/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/131105.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, November 5, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 219


ACI WORLDWIDE: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement
ALAMO CLAIM: Did Not Pay OT Premium to Plaintiffs, Suit Claims
BASHAS': Mislabeled "Choice" Beef Tenderloin as "Prime", Suit Says
BLACKBERRY LTD: Levi & Korsinsky Commences Class Action in N.Y.
BODY CENTRAL STORES: Dec. 10 Class Action Status Conference Set

CARMAX AUTO: California Court of Appeal Rebuffs Class Action
CLASSIC CARS: Insurer Says It Has No Duty to Defend Class Suit
COBB ELECTRIC: February 2014 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Coke Has Artificial Flavors, Suit Claims
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: $500MM Settlement Gets Tentative Approval

DUOYUAN GLOBAL: February 2014 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
F & M LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, Suit Claims
FACTOR SALES: Settlement Reached in Cashiers' Class Suit
FARMERS INSURANCE: Calif. State Appeals Court Revives Class Action
FIRST CHOICE: Accused of Violating FLSA and WARN Act in Florida

GABRIELE INC: Sued Over Unlawful Tip Pooling Practice in Missouri
GROUPON INC: Ontario Court Approves Class Action Settlement
HAVEN MANOR: Sued by Hourly Nurses Over Illegal Wage Practices
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Suit Blocked by Four-Year Statute of Limitations
IBEW PACIFIC: Plan Trustees Face Suit Over Withheld Contributions

IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settlement Hearings Set for Dec. 16 and 17
JC PENNEY: Hid Liquidity Crisis Before 2nd Offering, Suit Claims
KHOURY BROTHERS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Class, Suit Says
KINDERKIDS LEARNING: Does Not Pay OT and Minimum Wages, Suit Says
L.A. FITNESS: $3.8-Mil. Settlement Is Fair Enough, Judge Says

LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: To Fight Shareholder Class Action
LOWE'S HOME: Misclassified Installers as Contractors, Suit Says
MCGLAUGHLIN SPRAY: Pa. Court Rejects Medical Monitoring Claim
NEW YORK, NY: Judge Stays Appointment of Stop-and-Frisk Monitor
NQ MOBILE: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.

NQ MOBILE: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
NQ MOBILE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
OFFICIAL PAYMENTS: Being Sold for Too Little to ACI, Suit Says
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Sends False & Threatening Letters, Suit Says
PEPSICO: Faces Class Suit Over Overtime Payment in Georgia

PRETIUM RESOURCES: Robbins Geller Files Expanded Class Action
PRINCE GEORGE SCHOOL: Named Defendant in Summer School Fee Suit
REGIONS BANK: Court Refused to Junk USPT-Related Securities Suit
ROCKHARD LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over RockHard Weekend Product
SKADDEN ARPS: Judge Skeptical at Wage-and-Hour Class Action

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Got Prelim. OK of $1.8MM Deal in Receipt Case
SP AUSNET: Gets Favorable Ruling in Black Saturday Class Action
ST. CHARLES HEALTH: Suit Over Training Gets Class Action Status
STONEBRIDGE LIFE: Illegally Sells Group Insurance, Suit Claims
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Violates Racketeering Law, Class Suit Claims

US CENTURY: Judge Dismisses Minority Shareholder Class Action
US NURSING: Received Final Approval of $1.7-Mil. Class Settlement
VANCOUVER: Tri-City Families Eligible for School Fee Refunds
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Got Prelim. OK of $95-Mil. Class Settlement
VERIZON COMMS: Judge Okays $7.7MM OT Class Action Settlement

YELP: To Seek Dismissal of Reviewers' Class Action

* B.C. Courts Increasingly Liberal in Certifying Class Actions


ACI WORLDWIDE: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement
ACI Worldwide, Inc., an international provider of payment systems,
on Oct. 28 disclosed that it has extended its tender offer for all
of the outstanding shares of common stock of Official Payments
Holdings, Inc., a provider of electronic bill payment solutions,
until 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on Monday, November 4,
2013, unless further extended.

ACI and Official Payments also disclosed on Oct. 28 that they have
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of themselves
and the other defendants outlining the terms of the parties'
agreement in principle to settle the actions pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Williams v. Official Payment
Holdings, et al., Case No. 8970, and in the Superior Court of
Gwinnett County of the State of Georgia captioned Giacherio v.
Official Payment Holdings, et al., Case No. 13-A-08794-8.  The
terms of the proposed settlement are subject to approval of the
Delaware Court of Chancery and dismissal of the action pending in
the Superior Court of Gwinnett County of the State of Georgia.
ACI and Official Payments and the other defendants entered into
the Memorandum of Understanding solely to avoid the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and the Memorandum of
Understanding contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing.
Official Payments filed on Oct. 28 with the SEC an amendment to
its Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 that
sets forth revised disclosures agreed to pursuant to the
Memorandum of Understanding.

As disclosed on September 23, 2013, ACI and Official Payments
entered into a definitive agreement contemplating the acquisition
of Official Payments by ACI pursuant to a tender offer to acquire
all outstanding Official Payments common shares at $8.35 per
share, net to the seller in cash.  The completion of the offer
remains subject to the conditions as set forth in the Tender Offer
Statement on Schedule TO filed by ACI with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 4, 2013, as amended from time to
time.  Except for the extension of the offer expiration time, all
other terms and conditions of the offer remain unchanged as of
October 28, 2013.  The offer to purchase and related documents
have been filed with the SEC and can be viewed online at

Based on information from Computershare Trust Company, N.A., the
depositary for the offer, as of October 25, 2013, 1,900,463 shares
of Official Payments common stock had been validly tendered in,
and not withdrawn from, the offer, representing approximately
9.86% of the outstanding Official Payments common stock on a fully
diluted basis.

ALAMO CLAIM: Did Not Pay OT Premium to Plaintiffs, Suit Claims
Alando Smith, and Maurice Harris, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. Alamo Claim Service, Peter Perrine,
Thorlin Lee,David Serfass, CIS Alamo, LLC, and State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 1:13-cv-01481-JES-JAG (C.D.
Ill., October 10, 2013) alleges that the Defendants employed the
Plaintiffs as insurance claims adjusters, classified them as
independent contractors, paid a day rate for their work, but did
not pay them overtime premium pay for working more than 40 hours
in a workweek.

Headquartered in Bloomington, Illinois, State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company is a family of insurance and
financial services companies that together serve tens of millions
of customers in the U.S. and Canada.  State Farm maintained
control, oversight, and direction over the operation of the
facilities and offices in which the Plaintiffs worked.

Alamo Claim Service, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a
privately held company that provides customer service in claim
handling and claim management for the insurance industry.  Alamo
provides services to State Farm in several states including
Illinois, Florida, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Texas.  CIS Alamo, LLC,
headquartered in Southlake, Texas, is a privately held company
that provides customer service in claim handling and claim
management for the insurance industry.  CIS Alamo purchased Alamo
in December 2012.  Alamo and CIS Alamo maintain control,
oversight, and direction over the operation of the facilities and
offices in which the Plaintiffs worked, including the payroll and
other employment practices therein.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          GETMAN & SWEENEY
          9 Paradise Lane
          New Paltz, NY 12561
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com

               - and -

          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
          E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com

BASHAS': Mislabeled "Choice" Beef Tenderloin as "Prime", Suit Says
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jamie Ross reports that
Bashas', a major grocery chain in Arizona, mislabeled "Choice"
beef tenderloin as "Prime" for more than two years, and made $1.4
million from it, a customer claims in a class action.

A USDA investigation found that AJ's mislabeled 17,636 pounds of
"Prime" tenderloin steaks and 139,861 pounds of "Kobe" sold to
customers over 25 months, costing customers about $1.4 million.

Bashas' in August entered into a non-prosecution agreement with
the U.S. Attorney's Office of Arizona.  Bashas' agreed to "admit,
accept, and acknowledge corporate responsibility for the conduct
of some meat department managers," and pay $1.4 million in
restitution to the Tucson Community Food Bank, St. Mary's Food
Bank, United Food Bank, the Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul
Food Bank, and the Association of Arizona Food Banks.

A Bashas' representative did not respond to a request for comment
on the lawsuit and agreement.

Lead plaintiff Myles Schneider sued Bashas' in Maricopa County

Bashas' has more than 130 stores and has doubled in size in the
past decade, according to the company website, which says it also
owns AJ's Fine Foods and Food City.

Schneider claims that AJ's Fine Foods, Bashas' upscale market,
sold beef tenderloin as "Prime" that had been graded as "Choice"
under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's meat-grading system,
between January 2010 and February 2012.  There are about 12 AJ's
stores in the Phoenix area.

Bashas' overcharged its customers about $10 per pound, Schneider
claims, because "Prime" steak is typically much more expensive
than "Choice" steak, and AJ's sold "Prime" steak for about $35.99
per pound and "Choice" steak for about $25.99 per pound.

A number of AJ's locations "also had a practice of adding
trimmings from less-expensive, non-'Kobe' meat products to premium
American-Style 'Kobe' ground beef," Schneider claims.

Schneider, a regular customer of AJ's, claims he "would not have
purchased the products had they been accurately labeled . . .
[and] has been harmed in that he did not receive what he bargained
for; instead, he received meat products of a much lower quality
despite paying a higher price."  He seeks refunds for the class,
and punitive damages for consumer fraud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camille Bass, Esq.
          402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4760
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: info@pattersonlawgroup.com

BLACKBERRY LTD: Levi & Korsinsky Commences Class Action in N.Y.
Levi & Korsinsky on Oct. 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased
Blackberry Limited common stock between September 27, 2012 and
September 20, 2013.

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding the Company's business and operations.  In
particular, it is alleged that Blackberry failed to disclose that,
contrary to Company statements that the Blackberry 10 line of
smart phones financially strengthened Blackberry and positioned
the Company on the road to recovery, in fact the Company's
business, operations and financial situation was worsened by the
BlackBerry 10 platform.

On September 20, 2013, BlackBerry disclosed it incurred a
substantial charge due to unsold BlackBerry 10 devices, and that
the Company was forced to lay off approximately 40% of its
workforce.  Upon this news, shares of BlackBerry fell from a close
of $10.52 per share on September 19, to a close of $8.73 per share
the following day.

If you suffered a loss in Blackberry you have until December 3,
2013 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information,
contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or
by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or
visit http://zlk.9nl.com/blackberry-limited-bbry

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.  The firm has
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits

BODY CENTRAL STORES: Dec. 10 Class Action Status Conference Set
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that St. Clair County Circuit Judge Robert LeChien
scheduled a mandatory status conference in a lawsuit against a
popular Fairview Heights clothing store for allegedly videotaping
women in the dressing room without their knowledge.

Judge LeChien set the status conference for Dec. 10 at 9:30 a.m.

According to the complaint, plaintiffs Trania Pawnell, Kimberly
Stacker and Jamie Manske filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Body Central Stores, claiming it video recorded them and
other women in the changing rooms.

Because the women claim they did not give consent to be
videotaped, Body Central's actions were unauthorized and illegal,
the suit states.

"As a direct and proximate result of defendant's intrusion upon
the privacy of the individual plaintiffs while each was in a
changing room, plaintiffs have suffered embarrassment, mental
anguish and emotional distress," the suit states.

The women seek unspecified compensatory and statutory damages,
injunctive relief, costs, pre and post-judgment interest and any
other relief the court deems just.

David I. Cates -- dcates@cateslaw.com -- and Ryan J. Mahoney --
rmahoney@cateslaw.com -- of Cates Mahoney in Swansea is
representing the plaintiffs.

An attorney for the defendant has not yet been identified.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 13-L-451

CARMAX AUTO: California Court of Appeal Rebuffs Class Action
Eric Freedman, writing for Automotive News, reports that the
California Court of Appeal has rebuffed a proposed class-action
suit accusing CarMax Auto Superstores California of violating the
state's sales finance and unfair competition laws.

The decision recognizes a one-year statute of limitations for
claims under the state Automobile Sales Finance Act.  That law
applies to installment sales of new and used vehicles.

The court is considering a request by CarMax, the California New
Car Dealers Association, the American Financial Services
Association and other groups to officially designate the ruling as
binding precedent.

If that happens, it will dramatically reduce class-action suits
seeking to rescind deals based on the finance law, said CarMax
attorney Victor Danhi of Los Angeles.

