CAR_Public/131015.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 204

                             Headlines


250 WEST: More Appeals Filed Over N.Y. Class Suit Settlement
ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
ALP LIQUIDATING: Trial in Rothal v. Arvida May Begin Jan. 2014
AOL INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
ATLANTIC COAST: Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger Remains Pending

BANK OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Vacates Order Dismissing "Leyse" Suit
BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Restores Fight Over Settlement Payments
CALIFORNIA: Can't Drop Services for Disabled Prisoners
CANADA: Friends of Wheat Board Files Legal Brief in Class Action
CHILDREN'S WISH: Donor Files Federal Class Action

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Judge Approves Jail Class Action Settlement
DAIRYAMERICA INC: Court Declines to Vacate Class Action Appeal
FIRST DATA: Plaintiffs in ATM Fee Suit Ask for Writ of Certiorari
GENENTECH INC: Misclassifies Managers and Specialists, Suit Says
GENVEC INC: Awaits Ruling in Motion to Junk Securities Complaint

GLOBE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Misleading Job Placement Rates
GOOGLE INC: Judge Dismisses Web Browser Privacy Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Taps Quinn Emanuel to Help Fight Gmail Privacy Suits
ILLINOIS: "Sorrentino" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Faces Solodyn(R)-Related Antitrust Suits

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Two Class Suits in California Consolidated
JACKSON THERAPY: Dist. Court Dismisses "Kensington" Class Action
JC PENNEY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Judge Refuses to Nix Katrina Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit Over Overdraft Fees in California

MATCH.COM: 5th Cir. Affirms Claim Dismissal in "Malsom" Suit
MONTANA: Immigrant-Rights Group Files Suit v. Highway Patrol
MOTEL 6: Agrees to Settle Wage-and-Hour Class Action
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Hendrix" Suit
NRG ENERGY: Awaits Appellate Ruling in Cheswick-Related Suit

NRG ENERGY: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in Suits vs. Unit
NRG ENERGY: GenOn Merger-Related Litigation in Delaware Has Ended
NRG ENERGY: One of Five Suits vs. GenOn Has Been Concluded
OILSANDS QUEST: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement
QC HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling in Appeal Related to Payday Loans Suit

QC HOLDINGS: Direct Credit Still Faces Suit for "Usury" in Canada
QC HOLDINGS: Denies TCPA Violations in "Stemple" Class Suit
R.H. TRIMBLE: Magistrate Judge Enters Recommendation in "Stafford"
ROBERT ZAMORA: Trial Court Judgment in "Mid-Century" Suit Upheld
SINCLAIR ENTERPRISES: Accused of Secretly Recording Phone Calls

SKYPE INC: Appeals Court Reverses "Chapman" Class Suit Dismissal
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Rodman & Renshaw's Bankruptcy Stays Lawsuits
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Plaintiff Counsel Wins $1.3-Mil. in Fees
SSM HEALTH CARE: Parties in "Roberts" Suit Ordered to File Memo
TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Colo. Court OKs Accord in Curran v. AGL Life

TOYOTA MOTOR: McCuneWright Files Class Action Over Prius PCS
TYSON FOODS: Ordered to Pay $3.3-Mil. to Workers in Class Action
UNIONBANCAL CORP: Credit Rating Suits & Probes v. Parents Ongoing
UNITED STATES: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Kendall" Case
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Lawsuit in California

WAL-MART STORES: Judge Denies Customers' Class Certification Bid


                             *********


250 WEST: More Appeals Filed Over N.Y. Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
More notices of appeals were filed in connection with 250 West
57th St. Associates L.L.C.'s settlement of a consolidated class
action lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's August 9,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

250 West is a New York limited liability company organized as a
joint venture on May 25, 1953.  On September 30, 1953, 250 West
acquired fee title to the building known as 250 West 57th Street,
formerly known as the Fisk Building, and the land thereunder
located at 250-264 West 57th Street, New York, New York
(collectively, the Property).  On November 30, 2001, 250 West
converted to a limited liability company under New York law and is
now known as 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C.  The conversion
did not change any aspect of the assets and operations of the
Company other than to protect its participants from future
liability to a third party.  The Company's members are Peter L.
Malkin and Anthony E. Malkin, each of whom also acts as an agent
for holders of participations in their respective member interests
in the Company.  The Members in the Company hold senior positions
at Malkin Holdings LLC, One Grand Central Place, 60 East 42nd
Street, New York, New York, which provides supervisory and other
services to the Company and Lessee.

The Company does not operate the Property.  It leases the Property
to Fisk Building Associates L.L.C. (the Lessee) under a long-term
net operating lease dated May 1, 1954 (the Lease).  In 1985, the
Participants in the Company consented to the Company's Agents
granting Lessee four options to extend the Lease, in each case for
an additional 25 year renewal period, the last expiring in 2103,
all on the same terms as the original lease.  The Agents intend to
grant such options on behalf of the Company, subject to Lessee's
compliance with such consents.  Such options have been granted by
the Agents and exercised by Lessee as to (a) the first renewal
period from October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2028, and (b)
the second renewal period from October 1, 2028, through September
30, 2053.  The Participants in the Company have consented to the
granting of options to the Lessee to extend the lease for two
additional 25-year renewal terms expiring in 2103.  Lessee is a
New York limited liability company whose members consist of, among
others, Anthony E. Malkin and entities for the benefit of members
of Peter L. Malkin's and Anthony E. Malkin's family.

Malkin Holdings and Peter L. Malkin, a member in the Company, were
engaged in a proceeding with Lessee's former managing agent,
Helmsley-Spear, Inc., commenced in 1997, concerning the
management, leasing, and supervision of the Property that is
subject to the Lease to Lessee.  In this connection, certain costs
for legal and professional fees and other expenses were paid by
Malkin Holdings and Mr. Malkin.  Malkin Holdings and Mr. Malkin
have represented that such costs will be recovered only to the
extent that (a) a competent tribunal authorizes payment or (b) an
investor voluntarily agrees that his or her proportionate share be
paid.  On behalf of himself and Malkin Holdings, Mr. Malkin has
requested, or intends to request, such voluntary agreement from
all investors, which may include renewing such request in the
future for any investor who previously received such request and
failed to confirm agreement at that time.  Because any related
payment has been, or will be, made only by consenting investors,
the Company has not provided for the expense and related liability
with respect to such costs in these financial statements.

In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the Class Actions,
were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County by
Participants in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. ("ESBA")
and several other entities supervised by the Supervisor (on
March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012, and
March 19, 2012).  The plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin
Holdings LLC, Malkin Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New
York, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin
Construction Corp., Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the Estate
of Leona M. Helmsley, Empire State Realty OP, L.P. and Empire
State Realty Trust, Inc. for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.
They allege, among other things, that the terms of the
Consolidation and the process by which it was structured
(including the valuation that was employed) are unfair to the
participants in the existing entities, the Consolidation provides
excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings and its affiliates and the
then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation filed with the SEC
failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a fully informed
decision about the proposed Consolidation.  The complaints seek
money damages and injunctive relief preventing the proposed
Consolidation.  The actions were consolidated and co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme
Court by order dated June 26, 2012.  Furthermore, an underlying
premise of the Class Actions, as noted in discussions among
plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel, was that the
Consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would
cause participants in ESBA, 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and
250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. (the "subject LLCs")
immediately to incur substantial tax liabilities.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated
September 28, 2012, resolving the Class Actions.  The Stipulation
of Settlement recites that the Consolidation was approved by
overwhelming consent of the participants in the private entities.
The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for the
plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received
adequate access to relevant information, including the independent
valuer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures
in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are
appropriate, that the Consolidation presents potential benefits,
including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation,
that merit the participants' serious consideration and that each
of named class representatives intends to support the
Consolidation as modified.  The Stipulation of Settlement further
states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the
claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures,
appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be
consolidated into Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., and the
interests of the participants in the subject LLCs and the private
entities, have been addressed adequately, and they have concluded
that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and
opportunity to consider the proposed Consolidation on the basis of
revised consent solicitations are fair, reasonable, adequate and
in the best interests of the plaintiff class.

The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they
committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and
did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.

The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a
payment of $55 million, with plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
attorneys' fees and, in the case of shares of common stock and/or
operating partnership units, after the termination of specified
lock-up periods, to participants in the subject LLCs, a minimum of
80% in cash and maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common
stock and/or freely-tradable operating partnership units to be
distributed, after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-
approved expenses and payment of the subject LLCs and the private
entities pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by
counsel for plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the
IPO will be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b)
if, during the solicitation period of the subject LLCs, any of the
three subject LLCs' percentage of total exchange value is lower
than what is stated in the final prospectus/consent solicitation
statement by 10% or more, such decrease will be promptly disclosed
by defendants to participants in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless
total gross proceeds of $600,000,000 are raised in the IPO,
defendants will not proceed with the Consolidation without further
approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to
make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation
regarding certain matters (which were included therein).  The
payment in settlement of the Class Actions will be made by the
Estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin Holdings
(provided that none of Malkin Holdings and its affiliates that
would become a direct or indirect subsidiary of Empire State
Realty Trust, Inc. in the Consolidation will have any liability
for such payment) and certain participants in the private entities
who agree to contribute.  The Registrant and its participants will
not bear any of the settlement payment.

The settlement further provides for the certification of a class
of participants in the three subject LLCs and all of the private
entities, other than defendants and other related persons and
entities, and a release of any claims of the members of the class
against defendants and related persons and entities, as well as
underwriters and other advisors.  The release in the settlement
excludes certain claims, including but not limited to, claims
arising from or related to any supplement to the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 that is declared effective to which the
plaintiffs' counsel objects in writing, which objection will not
be unreasonably made or delayed, so long as plaintiffs' counsel
has had adequate opportunity to review such supplement.  The
settlement is subject to court approval.  It is not effective
until such court approval is final, including the resolution of
any appeal.  The Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or
liability in connection with the allegations in the Class Actions.

On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary
approval of such settlement, for permission to send notice of the
settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final
settlement hearing (collectively, "preliminary approval").

On January 28, 2013, six participants in ESBA filed an objection
to preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the
action and for permission to file a separate complaint on behalf
of ESBA participants.  The court denied the cross motion of such
objecting participants, and the court denied permission for such
objecting participants to file a separate complaint as part of the
Class Action, but permitted them to file a brief solely to support
their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-consenting
participants in ESBA of "fair value" in violation of the New York
Limited Liability Company Law.  The court rejected the objecting
participants' assertion that preliminary approval be denied and
granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court
rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability
Company Law and ruled in the Supervisor's favor, holding that such
buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and that
participants do not have the rights they claimed under the New
York Limited Liability Company Law.

On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval
of the Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of which the
court stated that it intended to approve the settlement.  On
May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order.  The court
rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement
in its entirety.  Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are
participants in all of the subject LLCs and private entities
included in the Consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement.
Those who opted out will not receive any share of the settlement
proceeds, but can pursue separate claims for monetary damages.
They are bound by the settlement agreement regarding equitable
relief, so they cannot seek an injunction to halt the
Consolidation or IPO.  The settlement will not become final until
resolution of any appeal.

Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on
attorneys' fees.  Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0
million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced
to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses.

The participants who challenged the buyout provision filed a
notice of appeal of the court's April 30, 2013 decision and moved
before the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating
to the settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim
relief.  On May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim
relief was denied.  On May 13, 2013, the supervisor filed its
brief in opposition to the motion for the stay.  On June 18, 2013,
the appellate court denied the motion for the stay.  On July 16,
2013, these participants filed their brief and other supporting
papers on their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which is
required to perfect the appeal.

In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same participants filed
additional notices of appeal of the trial court's rulings in the
Class Actions.  These notices of appeals related to (i) the order
entered February 22, 2013, granting preliminary approval of the
Class Action settlement and setting a hearing for final approval;
(ii) the order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a
proposed order to show cause for a preliminary injunction
regarding the Consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013,
denying the motion to intervene and to file a separate class
action on behalf ESBA participants; (iv) the order entered
April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show cause seeking
to extend the deadline for class members to opt out of the Class
Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment and Order entered
May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17, 2013, approving the
Class Action settlement; and (vii) the order entered May 17, 2013,
awarding class counsel attorneys' fees and costs.

Any decision on the appeal on the New York Limited Liability Law
issue could take many months.  The Registrant cannot predict the
timing or outcome of an appeal process or any related relief, if
such appeal were successful.  If the court's decision were
reversed by the appellate court, there is a risk that it could
have a material adverse effect on Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.,
which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable
relief, and the court could order some or all of the relief that
the objecting participants have requested.  Although there can be
no assurance, the Registrant believes that the trial court's
decision was correct, and that it will be upheld on appeal.

