CAR_Public/131017.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 17, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 206

                             Headlines


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Faces Wage and Hour Suit in California
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Failed to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over HandsFreeLink System Malfunction
BANK OF AMERICA: FDIC Urges Judge to Reject $500MM Settlement
BARNEY'S INC: Accused of Providing Inaccurate TILA Disclosures

BLACKBERRY LTD: Shareholder Class Action Adds to Woes
BRINKER INT'L: Meal & Rest Break Class Action Certification Upheld
CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Action Over High Loan Charges
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA: Housing Authority Settles Class Action
COMPASS HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA

CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Court Narrows Claims in "Wilson" Class Action
CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Negligence Claim Survives in Pollicino Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Ruling Pending
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend Erickson Suit in N.Y.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend Rivera Suit in AAA

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues Settlement Talks With Students
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Court to Hold Dec. 3 Argument in OLERS Suit
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Bushansky Suit Stayed by Ruling in OLERS
GOLD'S GYM: Lay/Lane Collective Actions Conditionally Certified
GOLDMAN SACHS: Forced to Reveal Discrimination Complaints By Women

JC PENNEY: Jury Trial Requested in Securities Class Action
JETRO HOLDINGS: Removes Employees' Suit to Calif. District Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Aveeno Sunscreen Products-Related Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Aveeno Products' "Natural" Claims
LIVINGSTON FINANCIAL: Court Denies Approval of Rigney Suit Deal

PILOT FLYING J: FST Express Opts Out of Class Action Settlement
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Law Firm to Lodge Flood Suit This Year
SKECHERS USA: Parties in "Angell" Suit Negotiate Settlement Terms
SKECHERS USA: Parties in "Dedato" Suit Negotiate Terms of Deal
SKECHERS USA: Parties in "Lovston" Suit Yet to File Settlement

SKECHERS USA: Parties in "Niras" Suit Negotiate Settlement Terms
SKECHERS USA: "Sayles" Wage and Hour Suit Still Pending in Calif.
SKECHERS USA: Time to Appeal "Grabowski" Suit Deal Has Expired
SKECHERS USA: Time to Appeal "Morga" Suit Settlement Has Expired
SKECHERS USA: Angell Settlement Expected to Resolve "Davies" Suit

TOWER GROUP: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in New York
U.S. AUTO: Court Denies Bid to Decertify FLSA Claim in Rikard Suit
UNITED NATIONS: May Face Class Action Over Haiti Cholera Outbreak
UNITED STATES: KVSP Prisoner's Bid to Appoint Counsel Denied
VALID USA: Sued to Recover Unpaid Wages and Statutory Penalties

WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL: Court Dismisses "Cantley" Class Action
XL FOODS: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Beef Recall


                             *********


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Faces Wage and Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel J. Taylor and Harry L. Harrison, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AlliedBarton Security
Services LP; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:13-at-00722
(E.D. Calif., October 7, 2013) is a class and collective action
seeking unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, damages, continuing wages,
restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated various wage-
and-hour laws, including failure to pay their employees for all
hours worked under the California Labor Code and the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Messrs. Taylor and Harrison were employed by AlliedBarton in the
County of Stanislaus, California.

AlliedBarton is a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business
in the state of California.  Established in 1957, AlliedBarton is
one of the largest American-owned security officer services
company.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abigail Treanor, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          114 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
          E-mail: abigail@jauriguelaw.com


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Failed to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel J. Taylor and Harry L. Harrison, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AlliedBarton Security
Services LP; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:13-cv-01613-AWI-
SKO (E.D. Calif., October 7, 2013) is brought as a class and
collective action against the Defendants on behalf of persons
employed by the Company as security personnel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated various wage-
and-hour laws, including failure to pay their employees for all
worked under the California Labor Code and the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants violated
certain Wage Orders for failing to provide a suitable place to eat
since the break area is infested with rats.

Nathaniel J. Taylor and Harry L. Harrison were employed by
AlliedBarton in the County of Stanislaus, California.

AlliedBarton is a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business
in California, and doing business in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
AlliedBarton is an American-owned security officer services
company established in 1957.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abigail Ameri Treanor, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          114 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 200
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          Facsimile: (818) 879-1697
          E-mail: abigail@jauriguelaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over HandsFreeLink System Malfunction
----------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Klein, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No.
2:13-cv-07419-CAS-PJW (C.D. Calif., October 7, 2013) is a class
action lawsuit seeking relief on behalf of all consumers, who
purchased or leased a 2013 or 2014 Honda or Acura vehicle
containing a "HandsFreeLink" system that did not properly function
with the Samsung Galaxy SII (an "Affected Vehicle"), which HONDA
had represented could be used with that system.

Ms. Klein purchased an alleged defective 2013 Honda CRV for her
son's use.  The vehicle was equipped with a "HandsFreeLink"
system, which was presented as being compatible with her son's
top-selling Samsung Galaxy SII smartphone via the vehicle's
Bluetooth system.  HONDA advertises the HandsFreeLink system as
one that provides a "safer and more convenient driving
experience."

The CRV's HandsFreeLink system failed to sync with the Galaxy SII,
Ms. Klein alleges.  She asserts that her son took the car to a
dealer, who failed to solve the problem, and ultimately confirmed
with HONDA that, in fact the Galaxy SII is not compatible with the
HandsFreeLink system.  She adds that HONDA failed to fix or
replace the HandsFreeLink system, and told her that the only
solution was to purchase a compatible phone at a cost of several
hundred dollars.  Rather than honor its warranty, HONDA's response
to the problem with its HandsFreeLink system has been to place the
monetary burden solely on consumers, who have purchased its
vehicles, she argues.

Ms. Klein is a citizen of Wisconsin.  She purchased a 2013 HONDA
CRV at Gentile Honda in Racine, Wisconsin, on May 2, 2013, for her
son, and she continues to be the owner of record.

HONDA is a California corporation and one of the largest
automobile manufacturers in the world, selling approximately 1.4
million cars and light trucks in the U.S. in 2012.  Headquartered
in Torrance, California, HONDA is primarily in the business of
designing, manufacturing, testing and marketing automobiles under
the Honda and Acura brand names.  HONDA markets and sells vehicles
under both its Honda and Acura brands, which include a
substantively similar Bluetooth hands-free interface system known
as HandsFreeLink.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey E. Leon, Esq.
          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, Illinois 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          E-mail: Jeff@complexlitgroup.com
                  Jamie@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          E-mail: JShub@seegerweiss.com


BANK OF AMERICA: FDIC Urges Judge to Reject $500MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edvard Pettersson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. urged a U.S. judge to reject a
proposed $500 million class-action settlement between Bank of
America Corp.'s Countrywide unit and investors in devalued
mortgage-backed securities.

The FDIC, as receiver for 19 failed banks that owned the
Countrywide securities, said in a filing on Oct. 8 in federal
court in Los Angeles that the proposed settlement sets aside only
$41 million for the claims of 91 percent of the investors in the
securities while the lawyers for the lead plaintiffs will receive
$85 million.

The lead plaintiffs and their lawyers can only represent a "tiny
minority" of the investors because of a series of rulings by U.S.
District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer in 2011 in the federal securities
class-action.  The judge said only the claims for securities that
were purchased by investors who filed the very first lawsuits
could proceed under federal securities law.

"The court's ruling on standing disarmed the named plaintiffs,"
the FDIC said.  "They could no longer use the threat of litigation
to press for a better offer, and they then ceased to be able to
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."
Too Small

The FDIC also said the $500 million amount is too small because it
represents only about 0.11 percent of the $450.7 billion face
value of the securities it covers.  Previous class-action
settlements of residential mortgage-backed securities cases have
averaged 1.1 percent of the face value of the securities,
according to the FDIC.

Judge Pfaelzer in August gave preliminary approval to the
settlement.  A hearing on final approval is scheduled for Oct. 28.

The settlement resolves three class-action lawsuits brought by
investors in Countrywide Financial Corp. residential mortgage-
backed securities who claimed the mortgage lender lied in the
offering documents for the securities.