That includes suits concerning deferred down payments, tire fees,
backdated purchase contracts and document fees, Mr. Danhi said

But the plaintiff's lawyer, Hal Rosner of San Diego, said the
appellate court was wrong and that if the decision becomes
binding, his client will try to bring the case to the state
Supreme Court.

The case arose from Tiffini Harrelson's purchase of a 2006 Saab 9-
7X and trade-in of her 2006 Honda Civic at CarMax in Ontario,
Calif., in 2008.  She owed more on the Civic than the car was
worth and her negative equity was part of the financing.

She wrote a $1,100 personal check toward the down payment and
signed a "held check form" pending a transfer of funds to her
checking account five days later, the decision said.  However, the
retail installment sales contract listed a $1,103.33 cash down
payment and the separate vehicle purchase agreement said she
"sold" the Honda to the store rather than traded it in.

Ms. Harrelson accused CarMax of failing to disclose the deferred
down payment and failing to include all the agreements concerning
the trade in a single document.  She sought damages and rescission
of the deal.

The class-action allegations applied to all CarMax buyers in the
previous four years whose retail installment sales contracts
didn't disclose a deferred down payment or who signed a separate
vehicle purchase agreement when trading in a vehicle.

In legal papers, CarMax responded that the suit alleged "a few
hyper-technical violations" in an "attempt to gain a windfall."

The company said: "Nowhere does Harrelson allege that she was
deceived or tricked by CarMax or that she did not fully understand
the terms and agreements of both the sale of her Honda and the
purchase of her Saab.  Harrelson also admits that she had the
funds necessary to make her down payment, that she qualified for
financing, that she completed both transactions and she has made
all her payments."

A lower-court judge dismissed the case without trial and awarded
CarMax $12,236 in attorney fees.

In upholding that ruling, the appeals court agreed with CarMax
that Harrelson waited too long to sue -- more than 2 years after
the Saab developed mechanical problems -- thus missing the one-
year deadline for claims under the finance law. She unsuccessfully
contended that the statute of limitations is four years.

In an opinion by Justice Betty Richli, the appeals court also
rejected her unfair competition claim because she offered no
evidence that she "lost money or property as a result of the
alleged wrongdoing."  In addition, the court said it found
"nothing that made this transaction deceitful or unfair."

It said Ms. Harrelson also must pay CarMax's attorney fees on

CLASSIC CARS: Insurer Says It Has No Duty to Defend Class Suit
An insurer of Classic Cars Body Shop & Repair, American Family
Mutual Insurance, claims in Illinois Circuit Court that it has no
duty to defend the Company in a class action lawsuit alleging
consumer fraud.

The class action lawsuit, captioned Terry Eric v. Classic Cars
Body Shop, Case No. 2012-L-007626 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
November 20, 2012) alleges that Classic Cars installed electronic
GPS devices to the Plaintiff's vehicles without prior consent.

COBB ELECTRIC: February 2014 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
The following statement is being issued by Waters & Kraus, LLP and
Complex Law Group, LLC, regarding In re Cobb EMC Class Action,
Civil Action File No. 10:100353-48.


Please Read this Notice Carefully -- It May Affect Your Rights.
This Notice is given pursuant to an Order of the Superior Court of
Cobb County, Georgia.

If you have questions please call 1-888-292-8850 or visit

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a court has taken the first step in
approving the settlement of a class action lawsuit.  The parties
in the lawsuit In re Cobb EMC Class Action, Civil Action File No.
10:100353-48 pending in the Superior Court of Cobb County, State
of Georgia entered into a Stipulation of Settlement which was
preliminarily approved by the Court on October 10, 2013.

You may have received prior notice or completed forms relating to
the years 1957-1971.  This Settlement includes all members of Cobb
EMC at any time between 1938 and December 31, 2012.

What is This Lawsuit About?
The lawsuit claims that Cobb EMC's prior board and management
failed and refused to retire capital credits belonging to former
and current members.  As a non-profit cooperative, Cobb EMC does
not issue stock and does not have shareholders.  Instead, Cobb EMC
is owned by its members, who hold "capital credits" rather than
shares.  Members earn capital credits when Cobb EMC's income
exceeds its expenses in a given year.  The difference is referred
to as "margin" and is allocated as capital credits to Cobb EMC's
members in proportion to the amount of business each did with the
cooperative during the year.  Allocated margins are retained and
used by an EMC as capital for a number of years, typically between
10 to 30 years, but eventually "retired" in a series of capital
credit distributions referred to as a revolving plan.  The lawsuit
contends that Cobb EMC failed and refused to adopt a reasonable
revolving plan or to retire capital credits on a schedule
consistent with its obligations.  The lawsuit generally alleges
causes of action against Cobb EMC for breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief.  Cobb EMC denies any
wrongdoing and the Court has not made a final decision either way.
The parties have agreed to resolve this case by Settlement to
avoid the time, expense and uncertainty associated with continued
litigation, and to provide benefits to former and current members
as soon as practical.

Are You Affected? If you were a member of Cobb EMC at any time on
or before December 31, 2012, your rights will be affected if the
Settlement is approved, whether you act or do not act.

What are the Terms of the Settlement?
If approved, the Settlement provides the following primary
benefits to Class Members:

1. $98 Million Settlement Fund. Cobb EMC will pay up to $98
million for the benefit of Class Members, including attorneys'
fees and expenses of litigation.  Class Members will be entitled
to receive an immediate cash payment, without any discount, for
the capital credits allocated to them through the first half of
1988 (as specified in the Stipulation of Settlement and for all
years not already paid); and

2. Class Members will additionally be entitled to receive the
specified capital credits allocated to them from the second half
of 1988 up through December 31, 2012, either in a one-time payment
discounted to present value (utilizing a 12% discount rate), or
paid out over 24.6 years without discount.

3. Cobb EMC will also pay pre-2013 Generation and Transmission
Capital Credits if and when Cobb EMC receives payment in cash of
such credits.  As of December 31, 2012, Cobb EMC had approximately
$116 million of G&T Capital Credits allocated to it.

Historically, Cobb EMC has not received payment of these credits.

All costs of providing notice and administering the Settlement
will be paid by Cobb EMC in addition to the Settlement Fund and
will not impact the benefits to Class Members.

What Are My Legal Rights?
Remain a Class Member. To remain a Class Member and receive
Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Claim Form that is
postmarked or received by February 10, 2014.  By participating in
the Settlement, you will be bound by all orders of the Court about
the Settlement.  If the Settlement is approved, related legal
claims against Cobb EMC will be released.

Hire Your Own Lawyer. The Court has approved Class Counsel to
represent you.  But if you choose, you may hire your own lawyer to
appear in Court for you.  You have to pay that lawyer yourself and
that lawyer must file an Entry of Appearance.

Exclude Yourself. If you do not want to be included as a Class
Member, you must exclude yourself.  If you exclude yourself, you
get no benefits, but you keep the right to file your own lawsuit.
To exclude yourself, you must submit a signed letter requesting to
be excluded that is postmarked or received no later than
January 10, 2014.

Object. You can tell the Court if you do not like this Settlement
or some part of it.  To object, you must send a letter that is
mailed and postmarked or received by January 10, 2014.  For
details on how to properly file an objection, please read the
detailed notice available at the website or call the toll-free
number below.

Do Nothing. If you are a member of the Class and you do not submit
a Claim Form by February 10, 2014, you will not be eligible to
receive any payment from the Settlement Fund.  You will, however,
remain a member of the Class, which means that you gave up your
right to sue about the claims that are resolved by the Settlement,
and you are bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the lawsuit.


The Court has scheduled a hearing for February 25, 2014 at 9:00
a.m. (eastern time) before the Honorable J. Stephen Schuster,
Superior Court of Cobb County, Courtroom 7400, 70 Haynes Street,
Marietta, Georgia 30090, for the purpose of determining whether to
approve the Settlement and award attorneys' fees and costs.
Attorneys' fees and costs will only be awarded after the Court has
determined they are fair and reasonable.  Any attorneys' fees and
costs awarded are not expected to impact the benefits received by
Class Members who exercise their rights to participate in the

Right to Make Appearance
Any Class Member who does not request exclusion may make a
separate appearance at the Final Approval Hearing on February 25,
2014.  Attendance at the hearing is not necessary; however, Class
Members wanting to be heard orally in opposition to the Settlement
should indicate in their written objection their intention to
appear at the hearing.  Class Members who support the Settlement
do not need to appear at the hearing.

This Notice is a summary only.  If you are reading this, but do
not have a copy of the Full Notice and Claim Form, please call the
toll-free number below to receive copies.  Copies of the Full
Notice, Claim Form, Stipulation of Settlement and other court
documents may also be viewed and printed at

You may also contact Lead Class Counsel for former Cobb EMC
members, Wm. Paul Lawrence at Waters & Kraus, LLP, 3219 McKinney
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75204, (800) 226-9880,
plawrence@waterkraus.com or Lead Class Counsel for current Cobb
EMC members, David M. Cohen, Complex Law Group, LLC, 40 Powder
Springs Street, Marietta, Georgia 30064, (770) 200-3100,

Please do not contact the court for information about this

Call: 1-888-292-8850 or visit http://www.cobbemcsettlement.com

COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Coke Has Artificial Flavors, Suit Claims
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Coca-Cola
misrepresents Coke as free from artificial flavors and chemical
preservatives, yet it contains phosphoric acid, which is both, a
California man claims in a class action.

Paul Merritt sued BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles and
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Sonora, Calif., in Superior Court.
He claims Coca-Cola deceives consumers by failing to list
phosphoric acid as an artificial flavor and preservative on the
labels of sodas marketed and sold in California.

"Indeed, many of the cartons and containers of defendants' Coca-
Cola brand sodas affirmatively and falsely state that they contain
no artificial flavoring or chemical preservatives," the complaint

Merritt says the mislabeling violates state and federal laws.

"Defendants are well aware of the health concerns of consumers and
knowingly and intentionally engage in such unlawful conduct to
deceive consumers and increase profits," he adds.

Federal and state regulations require manufacturers to list all
the ingredients, including artificial flavoring, in foods and
beverages, but Coca-Cola does not list phosphoric acid, "an
artificial, man-made chemical, that defendants use both for
flavoring and as a preservative," Merritt claims.

Coca-Cola states on its website that it adds phosphoric acid to
sodas to improve their flavor and "tartness" and protect them from
spoiling, Merritt says in his lawsuit.

"Phosphoric acid contains phosphorous, one of the basic elements
of nature and an essential nutrient.  Phosphorous is a major
component of bones," the complaint states, citing Coca-Cola's Web

Merritt claims that phosphorous and phosphoric acid "are two
different things."  He claims that although phosphorous is a
natural element, phosphoric acid is not derived from natural
ingredients, such as spices, fruits, barks or herbs, nor is it an
essential oil, essence or extract of these ingredients.

"Defendants knowingly and intentionally falsely stated that Coca-
Cola soda has 'no artificial flavors.  No preservatives added,'
despite the fact that Coca-Cola soda contains artificial flavoring
and chemical preservatives," the complaint states.

Food scientists would disagree.  One food scientist, a chemist
with a Ph.D. from UC-Davis, pointed out that all natural foods are
composed of chemicals.  Grapes taste like grapes, the scientist
said, because they contain the chemical methyl anthranylate.  Yet
the existence of methyl anthranylate in grapes does not mean that
grapes are artificially flavored.

Merritt claims in his lawsuit: "A significant function of
phosphoric acid in Coca-Cola soda is flavoring rather than
nutritional," and says he would not have bought Coke if he knew it
contained phosphoric acid.  He claims Coca-Cola's labels are
deceptive, and "designed to increase sales of their Coca-Cola
soda" at the expense of consumers' health.

Merritt seeks restitution, disgorgement and punitive damages for
unlawful business practices and false advertising.  He also Coca-
Cola enjoined from selling, marketing and advertising its soda
until it "engage[s] in corrective action."

Coca-Cola did not return emails seeking comment on October 18,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: $500MM Settlement Gets Tentative Approval
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge in Los Angeles has tentatively approved a
$500 million settlement between Countrywide Financial Corp. and
investors in its mortgage-backed securities.

U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued her order on Oct. 28,
according to attorneys in the case.  She had preliminarily
approved the settlement, which includes $89 million in attorney
fees and costs, on Aug. 7.

The agreement came as Bank of America Corp.'s chief risk officer
testified in June as part of a separate proposed $8.5 billion deal
that Countrywide's legal costs could force it into bankruptcy.

