CAR_Public/131106.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 6, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 220

                             Headlines


ACER AMERICA: Court Grants Incentive Award in "Wolph" Class Suit
APPLE INC: Original iPad 3G Customers Begin Receiving Claim Forms
APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Faulty MacBooks
BRAD LIVINGSTON: Reconsideration Bid in "Hickman-Bey" Suit Denied
BRP: Recalls ICON Binnacle Remote Controls Over Safety Issues

CALPHALON CORPORATION: Recalls Blenders Due to Injury Hazard
CHEVRON CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Gerra's Testimony in Ecuador Suit
CLIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Marshmallows Over Allergen
COLE HAAN: Bid for Attorney's Fees in "Davis" Suit Denied
CROWN CHEMICAL: Recalls AC Delco White Wall Tire Cleaner

DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Saf-T-LINER C2 School Bus
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 544 Saf-T-LINER C2 School Buses
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 5 Saf-T-LINER C2 Non-School Buses
DH CAPITAL: District Court Ruling in "Tyler" Class Action Upheld
ELMWOOD PLACE, OH: Court Allows Speed Camera Suit to Proceed

EQUIPMENT TRANSPORT: Faces Wage Payment Class Action in Ohio
FIRSTENERGY: Court Enters Default Judgment on Class Action
HERSHEY CANADA: Recalls Glosette Raisins Due to Undeclared Milk
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 3,149 Genesis Model Cars
IDAHO: Pioneer Irrigation District Faces Landowner Class Action

INGENIO INC: 9th Cir. Remands False Advertising Suit
KEM KREST: Recalls AC Delco Bug Remover
LAROSE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Snoopy Sno-Cone Machines
LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: Maurice Blackburn May Expand Class Action
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Settles Remaining Claims in Hurricane Suit

MICROSOFT CORP: Consumers May Join Unfair Pricing Class Action
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Players Exhaust All Options in Concussion Suit
PREVOST: Recalls 30 XL-45 COACH Model Buses
ROBERT McDONNELL: Court Enlarges "Harris" Suit Briefing Schedule
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Recalls APC SurgeArrest Surge Protectors

SERVICON SYSTEMS: Class Claims in "Johnson" Suit Revived
STONEBRIDGE LIFE: Drinker Biddle Discusses Class Action Settlement
SUTTER HEALTH: Settles Claims for Bogus Anesthesia Billing
SWIRE OILFIELD: Faces Overtime Class Action in Texas
TEVA PHARMA: Tenth Circuit to Consider CAFA Circumvention Strategy

VEUVE CLICQUOT: Recalls Ponsardin Champagne Over Sulphites
VEUVE CLICQUOT: Recalls Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne
VIRGINIA: Class Action Status Sought for Gay-Marriage Ban Suit
VIVENDI SA: Non-French Investors Seek Damages Over Fin'l Crisis
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Judge Rejects $10MM Class Action Settlement

WYETH CANADA: Borden Discusses Use of Funding Agreement Privilege
XL FOODS: Hundreds of Plaintiffs Expected to Join Class Action


                             *********


ACER AMERICA: Court Grants Incentive Award in "Wolph" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White issued an order granting, in part,
a motion for attorneys fees, costs, and incentive awards in LORA
and CLAY WOLPH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, NO.
C 09-01314 JSW, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court awarded the Plaintiffs $943,217 in attorneys' fees,
$171,768.80 in costs, and $4,000 in incentive awards.

Plaintiffs filed this class action against Acer based on the
allegedly defective Acer notebook computer they purchased.

A copy of the District Court's October 21, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/f1pZ4nfrom Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Original iPad 3G Customers Begin Receiving Claim Forms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Slivka, writing for Mac Rumors, reports that back in
September, a court gave initial approval of a settlement in a
class-action lawsuit against Apple and AT&T alleging that the
companies failed to live up to customer expectations with
advertised data plans for 3G-capable models of the original iPad.
At the device's launch, Apple touted a $29.99/month unlimited data
plan through AT&T, but just two months after the 3G iPad models
became available AT&T discontinued the plan in favor of a capped
data plan.

On Oct. 30, the administrator handling the settlement began
sending out claim forms to customers who purchased or ordered an
original iPad Wi-Fi + 3G on or before June 7, 2010, allowing them
to register to receive their settlement benefits.  Claim forms
must be filed by February 3, 2014, and the final settlement terms
still need to approved by the court.

Under the terms of settlement, all U.S. customers who purchased a
3G-capable iPad will be eligible for a $40 payment from Apple.
Those customers who purchased the affected device but did not
activate a data plan will also be eligible for a $20 discount on
AT&T's 5 GB iPad data plan, good for one year.  Current pricing
for that data plan is set at $50/month, so the settlement will
reduce that fee to $30/month for that one-year period.

On the claim form, customers must attest that the ability to
switch in and out of the unlimited data plan was a factor in their
decision to purchase the 3G iPad. Customers must also provide the
serial number and IMEI number for the device in order to be
credited with the data plan benefit.  For any customer eligible
for the data plan benefit but who is no longer in possession of
the affected iPad, he or she may apply the benefit to a newer iPad
by submitting the serial number and IMEI number of that newer
device.


APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Faulty MacBooks
---------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas
federal judge on Oct. 31 tossed a proposed class action alleging
that Apple Inc.'s MacBook and the MacBook Pro laptop computers
contain faulty motherboards, saying the plaintiffs failed to
adequately plead any of their claims.

The plaintiffs alleged Apple's motherboards, referred to by the
company as "logic boards," hold the bulk of the internal
components of the computers, and contains various connection ports
such as the standard Universal Serial Bus, or USB, port.  They
said the defective logic boards result in USB ports not
functioning, or in the laptop itself being rendered unusable.

But U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks had harsh words for the
plaintiffs' lawsuit.  "Plaintiffs purchased laptops from Apple six
years ago, and were disappointed when those laptops malfunctioned
and required repairs five years after they purchased them and four
years after the products' warranties had expired," Judge Sparks
said.  "Plaintiffs believe expensive Apple products should last
longer.  This sentiment is a fine basis for purchasing an extended
warranty from Apple, or for purchasing products from Apple's
competitors in the future. It is not a basis for a class action
lawsuit against Apple."

In dismissing their fraud claim, the judge said the plaintiffs had
failed to identify any representations Apple made related to the
logic boards, instead pointing to various Apple press releases
making generic comments about MacBook laptops.

"Even if Apple did make relevant representations, and assuming
those representations were material, plaintiffs have not
identified a single false representation," the judge said.  "Those
representations which do state actual facts about the product do
not relate to the logic boards, and thus are not false even
assuming plaintiffs' theory of defectiveness."

He similarly dispatched the plaintiffs' Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act violation claim, saying the Apple representations
that were cited are irrelevant.  "Additionally, plaintiffs have
not pleaded reliance, as neither plaintiff claims to have seen any
of the representations listed in the second amended complaint
prior to purchasing a MacBook Pro, nor have plaintiffs alleged
such representations actually induced them to purchase the
product," Judge Sparks said.

The judge also dismissed a breach of warranty claim, finding that
Apple's limited warranty covered the MacBook Pro for one year from
the date of the purchase, and that an exclusion disclaimer said
the company would not cover "without limitation" warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and
warranties against hidden or latent defects.

"The court finds this disclaimer was conspicuous, and plaintiffs
ought to have noticed it," the judge said.

"This case has been pending for 14 months, plaintiffs have amended
their complaint multiple times . . .  The court finds granting
plaintiffs leave to amend a third time would be futile, as
plaintiffs have consistently failed to allege basic facts
necessary to support their claims," Judge Sparks said.  "The
inescapable conclusion is plaintiffs cannot allege such facts
(e.g., reliance on any particular representations made by Apple)
because there is no good faith basis for doing so."

He declined to grant the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint
again and dismissed the claims with prejudice.

"Although disappointed by the court's decision, our firm will
continue to vigorously pursue our class action litigation against
corporate defendants.  Many consumers have no recourse to obtain
refunds from large corporations.  We are, and will remain, the
last line of defense," plaintiffs' attorney Omar W. Rosales --
omar@owrosales.com  -- of The Rosales Law Firm LLC said on
Oct. 31.

Apple and its counsel did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Omar W. Rosales of The Rosales
Law Firm LLC.

Apple is represented by David M. Walsh -- dwalsh@mofo.com --
Purvi G. Patel -- ppatel@mofo.com -- Keith Henneke --
khenneke@mofo.com -- and Kai S. Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com
-- of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The case is Cindy Tincher et al. v. Apple Inc., case number 1:13-
cv-00784, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas.


BRAD LIVINGSTON: Reconsideration Bid in "Hickman-Bey" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington denied a request for
reconsideration of the order denying the motion for appointment of
counsel in the case captioned KENNETH HICKMAN-BEY, et al,
Plaintiffs, v. BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:13-CV-266, (S.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff Hickman-Bey is a Muslim inmate assigned to the McConnell
Unit of TDCJ-CID. He alleges in this lawsuit filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 that defendants violated the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Section
2000cc, et seq., as well as his First Amendment Right to practice
his Muslim faith by enforcing a policy requiring him to be clean
shaven. This case was transferred from the Western District of
Texas, and pending was Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of
the order entered in that court denying him appointment of
counsel.  Mr. Hickman-Bey requested appointment of counsel for
purposes of pursuing class certification of the issues in this
case.

Judge Ellington held that the Plaintiff has not shown that
exceptional circumstances require the appointment of counsel at
this time. There is no indication that appointed counsel would aid
in the efficient and equitable disposition of the case, she said.
However, she added that the Plaintiff is not prohibited from
hiring an attorney on a contingent-fee arrangement.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the order
denying him appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice at
this time, says Judge Ellington.  "This order will be sua sponte
reexamined as the case proceeds, particularly if the case is
scheduled for trial."

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/sNgBGnfrom Leagle.com.