The settlement sets aside $267 million, after the lawyers' share,
for claims by investors in a group of 58 sections of securities
that had been originally purchased by the plaintiffs in the
initial lawsuits filed as early as 2007 in California state court.
$111 Million

The settlement leaves $111 million for investors in sections of
the securities for which class-action claims were filed too late.
The remainder of the settlement goes to investors in parts of the
securities for which no plaintiff sought to represent other
investors in a class-action case.

The entire settlement covers about 430 offerings of Countrywide
mortgage-backed securities that were sold in about 9,200 segments
divided by credit risk and rate of return for the underlying
residential mortgages.

The state court cases, filed on behalf of investors in all 9,200
segments, were removed to federal court last year and Pfaelzer
hasn't yet applied the same ruling on standing as she had in the
federal class-action case.  That created a "procedural interlude"
for the named plaintiffs in those cases to settle on behalf of all
investors, according to the FDIC.
'Vulnerable' Rulings

"If named plaintiffs and class counsel had been objective, they
would have realized that this court's rulings on the scope of
standing in RMBS class actions are vulnerable on appeal and worth
untold times more than the $41 million that the proposed
settlement would award to absent class members whose claims would
be revived if those rulings were reversed," the FDIC said.

The FDIC and other investors in Countrywide mortgage-backed
securities have filed separate lawsuits both under federal and
state law following Judge Pfaelzer's rulings in 2011 on the
standing issue.  Judge Pfaelzer in July instructed the lawyers who
reached a settlement to make sure that attorneys for investors in
those cases knew that the settlement could wipe out their claims.

Spencer Burkholz, a lawyer for the named plaintiffs in the
original state court lawsuits, said at an Aug. 1 hearing before
Judge Pfaelzer that the appellate rights for the dismissed claims
were "speculative" and that investors who were unhappy with the
settlement could opt out.

Mr. Burkholz didn't immediately return a call for comment on the
FDIC's objections.

                          BofA Spokesman

The class-action settlement is separate from the $8.5 billion
accord between Bank of America and 22 institutional investors in
Countrywide mortgage-backed securities filed in New York.  That
settlement, which is still pending, would resolve claims that
Countrywide is contractually obliged to compensate investors for
underlying mortgages that went into default.

The settlement before Judge Pfaelzer resolves claims by the
original purchasers of the Countrywide securities, whereas the
settlement in New York resolves claims by current holders of them,
Mr. Burkholz said at the Aug. 1 hearing.

Bank of America, the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, acquired
Countrywide in 2008.

Lawrence Grayson, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based
Bank of America, declined to comment on the FDIC's filing.

Michele Heller, an FDIC spokeswoman, declined to comment.

The case is Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial
Corp., 10-cv-00302, U.S. District Court, Central District of
California (Los Angeles).


BARNEY'S INC: Accused of Providing Inaccurate TILA Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Litwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Barney's, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-07143 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 7, 2013) is brought to seek redress for the Defendant's
alleged illegal practices of providing to customers of its
Barney's store credit cards accounts disclosure statements that
violated the Truth in Lending Act.

Barney's failed to furnish accurate disclosures in the manner
mandated by TILA provisions and by the corresponding federal
regulations governing periodic billing statements furnished in
connection with credit card accounts, Mr. Litwin contends.  More
specifically, he asserts, Barney's failed to furnish disclosures
regarding customer's billing rights and the creditor's
responsibilities.

Mr. Litwin is a resident of New York.  He is a "customer" as that
term is defined in the TILA.

Barney's is a corporation headquartered in New York.  Barney's is
a "creditor" as that term is defined in the TILA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Bromberg
          Jonathan R. Miller
          BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          40 Exchange Place, Suite 2010
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 248-7906

               - and -

          Harley J. Schnall
          LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL
          711 West End Avenue
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 678-6546


BLACKBERRY LTD: Shareholder Class Action Adds to Woes
-----------------------------------------------------
Parmy Olson, writing for Forbes, reports that last month it looked
as though Canadian billionaire Prem Watsa might have drawn a final
line in the sand for BlackBerry when his insurance firm bid $4.7
billion to take the struggling smartphone maker private.  Now
BlackBerry shares are up almost 4% on a Reuters report that it is
in potential takeover talks with Google, Cisco and SAP.

Complicating matters: a class action lawsuit has meanwhile been
filed by a shareholder claiming that BlackBerry misled investors
about the state of its operations and how well its BlackBerry 10
operating system would fare against competitors.  Another former
shareholder told Forbes their attorneys were also investigating
previous opportunities that BlackBerry had to sell the company.

Macquarie analyst Kevin Smithen upgraded BlackBerry shares to
"neutral" from "underperform," saying that with its shares having
fallen below Fairfax's approximate bid price of $9, other
investors might be more inclined to "take a punt on enterprise
mobility."

Technology analyst Jack Gold believes it's unlikely that any of
the three reported suitors would seriously consider acquiring all
of BlackBerry, a company made up of three key businesses: devices,
enterprise services and social services (BBM).

Mr. Gold suggests that BlackBerry's patent portfolio and BBM unit
could be the most attractive for industry buyers, while the
handset division would be the hardest to integrate and financially
justify.

BlackBerry's enterprise network services could be of interest to
Cisco and potentially even Microsoft, though integrating them with
their own cloud and network offerings would be a major overhaul.

"But I'm still of the opinion that the Fairfax deal could be the
best way forward for BlackBerry," Mr. Gold adds.  "They could run
them for a while and significantly increase the value of the
overall company rather than the 'fire sale' going on right now."

BlackBerry shareholder Marvin Pearlstein filed a lawsuit in a
federal court in Manhattan on Oct. 4, alleging the company misled
its investors on the true state of its finances and operations in
2012.

BlackBerry had told investors that its new BB10 platform was being
well received by developers but Mr. Pearlstein says in the
complaint that, "In reality, the BlackBerry 10 was not well
received by the market, and the company was forced to lay off
approximately 4,500 employees."

Former investor Kevin Stadtler of Stadtler Capital said that his
attorneys were looking into Mr. Pearlstein's class action suit, as
well as whether BlackBerry had a previous chance to sell, and if
so, why its board of directors did not accept the offer.

BlackBerry reportedly turned down takeover overtures from Amazon
and other potential suitors in 2011 because it wanted to fix its
own problems.  The Wall Street Journal also reported then that
Nokia and Microsoft had "flirted" with the idea of launching a
joint bid for BlackBerry.

"Why didn't the board of directors accept the offer?" Mr. Stadtler
asked, adding: "Who on the BlackBerry's board's compensation
committee negotiated the CEO's contract? We are not sure how
involved Prem Watsa was in those negotiations."


BRINKER INT'L: Meal & Rest Break Class Action Certification Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hurst & Hurst on Oct. 8 disclosed that on remand from the
California Supreme Court, San Diego Superior Court Judge William
S. Dato granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify the modified Meal
Period Subclass against Brinker International, Inc., Brinker
International Payroll Company, Inc., and Brinker Restaurant Corp.
on September 26, 2013.  Brinker's companion motion to decertify
the Rest Break Subclass was denied.  The case, entitled Hohnbaum,
et. al. v Brinker Restaurant Corp., et. al., S.D.S.C. Case No.
834348, is brought on behalf of all present and former non-exempt
employees of Brinker who worked at a Brinker-owned restaurant in
California, from and after October 1, 2000.  The lawsuit was
originally filed in August 2004 and affects over 100,000 low-wage
Brinker employees in the State of California.

The operative second amended complaint alleges that Brinker failed
to provide employees meal and rest breaks, or premium wages in
lieu of meal and rest breaks, due them under law.  The complaint
also alleges that Brinker is liable for waiting time penalties for
failing to pay wages due at termination.  The allegations in the
lawsuit have not yet been proven in court.

During the over 13-year Class Period, Brinker owned and operated
restaurants throughout California, including Chili's Grill & Bar,
Maggiano's Little Italy, Romano's Macaroni Grill, Corner Bakery
Cafe, Cozymel's Mexican Grill, and On the Border Mexican Grill &
Cantina.  The Named Plaintiffs were hourly nonexempt employees at
one or more of Brinker's restaurants.