"It's a tremendous result considering the possibility of
Countrywide going bankrupt, and it is the largest [mortgage-backed
securities] class action settlement of all time and an excellent
recovery for all investors," said Spencer Burkholtz --
spenceb@rgrdlaw.com -- a partner at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
in San Diego, Calif., who represents investors in two of the three
class actions resolved under the settlement.

Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson declined to comment.

Nearly 40 parties filed objections to the deal, including a group
of 19 failed banks under Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
receivership that argued the payout wasn't enough.  Additionally,
they argued, the named plaintiffs lacked standing and had a
conflict of interest in pursuing claims on behalf of investors
whose specific tranches were dismissed.

A second group of 16 large investors objected to the deal for
similar reasons.

David Grais -- dgrais@graisellsworth.com -- a partner at New
York's Grais & Ellsworth who represents both groups of objectors,
declined to comment.

Bank of America, which bought Countrywide in 2008, was dismissed
from the litigation as a liable successor.

But the risk that Bank of America could put its Countrywide unit
into bankruptcy was a "major issue" in reaching a settlement, said
Steven Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- a partner at Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll in Washington who represented investors in
the third case that settled.

"It was a situation where there were impediments to ever getting
money if we didn't have a good settlement," he said.

Moreover, the chances of surviving potential dismissal were
uncertain.  In Mr. Toll's case, for example, Judge Pfaelzer had
previously dismissed all but eight tranches of the securities.
The case originally was filed on behalf of investors of 400
offerings, each of which had several dozen tranches, he said.

The other two cases faced motions to dismiss that might have been
granted, given Judge Pfaelzer's earlier rulings, he said.

Under the settlement, distribution would be segmented into three
groups: $325 million to class members who purchased securities
within the 58 tranches that stood the best chance of surviving;
$125 million to purchasers of securities in 111 tranches that had
been dismissed; and $50 million to investors of securities in
9,214 tranches that hadn't been purchased by the named plaintiffs
and had been dismissed.  Most of the objectors to the deal had
purchased securities in the third group.

"We think it was very fair and reasonable, and those people had
virtually no claims under her ruling," Mr. Toll said, referring to
the objectors.  "All they had left was a very long shot at an
appeal that wouldn't happen for another three or four years."

DUOYUAN GLOBAL: February 2014 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
The following statement is being issued by Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP regarding the Duoyuan Global Water Settlement.


HOI MING MICHAEL HO, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, DUOYUAN GLOBAL WATER, INC.,
et al., Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-07233 GBD, ECF Case


2009, AND APRIL 5, 2011, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on February 5, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable George B. Daniels, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, Courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007-1312, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether
the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the
sum of $5,150,000.00 in cash should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate to Members of the Settlement Class;
(2) whether to certify the Settlement Class; (3) whether,
thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated September 10, 2013; (4) whether
the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (5)
whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Litigation, as well as Lead Plaintiff reimbursement, should be
approved.  If you purchased or acquired Duoyuan Global Water,
Inc.'s American Depository Shares between June 24, 2009, and
April 5, 2011, inclusive, your rights may be affected by this
Settlement.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to
Duoyuan Global Water Settlement, c/o GCG, PO Box 9349, Dublin, OH
43017-4249, or you can download a copy at

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release postmarked no later than February 1, 2014,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed below:

          Lionel Z. Glancy Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Telephone: 1-888-773-9224
          E-mail: settlements@glancylaw.com

or go to the following website:


DATED: October 30, 2013

F & M LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, Suit Claims
Amado Varona Montalvan and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. F & M LLC and Francisco Trujillo, Case No. 1:13-
cv-23669-CMA (S.D. Fla., October 10, 2013) alleges that the
Defendants have employed several other similarly situated
employees like the Plaintiff, who have not been paid overtime and
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendant F & M LLC is a limited liability company that
regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: Zabogado@aol.com

FACTOR SALES: Settlement Reached in Cashiers' Class Suit
Factor Sales Inc. reached a settlement to resolve a dispute filed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act
with current and former cashiers who were employed as such in the
state of Arizona from Jan. 1, 2007, through the present date.

A fairness hearing was held Oct. 29, 2013, at the U.S. District
Courthouse in Yuma County, Arizona.

Counsel for the class is:

     Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.,
     349 N. 4th Avenue
     Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505

FARMERS INSURANCE: Calif. State Appeals Court Revives Class Action
Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, reports that a California
state appeals court revived a wage-and-hour class action Oct. 28
against Farmers Insurance Exchange, finding the company's alleged
policy of denying pay for pre-shift work would satisfy
predominance requirements needed for class certification.

Reversing a lower court decision denying certification, the
appeals court said the alleged policy presented an issue of
commonality that superseded the varying workloads and commute
times among 100 current and former claims representatives employed
by Farmers in California.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Kwesi Jones, claimed Farmers never
compensated any of the putative class members for working at home
before their scheduled shifts so they could prepare for their
morning appointments.  Farmers contended that it didn't have any
such policy.

The appeals court decided that Farmers' liability in the class
action depended on the existence of a blanket rule denying pay,
not individual damages determinations.

"The trial court erred to the extent that its ruling was based on
its evaluation of the merits of plaintiffs' claim as to the
existence of such a uniform policy," the Oct. 28 opinion said.

Mr. Jones originally sued in April 2009, alleging the insurer
required its claims representatives and senior claims adjusters to
spend 15 minutes at home to start up their computers and software
and get their daily appointments.  The company didn't pay the
workers for that time or the 30 to 45 minutes it took them to
drive to their first appointment every day, the plaintiff alleged.

Mr. Jones, who worked for Farmers from March 2006 through
September 2008 in both positions, accused the insurer of violating
California labor laws requiring companies to pay nonexempt
employees minimum wage.  He also alleged that Farmers didn't pay
overtime rates for hours worked in excess of 40 per week and
failed to provide employees with accurate wage statements.

Farmers countered that claims representatives were prohibited from
working off the clock.  Also, the company filed declarations by
claims supervisors and managers who attested that their
subordinates had plenty of time to prepare for their first
assignment of the day, because they received it the afternoon of
the previous workday.

Claims representatives who needed more time to prepare for their
morning appointments were allowed to work overtime, Farmers

A trial court decided that because the company had presented
evidence showing it sometimes granted overtime requests, the
dispute involved individualized questions preventing the putative
class from meeting predominance and commonality requirements.

The trial court also found that Mr. Jones wasn't a suitable class
representative because Farmers had fired him for using the
computer software to misrepresent how many hours he worked.

The appeals court disagreed with the lower court over the
predominance issue but affirmed its decision that Mr. Jones wasn't
a suitable class representative due to his termination and failure
to file a declaration describing his qualifications as a class

It thus told a trial judge to let the plaintiffs file an amended
complaint naming an adequate class representative and, if the
judge approves that individual, to certify the class.

Mark R. Thierman of Thierman Law Firm and Eric M. Epstein, who are
representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 on Oct. 30 that they know
10 to 12 other individuals who could qualify as a suitable class
representative in the suit.

The attorneys added: "It's very unusual for a court of appeals to
reverse a trial court decision denying class certification because
they found an abuse of discretion," they said.  "It's very
satisfying that the court of appeals vindicated us."

Attorneys for Farmers Insurance didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment on Oct. 30.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mark R. Thierman and Jason J.
Kuller of Thierman Law Firm, Eric M. Epstein and Walter Haines of
United Employees Law Group.

Farmers Insurance is represented by Candice T. Zee, George
Preonas, Andrew Paley and Eric Steinert of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The case is Kwesi Jones et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, case
number B237765, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California,
Second Appellate District, Division Three.

FIRST CHOICE: Accused of Violating FLSA and WARN Act in Florida
Cherilyn Mashburn and Stephanie Smith, on their own behalf and for
others similarly situated v. First Choice Loan Services, Inc.,
First Choice Bank, and Norman Koenigsberg, Case No. 9:13-cv-81024-
KLR (S.D. Fla., October 10, 2013) is brought on behalf of former
employees of the Defendants, for overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and for unpaid wages and
other relief under the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Act.

Between December 2010 and April 16, 2013, the Plaintiffs performed
non-exempt duties as mortgage loan processors for the Defendants
in Palm Beach County, Florida, at their office location located in
Boca Raton, Florida.

First Choice Bank is a New Jersey community bank, which wholly
owns its subsidiary, First Choice Loan Services, Inc., a New
Jersey corporation.  From approximately December 2010 through
April 2013, First Choice Loan Services, Inc., identified its
principal address in Boca Raton, Florida.  Throughout the Relevant
Period, Norman Koenigsberg was the Managing Director of First
Choice Bank, and the President and Chief Operating Officer of
First Choice Loan Services, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Silverman, Esq.
          Michael A. Kammer, Esq.
          Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
          7805 S.W. 6th Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 474-8000
          Facsimile: (954) 474-9850
          E-mail: msilverman@fwblaw.net

GABRIELE INC: Sued Over Unlawful Tip Pooling Practice in Missouri
Larry Payne and Franco Gusmano, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Gabriele, Inc., d/b/a Il Bel Lago and
d/b/a Giovanni's on the Hill, Carmelo Gabriele, and Frank
Gabriele, Case No. 4:13-cv-02042-HEA (E.D. Mo., October 10, 2013)
alleges that the Defendants have required their tipped employees
to participate in an unlawful tip pooling practice whereby the
tipped employees are required to share the tips with the managers
of the Defendants' restaurants.

Gabriele, Inc. is a Missouri corporation based in Creve Coeur,
Missouri.  The Company does business as Il Bel Lago and Giovanni's
on the Hill.  The Individual Defendants are owners, members and
officers of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell C. Riggan, Esq.
          Samuel W. Moore, Esq.
          132 W. Washington Avenue, Suite 100
          St. Louis, MO 63122
          Telephone: (314) 835-9100
          Facsimile: (314) 735-1054
          E-mail: russ@rigganlawfirm.com

GROUPON INC: Ontario Court Approves Class Action Settlement
Sotos LLP disclosed that on October 29, 2013, the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice approved the settlement of a class action against
Groupon Inc. on behalf of Canadian customers.

Under the settlement, persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Groupon vouchers prior to March 8, 2013, with some exceptions,
will be able to use their Groupon vouchers after any stated expiry
date up to the amount of the purchase price of the vouchers.
Those customers who are not able to redeem their vouchers because,
for example, the business is no longer operating may claim for
payment of the purchase price.

Groupon will deposit 535,000 into the settlement fund for eligible
claimants; counsel fees, administration fees and taxes will be
deducted from the fund.  Any unclaimed balance will be returned to

HAVEN MANOR: Sued by Hourly Nurses Over Illegal Wage Practices
Lovelette Burns, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Haven Manor Health Care Center, LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-
05610-DLI-CLP (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2013) accuses the Defendant
of engaging in illegal and improper wage practices that have
deprived Nurse, Nurses Aide, Certified Nursing Assistant, Licensed
Practical Nurse, Graduate Nurse, and Registered Nurse ("Hourly
Nurses") of millions of dollars in wages and overtime

Haven is a Nursing Care Facility with 240 residential health care
beds and approximately 250 Hourly Nurses.  The Company is a
privately held limited liability company conducting business in
the Eastern District of New York and is located in Queens County,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          Matthew Cohen, Esq.
          1613 Northern Blvd.
          Roslyn, NY 11578
          Telephone: (516) 625-0105
          Facsimile: (516) 625-0106
          E-mail: lg@louisginsberglawoffices.com

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Suit Blocked by Four-Year Statute of Limitations
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that a consumer suit
over alleged defects in two HP printer models is blocked by a
four-year statute of limitations, a lawyer for Hewlett-Packard Co.
argues in a motion to dismiss.

Ferranti v. Hewlett-Packard, 13-3847, alleges that the Palo Alto-
based tech manufacturer violated federal and state business and
consumer laws with its sale of some OfficeJet Pro Wireless All-in-
One printers.  The complaint accuses HP of breaching its own
warranty because it "routinely refuses" to provide replacements or
refunds for faulty printers despite knowing about the defects
since 2009.

But in a motion to kill the consumer action filed on Oct. 25,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Samuel Liversidge --
sliversidge@gibsondunn.com -- contends named plaintiff Vincent
Ferranti waited too long to sue.

Ferranti, represented by Houston's Caddell & Chapman, says he
exchanged his printer for a new one no later than March 2009.  But
Ferranti didn't sue until August -- months after the expiration of
a four-year statute of limitations for fraud claims under
California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, argues Mr. Liversidge.