BRP: Recalls ICON Binnacle Remote Controls Over Safety Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 1, 2013
Posting date:             November 1, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Outdoor Living
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36551

Affected products: ICON Binnacle single and dual mount remote
controls sold by and for Evinrude TEC outbound engines.

The recall involves ICON binnacle single and dual lever mount
controls.  Please refer to the part number located on the lower
part of the unit. The affected products are listed in the tables
as follows and include the original part numbers and the current
part numbers.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/J5Sbob

Single and dual mount remote controls affected by this recall:

Single Lever Binnacle Mount Control Kit

  Original Part #   Current Part #     Description
  ---------------   --------------     -----------
  767053                 765381        1 Engine - Binnacle Control
  767042                 764980        1 Engine - Single Station
  767043                 764981        1 Engine - Dual Station

Dual Lever Binnacle Mount Control Kit

  Original Part #     Current Part #   Description
  ---------------     --------------   -----------
  767054                 765382        2 Engine - Binnacle Control
  767044                 764982        2 Engine - Single Station
  767045                 764983        2 Engine - Section Station
  767055                 765383        3 Engine - Binnacle Control
  767046                 764984        3 Engine - Single Station
  767047                 764985        3 Engine - Second Station
  767056                 765384        4 Engine - Binnacle Control
  767048                 764986        4 Engine - Single Station
  767049                 764987        4 Engine - Second Station
  767057                 765385        5 Engine - Binnacle Control
  767050                 764988        5 Engine - Single Station
  767051                 764989        5 Engine - Second Station

A limited number of ICON binnacle mount remote control levers may
be incorrectly assembled and pull away from the remote control
resulting in loss of throttle and shift control.  Loss of throttle
and shift control may cause loss of boat control which could lead
to serious injury or even death of the operator, passengers, or
people nearby.

Neither Health Canada nor BRP has received any reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of the affected ICON
Binnacle Mount Remote Controls.

Approximately 288 units of the recalled single and dual levers
were sold in Canada at various authorized Evinrude/Johnson dealer
nationwide.

The affected products were manufactured in Canada and sold from
June 2009 through October 2013.

Companies:

   Distributor     BPR
                   Valcourt
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Consumers are advised to not use the ICON binnacle mount remote
control kits until an authorized Evinrude/Johnson dealer has
completed an inspection.  Please call an authorized
Evinrude/Johnson dealer and make an appointment to have your ICON
binnacle mount remote control(s) inspected and, if necessary,
replaced free of charge.


CALPHALON CORPORATION: Recalls Blenders Due to Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Calphalon Corporation, of Atlanta, Ga., announced a voluntary
recall of about 22,000 in the United States and 400 in Canada
Blenders.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

A piece of the blender's mixing blade unit can break off during
use, posing an injury hazard.

Calphalon has received four reports of a piece of the blender's
mixing blade breaking off.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Calphalon XL 9 speed blenders, model 1832449,
also identified as model ME600BL.  The model number is located on
the underside of the blender's base.  The blender consists of a
5-inch tall, brushed-aluminum base with cord storage, the
Calphalon logo in black letters at the front, and nine black/white
speed selectors with labeling, plus the power button.  It also has
a clear 56-ounce glass pitcher with a handle and U.S. and metric
volume measurement markings; a black plastic lid with a removable
clear plastic lid stopper/measuring cup; and a metal blade
assembly with six-sided, stainless steel blades.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/6Op3sW

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond, Kohl's, JCPenney, Macy's and other major retail
stores nationwide and online at Calphalon.com, Amazon.com,
Cooking.com, and Zappos.com, among others, from September 2012
through September 2013 for about $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blender and
contact Calphalon for a free repair kit.


CHEVRON CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Gerra's Testimony in Ecuador Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Bekiempis, writing for NewsWeek, reports that even by the
standards of a legally battle-tested oil industry, the Chevron
trial is ugly.

In the case before U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, Chevron puts
forth that Steven Donziger, a New York lawyer, masterminded an
international conspiracy to obtain a $19 billion judgment against
the oil giant in Ecuador in 2011 for contaminating the Amazon.
That award was one of the largest class-action payouts ever.

All this stems from a 2003 lawsuit filed in Ecuador by
Mr. Donziger and an activist group, Amazon Defense Front, which
sought damages for contamination it claimed Texaco left behind
after drilling there for over 25 years. (Chevron acquired Texaco,
its former competitor, in 2001.)

According to the filing, Mr. Donziger estimated that he could earn
hundreds of millions of dollars should the Ecuador decision stand.
It quotes him as saying, "I sit back and dream . . . billions of
dollars on the table.  A movie, a possible book.'"

Chevron further alleges that Mr. Donziger blackmailed and bribed
Ecuadorian judges to secure the massive judgment against it.  And
the company maintains that Mr. Donziger and the Front, in making
their pollution claims to Ecuadorian and U.S. courts, as well as
the U.S. Congress, wrote an environmental damage report themselves
-- but presented it as the work of an independent, court-appointed
analyst.  Chevron also claims to have proof that the 188-page
judgment itself was "ghostwritten by the Front."

One of Chevron's most important and intriguing witnesses is
Alberto Guerra, an ex-Ecuadorian judge who recently said in court
that he accepted bribes from one of Mr. Donziger's associate to
influence the judge in the original case.  He said Mr. Donziger's
team agreed to pay $500,000 so that it could draft the final
judgment.  "Mr. Donziger thanked me for the work that I was going
to do," Mr. Guerra testified.

Mr. Guerra, however, is not a perfect witness: During cross-
examination he acknowledged that Chevron paid him $48,000 "for
physical evidence" of said bribery, as well as "travel expenses
for his and his son's families to flee Ecuador . . . attorneys
fees . . . and committed to pay him $12,000 per month for living
expenses in the United States for two years."  On Oct. 30,
Mr. Donziger's legal team filed a motion to dismiss Guerra's
testimony on the grounds that "Chevron's compensation for his
testimony is tantamount to a bribe." (At press time, Kaplan had
yet to rule on that motion.)

This type of back-and-forth is typical of the years-long legal
proceeding, in which there's evidence of wrongdoing by both sides.
A 2012 New Yorker article said that in Ecuador's Amazon, "Texaco
simply dumped [toxic] liquid into swimming-pool-size pits" that
Mr. Donziger and locals claimed led to "cancer deaths,
miscarriages, birth defects, dead livestock, sick fish, and the
near-extinction of several tribes."  The article makes clear,
however, that Mr. Donziger routinely discussed corruption in the
Ecuadorian legal system, and questions whether he took the case
"too far," quoting him as saying: "This is Ecuador, O.K.? . . . at
the end of the day, if there's a thousand people around the
courthouse you're going to get what you want." The article also
quotes him describing the scientific evidence as "just a bunch of
smoke and mirrors and bulls***."

Chevron is suing Mr. Donziger and allied activists under a 1970
anti-mob law called the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, commonly known as the RICO Act.  The company's
lawyers, led by Randy Mastro, claim Mr. Donziger's camp
orchestrated an intricate conspiracy to defraud Chevron similar to
the way a drug cartel or mafia-run casino might conduct business
with extortion and similar shady tactics.

This has prompted skepticism from some of the lawyers interviewed
by Newsweek who are familiar with RICO but not involved in this
case.

Jeffrey E. Grell, a Minneapolis-based lawyer who authored a book
on RICO, says: "A lot of what's being alleged here by Chevron is
disturbing, [but] I'm not sure if RICO is the way we address these
kinds of problems."

Susan Bozorgi is a Miami-based criminal defense lawyer
specializing in white-collar crime and as such, is quite familiar
with RICO; she worries about the implications should Chevron
win."[RICO] was meant to be used against the mob," she says.  "The
danger about a case like this is that it could send a message to a
lawyer who wants to take up a cause for an underdog that Big
Brother, the big corporate entity, is going to start coming after
you for criminal conduct."

Other lawyers contacted by Newsweek were perplexed by the
proceedings, but didn't want to comment on the record either
because they were somehow affiliated with a lawyer involved with
the case (Mr. Mastro's firm, Gibson Dunn, boasts "1,100 lawyers in
18 offices in major cities throughout the United States, Europe,
the Middle East, Asia and South America," according to its
website) or are baffled at how RICO would apply in a civil
context.

Mr. Mastro dismisses these opinions as uninformed.  "I don't think
folks you've spoken to know enough about the case to be able to
make that kind of assessment," he tells Newsweek.  "This is a
racketeering enterprise run out of New York by a New York lawyer
working in conjunction with other U.S. lawyers and U.S.
consultants and funders to try to coerce a U.S. company."

And the fact that a trial, which determined environmental damage,
took place in Ecuador?

"The fact that part of the scheme involves creating a false
narrative in an easily corruptible foreign jurisdiction is just a
piece in the racketeering enterprise," he says.

A Chevron spokesman also points out that the judge has already
determined the case can be tried in New York, even though a large
portion pertains to activities in Ecuador.

Chevron has allies in this fight, and not all of them are global
behemoths."[This strategy] is one my group candidly hopes to make
more common," Darren McKinney, spokesman for the American Tort
Reform Association, tells Newsweek.  "We would argue, generally,
that the country would be better off if more companies that could
afford to do so would fight back in this manner.

"I'm not talking about a mom-and-pop dry cleaners that gets sued
by a psycho for misplacing his pants.  I don't want David to be
precluded from suing Goliath. By the same token, I don't want
Davids by the thousands ginning up fraudulent lawsuits."

Mr. Donziger maintains that he has done nothing wrong and that the
lawsuit will ultimately go in his favor -- if not in Judge
Kaplan's court, then in the Second Circuit or maybe even the U.S
Supreme Court.  "I've never been in this for the money; no one who
is interested in money would ever do this kind of case for this
many years," he tells Newsweek.  Of this trial he says, "It's
retaliation against me and my colleagues.  It's a show trial."


CLIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Marshmallows Over Allergen
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 1, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Clic International Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The Allergy Alert issued on October 26, 2013 has been updated to
include additional products and codes.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Affected products:

  Brand name   Common name                     Size      UPC
  Clic      Vanilla Flavoured Marshmallow*     250g.  058504639806
  Clic      Watermelon Flavoured Marshmallow*  250g.  58504 639820
  Clic      Mango Flavoured Marshmallow*       250g.  058504639851
  Clic      Plum Flavoured Marshmallow*        250g.  058504 63986
  Clic      Pineapple Flavoured Marshmallow*   250g.  05850463987
  Clic      Cherry Flavoured Marshmallow*      250g.  058504 63988
  Clic      Chocolate Flavoured Marshmallow*   250g.  05850463989
  Clic      Strawberry Flavoured Marshmallow   250g.  058504639813

Clic International Inc. is recalling various flavoured
marshmallows from the marketplace because they may contain milk.
People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled
products described below.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) test results.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.


COLE HAAN: Bid for Attorney's Fees in "Davis" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White denies plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of costs, and incentive awards in
the case captioned TAMMIE DAVIS, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COLE
HAAN, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO.
C 11-01826 JSW, (N.D. Cal.).

The matter came before the Court on consideration of the unopposed
motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of costs, and incentive
awards filed by plaintiffs Tammie Davis, Stefani Concepcion, and
Valeria Lletget, as well as Plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the class action settlement.

The Court said the proposed order submitted by the Plaintiffs in
support of their motion for final approval of the class action
settlement does not address the class member who requested to be
excluded from the class.  Nor does the proposed order address
whether the action should be dismissed or judgment should be
entered. Moreover, the proposed order includes provisions awarding
the amounts requested in the separate motion for attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of costs, and incentive awards. The Court reserved
ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for final settlement pending
receipt of a revised proposed order to address these issues.

Plaintiffs filed the class action against Cole Haan alleging that
Defendants wrongfully collected their personal identification
information during a credit card transaction.

"This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a renewed
motion," says Judge White.

A copy of the District Court's October 21, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/5vCTVnfrom Leagle.com.


CROWN CHEMICAL: Recalls AC Delco White Wall Tire Cleaner
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 1, 2013
Posting date:             November 1, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36545

Affected products: AC Delco White Wall Tire Cleaner

The recall involves AC Delco White Wall Tire Cleaner that is sold
in a white 455 mL pump top bottle and can be identified by UPC
02162555648.

The product label is blue, white and red and displays the AC Delco
trademark and also carries the toxic and corrosive hazard symbols
at the bottom.  The product number on the front of the label is
"1 #10952039".

The affected product is distributed by Kem Krest Canada ULC and is
shipped to General Motors dealers.

Health Canada has established that this chemical product is not
packaged in a child-resistant container.  Under Canadian law, this
product must be packaged in a child-resistant container as it is
classified as both toxic and corrosive.  The lack of child-
resistant packaging could result in unintentional exposure to this
product and lead to serious illnesses, injuries, or death.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/2z5vbX

Neither Health Canada, nor Crown Chemical Products Inc. nor Kem
Krest Canada ULC nor General Motors of Canada Limited has received
any reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this
product.

37,605 bottles were sold to various General Motors dealers in
Canada and may have been sold to consumers.

AC Delco White Wall Tire Cleaner was manufactured in Canada and
distributed by Kem Krest Canada ULC between April 2005 and
September 2013.

  Companies:

  Manufacturer     Crown Chemical Products Inc.
                   Mississauga
                   Ontario
                   Canada

  Distributor      Kem Krest Canada ULC
                   Oakville
                   Ontario
                   Canada

  Retailer         General Motors of Canada Ltd.
                   Oshawa
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Retail consumers should immediately stop using the recalled
products and return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  For more information, consumers may contact their local
GM Dealership.


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Saf-T-LINER C2 School Bus
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 30, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              School Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats and Restraints
Units affected:           1
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013379
TC ID number:             2013379
Manufacturer recall
number:                   FL-651

Affected products: 2013 Thomas Built Saf-T-LINER C2 School Bus

On certain school buses, seat track securing rivets may not have
been properly seated when installed. As a result, in the case of
seats equipped with seat belts, the seat belt anchorages may not
perform as designed in a crash.  This could increase the risk of
injury.

Dealers will reinforce the seat track mounting.


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 544 Saf-T-LINER C2 School Buses
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 30, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              School Bus
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights and Instruments
Units affected:           544
6Source of recall:        Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013378
TC ID number:             2013378
Manufacturer recall
number:                   FL-652

Certain school buses may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices.
The Daytime Running Lights (DRL) may not illuminate when the
master lighting switch is set to the parking lamps position.  No
DRL illumination could render the vehicle less visible to other
motorists and pedestrians during daylight hours, which could
result in a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will update the DRL configuration on affected vehicles.

Affected products:

  Maker           Model                     Model year(s) affected
  -----           -----                     ----------------------
  THOMAS BUILT   SAF-T-LINER C2 SCHOOL BUS   2004, 2005, 2006,
                                             2007, 2008, 2009,
                                             2010, 2011, 2012,
                                             2013, 2014


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 5 Saf-T-LINER C2 Non-School Buses
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 30, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           5
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013377
TC ID number:             2013377
Manufacturer recall
number:                   FL-652

Certain buses may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices.  The
Daytime Running Lights (DRL) may not illuminate when the master
lighting switch is set to the parking lamps position.  No DRL
illumination could render the vehicle less visible to other
motorists and pedestrians during daylight hours, which could
result in a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will update the DRL configuration on affected vehicles.

Affected products:

  Maker            Model            Model year(s) affected
  -----            -----            ----------------------
  THOMAS BUILT     SAF-T-LINER C2   2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
                   NON-SCHOOL BUS   2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
                                    2014


DH CAPITAL: District Court Ruling in "Tyler" Class Action Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed a
district court judgment entered in TYLER v. DH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
INC.

Dionte Tyler brought the class action under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Kentucky's usury laws,
alleging that the debt-collection action instituted by DH Capital
Management (DHC) sought to collect an amount to which DHC was not
legally entitled. The district court dismissed the suit, because
it was procedurally barred as not having been raised previously as
a counterclaim, and because Tyler's bankruptcy trustee, not Tyler,
was the proper party in interest. The appeal raises various issues
of procedural timing, which arise out of an unusual order of
events caused by the interaction between DHC's collection suit and
Tyler's declaration of bankruptcy.  The questions on appeal are:
1) whether Tyler's suit is barred for failure to raise his claims
as counterclaims in the original debt-collection action, during
the brief period before it was voluntarily dismissed and 2)
whether Tyler's suit is a pre-petition cause of action that only
his bankruptcy trustee has authority to pursue.

"We find that the district court erred in holding that Tyler's
claim was barred under res judicata principles, but agree that
Tyler's claim is based on a pre-petition violation and thus is
property of the bankruptcy estate," ruled the Sixth Circuit.  "As
a result, we affirm the judgment of the district court."

Only if Tyler schedules his claims and the trustee declines to
pursue them will he be able to reinitiate his suit, the Sixth
Circuit added.

The case is DIONTE TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DH CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-5021.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 22, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/zqOMInfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED for Appellant:

   James McKenzie, Esq.
   PEDLEY & GORDINIER, PLLC
   455 S 4th St Ste 1150
   Louisville, KY 40202-2512
   Tel: 502-214-3120

For Appellee:

   John R. Tarter, Esq.
   MAPOTHER & MAPOTHER, P.S.C.
   815 West Market Street, Suite 500
   Louisville, KY 40202-2654
   Tel: (502) 587-5400
   Toll-Free: (800) 587-5427
   Fax: (502) 587-5444

ON BRIEF: James McKenzie, PEDLEY & GORDINIER, PLLC, Louisville,
Kentucky, for Appellant.

John R. Tarter, MAPOTHER & MAPOTHER, P.S.C., Louisville, Kentucky,
for Appellee.


ELMWOOD PLACE, OH: Court Allows Speed Camera Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
TheNewspaper.com reports that vehicle owners who received a speed
camera ticket in Elmwood Place, Ohio will have a chance to get
their money back through a courtroom challenge.  That is bad news
for the village, because the trial will take place before Hamilton
County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert P. Ruehlman, who has
already made it clear he believes the automated ticketing machines
in the speed trap town are a "sham".  The state Supreme Court
declined to intervene, despite the desperate plea of local
officials.

"Upon consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this
case, the court declines to accept jurisdiction of the appeal,"
Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote.

That puts the ball back into Judge Ruehlman's court, and he
decided earlier to grant certification for the class action
mounted by attorney Michael K. Allen to recover the $1.75 million
that Elmwood Place and its vendor, Optotraffic, collected from
20,000 vehicle owners between September 1, 2012 and March 7, 2013.
Judge Ruehlman imposed an injunction shutting down the program in
March.

The village and Optotraffic both argued that the individuals who
paid their ticket were barred from suing over a matter that has
already been through the court system.  The argument was found to
be premature.

"A court considering class certification cannot reach the
substantive merits of the litigation," Judge Ruelhman ruled.

The court found that the case met all of the other requirements
for a class, namely that a large number of people -- 20,000 --
could make identical legal claims.

"Plaintiffs allege that defendants have adopted and followed
generalized policies that violated Ohio's constitution and
statutes and have engaged in standardized enforcement practices
that have violated constitutionally and statutorily guaranteed
protections enjoyed equally by all class members," Judge Ruelhman
ruled.  "The court also finds . . . that common questions
predominate over individual questions, and a class action is
superior to other methods of adjudication."

The high court refused both to hear a direct appeal of the
decision and a request to stay Judge Ruehlman's injunction pending
a Court of Appeals review.


EQUIPMENT TRANSPORT: Faces Wage Payment Class Action in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kallies, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
Debra Grimm, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, filed suit in the Ohio County Circuit Court on Oct. 23,
naming Equipment Transport LLC as defendant.

Ms. Grimm is suing for alleged violations of West Virginia's Wage
Payment and Collection Act.  According to Ms. Grimm, she was an
employee of Equipment Transport until her discharge in July.  Ms.
Grimm now claims she and other class members, who consist of
persons employed at Equipment Transport's West Virginia facility
between October 2008 and July 2013 and were discharged, did not
receive their full amount of wages and benefits in a timely
manner.