As noted, class members who objected to the Class Action
settlement filed notices of appeal from the court's decision to
approve the Stipulation of Settlement.  As a result, the
Registrant and Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. may incur costs
associated with defending any such appeal or paying any judgment
if defendants lose.  The Registrant cannot predict the timing or
outcome of an appeal.  If the court's decision were reversed by an
appellate court, there is a risk that it could have a material
adverse effect on Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., including the
imposition of monetary damages, injunctive relief or both.
Although there can be no assurance, the Registrant believes that
the trial court's decision was correct, and that it will be upheld
on appeal.

250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. is a New York limited
liability company organized as a joint venture in May 1953.  In
September 1953, the Company acquired fee title to the building
known as 250 West 57th Street and the land thereunder.  The
Company does not operate the Property but leases it to Fisk
Building Associates L.L.C. under a long-term net operating lease.


ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Oct. 8
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Connecticut, and docketed under 13-cv-1479, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Achillion between April 21, 2012
and September 27, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Achillion securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 7, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Achillion is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and
develops solutions for infectious diseases such as HIV, hepatitis,
and resistant bacterial infections.  The Company focuses its
research and development on products for the antiviral and
antibacterial markets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, including the safety and suitability of
its premier investigative drug for the treatment of hepatitis,
sovaprevir.  Defendants failed to inform investors that sovaprevir
in fact did not interact well with other drugs commonly
administered to treat hepatitis and/or HIV.  Specifically, the
Company misled investors to believe that even though patients in
the Company's clinical trials for sovaprevir had elevations in
liver enzymes, that these liver enzymes elevations were transient
and returned to baseline values and were attributable to non-drug-
related factors.  As a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On July 1, 2013, the Company disclosed that the FDA instituted a
clinical hold on "sovaprevir after elevations in liver enzymes
associated with significantly higher than anticipated exposures to
atazanavir and sovaprevir were noted in a Phase I healthy subject
drug-drug interaction study evaluating the effects of concomitant
administration of sovaprevir with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir."
As a result of this disclosure, Achillion shares declined $2.10
per share or over 25%, to close at $6.26 per share on July 2,
2013.

Then, on September 27, 2013, after the market closed, the Company
disclosed that the FDA had continued its clinical hold on
sovaprevir, after, "the FDA concluded that the removal of the
clinical hold is not warranted."  As a result of this disclosure,
Achillion shares declined $4.22 per share or over 58%, to close at
$3.02 per share on September 30, 2013.

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


ALP LIQUIDATING: Trial in Rothal v. Arvida May Begin Jan. 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida has indicated that it will set Rothal v.
Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12 for a
trial beginning in January 2014, according to ALP Liquidating
Trust's Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. (The Partnership), the General Partner
and certain related parties as well as other unrelated parties
have been named defendants in an action entitled Rothal v.
Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed
in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida.

In this suit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003,
plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out
of construction defects occurring during the development of
Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes. On
May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.

Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were not
adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity with
the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with Broward
County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly attached or were
inadequate, that the truss systems and installation thereof were
improper, and that the homes suffer from improper shutter storm
protection systems.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to expand the class to include
other homes in Weston. The motion to expand the class was denied.
The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not
settle. The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the
amended complaint. The Arvida defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves.

The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the
class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the
class by order dated September 16, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the
Partnership filed its notice of appeal challenging the
certification order. On June 1, 2011, the appellate court affirmed
the trial court's order certifying the class. The case has been
returned to the trial court for further proceedings including
trial. The case is set for a further mediation on August 13, 2013.
The court has indicated that it will set this case for a trial
beginning in January 2014.

The defense of the case is proceeding. The Partnership intends to
vigorously defend itself. The Partnership is not able to determine
what, if any, loss exposure that it may have for this matter. This
case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's insurance
carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company (together with its
affiliates collectively, "Zurich"), for defense and indemnity.
Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a purported
reservation of rights. The Partnership has also engaged other
counsel in connection with this lawsuit. The ultimate legal and
financial liability of the Partnership, if any, in this matter
cannot be estimated with certainty at this time. The Partnership
is unable to determine the ultimate portion of the expenses, fees
and damages, if any, which will be covered by its insurance.

On August 4, 2011, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) was
sued in a case entitled, Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Richard
Rothal et al, Case No. 11-61732-civ-dimitrouleas, in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Fort
Lauderdale Division.

In the complaint, Scottsdale Insurance Company ("Scottsdale"), an
alleged insurer of Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc.
("Waterproofing"), brings an action for declaratory relief
against, among others, Waterproofing, the class certified in the
Rothal action and the Partnership, seeking a declaration of its
rights and obligations to, among others, Waterproofing, the class
certified in Rothal and Arvida in connection with two policies it
allegedly issued. The Partnership filed a motion to dismiss Arvida
from this case and it was granted. This federal case has been
closed and Scottsdale re-filed its case in Florida state court.

On January 19, 2012, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (the Partnership)
was sued in a case entitled, Scottsdale Insurance Company v.
Richard Rothal, et al., Case No. 2012-CA-03451, in the Circuit
Court of the Seventeenth Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida, Complex Litigation Unit.

In this case, Scottsdale Insurance Company ("Scottsdale"), an
alleged insurer of Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc.
("Waterproofing"), seeks a declaratory judgment against, among
others, Waterproofing, the class certified in the Rothal action
and the Partnership, seeking a declaration of Scottsdale's rights
and obligations under two commercial general liability policies it
allegedly issued over the years May 29, 2000 - May 29, 2002.

The case has been transferred from the complex litigation unit to
the trial court handling the Rothal action. The declaration in
this case seeks to affect the rights that Waterproofing, Rothal,
and the Partnership may have in these policies. On or about August
29, 2012, the Partnership filed an answer, affirmative defenses
and a counterclaim seeking, among other things, defense and
indemnity in connection with the Rothal action. The Partnership
will vigorously pursue its interests in the policies written by
the plaintiff. The Partnership is unable to determine what portion
of its fees and damages in the Rothal case, if any, may be
recovered under the Scottsdale policies.


AOL INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that a
federal judge has granted preliminary approval to a deal calling
for AOL to donate around $100,000 to five organizations, including
the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation, in order to settle class-action litigation
about ads in emails.

If approved, the deal will resolve two class-action lawsuits by
AOL members that complained about the company's former practice of
placing ads in footers of emails.  One lawsuit alleged that the
ads were "annoying, confusing, intrusive and misleading," while
the second alleged that the ads violated a federal privacy law.

AOL began inserting the footers in 2006.  Two years later, the
company decided to allow paying subscribers to opt out of the ads.
The following year, AOL changed its policy to allow everyone to
opt out of the ads.  The settlement agreement allows AOL to start
sending the footers again, but only if the company also provides
opt-out links to all members.

A prior settlement agreement -- which also called for AOL to make
donations to nonprofits -- was rejected in 2011 by the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals.  The appellate court ruled at the time that the
organizations designated as recipients were inappropriate because
they didn't deal with Internet issues.

The appellate court returned the case to the trial court, where
U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder in the Central District
of California quietly granted the new deal tentative approval
several weeks ago.  Judge Snyder will hold a hearing in late
December about whether to finalize the settlement.

The current agreement also calls on AOL to donate $37,500 to the
EFF and the same amount to the ITIF.  The deal requires the
company to donate $8,750 each to three other groups that were
chosen by the individual Web users who sued: the New Roads School
of Santa Monica, Oklahoma Indian Legal Services and the Friars
Foundation.  The settlement agreement also provides for around
$320,000 in fees to the consumers' attorneys.

Internet legal expert Venkat Balasubramani says the new agreement
appears to address the concerns that spurred the 9th Circuit to
reject the earlier settlement.  That's because the agreement now
calls for donations to groups that deal with Internet policy.  "I
would assume, as revised, this settlement would pass muster," he
says in an email to Online Media Daily.

The AOL litigation appears to mark the first significant federal
challenge to the practice of monetizing emails with ads.  Because
the case was settled, it's not clear whether Web companies violate
any privacy laws by placing ads in or around emails.

Google and Yahoo currently face lawsuits for allegedly violating
the wiretap law by scanning emails in order to surround them with
contextual ads.


ATLANTIC COAST: Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The vote on a proposed merger transaction of Atlantic Coast
Financial Corporation was unsuccessful, but an action filed by
Jason Laugherty against the company remains pending, according to
the company's Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Two putative class action lawsuits related to the proposed merger
were originally filed against the Company, the Bank, Bond Street
and Florida Community Bank and certain directors of the Company.
The two prior lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed and a new
combined federal court action was filed on May 20, 2013.

On June 5, 2013, Plaintiff Jason Laugherty, individually and on
behalf of a putative class of similarly situated stockholders, the
Company, the Bank, Bond Street, Florida Community Bank, and
individual defendants Forrest W. Sweat, Jr., Charles E. Martin,
Jr., Thomas F. Beeckler, G. Thomas Frankland, John J. Linfante, W.
Eric Palmer, and H. Dennis Woods, entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the MOU) regarding the settlement in principle of a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland (the Action).

The Action was filed in response to the Merger Agreement and
alleged claims against the Company, the Bank, Bond Street, Florida
Community Bank and certain directors of the Company for breaches
of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duties, and violations of federal proxy disclosure laws relating
to the proposed merger.

Under the terms of the MOU, the Company, the Bank, Bond Street and
Florida Community Bank, the other named individual director
defendants, and the Plaintiff reached an agreement in principle to
settle the class action lawsuit and to release the defendants from
all claims in the Action and the prior lawsuits relating to the
proposed merger, subject to the approval of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland and the consummation
of the proposed merger. Under the terms of the MOU, Plaintiff's
counsel also reserved the right to seek an award of attorney's
fees and expenses if the proposed merger was not approved by the
Company's stockholders.

On June 7, 2013, the parties to the MOU submitted a joint motion
to stay the Action and/or to extend case deadlines pending
consummation of the proposed merger and the filing of a motion for
a preliminary approval of settlement. The court granted the motion
and stayed the Action pending consummation of the merger. Although
the vote on the proposed merger transaction was unsuccessful, the
Action remains pending. The Company continues to believe the
lawsuit is meritless and intends to vigorously defend against any
remaining claims.


BANK OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Vacates Order Dismissing "Leyse" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a
District Court order dismissing the case, MARK LEYSE, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated Appellant, v. BANK
OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NO. 12-3249.

The Third Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mark Leyse appealed the District Court's dismissal of his
Complaint against Bank of America, in which he alleged a violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)(B).

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 4, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/Nw3FlQ from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Restores Fight Over Settlement Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that the 5th Circuit reinstated BP's battle over what it says are
potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in "fictitious" claims
being made by the administrator of a settlement over the 2010 Gulf
of Mexico oil spill.

The ruling on October 2, 2013, from the divided three-judge panel
threw out previous rulings from U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier,
who is overseeing the multidistrict oil spill litigation in
Federal Court.

The issue Barbier has twice ruled on involves a dispute between BP
and the administrator of the multibillion-dollar BP-funded claims
process that was designed to handle the claims of businesses and
individuals hurt by the oil spill.

The 5th Circuit sent the case back to the district court,
instructing Barbier to design a "narrowly tailored injunction that
allows the time necessary for deliberate reconsideration of these
significant issues" arising from BP's claim that the administrator
is paying claims that aren't related to the April 20, 2010 spill.

Following the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig
50 miles off the Louisiana coast that killed 11 and set off the
worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, BP established a $20
billion fund to pay businesses and people harmed by the spill.

The fund was initially overseen by Kenneth Feinberg, but after the
2012 settlement jointly crafted by BP and plaintiff attorneys,
Patrick Juneau was appointed by the court to oversee it instead.

Last fall BP began to question Juneau's interpretation of how
particular claims payments should be made, according to the
settlement.  BP filed a federal lawsuit last winter to stop claims
payments based on its dispute with Juneau's interpretation of the
settlement agreement.

Barbier ruled against it, saying Juneau's was "the exact
interpretation BP advocated for" while the settlement was in
negotiation.

Then in March, BP sued Juneau for allegedly paying claims for
"fictitious losses," amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.

BP originally estimated the total settlement payments would come
to roughly $7.8 billion, but the figure is currently expected to
clear $9 billion.

Judge Edith Brown Clement, in handing down the 5th Circuit's
majority opinion, wrote that the issue at hand "is whether it is
permissible to allow the often economically meaningless temporal
coinciding of cash received and paid to determine the value of a
claim."

"BP never acquiesced to a cash accounting interpretation of
'revenue' and 'expenses' for all claims, i.e., not for accrual-
based ones," she wrote.  "It has argued consistently that the
formula was intended to compensate for real economic losses, not
artificial losses that appear only from the timing of cash flows."