Moreover, Mr. Liversidge claims the complaint fails to allege that
HP knew about supposed defects when Ferranti bought his printer
and lacks sufficient detail to prove its breach of warranty claim.
"Plaintiff's skeletal and nebulous allegations regarding the
printer he actually purchased do not suffice to plead the facts
necessary to state a claim," Mr. Liversidge wrote in the filing.

IBEW PACIFIC: Plan Trustees Face Suit Over Withheld Contributions
Richard Lehman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Warner Nelson; William Beck, Jr., Brian Bish, Klaas A. DeBoer;
Michael G. Marsh; Rocky Sharp; Richard Bamberger; Dennis Callies,
Clif Davis, Tim Donovan; Harry Thompson; Gary Younghans, in their
capacity as Trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Plan, Case
No. 2:13-cv-01835-RSM (W.D. Wash., October 10, 2013) is brought to
recover alleged reciprocity contributions improperly withheld by
the Defendants.

The Defendants are trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension
Plan, a multiemployer plan under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Birmingham, Esq.
          Joseph P. Hoag, Esq.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: richardbirmingham@dwt.com

IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settlement Hearings Set for Dec. 16 and 17
Two settlement hearings will be held in connection with the
settlement of a securities class action and a derivative action
concerning Imperial Holdings Inc.

The hearing for the Securities Action settlement will take place
Dec. 16 at 9:00 a.m. before federal District Judge Kenneth A.
Marra with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, West Palm Beach division.  The purpose of the
hearing is to determine whether (i) the proposed Securities Action
settlement for the sum of $13.6 million, consisting of $12 million
in cash and $1.6 million in Imperial warrants, should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate to members of the
Class; (ii) to certify the settlement Class; (iii) whether,
thereafter, the Securities Action should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement; (iv) whether the proposed plan to distribute
the settlement proceeds ("the Plan of Allocation")  is fair,
reasonable, ad adequate, and therefore, should be approved; and
(v) the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorney's
fees and expenses incurred in connection with the Securities
Litigation should be approved.

The hearing for the Derivative Action settlement will take place
Dec. 17 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Joseph Marx, at the Circuit
Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County
Florida, to determine whether (i) the terms of the Derivative
Action settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) a Final Judgment approving the proposed settlement
and dismissing the Derivative Action on the merits and with
prejudice should be entered; and (iii) the application of
Derivative Counsel for the payment of attorneys'  fees and
expenses incurred in connection with the Derivative Litigation
should be approved.

The Settlement Administrator may be reached at:

     Fuller v. Imperial Holdings Inc.
     Settlement Administrator
     c/o GCG
     P.O. Box 35050
     Seattle, WA 98124-3508

To participate in the Settlement in the Securities Action, a
claimant must submit a proof of claim and release form no later
than Jan. 15, 2014.  To be excluded from the class, one must
submit a request for exclusion no later than Nov. 25, 2013.

The Securities Action is, Martin Fuller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Imperial
Holdings et al., Defendants, No. 11-81184-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.).

The Derivative Action is, Robert Andrzejczyk, derivatively on
behalf of Imperial Holdings Inc., Plaintiff, v. Antony Mitchell,
Richard S. O'Connell, Jr., Jonathan Neuman, Jerome A. Parsley,
David A. Buzen, Michael A. Crow, Walter M. Higgins III, Robert
Rosenberg, and A. Penn Hill Wyrough, Defendants, and Imperial
Holdings Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 502012CA013286XXXXMB
(15th Cir. Ct. Palm Beach Cty, Fla.)

Lead counsel in the Securities Action:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
    Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: 888-773-9224
     E-mail: settlements@glancylaw.com

Plaintiffs' counsel in the Derivative Action:

     Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
     Weisslaw LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: 888-593-4771
     E-mail: settlements@weisslawllp.com

JC PENNEY: Hid Liquidity Crisis Before 2nd Offering, Suit Claims
Bruce Murphy v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., Myron E Ullman III, Kenneth
H. Hannah and William Ackman, Case No. 6:13-cv-00800-KNM (E.D.
Tex., October 21, 2013) alleges that J.C. Penney concealed a
liquidity crisis and misrepresented its financial prospects before
offering 84 million shares in a secondary offering in September,
which knocked 13 percent off its share price.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Emerson Bilek, Esq.
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-7720
          Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
          E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

KHOURY BROTHERS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Class, Suit Says
Ilana Linder, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Khoury Brothers, LLC, D/B/A Latitudes Martini Bar and Restaurant
or Latitudes Cafe and Cory Khoury, an individual; Sam Khoury, an
individual, Case No. 1:13-cv-00730-MRB (S.D. Ohio, October 10,
2013) is a collective and class action that seeks appropriate
monetary and equitable relief based on the Defendants' alleged
willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Company is a for-profit limited liability company registered
to do business in Ohio and is headquartered in Cincinnati.  The
Defendants own and operate the Bar and Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          Easton Town Center
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 583-8107
          E-mail: andrewbilleresq@gmail.com

KINDERKIDS LEARNING: Does Not Pay OT and Minimum Wages, Suit Says
Isabel Castro Espinosa and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Kinderkids Learning Center & Preschool II
Corp. d/b/a Kinderkids Learning Center & Preschool II, Emilio Diaz
and Fatima M. Zaldiba, Case No. 1:13-cv-23670-KMM  (S.D. Fla.,
October 10, 2013) is a collective action brought on behalf of the
Defendants' similarly situated employees like the Plaintiff, who
have not been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed
in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Company is a corporation that regularly transacts business
within Dade County, Florida.  The Individual Defendants are
corporate officers, owners or managers of the Company, who ran the
day-to-day operations of the Company and was responsible for
paying the Plaintiff's wages for the relevant time period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, PA
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM

               - and -

          K. David Kelly, Esq.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          E-mail: david.kelly38@rocketmail.com

L.A. FITNESS: $3.8-Mil. Settlement Is Fair Enough, Judge Says
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that despite his concerns about a "misleading" $3.8 million
settlement for gym members who claim L.A. Fitness overcharged them
to cancel, a federal judge gave it final approval.

Sophia Martina filed a putative class action against L.A. Fitness
International LLC in March 2012 in New Jersey.

The amended federal complaint alleges that Martina paid about
$288, covering her first and last month's membership dues, in
February 2008 to join the health club.

After Martina notified L.A. Fitness that she wanted to end her
membership a few months later, however, it charged her for an
extra month, according to the complaint.

Martina said she had postmarked her notice 30 days in advance, as
required by her membership agreement, but that the club charged
her credit card about $40 for a wait time because it did not
receive the letter until about a month later.

The complaint alleges violations of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud
Act and other laws on behalf of those who were overcharged for
canceling memberships begun between February 2006 and March 2012,
or signed contracts for personal training sessions during that

After Senior U.S. District Judge William Walls refused to dismiss
the complaint in September 2012, he preliminarily approved the
class settlement in May.

L.A. Fitness agreed to pay up to 46,000 class members an aggregate
amount of $3.8 million, plus attorneys' fees and more than $11,000
to resolve Martina's credit card charges.

Under the settlement, members of the membership agreement class
will receive 45-day access coupons and possible reimbursement for
one-third of a month's dues, while the fitness service class may
receive either two free 25-minute personal training sessions or a
$100 credit toward a new monthly membership.

With some reservation, Judge Walls gave the settlement final
approval on Oct. 8. He noted that L.A. Fitness's actual exposure
is "nowhere near" $3.8 million.

"The parties' suggested values of $52.48 for the 45-Day pass and
$100 each for the personal training sessions and gym membership
credit may be appropriate for consumers, but the costs to
defendant are much lower," the unpublished ruling states.
"Defendant already has health clubs operating in New Jersey; given
these sunk costs, the marginal cost of a few hundred extra visits
by holders of the 45-Day Passes is close to zero.

"Defendant could surely withstand a greater judgment," Walls

The judge also noted that class members are "not enthusiastic"
about the settlement.

"Though there have been no objections and only one opt out, fewer
than 3 percent of the class has stepped forward to claim relief,"
according to the ruling.

The court awarded class counsel $200,000 in fees and costs.

"Unfortunately, class members have claimed cash and coupons worth
only $68,000, creating a distasteful scenario where the fee
awarded to counsel ($200,000) exceeds the value of the relief
which class members have claimed by a factor of three," Walls
wrote.  "But that blame must ultimately lie with the duly notified
class members.  Counsel's labors have been fruitful and their
request is modest, so it is granted."

The judge also awarded Martina a $3,000 incentive award.

"Though the parties' claimed value for the settlement of $3.8
million is inflated and misleading -- based, as it is, on a faulty
assumption that 100 percent of class members will claim their
relief -- the settlement is fair enough, especially given the
risks of litigation," Walls wrote.

The case is Martina v. L.A. Fitness International, LLC, Case No.
Civ. No. 2:12-cv-2063 (WHW), in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: To Fight Shareholder Class Action
Sky News reports that construction giant Leighton says it will
fight a class action filed by shareholders seeking to recover
losses stemming from the company's massive profit downgrade in

Two years after it first proposed legal action, law firm Maurice
Blackburn has filed a claim in the Federal Court in Sydney on
behalf of shareholders.  The firm alleges Leighton breached
continuous disclosure obligations, as set out in the Corporations
Act, between August 2010 and April 2011.  It claims the company
could have earlier informed the market of losses from its work on
a Victorian desalination plant, Brisbane's Airport Link motorway
and its part-owned Middle East operations.

Leighton first informed investors of those issues on April 11,
2011, when it downgraded its forecast of a AUD480 million profit
for the 2010/11 financial year to a AUD427 million loss.  Leighton
shares lost 14% of their value the following day.

"Leighton Holdings denies the claim and will vigorously defend the
class action," it said on Oct. 30.

LOWE'S HOME: Misclassified Installers as Contractors, Suit Says
Eric Yulsman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-06203-JHR-
AMD (D.N.J., October 17, 2013) is a class action brought on behalf
of those who were misclassified by Lowe's as "independent
contractors" but who should have been classified as employees of
Lowe's in accordance with the Construction Industry Independent
Contractor Act.

Lowe's is one of the nation's leading home improvement stores and
operates approximately 40 stores in New Jersey.  Lowe's offers
installation services for certain categories of products it sells
to its customers.  These installations are performed by installers
with whom Lowe's contracts.  Mr. Yulsman was hired by Lowe's as a
"Type 1" or "legacy installer," who installed window blinds for
the customers of several Lowe's stores in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
          E-mail: cgermershausen@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Valerie Collanton, Esq.
          Erica Sorg, Esq.
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com

MCGLAUGHLIN SPRAY: Pa. Court Rejects Medical Monitoring Claim
Walter L. Cofer, Esq., Greg Fowler, Esq., and Simon Castley, Esq.,
at Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, report that a federal court in
Pennsylvania has dismissed, with prejudice, the medical-monitoring
claim in a putative class action against the manufacturer and
installer of an allegedly toxic spray-foam home-insulation
product, finding it insufficiently pleaded in the first amended
complaint. Slemmer v. McGlaughlin Spray Foam Insulation, Inc., No.
12-6542 (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Pa., decided October 17, 2013).
While Pennsylvania recognizes medical-monitoring claims "as
separate and apart from traditional tort claims involving physical
injury," it requires plaintiffs to plead and prove seven elements,
three of which, the defendants claimed, were not pleaded.

The court agreed, ruling (i) the plaintiffs' "allegation that the
'serious latent disease' to be monitored is 'lung damage, and
throat, eye and nose irritations' does not give defendants 'fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests'" because lung damage encompasses "a host of different
diseases [and] defendants must know which lung diseases are
relevant when conducting discovery or retaining experts"; (ii) the
plaintiffs' "proposed monitoring regime of 'diagnostic tests and
pharmaceutical interventions' fails to identify specific
monitoring procedures as required" and "fails to aver that a
monitoring program procedure exists that makes early detection of
a specific disease possible"; and (iii) the plaintiffs' allegation
"that '[m]onitoring procedures exist that make the early detection
of any latent disease possible that are different from those
normally recommended in the absence of the exposure' is
insufficient because it is a 'formulaic recitation of the

NEW YORK, NY: Judge Stays Appointment of Stop-and-Frisk Monitor
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin has been ordered off the
stop-and-frisk cases by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second

The circuit said the judge had given the "appearance of
partiality" in her handling of Floyd v. City of New York, 13-3088,
and it stayed pending appeal Judge Scheindlin's appointment of a
monitor to reform New York City Police Department stop-and-frisk
policies and practices she had held unconstitutional.