Ms. Grimm has filed suit claiming Equipment Transport violated
West Virginia's Wage and Payment Collection Act.  Ms. Grimm has
brought this lawsuit on behalf of herself and anyone else who may
fit into the class.

Ms. Grimm is seeking damages not to exceed $75,000 for herself and
each other class member individually.  She is being represented by
Schrader Byrd and Companion PLLC.

Circuit Court of Ohio County Case No. 13-C-366


FIRSTENERGY: Court Enters Default Judgment on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Observer-Reporter.com reports that the U.S. District Court in
Pittsburgh entered default judgment on Oct. 29 in a class action
suit filed by three Masontown residents who claim pollution
discharges from FirstEnergy's Hatfield's Ferry power station
damaged their properties.

The lawsuit was filed in August by Julius and Francine Jesso and
Sheilah Novasky and seeks to represent more than 1,000 residents
who live within 1.5 miles of the power plant.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, James DePasquale and Peter Macuga
II, had filed a request for default judgment stating FirstEnergy
failed to respond to the complaint within the time provided by
federal rules of civil procedure.  The court on Oct. 29 entered
default judgment against the company.

FirstEnergy had been served with the complaint but failed to
respond within the required time frame, said Mr. DePasquale,
reached on Oct. 30.  The plaintiffs also had attempted to serve
another company which FirstEnergy claimed was its agent, but that
company refused to accept the complaint, he said.

The judgment doesn't necessarily mean the case is concluded.
"They can attempt to open up the default, but they have to give
plausible reasons for why they allowed the default to be entered,"
Mr. DePasquale said.

FirstEnergy spokeswoman Jennifer Young said the company intends to
file a motion to reopen the case.  FirstEnergy, she said, was
"never legally served with the complaint."

FirstEnergy deactivated Hatfield's Ferry and its Mitchell power
station earlier last month citing the high costs of equipping the
plants to meet new air-quality regulations as well as factors
related to the weak electricity market.

The plaintiffs claim in their suit that they have suffered
property damages and an interference of the enjoyment of their
homes as the result of odors, gases, soot and other coal
combustion byproducts that were discharged by the plant.

Fallout from the plant was described by residents "as a very heavy
black particulate or black powder, or white powder," the complaint
said. It made the "plaintiffs prisoners in their homes and has
precluded them from full use and enjoyment of their properties."

FirstEnergy has failed to operate the plant employing the best
available pollution technology to reduce or eliminate emissions,
the suit added. It has knowingly allowed the plant to discharge
contaminants that are "harmful and noxious and have caused
substantial damage to, substantial loss of use of, and substantial
interference with, plaintiffs' properties."

The lawsuit has not yet been designated by the court to be a class
action, Mr. DePasquale said.  Once it is designated a class
action, notice will be sent to potential class members who have
suffered damages as a result of plant operations.


HERSHEY CANADA: Recalls Glosette Raisins Due to Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Hershey Canada Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8394

Affected products: 275 g. Glosette Raisins with 97RFBF123 code and


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 3,149 Genesis Model Cars
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 30, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           3149
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013376
TC ID number:             2013376
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R0083

Affected products: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 models of Hyundai
Genesis

On certain vehicles, corrosion could occur in the brake system
Hydraulic Electronic Control Unit.  Over time, this could affect
the control unit's operation, causing a low/soft brake pedal and
reduced braking effectiveness.  This could increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will affect repairs.


IDAHO: Pioneer Irrigation District Faces Landowner Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Press-Tribune reports that a Caldwell City councilor and a
retired teacher filed a class action lawsuit on Oct. 30 claiming
the Pioneer Irrigation District overcharges landowners with lots
smaller than one acre.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say there could be thousands of
property owners, but won't know until more evidence is gathered.

A spokesperson for Pioneer Irrigation District has just received
the documents and could not comment until they have been fully
reviewed and analyzed.

The Oct. 30 lawsuit seeks correction in the assessment fees and
for Pioneer Irrigation District to reimburse customers for past
overpayments.  The two named plaintiffs are Dennis Callsen, a
Caldwell City Council member, and Charles Bratton, a retired
Caldwell teacher.  The lawsuit is another legal maneuver in a long
string of legal battles between the Pioneer Irrigation District
and the city of Caldwell.

Pioneer Irrigation provides irrigation and drainage for about
34,000 acres in Canyon County and originally filed a lawsuit
against the city of Caldwell in 2008, claiming the city illegally
uses Pioneer Irrigation District drains.  Although the practice
had been in place for more than 100 years, the matter became
legally contentious when Caldwell adopted its stormwater
management manual in 2006.

Although the courts have ruled on some parts of the lawsuit, the
matter has not been resolved, even after several unsuccessful
attempts to settle outside of the courts.

Mr. Bratton originally raised the issue of being overcharged in a
tort claim he filed a year ago, claiming Pioneer charges property
owners who own less than one acre a flat fee.  The lawsuit claims
the small-parcel landowners within the urban areas of the
irrigation subsidize the large-parcel landowners.

"What we are trying to accomplish with this legal action is to
right a wrong that PID has been carrying out for years and years
against its patrons like us who own small parcels of land,"
Mr. Callsen said.  "As we say in the suit, it's difficult to know
exactly how much money we're talking about until we get further
into it, but our best estimate is that these excess assessments,
which we believe are illegal based on Idaho Code, amount to more
than $100,000 per year."

Mr. Callsen said on Oct. 30 that although he pays a flat fee for
his parcel -- which is less than one acre -- he only gets a
portion of a vote.  However, large parcel landowners get votes
equal to the number of acres they paid for irrigation water.

"Idaho Code clearly sets out how an irrigation district is to levy
assessments on its patrons," Mr. Callsen continued.  "The
assessment practices that PID has used and continues to use are
not just illegal, they are unfair and part of an ongoing scheme
that makes it so that those of us who own small parcels pay a
disproportionately larger share of the operations and maintenance
of the district than larger land owners.  It's time for this to
stop, and for the small landowners to be repaid the money that PID
has wrongfully taken from all of the small landowners in the
past."


INGENIO INC: 9th Cir. Remands False Advertising Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES THOMAS LONG, on behalf of himself and the
proposed class, DBA James Thomas Long Photography, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. INGENIO, INC., a corporation, DBA AT&T Interactive,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 11-17754, Plaintiff James Thomas Long
appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant
Ingenio, Inc.

The case is a putative nationwide class action alleging claims for
declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, false advertising, and
unfair business practices under California state law.

Mr. Long also appealed the district court's failure to grant him
leave to amend his complaint to add additional parties.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirms the
district court's grant of summary judgment to Ingenio and remands
for further proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit said it declines to consider -- and have no
basis upon which to determine -- whether the district court abused
its discretion in the absence of any ruling on Mr. Long's requests
for leave to amend to add parties to his complaint.  "Instead, we
remand to the district court with instructions to consider in the
first instance Long's request for leave to amend to add additional
parties," ruled the Ninth Circuit.

Each party shall pay its own costs on appeal.

A copy of the 9th Circuit's October 21, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/3SGOhMfrom Leagle.com.


KEM KREST: Recalls AC Delco Bug Remover
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 1, 2013
Posting date:             November 1, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36547

Affected products: AC Delco Bug Remover

The recall involves the AC Delco Bug Remover that is sold in a
473 mL pump top bottle and can be identified by UPC 021625656984.
The product label is blue and red and displays the AC Delco
trademark and also carries the toxic hazard symbol at the bottom.
The product number on the front of the label is "1#89020339".  The
affected product is imported by Kem Krest Canada ULC and is
shipped to General Motors dealers.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/gAGjU8

Health Canada has established that this chemical product is not
packaged in a child-resistant container as required under Canadian
law.

The recalled product is toxic and must therefore be sold in a
child-resistant container.  The lack of child-resistant packaging
could result in unintentional exposure to this product and lead to
serious illnesses or injuries.

Neither Health Canada, nor Kem Krest Canada ULC nor General Motors
of Canada Limited has received any reports of incidents or
injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product.

Approximately 27,561 units of the recalled products were sold to
various General Motors dealers in Canada and may have been sold to
consumers.

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold from
December 2005 to August 2013.

  Companies

   Importer     Kem Krest Canada ULC
                Oakville
                Ontario
                Canada

  Retailer      General Motors of Canada Ltd.
                Oshawa
                Ontario
                Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund.
For more information, consumers may contact their local GM
Dealership.


LAROSE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Snoopy Sno-Cone Machines
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LaRose Industries LLC, of Randolph, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 102,000 Snoopy Sno-Cone Machines.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A brass rivet can fall out of the sno-cone machine's ice-shaving
cylinder and into a sno-cone, posing a risk of injury to the mouth
or the teeth.

The firm has received 64 reports of brass rivets falling out of
the sno-cone machine's ice-shaving cylinder.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recall involves Cra-Z-Art Snoopy Sno-Cone Machines with one of
three batch numbers BCH003005A28-0812, BCHTRU001A17-0812 or
BCHTRU004A16-0712 printed on the back of the white plastic
doghouse and on the side of the box.  The plastic sno-cone
machines are white in the shape of a dog house with a red roof and
zed shovel.  Snoopy is on the dog house and Charlie Brown and Lucy
images are on the front along with a snowman.  A metal ice-shaving
cylinder in the middle of the sno-cone machine dispenses ice
shavings out of the front.  The words "SNOOPY" and "SNO-CONES" are
on the front of the machine and "Cra-Z-Art" is on the back.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/sBM9cA

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Barnes & Noble, Target and Toys R Us stores nationwide and online
at http://www.amazon.comfrom September 2012 through July 2013 for
about $15.

Consumers should stop using the recalled sno-cone machines
immediately and contact LaRose Industries for a free repair kit,
which includes a new ice shaving cylinder.  Do not return the
recalled sno-cone machines to the store where purchased.


LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: Maurice Blackburn May Expand Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Hutchens and Eric Johnston, writing for BusinessDay,
reports that law firm Maurice Blackburn is considering widening a
class action against construction major Leighton Holdings to take
into account shareholder losses as a result of recent claims over
corruption inside the company.

Maurice Blackburn on Oct. 30 pushed ahead with its long-awaited
legal action against Leighton Holdings on behalf of 2000
shareholders.  The action, filed in the Federal Court in Sydney,
is designed to compensate shareholders after shares fell nearly 14
per cent in a single session when the company made more than
AUD1.1 billion in shock write-downs nearly three years ago.

The latest action represents a fresh legal threat for Leighton,
which was served with a separate class action last month in
Victoria, in which the company was accused of falsely playing down
its alleged involvement in corruption, leading to huge share price
falls.

But the Maurice Blackburn claim alleges Leighton misled the market
about its true financial position from at least August 16, 2010,
until the disclosure on April 11, 2011.  Maurice Blackburn claims
the losses for shareholders could run into tens of millions of
dollars.

Leighton had been struggling during 2010 with cost blowouts in a
number of big-ticket infrastructure projects including Victoria's
desalination plant and Brisbane's Airport Link.  At the same time,
losses were mounting in a construction joint venture in the Middle
East.

As late as February 2011, Leighton had forecast a full-year net
profit of AUD480 million, before stunning investors with a
projected AUD427 million loss just two months later, triggered by
the write-downs.

The claim alleges non-disclosure by Leighton as well as misleading
and deceptive conduct by the construction company.

In a statement Leighton denied the claims and said it would
"vigorously defend the class action".

Class action principal at Maurice Blackburn, Rebecca Gilsenan,
said the law firm had been investigating Leighton since 2011.  A
claim had been ready to file in May, but Leighton and the law firm
had begun talks over a possible settlement.  "We are still trying
to work with them around settlement, but it was time to file the
claim," Ms. Gilsenan said.

"Our clients were keen that things progress."

She said the 2000 clients behind the action range from retail
shareholders to large institutional shareholders with significant
holdings.

The Maurice Blackburn claim does not include any allegations of
corrupt conduct.

However Ms. Gilsenan said the law firm had been instructed by
shareholders to investigate a potential claim around corrupt
conduct.

This would take several weeks to determine if there was a sound
claim.

Stories published by Fairfax Media last month revealed allegations
that the firm's international operations in Asia and the Middle
East were "rife with corruption, bribery and malfeasance", and
that its directors oversaw a "dramatic failure in governance" that
enabled corruption.

The reports come two years after Leighton alerted authorities it
may have breached foreign bribery laws in Iraq, a matter under
investigation by the Australian Federal Police.

Leighton has said it is co-operating with the AFP's investigation
into the Iraq matter and has said its directors had acted with
appropriate care and diligence at all times.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Settles Remaining Claims in Hurricane Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Calder, writing for The Advocate, reports that the state-
backed "insurer of last resort" for Louisiana property owners has
settled the remaining claims in a class-action lawsuit that
accused it of taking too long to begin adjusting claims after
hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

Judge Henry Sullivan, of the 24th Judicial District Court in
Jefferson Parish, gave final approval on Oct. 30 to the
settlement, under which Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance
Corp. will pay $4,500 to any remaining claimants.

Each claimant will get about $3,000 after one-third is taken out
to cover attorneys' fees.

It is not clear how many people will come forward to collect on
the settlement and how much it will cost Citizens, which already
paid out $108 million to roughly 18,500 claimants after Judge
Sullivan ruled against it last year.

Chief Financial Officer Steve Cottrell said Citizens, which
insures home and business owners who can't get coverage anywhere
else, has budgeted $40 million to handle any claims resulting from
the settlement.

Judge Sullivan's 2012 judgment against Citizens worked out to
$5,000 per claim, with 40 percent going to attorneys' fees.

Steve Mauterer, class counsel for the plaintiffs, told Judge
Sullivan that the lower settlement amount is in the best interest
of the remaining property owners because it wraps up the case
after years of litigation.

The lower percentage for attorneys' fees is intended to "try to
put the same amount in everyone's hands," he said.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have said that as many as 40,000 Citizens
policyholders had their 2005 hurricane claims mishandled, and
early estimates had put the final round of settlement claimants at
about 7,500 people.

Neither side was willing on Oct. 30 to estimate how many could
come forward.

Judge Sullivan heard testimony about efforts to inform potential
claimants in plain language that they might be eligible for some
of the money.  About 80,000 notices were mailed out this summer to
current and former policyholders.

Mr. Mauterer said only nine objections were filed by policyholders
during the process, and all have been withdrawn.

Judge Sullivan, who has presided over the case since the
beginning, said the settlement "is in the best interest of the
remaining class members" and called it a just resolution to a
"tough fight."

Wiley Beevers, an attorney representing the property owners, noted
there were 39 writs and appeals in the case, which went all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court.


MICROSOFT CORP: Consumers May Join Unfair Pricing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Palmer, Bill Rigby and Rod Nickel, writing for Reuters,
report that consumers may join class action lawsuits against
Microsoft Corp. and Infineon Technologies AG over allegations of
unfair pricing for computer products, the Supreme Court of Canada
ruled on Oct. 31.

The high court refused to allow a class action to proceed against
Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Cargill Inc over alleged price-
fixing on high-fructose corn syrup used in soft drinks and baked
goods.

The Supreme Court, in linked decisions on Microsoft and Infineon,
certified separate class actions against the companies.

The cases dealt primarily with whether consumers have the right to
join a class action even if they were only indirect purchasers,
not buying directly from the companies involved.  None of the
cases were at the point of establishing liability.

The class suing Microsoft is any British Columbia residents who
bought Microsoft operating systems or applications software for
their own use from 1994 on.  Typically, once the principle is
established, suits could be launched in other provinces.

The suit in Quebec against Infineon alleges that it conspired to
inflate the price of a broadly used product, dynamic random-access
memory chips (DRAM), used in computers made by companies such as
Dell Inc and Hewlett-Packard Co.

The companies argued that if both the consumers and the retailers
or intermediaries who sold those products were allowed to recover
damages, the companies risked having to pay the same damages
twice.

In the Microsoft and Infineon cases, the court said the risk of
duplicate recoveries could be managed by the courts.

In the decision on ADM and Cargill, the court agreed that while
class actions by consumers can proceed in principle, consumers
would not be able to identify what sweetener was used in each
fruit drink or baked good they consumed over the years.  A class
action cannot therefore be certified, it ruled.

"We are pleased with the court's decision as we have always viewed
this lawsuit as lacking merit.  We will continue to invest in our
Canadian business operations to better serve and support our
customers in Canada," Cargill spokeswoman Nicole Reichert said in
an email.

Microsoft voiced optimism that the lawsuit itself would be
defeated.  "We are confident that we will prevail when the case is
considered on the merits," Microsoft Deputy General Counsel David
Howard said in an email.

Other companies had no immediate comment.

The cases are Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp, 2013 SCC
57; Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs, 2013 SCC 59;
and Sun-Rype Products Ltd v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2013
SCC 58.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Players Exhaust All Options in Concussion Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Fowler, writing for CBSSports.com, reports the concussion
litigation aimed at the NCAA has not reached NFL proportions, but
former players and their lawyers seem to be exhausting all
options.

Since the Adrian Arrington case out of Illinois surfaced two years
ago and starts mediation on Oct. 25 in Las Vegas, class-action
suits in Tennessee and Indiana have followed.  Bowling Green faces
a lawsuit from former player Cody Silk, who claims he suffered
several concussions as a result of improper school protocol.

Now, two former college football players who are asking courts to
re-examine the Arrington case also consider litigation against
individual schools "a potential option for us," Chicago-based
attorney Jay Edelson said on Oct. 29.

"Since the NFL announced its concussion settlement, there's a lot
of money involved and you have a bunch of lawyers smelling a pot
they want a part of," Steve Berman, Arrington's attorney out of
Seattle, told CBSSports.com on Oct. 30.

Former Pitt offensive lineman Frank Moore (1994-97) and former San
Diego State offensive lineman Anthony Nichols (1989-92) this week
filed a petition for personal injury to be part of the Arrington
case.

Mr. Edelson, the attorney representing those former players, said
Arrington mediation focuses on 'medical monitoring' -- such as
future health care costs -- instead of compensation for past
injuries.

"We think personal injury is the whole case," Mr. Edelson said.
"They have elected to abandon that portion of the case.  Someone
has to be litigating on behalf of those who have suffered personal
injury to determine how much damage was caused by their
negligence."

Mr. Edelson is prepared to file a separate case if necessary or
consider filing suit against schools, which Mr. Berman thinks has
a better chance than piggybacking on Arrington because law is
"absolutely clear" you can't class-action certify a personal
injury case based on the 1990s asbestos case AmChem Products Inc.
v. Windsor that went to the Supreme Court.

The Arrington case set out to determine whether the NCAA breached
its duty to students over brain-trauma management, Mr. Berman
said, giving plaintiffs the chance to prove their individual cases
later on.

"You can't do it on a class basis," Mr. Berman said.  "(Edelson's)
just wrong."

Mr. Edelson says Arrington lawyers originally sought personal
injury damages but changed the tone.  Mr. Berman should be
reminded of the fiduciary duty to his clients, Mr. Edelson said.
For context, Mr. Edelson said the NFL concussion suit is settled
as a class action.

"In class action, what you have to show is overriding issues are
common as opposed to individuals," Mr. Edelson said.  "This is a
mainstream position.  We're asking for us to join in representing
the common interest of clients."

Moore and Nichols are not plaintiffs in the Arrington case, but
Mr. Edelson says they've suffered damages typical of "football
players who were forced to play when they shouldn't be playing.'
Several concussions forced Moore into depression and ruined his
marriage, Mr. Edelson said, and Nichols' MRIs showed memory loss
and other concussion-related symptoms.

Without personal injury as part of the case, "people are going to
wonder what they've been fighting for," Mr. Edelson said.

