CAR_Public/131107.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 7, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 221

                             Headlines


1-800-FLOWERS: No Court Ruling Yet on Unfair Trade Practices Suit
ACCURAY INC: Shareholder Complaint in Superior Court Dismissed
AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Revives Employee Claims Over Anemia Drugs
ASSURED GUARANTY: Suit Over Jefferson County Sewer Debt Stayed
BANK OF AMERICA: Massive Mortgage Fraud Case to Stay in Dist. Ct.

BIOLASE INC: Faces Securities Suit Over Comerica Bank Waiver
CAFEPRESS INC: Two IPO-Related Suits Remanded to Superior Court
CLAIRE'S STORES: Uses Fluctuating Workweek to Gauge OT, Suit Says
COMVERSE INC: Named Defendant in Israeli Optionholder Suits
CREDIT BUREAU: Court Narrows Claims in FDCPA Class Action Cases

DOLGENCORP LLC: Requires Class to Work Over 40 Hours, Suit Claims
FACEBOOK INC: US Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal on Beacon Accord
FINANCIAL FREEDOM: Court Approves Bid to Bifurcate Discovery
FINANCIAL FREEDOM: FDUTPA Claim Remains in "Degutis" Class Action
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Named as Defendant in Securities Class Action

GLOBECOMM SYSTEMS: Lawsuits May Prevent Merger Completion
HSBC BANK: TILA Violation Class Action in New York Dismissed
INTELLIGENT MEXICAN: Workers' Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
KERRY INC: Court Wants Release Terms in "Bates" Suit Deal Revised
LENDING 1ST: "Plascencia" Suit Deal Gets Initial Court Approval

MARIN HOUSING AUTHORITY: Court Okays Discovery in "Hall" Suit
NORFOLK, VA: Court Tosses Claims Dismissal Bid in "Winingear" Suit
OPKO HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Suit in Nevada Over Merger
PETSMART INC: Still Faces "Moore" Labor Suit in California
PETSMART INC: Suit Over Jerky Treats Consolidated With "Adkins"

PETSMART INC: "Pace" Plaintiff Wants to Add Claims in Labor Suit
POM WONDERFUL: Court Moves Summary Judgment Hearing Dates
REGIS CORPORATION: Gets $1.1 Million From Class Suit in 2012
SANDERSON FARMS: Oral Arguments in RICO Violations Suit in Nov.
SOCIAL SECURITY: "Padro" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Deal in Credit Card Users' Suit Has Initial OK
STERLING JEWELERS: Jan. Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in Labor Suit
STERLING JEWELERS: Deadlines Set in N.Y. Discrimination Suit
TUESDAY MORNING: Trial in "Randell" Labor Suit Set for December
U.S. NURSING: Nurses' Class Suit Deal Gets Final Court Approval

UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Court Heard Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suits
UNITED STATES: Case Mgmt Conference in "Haskell" Moved to Feb.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Plaintiff Denied More Time to Respond
WET SEAL: Labor Suit in Calif. Won't Proceed as Class Action
WET SEAL: Nov. 18 Final Approval Hearing on $7.5M Accord

WMS INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of "Conlee" Suit Under Appeal
WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Stock Suit Over Scientific Games Merger
WPX ENERGY: Court Denies Bid for Joint Scheduling Conference


                             *********


1-800-FLOWERS: No Court Ruling Yet on Unfair Trade Practices Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013,
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc., reported that there has been no ruling
the complaints against the Company alleging violations arising
under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing
practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors.

On December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice.
The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the
case in its entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek
to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek
restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0
million.

On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were consolidated
with a third case previously pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut in which the Company is not
a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated amended
complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting
to assert claims substantially similar to those originally
asserted.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
December 7, 2012, which was subsequently refiled at the direction
of the Court on January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank
Action"). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed
on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company
intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause
directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel
for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the
Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such
that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action
doctrine.

On June 13, 2013 the court issued an order in the Frank Action
suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to the
complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the Frank
Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action. On
July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa
Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending,
for all further proceedings.

On August 14, 2013, other defendants filed a motion for
clarification in the Frank Action requesting that Judge Bryant
clarify the order suspending deadlines.

There has been no ruling on (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate,
(2) the Order to Show Cause, (3) the Motion for Clarification, or
(4) the Company's Motion Seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs'
Amended Consolidated Complaint. Oral argument thereon is scheduled
for September 25, 2013.

According to the Company, "There are no assurances that additional
legal actions will not be instituted in connection with the
Company's former post-transaction marketing practices involving
third party vendors nor can we predict the outcome of any such
legal action. At this time, we are unable to estimate a possible
loss or range of possible loss for the aforementioned actions for
various reasons, including, among others: (i) the damages sought
are indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the very early
stages and the court has not yet ruled as to whether the classes
will be certified, and (iii) there is uncertainty as to the
outcome of pending motions. As a result of the foregoing, we have
determined that the amount of possible loss or range of loss is
not reasonably estimable. However, legal matters are inherently
unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of
which may be beyond our control."