Two days after oral argument on whether to stay Judge Scheindlin's
appointment of monitor Peter Zimroth -- Peter.Zimroth@aporter.com
-- a partner at Arnold & Porter, to help remedy police violations
of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Second Circuit said
Judge Scheindlin presented the appearance of partiality both in
how she came to preside over the Floyd case in the first place and
in interviews she gave to reporters.

Judges Jose Cabranes, Barrington Parker and John Walker, in a
three-page order, stayed Judge Scheindlin's Aug. 12 liability
opinion in Floyd, where she found a top-down police department
practice of making hundreds of thousands of stops without
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and that blacks and
Hispanics were targets of those stops.

The circuit also stayed Judge Scheindlin's opinion and order
issued on Jan. 8, 2013 in the related case of Ligon v. City of New
York, 13-3123, where she issued a preliminary injunction ordering
police to cease making stops for trespass without reasonable
suspicion outside of privately-owned buildings in the Bronx.

Finally, the circuit stayed the remedies opinion she issued on
Aug. 12 that applied to both Floyd and Ligon.  In addition to the
appointment of a monitor, Judge Scheindlin directed several other
measures be taken, including a one-year pilot program in which
police in one precinct in each of the city's five boroughs wear
body cameras to record stop encounters for one year.

On Oct. 29, the judges were sitting as a motions panel hearing
arguments on the Law Department's application for a stay of the
judge's rulings pending appeal.  Arguing the case were
Celeste Koeleveld of the Law Department, lead plaintiffs' lawyer
Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights as well as
counsel in Ligon and a number of amici.

On Oct. 31, the panel assigned itself to hear the case on the
merits, citing "judicial economy."

Despite the critical tone of questions and statements Judges
Cabranes and Walker made on Oct. 29 over the scope of Judge
Scheindlin's remedial order, the circuit stated on Oct. 31, "we
intimate no view on the substance or merits" of the appeals.

The Center for Constitutional Rights issued a statement saying its
lawyers were "dismayed that the Court of Appeals saw fit to delay
the long-overdue process to remedy the NYPD's unconstitutional
stop-and-frisk practices, and we are shocked that they cast
aspersions on one of the most respected members of the federal
judiciary and reassigned the case."

"The City carried out a whisper campaign against Judge Scheindlin,
but never once raised any legal claims of bias, even in its papers
to the Court of Appeals," they said.

"We could not be more pleased with the court's findings,"
Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo said in a statement.  "The
ruling of unconstitutional practices is no longer operative and
that question will now receive a fresh and independent look both
by the appeals court and then if necessary, by a different trial
court judge."

                      Related-Case Doctrine

Judge Scheindlin was assigned the Floyd case under the "related-
case" rule, S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y Local Rule 13(a), under which a
case that is related to existing litigation is assigned to the
same judge.

Judge Scheindlin presided over the initial stop-and-frisk case of
Daniels v. City of New York, 99 Civ. 1695.  The Daniels case
settled in 2003, but the parties continued to spar over whether
the police department was meeting its obligations under the
settlement.  Lawyers appeared before Judge Scheindlin on Dec. 21,
2007, when attorneys for the plaintiffs asked the judge to extend
a sunset provision in the Daniels settlement but she refused.

While Judge Scheindlin refused, she went on to tell plaintiffs'
lawyers "[I]f you've got proof of inappropriate racial profiling
in a good constitutional case, why don't you bring a lawsuit?" she
said.  "You can certainly mark it as related."

"[W]hat I am trying to say, I'm sure I'll get in trouble for
saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit," she said, and
ended the proceeding by telling the lawyers "And as I said before,
I would accept it as a related case, which the plaintiff has the
power to designate."

Two of the lawyers present that day filed the Floyd suit.  On
Oct. 29, Ms. Koeleveld conceded to the court that the city did not
object to the invocation of the related case rule at the time.

Judge Cabranes went after Judge Scheindlin on the related-case
rule and also on giving interviews to the media.

Both he and Judge Walker took several shots at the scope of
Judge Scheindlin's order and Judge Cabranes asked more than once
of attorneys, including counsel for New York City Public Advocate
and mayoral hopeful Bill de Blasio, whether the next mayor wants
the police department run by a Southern District judge.

The panel set out a briefing schedule and set down oral arguments
in the city's appeal or sometime after March 14.  By then a new
mayor will be in office.

The circuit cited three interviews by Judge Scheindlin in a
footnote to its order: an interview Judge Scheindlin gave to the
New York Law Journal that appeared on May 20, 2013, an interview
with the Associated Press that appeared on May 19, and a piece in
the New Yorker on May 27.

In those interviews, Judge Scheindlin responded to criticism from
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, who had claimed pretrial in
Floyd that Judge Scheindlin had prejudged the case.

The court said Judge Scheindlin "ran afoul of the Code of Conduct
for United States Judges," violating both Canon 2: "A judge should
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities" and Canon 3(C)(1): "A judge shall disqualify himself
or herself in a proceeding in which a judge's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned."

The circuit ordered that the case be reassigned to a new judge in
the Southern District, but only for the purpose of implementing
the court's mandate staying all proceedings, which will bring a
halt to even the preliminary meetings with the monitor.

Judge Scheindlin on Oct. 31 issued a statement responding to the
two issues cited by the panel as the basis for removing her from
the case.

"On the related case issue: the plaintiffs originally wished to
bring a contempt proceeding against the City in the Daniels case,
which I had handled for many years.  The City opposed the
plaintiffs' application, asserting that a contempt proceeding
would violate the protective order in Daniels.  I sided with the
City and directed the plaintiffs to bring a new action rather than
a contempt proceeding.  I said I would take the case as related
because the plaintiffs charged that the City had violated my order
in Daniels."

Regarding the press interviews, Judge Scheindlin said they were
conducted "under the express condition that I would not comment on
the Floyd case.  And I did not.  Some of the reporters used quotes
from written opinions in Floyd that gave the appearance that I had
commented on the case.  However, a careful reading of each
interview will reveal that no such comments were made."

NQ MOBILE: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 30 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
NQ Mobile, Inc. securities during the period between May 5, 2011
and October 24, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 28, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. of
Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges NQ Mobile and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
NQ Mobile, a firm based in both Dallas, Texas and Beijing, China,
holds itself out as a global provider of mobile Internet services.
The Company focuses on serving clients in three sectors: mobile
security, mobile productivity and personalized intelligent cloud

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial condition, business relationships, operations,
and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that NQ Mobile
far overstated its presence and market share in China and further
misrepresented the size of its paying user base, that the
Company's antivirus program, Antivirus 7.0, was actually a spyware
program that left users' devices subject to attack, and that the
Company's revenue and reported cash balances were materially
overstated at all relevant times.  As a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements and omissions, NQ Mobile's shares
traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class

Then, on October 24, 2013, Muddy Waters Research released an 81-
page report on the Company concluding, among many other things,
that NQ Mobile is "a massive fraud."  The report, accompanied by a
"strong sell" rating, stated that NQ Mobile's rightful stock price
is "zero."  The report also stated that NQ Mobile had far
overstated its presence in China, with an actual paying user base
estimated at less than 250,000 -- compared to the 6 million the
Company claimed to have -- and that NQ Mobile's real market share
in China was only about 1.5% versus the approximately 55%
defendants had reported to investors.  The report also asserted
that at least 72% of NQ Mobile's Chinese security software revenue
was "fraudulent." The report further described how NQ Mobile's
third-party payments channel was "non-existent," and that its
Chinese payments portal was "purely cosmetic."  The report labeled
NQ Mobile's antivirus program, Antivirus 7.0, as "unsafe for sale
to consumers," because it was, in reality, "spyware" that makes
users' phones vulnerable to cyber-attack.  On this news, NQ Mobile
shares began to fall, dropping as much as 63% to a low of $8.46
per share, and trading was halted several times after hitting
single-stock circuit breakers.  Ultimately, the shares declined
47%, or $10.79 per share, to close at $12.09 on October 24, 2013,
on abnormally large trading volume of more than 29 million shares

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
NQ Mobile securities during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of
shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI's Top SCAS 50 every
year since 2003.

NQ MOBILE: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
Block & Leviton LLP, a Boston-based law firm representing
investors nationwide, on Oct. 29 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit against NQ Mobile, Inc., and certain of its
officers and underwriters.  The case is currently pending in the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Ghauri v. NQ Mobile
Inc., 13-civ-7637.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who
purchased or acquired NQ securities, including NQ common stock (or
American Depository Receipts ("ADRs")), bonds, call options or
sold put options between May 5, 2011 through October 24, 2013.  To
join the NQ class action, or if you have questions regarding your
rights related to this action or have information relevant to the
claims asserted in the complaint, please contact attorney Steven
Harte, Esq. of Block & Leviton LLP at (617) 398-5600 or

The complaint asserts that NQ made false and misleading statements
and omissions regarding the Company's internal financial controls,
accounting, and its products and financial condition.  The
allegations include claims that NQ Mobile's Antivirus 7.0 platform
is unsafe for consumer use and at least 72% of NQ Mobile's Chinese
security revenue is wholly fictitious.  These statements are
alleged to have been false and misleading when made because: (i)
the Company was suffering from grossly deficient internal controls
and therefore was susceptible to fraud; (ii) Defendants failed to
disclose the true nature of their product penetration, market
share and efficacy of their software; and (iii) the Company's
financial statements were inaccurate in numerous material
respects.  Once the misleading statements were revealed to the
market, the Company's stock plummeted 62% as of October 28, 2013.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than
December 27, 2013, request that the court appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the Class.  You may contact the attorneys at Block &
Leviton to discuss your rights in the case. You may also retain
counsel of your choice and you need not take any action at this
time to be a class member.

NQ MOBILE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 30 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired any NYSE-traded
securities of NQ Mobile, Inc. between May 5, 2011 and October 24,
2013, inclusive, against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers and directors.  The lawsuit also includes those investors
who purchased NQ American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") in its
initial public offering commencing on May 5, 2011 pursuant to NQ's
registration Statement and Prospectus. The action alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 [15 U.S.C. ---- 77k, 77l(a)(2) and 77o], Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. ----
78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC [17 C.F.R. -- 240.10b-5].

The litigation is styled Ghauri v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 13-cv-7637.  A copy of the Complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at http://www.whafh.com

NQ purports to provide security solutions for the mobile phone
market.  As alleged in the Complaint, during the Class Period, NQ
released statements regarding, among other things, its financial
performance and product efficacy which contained materially false
information or omitted information necessary to make those
statements not misleading.  On October 24, 2013, the short-selling
investment firm Muddy Waters LLC issued a detailed 81-page report
entitled "NQ Mobile: China Fraud 2.0" regarding NQ's accounting
practices, customer base and policies.  Among the allegations
raised in the Muddy Waters Report, were that the Company had a
Chinese market share of only 1.5%, rather than the 55% share the
Company publicly claimed, and that NQ had minimal, if any, cash

On the release of the Muddy Waters Report, the Company's share
price fell from a close of $22.88 on October 23, 2013 to close at
$12.09 on October 24, 2013, and trading was suspended throughout
the day.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the Complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said Defendants, Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on
the integrity of the market price of NQ securities.  Had Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not
have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased them
at the inflated prices that were paid.

If you purchased NQ securities during the Class Period, you may
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
December 27, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."
Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve
as your counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego.  The reputation
and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-
district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com
or visit our website at http://www.whafh.com
All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "NQ Mobile".

OFFICIAL PAYMENTS: Being Sold for Too Little to ACI, Suit Says
Joseph L. Giacherio accuses Official Payments Holdings Inc., et
al., of selling the Company too cheaply to ACI Worldwide Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Bain, Esq.
          1230 Peachtree St. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 724-9990
          E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

The case is Giacherio v. Official Payment Holdings Inc., et al.,
Case No. 13-A-08794-8, in the Superior Court of Georgia, Gwinnett

OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Sends False & Threatening Letters, Suit Says
Shannon M. Kavemeier sued on October 21, 2013, Oliphant Financial
LLC, doing business as Oliphant Financial, and Oliphant Financial
Corporation, doing business as Oliphant Financial, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
(Milwaukee).  The case is Kavemeier v. Oliphant Financial LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01183-WEC.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Oliphant Financial sends false and threatening letters to alleged

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Syrios, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
          3620 E Layton Ave
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: dsyrios@ademilaw.com

PEPSICO: Faces Class Suit Over Overtime Payment in Georgia
Courthouse News Service reports that Pepsico stiffs workers for
overtime, a class action claims in Fulton County Superior Court.