The NCAA reportedly is prepared to mediate with the Tennessee
case.  Many concussion-versed attorneys believe the NCAA has
closely followed the NFL's concussion strategy and might have
consulted the league on the matter.

Anyone who doesn't believe concussions are a problem at the
grassroots level should check out the National Academies'
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council's latest
report about a 'culture of resistance' in reporting concussions.

Athletic departments are bracing for the impact of concussion
litigation.  Many public schools are part of in-state insurance
programs.  "We're in a lot of conversations that could help put
the university in a good position relative to lawsuits, but that's
not a driving force for it," Cal athletic director Sandy Barbour
said last month.  'What are we doing to help players? What are we
doing to protect?"


PREVOST: Recalls 30 XL-45 COACH Model Buses
-------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 30, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           30
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013374
TC ID number:             2013374
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SR13-73

On certain vehicles, a battery cable could chafe against an
incorrectly positioned P clamp.  Continued contact could wear
through the cable's insulation, which could cause an electrical
short circuit.  An electrical short could result in a vehicle fire
causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will inspect and repair as necessary.

Affected products: 2008 and 2009 Prevost XL-45 Coach


ROBERT McDONNELL: Court Enlarges "Harris" Suit Briefing Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael F. Urbanski granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to suspend scheduling order, to stay
briefing or, in the alternative, to establish a briefing schedule
in the case captioned JOANNE HARRIS, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ROBERT F. McDONNELL, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:13CV00077, (W.D. Va.).

Judge Urbanski said he found it appropriate to enlarge the
briefing schedule set forth in the September 17th scheduling order
to allow defendants sufficient time to respond to plaintiffs' 75-
page summary judgment brief and account for the October 29th oral
arguments scheduled on the motions to dismiss and for class
certification.  The Defendants' responses to plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment were due October 24, 2013, and plaintiffs'
reply briefs must be filed on or before November 7, 2013.

The Court directed the parties to contact chambers to set a
hearing date.

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/p5PGqWfrom Leagle.com.


SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Recalls APC SurgeArrest Surge Protectors
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2013
Posting date:             October 31, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36531

Affected products: APC SurgeArrest surge protectors

The recall involves APC 7 and 8 series SurgeArrest surge
protectors manufactured before 2003.  The model and serial numbers
are located on a label on the bottom of the surge protector.  The
two numbers that follow the first letter or letters in the serial
number sequence indicate the year of manufacture.  The unit is
included in the recall if the numbers are 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,
99, 00, 01 or 02. APC and the words Personal, Professional,
Performance or Network are printed on the surge protectors.  The
following model numbers are included in this recall.

Surge protectors affected by this recall:

  7 Series model numbers      8 Series model numbers
  ----------------------      ----------------------
  NET7                        NET8
  NET7T                       NET8N
  NET7T-C                     PER8T
  PER7                        PER8TR
  PER7C                       PER8TR-CN
  PER7T                       PER8TVR
  PER7T-CO                    PER8XTV
  PER7T-U                     PRF8T2
  PER7TX137                   PRF8TT
  PER7-U                      PRO8
  PER7X148                    PRO8T2
  PRF7                        PRO8T2C
  PRF7T                       PRO8T2MP12
  PRO7                        PRO8T2MP12B
  PRO7C                       PRO8TV
  PRO7T
  PRO7TX183

The surge protectors can overheat, smoke and melt, posing a fire
hazard.

Schneider Electric IT Corp. has received a total of 700 reports of
the surge protectors overheating and melting and 55 claims of
property damage from smoke and fire.  There are 13 reports of
injuries, including smoke inhalation and contact burns from
touching the overheated surge protectors.  Out of these numbers,
in Canada there have been 8 claims of property damage and no
reports of injuries.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/fcMFYm

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of these surge protectors.

Approximately 860,000 units of the recalled surge protectors were
sold in Canada through electrical distributors and IT and office
supply stores.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and the
Philippines and have a date code January 1993 to December 2002.

  Companies:

   Manufacturer     American Power Conversion (APC), now known as
                    Schneider Electric IT Corp.
                    West Kingston
                    Rhode Island
                    United States

Consumers should stop using the recalled surge protectors
immediately, unplug them and contact Schneider Electric for a free
replacement surge protector.


SERVICON SYSTEMS: Class Claims in "Johnson" Suit Revived
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Clarence B. Johnson appealed from an order compelling
arbitration and dismissing all class claims against Servicon
Systems, Inc.

The Plaintiff filed an original and first amended complaint
against defendant, Servicon Systems, Incorporated, on January 26,
2012, and April 12, 2012, respectively. The Plaintiff alleged
violations of the Labor Code.  The Defendant filed a petition to
compel arbitration of Plaintiff's individual claims only. The
petition sought dismissal of all class claims. On October 26,
2012, the trial court dismissed the purported class claims. But
the court granted Defendant's petition to compel arbitration of
Plaintiff's individual claims.

"We conclude the trial court should not have dismissed the class
claim," ruled the Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
Division Five.

According to the Calif. Appeals Court, the order dismissing the
class claims is reversed. Upon remittitur issuance, the trial
court is to reinstate the class claims.  Mr. Johnson, shall
recover his costs incurred on appeal from defendant, Servicon
Systems, Incorporated, the ruling added.

The case is CLARENCE B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
SERVICON SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO. B245201.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 21, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/FQFpi9from Leagle.com.

Rastegar Law Group, Farzad Rastegar -- farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
-- and Thomas S. Campbell for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jackson Lewis, Mindy S. Novick -- NovickM@jacksonlewis.com --
Sherry L. Swieca -- SwiecaS@jacksonlewis.com -- Sandra J. McMullan
-- Sandra.McMullan@jacksonlewis.com -- and Adam Y. Siegel --
SiegelA@jacksonlewis.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


STONEBRIDGE LIFE: Drinker Biddle Discusses Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas G. Bonner, Esq. -- Douglas.Bonner@dbr.com -- at Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP reports that a recently proposed class action
settlement agreement illustrates the potential litigation perils
when any established business relies on outsourced,
undercapitalized marketing agents who lack either the assets or
insurance to adequately defend TCPA class action litigation.
Indeed, the only proposed recovery for the class is an agreement
to provide testimony and documentary evidence of the co-
defendant's actual knowledge of the conduct that violated the
TCPA, and its alleged authorization of the subject unlawful text
messaging.

In Jessica Lee et al. v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co. and
Trifecta Marketing Group LLC,  No. CV 11-0043-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
class action plaintiff alleged that the defendants made autodialed
text messages to wireless telephone numbers to encourage the calls
to a toll-free number to claim an illusory "$100 Wal-Mart gift
card voucher."  The text messaging campaign in Lee v. Stonebridge
was allegedly developed to drive inbound call traffic to the
marketing partner's call centers, after which callers would
receive a return call about the defendant insurer's insurance
products.

The TCPA and implementing FCC regulations effective at the time of
the events that are the subject of this lawsuit generally made it
unlawful for calls to be made with an "automatic telephone dialing
system," without the "prior express consent" of the called party,
to "any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular
telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other
radio common carrier service or any service for which the called
party is charged for the call . . . "  47 U.S.C. Sec.
227(b)(1)(A)(iii); see also, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(a)(1)(iii).[1]
The FCC has declared that sellers may be liable under the TCPA
"under a broad range of agency principles, including not only
formal agency, but also principles of apparent authority and
ratification."  In the Matter of the Joint Petition Filed by Dish
Network, LLC . . . for Declaratory Ruling Concerning the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act Rules, 2013 WL 1934349, at *9, 28 F.C.C.R.
6574, 6584 (May 9, 2013).

After two years of litigation, the district court, on February 12,
2013, certified the TCPA class action as "[a]ll individuals that
received a text message from telephone number . . . from November
28, 2010 through December 2, 2010."   Some 60,000 unsolicited text
messages were allegedly sent to the class.  Because the TCPA
provides for statutory damages of $500 to $1500 per violation, the
potential damages exposure for all violations, depending on the
participating class members, could be as high as $30 Million to
$90 Million.

On October 23, 2013, the plaintiff filed for preliminary approval
of a class action settlement with the defendant marketing agent as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e).  Due to
Trifecta's insufficient financial resources "to satisfy any
judgment entered against it" "or to meaningfully fund any class
action settlement", the settlement agreement provides that upon
court Preliminary Approval, "Trifecta agrees to provide Plaintiff
and Class Counsel with its complete and full cooperation in the
continued prosecution of the Action against Stonebridge . . ." and
specifically, "testimony, along with . . . documents, truthfully
attesting that Stonebridge (and/or its related entities) had
knowledge of and authorized the text messaging that was performed
. . . ."  Lee, Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement Agreement,
Exhibit 1 at 1, 7 (Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release,
Para. 2.3 & 2.3(a) Complete Cooperation) (filed Oct. 23,
2013)(emphasis added).  Presumably, Trifecta would not have been
as forthright or willing to implicate its co-defendant in its
testimony or discovery responses in the absence of this settlement
agreement releasing it from liability.  In fact, Plaintiff claimed
to encounter "significant resistance" to discovery from both
defendants, requiring filing of a motion to compel discovery.
Id., Plaintiff's Motion at 9.  And because the Plaintiff alleged
that Stonebridge had "repeatedly taken the position with Class
Counsel and the Court that it was completely unaware of Trifecta's
use of text message marketing, and could not control Trifecta's
actions. . ." (id. at 2), the benefit to Plaintiff's case of
Trifecta's cooperation in testifying as to its co-defendant's
knowledge of the text message marketing cannot be underestimated.

If this settlement agreement wins preliminary approval, this could
significantly increase the value of the case for the class action
plaintiff, since she would appear to have a cooperative and
knowledgeable witness testifying and producing documents against
the remaining non-judgment proof defendant, confirming that it
knew and approved of the text messaging campaign undertaken on its
behalf.  The important lesson of this case for all businesses is:
if you outsource your outbound telemarketing, make certain you
engage an entity that (1) knows and will comply with all TCPA
requirements; and (2) has adequate commercial liability insurance
with sufficient limits (and/or other assets) to cover potential
claims for TCPA violations; and (3) provides an enforceable,
meaningful indemnification agreement backed by insurance or
adequate assets.


