But Lester Schwab is arguing that an explosion caused loss of
utilities.  Coverage is also provided under the policy's flood
endorsement, the firm said in Lester Schwab v. Great Northern,
652708/2013, in Manhattan Supreme Court.

"There are coverage implications if there was an explosion or not
an explosion under certain policies," said Stuart Cotton --
scotton@moundcotton.com -- an attorney who defends insurers and
who is not involved in the case.

"Generally, insurance companies do not pay for business
interruption from any cause whatsoever. Their policies are quite
specific about what has to happen to trigger that coverage," said
Cotton, who is senior counsel at Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass.

Con Edison said in a report in January 2013 that low voltage
equipment tied to a single East 13th Street substation transformer
failed due to exposure to salt water.

"The failure caused a dramatic arcing fault which to many looked
and sounded like an explosion," the Con Edison report said, noting
that a widely-watched video on YouTube captured the event. "Many
people have associated the arc fault with the loss of electric
service to Manhattan. However, the loss of one out of eight
transformers supplying the East 13th Street substation did not
cause the station shutdown."

Con Edison has said that outages after Sandy in Manhattan "were
caused by flooding," except for specific buildings and networks
that were preemptively shut down.

Insurers are relying on the Con Edison report to disclaim
coverage, said Lester Schwab's counsel, Johnathan Lerner, a
partner at Lerner Arnold & Winston.  He is arguing the incident
was an explosion which caused the power outage.  "Con Ed is
protecting itself against what could be massive subrogation
claims," Mr. Lerner said.

                        Access to Office

In another suit against Great Northern, 16-attorney Newman Myers
said it suffered business losses after it couldn't access its
office until Nov. 5, due to the loss of heat.  The firm's
complaint in Newman Myers v. Great Northern, 1:13-cv-02177, was
filed in the Southern District.

Among its affirmative defenses, Great Northern said the firm's
office was not located in Evacuation Zone A, which was a mandatory
evacuation area, and "no prohibition of access to the premises by
a civil authority or by any occurrence covered under the policy
prevented ingress to the Premise."

Jared Zola -- zolaj@dicksteinshapiro.com -- a Dickstein Shapiro
partner who represents policyholders and who is not involved in
the suit, said a key question in such litigation is what is a
civil authority.

"If the mandatory evacuation only covered Zone A, and a law firm
was one block north of Zone A, but police officers are not
permitting you or your employees to enter the premises, the
policyholder may have a strong argument there is still civil
authority coverage," Mr. Zola said.

A spokeswoman for Chubb declined to comment on the Lester Schwab
and Newman Myers suits.

Mintz & Gold is suing CNA, which found the firm's policy did not
cover "off premises power failure."  The firm is alleging breach
of contract and deceptive business practices and demanding
unspecified damages and punitive damages for denial of its
business interruption claim, Mintz & Gold v. CNA, 157221/2013.
The 23-attorney firm claims it was physically prevented from
retrieving its server.

Mintz & Gold claims that at mediation in June, CNA representatives
said they had neither authority nor intention to settle.  In an
interview in August, Steven Gold, a founding partner, said the
firm had more than $100,000 in losses.

"Pretending to participate in the mediation is offensive," he
said.  "It was a big waste of my time. I went out of there
fuming."

Jennifer Martinez-Roth, a CNA representative, declined to comment.

There are at least two other law firm suits in Manhattan Supreme
Court.  Shapiro Beilly & Aronowitz, a six-attorney firm at 225
Broadway, said it suffered loss of business income and extra
expenses totaling about $73,000.  The firm's suit against National
Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, a CNA company, Shapiro v.
National Fire, 650037/2013, said it has coverage for losses
resulting from a breakdown to equipment that is owned or
controlled by a utility.

Edward Pinter -- empinter@fmew.com -- a partner at Ford Marrin
Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, who is representing National Fire,
declined to comment. The company in a statement in January said,
"National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford . . . at all times
acted professionally and in good faith in the handling of Shapiro,
Beilly & Aronowitz's claim.  The company denies the allegations in
the complaint and will vigorously defend the lawsuit."