PRETIUM RESOURCES: Robbins Geller Files Expanded Class Action
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 29 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Pretium Resources Inc. securities during the period between
January 19, 2011 and October 21, 2013, inclusive, including
purchasers in Pretium's May 3, 2012 follow-on public stock
offering at $14.50 per share.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 24, 2013.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or
David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-
1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Pretium and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Pretium is a Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada-based mining
company engaged in the exploration and development of precious
metal resource properties, including gold, copper and silver.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects, including
failing to disclose that: (a) Pretium had not acquired credible
evidence demonstrating the quantity or quality of gold reserve
estimates it claimed during the Class Period; (b) one of the firms
Pretium had hired to provide independent analysis of the quantity
and quality of the gold reserves at its all-important Brucejack
Project during the Class Period, Snowden Mining Industry
Consultants, was not using a reliable methodology to evaluate its
gold reserve estimates; (c) Snowden and Strathcona Mineral
Services Ltd. -- one of Canada's most highly-regarded teams of
geologists, and one of the two firms the Company had hired to
evaluate the quality of its gold reserves at Brucejack (along with
Snowden) -- did not agree on the methodology to be used to
evaluate Pretium's gold reserve estimates; (d) contrary to
Pretium's statements during the Class Period, its 2012 Mineral
Resource estimates prepared by Snowden did not accurately classify
the mineral resources present as Measured, Indicated and Inferred
Resources; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, Pretium's gold
estimates reported during the Class Period were not as reliable it
had led the market to believe.

On October 9, 2013, Pretium issued a press release disclosing that
Strathcona had resigned from the Brucejack Project.  The complaint
alleges that this disclosure sent the price of the Company's stock
into a tailspin, since investors presumed that the resignation of
the firm analyzing the bulk sample meant that the bulk sample's
quality was problematic or that there may have been disagreements
between Strathcona's methods and Pretium's.  Despite the positive
spin Pretium attempted to place on this disclosure, the price of
Pretium securities, which had traded over $18 per share during the
Class Period, plummeted approximately 30% on October 9, 2013.

Then on October 11, 2013, the Company's stock price fell another
28% after Pretium disclosed that, in reality, Strathcona had
resigned after stating it had found "no valid gold" resources, and
had concluded that Pretium's statements about probable mineral
reserves and future gold production from the VOK Zone of Brucejack
were "erroneous and misleading."

Finally, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, with
the price of Pretium securities artificially inflated on both the
U.S. and Canadian exchanges as a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements, Pretium and its controlling shareholder,
Silver Standard Resources Inc., cashed out, selling more than $580
million of Pretium securities through a series of private and
public offerings conducted in both the United States and Canada.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Pretium securities during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.

PRINCE GEORGE SCHOOL: Named Defendant in Summer School Fee Suit
Frank Peebles, writing for The Prince George Citizen, reports that
the Prince George school district is on the hook for student fee
repayment after a legal judgment made in BC Supreme Court a few
days ago.

On Oct. 25, Madame Justice Jane Dardi ruled that two class action
lawsuits filed against many of B.C.'s school districts (linked
cases Helem and Riazi) were valid arguments.

"Under the terms of the settlement, parents who paid tuition [to
the school boards in question] for their child's instruction in
secondary-level summer school remedial and completion courses
offered in 2004, 2005 and/or 2006 [can claim] a refund of 70 per
cent of the fees paid or a credit equal to 100 per cent of those
fees for tuition in other courses," said a written statement
issued by law firm Poyner Baxter LLP, representing the
complainants in the two group cases.

The legal argument had been alive since 2009 when first the
Vancouver then a provincial cluster of school districts were sued
by a group of parents over bills for tuition.

According to the law firm, the complainants believed the tuition
fees "violated the provisions of the School Act requiring school
boards to provide, free of charge to B.C. students of school age,
instruction in an educational program sufficient to meet the
requirements of secondary school graduation."

School District 57-Prince George was one of the districts charging
fees for such courses outside the regular school hours.

"Yes, we were named in the class action suit regarding summer
school," SD57 superintendent Brian Pepper confirmed.  "We believe
our exposure is minimal for the 2005 and 2006 school year.  We
discontinued practice of charging money in 2007."

Terms of how much money might have to be repaid were not disclosed
at this time.

REGIONS BANK: Court Refused to Junk USPT-Related Securities Suit
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that Regions Bank
cannot dismiss claims that it violated Florida law by helping an
unregistered dealer sell $250 million worth of securities to
14,000 investors, a federal judge ruled.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Regions Bank in
September 2009 with aiding and abetting in the sale of securities
by an unregistered dealer, U.S. Pension Trust Corp (USPT).  The
bank had served as a trustee for U.S. Pension Trust and an
affiliate, which had sold multisecurity investment plans to more
than 14,000 people residing primarily in South America.  By
executing a trust agreement with Regions acting as their trustee,
the USPT investors could invest their money in U.S. mutual funds.

A judge found in 2010 that USPT had unlawfully engaged in the sale
of securities as an unregistered dealer.  Court filings show that
the firm then had to disgorge $62 million and pay $50 million in
civil penalties.

Regions settled the SEC charges against it on the same day they
were filed, but the investors sued in 2011, claiming that the bank
had violated a Florida law that requires securities sellers to be
registered with the state.

Laura Yelitza Cifuentes and Merle de las Mercedes Silva Castro
filed an amended class action complaint in February 2012 as the
heirs of one of the original class members.  The federal court in
Miami allowed them to replace the original plaintiffs, concluding
they had inherited the claims under Columbia's Intestacy Law.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno refused to dismiss the case in
June 2012.

The judge rejected claims that that the two-year statute of
limitations had elapsed and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to
bring the claims.

Earlier this year, the plaintiffs amended the complaint one more
time, adding Gerardo Carvajal as a plaintiff.

Addressing a more recent motion to dismiss, Moreno ruled on Oct.
10 that Carvajal also had standing to sue.  The complaint
sufficiently alleges that USPT sold securities to more than 14,000
individuals, including the plaintiffs and the class, and that
Carvajal is one of the plaintiffs, Moreno found.

Regions failed to show that it did not qualify as a "person making
the sale" under Florida's statute regulating the sale of
securities, the judge said.

Regions served as the trustee for each investor who invested in
USPT's plans from October 2001 through October 2010, the ruling

The plaintiffs also alleged that Regions actively promoted and
solicited investments, and was involved in the marketing of the
investment plans, according to the order.

Moreno refused to revisit Regions' arguments regarding the statute
of limitations, federal jurisdiction and the other plaintiffs'
standing, which he had already addressed in the June 2012 ruling.

Regions Bank refused to comment on the decision or the case.

The case is Cifuentes, et al. v. Regions Bank, Case No. 11-23455-
CIV-MORENO, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

ROCKHARD LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over RockHard Weekend Product
Kenny Dorsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the general public v. RockHard Laboratories, LLC, a
Georgia Limited Liability Company, and Rockhard Laboratories
Holdings LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:13-
cv-07557-DDP-RZ (C.D. Cal., October 11, 2013) is a consumer
protection class action lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Defendants' RockHard Weekend male sexual enhancement product.

RockHard Laboratories LLC is a Georgia limited liability company
headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.  The Defendants are the
manufacturers and sellers of a male sexual enhancement product
named RockHard Weekend.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, California 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

SKADDEN ARPS: Judge Skeptical at Wage-and-Hour Class Action
Sara Randazzo, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that a
New York federal judge overseeing a wage-and-hour lawsuit brought
against Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom expressed skepticism
on Oct. 31 at the plaintiff's assertion that document review is so
mundane it should not qualify as practicing law.

The suit, a proposed class action filed in July against Skadden
and Tower Legal Staffing, claims that contract attorney David Lola
deserves overtime pay for his work on a document review undertaken
in 2012 as part of a multidistrict litigation in the Northern
District of Ohio.  In making the argument, Mr. Lola, represented
by plaintiffs lawyer D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, insists he had to
follow "extremely detailed protocols" that did not allow or
require him to "exercise any judgment."

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, practicing law is
considered exempt from overtime laws.  Mr. Kirschenbaum, who has
sued two other law firms for similar alleged FLSA violations,
argues that document review should fall outside the definition of
practicing law and qualify employees for time-and-a-half pay on
all hours worked each week above 40.

During the Oct. 31 hearing, held to discuss Skadden's request to
file a motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan
questioned both sides on the two main aspects of the case: whether
document review is practicing law, and whether Skadden and Tower
qualify as joint employers under the FLSA.

By the end of the proceedings, Judge Sullivan made his opinion on
the first question clear, saying that while he would like a motion
to dismiss to be fully briefed, document review "strikes me as the
practice of law, even if it's not the most glamorous."

Judge Sullivan, who noted several times that the case presents "an
interesting issue," pressed Mr. Kirschenbaum on how Mr. Lola's
work differs from that of many first- and second-year associates
tasked with a heavy volume of document review.  Mr. Kirschenbaum
argued that regular associates, unlike contract attorneys, could
be called away at any time to help draft a memo or work on more
substantive assignments.  "A first-year could make photocopies,
but that doesn't change that he was hired as a lawyer,"
Mr. Kirschenbaum said.

Judge Sullivan seemed wary of Mr. Kirschenbaum's distinction and
expressed concern about putting the court in a position where it
would have to decide what percentage of a lawyer's work qualifies
as the practice of law.  If that became the case, Judge Sullivan
said, "there might be full-fledged associates at Skadden who do 90
percent document review and who want overtime on their $160,000-a-
year salary."

Skadden's counsel, Brian Gershengorn --
brian.gershengorn@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, stressed Judge Sullivan's point that "this
is what first- and second-year attorneys do."  When presented with
a hypothetical about a licensed attorney tasked with photocopying
for 12 hours each day, Mr. Gershengorn agreed with Sullivan that
in that situation, overtime could be warranted, but that the
circumstances differ in this case.

In a letter to the court last month, Skadden detailed why it
believes "plaintiff's assertion that a lawyer's review of
documents does not constitute the practice of law is devoid of any
basis in law or common sense."  Skadden argues in the letter that
it is clear Mr. Lola's work "involved determining whether or not a
document he reviewed should be produced, and whether certain
information he reviewed was privileged and should be redacted,"
which the firm says demonstrates practicing law.

Speaking after the hearing, Mr. Kirschenbaum, a name partner at
Joseph & Kirschenbaum, said he understood why Judge Sullivan's gut
reaction was to liken Mr. Lola's work to that of a first-year
associate, but added, "I think we can convince him to look at what
[Lola's] actual duties are day-to-day" and distinguish it from
practicing law.

Mr. Gershengorn, who also represents Tower Legal Staffing, had no
comment following the proceedings.  Skadden's motion to dismiss is
due Dec. 6.

U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams in New York heard arguments in a
nearly identical case Mr. Kirschenbaum brought earlier this year
against Quinn Emanuel Urquart & Sullivan and legal staffing agency
Providus.  Judge Abrams has yet to rule on Quinn Emanuel's motion
to dismiss the suit.

Mr. Kirschenbaum -- who has a history of suing high-profile
restaurants in wage-and-hour disputes -- represented another
contract attorney in a 2010 suit brought against Labaton Sucharow.
That suit, settled months after it was filed for undisclosed
terms, also claimed that the attorney deserved overtime pay.

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Got Prelim. OK of $1.8MM Deal in Receipt Case
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Southwest
Airlines can pay $1.8 million to settle claims over receipts that
showed the credit and debit card information of its customers, a
federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer gave preliminary approval on
Friday, October 18, 2013, to the settlement of the consolidated
class actions filed by Robert Miller and Jamie Lumos.

Miller had filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court last year,
but the counts alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act gave the case federal jurisdiction.

In his complaint, Miller claimed that Southwest Airlines printed
the expiration date of customers' credit and debit cards on
receipts printed at airport ticket counters and cargo counters
between October 17, 2007, and January 25, 2013.

Southwest maintains that it did nothing wrong, but both parties
told the court that they reached a settlement to avoid the costs
of trial.