SUTTER HEALTH: Settles Claims for Bogus Anesthesia Billing
----------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that California
Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones has reached a $46 million
settlement with Sutter Health in a case alleging false and
misleading anesthesia services charges by the Northern California
hospital chain.  The case was originally brought by a
whistleblower represented by Lieff Cabraser, for alleged
violations of the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act
("IFPA"). The Act is designed to prevent false, fraudulent, or
misleading medical claims to insurers and, by extension, their
policyholders.  The settlement is the largest ever under the IFPA.

"Through Commissioner Jones' leadership, the State achieved a
record settlement under the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act and
has fundamentally changed the way one of California's largest
healthcare providers bills for anesthesia services," said Robert
J. Nelson of Lieff Cabraser, lead trial counsel for the Plaintiffs
and chair of Lieff Cabraser's False Claims Act practice group.
"For whistleblowers and state regulators, the IFPA is a powerful
tool to reign in misleading hospital charges that harm consumers
through inflated health care costs and insurance premiums.  This
case and this settlement demonstrate that in spades."

As a result of the settlement, Sutter going forward will bill only
a one-time charge for anesthesia services during surgical
procedures, rather than billing on a time basis for the entirety
of the surgical procedure.  Plaintiffs alleged that this timed
anesthesia charge duplicated an operating room charge that Sutter
also billed for over the same time period.

Dr. Henry Miller, a hospital billing expert retained by the
Plaintiffs, commented on the billing change: "By stopping the
clock on these anesthesia charges, patients can better avoid the
risk of particularly large charges for the hospital's anesthesia
service, especially since the patient already pays an
anesthesiologist separately for the same time period."
Sutter will also disclose the underlying basis and average cost of
these anesthesia services charges.

According to Dr. Miller, "Transparent disclosures to payers and
patients about anesthesia charges, and the costs related to those
charges, are critical to bringing rationality to complex and often
frustrating operating room bills."  In addition, "including key
billing code information on the list of charges Sutter submits to
the state," another key term of the settlement, "should also help
payers and patients make better sense of Sutter's charges," said
Miller.

In a separate settlement agreement, defendants Multiplan and
Private Healthcare Systems, two leased network preferred provider
organizations operating in California, settled the Commissioner's
claims that restrictive audit clauses in their contracts with
Sutter frustrated insurance companies' efforts to identify and
challenge false or misleading charges from Sutter.

The firm may be reached at:

         Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Tel: 415-956-1000
         E-mail: rnelson@lchb.com

                       About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP -- --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a 60-plus attorney law firm
with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville.  We are
among the largest law firms in the United States that only
represent plaintiffs. A strong, principled sense of social
responsibility drives us. We are committed to achieving justice
for investors, consumers, employees, patients, and business
owners; promoting safer products and fair competition; protecting
our environment; assisting individuals blow the whistle on fraud;
safeguarding the rights of patent and copyright holders; and
remedying violations of the civil rights of citizens worldwide.


SWIRE OILFIELD: Faces Overtime Class Action in Texas
----------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that Swire Oilfield
Services LLC was struck with a putative class action filed in
Texas federal court on Oct. 30 accusing the company of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate its
employees for their overtime hours.

Lead plaintiff Douglas Bergman is a nonexempt field service
operator for the company, which provides water transfer services
to oil and gas producers in central Texas.  The complaint alleges
the company violated the FLSA by not paying him and other
nonexempt employees for the time they worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

"Although defendant has suffered, permitted and/or required
plaintiff and class members to work in excess of 40 hours per
week, defendant has denied them full compensation for their hours
worked over 40," the complaint says.

According to the suit, Mr. Bergman and other workers were employed
by Swire Oilfield as water transfer technicians, now called
service operators, and were paid a base salary plus a daily
nondiscretionary bonus until Sept. 1.  The water transfer
technicians did not receive overtime compensation for the hours
worked over 40 in a week, according to the suit.

The company instituted a new compensation structure on Sept. 1 for
the employees, paying them on an hourly basis with time-and-one-
half their hourly rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of 40
in a week, according to the complaint.

The proposed class includes all persons who were employed by Swire
Oilfield as water transfer technicians between Sept. 1, 2010 and
Sept. 1, 2013.

In addition to compensation for all unpaid overtime hours,
plaintiffs are also seeking liquidated damages under the FLSA.

"Defendant has acted neither in good faith nor with reasonable
grounds to believe that its actions and omissions were not a
violation of the FLSA, and as a result, plaintiff and class
members are entitled to recover an award of liquidated damages in
an amount equal to the amount of unpaid minimum wages," the
complaint says.

Plaintiffs are also seeking damages accrued for a three-year
period, attorneys' fees and court costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest and any other entitled relief.

Representatives for both parties did not immediately return a
request for comment.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeremi K. Young of The Young Law
Firm PC.

Counsel for defendants was not immediately available.


TEVA PHARMA: Tenth Circuit to Consider CAFA Circumvention Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Samp, writing for Forbes, reports that in October, in Ninth
Circuit Endorses Gaming of Class Action Fairness Act & Creates
Circuit Split, Forbes discussed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit's decision in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
The two-judge majority in that case allowed plaintiffs' lawyers to
divide their 1,500 clients into groups of less than 100 for the
sole purpose of evading the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA)
dictate that such mass actions be removed to federal court.
Thanks to an October 18 ruling from the Western District of
Oklahoma, the Tenth Circuit will be the next venue to consider
this CAFA circumvention strategy.

In Halliburton et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Federal
District Court Judge Tim Leonard ordered the remand of eleven
essentially identical cases to Oklahoma state court.  Each case
alleged the same violations of Oklahoma state law and featured at
least one Oklahoma and one New Jersey plaintiff.  Each suit was
filed by the same lawyers in front of the same state judge.
Before Judge Leonard, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs'
act of filing their 11 suits in a one-judge county court reflected
their intention that the cases be tried jointly.  Johnson &
Johnson also argued that the judge should give no weight to the
plaintiffs' declaration that no two suits would be tried jointly.
The defendants further urged Judge Leonard to sever the claims of
the New Jersey plaintiffs as they were fraudulently joined for the
purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction (Johnson & Johnson is
a New Jersey company).

Judge Leonard rejected each of the defendants arguments and
ordered the 11 suits remanded to the state judge.  On October 28,
Johnson & Johnson filed a permission to appeal the District
Court's decision to the Tenth Circuit.  Under CAFA, the appeals
court must accept or deny the defendant's permission to appeal
within ten days.

On a related note, the defendants in Romo v. Teva have sought
rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit.  Washington Legal
Foundation has filed an amicus brief supporting their arguments.


VEUVE CLICQUOT: Recalls Ponsardin Champagne Over Sulphites
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 29, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Liquor Control Board Of Ontario
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8436

Affected products: 375 ml. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne Brut
with all codes where the presence of sulphites is not declared on
the label.


VEUVE CLICQUOT: Recalls Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 29, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8435

Affected products: 375 ml. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne Brut
with all codes where the presence of sulphites is not declared on
the label.


VIRGINIA: Class Action Status Sought for Gay-Marriage Ban Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Robertson, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers for two
lesbian couples suing the state of Virginia in an effort to
overturn its ban on same-sex marriage on Oct. 29 asked the federal
judge hearing the case to certify it as a class action
representing all gay couples in the state.

The suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda
Legal claims Virginia's 2006 ban on gay marriage and denying
recognition of such unions in other states violates the U.S.
Constitution.

Fourteen U.S. states and the District of Columbia now recognize
marriage between same-sex couples with several, most recently
New Jersey, dropping their prior bans after the U.S. Supreme Court
in June delivered a landmark victory for gay rights by forcing the
federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where
it is legal.

"Tens of thousands of (gay) couples in Virginia would marry, if
they had the opportunity to," said attorney Luke Platzer, on
behalf of plaintiffs Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff of Staunton as
well as Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd of Winchester.

Virginia Solicitor General E. Duncan Getchell Jr. said there was
no way to specifically identify the class the suit wanted to
represent.  He said same-sex couples were not "ascertainable" from
U.S. Census data.

U.S. District Judge Michael Urbanski said he would weigh what he
had heard in more than two hours of arguments before issuing an
opinion on the bid brought by the Shenandoah Valley couples.

A 2006 referendum approved Virginia's constitutional ban.  A poll
released last month by Virginia's Christopher Newport University
showed that 56 percent of likely voters now oppose the ban,
compared with 36 percent who favor it.

Ms. Berghoff and Ms. Kidd were married in the District of Columbia
in 2011 and Ms. Duff and Ms. Harris had a commitment ceremony in
2006.  Both couples are raising children.


VIVENDI SA: Non-French Investors Seek Damages Over Fin'l Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that pension funds and financial institutions from
outside France have sued Vivendi in the Paris commercial court,
seeking billions of euros in damages over its handling of a
liquidity crisis under former boss Jean-Marie Messier from 2000 to
2002.

The one-time Vivendi shareholders, who lost money when almost 90
percent of the media-to-telecom group's market value was erased,
are taking action in France because they have been excluded from a
United States court class action by a U.S. Supreme Court decision,
lawyers for the plaintiffs involved said.

In the U.S. class action, a Manhattan federal court jury found in
January 2010 that Vivendi had misled shareholders about its
financial health between October 2000 and August 2002, when the
shares fell.

The damages were estimated at first at up to $9.3 billion by
plaintiffs but were later cut by what Vivendi said could be as
much as 80 percent through the exclusion of non-U.S.-based
shareholders.

That prompted Vivendi in December 2010 to reduce the amount set
aside to pay for potential damages to EUR100 million ($138
million) from EUR550 million.

Final damages for the U.S. class action have not yet been set and
Vivendi has said it plans to appeal once they are.