1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. is florist and gift shop. The Company
delivers fresh flowers and a selection of plants, gift baskets,
gourmet foods, confections, candles, balloons and plush stuffed
animals. The Company operates in three segments: Consumer Floral,
Gourmet Food and Gift Baskets, and BloomNet Wire Service. The
Consumer Floral segment includes the operations of the Company's
brand, such as 1-800-Flowers.com, Flowerama, Celebrations and
FineStationery.com. The Gourmet Food and Gift Baskets segment
includes the operations of Fannie May Confections Brands, Cheryl's
(which includes Mrs. Beasley's), The Popcorn Factory,
Winetasting.com, Stockyards.com , DesignPac and 1-800-Baskets. The
BloomNet Wire Service segment includes the operations of BloomNet,
BloomNet Technologies, BloomNet Products and Napco. On September
6, 2011, the Company, through the Winetasting Network subsidiary,
completed the sale of certain assets of its wine fulfillment
services business.


ACCURAY INC: Shareholder Complaint in Superior Court Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a complaint filed in Santa Clara County Superior
Court purportedly on behalf of a class of Accuray Incorporated
shareholders requested and obtained dismissal of the case without
prejudice, according to the company's Aug. 29, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On November 1, 2012, a complaint was filed in Santa Clara County
Superior Court purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders
seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote to be held at the company's
annual meeting scheduled for November 30, 2012.

The complaint named as defendants the Company and the members of
the board of directors and alleged that the disclosures in the
proxy statement for the annual meeting concerning the advisory
vote on executive compensation and the proposal to amend the
certificate of incorporation to increase the number of authorized
shares were inadequate and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.

In addition to an injunction, the complaint sought unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. The annual meeting was held on
November 30, 2012. On December 28, 2012, the plaintiffs requested
dismissal of the case from the court without prejudice, which was
granted on January 3, 2013.


AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Revives Employee Claims Over Anemia Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit withdrew
and replaced an opinion on October 23, 2013, reviving claims
asserted by Amgen Inc. employees related to the drop in share
prices as a result of a controversy concerning Amgen drugs used
for the treatment of anemia.

In the new opinion, the Panel reversed the dismissal of an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 class action
brought by current and former employees of Amgen, Inc., and an
Amgen subsidiary.

The Panel held that a presumption of prudence did not apply and
that, in the absence of the presumption, the Plaintiffs
sufficiently alleged violation of the Defendants' fiduciary duties
regarding two employer-sponsored pension plans.  The panel also
held that Amgen was an adequately alleged fiduciary of the Amgen
Retirement and Savings Plan (the "Amgen Plan").

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          Garry T. Stevens, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Fishback, Esq.
          Daniel L. Keller, Esq.
          KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP
          28720 Canwood Street, Suite 200
          Agoura Hills, California 91301
          Telephone: (818) 342-7616
          Facsimile: (818) 342-7442
          E-mail: sfishback@kfjlegal.com
                  dkeller@kfjlegal.com

               - and -

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          Symphony Towers
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4762
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com

               - and -

          Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY & MCKENNA
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Steven Oliver Kramer, Esq.
          Jonathan David Moss, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Forty-Third Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: skramer@sheppardmullin.com
                  jmoss@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Emily Seymour Costin, Esq.
          Jonathan Rose, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          The Atlantic Building
          950 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1404
          Telephone: (202) 239-3300
          Facsimile: (202) 239-3333
          E-mail: emily.costin@alston.com
                  jonathan.rose@alston.com

               - and -

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          50 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Brian David Netter, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          999 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
          E-mail: bnetter@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Davis, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1675 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019-5820
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          Facsimile: (212) 262-1910
          E-mail: rdavis@mayerbrown.com

The appellate case is Steve Harris, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., et al.,
Case No. No. 10-56014, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Steve Harris, et al. v.
Amgen, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05442-PSG-PLA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Suit Over Jefferson County Sewer Debt Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co et. al is
stayed pending confirmation of Jefferson County's plan of
adjustment, according to Assured Guaranty Re Ltd. Aug. 29, 2013,
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In August 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and other bond
insurers, were named as defendants in a civil action brought in
the circuit court of Jefferson County, Alabama relating to the
County's problems meeting its sewer debt obligations: Charles E.
Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al (filed the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-2008-901907.00, a
putative class action.

The action was brought on behalf of rate payers, tax payers and
citizens residing in Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and
fraud in connection with the issuance of the County's debt. The
complaint in this lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

On January, 13, 2011, the circuit court issued an order denying a
motion by the bond insurers and other defendants to dismiss the
action. Defendants, including the bond insurers, have petitioned
the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to the circuit
court vacating such order and directing the dismissal with
prejudice of plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing.

Currently, the litigation is stayed pending confirmation of
Jefferson County's plan of adjustment or further court orders. In
July 2013, Jefferson County filed its Chapter 9 plan of
adjustment, disclosure statement, and motions to approve the
disclosure statement and solicitation procedures with the
bankruptcy court and in August 2103, the bankruptcy court approved
Jefferson County's disclosure statement and related solicitation
procedures. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from this lawsuit.