She placed the fault of a poorly negotiated settlement agreement
with the judge who approved it.

"The district court had no authority to approve the settlement of
a class that included members that had not sustained losses at
all, or had sustained losses unrelated to the oil spill, as BP
alleges," Clement wrote.  "If the administrator is interpreting
the settlement to include such claimants, the settlement is
unlawful."

Judge Leslie Southwick concurred with the majority, while Judge
James Dennis largely disagreed.

"The majority misunderstands the record, sails past the only
issues on appeal, and unnecessarily and prematurely remands the
case to the district court," Dennis wrote in a partial dissent.

"BP agreed to the settlement and actively sought the district
court's approval of the eventual consent decree," he wrote.
"Accordingly, it is this court's clear duty to affirm the district
court's judgment rejecting BP's attempt to force the administrator
to modify the consent decree and the parties' settlement simply
because it is no longer convenient for BP to live with the terms
to which it agreed."

Dennis wrote that BP, in its appeals to the court, "conveniently
forgets that it sought to have the administrator modify the
settlement agreement's formula for calculating business economic
loss."

Clement wrote that BP, in crafting such a broad settlement
agreement, had wanted to achieve "global peace."

"Why would BP pay to resolve claims that cannot be plead? The myth
of 'global peace' through payment of admittedly non-spill-related
claims is a legal nullity that cannot remedy this deficiency,"
Clement wrote.

"The balance of equities favors a tailored stay," she continued.
"The interests of individuals who may be reaping windfall
recoveries because of an inappropriate interpretation of the
settlement agreement and those who could never have recovered in
individual suits for failure to show causation are not outweighed
by the potential loss to a company and its public shareholders of
hundreds of millions of dollars of unrecoverable awards.

"A stay tailored so that those who experienced actual injury
traceable to loss from the Deepwater Horizon accident continue to
receive recovery but those who did not do not receive their
payments until this case if fully heard and decided through the
judicial process weighs in favor of BP."

The majority affirmed Babier's dismissal of the lawsuit BP filed
against Juneau and reversed Barbier's denial of BP's preliminary
injunction to halt claims payments.

BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said the company "is extremely pleased"
with the ruling, which he said "affirms what BP has been saying
since the beginning: claimants should not be paid for fictitious
or wholly non-existent losses."

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Stephen Jay Herman, Esq.
          Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, L.L.C.
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com
                  sgisleson@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Samuel Issacharoff, Esq.
          NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
          40 Washington Square, S.
          New York, NY 10012-0000
          Telephone: (212) 998-6580
          Facsimile: (212) 995-4590
          E-mail: samuel.issacharoff@nyu.edu

               - and -

          James Parkerson Roy, Esq.
          DOMENGEAUX, WRIGHT, ROY & EDWARDS
          556 Jefferson Street
          Lafayette, LA 70501-0000
          Telephone: (337) 233-3033
          E-mail: jamesroy@wrightroy.com

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Theodore B. Olson, Esq.
          Miguel Angel Estrada, Esq.
          Thomas George Hungar, Esq.
          Scott Payne Martin, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8668
          E-mail: tolson@gibsondunn.com
                  mestrada@gibsondunn.com
                  thungar@gibsondunn.com
                  smartin@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Andrew Baker Bloomer, Esq.
          Richard Cartier Godfrey, Esq.
          James Andrew Langan, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P.
          300 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
                  richard.godfrey@kirkland.com
                  andrew.langan@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Sr., Esq.
          Steven Andrew Myers, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P.
          655 15th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 879-5960
          E-mail: jeffrey.clark@kirkland.com
                  steven.myers@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Mike Brock, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.
          1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 662-5985
          E-mail: mbrock@cov.com

               - and -

          S. Gene Fendler, Esq.
          Don Keller Haycraft, Esq.
          LISKOW & LEWIS, P.L.C.
          701 Poydras Street
          1 Shell Square
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 556-4122
          E-mail: sgfendler@liskow.com
                  dkhaycraft@liskow.com

               - and -

          Mark Holstein, Esq.
          BP AMOCO
          501 Westlake Park Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77079-0000
          Telephone: (281) 366-2000

               - and -

          Andrew Tanner Karron, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER, L.L.P.
          555 12th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 942-5335
          E-mail: Andrew.Karron@aporter.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Lennard, Esq.
          DENTONS US, L.L.P.
          233 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-6404
          Telephone: (312) 876-8152
          E-mail: jeffrey.lennard@dentons.com

The appellate case is In Re: Deepwater Horizon, Case No. 13-30315,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  The original
case is case is In Re: Deepwater Horizon, Case No. 2:10-MD-2179,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
New Orleans.


CALIFORNIA: Can't Drop Services for Disabled Prisoners
------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Tim Hull reports that
California cannot pass its responsibility to assist certain
disabled prisoners with basic necessities onto its counties, the
9th Circuit ruled.

The state had claimed that recent changes to its penal code
allowed it ignore the rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) of disabled prisoners who are either awaiting parole
revocation hearings in county jails or serving time after a
revocation.

The move is the latest in a nearly 20-year dispute between a class
of blind and otherwise disabled state prisoners and parolees, who
often must rely on the kindness of fellow inmates for help going
to the bathroom, taking a shower and getting a meal.  The class
has claimed over the years that the state's jails lack the "basic
necessities of life for disabled prisoners and parolees, such as
wheelchairs, sign language interpreters, accessible beds and
toilets, and tapping canes for the blind."

California has been under a permanent injunction to change this
since 1996, but has "resisted complying with their federal
obligations at every turn," according to the 9th Circuit.

The latest resistance comes in the form of a change to California
Penal Code Section 3056, which states that "When housed in county
facilities, parolees shall be under the sole legal custody and
jurisdiction of local county facilities."  The state had argued
that this change relieved it of responsibility for any disabled
prisoners among those parolees, and thereafter refused to go
forward with a court-ordered plan to keep track of monitor
disabled inmates in county jails

A unanimous three-judge panel of the federal appeals court
disagreed with the state's reading on Friday, October 4, 2013, and
found that "defendants have a continuing obligation to assist in
alleviating the conditions that result in ADA and Rehabilitation
Act violations in county jails."

"Although Section 3056 alters the balance of control between the
state and its counties somewhat while parolees covered by Section
3056 are incarcerated, both the instigation of parole revocation
and the service of any jail time for revocations enforce state-
imposed requirements and serve essentially state purposes," wrote
Judge Stephen Reinhardt for the panel.  "Therefore, the state is
not absolved by Section 3056 of all its responsibility for ADA
obligations as to parolees placed in county jails to enforce their
state-imposed sentences, including their parole conditions."

Reinhardt added that "the state cannot house persons for whom it
is responsible in jails where the state reasonably expects
indignities and violations of federal law will continue to occur,
turn care over to county custodians, and then disown all
responsibility for their welfare."

A California Department of Corrections spokesperson declined to
comment on Monday, October 7, 2013, saying the department was
"reviewing the court's ruling and considering the options."

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Kamala D. Harris, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Wolff, Esq.
          Jay C. Russell, Esq.
          Giam M. Nguyen, Esq.
          Janelle M. Smith, Esq.
          Jay M. Goldman, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
          Telephone: (415) 703-5717
          Facsimile: (415) 703-5843
          E-mail: jay.russell@doj.ca.gov

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Michael William Bien, Esq.
          Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
          Lisa Adrienne Ells, Esq.
          Blake Thompson, Esq.
          Michael Louis Freedman, Esq.
          ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
          315 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-6830
          E-mail: mbien@rbgg.com
                  ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
                  lells@rbgg.com
                  bthompson@rbg-law.com
                  mfreedman@rbgg.com

               - and -

          Warren Eggleston George, Jr., Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN, LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4067
          Telephone: (415) 393-2076

               - and -

          Donald Specter, Esq.
          Rebekah Evenson, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com
                  revenson@prisonlaw.com

               - and -

          Linda D. Kilb, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & DEFENSE FUND, INC.
          2212 6th Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 644-2555

The appellate case is John Armstrong, et al. v. Edmund Brown, Jr.,
et al., Case No. 12-16018, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is case is John
Armstrong, et al. v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al., Case No. 4:94-cv-
02307-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland.


CANADA: Friends of Wheat Board Files Legal Brief in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The StarPhoenix reports that The Friends of the Canadian Wheat
Board, representing farmer plaintiffs from across Western Canada,
has filed a legal brief with the Federal Court of Canada in
support of its class-action lawsuit to seek $17 billion in
compensation from Ottawa for ending the single-desk authority of
the Canadian Wheat Board.

The legal brief was filed last week in response to the federal
government's contention that grain producers have no interest in
the assets and goodwill of the CWB and the federal court should
dismiss the farmers' class action.  The federal court will hold a
hearing on the matter in Ottawa on Oct. 23.

Anders Bruun, one of the Friends' attorneys, said in a press
release the farmers' case can be summarized as a fairness issue.
"The key concept here is fairness.  Producers paid to build up the
CWB and never got anything when government tore it down."

Stewart Wells, chair of the organization and a former farmer-
elected director of the Canadian Wheat Board, added that "the
federal government is taking a very narrow and self-serving view
of property rights.  Our position is all the property of the
Canadian Wheat Board was built by farmers and part of that value
is the reputation for honesty and quality which our board
developed."

Mr. Bruun concluded that "this case raises fundamental questions
about the nature and extent of collective property rights in
organizations enabled by government, but in this case, built by
and for producers.  It will require the court to consider the
inherent characteristics of property and address the central
question of whether it is fair for government to take something
that others have created, without compensating them."


CHILDREN'S WISH: Donor Files Federal Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Kendall Taggart, writing for The Center for Investigative
Reporting, reports that a donor has filed a federal class-action
lawsuit alleging that he was duped into giving money to one of the
worst charities in the country.

Children's Wish Foundation International, based in Georgia, is
No. 3 on a list of the nation's 50 worst charities created by the
Tampa Bay Times and The Center for Investigative Reporting.  The
rankings are based on the amount of money charities spend on
outside fundraisers.

The donor, Jesse Unruh of Los Angeles County, claims the charity
misled him into thinking that most of his donation would be used
to directly aid children in need, according to the complaint.

Officials with the charity did not respond to requests for
comment.

Over the past decade, for-profit solicitors have raised $96.8
million for the charity and kept about 66 percent.  It has spent
less than 11 percent of the money raised on direct cash aid,
records show.

Class-action cases brought by donors are extremely rare.

"It's generally accepted that donors do not have standing to
enforce a charitable gift; only state attorneys general have that
power," said Hugh Jones, the chief charity regulator in Hawaii.
"There are a couple of courts that have recognized such standing
due to special circumstances, but they are the exception, not the
rule."

The Times/CIR series has been a topic of conversation at this
year's conference of state charity regulators.  It was the first
item mentioned in the "Hot Topics in the Nonprofit Sector" panel.
Panelists said the series had sparked a conversation about what
regulators and the sector could do to improve oversight.


CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Judge Approves Jail Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
James F. McCarty, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that
hundreds of suspects who once languished in jail for days without
bail or a court hearing will now receive both within 48 hours of
arrest, under terms of a settlement in a class action suit
approved by a federal judge.

The consent decree, signed by U.S. District Judge James Gwin, says
the Cuyahoga County sheriff must only accept custody of defendants
from suburban courts if a municipal judge has previously
determined there was probable cause to charge and detain the
prisoner, and bond had been set within 48 hours of arrest.

Also, County Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty's office has agreed to
establish a policy that requires a felony defendant to be
represented by a lawyer at the initial court appearance.

The County Council approved the settlement in March, and agreed to
pay $128,000 to 622 plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit.  But
the county did not concede to having committed any wrongs.
Lawyers will receive $94,000 of the settlement.

Philip Kushner, the lead attorney in the case, praised the outcome
on Oct. 8.

"We believe that this settlement will help eliminate unnecessary
and excessive jailing of people arrested in Cuyahoga County in the
future and compensates people who went through this in the past,"
Mr. Kushner said.

Andrew Dombroff, 25, of Kent, filed the lawsuit last year claiming
his constitutional rights were violated after he was arrested on
suspicion of smoking marijuana and possession of steroids.

He was taken to Westlake City Jail.  Nearly 10 hours later, Rocky
River Municipal Judge Donna Congeni Fitzsimmons determined police
had probable cause for his arrest.  Rather than set bond, she
referred the case to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

The sheriff's office, which controls the County Jail, didn't take
custody of Mr. Dombroff until more than three days later,
according to the lawsuit.  A common pleas judge ordered
Mr. Dombroff's release, but it took nearly 29 hours more before he
was able to leave the jail.