The deal requires Southwest to create a $1.8 million settlement
fund that will be divided equally among the class members.
Deduction of fees and costs will leave about $1.1 million to
divide among the class, and each individual can expect to receive
between $25 and $200, according to the order.

Southwest must also get the email addresses of class members and
give them to the settlement administrator, who has one month to e-
mail the class members notice of the settlement.

The agreement requires the settlement administrator to create a
website that, among other things, summarizes the terms of the
agreement and informs class members how to submit a claim.  Those
who want to participate must submit claims by Feb. 5, 2014, while
those who wish to opt out of the agreement must fill out an opt-
out form by that date, according to the settlement.

The deadline also applies to class members who object to any terms
of the settlement.

Southwest must pony up $82,498 to pay for the settlement website,
as well as publishing the notice of settlement twice, according to
the agreement.

Judge Breyer will hold a final settlement approval hearing on
March 14 "to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy
of the proposed settlement as well as the award of costs, fees and
incentive awards."

Plaintiff Robert Miller is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com

Plaintiff Jamie Lumos is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          432 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 347-3517
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6990
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

Southwest Airlines is represented by:

          Colin H. Murray, Esq.
          Christina M. Wong, Esq.
          BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3802
          Telephone: (415) 576-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 576-3099
          E-mail: colin.murray@bakermckenzie.com

               - and -

          Teresa H. Michaud, Esq.
          BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
          2001 Ross Ave., #2300
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 978-3099
          E-mail: teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com

SP AUSNET: Gets Favorable Ruling in Black Saturday Class Action
ABC News reports that the Victorian Supreme Court has ruled the
electricity company SP AusNet can rely on evidence it obtained by
trespassing to defend itself in a class action over the Black
Saturday bushfires.

SP AusNet owned the power line that sparked the Kilmore East blaze
which claimed 119 lives and destroyed 1000 homes in 2009.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued SP AusNet misled landowners
after the fire, by telling them dummy conductors constructed on
their properties were essential infrastructure, when they were
really built to gather evidence for SP AusNet's defense case.

Justice Jack Forrest has ruled the electricity contractors were
trespassing but the landowners suffered no damage and the evidence
from the tests should be admitted.

ST. CHARLES HEALTH: Suit Over Training Gets Class Action Status
Tara Bannow, writing for The Bulletin, reports that a federal
judge in Oregon has approved the class-action status of a lawsuit
that alleges St. Charles Health System required its employees to
undergo mandatory, unpaid training.

The ruling, issued by Chief District Judge Ann Aiken on Oct. 22,
could potentially add more than 800 plaintiffs to the case,
according to court documents.  The exact number of class members
and total amount of compensation each plaintiff could receive is

The plaintiffs are seeking payment of unpaid wages.  They allege
St. Charles, which runs hospitals in Bend, Redmond, Madras and
Prineville, violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
Oregon labor laws by requiring nurses and respiratory therapists
to acquire additional training and certifications outside of their
normal working hours without pay.

The lawsuit was filed in January by Carol Lynn Giles, a registered
nurse at Pioneer Memorial Hospital in Prineville.

It currently includes four additional plaintiffs, Shawn H. Dunlap,
Cheryl Lee Fischer, Melodin Cornis and Mary Ann Adler.  Each are
registered nurses who work at St. Charles.

According to court documents, Ms. Giles first notified St. Charles
representatives that their training practices were illegal in
November 2010

In her ruling, Judge Aiken wrote that despite St. Charles' attempt
to dismiss the request for class-action status, it would be more
time consuming for each individual plaintiff to bring his or her
claim separately, and would likely dissuade some of them from
filing their own lawsuits.

St. Charles had argued that some workers had signed releases after
they received back pay.  Judge Aiken wrote that the releases were
"immaterial to the court's analysis at this stage in the

St. Charles representatives claim in court documents that 450 of
the 500 caregivers they spoke with about the training said they
had not been paid.  The plaintiffs claim in court documents that
at least 849 nurses could be eligible to join in the lawsuit.

STONEBRIDGE LIFE: Illegally Sells Group Insurance, Suit Claims
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
insurers illegally sell group insurance to Texans who have no
relationship to each other, other than being "credit card holders
. . . to whom defendants had easy access to market the policies,"
a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiffs Danny and Tracy Walker sued Plano-based
Stonebridge Life Insurance Co. and insurance marketer Catalyst
Health Solutions fka HealthExtras, and affiliates.  Stonebridge is
a subsidiary of Transamerica Life & Protection, which is a
subsidiary of Netherlands-based Aegon N.V.

The Walkers say that under state law, group accident and health
insurance policies may be issued to an association for its active
and retired members and employees.

"Defendants purported to issue group accident and health insurance
policies to eligible associations and then market those policies
with low cost introductory premiums to individuals in Texas,
including plaintiffs and others similarly situated," the 26-page
complaint states.

"However, the insurance policies were not issued to eligible
associations, and the persons to whom defendants marketed and sold
the polices were not actual members of any group or association,
but merely credit card holders and other individuals to whom
defendants had easy access to market the policies."

The Walkers claim HealthExtras engaged several insurance
companies, including Stonebridge, to underwrite policies it
marketed and sold to customers of credit card issuers, including

Tracy Walker says she was solicited to purchase a $1 million
policy by a marketing insert in her Conoco credit card bill.  Her
husband signed on for the same coverage several years later.

The Walkers claim Citibank is the supposed association to which
Stonebridge issued the policies, but Citibank is not an eligible
association under state law.

"Plaintiffs have never had any credit card or account with
Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. or any other Citibank entity," the
complaint states.  "To their knowledge, plaintiffs have never been
a member of any association or group affiliated with Citibank."

The Walkers say Citibank is not an eligible association because it
does not have a constitution or bylaws and was not maintained in
good faith for purposes other than just buying the insurance.

"The group insurance policies were sold solely to persons whose
only commonality is that they have a credit card and/or were
chosen by HealthExtras and others as good marketing prospects for
the policies," the complaint states.

". . .  In fact, upon information and belief, the putative class
members are not even all customers of the same bank or credit card
issuer which led to their solicitation to purchase the insurance
policies in question in the first place."

Other defendants include HealthExtras Benefits Administrators Inc.
and HealthExtras Insurance Agency Inc.

Stonebridge did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Walkers seek compensatory and punitive class damages for money
had and received, deceptive trade and violations of the Texas
Insurance Code.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger Mandel, Esq.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
          Dallas, TX 75219-4241
          Telephone: (214) 560-2201
          Facsimile: (214) 560-2203
          E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Violates Racketeering Law, Class Suit Claims
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Annie Youderian reports that
Donald Trump's fraudulent Trump University "delivered neither
Donald Trump nor a university," in violation of racketeering law,
according to a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Art Cohen claims the real estate mogul "uniformly
misled plaintiff and the class that they would learn Donald
Trump's real estate secrets through him and his handpicked
professors at his elite 'university.'"

Potential students attended free seminars where they were
pressured to sign up for a $1,495 three-day seminar that would
purportedly teach them everything they needed to know to become
successful real-estate investors, according to the lawsuit.  They
were told that the longer seminar would include a year-long
"apprenticeship program" and may feature an appearance by The
Donald himself, and were pitched on Trump Elite mentorship
programs that cost $10,000 to $35,000, Cohen claims in the federal
lawsuit filed in San Diego.

"However, Trump did not fulfill the promises he made to student-
victims around the country -- he did not teach students his
coveted real estate investing "secrets" at the Live Events, he did
not contribute in any meaningful way to the curriculum for the
Live Events, and he did not handpick the live event seminar
instructors and mentors who 'taught' student-victims at three-day
live events and elite mentorship programs -- both of which were
upsells from the free introductory live event called the
'preview,'" Cohen claims.

The allegations are similar to those made in August by New York
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is now investigating the
alleged deceptions.

In March 2005, the New York State Education Department allegedly
warned Trump that using the term "university" was illegal without
a license and asked him to stop.

"Instead of complying, defendant's agents created a fictitious
office in Dover, Delaware, and then defendant continued to
brazenly operate illegally out of his 40 Wall Street office in New
York, New York for five years," according to the class action.

Trump finally stopped offering and selling live events in August
2010, but refused to give students refunds, the class claims.

At least 11 attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice
fielded "numerous complaints" about Trump University, according to
the lawsuit, and the institution received a D- grade from the
Better Business Bureau.

Trump vigorously defended himself against the New York attorney
general's allegations, reportedly calling Schneiderman a
"lightweight" "political hack" who was trying to "extort" him for
not doing more for his campaign.

The California class members demand actual and punitive damages
for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Forge, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jforge@rgrdlaw.com

US CENTURY: Judge Dismisses Minority Shareholder Class Action
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that the U.S. Century Bank convinced a judge to dismiss a minority
shareholder class action lawsuit against it, a development that
could pave the way for its pending recapitalizaton.

The Doral-based bank is "undercapitalized" and counting on an
injection of capital from a local investor group led by developers
Jimmy Tate and Sergio Rok.  Mr. Tate has previously stated that
resolving the class action lawsuit is crucial before the deal can

The class action was filed in January in Miami-Dade County Circuit
Court on behalf of a handful of minority shareholders against U.S.
Century Bank and some of its current and former directors.  They
were accused of mismanaging the bank, leading to millions of
dollars in losses, and benefitting from improper insider deals.

U.S. Century Bank President and CEO Carlos Davila said the judge
granted its motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Oct. 28.

"That was a huge win," he said.  "Hopefully, by Dec. 31, we can
put this deal to bed.  We know the U.S. Treasury has already
opined and our shareholders voted for it, so we are depending on
the regulators now.  Time is in our favor."

The U.S. Department of the Treasury is apparently willing to grant
U.S. Century Bank a major discount on the $50.2 million in
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds it accepted from
taxpayers in 2009.  U.S. Century Bank has missed 15 consecutive
dividend payments to Treasury with a value of $10.27 million as of
Sept. 30, according to the Office of the Special Inspector General
of TARP.

The completion of the recapitalization will allow Treasury to
recover something from the taxpayer investment.

Coral Gables-based attorney Gonzalo Dorta, the lead attorney in
the class action, couldn't be reached for comment.
Elisabeth Culmo, another attorney on the case, said the ruling
would be appealed.

Mr. Dorta is also the lead attorney on a derivative lawsuit
involving U.S. Century Bank -- a lawsuit that demands some former
and current directors pay the bank of the damages they allegedly
caused.  Mr. Davila said the derivative lawsuit could actually be
a positive for the bank's capital levels so he doesn't expect it
to impact the recapitalization plan.

Once the deal closes, Mr. Davila said U.S. Century Bank would be
more active in lending, especially with small businesses.

"We want to be extremely conscious of the diversification of our
lending base as we start lending again with more focus on owner-
occupied facilities and professionals," he said.  "We want to
utilize our branches to create activity with traffic and make
loans of smaller denominations to diversify our risk.  We will
differ from the approach of mostly commercial real estate,
construction and land loans that we used to have."

US NURSING: Received Final Approval of $1.7-Mil. Class Settlement
U.S. Nursing Corp. received final approval of its $1.7 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated in California.  The
lawsuit accuses the Company of failing to pay its workers overtime
wages or provide them with meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Leo Gildor, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Gertler, Esq.
          42 Miller Ave.
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: dgildor@chavezgertler.com

               - and -

          Lori Erin Andrus, Esq.
          155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
          E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chase W. Ensign, Esq.
          Jeffrey Patrick Michalowski, Esq.
          Paul William Cane, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas E. Geidt, Esq.
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: chaseensign@paulhastings.com

The case is Bolton v. U.S. Nursing Corp., et al., Case No. 3:12-
cv-04466-LB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco).

VANCOUVER: Tri-City Families Eligible for School Fee Refunds
Diane Strandberg, writing for The Tri-City News, reports that
hundreds of Tri-City families may be eligible for refunds on
summer school fees they paid several years ago after a class
action suit involving a Coquitlam family was settled.

It's not known how many people will ask for a refund and what the
final cost will be but, in 2007, according to Tri-City News'
files, the district said it paid out $500,000 in refunds after
school fees were made illegal.

According to a school district memo, the refund covers summer
school fees paid in 2005 and 2006 as well as any paid after
July 1, 2004, and the province has agreed to fund a portion of the
settlement and administrative costs to a certain threshold, with
affected school districts paying the balance.

"As the agreement is a legal document, we are not in a position at
this time to share this privileged communication," the memo

But SD43's assistant secretary treasurer, Chris Nicolls, said the
amount of money involved is not expected to be significant or
cause the district financial hardship.