Throughout the 9-year pendency of the case, Brinker vigorously
resisted class status.  After certification was granted in 2006,
there were appeals all the way up to the California Supreme Court.
In a landmark decision, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct.
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, the Supreme Court clarified California
employers' duties to employees relating to meal and rest breaks
and made rulings which largely favor the Plaintiffs in the case.
Compensation to these Class Members is long overdue.

Plaintiffs are represented by a team of San Diego attorneys,
including: lead counsel Debra L. Hurst of Hurst & Hurst; L. Tracee
Lorens of Lorens and Associates; William Turley of The Turley Law
Firm; Tim Cohelan of Cohelan, Khoury, and Singer; and Raul Cadena
of Cadena Churchill.

Notice to the Class is anticipated in November 2013.  A Trial is
anticipated in the next 12-16 months.

If you are a current or former employee of Chili's Grill & Bar or
any of Brinker's other restaurants and wish to learn more about
any of the allegations or have any questions, please contact Debra
L. Hurst, Esq. at (619) 236-0016, or by e-mail at
brinkerclassaction@hurst-hurst.com

Please visit http://brinkerclassaction.com

According to Fox5 San Diego, Texas-based Brinker responded by
issued a statement saying, "As a matter of company policy, Brinker
does not discuss details of pending litigation."

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Kyle Van Dyke, said a hearing is
scheduled Oct. 22 on the merits of the case, Fox5 San Diego
reports.


CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Action Over High Loan Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Johnston, writing for BusinessDay, reports that short-term
lender Cash Converters faces a AU$40 million class action that it
forced customers to pay loan charges that exceed a legal cap on
interest rates.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn is set to initiate a class action in
the Federal Court alleging thousands of customers were caught out
by the high charges.  The firm alleged Cash Converters borrowers
paid interest rates to the equivalent of 633 per cent on some
loans, despite laws in NSW capping rates at 48 per cent.  The cap
also applies in Victoria and Queensland.

The company did not comment on the claim, but said its loan
products complied with all state laws.

Maurice Blackburn NSW managing principal Ben Slade said the firm
would initiate two class actions, seeking about AU$40 million
compensation on behalf of 50,000 customers.  The action only
applies to NSW customers.

Last month Cash Converters posted a 12 per cent lift in full-year
profit to AU$32.9 million.  Earnings from personal loans represent
the largest proportion of its business.

"Those doing it toughest, living hand to mouth, have been hung out
to dry by Cash Converters,'' Mr. Slade said.

Also known as a short-term lender, financiers such as Cash
Converters typically provide loans of between AU$200 and AU$2,000
that must be repaid within a short period of time, such as by the
borrower's next payday.


CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA: Housing Authority Settles Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Ingles, writing for C-Ville Weekly, reports that hundreds of
low-income city residents will receive checks in the mail now that
the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority has
reached a proposed settlement with the Legal Aid Justice Center
over a utility allowance dispute that may be worth upwards of half
a million dollars, including $160,000 in cash payouts.  A federal
class action suit filed last year claimed that the housing
authority failed to provide adequate electric utility allowances
to its residents, resulting in thousands of dollars of overcharges
to public housing tenants.

"This is a big victory for tenants," said Brandon Collins of the
Public Housing Association of Residents.  "It's been a long time
in the making."

Mr. Collins said the settlement is a step in the right direction
in terms of smoothing out the relationship between tenants and the
CRHA, which has been rocky for years.

"Moving forward, the problem should be solved in a way that's
beneficial to both residents and the housing authority,"
Mr. Collins said.  "This affects every resident of public
housing."

The proposed settlement was filed Monday, September 30, and must
be approved by Federal District Court Judge Glen Conrad on Monday,
November 4, and go through a fairness hearing -- during which
residents will have the opportunity to voice any concerns about
the agreement -- before it's final.

When they filed last year, plaintiffs demanded that the housing
authority reevaluate its utility allowance and establish a new
policy, and they wanted each tenant to be reimbursed for all
overcharges since 2003.

According to Legal Aid attorney Brenda Castaneda, the settlement
is worth nearly $500,000 in cash and relief to tenants.  The
proposed agreement states that $95,400 will be distributed among
tenants who paid utilities to the CRHA from June 2, 2007 through
May 31, 2013, and another $6,000 will be divided among renters
whose utility charges were below their annual utility allowance.
According to Castaneda, everybody who was overcharged will get
back 33 percent of what they paid since June 2007.  Current public
housing residents will also receive a $15 per month credit on
their accounts for 36 months, and $5 per month for an additional
two years.

CRHA Executive Director Connie Dunn said most of the payback money
will come from the housing authority's insurance company, and the
remaining $60,000 will be pulled from its reserve fund.  She also
noted that the monthly credits will only benefit families who
remain under their utility allowances, and that monthly rates have
gone up.

Ms. Dunn said she's glad they were all able to come to an
agreement, but she's not convinced that the impact will be
staggering.

"I don't think the average tenant is going to see much of a
difference," Ms. Dunn said.

The plaintiffs didn't get everything they asked for, but they've
left a legacy for future tenants.  CRHA conducted a new utility
allowance study shortly after the suit was filed last year, and
Ms. Castaneda said residents will start receiving checks in the
mail early next year.

The settlement was four months in the making.  Ms. Castaneda said
she's glad the two parties were able to come to an agreement
through mediation, but she hopes it won't have to come to that
again.

"We'd like to be able to get along, and the tenants would like to
feel like the CRHA is going to be more responsive to their
concerns," Ms. Castaneda said.  "I hope that in the future we can
resolve things without going through litigation to do it."


COMPASS HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Matei Geanta, individually and on behalf of all the classes and
aggrieved employees v. Compass Health, Inc., a California
Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:13-cv-07416-DSF-PLA
(C.D. Calif., October 7, 2013) accuses the Defendants of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

During their employment with Compass Health, Mr. Geanta says he
and other nonexempt employees received various forms of non-
discretionary incentive pay, including yearly safety bonuses and
"Holiday" bonuses, which functioned as forms of pay that are not
excludable under California Law and the FLSA when calculating an
employee's regular rate.  He alleges that Compass Health regularly
and systematically, as a policy and practice, miscalculated the
overtime rate of pay by failing to properly include the various
forms of Incentive Pay paid to its employees in calculating the
employee's regular rate of pay.  Rather, he contends, employees
were only paid one and a half times their base rate of pay, which
was less than the properly calculated regular rate of pay.

Mr. Geanta is a resident of Santa Barbara County, California.  He
was employed by the Defendants as an hourly non-exempt employee.

Compass Health is a California corporation licensed to do business
in California.  During the four years preceding the filing of the
Complaint and continuing to the present, the Defendants did (and
do) business by operating several skilled nursing and assisted
living facilities and employed the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated hourly non-exempt employees within San Luis Obispo and
Santa Barbara Counties, California, and elsewhere within the
United States.  The Plaintiff does not presently know the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Holmes, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (213) 599-8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com
                  JeffHolmesJH@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883-4900
          Facsimile: (818) 882-4902
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com


CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Court Narrows Claims in "Wilson" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The matter IN RE PAULSBORO DERAILMENT CASES is before the Court on
the motion of Defendants Consolidated Rail Corporation, Norfolk
Southern Railway Company, and CSX Transportation to dismiss counts
I, II, III, and VI of the six-count Second Consolidated Class
Action Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

The case stems from the incident that happened on the morning of
November 30, 2012, when a freight train derailed and plunged into
the Mantua Creek in Paulsboro, Gloucester County, New Jersey when
the Paulsboro Bridge, a railroad bridge spanning the creek,
buckled and collapsed.  Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that
Defendants acted negligently and recklessly in their operation of
the freight train and maintenance of the bridge.

District Judge Robert B. Kugler denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss is as to Count I, and granted the Motion as to Counts II,
III, and VI, which will be dismissed with prejudice.

The case is IN RE PAULSBORO DERAILMENT CASES DONALD WILSON, et
al., Plaintiffs.
v.
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
OWEN HAYNES, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs,
v.
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
JOHN STEPHENSON AND TRACY LEE, IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS, SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs
v.
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
DONALD WILSON, D/B/A DON'S BARBERSHOP Plaintiff,
v.
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL NOS.
13-784 (RBK/KMW), 12-7586 (RBK/KMW), 13-410 (RBK/KMW), 13-721
(RBK/KMW), 13-761 (RBK/KMW), (D. N.J.).

A copy of the District Court's October 4, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/toryU2from Leagle.com.


CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Negligence Claim Survives in Pollicino Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHLEEN POLLICINO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, DOCKET NO.
13-784 (RBK/KMW), CIVIL NO. 12-7648 (RBK/KMW), (D. N.J.), the
matter of POLLICINO v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION is before the
Court on the motion of Consolidated Rail Corporation, Norfolk
Southern Railway Company, and CSX Transportation to dismiss counts
I, II, and III of the putative class-action complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

District Judge Robert B. Kugler granted the Defendants' motion as
to the counts for res ipsa loquitor and trespass, and denied as to
the count for negligence.

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


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Ruling Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit against Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is pending with the
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007 through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company. The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to
disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
Company's business and prospects during the putative class period,
causing the Company's common stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices at the time when plaintiffs purchased their stock.
The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Massimino, Waller,
Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other relief.

On October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint
captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was
filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The Totten
complaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint.
Several other plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit and petitioned
the Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs.

On March 30, 2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement
System and Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead
plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for
lead plaintiffs, in the consolidated action. Lead plaintiffs
thereafter filed a second amended consolidated complaint, and the
Company moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint. On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend.

On February 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint in U.S. District Court, and, on March 30, 2012 the
Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On August 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's
and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice.
The plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Company will continue to defend
itself and its current and former officers vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend Erickson Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
putative class action complaint captioned Frank Erickson,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., in New York, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

On June 20, 2013, a putative class action complaint captioned
Frank Erickson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from August 23, 2011
through June 10, 2013, against the Company and Jack Massimino,
Robert Owen and Kenneth Ord, all of whom are officers of the
Company. The complaint alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects during
the putative class period, causing the Company's common stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices at the time when plaintiff
purchased his stock. The plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other
relief on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons. The
Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself and its officers and directors against
these allegations.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend Rivera Suit in AAA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
putative class action demand in arbitration captioned Rivera v.
Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian Colleges, Inc., filed with
the American Arbitration Association, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association. The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus. The
arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional
deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus. The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement
is not susceptible to class-wide resolution.

On November 22, 2011, a California state court judge refused to
confirm the arbitrator's clause construction decision and remanded
the matter to the arbitrator for further consideration. The
Company has appealed the state court order. The Company believes
the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself against these allegations.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues Settlement Talks With Students
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to discuss potential
settlement agreements related to student litigation and move to
compel these cases into arbitration, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Corinthian Schools,
Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Plaintiffs were
thirty-three individuals who purport to be current and/or former
students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program at the Everest
College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois. The complaint
alleged breach of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust enrichment,
all related to alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations
regarding the Company's medical assisting program at the
Merrionette Park campus. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class
composed of all persons who enrolled in the Company's Medical
Assisting program at the Everest College Merrionette Park campus
during the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit, and
sought actual and compensatory damages on behalf of such persons,
costs and attorneys' fees, punitive damages, disgorgement and
restitution of wrongful profits, revenue and benefits to the
extent deemed appropriate by the court, and such other relief as
the court deemed proper. The Company removed the case to federal
court and moved to compel individual arbitrations, which the court
granted. Thirty-two plaintiffs filed individual demands in
arbitration, and individual arbitration hearings commenced during
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company and the plaintiffs agreed to hold the hearings in
abeyance to engage in settlement discussions, which were
unsuccessful. These matters are now again being scheduled for
individual arbitrations, although the Company and plaintiffs are
still discussing potential settlement agreements in amounts that
would not be material to the Company's results of operations and
financial condition. The Company continues to believe these
matters are without merit and, if reasonable settlements cannot be
reached, will continue to defend itself vigorously.

During fiscal 2011, the Company experienced an unprecedented
increase in putative class action lawsuits by former students. In
many of these cases, the plaintiffs and their counsel sought to
represent a class of "similarly situated" people as defined in the
complaint. The Company believes these lawsuits are largely the
result of negative publicity and aggressive lawyer recruitment of
potential clients surrounding the Department of Education's
("ED's") rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings,
the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, and other
related matters that occurred during that time period. Most of the
cases filed during that time have since been dismissed. In
virtually all of the following remaining cases, the plaintiffs
cite testimony from the HELP Committee hearings, the GAO report,
public statements by elected officials and/or other negative media
coverage in their complaints, although the locations of the
students, the specific allegations, and the nature of their claims
differ. The Company believes all of the following complaints are
contractually required to be resolved in individual arbitrations
between the named students and the Company, and the Company has
moved to compel these cases to arbitration.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Court to Hold Dec. 3 Argument in OLERS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation is expected to present its
argument on December 3, 2013, regarding its anticipated
supplemental motion to dismiss a shareholder derivative class
action captioned Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v.
Todd S. Nelson, et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et
al. was filed against the directors of the Company in state court
located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Company is named as a nominal
defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders
due to the Company's violation of the U.S. Department of
Education's prohibition on paying incentive compensation to
admissions representatives, engaging in improper recruiting
tactics in violation of Title IV of the HEA and accrediting agency
standards, falsification of job placement data for graduates of
its schools and failure to satisfy the U.S. Department of
Education's financial responsibility standards. The Company
previously received two demand letters from the plaintiff which
were investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board
of Directors and found to be without merit.

The Company and director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. In response, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making substantially the
same allegations as the initial complaint on September 27, 2012.
The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on October 17, 2012.

On July 16, 2013, the Court dismissed the claims that the Company
engaged in improper recruiting tactics and mismanaged the
Company's financial well-being with prejudice. The Court also
found that the Special Litigation Committee could conduct a
supplemental investigation on the plaintiff's claims related to
incentive compensation paid to admissions representatives and
graduate placement statistics. The Court gave the Special
Litigation Committee 90 days to submit a supplemental report with
its analysis, at which time the defendants can renew their motion
to dismiss the remaining claims. The Court tentatively set
argument on the defendants' anticipated supplemental motion to
dismiss for December 3, 2013.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Bushansky Suit Stayed by Ruling in OLERS
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et
al., where Education Management Corporation is named as a nominal
defendant has been stayed by a ruling in another class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013.

On August 3, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed against
certain of the directors of the Company in federal district court
in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Company is named as a
nominal defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's
shareholders due to the Company's use of improper recruiting,
enrollment admission and financial aid practices and violation of
the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on the payment of
incentive compensation to admissions representatives. The Company
previously received a demand letter from the plaintiff which was
investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of
Directors and found to be without merit. The Company believes that
the claims set forth in the complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself.

The Company and the named director defendants filed a motion to
stay the litigation pending the resolution of the Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System shareholder derivative case or,
alternatively, dismiss the case on October 19, 2012.

On August 5, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay
the case in light of the ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss
the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System case.


GOLD'S GYM: Lay/Lane Collective Actions Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David Ezra issued an order granting, in part, and
denying, in part, motions to conditionally certify collective
actions in:

PAMELA R. LAY, BRIAN DUCOTE, RYAN JETER, ALYSSA JAYNES, MARCUS
DEVANE, AND SIMON SUAREZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
GOLD'S GYM INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants.
LAWRENCE J. LANE, MACARIO ESCAMILLA, III, and SIMON SUAREZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOLD'S GYM INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CV. NOS. SA-
12-CV-754-DAE, SA-12-CV-930-DAE, (W.D. Tex.).