Messier and former financial officer Guillaume Hannezo were not
found liable by the U.S. jury.

Ron Soffer, a lawyer based in Paris, said he represented about 100
financial institutions from the United States, Germany, Sweden and
the Netherlands which bought the Paris-traded shares of Vivendi
during the period from 2000 to 2002.

"Given the . . . decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S.
courts are no longer able to hear legal actions filed by
shareholders who bought shares outside the U.S.," explained Mr.
Soffer.

The legal proceeding, which is in its early stages, is underway at
the same time as Messier is in another Paris court to appeal his
criminal conviction in 2010 for embezzlement and giving misleading
information to shareholders.

A court handed Messier a three-year suspended sentence and fined
him 150,000 euros in the case.

In the French criminal case, Vivendi is considered a plaintiff
although it has said it would not seek damages from the executive.

Herve Pisani, who represents Vivendi in the civil case now
starting in the Paris commercial court, said the group was now
contesting the standing of some of the institutional shareholders
suing for damages.

"We are fighting with them before even getting into the deeper
issues: most of the requests for damages are not justified and
some cannot even document that they were Vivendi shareholders
during the period in question," he said.

The plaintiffs plan to base their argument in France on the
findings of the French stock market regulator AMF, which found
Vivendi guilty of misleading the public and its shareholders.

The decision was confirmed on appeal in 2009.

But Mr. Pisani said the decision did not establish a causal link
between the alleged misleading communications by Vivendi and the
wrong that the shareholders claim to have suffered.

A Vivendi spokesman referred questions regarding the civil case to
Mr. Pisani.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Judge Rejects $10MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on Oct. 29 rejected a $10 million settlement between two
Washington Mutual units and a group of plaintiffs claiming they
were duped into buying bogus mortgage loans, saying the deal
includes an overly broad class definition.

U.S. District Court Judge Josephine L. Staton said the class
definition outlined in the settlement goes significantly further
than the class previously certified by the court and, in doing so,
raises "serious concerns" about commonality and typicality
requirements.

The proposed deal has been expanded to include all California
residents who obtained a so-called Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage
loan from Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. and WaMu
Asset Acceptance Corp., rather than limiting recovery only to
those who obtained loans containing purportedly deceptive
omissions and representations as outlined in the prior definition,
according to the order.

"Plaintiffs gave no explanation for the broader class, other than
to state that it was necessary because under the existing class
definition, class members could not be ascertained 'without
significant expense,'" Judge Staton said.  "As such, the court
would be unable [to] provisionally certify the proposed settlement
class based on the evidence before it."

Lead plaintiffs Timothy and Cheryl Peel claim Washington Mutual
sold the Option ARM loans with an attractive "teaser" interest
rate that went away after 30 days, but failed to inform consumers
about the interest rate hike that would follow the expiration of
that period, according to the order.

Judge Staton determined on Oct. 29, however, that the Peels had
not presented any evidence to suggest that every single Option ARM
loan purchased by the proposed settlement class contained those
allegedly deceptive provisions, thereby preventing her from
approving the deal, according to the order.

The expanded class definition also prevented an accurate
assessment of the fairness of the deal because it could result in
cash payouts to loan purchasers whose mortgage documents did not
contain the purportedly misleading language and who therefore
suffered no injury, according to Judge Staton.

Judge Staton also blasted the plaintiffs for failing to spell out
an estimate of their expected recover at trial and for providing
"little substantive information regarding the strengths and
weaknesses of their case," saying she could not effectively
determine whether the deal was reasonable as a result.

The Peels launched the suit in Orange County Superior Court in
February 2010, naming BrooksAmerica Mortgage Corp. as defendant
and later adding the Washington Mutual units and Residential
Funding Company LLC, according to court documents.

The plaintiffs alleged violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, breach of contract and fraudulent omission in
connection with Option ARM loans they say "were designed to cause
negative amortization" and hawked under the allegedly deceptive
and undisclosed teaser interest rate, according to their
complaint.

The court tossed breach of contract claims in June 2011, but three
months later it certified a class under the UCL claim consisting
of California Option ARM loan purchasers whose loan documents
contained the supposedly misleading interest rate language,
according to the order.

The parties underwent mediation in May of this year and
subsequently struck a deal that would create a $10 million fund to
cover fees, costs and a cash payout to class members, according to
the order.

Judge Staton gave the plaintiffs 30 days to refile their motion
for approval and address the concerns raised in her order.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for
comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Spiro Moore LLP, Williams Cuker
Berezofsky LLC and Berns Weiss LLP.

The Washington Mutual units are represented by Burke Warren MacKay
& Serritella PC and Gibson Dunn.

The case is Timothy R Peel et al v. Brooksamerica Mortgage
Corporation et al, case number 8:11-cv-00079 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.


WYETH CANADA: Borden Discusses Use of Funding Agreement Privilege
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert JC Deane, Esq. -- RDeane@blg.com -- and Craig R. Chiasson,
Esq. -- cchiasson@blg.com -- at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP report
that the use of funding agreements in international arbitration
proceedings is increasingly common.  The extent to which privilege
may attach to a funding agreement governed by the laws of British
Columbia was recently addressed by the British Columbia Supreme
Court in Stanway v Wyeth Canada Inc (2013 BCSC 1585) in the
context of a class action proceeding. In Stanway the court
addressed, among other things, whether communications between the
claimant and the private funder, including the funding agreement
itself or portions of it, were protected by privilege.  The court
agreed that in substance, such communications remained protected
by privilege.

                            Background

As yet, no Canadian court has addressed funding agreements in the
international arbitration context.  The class action context,
where courts have a statutory role in supervising any award of
fees made to counsel for the plaintiff class, is where the most
sustained consideration of funding agreements is found in Canada.
However, even that consideration is limited and Stanway represents
the British Columbia courts' first consideration of funding
agreements.  The court's acceptance of privilege protection in the
class action context in Stanway bolsters the view that privilege
would attach to funding agreements in the arbitral context.

In Stanway the British Columbia Supreme Court reviewed the limited
jurisprudence in Canada with respect to litigation funding
agreements and took a different approach to that taken by the
Ontario courts.  The Ontario decision in Fehr v Sun Life Assurance
Co of Canada (2012 ONSC 2715) held that funding agreements (in the
class action context where, as mentioned, unique considerations
apply which are unlikely to be present in the international
arbitration context) were not privileged.  The court held that
third-party funding should be transparent and should not be
allowed to operate clandestinely due to a concern that it might
subvert the public policy purposes of class proceedings.

                             Decision

The British Columbia Supreme Court in Stanway concluded that the
substance of the agreement in that case would be subject to
privilege -- namely, as it relates to the plaintiff's strategy,
budget and other "highly sensitive matters".  The court held (at
paragraph 43):

"Certainly, the confidential communications between the plaintiff,
her counsel and a private financer in respect of the merits of the
litigation and the litigation budget will be privileged, as well
as highly sensitive topics relating to the plaintiff's strategy
and trial stamina.  There are other features of the [litigation
funding agreement] which the defendants will be entitled to
access, specifically those addressing the specific concerns which
the defendants raise, including their concerns that the implied
undertaking rule is observed and that the private financer is not
controlling the litigation."

Unfortunately, given the nature of the application before the
court, there was no elaboration on how privilege would be applied
to specific aspects of the funding agreement.

                             Comment

The existing law in British Columbia reflects a nuanced approach
to funding agreements, which recognizes their utility by giving
effect to privilege attaching to them.  A claim for privilege
would be strong in the international arbitration context, given
the very different circumstances to the class action context in
which Stanway (and other cases in Canada) have been decided.

Unless and until a Canadian court has an opportunity to pronounce
definitively on the extent to which privilege applies to funding
agreements in general, and particularly in the international
arbitration context, counsel should be cautious and take
particular care to ensure that confidential information is
provided only through highly structured and controlled processes,
recognizing that the potential funder necessarily requires enough
information to be able to form an impression of the risk and
potential reward the case presents, and that the claimant may be
unable to proceed with its case at all without the assistance of
third-party funding.  There will undoubtedly be further
developments in this area in the near future, given the clear
utility of funding agreements as a vehicle to permit the
adjudication of claims on their merits.


XL FOODS: Hundreds of Plaintiffs Expected to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kaufmann, writing for Calgary Sun, reports that several
hundred plaintiffs claiming injury from tainted beef processed at
an Alberta plant are expected to take part in a class action suit,
a Calgary lawyer said on Oct. 30.

The Canada-wide legal action targeting XL Foods Inc. and the
largest meat recall in the country's history in the fall of 2012
has been certified by Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench.

News reports stated 4,000 tonnes of beef were recalled and 18
people fell ill from E. coli bacteria during the saga, but lawyer
Clint Docken said the injury total only included those confirmed
by health regions.

"There's a couple of hundred in the injury class," said Mr. Docken
of the firm Docken Klym.

"It's a full range of people who were hospitalized and have
permanent damage and some who don't . . . we're just looking for
fair compensation for those who got sick."

He said plaintiffs' medical records from a year ago will form much
of the basis of the legal claims.

But the class action suit -- which is seeking millions in
compensation -- will also include those who suffered financially
by tossing out beef that was processed at Brooks plant on Aug. 24,
27, 28, 29 and Sept. 5, 2012, then operated by XL Foods

"If people have a family gathering and there are a lot of
expensive steaks they had to get rid of, that's an economic loss,"
said Mr. Docken.

Last June, an independent report found both federal and industry
inspectors were lax in their jobs in the days leading up to the E.
coli outbreak.

The federal government isn't named in the class action suit,
however.

Last November, Colorado-based packers JBS USA took over the Brooks
plant from XL Foods.

Mr. Docken said he expects more claimants to come forward now that
the case has been certified.

"It's pretty widely circulated," he said.

"The matter will either get settled or proceed to trial."

Canada's beef industry lost an estimated $27 million due to the
contamination.

Edmonton-based Nilsson Bros. Inc., the parent company of XL Foods
at the time, didn't return a call for comment.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *