CAR_Public/131028.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 28, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 213

                             Headlines


99 CENTS: Court Enters Modified Opinion in "Pickett" Suit
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Court Certifies Class of Technical Employees
ACER AMERICA: Judge Slashes Attorneys' Fees in Class Action
AFFINION GROUP: To Pay $30-Mil. in Consumer Refunds and Penalties
AMERICAN HONDA: Agrees to Settle Spark Plug Defect Class Action

APPLE INC: Michael Bromwich Chosen as Monitor in E-Book Case
ATOSSA GENETICS: Issued Misleading Information, Suit Claims
BARBRI: Ninth Circuit to Hear Dispute Over Class Action Legal Fees
BJC HEALTHCARE: Nurses, Medical Personnel File OT Class Action
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Mini Cooper's Transmission Fluid

CIGNA CORP: Judge Says Insurers No Liability in ERISA Class Action
CME GROUP: Continues to Defend MF Global-Related Class Suit
DELTA AIR: "Volodarskiy" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
DOVER & FOX: Loses Bid to Dismiss Debt Collection Class Action
DURAND GLASS: Court Denies Bid to Bar Defendant's Communication

ESTES-COX: Recalls Red Rider and Helios Rockets
FSL MANAGEMENT: Court Tosses Bid to Reconsider Class Cert.
GENERAL MILLS: Plaintiff in Mislabeling Suit May Amend Complaint
GOLD RESOURCE: Plaintiff to Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
HANSEN MEDICAL: Awaits Nov. 21 Hearing on Final OK of Settlement

INFINITOY INC: Recalls Softimals Toy Sets Due to Choking Hazard
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces Suit Over Overtime Fees in California
MARQUETTE, MI: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "LaPlante" Suit v. Jail
MARRIOTT INT'L: Misleads "Kobe Beef" Customers, Suit Claims
MERCEDES-BENZ: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over M272/M273 Engines

MICRO BIRD: Recalls 41 G5 Model School Buses
MONSANTO CO: GMO Wheat Suits Consolidated Into One Case in Kansas
NEW YORK, NY: Suit Over Quota for Summonses Gains Momentum
NTS REALTY: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit in Kentucky
OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Motion for Class Cert. in TCPA Suit Denied

OPTOTRAFFIC: Judge Certifies Speed Camera Class Action
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Awaits Final OK of Shareholder Suit Deal
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Stay "Primo" Suit
PILOT FLYING J: 150 Customers Opt Out of Class Action Settlement
PROLOR BIOTECH: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in Nevada

REMINGTON ARMS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Rifle Defects
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Certain Salad Products
RESERVE PRIMARY FUND: December 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SAKS INC: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action Over Merger
TANGOE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit

TARSADIA HOTELS: Summary Judgment Ruling Entered in "Beaver" Suit
TENDERTYME/1218216: Recalls Small Wonders Pacifiers
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: WLF Urges Court to Rehear Propoxyphene Suit
WINDSOR: Legal Bills Pile Up in Suit Over Bingo Licensing Fees
WORCESTER TELEGRAM: Class Action Delays Boston Globe Sale

ZIONS FIRST: Schwartz Urges Appeals Court to Allow Class Action

* India's Section 245 of Companies Act Introduces Class Actions


                             *********


99 CENTS: Court Enters Modified Opinion in "Pickett" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Five, issued an order modifying an opinion entered in SHELLEY
PICKETT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES,
Defendant and Appellant, NO. B246394, which opinion affirmed the
trial court's order denying the defendant's motion to compel
arbitration.

The Court held that there is no change in judgment but the opinion
filed on October 15, 2013, is modified as follows:

The asterisk next to Judge Kumar's name on his separate
concurring opinion should have a footnote following it that
reads: Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.

Ms. Pickett filed her representative action against defendant
asserting a cause of action under the PAGA for alleged Labor Code
violations and a derivative request for an injunction to prohibit
future violations. She sought penalties on behalf of herself, as
an aggrieved employee, as well as all current and former employees
of the defendant, to address defendant's alleged violations of the
Labor Code, specifically defendant's violations of section 1198
and Wage Order 7-2001, section 14.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 17, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/U89wJJfrom Leagle.com.

Munger, Tolles & Olson, Malcolm A. Heinicke --
Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com -- Katherine M. Forster --
Katherine.Forster@mto.com -- Puneet K. Sandhu --
Puneet.Sandhu@mto.com -- and Esther H. Sung -- Esther.Sung@mto.com
-- for Defendant and Appellant.

Lynch, Gilardi & Grummer, Arif Virji -- avirji@lgglaw.com -- and
Gary M. Ittig -- gittig@lgglaw.com -- for Plaintiff and
Respondent.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Court Certifies Class of Technical Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on Oct. 24 granted
plaintiffs' motion for certification in a consolidated class
action lawsuit charging that large tech companies conspired to
suppress the pay of technical, creative, and other salaried
employees, including by agreeing not to actively recruit each
other's employees.

Plaintiffs Michael Devine, Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan,
Brandon Marshall, and Daniel Stover, individually and on behalf of
a class of all those similarly situated, allege antitrust claims
against their former employers, Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc.,
Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to suppress, and
actually did suppress, employee compensation to artificially low
levels by agreeing not to solicit each other's employees in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1, and Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
15.

On April 5, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification with leave to amend.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for
Class Certification.  Defendants filed an opposition, and
Plaintiffs filed a reply.  The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Motion for Class Certification on August 8, 2013.
Having considered the parties' submissions, arguments, the
relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Class Certification and
certified Plaintiffs' proposed class of technical employees.

"The Court finds that the Technical Class members' interests weigh
in favor of having this case litigated as a class action.  In
addition, the nature of Defendants' alleged overarching conspiracy
and the desirability of concentrating the litigation in one
proceeding weigh heavily in favor of finding that class treatment
is superior to other methods of adjudication of the controversy,"
Judge Koh held in an 86-page decision, portions of which were
redacted to protect sensitive information.

Commenting on the Court's order, Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and counsel for the plaintiffs
and class stated, "We appreciate the Court's careful and
comprehensive review of the record and look forward to seeking
justice for our clients at trial."

Ms. Dermody can be contaced at kdermody@lchb.com for further
information on the case.


ACER AMERICA: Judge Slashes Attorneys' Fees in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney, Beth Winegarner and Bibeka Shrestha, writing for
Law360, report that in a class action alleging computer maker Acer
America Corp. sold defective laptops, a California federal judge
slashed the attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs' lawyers by more
than $1.5 million on Oct. 21, saying the lawyers billed too many
hours and overstated the case's complexity.

The plaintiffs' attorneys had requested more than $2.5 million
based on 4,633 hours of work, which included examining the
performance capabilities and specification of Acer's notebook
computers and consumers' experiences with the computers.  But U.S
District Judge Jeffrey White chopped that number down to $943,000
on Oct. 21, saying that the amount the lawyers were seeking in
fees was not well supported by the case's facts.

"Upon review of the attorneys' declarations, the court finds that
the attorneys were not efficient and that they spent excessive
amounts of time on the various tasks listed," Judge White wrote.
"Moreover it appears as though there was significant duplication
of work between the three firms."

Plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Warshaw told Law360 on Oct. 22 that
while he's happy for his clients on the case's outcome, he does
not agree with Judge White's decision to withhold such a large
chunk of the fees, saying the lawyers are looking into the
possible actions they can take.

"We're disappointed with the court's view," Mr. Warshaw said.  "We
feel that we did very good work for the client base.  We're
evaluating our options."

The case alleged that Acer's notebook computers didn't contain
enough memory to run a preinstalled operating system, Microsoft
Vista Home Premium.  As a result, the suit alleged, Acer's
notebooks ran slowly, crashed often and froze frequently.

In their fees request, plaintiffs' attorneys Daniel Warshaw of
Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP, James J. Pizzirusso --
jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com -- of Hausfeld LLP and Jori Bloom
Naegele of Gary Naegele & Theado LLC highlighted how the technical
complexity of the case made it difficult to prevail against Acer
and its in-house team of experts, engineers and technicians.

Judge White disagreed, saying that while some aspects of the case
were complicated, the work the lawyers needed to do was not.
Because of this, he discounted the hourly billing rates they
requested, agreeing to pay $175 per hour for paralegals, $350 for
associates and up to $550 for senior partners.

"The court notes that while the facts underlying plaintiffs'
claims were technically complicated, the legal analysis regarding
their warranty and misrepresentation claims was not complex,"
Judge White wrote.

He also said that the hours the lawyers' claimed in their request
were "exorbitant" and included hours spent preparing for hearings
that were ultimately vacated.  He concluded that 1,750 hours, or
38 percent of the total hours sought, was sufficient.

Initially filed in March 2009, the case featured consumers
accusing Acer America, the San Jose, Calif.-based subsidiary of
the Taiwanese computer manufacturer, of selling defective laptops
in violation of California and federal consumer laws, including
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  In April 2012, Judge White
approved a $22.7 million settlement.

Class counsel recouped $171,769, getting all but $984 of the costs
they had sought.  Mr. Warshaw had also sought $5,000 in incentive
payments for the two named plaintiffs, Lora and Clay Wolf, to
which Judge White ultimately awarded $2,000 each, citing a lack of
evidence that they undertook "any great risk to either their
finances or their reputation in bringing this action."

Through the January settlement, the other class members are each
eligible for a $10 check. They can also receive up to $100 in
reimbursements for past repairs they can document.  Mr. Warshaw
said on Oct. 22 that, to date, there have been more than 47,000
claims made.

The class is represented by Daniel L. Warshaw of Pearson Simon &
Warshaw LLP, James J. Pizzirusso of Hausfeld LLP, and Jori Naegele
of Gary Naegele & Theado LLC.

Acer is represented by Reginald D. Steer -- rsteer@akingump.com --
and David C. Lawrence -- dlawrence@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

The case is Wolph et al. v. Acer America Corp., case number 3:09-
cv-01314, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


AFFINION GROUP: To Pay $30-Mil. in Consumer Refunds and Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Affinion will pay $30 million
in consumer refunds and penalties to settle federal complaints
filed by 46 states and the District of Columbia, attorneys general
said.

The announcement came alongside filings that accused Affinion of
tricking consumers into joining discount clubs and paying for such
memberships.

Connecticut-based Affinion and its subsidiaries Trilegiant and
Webloyalty had been the subject of class actions in the past.
They run various discount clubs and membership programs that
provide consumers with credit monitoring, roadside assistance,
discounted travel and other such services.

The complaints said Affinion has well-known banks and retailers
market its clubs and memberships to consumers immediately after a
transaction.

Consumers apparently complained en masse that Affinion charged
them a monthly fee of $8 to $15.99 without their authorization or
knowledge.

Some reported trouble canceling the subscription or getting a
refund, the complaints stated.

Affinion agreed October 10, 2013, to pay $30 million in consumer
refunds and penalties.  Refunds will be eligible to consumers who
believe Affinion charged them improperly.

Affinion will also begin providing "clear and conspicuous
information to consumers about its memberships, give them periodic
reminders of their enrollment, and make it easier to cancel," a
statement from the North Carolina attorney general said.

That statement noted Affinion will also be barred from one of its
most "troubling" practices: sending consumers what appeared to be
checks in the mail.

"When consumers endorsed and deposited the checks, they
unknowingly authorized Affinion to enroll them in membership
programs and bill them each month," the statement continues.
"Consumers who shopped online were presented an offer from
Affinion immediately after making a purchase.  Affinion then
enrolled and billed them for services using account and contact
information shared by the retailer.


AMERICAN HONDA: Agrees to Settle Spark Plug Defect Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thurlow, writing for Automotive News, reports that
American Honda Motor Co. has agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit over claims that it manufactured 1,593,755 defective
vehicles that excessively burn oil and require frequent spark plug
replacements.

The settlement concerns all U.S. purchasers and lessees of 2008-12
Accord, 2008-13 Odyssey, 2009-13 Pilot, 2010-11 Accord Crosstour
and 2012 Crosstour vehicles equipped with six-cylinder engines
that have variable cylinder management.  Accord vehicles with
four-cylinder engines are excluded from the settlement.

The original suit -- filed in March 2012 by plaintiffs Alex Soto
and Vince Eagen -- claimed the vehicles contained a "systematic
design defect that enables oil to enter into the engine's
combustion chamber."  The alleged defect led to "premature spark
plug degradation and engine malfunction," court documents said.

The plaintiffs claimed Honda hid the problem from consumers.
Honda denied the allegation, despite receiving hundreds of online
complaints on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Web site, and about 130 on carcomplaints.com concerning the 2008
Accord alone.

Honda later issued a technical service bulletin notifying its
technicians to check for the defect.  The automaker did not issue
a recall because a safety issue was not discovered.

The majority of complaints allege that Honda said it was normal
for a powertrain to burn a quart of oil every 1,000 miles.  The
suit claimed Honda refused to cover warranties for the vehicles
and, instead, instructed customers to check their oil every time
they get gas.

Mr. Eagan claims that he had to add a quart of oil to his vehicle
each month and had to replace his "prematurely fouled" spark plugs
twice within 55,000 miles as a result of oil burning in the
cylinders.

Mr. Soto said in court documents that he routinely noticed carbon
buildup on his exhaust pipe -- a sign that oil, and not just
gasoline, is burning in the powertrain.

Honda assured Soto that this, too, was normal, court documents
show.

Dave Sullivan, an analyst at research firm AutoPacific, said that
today's emission requirements do not permit engines to burn oil.

"It's too dirty," Mr. Sullivan said.  "We're seeing cars go 10,000
miles now between oil changes.  If there was a quart for every
thousand miles you would need 10 quarts, and most cars don't have
that many quarts in them."

Mr. Sullivan said when he changed the oil in his Mazda6 that he
may have lost "a cup or two of oil between changes, but that was
over 7,500 miles.  I think that's a negligible amount.  That being
said, there's no excuse for a quart every thousand miles."

Mr. Sullivan said the last major episode that involved people
complaining about oil burn was with the Mazda RX-8.  "Instead of
waiting for people to complain, [Mazda] was more proactive and
. . . said 'even if you don't have a problem, you're going to have
one so let's just fix it now.'"

Honda declined to comment until after the case is granted final
approval.

The settlement was reached after U.S. District Judge Susan Illston
declined the defendant's motion to force arbitration on the case
in October 2012.  The judge found that Honda was a third-party
non-signatory to a contract and therefore may not compel
arbitration under the terms of the contract.

The preliminary settlement approval was given Oct. 9 by Judge
Illston in San Francisco.  The final fairness hearing, which is
the last step in a class action settlement, is set for March 21.

Under the conditions of the settlement, Honda agreed to extend the
powertrain limited warranty for up to eight years after the
original sale or lease of the vehicle.  Honda also agreed not to
oppose the counsel attorney fees as long as they do not exceed
more than $800,000.  Mr. Eagen is also asking the court to approve
an incentive award of no more than $1,000 to compensate him for
his time and effort on behalf of the settlement class, according
to a copy of the class notice.


APPLE INC: Michael Bromwich Chosen as Monitor in E-Book Case
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise L. Cote of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Oct. 16 appointed Michael R.
Bromwich -- http://is.gd/CPnkOQ-- Managing Principal of The
Bromwich Group, as the External Monitor in United States of
America v. Apple, Inc. et al., Case Number: 1:12-cv-02826-DLC
(S.D.N.Y.).

The ruling provides that, "On September 30, 2013, the Department
of Justice and the Plaintiff States submitted for consideration
the names of two well-qualified candidates to serve as the
External Monitor (Monitor) provided for in Section VI of the
September 5 Order Entering Permanent Injunction in this case.
Having interviewed both candidates, it is clear that either one is
capable of doing an exceptional job as Monitor.  The Court is
grateful to both candidates for their commitment to public service
and for taking time to travel and interview with DOJ and the
Court.  It is hereby ORDERED that Michael Bromwich is appointed as
Monitor. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bernard A. Nigro will assist
Mr. Bromwich in discharging his responsibilities."

Mr. Bromwich has issued the following comment: "I am deeply
honored to have been selected by the Court to serve as the monitor
in this matter."


ATOSSA GENETICS: Issued Misleading Information, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Cook, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., Steven C. Quay,
Christopher Benjamin, Kyle Guse, Shu-Chih Chen, John Barnhart,
Stephen J. Galli, Alexander Cross, H. Lawrence Remmel, Dawson
James Securities, Inc., ViewTrade Securities, Inc., and Paulson
Investment Company, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM (W.D. Wash.,
October 10, 2013) is a federal securities class action lawsuit
filed on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than
the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Atossa shares
between November 8, 2012, and October 4,2013, or who acquired
Atossa shares pursuant or traceable to Atossa's false and
misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection
with its November 8, 2012 initial public offering.

Despite feigning compliance with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's ("FDA's") rules and regulations, throughout the
Class Period, Atossa in fact failed to comply with various FDA
rules and regulations and misled investors regarding its
compliance with FDA rules and regulations, including Section
510(k), Good Manufacturing Practices regulations, and fair and
honest marketing practices, Mr. Cook alleges.  He contends that as
a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, he and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

Mr. Cook purchased Atossa shares at alleged artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and has been damaged upon the
issuance of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Atossa is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.  Atossa is a development-stage healthcare company.
The Company is focused on the commercialization of cellular and
molecular diagnostic risk assessment products and related services
for the detection of pre-cancerous conditions that could lead to
breast cancer, and on the development of second-generation
products and services.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Dawson James Securities, Inc., ViewTrade Securities, Inc. and
Paulson Investment Company, Inc. were underwriters of the
Company's IPO, and each assisted in the preparation and
dissemination of Atossa's IPO materials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING
          1904 3rd Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 223-2053
          Facsimile: (206) 223-2053
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com


BARBRI: Ninth Circuit to Hear Dispute Over Class Action Legal Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is expected
once again to take up the long-running antitrust case involving
Barbri -- this time, hearing whether objectors who successfully
unraveled a key portion of the $49 million settlement should
recover additional legal fees.

Lawyers at Kendrick & Nutley in Pasadena, Calif., representing the
five objectors, filed an opening brief on Aug. 19 seeking close to
$1.8 million for successfully challenging fees granted to
McGuireWoods, class counsel in the settlement with West Publishing
Corp. and Kaplan Inc., publishers of the Barbri bar exam review
course.  U.S. District Judge Manuel Real granted $236,000 in fees
and $1,700 in costs to Kendrick & Nutley.

The fee request before the Ninth Circuit amounts to 20 percent of
the nearly $9 million the objectors saved for the class by
reducing McGuireWoods' fees, C. Benjamin Nutley of Kendrick &
Nutley wrote.

Should the Ninth Circuit reverse the fee award, Mr. Nutley asked
that the appeals panel determine the amount rather than remand
that issue.  He cited the reversal of Judge Real's previous
rulings and more than $10 million in settlement distributions
being held up by his firm's appeal.

"It isn't just for us," Mr. Nutley said.  "It's a class case where
they're holding up distribution until this last bit gets decided.
Certainly, even our opponents would agree we want to get this
thing resolved as soon as we can."

In the alternative, Mr. Nutley asked the Ninth Circuit to remand
the case to a different judge.

Class counsel filed an opposition brief on Oct. 21, noting that
Kendrick & Nutley did nothing to generate the settlement on which
their fee request is based.

"Like 'Monday Morning Quarterbacks' who contributed absolutely
nothing to the underlying contentious litigation and the $49
million hard-fought settlement . . . Appellants seek compensation
as if they generated for the Class the fee originally awarded to
McGuireWoods.  They did not," wrote Sidney Kanazawa --
skanazawa@mcguirewoods.com -- a Los Angeles partner at
McGuireWoods.

Kanazawa declined to comment.  Kendrick & Nutley is expected to
file a reply brief by Nov. 4.

The class action alleged that law school students paid too much
for Barbri review materials after West and Kaplan conspired to
establish a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act, the federal
antitrust law.

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case in 2009 and again in 2012.  In
last year's ruling, the panel upheld Judge Real's decision to
reduce McGuireWoods' fees from $12 million to $500,000, citing the
firm's "egregious" ethical violation in failing to disclose to
class members incentive awards tied to the amount of the
settlement.  The panel also upheld denial of fees to objector
attorneys, except for Kendrick & Nutley, which had alerted Real to
the conflict.


BJC HEALTHCARE: Nurses, Medical Personnel File OT Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
KMOV reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed in St.
Louis Circuit Court on behalf of former and current nurses and
medical personnel employed by BJC Healthcare System.

The lawsuit, entitled Speraneo v. BJC Health System Inc., d/b/a
BJC Healthcare, claims BJC did not properly pay many workers for
overtime and other hours worked.

BJC's timekeeping rounds down to the nearest quarter hour even
though exact times employees clocked into work are electronically
documented.  This practice deprived employees of pay for
compensable work time in violation of established work time
regulations.

BJC is also accused of automatically deducting time for meal
breaks even though some employees, such as nurses, work through
their break time and are not compensated.

The lawsuit also alleges that BJC failed to properly compensate
employees for shift differential bonuses and pay overtime
compensation at statutorily required rates of pay.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Mini Cooper's Transmission Fluid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Saltmeris, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. BMW of North America,
LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, and Bayerische
Motoren Werke AG, a corporation organized under the laws of the
Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 2:13-cv-07560-R-FFM (C.D.
Cal., October 11, 2013) is a consumer class action lawsuit
concerning the alleged material omissions and affirmative
misrepresentations made by the Defendants relating to the
transmission fluid placed in the 6-speed Automatic Transmissions
installed in certain Mini Cooper vehicles.

BMW Group has affirmatively misrepresented to consumers that the
Class Vehicles are equipped with "lifetime" transmission fluid
that need not be replaced, Ms. Saltmeris asserts.  However, she
contends, BMW Group failed to disclose that neglecting to replace
the transmission fluid -- per BMW Group's instructions -- leads to
sudden and premature transmission failure in the Class Vehicles.

Ms. Saltmeris is a citizen of California.

BMW of North America, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability
company headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  BMW of North
America is responsible for the importation, distribution,
marketing and sale of certain models of Mini Cooper.  BMW of North
America is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMW (US) Holding
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of BMW AG.

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG ("BMW AG") is a German corporation
based in Munich.  BMW AG designs and manufactures motor vehicles,
parts and other products for sale in Europe and for export and
sale throughout the world, including the Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roland K. Tellis, Esq.
          Mark P. Pifko, Esq.
          Natasha Mehta, Esq.
          BARON AND BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  MPifko@baronbudd.com
                  nmehta@baronbudd.com


CIGNA CORP: Judge Says Insurers No Liability in ERISA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel and Ciaran McEvoy, writing for Law360, report that a
Pennsylvania state judge on Oct. 21 threw out an effort by Cigna
Corp. to force its excess insurers to cover liability arising from
a national class action brought by the company's employees over
benefit plan changes, ruling that coverage is barred by a fraud
exemption.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Albert Snite granted
summary judgment to Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. and Nutmeg
Insurance Co., finding that the district judge in the underlying
federal action determined that the insurance giant had initially
committed a fraud.

The judge noted that the two excess insurers provided coverage
that followed the terms of Lloyds of London, which provided
coverage up to $50 million.

"The Lloyds insurance policy, which the defendants followed,
excludes coverage resulting from deliberately fraudulent acts by
an assured.  The district court's opinion was a final judgment
that Cigna's actions were fraud, and therefore the Deliberately
Fraudulent Acts exclusion in the defendants' insurance policies
applies," Judge Snite said in his opinion.

Cigna sued Executive Risk and Nutmeg, which formerly did business
as The Hartford, in 2012, seeking a declaration that the insurers
acted in bad faith by denying its claims.  According to the
complaint, Cigna has reached settlements with Lloyds over its
primary coverage, along with four of its excess insurers.

The two excess policies are each valued at $10 million, according
to the complaint.

The coverage dispute stems from a 2001 lawsuit in which current
and former Cigna employees sued the company after it switched its
traditionally defined benefit plan to a cash benefit plan,
claiming the new plan provided them with less generous benefits
and that Cigna's notice of the changes was improper.

After the Second Circuit affirmed the 2008 trial court judgment
against Cigna, which contained a liability opinion and a remedies
opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the insurer's petition to
review the remedies opinion.  In its 2011 decision, Cigna Corp. v.
Amara, a majority of the high court held that plaintiffs had to
show the alleged violation had actually injured them, but that to
do so, they needed only to show harm and causation.

But the court found that a separate ERISA section allowing
equitable remedies, such as an order that changes be made to a
plan, does authorize forms of relief similar to the order the
district court entered, directing the lower court to revisit its
findings on what constituted an appropriate remedy for the ERISA
violations it found.

After doing so, the Connecticut federal judge ordered Cigna to
make the changes to its retirement plan and denied its bid to
decertify the class of roughly 25,000 workers, saying Cigna's
arguments hadn't been sufficiently changed to meet the
requirements set forth by the court.

In that ruling, from December 2012, U.S. District Judge Janet Bond
Arterton found that Cigna had run afoul of labor laws by
inadequately disclosing changes in the retirement plan that
diminished the plaintiffs' pension benefits.  Judge Arterton
ordered that the plan be reformed and said Cigna should pay
benefits accordingly.

Judge Snite seized upon Judge Arterton's determination that Cigna
had committed fraud, rejecting the company's argument that the
2008 trial court judgment is the original controlling decision on
the company's liability.

The ruling is the second major victory that Executive Risk has had
against Cigna in the last several months.  In July, the
Pennsylvania Superior Court absolved the excess insurer of any
obligation to indemnify the company for $140 million in
settlements to doctors' class action claims for violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and breach of
contract.

Representatives from both Cigna and its insurers did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on Oct. 22.

Cigna is represented by Francis Deasey -- fjdeasey@dmvnlaw.com --
and Ward Rivers -- warivers@dmvnlaw.com -- of Deasey Mahoney
Valentini & North Ltd.

The insurers are represented by Ronald Schiller --
rschiller@hangley.com -- and Daniel Layden -- dlayden@hangley.com
-- of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller.

The case is Cigna Corp. v. Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. et al,
case No. 120203993 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County.


CME GROUP: Continues to Defend MF Global-Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A number of lawsuits were filed in federal court in New York on
behalf of all commodity account holders or customers of MF Global
who had not received a return of 100% of their funds. These
matters have been consolidated into a single action in federal
court in New York, and a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed on November 5, 2012. The class action
complaint alleges that CME violated the Commodity Exchange Act
(CEA), aided and abetted violations of the CEA by other
defendants, and aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by
certain officers and directors of MF Global. The class complaint
also alleges that CME Group aided and abetted CME's violation of
the CEA. The complaint does not allege the amount of damages
sought, but rather seeks compensatory and exemplary damages to be
determined at trial. Based on the initial analysis of the class
complaint, the company believes that it has strong legal and
factual defenses to the claims. Given that this matter is in the
very early stage, at this time the company is unable to estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss
in the unlikely event it was found to be liable in this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 9, 2013,
Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CME Group Inc. --
http://www.cmegroup.com/-- formerly Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Holdings Inc., offers access to asset classes from a single
electronic trading platform and trading floors in Chicago and New
York City.  The Company offers futures and options on futures
based on interest rates, equity indexes, foreign exchange, energy,
agricultural commodities, metals, and alternative investment
products, such as weather and real estate.


DELTA AIR: "Volodarskiy" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gennadiy Volodarskiy, Oxana Volodarskaya, and Richard Cohen
brought a putative class action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines
for Delta's alleged failure to comply with Regulation No. 261/2004
of the European Parliament and European Council (EU 261). In their
original complaint, the Volodarskiys asserted an Illinois breach-
of-contract claim against Delta and alleged that EU 261 was
incorporated into Delta's International Conditions of Carriage.
In October 2012, the Court held that EU 261 was not incorporated
into the contract and dismissed Plaintiffs' first complaint for
failure to state a claim.  The Volodarskiys, now joined by Richard
Cohen, have since filed an amended complaint, abandoning their
breach-of-contract claim and instead raising a direct claim under
EU 261. Delta now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In an October 16, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/idIDG0from Leagle.com, District Judge Edmond E.
Chang rules that EU 261 does not provide a private right of action
that can be enforced in courts outside the EU. Therefore, the
Court grants Delta's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint, this time with prejudice in light of the two failed
attempts to state a claim.

The case is GENNADIY VOLODARSKIY and OXANA VOLODARSKAYA on behalf
of themselves and their minor children, and RICHARD COHEN on
behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, NO. 11 C 00782, (N.D. Ill.).


DOVER & FOX: Loses Bid to Dismiss Debt Collection Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Heallen, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas federal
judge Oct. 21 denied Dover & Fox PC's bid to duck a putative class
action alleging unfair debt collection practices, saying the firm
failed to defeat an allegation that it is a debt collector under
federal law.

U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison denied the firm's motion for
summary judgment, ruling that "conclusory" statements offered by
the firm's partners in affidavits about the limited scope of their
debt collection practice were not enough to show that they are not
subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

"The Fifth Circuit mandates a heavily fact-intensive inquiry to
determine whether or not an individual or entity qualifies as a
'debt collector' under the FDCPA," Judge Ellison said in a 13-page
opinion.  "The parties have supplied the court with some evidence
relevant to this inquiry.  However, they have not come forward
with enough to demonstrate conclusively that Dover & Fox is or is
not properly classified as a 'debt collector' under the FDCPA as a
matter of law; relevant and determinable factual issues remain
open."

Representatives for Dover & Fox were not immediately available for
comment.

Dover & Fox had hoped to beat the proposed class action by arguing
that because debt collection constituted only 5 percent of its
practice and that the volume of debt collection cases it handled
was small compared with other firms, it did not qualify as a debt
collector.

Under the FDCPA, a debt collector generally is defined as a person
or company "regularly" engaged in debt collection as their
principal purpose of business.  Citing Sixth Circuit cases, the
firm said that its limited debt collection practice insulated it
from the FDCPA's reach.

But Judge Ellison disagreed, noting that the Fifth Circuit has
ruled that a person may regularly collect debts even if debt
collection is not the principal purpose of their business.

"Thus, in the Fifth Circuit, 'no bright-line rule identifies when
an attorney or law firm 'regularly' collects or attempts to
collect debts, so courts must make this determination on a case-
by-case basis,'" Judge Ellison said.

That Dover & Fox does not have employees dedicated to debt
collection may serve to show that debt collection is not Dover &
Fox's principal purpose, but does not illustrate the volume or
frequency of its debt collection activities, Judge Ellison said.

Judge Ellison also said that although the firm sent only 38
collection letters to various consumers in the year leading up to
the lawsuit, perhaps showing that the firm does not regularly
engage in debt collection, that fact was not conclusive since
discovery has not yet been completed and that the plaintiffs may
uncover more debt collection activity.

And the firm also lost its challenge to liability under the Texas
Debt Collection Act, which Judge Ellison said defines debt
collector more broadly than the FDCPA.

Lynn and Deborah Kirkpatrick launched the suit against the firm
earlier this year after they each received letters from the firm
demanding repayment of an outstanding debt allegedly owed to City
of Deer Park Federal Credit Union.

Both letters threatened that if the pair failed to make good on
their debt within 14 days, they would be hit with a collection
lawsuit.  But state and federal law requires that consumers be
given 30 days to dispute the validity of any claimed debt, and the
more imminent litigation threat "overshadowed" those legal
protections, the Kirkpatricks claim in their suit.

The Kirkpatricks are represented by Marshall Meyers and Noah
Daniel Radbil of Weisberg & Meyers LLC

Dover & Fox is represented by Harvey Lee Burns Jr. --
Harvey@GBAttorney.com -- of Giddens & Burns.

The case is Kirkpatrick et al. v. Dover & Fox PC et al., case
number 4:13-cv-00123, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.


DURAND GLASS: Court Denies Bid to Bar Defendant's Communication
---------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY BOBRYK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DURAND GLASS MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC., Defendant, CIVIL NO. 12-CV-5360 (NLH/JS), (D.
N.J.), is before the Court on "Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and
Limit Defendant Durand Glass' and Counsel's Pre-Certification
Communications with Putative Class Members". Plaintiffs seek to
bar defendant from interviewing members of their putative class
comprised of defendant's employees.

Since the Defendant's conduct in the case is not misleading or
coercive, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider denies the Plaintiffs'
request to bar Defendant's communications. The Court also denies
Plaintiffs' requested curative relief to address Defendant's
alleged misdeeds.

A copy of the District Court's October 9, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/JxW1Ayfrom Leagle.com.


ESTES-COX: Recalls Red Rider and Helios Rockets
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 23, 2013
Posting date:             October 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36375

Affected products: Red Rider and Helios Almost Ready-to-Fly Model
Rockets

The recall involves the Red Rider Almost Ready-to-Fly model rocket
and the Helios Almost Ready-to-Fly model rocket.

The Red Rider rocket (item #2484) is 47 centimetres long,
34 millimetres in diameter and weighs 71 grams.  The rocket has a
white nose cone and tail section, red body tube and fins with a
white Estes Red Rider decal on the side.   The UPC for this rocket
is 047776 024847 which is printed above the bar codes on the
products' packaging.

The Helios rocket (item #2487) is 46 centimetres long, 42
millimetres in diameter and weighs 95.6 grams.  The rocket has a
silver body tube, yellow nose cone and fin unit with a yellow
Helios decal on the side.  The UPCs for this rocket are 047776
024878 and 047760 024877.

Both items are packaged in 4-color triangular shaped boxes about
10.2 centimetres wide x 38.1 centimetres tall.  The item numbers
are printed above the bar codes on the products' packaging.  The
date codes on the products are 3/14/13, 5/14/13, 5/24/13, 7/02/13,
and 7/9/13.

All other Red Rider and Helios rockets are not included in this
recall.

When flown with the new booster accessories being marketed for
these rockets, the rocket's flight can become unstable causing the
rocket to change direction while under thrust, posing a risk of
impact injury to people nearby.

Neither Health Canada nor Estes-Cox has received reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of the affected products
in Canada.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see General Toy
Safety Tips.

Approximately, 180 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
June 2013 through September 2013.

Companies:

  Distributor     Estes-Cox Corp.
                  Penrose
                  Colorado
                  United STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled rockets and
contact Estes-Cox for instructions on receiving a replacement.


FSL MANAGEMENT: Court Tosses Bid to Reconsider Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in WHITLOCK v. FSL MANAGEMENT, LLC obtained class
certification of wage and hour claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and (b)(3) on August 10, 2012.

Before the Court is a motion by the Defendants for the Court to
reconsider its class certification decision.

Chief District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., denied the motion
for reconsideration saying bifurcating the issues of liability and
damages at trial will remedy any problems surrounding
individualized proof of damages.

The case is WILLIAM WHITLOCK, et al. PLAINTIFFS, v. FSL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. DEFENDANTS, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV-00562-
JHM, (W.D. Ky.).  A copy of the District Court's October 16, 2013
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/t1IUZN
from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MILLS: Plaintiff in Mislabeling Suit May Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted in part and denied
part General Mills, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Gabriel Rojas' class
action lawsuit with leave to amend, except with regard to his
claims relating to Nature Valley Oats and Honey Crunchy Granola
Bars and Nature Valley Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter Crunchy
Granola Bars to the extent that any alleged misrepresentation is
based on their wrappers and containers, which is denied.

Mr. Rojas brings this putative class action against General Mills
asserting that its use of the term "100% Natural" on various
products is deceptive and misleading because of the alleged
presence of genetically modified organisms ("GMOs").  General
Mills moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in its
entirety because it argues that the United States Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") has primary jurisdiction over the term
"natural" and that Rojas fails to plead his causes of action with
particularity as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff has been given 30 days to amend his complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angela Valentina Arango-Chaffin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANGELA VALENTINA ARANGO-CHAFFIN
          1455 Ocean Drive, Suite 811
          Miami Beach, FL 33139
          Telephone: (713) 818-2515
          E-mail: angela@chaffinlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Michael Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (888) 560-4480
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: blopatin@gmail.com

               - and -

          Larry De-Wayne Layfield, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD
          P.O. Box 3829
          Beaumont, TX 77704-3829
          Telephone: (409) 832-1891
          Facsimile: (866) 280-3004

               - and -

          Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David T. Biderman, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 344-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 344-7050
          E-mail: dbiderman@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Breena Michelle Roos, Esq.
          Charles Christian Sipos, Esq.
          Susan Donnelly Fahringer, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-6225
          Facsimile: (206) 359-7225
          E-mail: broos@perkinscoie.com
                  csipos@perkinscoie.com
                  SFahringer@perkinscoie.com

Gabriel Rojas v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-05099-WHO,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).


GOLD RESOURCE: Plaintiff to Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff filed a notice that it intends to appeal the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action lawsuit
against Gold Resource Corporation, 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.

A purported securities class action lawsuit filed against the
Company on October 25, 2012, and subsequently captioned In re Gold
Resource Corp. Securities Litigation, No.1:12-cv-02832 was pending
in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  The
complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws by the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.  On July 15,
2013, the federal district court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  The plaintiff filed notice it
intends to appeal the District Court's decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Gold Resource Corporation -- http://www.goldresourcecorp.com/--
is currently engaged in the exploration for and production of gold
and silver in Mexico.  The Company was organized in Colorado in
1998 and is headquartered in Colorado Springs.


HANSEN MEDICAL: Awaits Nov. 21 Hearing on Final OK of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc., awaits the November 21, 2013 hearing on the
final approval of its settlement of a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit, 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.

Following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement that it
would restate certain of its financial statements, a securities
class action lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2009, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
naming the Company and certain of its now former officers.  The
lawsuit is captioned Curry v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case
No. 09-05094.  The complaint asserted claims for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Hansen stock between
May 1, 2008, and October 18, 2009, inclusive, and alleged, among
other things, that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to make disclosures regarding the
Company's financial results and compliance with GAAP while
improperly recognizing revenue; that these misstatements and/or
nondisclosures resulted in overstatement of Company revenue and
financial results and/or artificially inflated the Company's stock
price; and that following the Company's October 19, 2009
announcement, the price of the Company's stock declined.

On November 4, 2009, and November 13, 2009, substantively
identical complaints were filed in the Northern District of
California by other purported Hansen stockholders asserting the
same claims on behalf of the same putative class of Hansen
stockholders.  The lawsuits are Livingstone v. Hansen Medical,
Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05212, and Prenter v. Hansen Medical,
Inc., et al., Case No. 09-05367.  All three complaints sought
certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys fees.  On December 22, 2009,
two purported Hansen stockholders, Mina and Nader Farr, filed a
joint application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and for
consolidation of the three actions.  On February 25, 2010, the
Court issued an order granting Mina and Nader Farr's application
for appointment as lead plaintiffs and consolidating the three
securities class actions.  On July 15, 2010, the Court entered an
order granting lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint.  The Lead plaintiffs' second amended complaint,
in addition to alleging that shareholders suffered damages as a
result of the decline in the Company's stock price following the
October 19, 2009 announcement, also alleged that shareholders
suffered additional damages as the result of share price declines
on July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009, January 8, 2009, July 6, 2009,
and August 4, 2009, all of which lead plaintiffs alleged were
caused by the disclosure of what they claim was previously
misrepresented information.

The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on October 13, 2010.  The Court granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend on August 25, 2011.  The
Plaintiffs' third amended complaint was filed on October 18, 2011.
The Defendants filed their motions to dismiss on January 9, 2012.
On August 10, 2012, the Court denied in part and granted in part
Defendants' motions to dismiss.  On January 4, 2013, the lead
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to add certain of
Hansen's current and former directors and Hansen's former auditor.
Hansen filed an opposition to lead plaintiffs' motion on
February 11, 2013.

On May 9, 2013, the parties entered a stipulation of settlement
pursuant to which the plaintiffs will receive an aggregate of $8.5
million, $4 million of which will be funded in cash by the
Company's insurer and other sources.  The Company will fund the
remaining portion by issuing $4.25 million worth of the Company's
common stock, the number of shares to be determined based on the
average closing price of the common stock for the 10 trading days
preceding final Court approval of the settlement of the class
action, and paying $250,000 in cash.  The Company recorded a loss
on litigation settlement of $4.5 million in its first quarter
ended March 31, 2013.  A corresponding liability is included in
the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
June 30, 2013.  The settlement is subject to Court approval.  On
July 25, 2013, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a hearing on November 21, 2013, at which
the Company expects the Court will grant final approval.

Hansen Medical, Inc., based in Mountain View, California, is the
global leader in intravascular robotics, developing products and
technology designed to enable the accurate positioning,
manipulation and control of catheters and catheter-based
technologies.


INFINITOY INC: Recalls Softimals Toy Sets Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Infinitoy, Inc., San Mateo, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 7,134 units of Building Toy Playsets.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The plastic hats found on playset figures pose a
choking/aspiration hazard for children.

CPSC is aware of one incident in which an 18-month-old child
placed a hat in their mouth and started to gag/choke but the toy
was removed.  No injuries have been reported

Infinitoy Inc. is recalling the Super Safari Set model #30025 and
the Deluxe Circus Train Set model #30040.  The model number can be
found on the back of the box in the lower right corner.  The sets
come in a white box with "Softimals. Build, Play, Repeat" and
"Ages 1 1/2 to 5" printed in a colorful font on the front and back
of the package.  The sets have numerous plastic pieces that can be
connected and fit together to build a vehicle pulling cars with a
hippo, giraffe, zebra and other animals.  The drivers of the lead
vehicles, Safari Sam and Mighty Mike, have removable blue or
yellow plastic hats.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold at
specialty toy stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com and
Mindware.com from September 2012 to September 2013 for about $25
and $40.

Consumers should immediately remove the plastic hat from Safari
Sam and Mighty Mike and contact Infinitoy Inc., to exchange the
hat for a free replacement figure.


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces Suit Over Overtime Fees in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kohl's Department Stores
stiff workers for overtime, citing a class action lawsuit filed in
the California Superior Court for San Bernardino County.


MARQUETTE, MI: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "LaPlante" Suit v. Jail
----------------------------------------------------------------
The events giving rise to the complaint LaPLANTE v. LOVELACE
occurred while the plaintiff was incarcerated at the Marquette
County Jail (MCJ) from September 8, 2010 through February 4, 2011.
In his pro se amended complaint, Plaintiff sues the Marquette
County Sheriff's Department, Marquette County Sheriff Michael
Lovelace, Undersheriff Jack Schneider and the following MCJ
employees: Sergeant Brian Steede, Corporal (Unknown) Osbourn,
Officer (Unknown) Rataske, Sergeant (unknown) Sides, Corporal
(Unknown) Harrington, Officer (Unknown) Bradbury, Nurse Joe
Wilcox, Corporal A. Norberg, Corporal Jason Kangas, Deputy A.
Kemper, Deputy K. Carlson, Deputy D. Speaker, Deputy Gema
Cowporthwait, Deputy D. DeChambeau, Deputy K. Canull, Head Cook
(Unknown) Bart, Jail Administrator Gregg Gustafson, Corporal
Jeffrey Savola, Sergeant Shelly Simula, Officer Christopher
Reynolds, Officer Mandie Haile, "Jon/Jane Doe -- Accounting
Personnel," "Jon Doe -- Lobby Officer" and "Jon/Jane Doe --
Certified Nutritionalist [sic]." Plaintiff also sues Doctor John
Lehtinen, Health Professional Limited, CBM Food Service, Keefe
Supply Company and Evercom Telephone Comany. Plaintiff raises a
long list of claims concerning the conditions of confinement
during his five-month stay at MCJ. He seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages.

Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, District Judge Robert Holmes Bell ruled that
Defendants Schneider, Osbourn, Rataske, Sides, Bradbury, "Jon/Jane
Doe -- Accounting Personnel," Keefe Supply Company, Evercom
Telephone Company, Norberg, Kangas, Kemper, Carlson, Speaker,
Cowporthwait, DeChambeau, Canull, "Jon Doe -- Lobby Officer,"
Bart, CBM Food Service, "Jon/Jane Doe -- Certified Nutritionalist
[sic]," Gustafson, Savola, Simula, Reynolds and Health
Professional Limited will be dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and
42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c).

The Court ordered service of the following claims against the
remaining Defendants:

(1) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Wilcox
    and Lehtinen regarding denial of medical treatment;

(2) Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Defendants Haile and
    Harrington regarding denial of access to religious services;
    and

(3) Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Defendants Steede,
    Lovelace and Marquette County concerning the policy
    prohibiting prisoners from ordering books from outside the
    facility.

The Court also denied Plaintiff's motions to amend and for class
certification.

The case is WILLIAM TODD LaPLANTE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL LOVELACE
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-32, (W.D. Mich.).

A copy of the District Court's October 9, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/y4DoeOfrom Leagle.com.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Misleads "Kobe Beef" Customers, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Schittino V. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 2013-
CH-23202 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., October 11, 2013) seeks to end
Marriott's alleged unlawful practice of marketing and selling to
its paying customers and patrons "Kobe beef" and then providing
cheaper and inferior forms of beef.

For several years now, Marriott has duped its customers into
paying premium prices for non-premium beef, Mr. Schittino asserts.
He contends that knowing that "Kobe beef" describes a particularly
sought after beef product originating from Japan, and that
Marriott's beef was/is something far different, Marriott has
consistently and systematically misrepresented the quality and
origin of its beef to enable it to collect premium prices to which
it was/is not entitled.

Kobe beef is only available from Japan.  Because of its unusual
and distinctive qualities and international reputation, Kobe beef
sells for a significant premium over other forms of beef.

Mr. Schittino is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Marriott International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns,
manages and operates hotels and related dining services throughout
the world, including within Cook County, Illinois.  At its hotels,
Marriott sells items labeled and described as being made from
"Kobe beef."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Ryan, Esq.
          Seth R. Yohalem, Esq.
          SCANDAGLIA & RYAN
          55 E. Monroe Street, Suite 3440
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 580-2020
          E-mail: wryan@scandagliaryan.com
                  syohalem@scandagliaryan.com

               - and -

          Kevin I. Shenkman, Esq.
          SHENKMAN & HUGHES
          28905 Wight Rd.
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (310) 457-0970
          E-mail: kshenkman@shenkmanhughes.com


MERCEDES-BENZ: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over M272/M273 Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California refused to dismiss a class action
lawsuit commenced by Majeed Seifi and Tracey Deakin against
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.

The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and a
proposed class of "owners and lessees within California of
Mercedes vehicles equipped with either the M272 or the M273
engines" bearing certain serial numbers.  The Plaintiffs allege
that these engines contain gears made of sintered steel alloy that
wear out prematurely, causing their engines to misfire, which
poses a safety concern and necessitates major repairs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roy Arie Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 625-4342
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Braunstein, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: mbraunstein@kgglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Troy Masami Yoshino, Esq.
          Chad Allen Stegeman, Esq.
          Johnny J. Yeh, Esq.
          CARROLL, BURDICK & MCDONOUGH LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 989-5900
          Facsimile: (415) 989-0932
          E-mail: tyoshino@cbmlaw.com
                  cstegeman@cbmlaw.com
                  jyeh@cbmlaw.com

The case is Majeed Seifi and Tracey Deakin v. Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-05493-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco).


MICRO BIRD: Recalls 41 G5 Model School Buses
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              School Bus
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Label
Units affected:           41
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013366
TC ID number:             2013366

On certain school buses, the compliance label contains incorrect
vehicle type information.

Owners will be provided with labels and installation instructions.

Affected products: 2010 Girardin G5 School Bus


MONSANTO CO: GMO Wheat Suits Consolidated Into One Case in Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mateusz Perkowski, writing for Capital Press, reports that several
lawsuits against Monsanto over the unauthorized release of the
company's biotech wheat have been consolidated into one case in
Kansas.

Earlier this year, the USDA announced that glyphosate-tolerant
"Roundup Ready" wheat had been discovered growing in an eastern
Oregon field.

The variety was never deregulated by USDA for commercial
production, leading Japan and South Korea to suspend imports of
western white wheat.  The countries eventually lifted the
suspensions, but USDA's investigation into the release continues.

The incident also gave rise to numerous lawsuits against Monsanto,
alleging that the company failed to prevent the biotech crop from
contaminating wheat supplies while conducting field tests.

The lawsuits, mostly filed by wheat farmers, claimed that the
unauthorized release has hurt wheat prices and export markets. The
cases seek class action status that would allow other growers to
join the litigation.

A panel of federal judges has now decided to merge five lawsuits
originally filed in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Kansas into a
consolidated case that will be heard by Chief Judge Kathryn Vratil
in Kansas City.

Eleven other cases against Monsanto over biotech wheat may also be
consolidated into the case unless the plaintiffs object.

The panel decided on Kansas as the appropriate forum because
several cases originated there and because it's relatively close
to Monsanto's headquarters in St. Louis, Mo., "where the majority
of common evidence is likely to be located, including the
witnesses and documents concerning Monsanto's field testing of
genetically engineered wheat."

The Center for Food Safety, a non-profit group that filed one of
the lawsuits, wanted the cases to be consolidated in Oregon or
Washington, while Monsanto requested St. Louis.

The panel made a "Solomonic decision" in picking Kansas, said
George Kimbrell, attorney for the group.

Court briefs and motions that have been submitted up until now in
the individual cases will have to be refiled, but the
consolidation will ultimately prevent duplicative efforts, he
said.

"It's a more effective use of judicial resources," Mr. Kimbrell
said.

Monsanto said it was also pleased with the consolidation decision,
noting that the company continues to be confident that it properly
followed protocols in ending the field testing program in 2005.

Motions filed by Monsanto in some cases prior to the consolidation
order could offer a preview of the company's upcoming legal
strategy.

The firm called the cases a "feeding frenzy" of litigation that
alleges "injuries that have not occurred and, by all indications,
never will."

Monsanto asked for the case to be dismissed because there's no
evidence the plaintiffs received a depressed price for wheat or
had to pay for additional testing, storage or transportation.

"Plaintiffs rushed to file their lawsuit based on rank speculation
that Roundup Ready wheat would be found in fields throughout the
Northwest, and that markets would continue to reject Northwest
wheat deliveries forever.  None of that speculation has proven
true," Monsanto said in the document.


NEW YORK, NY: Suit Over Quota for Summonses Gains Momentum
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Beekman, writing for New York Daily News, reports that in
the shadow of the stop-and-frisk case that rocked the city this
year is a related federal lawsuit that could explode in the laps
of the next mayor and police commissioner.

Filed in 2010 and made a class action in 2012, the suit accuses
the NYPD of imposing quotas that led cops to issue about 700,000
questionable summonses since 2007.  The suit covers every person
who had a summons dismissed before arraignment due to insufficient
allegations.

"The evidence indicates that the Police Department had quotas that
applied across different enforcement activities," said Stephen
Neuwirth, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.  "This case goes after the
quota system."

It also seeks monetary damages.

The NYPD has denied quotas and the suit has yet to reach trial.
City lawyers argue that many of the summonses were justified,
despite being tossed.

"By and large, the summonses in question were dismissed because
there was not enough detail concerning the alleged offense," said
city lawyer Qiana Smith-Williams.

The suit is picking up momentum.

In August, white-shoe law firm Quinn Emmanuel joined the
plaintiffs' team and Manhattan Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin
slammed quotas as she ruled the NYPD's stop-and-frisk tactic
unconstitutional.

"The two cases are very much linked," said Eli Silverman, a John
Jay College of Criminal Justice professor who researched quota
pressure, as reported by retired cops.  "The pressure on summonses
was actually higher than . . . stop-and-frisk."

This month, a judge ruled that the plaintiffs could depose a city
official about how the NYPD tracks enforcement activities.

City lawyers downplayed the deposition.  But Mr. Neuwirth said,
"It will give us pieces of the puzzle that have until now been
inaccessible."

In 2010, cops stopped plaintiff Sharif Stinson, 23, as he left his
aunt's Bronx apartment, handcuffed him and held him, he said.  His
rights were violated, Mr. Neuwirth said.

The cops let Mr. Stinson go with trespass and disorderly conduct
summonses that were dismissed.

"I wasn't doing anything wrong," he said.

The plaintiffs contend that the summonses dismissed lacked
probable cause and were trumped up to meet quotas.  But city
lawyers cite errors by cops.

"The lack of detail does not mean there was not 'probable cause.'
It just means there was not enough information . . . for criminal
proceedings to go forward," Ms. Smith-Williams said.

The plaintiffs' case relies on state court statistics and
recordings made by whistleblower cops.

Democratic mayoral nominee Bill de Blasio is reviewing the suit, a
spokesman said.  Republican Joe Lhota's campaign and the NYPD
didn't return requests for comment.


NTS REALTY: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership is defending itself
against a consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit pending
in Kentucky, 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 January 27, 2013, the Company received notice that Dannis,
Stephen, et al. v. Nichols, J.D., et al., Case No. 13-CI-00452, a
putative unitholder class action lawsuit, was filed on January 25,
2013, in Jefferson County Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky against the Company, each of the members of the board of
directors of NTS Realty Capital, NTS Realty Capital, NTS Realty
Partners, LLC, NTS Merger Parent, LLC and NTS Merger Sub ("Merger
Sub") alleging, among other things, that the board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's unitholders in
connection with the board's approval of the Merger between Merger
Sub and NTS Realty.  On March 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint and added NTS Development Company and NTS
Management Company as additional defendants.  The amended
complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
completing the Merger as currently contemplated.  The Company
believes these allegations are without merit and it intends to
vigorously defend against them.

On February 12, 2013, the Company received notice that R. Jay
Tejera v. NTS Realty Holdings LP et al., Civil Action No. 8302-
VCP, another putative unitholder class action lawsuit, was filed
on February 12, 2013, in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware against the Company, each of the members of the board of
directors of NTS Realty Capital, NTS Merger Parent, LLC and NTS
Realty Capital, alleging, among other things, that the board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
unitholders in connection with the board's approval of the Merger
between Merger Sub and NTS Realty.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, money damages.  The Company believes these
allegations are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend
against them.

On February 15, 2013, the Company received notice that Gerald A.
Wells v. NTS Realty Holdings LP et al., Civil Action No. 8322-VCP,
a third putative unitholder class action lawsuit, was filed on
February 15, 2013, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, each of the members of the board of
directors of NTS Realty Capital, NTS Merger Parent, LLC, Merger
Sub and NTS Realty Capital, alleging, among other things, that the
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's unitholders in connection with the board's approval of
the Merger between Merger Sub and NTS Realty.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
completing the Merger as currently contemplated.  The Company
believes these allegations are without merit and it intends to
vigorously defend against them.

On March 19, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the
Tejera and Wells complaints under the Tejera case number and the
consolidated case caption of In Re NTS Realty Holdings Limited
Partnership Unitholders Litigation.  Then, on June 12, 2013, the
Delaware Chancery Court granted a Stipulation and Order of
Voluntary Dismissal as to Plaintiff R. Jay Tejera, dismissing the
claims of Plaintiff R. Jay Tejera, without prejudice, from In Re
NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation.

On June 13, 2013, the Company received notice that Plaintiff R.
Jay Tejera joined with Plaintiffs Stephen and Sharon Dannis in
filing a second amended complaint in the litigation pending in the
Jefferson County Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
In the second amended complaint, the Dannises and Tejera purport
to state claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company,
each member of the board of directors, NTS Realty Capital and NTS
Merger Parent, LLC.  This second amended complaint, like the
amended complaint, seeks money damages.  The Company believes
these allegations are without merit and it intends to vigorously
defend against them.

NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership --
http://www.ntsdevelopment.com/-- develops, constructs, owns and
operates multifamily properties, commercial and retail real
estate.  The Company is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Motion for Class Cert. in TCPA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington denied without
prejudice a motion for class certification filed in LORI SHAMBLIN,
Plaintiff, v. OBAMA FOR AMERICA, Defendant, CASE NO. 8:13-CV-2428-
T-33TBM, (M.D. Fla.).

Shamblin filed the putative class action case alleging that Obama
for America violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act during
the 2012 presidential election.

According to Judge Hernandez, the case is in its infancy. The
docket reflects that Shamblin has yet to effect service of the
summons and the Complaint on Obama for America. In addition, the
Court has not yet entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order
containing the operative case deadlines. Rather than staying the
present Motion, which is three pages in length and devoid of
substantive analysis, the Court finds the better course of action
is to deny the Motion without prejudice, she says.

"After Shamblin has effected service of the summons and Complaint,
Shamblin should confer with Obama for America regarding the
deadline for filing motions for class certification," Judge
Hernandez continued. "Thereafter, Shamblin may file a motion for
extension of time in which to seek class certification."

A copy of the District Court's October 9, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Fa4ow8from Leagle.com.


OPTOTRAFFIC: Judge Certifies Speed Camera Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Williams, writing for WCPO Cincinnati, reports that
Elmwood Place and its speed camera vendor would have to pay back
up to $1.7 million if ticketed motorists win the class-action
lawsuit certified on Oct. 22 by the judge who ordered the cameras
removed last spring.

Up to 10,000 motorists who paid the $105 tickets would be included
in the suit, attorney Mike Allen said.

The village collected more than $1.75 million in fines and fees
during the six months the six cameras were in operation from
September 2012 to March 2013.  Approximately 20,000 tickets were
issued, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman wrote
in his ruling on Oct. 22.

Judge Ruehlman certified the class action on behalf of all
motorists who paid the fines, additional online charges and
hearing fees or other charges under Elmwood Place's Automated
Speed Enforcement program. It doesn't include those who didn't pay
their tickets and others who already got a court-ordered refund.

"Judge Ruehlman's ruling [Oct. 22] that this case can proceed as a
class action is a victory for the common man and woman, I think,"
Mr. Allen told 9 On Your Side's Natasha Williams.  "If you look at
those people who were out at Elmwood at those hearings, it was
people on fixed incomes, elderly people.  They shelled out 105
bucks, in some cases more, to Elmwood.

"Judge Ruehlman's ruling [Oct. 22] gives us the opportunity to put
money back in their pockets."

A call to Elmwood Place was not returned, Ms. Williams reported.

Judge Ruehlman heard arguments earlier this month from Mr. Allen,
who already represented hundreds of ticketed motorists, and
Judd Uhl, special solicitor for the village.

Mr. Allen sought to have everyone ticketed by the cameras
represented in the suit.

"They can't go and litigate these cases individually," Mr. Allen
said, citing the thousands of people involved.

Mr. Uhl argued that the cases did not meet one of the seven
requisites for class action -- commonality.

"You have thousands of thousands of tickets with different
scenarios, different circumstances.  These people don't have a
common interest at all," Mr. Uhl said.

Elmwood Place has the money to repay the tickets in reserve should
it lose its case, Mr. Uhl said.

Elmwood Place split the ticket pot 60-40 with Optotraffic, the
company that installed and operated the cameras.  The village's
share was $1,056,515, according to an April 5 email accounting
from Optotraffic.  The Maryland-based company got roughly
$704,000.

Several elected village leaders have quit amid the controversy
over the speed cameras.  Mayor Stephanie Morgan resigned this
month, and four of the seven council members resigned in May.
Vice Mayor Robert Schmidt says he is serving as acting mayor.

In his March ruling, Judge Ruehlman said the speed cameras were
illegal because they violated due process, and he issued a
permanent injunction against using them.

In June, Judge Ruehlman found the village and Optotraffic in
contempt because they continued to operate the cameras after his
order to stop.  The village argued that it was just collecting
data, but Mr. Allen noted in his motion that the village continued
to collect money from tickets previously issued.

Judge Ruehlman ordered that all money collected from drivers after
his March stop order be repaid.  That amounted to about $48,500.
He also had the sheriff's office confiscate the cameras until the
money was returned.

In his March ruling, Judge Ruehlman called the use of speed
cameras "a scam motorists can't win" and "a game of three card
monte," rejecting the village's claim they were installed to
promote safety.

The cameras were calibrated to ticket any vehicle going more than
5 mph above the speed limit, officials said.

In the first month the cameras were in use, 6,600 tickets went out
-- triple the village's population. Before some unsuspecting
drivers realized it, they had racked up multiple citations.

Once a citation was issued, Judge Ruehlman's ruling said, there
was virtually no way drivers could defend themselves in court.
Plus, drivers who opted for a hearing had to pay a $25 fee.

Judge Ruehlman also noted that Optotraffic had a financial stake
in their use.

Mr. Allen argued that Optotraffic couldn't be trusted to calibrate
the cameras accurately.

At the time, Judge Ruehlman ordered Elmwood Place to pay back 10
plaintiffs who sued the village separately from Mr. Allen's
action. The judge also made the village pay legal fees.

Mr. Allen has also sued New Miami over the speed cameras in that
Butler County village.  That case is pending.

In June, the Ohio House passed a bill that would make speed
cameras and red-light cameras illegal except in school zones.

The bill, sponsored by Dale Mallory (D-Cincinnati) and Ron Maag
(R-Lebanon), has been referred to the Senate committee on State
Government Oversight and Reform.  The bill faces opposition from
legislators in Columbus, Cleveland, Akron and Toledo, which
collect millions of dollars from traffic cameras.


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Awaits Final OK of Shareholder Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., is awaiting final
approval of its settlement of a consolidated shareholder
litigation, 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.

Three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.  These
actions were brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
("IPO") of common stock in October 2010.  The claims were
initiated between October 2011 and April 2012 and have since been
consolidated as In re Pacific Biosciences of California Inc.
S'holder Litig., Case No. CIV509210 (the "State Court Action").
The plaintiffs in the State Court Action allege violations of
several provisions of the federal securities laws in connection
with the Company's August 16, 2010 registration statement
(effective, as amended, on October 26, 2010) and seek, among other
things, compensatory damages, rescission, and attorneys' fees and
costs on behalf of the putative class.  On October 26, 2012, the
plaintiffs in the State Court Action filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which the defendants answered
on November 13, 2012.  On June 3, 2013, the Superior Court
preliminarily approved the terms of a tentative settlement reached
by the parties to the State Court Action and conditionally
certified the settlement class proposed by the parties, such class
consisting of all persons or entities that purchased the Company's
common stock between October 27, 2010, and September 20, 2011
(inclusive).  The Superior Court scheduled a hearing regarding
final approval of the tentative settlement for October 25, 2013.
As of June 30, 2013, the Company has accrued for its best estimate
to resolve this matter.

The Company believes that the allegations in each of these pending
actions against it are without merit and the Company intends to
vigorously contest the actions.  However, there can be no
assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense.

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., develops, manufactures
and markets an integrated platform for high resolution genetic
analysis.  Combining advances in nanofabrication, biochemistry,
molecular biology, surface chemistry and optics, the Company
created a technology platform called single molecule, real-time,
or SMRT, technology.


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Stay "Primo" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., is awaiting a court
decision on its and other defendants' motion to stay the "Primo"
action, according to the Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 21, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Primo v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:11-CV-06599).  On April 11, 2012, an amended
complaint was filed in the Primo action, which added another
plaintiff, Evan Powell.  As amended, the complaint alleges
violations of several provisions of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's August 16, 2010 registration
statement (effective, as amended, on October 26, 2010), and by the
Company and/or its employees during the class period.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the
putative class.  On April 15, 2013, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint while
permitting plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within sixty
days.  On June 14, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Primo action filed
a second amended complaint.  On June 13, 2013, the defendants
moved to stay all proceedings in the Primo action, pending a
consideration by the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo, of whether to grant final approval to the
tentative settlement preliminarily approved in the State Action.
The District Court has scheduled a hearing on the defendants'
motion to stay the Primo action for August 22, 2013.  Pursuant to
the parties' stipulation and as ordered by the District Court, the
defendants are not obligated to respond to the second amended
complaint until thirty days after the District Court has ruled on
the pending motion to stay and then only in the event the District
Court denies the motion.

The Company believes that the allegations in each of these pending
actions against it are without merit and the Company intends to
vigorously contest the actions.  However, there can be no
assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense.

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., develops, manufactures
and markets an integrated platform for high resolution genetic
analysis.  Combining advances in nanofabrication, biochemistry,
molecular biology, surface chemistry and optics, the Company
created a technology platform called single molecule, real-time,
or SMRT, technology.


PILOT FLYING J: 150 Customers Opt Out of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Grant, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that Pilot
Flying J's plan to settle a multimillion-dollar class action that
claims it cheated trucking companies on fuel rebates and discounts
has about 150 customers saying no thanks to the deal.

Browns owner Jimmy Haslam's family business has proposed in a
class settlement pending in federal court in Little Rock, Ark., to
repay trucking companies anything they're owed, plus six percent
interest.

Pilot Flying J attorney Aubrey Harwell said on Oct. 21 that
officials of about 150 truck lines that are controlled by about 55
parent companies notified him by the Oct. 15 deadline that they
did not want to be part of the class settlement.  The settlement
is aimed at resolving complaints from dozens of trucking companies
that sued Pilot after an April 15 raid on its headquarters in
Knoxville, Tenn.  The lawsuits claim the national truck stop chain
shorted trucking companies out of millions of dollars in promised
fuel rebates and discounts.

Mr. Harwell said at least three of the firms opting out of the
proposed agreement are trucking companies satisfied with the
payments they've already received for past-due fuel payments.
Others said they will drop their opposition to the settlement once
Pilot completes an audit of its fuel program and pays them for
shortages, Mr. Harwell said.  Such customers would need court
approval to opt back in to the plan or Pilot can simply settle
with them one on one, Mr. Harwell said.

Still other customers have been averse to a class agreement all
along and have taken an aggressive stance against Pilot -- calling
for questioning of Mr. Haslam and other Pilot executives under
oath about their knowledge of the years-long scam.  Mr. Haslam has
said he knew nothing about any illegalities, and that Pilot's
internal investigation now shows that it was limited to a small
group of rogue employees.

Mr. Haslam said in an update on Pilot's investigation in late
September that all of the chain's nearly 7,000 customers with fuel
accounts have had those accounts audited.

Also, Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper Jr.'s office said
it decided not to raise objections to the settlement after
reviewing it in the framework of the 2005 Class Action Fairness
Act.  The law expanded federal oversight of class action lawsuits
and settlements nationwide.

"This class action is different from most consumer settlements
that the office reviews.  The lawsuit and the underlying issues
have received considerable publicity.  The proposed class members
are businesses that have the resources to evaluate their own
claims.  If a class member doesn't believe it is getting what it
deserves, it has the right to opt out of the settlement, be
removed from the class, and file its own lawsuit," Sharon Curtis-
Flair, a spokeswoman for Cooper, said in a prepared statement.

A fairness hearing on whether to finalize the Pilot settlement is
set for Nov. 25 in Little Rock.

A criminal investigation continues into claims that Pilot
systematically defrauded trucking companies by withholding rebates
or discounts they were promised.  Seven Pilot employees have
pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.


PROLOR BIOTECH: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prolor Biotech, Inc., is defending a consolidated merger-related
class action lawsuit pending in Nevada, 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 23, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger with OPKO Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("OPKO"),
and POM Acquisition, Inc., a Nevada corporation and a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of OPKO ("POM"), pursuant to which POM
will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger") and the
Company will be the surviving corporation and OPKO's wholly owned
subsidiary.

Six putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Merger: (i) Peter Turkell v. Prolor Biotech, Inc., et al.
(Case No. A-13-680860-B), filed April 29, 2013, in the Eighth
Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada; (ii)
Floyd A. Fried v. Prolor Biotech, Inc., et al., (Case No. A-13-
681060), filed May 1, 2013, in the Eighth Judicial District Court
in and for Clark County, Nevada; (iii) Marc Henzel v. Prolor
Biotech, Inc., et al. (Case No. A-13-681020-C), filed May 1, 2013,
in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for Clark County,
Nevada; (iv) Bradford W. Baer, et al., v. Prolor Biotech, Inc. et
al. (Case No. A-13-681218-B, filed May 3, 2013, in the Eighth
Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada; (v) James
Hegarty v. Prolor Biotech, Inc., et al (Case No. A-13-681250-C),
filed May 6, 2013, in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and
for Clark County, Nevada; and (vi) Jorge L. Salas, et al. v.
Prolor Biotech, Inc., et al. (Case No. A-13-681279-C), filed
May 6, 2013, in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for
Clark County, Nevada.

On July 17, 2013, these six lawsuits were consolidated, for all
purposes, into an amended class action complaint as part of the In
re PROLOR Biotech, Inc. Shareholders' Litigation (Case No. A-13-
680860-B).  The lawsuit names the Company, the members of its
Board of Directors, OPKO, and POM as defendants.  The lawsuit is
brought by purported holders of the Company's common stock, both
individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders, asserting claims that (i) the its Directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Merger by,
among other things, purportedly failing to maximize stockholder
value, (ii) that the Company and its Board of Directors failed to
disclose material information concerning the proposed Merger and
(iii) that OPKO and POM aided and abetted the Company's Directors'
alleged breach of their fiduciary duties.  The lawsuit seeks
various damages, an award of all costs, and reasonable attorneys'
fees, as well as certain equitable relief, including enjoining
consummation of the Merger and, alternatively, rescinding the
Merger in the event it is consummated.

The Company believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are
without merit and intends to defend such claims vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail
in its defense of this lawsuit.  Due to the preliminary nature of
the lawsuit, the Company is not able at this time to estimate its
outcome.

Prolor Biotech, Inc., is a development stage biopharmaceutical
company, utilizing an exclusive license from Washington University
to patented technology in the development of longer-acting
versions of already-approved therapeutic proteins, through its
Israeli subsidiary, Prolor Biotech Ltd.  The Company was
incorporated in 2003 under the laws of the state of Nevada and is
headquartered in Nes-Ziona, Israel.


REMINGTON ARMS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Rifle Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gazette State Bureau reports that the Remington Arms Co. has faced
numerous lawsuits over alleged defects in its Model 700 bolt-
action rifle -- including at least three class-action lawsuits
filed in federal courts in Montana, Washington and Missouri.

The class-action suits, all filed earlier this year on behalf of
rifle owners, allege that "every Model 700 should be considered
unreasonably dangerous and defective because it is prone to fire
without pulling the trigger due to the defective design of the
trigger assembly."

The suits accuse Remington of knowingly concealing the "defective
nature" of the rifle.  The suits ask for damages and request that
the company be ordered to notify all Model 700 owners of the
problem.

However, none of the lawsuits has had the plaintiffs certified as
a class -- a key step in any successful class-action suit.

The Montana lawsuit was dismissed three weeks ago at the request
of Remington and the plaintiffs.  Lawyers in the case declined to
discuss why they asked for dismissal.

Also this month, an Oregon woman severely injured by a Remington
Model 700 rifle more than 30 years ago asked a federal judge in
Oregon to reopen her case for a new trial.

Teri See alleged that before the 1983 trial on her original
lawsuit against the company, Remington fraudulently concealed
evidence about its knowledge of defects in the rifle.  A jury
ruled in favor of Remington at that trial.

Over the years, Remington has won, lost and settled scores of
lawsuits filed by people injured by the Model 700 rifle.  Most of
the suits alleged the rifle has a defect that can cause it to fire
without the trigger being pulled.

One of the biggest verdicts against Remington was in 1994.  Texas
oil worker Glenn Collins, whose foot was amputated after an
accident with the Model 700, won a $17 million verdict against the
company.  The case later was settled out of court, after Remington
agreed not to appeal the verdict.

Mr. Collins said the rifle fired accidentally in 1989 as he was
unloading it, striking his foot.


RESER'S FINE: Recalls Certain Salad Products
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Reser's Fine Foods Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The public warning issued on October 21, 2013 has been updated to
include additional products.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Reser's Fine Foods
Inc. are warning the public not to consume the Reser's Fine Foods
and Market Pantry brands salad products described below, because
they may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The manufacturer, Reser's Fine Foods Inc., Beaverton, Oregon, USA,
is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the
marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the
recall.

The following products, marked with a Best By Date followed by a
plant identifier code of 20, are affected by this alert:

Affected products:

   -- 425 g Market Pantry Coleslaw with UPC 0 28919 00240 3 and
      Best By Date(s) of 2013 OC 10;

   -- 454 g Reser's Fine Foods Creamy Spinach Dip with UPC 0 71117
      61206 6 and Best By Date(s) of 2013 OC 17, 2013 OC 30;

   -- 425 g. Reser's Fine Foods Crunchy Coleslaw with UPC 0 71117
      18244 6 with Best By Date(s) of 2013 OC 10;

   -- 1.25 kg Reser's Fine Foods Crunchy Coleslaw with UPC 0 71117
      61225 7 and Best By Date(s) 2013 OC 10;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Macaroni Salad with UPC 0 71117
      18240 8 and Best By Date(s) of 2013 OC 23 2013 NO 26;

   -- 1.81 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Gourmet Potato Salad with UPC 0
      71117 00164 8 and Best By Date(s) of 2013 OC 12, 2013
      OC 25, 2013 NO 15;

   -- 340 g. Reser's Fine Foods Gourmet Red Potato Salad with UPC
      0 71117 61209 7 and Best By Date(s) 2013 OC 12;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Homestyle Potato Salad with UPC 0
      71117 61251 6 and Best By Date(s) of 2013 OC 10;

   -- 1.25 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Macaroni Salad with UPC 0 71117
      61322 3 and Best By Date(s) of 2013 OC 23, 2013 NO 05;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Potato & Deviled Egg Salad with
      UPC 0 71117 61252 3 and Best By Date(s) of 2013 OC 12, 2013
      NO 15;

   -- 454 g. Reser's Fine Foods Potato & Egg Salad with UPC 0
      71117 18243 9 and Best By Date(s) of 2013 OC 23, 2013 NO 26;

   -- 1.25 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Potato & Egg Salad with UPC 0
      71117 61321 6 and Best By Date(s) 2013 OC 23, 2013 NO 26;

   -- 454 g Reser's Fine Foods Potato Salad with UPC 0 71117 18242
      2 and Best By Date(s) 2013 OC 23;

   -- 1.25 kg Reser's Fine Foods Potato Salad with UPC 0 71117
      61320 9 and Best By Date(s) 2013 OC 23, 2013 NO 26;

   -- 2.27 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Red Potato Salad with Dijon with
      UPC 0 71117 61629 3 and Best By Date(s) 2013 OC 15, 2013
      OC 28, 2013 NO 18;

   -- 425 g. Reser's Fine Foods Traditional Oil & Vinegar Coleslaw
      with UPC 0 71117 61254 7 and Best By Date(s) 2013 OC 10; and

   -- 3.63 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Potato Salad * with UPC 71117
      00215 and Best By Date(s) 2013 OC 23, 2013 NOV 06, 2013
      NOV 27

* These affected products were sold in bulk and may have been
repacked at retail.  Consumers who cannot determine the original
product identity are advised to check with their retailer to
determine if they have one of the affected products.

   -- 2.27 kg Reser's Fine Foods Loaded Baked Potato Salad * with
      UPC 71117 11586 and Best By Date(s) 2013 NOV 10

* These affected products were sold in bulk and may have been
repacked at retail.  Consumers who cannot determine the original
product identity are advised to check with their retailer to
determine if they have one of the affected products.

   -- 3.18 kg. Reser's Fine Foods Regular Coleslaw * with UPC
      71117 15124 and Best By Date(s) 2013 OC 20, 2013 NOV 10

* These affected products were sold in bulk and may have been
repacked at retail.  Consumers who cannot determine the original
product identity are advised to check with their retailer to
determine if they have one of the affected products.


RESERVE PRIMARY FUND: December 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crederian Fund Services LLC on Oct. 22 disclosed that in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, in In re The Reserve Primary Fund Securities & Derivative
Class Action Litigation No. 08-cv-8060-PGG, a summary notice has
been issued as follows:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, FINAL APPROVAL HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR HELD SHARES OF THE
PRIMARY FUND DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 TO
SEPTEMBER 17, 2008.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, (a) of the pendency
of this action asserting claims against Reserve Management
Company, Inc., Resrv Partners, Inc., Reserve Management
Corporation, Bruce Bent Sr., Bruce R. Bent II, and Arthur T. Bent
III; and the Independent Trustees of the Primary Fund as a class
action on behalf of the persons and entities who (i) purchased or
held shares of the Primary Fund during the period from September
28, 2006 to September 15, 2008 and held them as of 4:00 p.m. ET on
September 15, 2008; or (ii) purchased shares of the Primary Fund
during the period between 4:00 p.m. ET on September 15, 2008 and
September 17, 2008, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Class by definition; and (b) that a
settlement of the Action that has the net effect of at least a
$54.5 million benefit to Members of the Class and other Primary
Fund Shareholders has been proposed.  A hearing will be held on
December 16, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Paul G.
Gardephe, at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 705, New York,
New York 10007:  (A) to determine whether the proposed Settlement
on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the
Court; (B) to determine whether the Order and Final Judgment as
provided for under the Stipulation should be entered, dismissing
the Action, on the merits and with prejudice, and to determine
whether the releases proposed by the Parties, as set forth in the
Stipulation, should be ordered; (C) to determine whether the
application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses incurred should be approved;
and (D) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY
BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement, Final Approval Hearing and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator:

     The Reserve Primary Fund Securities Class Action Litigation
     c/o Crederian Fund Services LLC
     1400 N. Providence Road
     Bldg. 2, Suite 5035
     Media, PA 19063
     Telephone: (800) 691-7562

A copy of the Notice is available at:

     http://www.primary-yieldplus-inliquidation.com

Copies of other documents, including copies of the Stipulation,
and the Complaint, are available on Lead Counsel's website at
http://www.blbglaw.com

If you are a Member of the Class, you may be potentially eligible
to receive a distribution from this settlement.  If you are a
Class Member but purchased your shares indirectly (e.g., through a
broker or nominee), you should contact that broker or nominee
immediately, as the Court may order that any distribution be made
through the record holders only, consistent with its prior orders.
If you are a Member of the Class, you are subject to the
Settlement unless you timely request to be excluded.  To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is received no later than November 25, 2013, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  Any
objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation and/or
Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of litigation expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered
to counsel such that they are received no later than November 25,
2013, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries may be made to Lead Counsel:

        John Browne, Esq.
        Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
        1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
        New York, NY 10019
        Telephone: (866) 648-2524

Published By Order of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York


SAKS INC: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAPAPORT reports that Saks Inc. acknowledged on Oct. 22 that it
had reached an agreement to settle class action lawsuits that were
filed by some shareholders in an attempt to prevent the retailer's
sale to Hudson's Bay Company.  Several class action suits were
brought against Saks in New York, which were consolidated, and two
cases were filed in Tennessee.

The complaints alleged that Saks' directors breached their
fiduciary duties to shareholders in connection with the merger by
agreeing to sell Saks for "inadequate" consideration and by
agreeing to terms that discouraged competing bids.  The complaints
also challenged disclosures that Saks and its directors have made
regarding the merger, as well as that Hudson's Bay aided and
abetted the directors' breach of their fiduciary duties.

On Oct. 21, the parties came to an understanding, which would
decrease the termination fee from Saks to Hudson's Bay down to
$68.5 million from $73.5 million if the deal fails to materialize
and shortened the period of time that Hudson's Bay may match an
alternative offer for Saks from four days to three.  Saks must
inform Hudson's Bay of an alternative offer within 72 hours.

Saks called a special meeting of shareholders for Oct. 30 to vote
on and approve the merger with Hudson's Bay.


TANGOE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Tangoe, Inc., continues to defend itself against a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut, 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 March 1, 2013, Lewis Stein, a purported purchaser of the
Company's common stock, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against the
Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer, Stein v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr.
and Gary R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange
Act.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from December 20, 2011, through
September 5, 2012, and alleges that during this period the market
price of the Company's common stock was inflated by false or
misleading statements principally concerning the results of the
Company's business.  On April 30, 2013, Mr. Stein and another
purported purchaser of the Company's common stock, James Gibson,
filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in connection
with this putative class action and to have their attorneys
approved as lead counsel.  The court held a hearing on May 13,
2013, to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for all of the
cases consolidated with this action.  The court denied without
prejudice Mr. Stein's and Mr. Gibson's motion to be appointed as
lead plaintiffs in connection with this putative class action and
to have their attorneys approved as lead counsel.  On May 17,
2013, Mr. Gibson withdrew his request to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in connection with this putative class action, and Mr.
Stein filed a renewed request to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
connection with this putative class action and to have his
attorneys approved as lead counsel.  The court has not yet ruled
on Mr. Stein's renewed motion.  The Company says the outcome of
this matter is not presently determinable.

On March 15, 2013, Calvin Rector, a purported purchaser of the
Company's common stock, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against the
Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer, Rector v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr.
and Gary R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock from December 20,
2011, through September 5, 2012, and alleges that during this
period the market price of the Company's common stock was inflated
by false or misleading statements principally concerning the
results of the Company's business.  On April 3, 2013, the Court
consolidated this case with the Stein case.  Mr. Rector has not
moved to be appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated Stein
case.  The Company says the outcome of this matter is not
presently determinable.

On April 12, 2013, Timothy Kelley, a purported purchaser of the
Company's common stock, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against the
Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer, Kelley v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr.
and Gary R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock from December 20,
2011, through September 5, 2012, and alleges that during this
period the market price of the Company's common stock was inflated
by false or misleading statements principally concerning the
results of the Company's business.  On April 26, 2013, the court
consolidated the case with the Stein case.  Mr. Kelley has not
moved to be appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated Stein
case.  The Company says the outcome of this matter is not
presently determinable.

Tangoe, Inc. -- http://www.tangoe.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation based in Orange, Connecticut.  Tangoe is a global
provider of communications lifecycle management software and
services to a wide range of large and medium sized commercial
enterprises and governmental agencies.


TARSADIA HOTELS: Summary Judgment Ruling Entered in "Beaver" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case DEAN BEAVER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TARSADIA HOTELS,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 11CV1842 GPC(KSC), (S.D. Cal.),
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and
denied in part, the Tarsadia Defendants and Defendant Playground
Destination's motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs Dean Beaver, Laurie Beaver, Steven Adelman, Abram
Aghachi, Dinesh Gauba, Kevin Kenna and Veronica Kenna brought the
class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated against developers and agents of the Hard Rock Hotel &
Condominium Project. Plaintiffs commenced this action on behalf of
persons who purchased units at the Hard Rock between May 2006 and
December 2007 for Defendants' failure to disclose and
intentionally concealing Plaintiffs' right to rescind their
purchase contracts within two years of the date of signing the
contracts.

The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
granted Tarsadia Defendants and Defendant Playground Destinations'
motions for summary judgment as to all causes of action except
the negligence cause of action.

Judge Curiel ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs as to
the negligence cause of action on or before November 5, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's October 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/NJq6ECfrom Leagle.com.


TENDERTYME/1218216: Recalls Small Wonders Pacifiers
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 23, 2013
Posting date:             October 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Chemical Hazard
Audience:                 General PublicI
Identification number:    RA-36363

Affected products: Small Wonders Pacifiers

The recall involves the "Small Wonders" brand pacifiers.  The
pacifiers come in a package of two with various colour
combinations and can be identified by the style number 1622 and
UPC number 627174016226.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the mouth guard of the pacifiers contains lead in excess of
the allowable limit.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children
and can cause adverse health effects.

Neither Health Canada nor Tendertyme/1218216 Ontario Limited has
received reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of
the pacifiers.

For more information on the risks and symptoms of lead exposure,
visit Reduce your exposure to lead.

Approximately 5,700 units of the affected pacifiers were sold in
Canada.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Royal King
                   Bangkok
                   Thailand

  Distributor      Tendertyme/1218216 Ontario Ltd.
                   Toronto
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should take away these pacifiers from their children
immediately and dispose of them in their regular household
garbage.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: WLF Urges Court to Rehear Propoxyphene Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
public interest law and policy center headquartered in Washington,
D.C., is urging a federal appeals court to uphold the right of
out-of-state defendants to remove lawsuits from state to federal
court when the suit involves numerous plaintiffs.

The Washington Legal Foundation, which promotes free enterprise,
filed an amicus brief in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
this week.

In its brief, WLF argues that the 2-1 decision of a three-judge
panel remanding a product liability suit back to state court was
"inconsistent" with the federal Class Action Fairness Act.

Congress adopted the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005 to ensure
that the right of removal is protected for most such defendants,
particularly in cases seeking significant damages and in which the
plaintiff is suing to collect for alleged injuries on behalf of
numerous individuals.

CAFA gives federal courts jurisdiction to certain class actions in
which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and in which
any of the members of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a
state different from any defendant, unless at least two-thirds or
more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the
aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in
which the action was originally filed.

Business groups and tort reform supporters lobbied for the
legislation, arguing that it was needed to prevent class-action
lawsuit abuse.

WLF is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
rehear the case en banc.

The court's three-judge panel held that the lawsuit did not
qualify as a "mass action" and was not subject to CAFA.

The foundation argues that Congress intended CAFA to apply
whenever -- as in this case -- the suit combines the claims of 100
or more plaintiffs.

Even if the plaintiffs do not ask explicitly that the claims of
all plaintiffs be "tried jointly," CAFA permits removal whenever
the plaintiffs ask that the claims be coordinated "for all
purposes," WLF asserts.

"The panel decision strongly suggests that nothing that
plaintiffs' counsel could do -- short of making an explicit
statement that 'we hereby propose that all claims be tried
jointly' -- would ever be sufficient to trigger the mass action
provision," attorneys Richard Samp and Cory Andrews wrote in the
foundation's 18-page brief.

"In light of Congress's determination that it is of critical
importance that defendants faced with 'mass actions' should be
afforded a federal forum and that plaintiffs should not be
permitted to 'game the system' for the purpose of defeating
removal, the issue of whether Congress really intended to define
'mass actions' as narrowly as the panel determined warrants en
banc review by this Court."

The case involves the product liability claims of more than 1,500
individuals who claim to have suffered injuries after taking
medications containing the active ingredient propoxyphene, a drug
that was widely marketed in the United States between 1957 and
2010.

Named as defendants are nearly a dozen pharmaceutical
manufacturers and wholesalers.


WINDSOR: Legal Bills Pile Up in Suit Over Bingo Licensing Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Waddell, writing for The Windsor Star, reports that the City
of Windsor could be on the hook for a $100-million jackpot if it
loses a class-action lawsuit over bingo licensing fees led by the
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Essex County and the
Community Gaming Entertainment Group.

The legal bill already tops $650,000 from the suit filed Oct. 27,
2008, with the prospect it'll grow into the millions before the
case reaches trial.  The suit, which alleges lottery licensing and
lottery administration fees were actually taxes, was the subject
of an in-camera meeting on Oct. 21 before Windsor council's
regular meeting.

The town of Tecumseh is also named in the class-action suit by the
Belle River District Minor Hockey Association and the Essex County
Dancers.

The municipalities are sharing the legal costs where applicable.

"So far between Tecumseh and the City of Windsor, we have already
paid over $1-million to defend this action," said city solicitor
George Wilkki.

"That's money better spent on charities rather than lawyers.

"We're trying to estimate the total expense.  We'd have to look at
every single charity that pulled a bingo license back to Day 1."

That expense will send the legal defense bills skyrocketing if the
city is forced to go back to 1990 as is sought by the plaintiffs.
The two municipalities are seeking to have the term limited to two
years and a brief transition phase.

"It would be a huge time commitment (to research over two decades
of documentation)," Mr. Wilkki said.  "We'd have to hire temporary
staff just to do it."

Mr. Wilkki said the Essex County area is a test case for the rest
of the province.

At one time, the region was the bingo capital of Canada and a
$100-million win could wreck municipal budgets across Ontario.  He
was unsure how much Tecumseh might be liable for in the event the
two municipalities meet a legal Waterloo.

Mr. Wilkki added it would be almost impossible to work out a
settlement with so many players involved in the suit.

"We're not prepared to settle," said Helga Reidel, Windsor's CAO.
"We feel we have a very strong case.

"These (fees) were in the (provincial) legislation."

Ms. Reidel said having a $100-million time bomb ticking in the
city's treasury is a reminder of the necessity of keeping
Windsor's fiscal house in order.  The city has $130 million in its
reserve fund.

                         'One Last Try'

City council has delayed putting the Snow Angels program on ice
this winter by agreeing to study how it might be kept alive while
seeking help from community organizations.

The 15-year-old program connects volunteers with the elderly and
disabled who can't clear the snow from their sidewalks and
driveways.  Council heard that it would cost about $25,000 to run
the program this winter if the city were to go it alone.  That
estimate was for the 300 to 350 volunteers needed to run the
program.

There has been an average of 80 volunteers in the program, only a
quarter of what's needed, prompting administration to recommend
suspending the Snow Angels for a year.

"Before pulling the plug, we need to try everything we can to save
it," said Coun, Fulvio Valentinis.  "What about school community
hours, involving other community organizational groups that can
assist? It's worth one last try."


WORCESTER TELEGRAM: Class Action Delays Boston Globe Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
William Launder, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
The New York Times Co.'s sale of the Boston Globe and Worcester
Telegram & Gazette to Boston Red Sox owner John Henry has been
stalled by an unsettled class action lawsuit related to the
Telegram & Gazette, the Times Co. confirmed on Oct. 22.

Judge Shannon Frison of the Massachusetts Superior Court blocked
the sale in an order issued on Oct. 18, a day before the planned
closing of the sale to Mr. Henry.  The order was issued in light
of an unsettled class action lawsuit facing the Telegram & Gazette
over news carriers' classification as independent contractors
rather than employees, a clerk at the Worcester Superior Court
said.  The last-minute hitch was first reported on Oct. 22 by the
Telegram & Gazette.

Times Co. hasn't agreed to assume potential liabilities that could
arise in a settlement of the class action lawsuit involving the
Telegram & Gazette, Judge Frison wrote, based on review of a
section of the sales agreement between Times Co. and Mr. Henry.
Judge Frison has determined that Times Co. must assume
responsibility for potential liabilities "at the maximal end of
its foreseeable range--at least $60 million," according to her
order.

That amount is only $10 million less than the $70 million price
the Times Co. agreed to accept for the Globe, Telegram & Gazette
and other assets in its New England Media Group when it struck the
deal with Mr. Henry in August.

A spokeswoman for the Times Co. on Oct. 22 confirmed details of
the court order and said that further details were expected from
Judge Frison as early as Oct. 23.

Mr. Henry wasn't immediately available for comment.


ZIONS FIRST: Schwartz Urges Appeals Court to Allow Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Parks, writing for Philly.com, reports that Rep. Allyson
Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.) and two other legislators are asking a
federal appeals court to allow a class-action lawsuit against a
bank in connection with telemarketing schemes that allegedly took
more than $30 million from elderly and poor people.

U.S. District Judge Juan R. Sanchez rejected class-action status
in Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, ruling last month that the
alleged offenses were too disparate to be tried together.

The plaintiffs argued that Utah-based Zions continued providing
banking services to at least six telemarketers in spite of warning
signs that the Justice Department says are distinct "evidence of
fraudulent conduct."

The telemarketers would use various methods to lure alleged
victims into revealing their bank account numbers. One claimed to
be offering government grants or rebates, while others purportedly
sold long-distance cards, medical discount cards, or gas vouchers.

At least one of the telemarketing companies was busted by the FTC
in 2008 and convicted by Sanchez in April. But another company
named in the suit argues that its products are legitimate.

Sanchez cited those differences in his ruling, arguing that the
lawsuit "tends to treat the telemarketers as one entity."

Schwartz, along with U.S. Sens. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D., Pa.) and
Edward Markey (D., Mass.), filed an amicus brief on Oct. 21 with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that it
would be "financially unfeasible" for the victims to sue
individually.


* India's Section 245 of Companies Act Introduces Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hindu Business Line reports that to protect investor interest,
Section 245 of Companies Act 2013 has introduced the concept of
class action suits, through which shareholders can initiate legal
action against the company and auditors in the event of fraudulent
activity.  In a class action suit, a large group of individuals
collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a particular
class of defendants are being sued.  A class of shareholders can
now claim damages or compensation or demand other suitable action
against the auditor, including the audit firm, by filing an
application with the Tribunal.  The concept of collective lawsuit
has its origin in the US, where it is widely prevalent.

                       Joint auditor risks

Companies Act 2013 proposes that the members of a company could
ask for audit by more than one auditor.  An auditor spends years
in acquiring and understanding the critical elements of the
financial statements and business of his/her client.  Audit not
only involves obtaining knowledge of, and experience with the
client's industry, but also careful planning that takes into
account client-specific risks and controls.  The concept of joint
audit would not only lead to increased cost for clients, as both
firms would have to be paid for the engagement, it may also impact
audit quality.  When two firms undertake a joint audit, there is
always a possibility that it will result in duplication of effort,
resulting in unnecessary cost and oversight due to lack of co-
ordination.

               Ushering in the "resident director"

Under the new Companies Act, a new concept of "resident director"
has been introduced.  Every company should ensure that at least
one director stays in India for at least 182 days in the previous
calendar year.  This applies to all companies -- listed, unlisted
public and private limited companies.  The definition of
"residency" is along the lines prescribed under the Income-tax Act
and Foreign Exchange Management Act.  While on one hand directors
have been allowed to participate in board meetings through video-
conferencing and other audio-visual means, the importance of
physical presence is also duly recognized.

                New regime for "alternate director"

The new Companies Act has laid to rest one of the long-standing
ambiguities related to "alternate director".  Under Companies Act
1956, the 'alternate director' was supposed to vacate office on
the return of the original director to the "state" in which board
meetings are ordinarily held.  Under the new provisions, the
concept of "state" has been done away with, and the alternate
director will vacate office on the return of the original director
to India.

The other interesting change is with regard to the appointment of
the alternate director.  Alternate can be appointed only when the
original director is absent from India for three months or more.
Further, a person can be appointed as an alternate director for an
"independent director" only if he/she meets the qualifications of
independence prescribed under the new Act.


                             *********

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  * * *