Plaintiffs in the Lay and Lane actions asked the Court to
conditionally certify a nationwide class of more than 800 Fitness
Consultants and 120 Sales Managers. The Lay Plaintiffs are former
Fitness Consultants of Gold's Gym and the Lane Plaintiffs are
former Sales Managers of Gold's Gym. In both actions, plaintiffs
bring two separate claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
which they seek damages.  First, they allege that Gold's Gym
violated the FLSA by failing to include commissions and bonuses in
their regular rates of pay for purposes of calculating overtime
compensation (the Rate Claim). Second, they aver that Gold's Gym
did not compensate them for all overtime hours worked (the Off-
The-Clock Claim). Gold's Gym does not oppose the Lay and Lane
Plaintiffs' motions to conditionally certify collective actions
with respect to the Rate Claims. However, Gold's Gym opposes the
conditional certification of classes with respect to the Off-The-
Clock Claims.

The Court conditionally certified a national class with respect to
the Lay and Lane Plaintiffs' Rate Claims and a regional class with
respect to the Lay and Lane Plaintiffs' Off-The-Clock Claims.

The Court ordered the parties to confer regarding the content of
the notices to be sent to the conditionally certified classes. The
parties are further ordered to notify the Court within 14 days of
the entry of the Order of any disputes regarding the content of
the class notices.

A copy of the District Court's October 4, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/qgaDM9 from Leagle.com.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Forced to Reveal Discrimination Complaints By Women
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Oct. 15 resolved a hotly-contested discovery dispute in a sex
discrimination class action, ordering Goldman Sachs to turn over
to Plaintiffs' counsel internal complaints made by female
employees in the firm's four revenue-generating divisions.  The
class action alleges that Goldman Sachs has engaged in a pattern
and practice of sex discrimination with respect to the
compensation and performance evaluations of female Associates and
Vice Presidents, and with respect to the promotions of female Vice
Presidents.

Goldman Sachs has resisted disclosing internal complaints since
such information was first requested almost three years ago by
attorneys leading the class action.  The lawsuit, Chen-Oster et
al. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., 10-cv-6950 (S.D.N.Y.) was
filed on September 16, 2010.

United States Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV.

For further information please contact Kelly M. Dermody at Lieff
Cabraser at 415-956-1000 or kdermody@lchb.com or Adam T. Klein at
Outten & Golden at 212-245-1000 or atk@outtengolden.com


JC PENNEY: Jury Trial Requested in Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that a JCPenney stock holder has filed a securities class action
suit alleging that the company concealed vital information from
investors in order to keep stock prices at artificially inflated
prices.

Alan B. Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed suit against J.C. Penney Co. Inc., Myrone E.
Ullman III and Kenneth H. Hannah on Oct. 1 in the Eastern District
of Texas, Tyler Division.

Mr. Marcus filed the lawsuit on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of JCPenney between Aug. 20 and
Sept. 26.

The claims are made against JCPenney and certain officers who
allegedly made "false and misleading statements" in press
releases, analyst conference calls and filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit claims that the false statements resulted in
JCPenney's stock trading at artificially inflated prices during
the class period, reaching a high of $14.47 per share on Sept. 9.

On Sept. 27, JCPenney issued a press release which resulted in
stock prices plummeting to $9.05 per share.

The defendants are accused of concealing from the investing public
that the company would have insufficient liquidity to get through
year-end and would require additional investments to make it
through the holiday season.  The company is also accused of
concealing its need for liquidity so as not to add to its vendors'
concerns.

The defendant is accused of making false statements, failing to
disclose adverse facts, deceiving the investing public,
artificially inflating the price of JCPenney common stock, causing
class members to purchase the stock at inflated prices and
permitting one of JCPenney's largest shareholders to sell 39.07
million shares of its stock at artificially inflated prices for
proceeds of over $504 million.

Mr. Marcus is represented by David C. Whelton and Darren J.
Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP in San Diego, Calif.; Samuel H. Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
-- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in Melville, N.Y.; and T.
John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in
Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge K. Nicole Mitchell is assigned to the case.

Case No. 6:13-cv-00736


JETRO HOLDINGS: Removes Employees' Suit to Calif. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xavier Arevalo and Nathan Wolfe, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Jetro Holdings, L.L.C., a
Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, dba Restaurant Depot, Case
No. RG 13694074 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., September 3, 2013)
accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code and
the California Business & Professions Code.

The Plaintiffs sue the Defendants for failure to (i) reimburse for
business expense, (ii) pay overtime compensation, and (iii)
provide off-duty meal or pay premium compensation for missed meal
periods.

The Company removed the lawsuit on October 5, 2013, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
diversity of citizenship exists among the parties.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:13-cv-04645-JSC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julian Ari Hammond, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, PC
          1180 S. Beverly Dr., Suite 601
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2835
          E-mail: hammond.julian@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cheryl A. Sabnis, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 318-1200
          Facsimile: (415) 318-1300
          E-mail: csabnis@kslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Aveeno Sunscreen Products-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Langan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No.
3:13-cv-01470-JBA (D. Conn., October 7, 2013) is a class action
lawsuit concerning the Company's Aveeno(R) Brand Natural
Protection Sunscreen Products (the "Products"): Aveeno(R) Baby
Brand Natural Protection Lotion Sunscreen with Broad Spectrum SPF
30 and SPF 50; and Aveeno(R) Brand Natural Protection Lotion
Sunscreen with Broad Spectrum SPF 30 and SPF 50 (together, the
"Lotion Sunscreen Products"); and Aveeno(R) Baby Brand Natural
Protection Face Stick with Broad Spectrum SPF 50 and SPF 50+ (the
"Bar Sunscreen Products").

The action seeks to remedy the unfair and deceptive business
practices arising from the marketing and sale of the Products as
"Natural," Ms. Langan says.  She notes that asserts that the
Products' Principal Display Panels state that the Products contain
"100% naturally-sourced sunscreen ingredients" that provide
"natural protection."  However, she contends, these statements are
false and misleading to a reasonable consumer because the Products
contain synthetic unnatural, synthetic ingredients.

Ms. Langan is a resident of Trumbull, Connecticut, and an
individual consumer.  She purchased two containers of Aveeno(R)
Baby Brand Natural Protection Sunscreen Lotion with Broad Spectrum
SPF 30 at Stop and Shop in Trumbull, and Toys "R" Us in Milford,
Connecticut, for her five-year old son.

Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation headquartered in
Skillman, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Nobe, Esq.
          Nicole A. Veno, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6190
          E-mail: mkindall@izardnobel.com
                  jnobel@izardnobel.com
                  nveno@izardnobel.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Laux, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. LAUX
          8 Myrtle Avenue
          Westport, CT 06880
          Telephone: (203) 226-3392
          Facsimile: (203) 222-8023
          E-mail: mlaux@lauxlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Aveeno Products' "Natural" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Langan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No.
3:13-cv-01471-RNC (D. Conn., October 7, 2013) is a class action
lawsuit concerning Johnson & Johnson's Aveeno(R) Baby Brand
natural skin care solution for babies: Aveeno(R) Baby Brand Wash
and Shampoo and Aveeno(R) Baby Brand Calming Comfort Bath baby
wash (the "Products").

The lawsuit seeks to remedy the unfair and deceptive business
practices arising from the marketing and sale of the Products as
"Natural," Ms. Langan asserts.  She contends that this
representation is false and misleading to a reasonable consumer
because the Products are not made pursuant to a natural formula as
they contain synthetic ingredients, including Cocomidopropyl
Betaine, a synthetic surfactant used to boost foaming and control
viscosity; Coco Glucoside, a synthetic surfactant; Di-PPG-2
Myreth-10 Adipate, a synthetic surfactant; and Disodium
Lauroamphodiacetate, a synthetic foam booster.

Ms. Langan is a resident of Trumbull, Connecticut.  She purchased
four Aveeno(R) Baby Brand Calming Comfort Bath products at Stop
and Shop in Trumbull and at Toys "R" Us in Milford, Connecticut,
for her five-year old son.  She contends that she relied on the
representation that the Products were made pursuant to a "Natural
Oat Formula" and consisted entirely of natural ingredients, and
paid a premium for the Products over comparable baby wash products
that do not purport to consist entirely of natural ingredients.

Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation headquartered in
Skillman, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
          Nicole A. Veno, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6190
          E-mail: mkindall@izardnobel.com
                  jnobel@izardnobel.com
                  nveno@izardnobel.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Laux, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. LAUX
          8 Myrtle Avenue
          Westport, CT 06880
          Telephone: (203) 226-3392
          Facsimile: (203) 222-8023
          E-mail: mlaux@lauxlaw.com


LIVINGSTON FINANCIAL: Court Denies Approval of Rigney Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith denied a joint motion for
approval of a class action settlement in SONJA L. RIGNEY,
Plaintiff, v. LIVINGSTON FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO.
6:12-CV-617-ORL-37TBS, (M.D. Fla.).

According to Judge Smith, the motion does not include a memorandum
of law in violation of M.D. Fla. Local Rule 3.01(a).  Second, the
parties have not provided any evidence to support their contention
that the proposed class should be certified pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  Third, the parties have not
explicitly addressed the issues of class counsel and class
representatives.  Fourth, the parties have failed to offer any
evidence or analysis to cause the Court to believe their proposed
settlement is fair and reasonable.

"Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice," he says.

A copy of the District Court's October 4, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/WNhB1rfrom Leagle.com.


PILOT FLYING J: FST Express Opts Out of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Mill Times reports that FST Express has filed a lawsuit
against Pilot Flying J arising out of the FBI's investigation into
a fraudulent rebate scheme.  FST is one of several trucking
companies that has chosen to "opt out" of a class action
settlement that has received preliminary approval by a federal
judge in Arkansas.  Pilot Flying J customers have until October
15, 2013 to "opt out" of the proposed settlement.  If they do not
opt out by that date, they will automatically be included in the
class action settlement.

"FST Express has opted out of the proposed settlement because
there are serious questions about whether the settlement provides
a sufficient benefit to Pilot Flying J's customers who have been
harmed by the rebate scheme," said Shawn J. Organ, FST's attorney.
"Unfortunately, under the settlement agreement trucking companies
will not learn whether they have received a fair settlement until
after the opt-out deadline.  But by then it will be too late for
those companies to get out of the settlement and pursue their own
lawsuits."

According to Mr. Organ, Pilot Flying J pushed for a settlement
before all the facts are known.  "The FBI investigation is still
ongoing," Mr. Organ notes.  "Federal investigators are still
uncovering details about how widespread the fraud was.  Although
Pilot certainly benefits from a quick settlement, we have serious
concerns whether such a hasty deal is good for the victims of
Pilot's fraud."

The FBI and the IRS raided Pilot's headquarters on April 15, 2013,
after receiving a tip that Pilot was engaging in massive fraud
against its customers.  All indications are that the investigation
will continue for some time.  Several Pilot employees have pleaded
guilty and are awaiting sentencing in federal court.  Eventually,
evidence from the seized documents and hard-drives will be
revealed.

According to Mr. Organ, FST's lawsuit is just the first of many he
will be filing over the next several weeks.  "Many trucking
companies that have serious doubts about the settlement have
contacted us to help them opt out of the settlement and pursue
their individual claims against Pilot.  We plan to vigorously
pursue their claims."

Any reporter or trucking company that would like to learn more may
contact Shawn J. Organ at 614-481-0900.


QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Law Firm to Lodge Flood Suit This Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran Banks, writing for Ipswich Queensland Times, reports that
the $1 billion class action lawsuit to be filed against the state
by 2011 flood victims is expected to be lodged before the end of
the year.

Law firm Maurice and Blackburn, with financial backing from IMF
Australia, is confident the lawsuit will go ahead, more than 18
months since plans for the class action were announced.

Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini said flood data
collected from city councils is currently being analyzed by
American hydrology experts who are finalizing their findings.

Mr. Scattini said the law firm was erring on the side of caution,
ensuring the lawsuit is rock solid when presented to the state.

"We are well on track in finalizing the statement of claim.

"They are just checking and re-checking, because there is a huge
amount of area.  There is 340km of Brisbane River alone," he said.

"It's all going very well.  We are extremely confident it is going
to proceed.

"We expect to have something in place by the end of the year."

He said around 5000 residents from Brisbane and Ipswich have
signed up to the lawsuit, but he expects that number to increase
once the case is finalized.

"There is obviously a lot of interest in the case because it has
affected so many people and caused so much damage," he said.

"We gathered a lot of data from the councils and elsewhere and we
have provided it to the experts and they are finalizing there
report." It is expected more public meetings will be held in
Ipswich before the end of the year to update residents about the
law suit's progression.

Around 200 flood victims attended a public meeting at the Ipswich
Showgrounds in March last year.

The emotional meeting attracted many people believing it may be
their last chance to recoup financial losses from the insurance
policies.

In January Maurice Blackburn released a detailed flood map,
showing the areas which they believe would have avoided the rising
flood waters from Wivenhoe Dam.


SKECHERS USA: Parties in "Angell" Suit Negotiate Settlement Terms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit titled Jason Angell v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers
U.S.A. Canada, Inc., are currently negotiating the terms of a
settlement agreement, 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 April 12, 2012, Jason Angell filed a motion to authorize the
bringing of a class action in the Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal.  Petitioner Angell seeks to bring a class
action on behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the
alternative, all residents of Quebec) who purchased Skechers
Shape-ups footwear.  Petitioner's motion alleges that the Company
has marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and misleading
advertisements and representations about the products' ability to
provide health benefits to users.  The motion requests the Court's
authorization to institute a class action seeking damages
(including damages for bodily injury), punitive damages, and
injunctive relief.  Petitioner's motion was formally presented to
the Court on June 29, 2012.  At a mediation held on February 28,
2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Angell action (as well as the Niras and Dedato actions) through
authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide
settlement class.  The parties are currently negotiating the terms
of the settlement agreement.

If the motion for approval of the class action settlement is
denied or approval is reversed on appeal, the Company says it
cannot predict the outcome of the Angell action or a reasonable
range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the Angell
action would have a material adverse impact on the Company's
results of operations or financial position in excess of the
settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Parties in "Dedato" Suit Negotiate Terms of Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit styled Frank Dedato v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc., are
currently negotiating the terms of a settlement agreement,
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 or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato filed a Statement of
Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone-ups or
Resistance Runner footwear.  The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its
footwear products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users.
The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief.  Skechers has not yet responded to
the Statement of Claim.  At a mediation held on February 28, 2013,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Dedato
action (as well as the Angell and Niras actions) through
authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide
settlement class.  The parties are currently negotiating the terms
of the settlement agreement.  It is anticipated that the agreement
will provide for the voluntary discontinuance (dismissal) of the
Dedato action upon approval of the settlement by the Quebec
Superior Court.  If the motion for approval of the class action
settlement is denied or approval is reversed on appeal, the
Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the Dedato action or
a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of
the Dedato action would have a material adverse impact on the
Company's results of operations or financial position in excess of
the settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Parties in "Lovston" Suit Yet to File Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit filed by Terena Lovston
have yet to file for court approval their settlement agreement,
according to SKECHERS USA, 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 May 13, 2011, Terena Lovston filed a lawsuit against the
Company in the Circuit Court in Lonoke County, Arkansas, Terena
Lovston v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. CV-11-321.  The
complaint alleges, on her behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for its toning
footwear products violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, and is resulting in unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks
certification of a statewide class and compensatory damages.  On
June 3, 2011, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, where it was
pending as Terena Lovston v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 4:11-cv-0460.
On August 5, 2011, the District Court issued an order staying the
case pending completion of the appellate process in the Tomlinson
action.  On July 12, 2012, the district court ordered the Lovston
case remanded to Arkansas state court, and on or about July 26,
2012, the plaintiff filed a renewed motion in the State Circuit
Court for certification of a class of Arkansas residents who
purchased the Company's toning footwear products.  On August 10,
2012, the Circuit Court issued an order staying the Lovston case
in light of the class action settlement in the Grabowski/Moraga
actions.  On November 8, 2012, as allowed under the Circuit
Court's stay order, the plaintiff gave notice that she intended to
lift the stay and to proceed with the action by an amended
complaint.

On November 27, 2012, an amended complaint was filed in which Ms.
Lovston abandoned her class action allegations, asserted a new
personal injury claim, and added eight new plaintiffs with
personal injury claims.  On December 20, 2012, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the new plaintiffs' claims for improper venue,
to strike the amended complaint, or to sever and transfer the new
plaintiffs' claims to their home counties in Arkansas.  On
February 11, 2013, the state Circuit Court took that motion and
several discovery motions under submission and ordered the parties
to mediation.  On or about May 17, 2013, the parties reached a
settlement in principle that is expected to finally resolve this
matter.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Parties in "Niras" Suit Negotiate Settlement Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
SKECHERS USA, Inc., 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 the parties in the class action
lawsuit filed by George Niras are currently negotiating the terms
of a settlement agreement.

On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents
of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Resistance Runner, Shape-ups
Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups.  The lawsuit is captioned George
Niras v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, and
Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.  The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers marketed these toning shoes through the use of false and
misleading advertisements and representations about the products'
ability to provide health benefits to users.  The Statement seeks
damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
Skechers has not yet responded to the Statement.  At a mediation
held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Niras action (as well as the Angell action
and the Dedato action) through authorization by the Quebec
Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class.  The parties are
currently negotiating the terms of the settlement agreement.  It
is anticipated that the agreement will provide for the voluntary
discontinuance (dismissal) of the Niras action upon approval of
the settlement by the Quebec Superior Court.  If the motion for
approval of the class action settlement is denied or approval is
reversed on appeal, the Company says it cannot predict the outcome
of the Niras action or a reasonable range of potential losses or
whether the outcome of the Niras action would have a material
adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or financial
position in excess of the settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: "Sayles" Wage and Hour Suit Still Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The wage and hour class action lawsuit brought by Roneshia Sayles
remains pending in California, according to SKECHERS USA, 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 October 2, 2012, Roneshia Sayles filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Roneshia Sayles v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. BC473067.  The complaint involves
a wage and hour claim, alleging violations of the California Labor
Code, including unpaid time for certain breaks and when retail
employees' bags are checked upon leaving the store at the ends of
their shifts.  The complaint seeks actual, consequential and
incidental losses and damages; general and special damages; civil,
statutory and waiting time penalties; restitution of unpaid wages;
injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; pre-judgment
interest on unpaid compensation.  On September 25, 2012, the Court
issued an order staying the action until an initial status
conference that was held on December 19, 2012.  While it is too
early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable
range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have
a material adverse impact on its results of operations or
financial position, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses, vehemently denies the allegations, and intends to defend
the case vigorously.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Time to Appeal "Grabowski" Suit Deal Has Expired
--------------------------------------------------------------
The time for any appeals from the approval of a nationwide
consumer settlement in the class action lawsuit filed by Tamara
Grabowski has expired, according to SKECHERS USA, 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 June 18, 2010, Tamara Grabowski filed an action against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 10 CV 1300 JM (MDD), on her
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated.  The
complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that the Company's
advertising for Shape-ups violates California's Unfair Competition
Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
constitutes a breach of express warranty (the "Grabowski action").
The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, damages,
restitution and disgorgement of profits, declaratory and
injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  On March 7, 2011, the Court stayed the action on the
ground that the outcomes in pending appeals in two unrelated
actions will significantly affect whether a class should be
certified.  On April 16, 2012, this action was transferred to the
multidistrict litigation proceeding pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, entitled In
re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
2308.  On May 15, 2012, as part of the global settlement that also
resolved inquiries by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC")
and the states' Attorneys General, the parties entered into a
Settlement Agreement in this action and the Morga v. Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. action.  On May 13, 2013, the Court entered an order
finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement,
and the time for any appeals therefrom has expired.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Time to Appeal "Morga" Suit Settlement Has Expired
----------------------------------------------------------------
The time to appeal from the approval of a nationwide consumer
settlement in the class action lawsuit commenced by Venus Morga
has expired, according to SKECHERS USA, 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 August 25, 2010, Venus Morga filed an action against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, Venus Morga v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case
No. 10 CV 1780 JM (MDD), on her behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.  The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups violates
California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and constitutes a breach of express warranty.
The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, damages,
restitution and disgorgement of profits, declaratory and
injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  On March 7, 2011, the Court stayed the action on the
ground that the outcomes in pending appeals in two unrelated
actions will significantly affect whether a class should be
certified.  On April 16, 2012, this action was transferred to the
multidistrict litigation proceeding pending in the Western
District of Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308.  On May 15, 2012, as part of
the global settlement that also resolved inquiries by the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the states' Attorneys
General, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement in this
action and the Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. action.  On
May 13, 2013, the Court entered an order finally approving the
nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for any
appeals therefrom has expired.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Angell Settlement Expected to Resolve "Davies" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the Angell, Niras and Dedato class actions is
expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by Brenda
Davies, according to SKECHERS USA, 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 September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a Statement of Claim in
the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear,
Brenda Davies v. Skechers U.S.A, Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II,
and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.  The Statement of Claim alleges
that Skechers marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and
misleading advertisements and representations about the products'
ability to provide fitness benefits to users.  The Statement of
Claim seeks damages (including damages for bodily injury),
restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.  Skechers
has not yet responded to the Statement of Claim.  The settlement
in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions, if finally
approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event an
appeal is taken, is expected entirely to resolve the class claims
brought by the plaintiff in Davies.  If the motion for approval of
the class action settlement is denied or approval is reversed on
appeal, the Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the
Davies action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether
the outcome of the Davies action would have a material adverse
impact on the Company's results of operations or financial
position in excess of the settlement.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


TOWER GROUP: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on Oct. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who
purchased Tower Group International, Ltd. common stock during the
period between May 10, 2011 and September 17, 2013, inclusive.

For more information regarding this class action suit, please
contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-
free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or
visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/twgp

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Defendants were improperly
accounting for the Company's loss reserves, good will and tax
accounts; (b) the Defendants lacked the necessary internal
controls over financial reporting; (c) consequently, the Company's
financial statements were deficient and misleading at relevant
times; and (d) based upon the above, the Defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company
during the Class Period.

On August 7, 2013, Tower announced that the Company was postponing
its release of its financial results for the second quarter of
2013.  The Company stated that its management concluded that
"additional time [was] needed to review matters relating to the
estimate of its loss reserves and, primarily due to the
integration of the Canopius merger, its allocation of goodwill and
certain tax accounts."  On August 8, 2013, the Company announced
guidance with respect to its second quarter 2013 financial
results.  The Company retained an independent actuarial firm to
review selected areas of Tower's loss reserves as of June 30,
2013.  The information included how the Company could potentially
record adverse reverse development of $60 million to $110 million
pre-tax.

Following this news, the price of Tower's shares plummeted $5.20
per share, or more than 24%, to a closing price of $16.41 per
share on August 8, 2013.

On September 17, 2013, Tower announced that it planned to release
its second quarter 2013 financial results during the week of
October 7, 2013.  Tower reaffirmed that it was not providing and
did not expect to provide any information with respect to its
results for the second quarter, including the amount of any
adjustments for its estimates of loss reserves and amounts of
goodwill, until it releases its earnings for the second quarter
during the week of October 7, 2013.

Based on this news, the Company's stock price dropped from a close
of $13.86 on September 17, 2013, to a close of $9.99 per share on
September 18, 2013 -- a decline of $3.875 per share or almost 28%,
on unusually high trading volume.  The stock has continued to
decrease, as investors continue to digest this disheartening news.
On September 20, 2013 the Company's stock price closed at $9.14
per share and on September 23, 2013 at $8.63 per share.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
October 21, 2013, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."
Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact Ryan &
Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877)
316-3218 or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit:
http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/twgp

For more information about class action cases in general or to
learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website:
http://www.rmclasslaw.com

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.


U.S. AUTO: Court Denies Bid to Decertify FLSA Claim in Rikard Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LATEASE RIKARD, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. U.S. AUTO PROTECTION, LLC, et
al., Defendant(s), CASE NO. 4:11CV1580 JCH, (E.D. Mo.), District
Judge Jean C. denied Defendants' Motion to Decertify Plaintiff's
FLSA Claim as a Collective Action, and denied as moot, Plaintiffs'
Motion to Strike Billy Held's Deposition Testimony.