Bamundo, Zwal & Schermerhorn, a 10-attorney plaintiff personal
injury and insurance defense firm, is suing Sentinel Insurance Co.
and Hartford Insurance, asking for $250,000 in damages and
punitive damages. Bamundo v. Sentinel, 157622-2013.

The firm said its business operations "were completely interrupted
and halted."  The firm said it could not conduct business until it
found a temporary office on Nov. 15, and for a period of time, the
firm could not access its telephone number and litigation files.

Recovering and calculating business interruption claims may be
more complicated for law firms than other businesses, some lawyers
said, due to factors such as multiple timekeepers, actual
collections versus hours billed, whether attorneys offered
discounted rates and whether they were able to work remotely.

After 9/11, several large law firms and some insurers informally
compromised on how to calculate billable hours in a business
interruption claim, Mr. Juceam said.  He declined to specify the
formula, saying it was not public information.

Howard Epstein, a partner with Schulte Roth & Zabel who focuses on
insurance law, said carriers will more than likely try to settle
claims of a couple hundred thousand dollars or under.

"When you get into damages of that amount, the cost of litigation
is so substantial that you typically try to find common ground on
which to settle," Mr. Epstein said.


* Malls in Maharashtra, India Face Suit Over Sale of Plastic Bags
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunil Baghel, writing for Mumbai Mirror, reports that with BMC yet
to finalize process, petition alleges malls are charging for bags,
not passing on the money meant for waste management.

The Maharashtra Consumer Commission admitted a petition filed
against malls and departmental stores in the State for selling
plastic bags to consumers.

The petition, filed by 23 residents, is probably the first filed
as a "Class Action Petition" in the State.  A "Class Action
Petition" is akin to a Public Interest Litigation in a High Court,
i.e. one filed collectively by a group of people, and involving
the interest of "numerous consumers".

The petition, filed early last year, raises the issue that malls
and departmental stores are selling plastic bags to customers and
are not passing on the money to the respective municipal
corporations, so that they can take care of "waste management cost
and encourage re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation".

According to the complaint, malls/stores began selling plastic
bags after the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests issued
notification in February 2011 with an aim to discourage use of
plastic bags.  This notification directed the respective
corporations to declare prices at which the stores could sell
plastic bags, based on quality and size, covering the material as
well as waste management cost.

The complaint further says that the corporations have not taken
any action, i.e. declaration of the process for the bags, as well
as for collection of money from the stores and putting it to use.
Despite all this, the complaint alleges that malls have begun
selling plastic bags even though the system is yet to be put in
place.

Representing the petitioners advocate Uday Wavikar said, "In the
complaint we mentioned an amount of Rs 40 lakh, which is estimated
to be collected by stores from sale of plastic bags in just 20
days, but we think it could be much more."

The amount was arrived at days before the petition was filed.
Mr. Wavikar added that by this estimate, the amount could run into
a few crores annually.

The BMC issued a notification few days after the petition was
filed, but Mr. Wavikar responded with an affidavit calling it an
eyewash.  The affidavit says that BMC's notification only declares
the prices of various size bags, without specifying the collection
process and further action to be taken to enforce the MoEF
notification.  "This only helps malls gain at the cost of the
customers," the affidavit said.

According to the complaint, malls/stores earlier used to supply
plastic bags free -- meaning that the cost of the bags was already
factored in the sale price.  But, after the MoEF notification,
they started charging for bags without reducing prices of goods.

However, in replies filed with the Commission, malls have denied
the allegations.

According to Retailers Association of India, bags were earlier
provided free "only as a good gesture on part of stores".  It also
contends that providing "free bags" to consumers is not mandatory,
and therefore not providing the free bags cannot be "deficiency in
service."

The retailers' reply also says there is no "maximum sale price"
fixed for bags and it is open for stores to charge any amount,
therefore they have not violated any notification.  It also says
there is a significant drop in demand for plastic bags ever since
they were charged for.

One store, in its reply affidavit, said the allegations are made
"without any study and research and therefore defamatory".

These and all other replies filed by malls/stores sought dismissal
of the complaint.  The Commission, however, rejected their prayer
and admitted the complaint.  The petition will be heard on
October 4.


                             *********

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  * * *