The settlement money was divided among the plaintiffs based on the
amount of time they spent in jail.  Each plaintiff had been held
without bond in a municipal jail for five-11 days before being
transferred to the County Jail.

Mr. Dombroff, as the lead plaintiff, will receive $2,268.  The
rest of the plaintiffs in the class action received between $700
and $25 each.


DAIRYAMERICA INC: Court Declines to Vacate Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report that
the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 7 declined to vacate a Ninth
Circuit ruling that found dairy farmers could proceed with a class
action alleging it skewed prices by lowballing rates to a milk
pricing overseer.

In a one-line order, the court denied a May 24 petition for a writ
of certiorari from DairyAmerica Inc. and California Dairies Inc.,
which had asked the court to toss the Ninth Circuit's ruling
allowing the case to continue in spite of the so-called filed rate
doctrine's bar on such state law claims.

The filed rate doctrine is a rule requiring participants in
certain price-regulating industries, such as public utilities, to
adhere to those pricing terms established by the sectors'
overseers.  In the dairy industry, milk prices are regulated under
federal milk marketing orders, or FMMOs, which are issued by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Though this doctrine normally precludes state law claims from
challenging the federally set rates, the Ninth Circuit determined
that allowing the farmers an exception to the rule was appropriate
given the agreed-upon nature of the mispricing.  It further said
that a July 2007 USDA report on the impact that accurate reporting
from DairyAmerica would have had for the FMMO system, constituted
a rejection of the prices at issue, according to the petition.

In appealing to the high court, DairyAmerica and California
Dairies argued that a USDA statement after the Ninth Circuit
decision, which said that its 2007 report was not issued to reject
or change any of the previously announced minimum prices, renders
the appellate court's ruling demonstrably incorrect.

"Whatever exactly a federal agency must do in order to
retroactively reject previously filed rates, it is axiomatic that
an agency must at least actually intend to reject the rates," the
petition said.  "USDA has now made clear that it never intended to
reject the federal marketing order rates at issue."

An attorney for the dairy farmers, Benjamin Brown --
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
said on Oct. 7 he was pleased that the high court denied the
petition and looked forward to continuing litigating the case in
the lower court.

The underlying lawsuit stems from FMMO prices assessed on nonfat
dry milk, or NFDM, which is used as an ingredient in manufactured
dairy products such as butter and cheese.  In a survey
administered by the National Agricultural Statistics Service,
DairyAmerica allegedly provided incorrect pricing information for
NFDM that resulted in a lower rate for the product -- to
DairyAmerica's purchasers' advantage and to the farmers'
disadvantage.

A series of subsequent class actions that were consolidated in
California in 2009 alleged the violation of a number of state
laws, including claims of negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment.

DairyAmerica and California Dairies, which is one of
DairyAmerica's nine members, successfully fended off the suit the
following year, when U.S. District Judge Anthony W. Ishii granted
dismissal, calling on the filed rate doctrine.

However, on appeal, the farmers argued that the trial court erred,
especially in light of the undisputed nature of the mispricing
conduct at issue and the USDA's acknowledgment that it would have
set different prices given correct information.

DairyAmerica is represented by Charles M. English --
chipenglish@dwt.com -- and Allison A. Davis --
allisondavis@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and Jeffrey
L. Fisher. California Dairies is represented by Lawrence M.
Cirelli and John J. Vlahos of Hanson Bridgett LLP.

The dairy farmers are represented by Benjamin Brown of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, among others.

The case is DairyAmerica Inc. et al. v. Gerald Carlin et al., case
number 12-1385 in the U.S. Supreme Court.


FIRST DATA: Plaintiffs in ATM Fee Suit Ask for Writ of Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, of which First
Data Corporation is a defendant, have filed a petition for a writ
of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, according to
the company's Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On July 2, 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM
fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders. Plaintiffs
seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to
the court. Similar suits were filed and served in July, August and
October 2004 (referred to collectively as the "ATM Fee Antitrust
Litigation").

The Court granted judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing
the case on September 17, 2010. On October 14, 2010, the
plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment. On July 12, 2012, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
Northern District Court of California's dismissal of all the
claims against the defendants.   On July 26, 2012, the plaintiffs
petitioned the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc and on March
13, 2013 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued an order denying the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. On
July 11, 2013 the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The Company
continues to believe the complaints are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend them.


GENENTECH INC: Misclassifies Managers and Specialists, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Genentech misclassifies case
managers and foundation specialists as exempt employees, denying
them overtime compensation and meal periods, a class claims.

The case is Valerie Welch, et al. v. Genentech Inc., Case No.
CIV524550, in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County.


GENVEC INC: Awaits Ruling in Motion to Junk Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on a motion to dismiss an Amended Complaint in the suit
Satish Shah v. GenVec, Inc., et al. Civil Action. No. 8:12 CV-
00341-DKC is complete and the parties are awaiting a decision by
the Court, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On February 3, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Satish Shah v. GenVec, Inc., et al. Civil Action. No. 8:12 CV-
00341-DKC was commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland against the Company, Paul H. Fischer,
Douglas J. Swirsky, and Mark O. Thornton.

Following appointment of a Lead Plaintiff group in April 2012,
Lead Plaintiffs filed a pleading titled Amended Class Action
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws on July 6,
2012 (the Amended Complaint). In the Amended Complaint, Lead
Plaintiffs assert claims, purportedly on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased or acquired Company common stock between
March 12, 2009 and March 30, 2010 (the Class Period), that the
Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Lead Plaintiffs allege generally that defendants made materially
false or misleading statements or omissions concerning the
prospects for the Company's leading product candidate at the time,
TNFerade, and the outcome of the then-ongoing clinical trial for
TNFerade.

Lead Plaintiffs allege that these misrepresentations resulted in
the Company's common stock trading at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period. Lead Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages. On September 4, 2012, the Company and the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Briefing on that motion is complete and the parties are awaiting a
decision by the Court.

The Company said it cannot predict the outcome of the motion to
dismiss, or of the securities litigation should the motion to
dismiss be denied.  "We deny the material allegations of the Shah
action and intend to continue vigorously defending the case," the
Company said.


GLOBE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Misleading Job Placement Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a for-profit university misleads students about its
accreditations, credit transfers, and the jobs and salaries they
can expect upon graduation, a class claims.

Four former students and one current student filed the suit
against Globe University Inc. and School of Business Inc., in
Hennepin County District Court.

The complaint accuses the schools of using deceptive advertising
to coerce students into enrolling and creating a "boiler-room
culture among their enrollment representatives, who consistently
misrepresent to prospective students that course credits earned at
its [sic] institutions will transfer to other postsecondary
institutions, inflate job placement rates, inflate starting
salaries of new graduates, [and] mislead students about
defendants' institutions' accreditations."

While the schools profit heavily from the grants and scholarships
that their students receive, graduates are left in crippling debt,
according to the complaint.

The students claim "Globe's ads, websites and enrollers seek to
attract students who are eligible for financial aid and are
seeking postsecondary educations that lead to better jobs and
brighter futures."

"When they seek information about Globe, all prospective students
are put in contact with enrollers who recited and deliver
essentially the same memorized, scripted presentation," the
complaint continues.  "This misleading sales pitch is designed to
manipulate students into enrolling at Globe and for the students
to take out financial aid in the form of student loans, grants and
scholarships."

The U.S. Department of Education allegedly says that, during the
2011-12 school year, Globe "took nearly $140 million in federal,
state and private loans, grants and scholarships from its
students."

Accreditation issues also plague the schools, according to the
complaint, which notes that most students find out after
enrollment that their credits will not transfer to other
universities, which leads to a "Catch-22" situation.

"Their choice is either to (1) continue at Globe to at least
graduate with a degree, albeit expensive and virtually worthless,
or (2) start over at a legitimate school (or quit altogether),
after wasting months or years at Globe, taking with them at least
tens of thousands of dollars' worth of student loan debt, with
nothing to show for it," the complaint states.

Students say Globe additionally exaggerates the projected salaries
for graduates, as one plaintiff was allegedly told she "would make
$30,000 as a paralegal graduate from Globe . . . [but] actually
started out without a paralegal job, part-time at $10 per hour."

Globe's placement office told her after she graduated that the
going rate for new paralegals in her area was $12 to $14 per hour,
not $30,000 per year," the complaint.  A $30,000 salary works out
to just under $14.50 an hour, full-time.

"After attending Globe, most students drop out," the complaint
states.  "A minority graduate. All of them are burdened with tens
of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, having earned
essentially worthless, non-transferrable credits, and are left
without the credentials needed to obtain a job in their degree
field."

This isn't the first string of accusations against Globe, either,
as two former deans sued the school in 2012 with allegations that
they were fired for blowing the whistle on the university's
fraudulent recruiting practices.

The class seeks damages for violations of the Prevention of
Consumer Fraud Act and the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, as well
as false advertising and unjust enrichment.

The class of former and current students is represented by:

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          80 South 8th Street
          Suite 1650, IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Judge Dismisses Web Browser Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that yet
another online privacy class action bit the dust on standing
grounds on Oct. 9.  This time around Google Inc. and its lawyers
at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati dodged claims that Google
illegally monitored users of the popular Web browsers Safari and
Internet Explorer.

In a 24-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson in Delaware
dismissed allegations that Google tricked Web surfers into
accepting "third-party cookies" -- code that remembers whether
you've visited a Web site before and helps advertisers target
their ads.  Judge Robinson ruled that there's no indication that
users of Safari and Internet Explorer suffered an economic injury.

In February 2012, a Stanford University researcher published
findings that Google had overridden the default privacy settings
on Safari, an Apple Inc. browser that's known for blocking third-
party cookies.  Microsoft later revealed that Google similarly
bypassed privacy settings on Microsoft's Internet Explorer
product.  Google quickly apologized.  It chalked the override up
to a technical glitch, and insisted that it didn't mean to show
users targeted ads.  The company paid a $22.5 million fine to the
Federal Trade Commission in August 2012.

Plaintiffs law firms like Seeger Weiss and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
quickly filed 24 class action lawsuits on behalf of Safari and
Internet Explorer users.  The complaints alleged violations of
state unfair competition laws as well as violations of federal
statutes like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The cases
were consolidated before Robinson last year.

Google's lawyers at Wilson Sonsini moved to dismiss the MDL in
January, arguing that "there is no Article III injury where a
plaintiff makes nothing more than general allegations that the
value of his or her 'personal information' was diminished by its
collection and use."  That's been a very popular and very
effective defense tactic in online privacy class actions, as
Forbes explained here.  In a motion opposing dismissal, members of
the plaintiffs' steering committee argued that there's a bustling
marketplace for data about Web users, so the theft of personal
data is clearly an economic injury.

Robinson left no doubt as to which side she thought had the better
argument.  "[W]hile the plaintiffs have offered some evidence that
the online personal information at issue has some modicum of
identifiable value to an individual plaintiff, plaintiffs have not
sufficiently alleged that the ability to monetize their [personal
information] has been diminished or lost," she wrote.

Wilson Sonsini's Michael Rubin -- mrubin@wsgr.com -- who
represented Google, did not immediately return a call seeking
comment.  The Litigation Daily also didn't immediately hear back
from Stephen Grygiel of the firm Keefe Bartels, a lawyer for the
class.


GOOGLE INC: Taps Quinn Emanuel to Help Fight Gmail Privacy Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that Google
has turned to Quinn partner Kathleen Sullivan --
kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com -- to help fight a spate of
privacy class actions over its handling of Gmail.

Ms. Sullivan, who is based in New York and chairs the appellate
practice at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, entered an
appearance for Google on Oct. 8 in In re Google Inc. Gmail
Litigation, 13-2430.

She comes on board two weeks after U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh
rejected several of Google's defenses to suits accusing the
company of illegally scanning emails to target advertisements.  A
team of Cooley lawyers including partners Michael Rhodes and
Whitty Somvichian has defended the company thus far.

The addition of Sullivan, a prominent appellate advocate who has
taken a lead role for Samsung Electronics Co. in appeals stemming
from its patent fight with Apple Inc., suggests that the company
may intend to take the Gmail fight to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

Neither Messrs. Sullivan nor Rhodes could immediately be reached
for comment.

Google has been amping up its appellate ranks and recently brought
on Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner Seth Waxman, a
former solicitor general, in a separate privacy battle over data
collection by its Street View project.  After the Ninth Circuit
ruled against Google in Joffe v. Google, 11-17483, Mr. Waxman
helped author the company's petition for rehearing.


ILLINOIS: "Sorrentino" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Sorrentino and LaBron C. Neal brought a class
action lawsuit against defendant Salvador A. Godinez, Director of
the Illinois Department of Corrections, alleging that prison
employees confiscated several items of personal property from
their cells in violation of their constitutional rights.
Plaintiffs assert claims under the Takings Clause (Count I) and
the Contracts Clause (Count II) of the United States Constitution,
as well as a state law claim for breach of contract (Count III).
Director Godinez has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). R.
12.

District Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted Director Godinez's motion
to dismiss.  Counts I, II, and III are dismissed with prejudice.

The case is Joseph Sorrentino and LaBron C. Neal, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated people, Plaintiffs,
v. Salvador A. Godinez, Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, Defendant, NO. 12 C 6757, (N.D. Ill.).

A copy of the District Court's October 3, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/qUzhLWfrom Leagle.com.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Faces Solodyn(R)-Related Antitrust Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. is facing three antitrust class action
lawsuits related to Solodyn(R) product, according to the Company's
August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 22, and July 23, 2013, two separate class action
complaints were filed against manufacturers of the brand drug
Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by an indirect purchaser, Plaintiff United Food and
Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and
Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, and a direct purchaser Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-
Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, respectively.  On August 2, 2013, a third class action
complaint was filed against the same defendants, including the
Company, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by an indirect purchaser, Plaintiff
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated.  In each case, the complaints allege that Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation, now a wholly owned subsidiary of
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., engaged in an
overarching anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, filing
frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws.  The Plaintiffs seek, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief,
including disgorgement and restitution.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.impaxlabs.com/-- a
specialty pharmaceutical company, engages in the development,
manufacture, and marketing of bioequivalent pharmaceutical
products.  It markets and sells its generic pharmaceutical
prescription drug products in the continental United States and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  The company has a strategic
alliance agreement with Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V.  The
Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Hayward,
California.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Two Class Suits in California Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The two class action lawsuits commenced in California have been
consolidated, according to Impax Laboratories, Inc.'s August 9,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 7, 2013, and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis
Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, respectively, ("Securities Class
Actions") alleging that the Company and those named officers and
directors violated the federal securities law by making materially
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing
deficiencies at the Hayward, California manufacturing facility,
including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would
have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the Company's branded product
candidate, RYTARY(TM) and its generic version of Concerta(R).
These two Securities Class Actions have subsequently been
consolidated, assigned to the same judge, and lead plaintiff has
been chosen.  The plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint was
due on September 3, 2013.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.impaxlabs.com/-- a
specialty pharmaceutical company, engages in the development,
manufacture, and marketing of bioequivalent pharmaceutical
products.  It markets and sells its generic pharmaceutical
prescription drug products in the continental United States and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  The company has a strategic
alliance agreement with Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V.  The
Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Hayward,
California.


JACKSON THERAPY: Dist. Court Dismisses "Kensington" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. denied a renewed motion to
dismiss the case captioned KENSINGTON PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. JACKSON THERAPY PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 8:11-CV-02467, (D. Md.).

Kensington Physical Therapy, Inc. brought an action against
Jackson Therapy Partners, LLC. Kensington asserts a putative class
action claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
Defendant filed the Renewed Motion to Dismiss in light of the
Supreme Court's decision in Genesis Healthcare. In the
alternative, it sought certification of issues for review by the
Fourth Circuit.

The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss.  The Court further ruled
that the Defendant has not shown that interlocutory appeal would
materially advance the termination of the litigation.

A copy of the District Court's October 2, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/hZDyhrfrom Leagle.com.


JC PENNEY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Oct. 7
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against J.C.
Penney Company, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of
Texas, and docketed under 13-cv-00750, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of JCPenney between August 20, 2013 and
September 26, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased JCPenney securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 2, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

JCPenney is a retailer, operating 1,102 department stores in 49
states and Puerto Rico as of January 28, 2012.  JCPenney's
business consists of selling merchandise and services to consumers
through its department stores and through its Internet Website at
jcp.com.  The Company sells family apparel and footwear,
accessories, fine and fashion jewelry, beauty products through
Sephora inside JCPenney, and home furnishings.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented adverse facts, including that the
Company would have insufficient liquidity to get through year-end
and would require additional investments to make it through the
holiday season, and that the Company was concealing its need for
liquidity so as not to add to its vendors' concerns.  As a result
of defendants' false statements, JCPenney's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period, reaching a
high of $14.47 per share on September 9, 2013.

Then, on September 27, 2013, JCPenney issued a press release
announcing the pricing of 84.0 million shares of its common stock
at $9.65 per share in a secondary offering, stating that "[t]he
Company intends to use the net proceeds from the offering for
general corporate purposes."  On this news, JCPenney shares
declined $1.37 per share or 13%, to close at $9.05 per share on
September 27, 2013.

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


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Judge Refuses to Nix Katrina Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Purpura, writing for NOLA.com, reports that a state judge has
declined to dismiss elements of a class-action lawsuit against
former Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard, the parish and
its Consolidated Drainage District, for the decision to evacuate
drainage pump operators hours before Hurricane Katrina's landfall.
Thousands of properties flooded, because the drainage pumps were
shut off on the evening before Katrina's Aug. 29, 2005 landfall,
and remained off until pump operators could return more than 12
hours after the storm passed. Property owners sued as a result.

Judge John Peytavin's ruling leaves it to a Jefferson Parish jury
to consider claims as to whether the decision to send the pump
operators to Washington Parish amounted to willful misconduct.
Other claims Judge Peytavin declined to toss before the trial
include whether the parish violated federal regulations that
required the pumps to be manned and whether the parish's
Consolidated Drainage District is negligent for failing to
automate the pumps before Katrina.

The trial is scheduled to begin in January.  Judge Peytavin
already has granted class-action status, with plaintiffs
representing homeowners and businesses that suffered losses in
East Jefferson being one class, and the same on the West Bank
being the other class.  A plaintiffs' attorney has estimated that
30,000 properties across Jefferson Parish were flooded because the
pumps were turned off.

Attorneys had asked Judge Peyatvin for rulings on summary
judgments, to reduce the claims during the trial or avert it
altogether by tossing out the lawsuit.  Judge Peytavin is a
retired judge from Lutcher who was appointed to the 24th Judicial
District Court for this case after all 16 judges removed
themselves from the litigation.  He signed his rulings Friday,
Oct. 4, and released to them to attorneys Monday afternoon
(Oct. 7).  He heard attorneys' arguments Sept. 19.

Attorneys for the parish sought two summary judgments, to toss out
the claim against Broussard on grounds that he was following the
parish's plan that was automatically implemented upon the
emergency declaration and, separately, to dismiss the case
altogether on grounds that the parish had discretionary immunity.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs asked Judge Peytavin to rule that
Broussard is guilty of willful misconduct.  They described
Broussard as being asleep at the helm and out of touch with his
own policies, basing their claims on his 2007 deposition in which
he said he was unaware of the so-called "doomsday plan."

Judge Peytavin noted there were too many questions concerning
Broussard's credibility to make the pretrial judgments.  The judge
twice noted in his three rulings that Broussard has given only one
deposition.

Since then, he pleaded guilty to corruption in his administration
unrelated to Katrina and is serving a 46-month sentence in a
federal prison in North Carolina.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs
have said they wanted to travel to that prison to depose Broussard
a second time.

The parish's doomsday plan, which no longer exists, automatically
went into effect when a Category 4 or stronger storm was forecast
to strike the region.  The plan meant that most parish employees,
including drainage pump operators, were forced to evacuate to
Mount Herman.  Walter Maestri, the parish's former emergency
management director, created the plan in 1998 when Broussard was
on the parish council, and revised it once after, officials have
said.

Numerous officials, including Parish President John Young and
Parish Council Chairman Chris Roberts, have said in depositions
they never saw the plan and didn't know pump operators were
evacuating until after they were already gone.  Messrs. Young and
Roberts were Parish Council members during Katrina.

The state 5th Circuit Court of Appeal already has ruled that
Broussard and the parish are immune from negligence, because he
was following the parish's doomsday plan.  However, the appellate
court left open the question of "willful misconduct." The parish's
attorneys, representing Broussard as well, argued that Broussard
delegated authority.

In declining the parish's request to dismiss the claim against
Broussard, Judge Peytavin found that "genuine issues of material
fact remain as to what Mr. Broussard did or did not do during the
emergency and in reference to the doomsday plan."

The judge further found "That this matter cannot be properly
resolved by summary judgment since it requires a determination of
Mr. Broussard's credibility, which is a subjective issue of fact."


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit Over Overdraft Fees in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that JPMorgan Chase Bank
wrongfully charges fees for overdraft services against checking
account holders who never opted in, a class claims.


MATCH.COM: 5th Cir. Affirms Claim Dismissal in "Malsom" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed
a district court's dismissal, and a decision to dismiss with
prejudice, an unconscionability claim filed in MALSOM v.
MATCH.COM, L.L.C.

A putative class of plaintiffs filed suit against Match.com,
L.L.C., the operator of a dating Web site, alleging breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and
unconscionable conduct.  After dismissing the first two claims,
the district court dismissed with prejudice the unconscionability
claim.  An appeal challenging the dismissal of the
unconscionability claim followed.

The case is NANCY MALSOM; CLAIRE KILCOYNE; MARY ANNE BURGAN; MIKE
CIPRIANI; JESSE KAPOSI; MARK H. HARKEN; KRISTY GAMAYO,
Individuallly and on behalf of all others simiarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MATCH.COM, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.
GUY BARLOW, JR., On behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated persons; MARK H. HARKEN, On behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons; JESSE KAPOSI, Plaintiffs,
v.
MATCH.COM, L.L.C., Defendant.
JESSE KAPOSI, Plaintiff,
v.
MATCH.COM, L.L.C., Defendant.
KRISTY GAMAYO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff,
v.
MATCH.COM, L.L.C., Defendant.
NANCY MELUCCI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff,
v.
MATCH.COM, L.L.C., Defendant.
GAIL FITZPATRICK; Et Al, Plaintiffs,
v.
MATCH.COM, L.L.C., Defendant, NO. 12-11123.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 3, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/9WNXgdfrom Leagle.com.


MONTANA: Immigrant-Rights Group Files Suit v. Highway Patrol
------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Adams, writing for greatfallstribune.com, reports that an
immigrants-rights group on Oct. 7 filed a class-action lawsuit
seeking to put an end to a Montana Highway Patrol policy of
detaining minorities stopped for minor offenses until their
immigration status can be verified by federal authorities.

Four plaintiffs, all members of the Helena-based Montana Immigrant
Justice Alliance, filed the lawsuit in the wake of recent
revelations surrounding former Col. Kenton Hickethier's abrupt
retirement from the Montana Highway Patrol in August.

The lawsuit names newly appointed Montana Highway Patrol Col. Tom
Butler and Montana Attorney General Tim Fox, in their official
capacities, as defendants in the case.

The plaintiffs argue documents filed in a civil rights complaint
against Col. Hickethier revealed the policy, which they say has
been used to illegally detain Latinos based on their race, color
or ethnicity even in instances where the individual was in the
country legally and had committed no crimes.

Montana Highway Patrol is not the first police agency to face a
racial profiling lawsuit.  In May, a judge found that the Maricopa
County (Ariz.) Sheriff's Office engaged in racial profiling
against Latinos.  The judge's ruling prohibited sheriff's deputies
from using race as a factor in law-enforcement decisions, from
detaining people solely for suspected immigration violations and
from contacting federal immigration authorities to arrest
suspected illegal immigrants who are not accused of committing
state crimes.

Col. Hickethier announced his retirement Aug. 30, about six weeks
after Trooper Glenn Quinnell filed a civil rights complaint with
the Montana Department of Labor's Human Rights Bureau.
Mr. Quinnell's complaint accuses Col. Hickethier of sexual
harassment, making racist comments and ordering state troopers to
make illegal arrests, as well as retaliation after Mr. Quinnell
brought Col. Hickethier's actions to the attention of his
superiors.

In a response to Mr. Quinnell's complaint, Col. Hickethier and the
Montana Department of Justice admitted to many of Mr. Quinnell's
allegations, though the agency denied that Mr. Quinnell was
retaliated against.

As part of his complaint, Mr. Quinnell alleges Col. Hickethier
instructed troopers to illegally detain people who the troopers
suspect might be in the country illegally, even if the suspect was
stopped for minor infractions.  The Justice Department did not
deny that allegation in its response to Mr. Quinnell's complaint.

Helena immigration attorney and MIJA President Shahid Haque-
Hausrath on Oct. 7 filed the lawsuit in federal court in Butte.

Mr. Haque-Hausrath said he had been aware of multiple instances of
Montana Highway Patrol troopers detaining certain individuals in
violation of their rights.  The revelations contained in
Mr. Quinnell's complaint and the state's response serve as clear
evidence that the state's largest law enforcement agency has a
policy in place to unjustly detain certain people,
Mr. Haque-Hausrath said.

"For approximately three years I have known that the Montana
Highway Patrol troopers have been acting like de facto Immigration
and Customs Enforcement agents," Mr. Haque-Hausrath said.  "They
have been pulling over Latino residents and visitors for routine
traffic infractions and ultimately detaining them without probable
cause just to check into their immigration status with the
Department of Homeland Security.  The law is clear that the
Montana Highway Patrol can't make arrests or prolong people's
detention without probable cause to believe these individuals have
committed a criminal violation."

A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office did not immediately
respond to an email seeking comment on the lawsuit.

According to one instance detailed in the lawsuit, plaintiff
Jose Rios-Diaz in 2011 was pulled over for speeding near Billings.
According to the complaint, the patrol officer asked Rios-Diaz for
his driver's license and then asked him if he was in the country
legally.

Mr. Rios-Diaz, a United States citizen with a valid driver's
license, told the officer that in fact he was in the country
legally.  According to the complaint, the patrol officer held
Mr. Rios-Diaz and repeatedly questioned him about his immigration
status, at one point telling Mr. Rios-Diaz, "You don't look like
you are from around here."

Mr. Rios-Diaz was held for about 37 minutes while the trooper
checked on his status.  Mr. Rios-Diaz was eventually issued a $40
speeding ticket.

In 2011, Col. Hickethier was reprimanded by a superior officer for
making comments disparaging women and minorities, but there was no
mention of any discipline or reprimand regarding Mr. Quinnell's
allegation that Col. Hickethier ordered troopers to hold certain
people until their status could be confirmed by ICE.

"I think it's telling that the response of the Montana Highway
Patrol was to discipline Col. Hickethier for the inappropriate
racial comments, but there was no reprimand with regard to his
instructions for violating suspected undocumented immigrants'
rights," Mr. Haque- Hausrath said.  "While those racial comments
do reflect on his ability to fairly perform his job, it's the
explicit instructions to violate people's rights that should have
caught their attention."

The class-action lawsuit does not seek money damages.  The
plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the Montana
Highway Patrol:

   * Engaged in discrimination with its policy of detaining people
based on race, color and/or ethnicity.

   * Violated the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable
search and seizures.

   * Violated the plaintiffs' Montana constitutional rights, and

   * Violated the plaintiffs' civil rights.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the Montana Highway
Patrol's policy of detaining certain individuals without probable
cause is illegal and seeks to permanently prohibit the agency from
continuing to engage in "race, color and/or ethnicity-based
discrimination."  The lawsuit also asks the court to instruct the
agency to put safeguards into place to ensure such discrimination
doesn't occur in the future.

The lawsuit also asks the court to award attorney fees.


MOTEL 6: Agrees to Settle Wage-and-Hour Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, reports that Motel 6 Inc. and
a putative class of its past and present employees asked a
California federal judge on Oct. 4 to approve their proposed
$890,000 settlement in a wage-and-hour suit alleging the company
denied meal and rest breaks, failed to pay wages upon termination
and neglected to provide properly itemized wage statements.

The two sides agreed to the settlement in May according to a
memorandum filed by class attorney Thomas S. Campbell on Oct. 4.
In the proposed settlement, Motel 6 would pay a maximum of
$890,000, which would be dispersed to the proposed class, with a
percentage going toward attorneys' fees.

"The settlement affords class members prompt and complete relief,"
Campbell wrote, "while avoiding significant legal and factual
hurdles that otherwise may have prevented them from obtaining any
recovery at all."

While Motel 6 and its management company G6 Hospitality Inc.
continue to dispute the allegations brought against them and deny
any and all liability, they agreed to settle after the two sides
participated in private mediation in August 2012, the memorandum
said.

At the conclusion of the mediation, the parties had reached a
settlement in principle, and after some continuing negotiations a
final settlement was reached, according to the memorandum.  The
settlement was granted preliminary approval July 17.

None of the 18,280 class members who were notified of the proposed
class action objected, the memorandum said.

Plaintiffs filed the class action in August 2009 in Los Angeles
Superior Court, accusing Motel 6 of various violations of the
California Labor Code, the Business & Professions Code, the Wage
Order and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.  Motel 6
subsequently removed the case to California federal court.

The class includes all current and former nonexempt employees
employed by Motel 6 between March 25, 2006, and July 17, 2013.
Previously, Motel 6 and G6 Hospitality, which had been previously
known as Accor North America, settled another class action in
March 2006, reducing the current class to its present scope,
Campbell wrote.

"Plaintiffs' counsel is satisfied that the terms and conditions of
the settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and that the
settlement is in the best interests of the class," the memorandum
said.

The hearing for final approval is scheduled for Nov. 4.

Last year, Accor sold the Motel 6 brand, which began operating in
the early 1960s and represents the largest company-owned-and-
operated budget lodging chain in the U.S., to The Blackstone Group
LP for $1.9 billion.  Blackstone subsequently set up G6
Hospitality to manage the popular motel chain.

Representatives for the class and for Motel 6 were not immediately
available for comment on Oct. 8.

The class is represented by Thomas S. Campbell and Farzad Rastegar
of Rastegar & Matern.

Motel 6 is represented by Laura M. Franze, M. Brett Burns and
Christiane A. Roussell of Hunton & Williams LLP.

The case is Monica Gould et al v. Motel 6 Inc. et al, case No.
2:09-cv-08157 in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California Central Division.


NOVARTIS PHARMA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Hendrix" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHEL HENDRIX, Plaintiff(s), v. NOVARTIS
PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, Defendant(s), CASE NO. CV-13-2402-MWF
(PLAX), (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff originally filed his
Complaint against NPC in the Eastern District of New York on
January 13, 2006. The case was consolidated in 2007 into
multidistrict litigation in the Middle District of Tennessee,
along with over a dozen other cases alleging harms suffered from
treatment with bisphosphonate drugs Aredia and Zometa. That
multidistrict litigation was styled In re Aredia & Zometa Products
Liability Litigation, No. 3:06-md-1760 (M.D. Tenn.).

NPC first filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the MDL on May
17, 2011, but before it could be heard the cases of the MDL were
remanded to their respective districts. The parties then moved to
transfer the instant action from the Eastern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

In its present Motion for Summary Judgment, NPC argued that
Plaintiff's action is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, an argument that was omitted from NPC's original
Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Strike the Motion,
arguing, inter alia, that the statute of limitations argument was
non-supplemental, and thus the Motion fell beyond the scope of the
Court's Scheduling Order.  The Court denied Plaintiff's
application.

In an October 2, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/34L2A6from
Leagle.com, District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald granted NPC's
Motion for Summary Judgment as to all counts. Because the Court
holds that Plaintiff's suit is time barred, it declines to reach
NPC's remaining arguments.  Judge Fitzgerald held that the Order
will constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

                           *     *     *

HarrisMartin Publishing reports that a California federal judge
has granted Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp. judgment in a Zometa
case, finding the claims are barred under the state's two-year
statute of limitations because the plaintiff was put on notice of
his claims by 2003, but did not file suit until 2006.

On Oct. 2, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California further ruled that the
claims are not equitably tolled by an earlier-filed class action
because the plaintiff did not rely on the class action in filing
suit.


NRG ENERGY: Awaits Appellate Ruling in Cheswick-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. is awaiting an appellate court decision in the
class action lawsuit arising from the operation of a Cheswick
generating facility owned by its subsidiary, according to the
Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, alleging
that emissions from the Cheswick generating facility have damaged
the property of neighboring residents.  The Company disputes these
allegations.  The Plaintiffs have brought nuisance, negligence,
trespass and strict liability claims seeking both damages and
injunctive relief.  The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class that
consists of people who own property or live within one mile of the
Company's plant.  In July 2012, the Company removed the lawsuit to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.  In October 2012, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss, which the Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The Third Circuit heard
oral argument on June 25, 2013.

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  NRG is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in Suits vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. awaits final approval of its subsidiary's
settlement of six purported class action lawsuits, according to
the Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Energy Plus Holdings, LLC is a defendant in six purported class
action lawsuits, two in New York, two in New Jersey, and two in
Pennsylvania.  On February 28, 2013, Energy Plus entered into a
settlement agreement with plaintiffs to resolve all of the claims
in the six pending lawsuits, subject to court approval.  On
March 26, 2013, the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement and scheduling a final approval hearing for July 23,
2013.  The hearing was held on that date.  Energy Plus continues
to cooperate with the Connecticut Attorney General and Office of
Consumer Counsel and the State of New York Office of Attorney
General to resolve issues related to Energy Plus's sales,
marketing and business practices raised by the class actions.
Energy Plus and the Connecticut Attorney General and Office of
Consumer Counsel have been involved in settlement discussions and
their efforts to reach a resolution continue.

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  NRG is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: GenOn Merger-Related Litigation in Delaware Has Ended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013, that the merger-related litigation in Delaware has
now ended.

On December 14, 2012, NRG Energy, Inc., completed the previously
announced merger contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of July 20, 2012, by and among NRG, GenOn
Energy, Inc. and Plus Merger Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of NRG.

NRG was named as a defendant in eight purported class actions in
Texas and Delaware, related to its announcement of its agreement
to acquire all outstanding shares of GenOn.  These cases were
consolidated into one state court case in each of Delaware and
Texas and a federal court case in Texas.  The plaintiffs generally
alleged breach of fiduciary duties, as well as conspiracy, aiding
and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Plaintiffs
generally sought to: be certified as a class; enjoin the merger;
direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties; rescind
the acquisition and be awarded attorneys' fees costs and other
relief that the court deems appropriate.  The Plaintiffs also
demanded that there be additional disclosures regarding the merger
terms.  On October 24, 2012, the parties to the Delaware state
court case executed a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the
Delaware purported class action lawsuit.  In March 2013, the
parties finalized the settlement of the Delaware action.  On
June 3, 2013, the court approved the Delaware class action
settlement, thereby, ending the Delaware lawsuit.

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  NRG is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: One of Five Suits vs. GenOn Has Been Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
One of the five class action lawsuits pending against a subsidiary
of NRG Energy, Inc., arising from the California energy crisis in
2000 and 2001 has been concluded, according to the Company's
August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 14, 2012, NRG Energy, Inc., completed the previously
announced merger contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of July 20, 2012, by and among NRG, GenOn
Energy, Inc. and Plus Merger Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of NRG.

NRG's subsidiary, GenOn, is party to five lawsuits, several of
which are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in
Kansas, Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin.  These lawsuits were filed
in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001
and the resulting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC")
investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural
gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws.  The
lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or
expenses.  The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy
companies unaffiliated with NRG.  In July 2011, the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, which is handling four
of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases.
The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada.  In
September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which is
handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, of all
plaintiffs' claims against GenOn.

In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court.  In June 2013, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, thereby, ending
one of the five lawsuits.  GenOn has agreed to indemnify
CenterPoint Energy Inc. against certain losses relating to these
lawsuits.

NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- is an integrated
wholesale power generation and retail electricity company.  NRG is
a retail electricity company engaged in the supply of electricity,
energy services, and cleaner energy products to retail electricity
customers in deregulated markets through its Retail businesses,
which include Reliant Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and
Energy Plus Holdings LLC.  The Company is headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.


OILSANDS QUEST: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Graveland, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
U.S. court has approved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a
securities fraud class-action lawsuit against a bankrupt energy
exploration company for which embattled Sen. Pamela Wallin was a
director.

Between June 2007 and December 2011, Sen. Wallin was a paid member
of the board of Oilsands Quest Inc., a Calgary-based exploration
company.  As a director, the Saskatchewan senator was named in the
lawsuit along with fellow board members, TD Securities and Calgary
consulting firm McDaniel and Associates.

The lawsuit, filed by investors in United States District Court in
New York in 2011, alleged that Oilsands Quest and its directors
overstated the value of the company's assets by C$136 million.

"Through a series of false and misleading press releases, investor
presentations and accounting manipulations, defendants
fraudulently pumped up Oilsands Quest's stock price by portraying
Oilsands Quest as the largest owner of valuable rights to bitumen
in Saskatchewan's oilsands, creating a modern-day gold rush for
what defendants knew to be largely worthless mining rights," reads
the original court document.

It goes on to say company officials knew that the vast majority of
the land contained no bitumen and "defendants engaged in contrived
exploration and testing activities to justify the retention of
worthless mining rights in order to mislead investors about the
value of the company's properties."

While most oilsands development is focused in the area around Fort
McMurray in northern Alberta, Saskatchewan has significant
oilsands deposits.  But the oil is considerably more difficult to
extract because the deposits are capped by a glacial till rather
than the shale typically found in Alberta.