"We just don't see it being a significant item that's going to
have the impact that is going to cause us to have to take a deep
breath and look at alternatives," Mr. Nicolls said.

The issue arrises after a Coquitlam mom, Debra Helem, started a
class action suit mirroring one by Sarah Riazi against the
Vancouver School Board.  Both suits argued that if the fees were
illegal in 2007, they were also illegal in preceding years
(subject to the statute of limitations).

                     Class Action Settlement

Madam Justice Jane Dardi of the B.C. Supreme Court certified the
Helem lawsuit as a class action on Oct. 25 and approved an
agreement to settle both of the claims.

Ms. Helem wasn't available for comment before The Tri-City News'
deadline and the law firm Poyner Baxter LLP declined to comment.

Under the settlement, parents who paid tuition for summer school
remedial and graduation completion courses will be mailed a claim
form allowing them to choose either a 70% refund or a 100% credit
toward tuition in other courses.  A 25% legal fee will be deducted
and paid to Poyner Baxter, which represented the plaintiffs.

Parents have until the middle of February to make their claims and
the school district is in the process of making a list of people
who would have paid summer school fees and their last known
address to contact them.

In 2007, 3,000 students received refunds of between $25 and $600,
depending on what courses they took and how many because of a 2006
court ruling prohibiting school fees.

Ministry spokesperson Scott Sutherland couldn't confirm how much
the province will pay for the refunds but said some $14.6 million
will be paid to school districts this year for about 48,000
school-aged students to take summer school or summer learning

VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Got Prelim. OK of $95-Mil. Class Settlement
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that
shareholders and securities regulators will accept $95 million to
settle claims over share prices in Verifone that dropped 45
percent, a federal judge ruled.

After shares in Verifone dropped over 45 percent in one day in
December 2007, the San Jose-based maker of electronic-payment
systems admitted that it had misstated earnings for three
consecutive quarters.

Nine groups of investors immediately filed suit for securities
fraud, and the Securities Exchange Commission followed suit in
2009.  Those cases were eventually consolidated with the National
Elevator Industry Fund as lead plaintiff.

The action alleged that former CEO and chairman Douglas Bergeron,
and former CFO and executive vice president Barry Zwarenstein,
deliberately lied in public about the company's earnings to meet
the expectations of a merger with Israel-based Lipman Electronic
Engineering.  The executives had projected that the merger would
spur a sharp increase in earnings, and when that didn't happen
three quarters in a row they fudged the numbers to make it seem
like a success, the class said.

After the San Francisco trial judge dismissed three amended
complaints, the last with prejudice, the 9th Circuit reversed in
December 2012, concluding that "lead plaintiff's third amended
complaint adequately alleged scienter as to defendants Verifone,
Bergeron and Zwarentsein."

The parties then entered mediation, revealing in a quarterly
report earlier in October that it would pay the settlement class
$95 million.  Insurance for the firm will cover approximately $34
million of that amount, according to the report.  Verifone is
responsible for the remaining $61 million.

Included in the settlement is a potential contingent adjustment,
which provides changes if the company is acquired within six
months from preliminary approval of the settlement.

Verifone noted that it continues to deny the allegations of the

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen gave the settlement preliminary on
October 15, 2013.

The parties face a settlement hearing on Feb. 6, 2014.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher P. Seefer
          Christopher M. Wood
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: chriss@rgrdlaw.com

VERIZON COMMS: Judge Okays $7.7MM OT Class Action Settlement
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
judge approved a deal on Oct. 29 in which Verizon Communications
Inc. will pay $7.7 million to settle a class action in which
retail employees alleged the wireless carrier had shirked the Fair
Labor Standards Act and state wage laws when it declined to pay
workers overtime and bonuses.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez on Oct. 29 approved the deal to
end more than two years of litigation over whether the retail
workers weren't paid according to labor laws.

The wireless store employees agreed to split the $7.7 million into
what they would have earned if the company had paid them overtime,
as they claimed the company hadn't.  The preliminary settlement
was met with a single objection, which Judge Valdez shot down in
Tuesday's order for approval.

"The sole objection to the settlement class fails to identify any
specific bases for the objections and merely states that the
objector disagrees that the settlement is fair, reasonable, or
adequate, or that the elements of a class action have been met,"
Judge Valdez wrote in the Oct. 29 order.  "The objection is
therefore overruled."

In 2011, Jeremy Cioe and Sarom Ped filed separate suits in
Illinois alleging the company had breached labor laws.  Mr. Cioe
sued first, filing a complaint in February 2011 alleging Verizon
was illegally adjusting overtime for bonuses and other incentive
compensation, according to the suit.

Mr. Ped, an assistant store manager, claimed his pay method --
known in the company as "Salary Plus" -- was constructed to avoid
the company paying him overtime, according to the suit.

In July 2012, the two combined their class actions.  Verizon
agreed to enter mediation with the class, agreeing on a settlement
after two mediations, according to the settlement documents.

Per the settlement, Verizon will create a $7.7 million fund for
the members of the class, who will be paid on a claims-made basis,
in which the claims administrator determines how much they would
have earned if they had received overtime.

Messrs. Cioe and Ped will each be paid $12,500 for representing
the class, and the attorney fees could rise to as much as
one-third the total cost of the settlement, according to the deal.

"The proposed settlement addresses plaintiffs' litigation
objectives, and falls within the range of fairness for final
approval," the parties wrote in a motion for preliminary approval
in May.

Verizon denies culpability or wrongdoing, according to the deal.
It fully cooperated with the plaintiffs in a long process that
involved the company providing individual lines of code of every
potential class member's logged work time, according to the suit.

The class was represented by Maria De Las Nieves Bolanos and Robin
B. Potter of Robin Potter & Associates and Mark Anthony
Bulgarelli, Ilan Chorowsky and Alex Stepick IV of Progressive Law
Group LLC.

Verizon was represented by Elizabeth Bethea McRee --
emcree@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day.

The case is Jeremy Cioe v. Verizon Communications Inc., case No.
1:11-cv-01002, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

YELP: To Seek Dismissal of Reviewers' Class Action
Kate Taylor, writing for Entrepreneur, reports that some Yelp
reviewers have filed a class-action lawsuit demanding monetary
compensation for the reviews they post on the site.  The
plaintiffs argue they are technically unpaid employees who deserve
payment for their contributions, given the importance of the
reviews to Yelp's business model.

According to the suit, Yelp's failure to pay reviewers -- who
voluntarily choose to evaluate their experiences at everything
from restaurants to law firms -- "have become suspect in both the
public forum, as witnessed by the proliferation and popularity of
such websites as yelp-sucks.com, and within the courtrooms."

The suit goes on to compare Yelp's business practices to those on
a slave ship.  "Business journal commentators have compared said
business practices to a 21st Century galley slave ship with
pirates banging the drum to keep up the fast pace and to fill the
pockets of their stockholders with treasure," it states.

The plaintiffs argue that instead of offering payment, Yelp draws
in reviewers through "cult-like rewards," such as "trinkets,
badges, titles, praise, social promotion, free liquor, free food,
and free promotional Yelp attire, such as red panties with 'Make
Me Yelp!' stamped across its bottom." One Yelper is quoted as
stating, "It's kind of like a cult, except instead of Kool-Aid we
drink alcohol."

The plaintiffs, who include some of Yelp's "elite" writers, also
claim they had to write positive reviews of venues that sponsored
company events, where they were often offered free food and
liquor, or they risked losing their elite status.

Yelp refuted the lawsuit and said it will seek to have it
dismissed.  "This is a textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit; it
is unfortunate the court has to waste its time adjudicating it and
we will seek to have it dismissed.  The argument that voluntarily
using a free service equates to an employment relationship is
completely without merit, unsupported by law and contradicted by
the dozens of websites like Yelp that consumers use to help one
another," a company spokesperson said.

Yelp has faced legal action in the past for alleged extortion and
review manipulation -- claims which the company has repeatedly
denied. Yelp has faced additional backlash for the proliferation
of fake reviews on its site.

However, this is the first suit to object to Yelp's utilization of
reviewers as unpaid labor, exploiting "a vulnerable and disposable
class of workers."  "By shirking its responsibilities to pay its
workers," states the document, the "defendant is in essence
thumbing its nose both at their workers and the taxing authorities
of all states and the U.S. government."

With recent discussion surrounding the hot-button issues of
writing for free and interning for free, unpaid reviews are in
some ways simply the next step in demanding payment for labor.
However, with over 47 million local reviews, it seems unlikely
that Yelpers will be paid every time they pen a couple sentences
about their trip to a new sushi restaurant.  Yelp's business model
has always been built on unpaid reviewers freely choosing to share
their opinions -- a fact that no Yelper could have been unaware of
when they spent five minutes writing their first review.

* B.C. Courts Increasingly Liberal in Certifying Class Actions
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that class
action defense lawyers say that British Columbia is replacing
Quebec as Canada's class action haven, but the plaintiffs' bar is
having none of it.

What's fanned the controversy is a recent decision of the British
Columbia Supreme Court, Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd.,
certifying a class action centered on the diet drug Meridia
against both the brand-name and generic manufacturers.  Earlier,
the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to certify a class action
concerning the same drug, essentially holding that the plaintiff's
allegations were too weak to support a claim.

"Both cases were based on substantially the same claims, with very
little, if any, material facts that were different, and two years
ago I would have considered it impossible that B.C. would certify
what Quebec would not," says James Sullivan --
james.sullivan@blakes.com -- of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP's
Vancouver office.  "As I see it, the B.C. decision confirms that
the bar for certification remains very low in this province and
may now be the lowest in Canada."

Randy Sutton -- randy.sutton@nortonrosefulbright.com -- of Norton
Rose Fulbright Canada LLP's Toronto office, who defends class
actions, shares the view that the B.C. courts have become
increasingly liberal in certifying class actions.

"The fact that Quebec refused to certify didn't seem to be of much
concern to the B.C. judge, but that may be due to jurisdictional
differences that make it harder for B.C. defendants to undermine a
case before certification," he says.

Yet J.J. Camp -- jjcamp@cfmlawyers.ca -- of Camp Fiorante Matthews
Mogerman, a Vancouver civil litigation boutique that pursues class
actions for plaintiffs, puts no stock in the complaints about
B.C.'s low thresholds.

"What the defense bar is bleating about are that class actions
work out here," he says.  "If they really believe they have good
defenses, let them consent to certification and try to beat the
hell out of us at trial."

Historically, Quebec has been regarded as the haven for Canadian
class actions because its test is liberal and its legislation does
not require any evidence (as opposed to allegation) to support
certification.  What has changed, as evidenced by recent
decisions, is that the courts are undertaking a more thorough
analysis of the procedural requirements for certification.

Indeed, Charlton is not the first pharmaceutical class action in
which BC and Quebec courts haven't seen eye-to-eye of late.  In a
case involving children's over-the-counter cold medications, the
Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court's refusal to
certify on the basis that the action was "bereft of any chance of
success."  The B.C. Supreme Court, however, granted certification,
a decision that is under appeal.

Mr. Sullivan adds that since 2007 the B.C. Court of Appeal has not
overturned a single certification on the basis of class action
procedural issues, such as the existence of common issues or the
manageability of the litigation.

"In fact, the Court of Appeal has overturned just three
certifications ever," he says.

The three reversals occurred in a competition case where the court
found that indirect purchasers were not appropriate defendants, an
aboriginal case where the decision was that the group involved did
not have standing to sue, and a consumer protection case that was
denied certification because its facts did not fit within the
court's interpretation of the relevant legislation.

Mr. Sullivan believes that two factors account for the low
standard for certification in B.C.

"We have a bench that is favorably disposed to class action as a
means of access to justice, that regards certification as a purely
procedural matter, and that does not have enough experience with
class action trials to know how unwieldy and unmanageable they can
be," he says.  "So part of the issue is the maturation process."

The second factor, Mr. Sullivan says, is the "entrepreneurial and
aggressive" nature of the plaintiffs' bar in B.C.

While the legislative tests for certification are similar in both
provinces, there is no automatic right in B.C. to cross-examine
plaintiffs on their affidavits and courts are reluctant to order
the production of medical records before certification.

"B.C. has a more streamlined approach, whereas the Quebec courts
will look more closely into such things as the nature of the
representative plaintiff and his or her suitability to represent
the class," Mr. Sutton says.


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,

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  * * *