Plaintiffs allege sales representatives frequently worked in
excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, as they often were
required to work before and/or after their designated shifts,
through some lunch periods, and on certain Saturdays.  Plaintiffs
assert Defendants refused to pay the proper overtime pay of one-
and-a-half times the regular hourly rate of pay for this excess
work, and that this deliberate failure on the parts of Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Missouri law.
Based on this alleged wrongdoing, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint
on April 20, 2012, asserting claims for violations of the FLSA
(Count I) and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (Count II), and unjust
enrichment (Count III).

A copy of the District Court's October 4, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/WXcp2wfrom Leagle.com.


UNITED NATIONS: May Face Class Action Over Haiti Cholera Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Russell Lee, writing for Inner City Press, reports that
after the UN brought cholera to Haiti which has killed over 8,000
people, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the legal claims
of those killed were "not receivable," now the UN was slated to be
sued on Oct., 9, in a class action, in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

This news was ostensibly under embargo until midnight between
October 8 and 9.

The plaintiff's attorneys told Inner City Press, during the
embargo period, that the causes of action include negligence,
gross negligence/recklessness, wrongful death, negligent
supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, private nuisance,
public nuisance, and breach of contract.

The contract breached is the UN's Status of Forces Agreement or
SOFA.

The UN has continued to preach about the rule of law and about
accountability, even as it has refused to even apologize for
bringing cholera to Haiti.  It has demanded that its other
reports, for example on chemical weapons in Syria, be taken
seriously even after it issued and defended a bogus report
exonerating itself for having brought cholera to Haiti.

Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the head of UN Peacekeeping,
Herve Ladsous, if any improvements have been made to DPKO's
practices; he has refused to answer.

After even Haitian Prime Minister Lamonthe said the UN bears
"moral responsibility for cholera in his country, Inner City Press
asked the UN about it, twice.

And now, the class action lawsuit.  There will be more.


UNITED STATES: KVSP Prisoner's Bid to Appoint Counsel Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng denied without prejudice
plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel in the case
captioned GEORGE HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant, CASE
NO. 1:13-CV-01462-AWI-MJS (PC), (E.D. Calif.).

This action was opened in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on July 18, 2013 based upon
Plaintiff's letter to the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson alleging
that prison staff at Kern Valley State Prison have participated in
a "pattern of racketeering activity," which has led to an
"extremely dangerous and stressful prison environment."  On
September 10, 2013, the case was ordered transferred to Eastern
District of California Court.  Plaintiff filed a motion seeking
appointment of counsel on grounds he is pro se, indigent and a
class-action plaintiff.

Judge Seng held that the action is presently construed as an
individual civil suit brought by Plaintiff rather than as a class
action.  "So construed, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional
right to appointed counsel in this action . . . partially
overruled on other grounds . . .  and the Court cannot require an
attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [Section]
1915(e)(1)," says Judge Seng.

A copy of the District Court's October 3, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/AM7Fk8from Leagle.com.


VALID USA: Sued to Recover Unpaid Wages and Statutory Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rocio Martinez, Margarita Villalobos, Alejandro Ramirez, and
Christian Tapia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Valid USA, Inc., Daniel Khouri, Queta Ramirez, Timothy
Hooks, Case No. 1:13-cv-07183 (N.D. Ill., October 7, 2013) is an
action for unpaid wages brought against Valid and the corporate
officers of Valid's predecessor, Unique Mailing Services, Inc.
("UMS").

The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants to recover
unpaid wages, interest, statutory penalties, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs owed to them and other similarly
situated current and former employees.  The Plaintiffs also bring
this action to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
all other relief that the Court deems appropriate.

The Plaintiffs worked for UMS at its Bolingbrook warehouse at
various times between October 8, 2010, and November 30, 2012.
During this time, the Plaintiffs carried out manual tasks
associated with UMS's print advertisement business and were paid
on an hourly basis.  On November 30, 2012, UMS sold its assets to
Valid as part of UMS's Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and Valid continued
operating the Bolingbrook warehouse without interruption.  The
Plaintiffs continued working for Valid at the Bolingbrook
warehouse after the November 30, 2012 asset sale.

Valid is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Illinois.  From
October 8, 2010, until approximately November 30, 2012, Tim Hooks,
Queta Ramirez, and Dan Khouri ("the UMS Defendants") supervised
the work that the Plaintiffs performed at UMS and controlled the
terms and conditions of their employment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Kalman D. Resnick, Esq.
          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580-0100
          E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                  kresnick@hsplegal.com
                  cwilmes@hsplegal.com


WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL: Court Dismisses "Cantley" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL CANTLEY and FLOYD TETER, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf a Class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY AUTHORITY; TERRY L. MILLER, both individually and in his
official capacity as Executive Director of the West Virginia
Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority; JOSEPH A.
DELONG, both individually and in his capacity as Acting Executive
Director of the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional
Facility Authority; and LARRY PARSONS, both individually and in
his official capacity as Executive Director of the West Virginia
Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-0758, (S.D. W. Va.), Chief District Judge
Robert C. Chambers granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants
on Plaintiffs' claims and denied summary judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs. In addition, as Defendants have been awarded summary
judgment on Plaintiffs' individual claims and a class has not been
certified, the Court held that Plaintiffs may not proceed with
this action. Thus, as there are no other matters pending before
the Court, the Court dismissed the case.

A copy of the District Court's October 4, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/XJ9TmEfrom Leagle.com.


XL FOODS: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Beef Recall
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Cormier, writing for The Edmonton Journal, reports that an
Alberta judge has certified to go forward a C$10-million
nationwide class-action lawsuit against the Alberta meat packer at
the centre of a massive beef recall after a 2012 E. coli outbreak.

Court of Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke
certified the class action in a hearing that concluded on Oct. 8.
The decision means those who are suing the company can do so as a
group instead of bringing individual cases to court.

Class counsel Rick Mallett said the action has more than 200
plaintiffs from across Canada and expects that number to rise.

"As more Canadians become aware that the class action is
certified, more will come forward," Mr. Mallett said outside
court.  "It's difficult for an individual to go up against a
corporate entity."

Soon, public notifications and calls for more plaintiffs will
appear in media across Canada.

The class action will include those who believe XL Foods owes them
a refund for tainted meat and those who were made ill and seek
financial compensation.  Individual financial claims haven't yet
been determined.

"We're still working on determining the appropriate levels of
compensation," Mr. Mallett said.

Mr. Mallett doesn't expect the suit to reach the final stage in
court until 2015.

The class-action suit will proceed with the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency as a third-party defendant that could be held
responsible for part of any financial settlement potentially
ordered by the courts.

While XL Foods denies any responsibility for the outbreak that
sickened at least 18 people, the company has argued any possible
liability should at least be shared with the CFIA.

XL Foods claims its operational standards met CFIA guidelines, and
argued that if the meat packer is found liable, then "such
standards were inadequate."  Any XL products that may have posed
harm to the public were negligently inspected by the CFIA and
distributed with its approval, according to the company.

Even if XL Foods is found to have financial responsibility,
Mr. Mallett said, that doesn't necessarily mean the CFIA will as
well.

The CFIA did not return calls for comment on Oct. 8.

The class-action suit states that questionable meat was processed
at the XL Foods facility in Brooks in late August and early
September 2012.  The packing plant was closed for weeks after the
outbreak and the resulting loss of 35 per cent of Canada's beef
processing capacity cost ranchers an estimated $16 million to C$27
million.

In July, an independent panel concluded that the "relaxed
attitude" of CFIA inspectors and XL Foods officials led to the
outbreak.  The report found it was likely clogged nozzles on a
carcass pasteurizer that contaminated meat, but that XL and the
CFIA failed to spot the rise in positive E. coli tests before an
estimated 4,000 tonnes of possibly tainted meat was shipped across
the continent.

The Nilsson Brothers Group bought the Brooks plant in March 2009
from Tyson Foods Inc.  The plant was sold to JBS Canada earlier
this year.

On Oct. 8, Nilsson Brothers, named in the suit alongside XL Foods,
did not return a call for comment.

Statements of claim and defense contain allegations not proven in
court.


                             *********

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  * * *