Still, Oilsands Quest led a charge to develop on the eastern side
of the boundary.

The firm filed for bankruptcy protection in an Alberta court in
November 2011 and for Chapter 15 protection in a U.S. bankruptcy
court in February 2012.  Its assets have been sold to Cenovus
Energy.

Earlier this month, United States District Judge Jed Rakoff signed
off on a $10.2-million settlement which gave claimants about 36
cents on the dollar.

Judge Rakoff is the judge who presided over a $163-million
settlement last year in the case of disgraced New York financier
Bernard Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme defrauded investors of billions
of dollars.

Oilsands Quest has not admitted any wrong-doing and has denied all
allegations.  The firm decided it would be "desirable and
beneficial" to settle because litigation could have dragged on.

The settlement, by Canadian standards, is quite large, says a
Calgary lawyer whose firm handled proceedings in Canada at the
request of the U.S. lawyers representing the plaintiffs.

"It's double digits. You don't see a lot of those here," said
Clint Docken of the firm Docken and Klym.  "It's more common in
the U.S., but the fact they're paying over C$10 million I think is
representative of something.

"If you're not liable, it's not a nuisance lawsuit, so why would
you settle?"

It doesn't appear that Sen. Wallin or the other directors will be
out of pocket, Mr. Docken said.

"It's the directors' and officers' insurer who is paying this."

During her time as a director, Sen. Wallin earned nearly C$648,000
in cash and offered option awards, the court documents said.  She
resigned shortly after Oilsands Quest went into receivership.

She did not answer a request for comment submitted last week by
The Canadian Press.

Sen. Wallin, who was appointed to the Senate in 2009, has also
been on the board of Gluskin Sheff & Associates Inc., a wealth
management firm with offices in Calgary and Toronto.  She's also
served on the board for Porter Airlines.  From 2007 to 2011 she
was chancellor at the University of Guelph.

Her finances have been under a microscope for weeks.

The one-time journalist and former Conservative caucus member has
been ordered to reimburse the Senate almost $140,000 for
ineligible travel expense claims.  The order followed an
independent audit of her travel expenses.

A Senate committee alerted the RCMP to the results of the audit.
The Mounties are already investigating living allowances claimed
by senators Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Mac Harb.


QC HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling in Appeal Related to Payday Loans Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., said in its Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that the North Carolina Court of Appeals is
expected by the end of third quarter 2013, to issue a decision on
an appeal by QC Holdings against an order denying a motion to
enforce its class action and arbitration provisions in a suit
related to payday loans.

On February 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries,
including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr.
Don Early, the Company's Chairman of the Board, were sued in
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben
Hubert Cline, who were customers of a Delaware state-chartered
bank for whom the Company provided certain services in connection
with the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina,
prior to the closing of the Company's North Carolina branches in
fourth quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act,
the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan
Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and the
state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by the
bank to the two plaintiffs through the Company's retail locations
in North Carolina.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company made the payday loans to the
plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that if the
Company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or makers" of the
payday loans, its services to the bank that made the loans
violated various North Carolina statutes. Plaintiffs are seeking
certification as a class, unspecified monetary damages, and treble
damages and attorney fees under specified North Carolina statutes.
Plaintiffs have not sued the bank in this matter and have
specifically stated in the complaint that plaintiffs do not
challenge the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with
North Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state
may permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law.

In July 2011, the parties completed a weeklong hearing on the
Company's motion to enforce its class action waiver provision and
its arbitration provision. In January 2012, the trial court denied
the Company's motion to enforce its class action and arbitration
provisions. The Company has appealed that ruling to the North
Carolina Court of Appeals. It is expected that the court will
issue a decision by the end of third quarter 2013.

There were three similar purported class action lawsuits filed in
North Carolina against three other companies unrelated to the
Company. The plaintiffs in those three cases were represented by
the same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
Company. Settlements in each of the three companion cases were
reached by the end of 2010; however, the settlements do not
provide reasonable guidance on settlements in the Company's case.


QC HOLDINGS: Direct Credit Still Faces Suit for "Usury" in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Credit, a British Columbia company, which QC Holdings
acquired in 2011, continues to face a suit alleging it violated
Canada's criminal usury laws, according to QC Holding's Aug. 13,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On September 30, 2011, the Company acquired all the outstanding
shares of Direct Credit, a British Columbia company engaged in
short-term, consumer Internet lending in certain Canadian
provinces. On October 18, 2011, Matthew Lee, an alleged Alberta,
Canada resident sued Direct Credit, all of its subsidiaries and
three former directors of those subsidiaries in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia in a purported class action. The plaintiff
alleges that Direct Credit and its subsidiaries violated Canada's
criminal usury laws by charging interest on its loans at rates
higher than 60%. The plaintiff purports to represent all Canadian
borrowers of the subsidiary who resided outside of British
Columbia.

Plaintiff seeks (i) class certification for the class, (ii) a
declaration that loan fees collected in excess of the 60% limit in
the cited usury statute are held by the defendants in constructive
trust for the benefit of the class members, (iii) an accounting
and restitution to plaintiff and class members of all loan fees
received by the defendants, (iv) a declaration that the collection
of the loan fees in excess of 60% per annum constitutes an
unconscionable trade act or practice under the Canadian Business
Practices Consumer Protection Act, (v) an order to restore to the
class members the loan fees collected by defendants in excess of
60% per annum, and (vi) interest thereon. Direct Credit has not
yet answered the civil claim of the plaintiff, but intends to
defend itself, its subsidiaries and its former directors
vigorously.


QC HOLDINGS: Denies TCPA Violations in "Stemple" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. has filed an answer denying all claims in a suit
alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
using an automatic telephone dialing system with an "artificial or
prerecorded voice," according to the company's Aug. 13, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On August 13, 2012, the Company was sued in the United States
District Court for the South District of California in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by Paul Stemple.

Mr. Stemple alleges that the Company used an automatic telephone
dialing system with an "artificial or prerecorded voice" in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227,
et seq. The complaint does not identify any other members of the
proposed class, nor how many members may be in the proposed class.
This matter is in the early stages of litigation. The Company has
filed an answer denying all claims.


R.H. TRIMBLE: Magistrate Judge Enters Recommendation in "Stafford"
------------------------------------------------------------------
In BRIAN KEITH STAFFORD, Petitioner, v. R.H. TRIMBLE, Warden,
Respondent, NO. CV 12-1490-GHK (E), (C.D. Calif.), Mr. Stafford
filed a "Petition Under 28 USC [Section] 2254 for Writ of Habeas
Corpus By a Person in State Custody" in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California. On February 16,
2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California transferred the Petition to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

On August 14, 2012, R.H. Trimble filed an Answer, asserting: (1)
the Petition is untimely; (2) Grounds Six and Seven of the
Petition are unexhausted; and (3) Grounds One, Three, Four, Six
and Seven of the Petition are not cognizable on federal habeas
review. On September 27, 2012, the Petitioner filed a Reply.
On November 25, 2012, the Court ordered Ground Six of the Petition
denied and dismissed with prejudice, and Ground Seven of the
Petition denied and dismissed without prejudice. At the same time,
the Court ordered Respondent to file a Supplemental Answer
addressing the merits of Grounds One through Five of the Petition.

On April 12, 2013, Respondent filed a Supplemental Answer. On
August 9, 2013, Petitioner filed a Reply to Respondent's
Supplemental Answer.

Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick entered on October 1, 2013, a
report and recommendation in the case, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/Vg6agkfrom Leagle.com.

The Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable George
H. King, Chief United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

Judge Eick recommended that the District Judge issue an Order: (1)
accepting and adopting his Report and Recommendation; (2) denying
and dismissing Ground Three of the Petition without prejudice to
the extent that Ground Three alleges an ex post facto claim; and
(3) denying and dismissing with prejudice all other claims in the
Petition not previously adjudicated in the Court's "Order
Accepting Findings, etc.," filed November 25, 2012.


ROBERT ZAMORA: Trial Court Judgment in "Mid-Century" Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Third District, San Joaquin,
affirmed a trial court judgment entered in the case, MID-CENTURY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v.
ROBERT ZAMORA et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and
Appellants, NO. C069644.

The action included cross-prayers for declaratory relief regarding
the obligation of plaintiff Mid-Century Insurance Company to
defend eight defendant car dealerships and their principal in an
underlying action for wage/hour violations of state and federal
law.

The trial court has concluded potential coverage did not exist
under Mid-Century's commercial general liability policy -- in
particular, its "Employee Benefit Liability" (EBL) endorsement --
and therefore Mid-Century did not have any duty to defend
defendants in the class action.

The trial court also concluded the wage/hour class action arises
from the employment practices of defendants and not the
administration of employee benefit plans that the endorsement
covers.  It accordingly entered judgment in October 2011 in favor
of Mid-Century (and against defendants on their cross-complaint),
issuing a declaration to this effect. Defendants filed a timely
notice of appeal.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 4, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/kg4TeQfrom Leagle.com.


SINCLAIR ENTERPRISES: Accused of Secretly Recording Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elan Wong, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Sinclair Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Sinclair Institute,
Case No. 2:13-cv-07362-PA-E (C.D. Cal., October 4, 2013) is
brought for the benefit and protection of all persons situated in
California, who place calls to Sinclair that secretly have been,
and are, recorded.

In May 2013, while located in California, Ms. Wong says she called
Sinclair and spoke to a Sinclair employee named "Anna" to inquire
about purchasing a product and whether there were any promotions
going on.  She asserts that she was not aware that the call was
being recorded.  The Defendant did not, at any point during the
telephone conversation with its customer service representative,
advise her that the call was being recorded, she contends.  She
insists that she did not give either express or implied consent to
the recording.

Ms. Wong is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.

Sinclair is a North Carolina corporation with its headquarters in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
          MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC
          1181 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 120
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 542-3555
          Facsimile: (949) 606-9690
          E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com

               - and -

          Rose F. Luzon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          401 A Street, Suite 2350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-2416
          Facsimile: (619) 234-7334
          E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com


SKYPE INC: Appeals Court Reverses "Chapman" Class Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, reversed a judgment dismissing the case, MELISSA CHAPMAN et
al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SKYPE INC., Defendant and
Respondent, NO. B241398.

Melissa Chapman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, appealed the dismissal of her class action complaint
against Skype Inc. after the sustaining of a demurrer without
leave to amend. She alleged that Skype advertises its voice over
Internet protocol calling plans as "Unlimited" when, in fact, the
plans are limited as to the number of minutes per day and month
and the number of calls per day.  She contends she has adequately
alleged counts for violation of the unfair competition law (UCL),
the false advertising law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment.

The Calif. Appeals Court concludes that Ms. Chapman has adequately
alleged counts for violation of the UCL, the false advertising
law, and the CLRA based on deceptive advertising. She has failed,
however, to allege her counts for intentional and negligent
misrepresentation with sufficient specificity as to actual
reliance, but she is entitled to an opportunity to amend her
complaint as to those counts, says the Court. She also is entitled
to leave to amend her complaint to allege a rescission of the
subscription agreement so as to support her count for unjust
enrichment, the ruling added.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 4, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/v9lHNDfrom Leagle.com.

Kawahito Shraga & Westrick, James K. Kawahito --
jkawahito@kswlawyers.com ; Law Offices of Geoffrey Stover and
Geoffrey Stover -- gstover@steinbrecherspan.com -- for Plaintiffs
and Appellants.

Bingham McCutchen, Michael A. Sherman --
michael.sherman@bingham.com -- J. Warren Rissier --
warren.rissier@bingham.com -- Nima Javaherian --
nima.javaherian@bingham.com -- and Robert Brundage --
robert.brundage@bingham.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Rodman & Renshaw's Bankruptcy Stays Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of New York
imposed an automatic stay on plaintiffs' securities claims against
Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the underwriter of Skypeople Fruit Juice,
Inc.'s follow-on public offering, after the underwriter filed for
bankruptcy, according to Skypeople's Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 20, 2011, plaintiff Paul Kubala (on behalf of his minor
child N.K.) filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its individual officers and/or
directors, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the underwriter of the
Company's follow-on public offering consummated in August 2010,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On June 20, 2011, plaintiff Benjamin Padnos filed a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and/or directors, the Company's former
independent auditors Child Van Wagner & Bradshaw, PLLC and BDO
Limited, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the underwriter of the
Company's follow-on public offering consummated in August 2010,
alleging violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On August 30, 2011, the Court consolidated the foregoing two
actions and appointed Zachary Lewy as lead plaintiff. On September
30, 2011, pursuant to the Court's order, Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint, which names the Company, Rodman & Renshaw,
LLC, BDO Limited, Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC and certain of
the Company's current and former directors and/or officers and
majority shareholders as defendants, and alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and the rules promulgated
thereunder. The Consolidated Complaint seeks, among other things,
compensatory damages, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred
in the action.

On December 21, 2011, the Company and certain of the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.
On May 3, 2012, Lead Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims
against BDO Limited and Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC. On
September 10, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On January 11, 2013, defendant Rodman & Renshaw LLC filed for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, and, on January 18, 2013, the
court imposed an automatic stay on Plaintiffs claims against
Rodman pursuant to Section 326(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Plaintiff Counsel Wins $1.3-Mil. in Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted, in part, the petition
filed by plaintiffs in In re: SOUTHWEST AIRLINES VOUCHER
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 11 C 8176, (N.D. Ill.), for attorney's fees,
and awarded the plaintiffs' counsel attorney's fees in the amount
of $1,332,206.25 and expenses in the amount of $18,522.32.

The Court previously approved a class-wide settlement in this
case.

The plaintiffs, Adam Levitt and Herbert Malone, sued Southwest
Airlines Co. on behalf of a class of similarly situated Southwest
customers. Their lawsuit concerned drink vouchers that Southwest
had provided to travelers who purchased premium-priced "Business
Select" tickets.  Each voucher was good for a single alcoholic
drink that would cost $5 if paid for in cash. The vouchers did not
have an expiration date. On August 1, 2010, Southwest stopped
honoring the vouchers. The Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint
that Southwest committed a breach of contract, was unjustly
enriched, and violated various state consumer protection laws.

A copy of the District Court's October 3, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/H9ffL0from Leagle.com.


SSM HEALTH CARE: Parties in "Roberts" Suit Ordered to File Memo
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAUREEN ROBERTS and CHANEL JONES, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SSM HEALTH
CARE ST. LOUIS, Defendant, CASE NO. 4:13 CV 1849 CDP, (E.D. Mo.),
a joint motion was filed to certify the class, for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement agreement, and for approval
of a notice to the respective class members.

In an October 1, 2013 Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/vr3ndUfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Catherine D.
Perry said she has no problems with the proposed order; however,
the parties have failed to suggest proposed dates for the final
approval hearing and for mailing notice to class counsel.
Accordingly, Judge Perry ordered the parties file within five days
a joint Memorandum providing proposed dates for the final approval
hearing and for mailing notice to class counsel.


TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Colo. Court OKs Accord in Curran v. AGL Life
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Boulder County, Colorado adopted the
proposed order approving a settlement and dismissing the case
Carol B. Curran et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. AGL Life Assurance Company, et al.,
according to Tiptree Financial Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In an action entitled Carol B. Curran et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. AGL Life Assurance
Company, et al, Case No. 2009CV907, plaintiffs filed a class
action in August 2009 in the District Court of Boulder County,
Colorado against Philadelphia Financial's subsidiaries
Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance Company, Philadelphia
Financial Distribution Company and Joseph A. Fillip, Jr.,
Philadelphia Financial's Executive Vice President and General
Counsel (the "AGL Defendants"), and other parties.

Plaintiffs asserted various claims under Colorado statutory and
common law, including state securities act claims, breach of
fiduciary duty, negligence, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent
omission.

On March 15, 2013, the court granted its preliminary approval to a
class settlement of the proceeding. On May 28, 2013, the court
held a final hearing to approve the settlement. On May 29, 2013,
the court adopted the proposed order approving the settlement and
dismissing the case. The Phoenix Companies, Inc. (from whom TFP
acquired Philadelphia Financial) has indemnified Philadelphia
Financial in connection with this litigation.


TOYOTA MOTOR: McCuneWright Files Class Action Over Prius PCS
------------------------------------------------------------
McCuneWright, LLP disclosed that on October 8, 2013, the Law Firm
of McCuneWright, LLP, announced the filing of a nationwide class
action entitled Lee v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.  The case
was filed in the United States District Court of California.  The
lawsuit alleges that since at least 2010, Toyota has marketed and
sold a safety option called the Pre-Collision System (PCS) in its
high-end Prius Five vehicles.  The lawsuit claims that Toyota
represents in its marketing materials and owner's manual that the
PCS employs radar to sense an unavoidable frontal collision, and
then if needed, automatically applies the brakes to prepare for
the accident.  The PCS is part of an advanced technology package
option that usually sells for over $5,000.  The PCS option is
believed to make up approximately $1,000 of that cost.
This type of technology is an important safety development from
vehicle manufacturers which provides a way to reduce the number
and severity of rear-end collisions.  However, the lawsuit claims
that purchasers did not receive what Toyota represented with the
PCS.  In vehicle testing by the Insurance Institute of Highway
Safety (IIHS), the Toyota Prius was one of only two models that
failed to get any rating, leading the IIHS to state:  "The Toyota
Prius V wagon, which claims to have autobrake, had minimal braking
in IIHS tests and currently fails to meet NHTSA criteria for
forward collision warning.  It doesn't qualify for an IIHS front
crash prevention rating."

The lawsuit seeks to force Toyota to reimburse owners for the cost
of the PCS and to force Toyota to discontinue marketing that the
PCS provides automatic braking.  According to McCuneWright
partner, Richard McCune, "The Pre-Collision System problem
illustrates our ongoing concern with Toyota's electronics and
brake systems."

McCuneWright filed the nation's first Sudden Unintended
Acceleration class action against Toyota in 2009, and settled for
an estimated $1.6 billion earlier this year.  The central
contention in that case was the lack of a brake override.  The
acceleration and brake electronics is also at the heart of the
first Sudden Unintended Acceleration wrongful death trial that
recently concluded.  A verdict is expected shortly.  Additionally,
in June 2013, Toyota announced the recall of over 200,000 Prius
and Lexus hybrid vehicles as a result of problems with the brake
booster pump assembly.  Just on Oct. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court
rejected an appeal by Toyota who was seeking the court to force
arbitration in California class action lawsuits arising from a
claim that the 2010 Prius' have defective anti-locking brake
systems.

CONTACT:

Jack Boren
McCuneWright, LLP
Telephone: 909-557-1250


TYSON FOODS: Ordered to Pay $3.3-Mil. to Workers in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
KTIV reports that a judge has ordered Tyson Foods to pay nearly
$5-million to the state of Nebraska, and to thousands of
employees, for failing to pay those workers for the time they
spent putting on, and taking off, protective clothing at the
Dakota City plant.

The ruling covers nearly 8,000 employees, who worked at the Dakota
City plant from January of 2004 to April of 2013.  The workers
will split $3.3-million.  Another $1.6-million will go to the
state of Nebraska because the state doesn't allow punitive
damages.

In the suit, workers claimed they were only paid during the time
that they were present on the actual production assembly line.

A Tyson spokesperson says the company disagrees with the court's
conclusions, and will appeal.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: Credit Rating Suits & Probes v. Parents Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UnionBanCal Corporation disclosed in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that lawsuits and investigations
relating to credit ratings are ongoing its parents.

The Company says adverse changes to its credit ratings, reputation
or creditworthiness could have a negative effect on its
operations.  The Company generally funds its operations
independently of its parents, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ,
Ltd. (BTMU) and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG), and
believes its business is not necessarily closely related to the
business or outlook of BTMU or MUFG.  However, if BTMU and MUFG's
credit ratings or financial condition or prospects were to
decline, this could adversely affect the Company's credit rating
or harm its reputation or perceived creditworthiness.

At this time, the Company says it cannot predict actions, if any,
which the rating agencies may take regarding the Government of
Japan, MUFG or BTMU, nor the ultimate effect of these developments
on the Company's credit rating.

BTMU and MUFG are also subject to regulatory oversight, review and
supervisory action (which can include fines or penalties) by
Japanese and U.S. regulatory authorities.  The Company's business
operations and expansion plans could be negatively affected by
regulatory concerns or supervisory action in the U.S. and in Japan
against BTMU or MUFG.  In June 2013, BTMU entered into a consent
agreement with the New York State Department of Financial Services
under which it was assessed a fine of $250,000,000 in connection
with alleged violations of New York law with respect to certain
clearing transactions entered into between 2002 and 2007 involving
parties and countries sanctioned by the Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC).

BTMU has received requests and subpoenas for information from
government agencies in some jurisdictions, including the United
States, Europe and Japan, which are conducting investigations into
past submissions made by panel members, including BTMU, to the
bodies that set various interbank offered rates.  BTMU is
cooperating with these investigations and has been conducting an
internal investigation.  Union Bank is not a member of any of
these panels.  In addition, BTMU and other panel members have been
named as defendants in a number of civil lawsuits, including
putative class actions, in the United States relating to similar
matters.  The Company says it is currently not possible for the
Company to predict the scope and ultimate outcome of these
investigations or lawsuits, including any possible effect on the
Company as a member of MUFG.

UnionBanCal Corporation -- http://www.unionbank/-- is a San
Francisco, California-based, financial holding and commercial bank
holding company whose major subsidiary, Union Bank, N.A., is a
commercial bank.  Union Bank provides a wide range of financial
services to consumers, small businesses, middle-market companies
and major corporations.  UnionBanCal is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., which, in turn, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.


UNITED STATES: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Kendall" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Owen Kendall appealed pro se from the district court's
judgment dismissing his putative class action arising from alleged
wrongs directed against veterans and their families.

In an October 4, 2013 Opinion available at http://is.gd/LQhtfg
from Leagle.com, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal, saying the district court properly
dismissed Mr. Kendall's claims on behalf of a putative class
because non-attorney pro se litigants have no authority to
represent anyone other than themselves.

The case is GARY OWEN KENDALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-35841.


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2013, an alleged class action entitled Michael Brado
v. Vocera Communications Inc., et al. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
against the Company and certain of its officers, its board of
directors, a former director and the underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering, according to the company's Aug.
13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The suit purports to allege claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly misleading statements in
the registration statement for the Company's initial public
offering and in subsequent communications regarding its business
and financial results.

The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between March 28, 2012 and May 3, 2013, and
seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. The defendants have
not yet responded to the complaint in this matter.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company said
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the
outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flow. The
Company has not established any reserve for any potential
liability relating to this lawsuit.


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Denies Customers' Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360,
report that customers of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. failed to persuade a
California federal judge to certify them in the proposed class
action accusing the big box retailer of requiring the customers to
provide their telephone numbers and addresses as part of their
credit card purchases, according to an order issued on Oct. 3.

U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real, who denied the motion by
customer and named plaintiff Joel Leebove during a hearing in
September, issued an order on Oct. 3 ruling that there are not
enough common questions across the class to overcome the
individual differences between the claims.

The suit, filed by Mr. Leebove in February, made claims under
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which prevents
businesses from requiring customers to provide personal
information as part of a credit card transaction, according to
court documents.  Mr. Leebove's June motion sought to certify a
class of Wal-Mart customers who had made credit card purchases
since February 2012 and had to provide either a phone number or an
address or both in order to make a purchase that would be
delivered to them or that they would pick up from the store.

The proposed class would be split into two subclasses of customers
based on whether they were having their purchase delivered or if
they were picking them up at the store, according to the motion.
Judge Real found this distinction mattered in determining whether
Wal-Mart was justified in asking for the personal information,
according to the order.

Judge Real ruled that "the prohibition against collecting
information does not apply if the personal identification
information is required for a special purpose incidental but
related to the individual credit card transaction, including, but
not limited to, information relating to shipping, delivery,
servicing or installation of the purchased merchandise or for
special orders," according to the order.

The plaintiffs had argued that the proposed subclass of customers
who ordered their products to be shipped to them should not have
had to give out their telephone numbers as part of the
transaction, but Wal-Mart has shown proof that delivery carriers
use phone numbers to try to contact customers in case they have
trouble with the delivery, Judge Real ruled.

Attorneys for the parties could not immediately be reached for
comment on Oct. 7.

Wal-Mart in May agreed to pay $1.1 million to a different class of
plaintiffs who had similarly accused the retail giant of illegally
asking for California customers' ZIP codes when they used credit
cards to buy items.

That class action was a consolidation of four individual proposed
class actions filed by consumers who claimed they were damaged by
Wal-Mart's alleged collection and recording of their ZIP codes
when they used a credit card to buy items at the store.  The
lawsuits were filed in 2011 and 2012 and consolidated in November
2011.

The defendants in the current suit are represented by Scott H.
Jacobs -- shjacobs@reedsmith.com -- and Lisa B. Kim --
lkim@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP.

The current plaintiffs are represented by Ean M. Schreiber, Edwin
C. Schreiber and Eric A. Schreiber of Schreiber and Schreiber Inc.

The case is Joel Leebove v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case number
2:13-cv-01024, in the U.S District Court for the Central Central
California.


                             *********

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  * * *