BANK OF AMERICA: Massive Mortgage Fraud Case to Stay in Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service reports that a mass
action accusing Bank of America and others of deceptive mortgage
lending belongs in federal court, despite minimal plaintiff
commonality, the 9th Circuit ruled Wednesday, October 23, 2013.

Carla Visendi and 136 others had filed the 2011 lawsuit in
Sacramento County Superior Court against 25 financial institutions
they blamed for tanking property values and messing up their
credit scores with "deceptive mortgage lending and securitization
practices."

Based on the large number of plaintiffs, Bank of America removed
the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.  In
a subsequent amended complaint, the plaintiffs tossed their
original claims and instead accused the defendants of invalid
assignment, mistake and negligence -- all state-level claims.  The
new complaint also increased the number of plaintiffs to 160 and
dropped the number of defendants to 15.

In a motion to dismiss, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs
were misjoined because they were scattered throughout the country
and got their loans from many different lenders.  The plaintiffs
argued that the banks could not challenge joinder because they had
removed the case to federal court.  The plaintiffs also moved to
return the case to state court.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England agreed with the plaintiffs
and sent the case back to Sacramento County Superior Court, but
the federal appeals court reversed on Wednesday, October 23, 2013.

A unanimous three-judge panel in San Francisco found that the case
was properly removed to federal court after the plaintiffs
proposed a joint trial in state court.  Proper plaintiff joinder
has nothing to do with it, according to the ruling.

The post-removal conclusion that plaintiffs' claims were
improperly joined does not affect the court's jurisdiction,
because -- at the time of removal -- the plaintiffs proposed a
joint trial," Judge Milan Smith wrote for the panel.

"This massive, multi-plaintiff lawsuit is a prototypical mass
action subject to removal under CAFA," Smith added.  "That the
plaintiffs are misjoined does not undermine federal jurisdiction."

Because the plaintiffs are clearly misjoined, however, the panel
ordered the District Court to dismiss without prejudice all of the
plaintiffs save Visendi.

"Plaintiffs own separate and unrelated properties across the
country, they entered into separate loan transactions, and their
dealings with defendants were necessarily varied," Smith wrote.
"Nothing unites all of these plaintiffs but the superficial
similarity of their allegations and their common choice of
counsel."

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Kristin Day, Esq.
          Jamie Edwards Quadra, Esq.
          QUADRA DAY, PC
          1911 Douglas Blvd., Suite 85-PMB 350
          Roseville, CA 95661
          Telephone: (916) 784-7888

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Douglas E. Winter, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          1155 F Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: (202) 508-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 508-6200
          E-mail: dewinter@bryancave.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Boone III, Esq.
          Nafiz Cekirge, Esq.
          Brian J. Recor, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          120 Broadway, Suite 300
          Telephone: (310) 576-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
          E-mail: alex.boone@bryancave.com
                  nafiz.cekirge@bryancave.com
                  brian.recor@bryancave.com


BIOLASE INC: Faces Securities Suit Over Comerica Bank Waiver
------------------------------------------------------------
Biolase, Inc. disclosed on it Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 30, 2013 that it has
been notified of class action lawsuits filed against the Company
and certain of its executive officers alleging violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with statements that the
Company filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, or otherwise made available to the public, relating to
the Company's financial results for the 2013 second quarter and
the Company's recent announcement it had received a waiver from
Comerica Bank due to non-compliance with a loan covenant. The
Company believes that the claims contained in the lawsuits are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.


CAFEPRESS INC: Two IPO-Related Suits Remanded to Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two securities class action lawsuits against Cafepress Inc. were
remanded to the Superior Court of the state of California for the
County of San Mateo.

The class action lawsuits are:

   (1) Desmarairs v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03666-WHA,
       in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
       California (San Francisco); and

   (2) Hussain Jinnah v. Cafepress Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-03668,
       in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
       California.

The lawsuits allege that the Company made false and misleading
statements in its registration statement and prospectus in
connection with its initial public offering.

Wallace Joseph Desmarairs, Jr., is represented by:

          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  csadler@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq.
          James M. Lindfelt, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          2550 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 233-4500
          Facsimile: (650) 233-4545
          E-mail: david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com
                  james.lindfelt@pillsburylaw.com


          Joshua David Hess, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3513
          Telephone: (415) 262-4500
          Facsimile: (415) 262-4555
          E-mail: joshua.hess@dechert.com


CLAIRE'S STORES: Uses Fluctuating Workweek to Gauge OT, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Beal commenced a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2013, in
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against Claire's Stores
(Beal v. Claire's Stores, Inc., Case No. 131001989).  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Company uses a "fluctuating workweek"
to calculate overtime pay, a method that is illegal in
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Rd., Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492


COMVERSE INC: Named Defendant in Israeli Optionholder Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Comverse, Inc., is a defendant in four potential class action
litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to recover
damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or breach of
contract due to previously settled allegations regarding illegal
backdating of CTI options that allegedly prevented certain current
or former employees from exercising certain stock options,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2013.

CTI and certain of its former subsidiaries, including Comverse
Ltd. (a subsidiary of the Company), were named as defendants in
four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel
involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of
purported negligence or breach of contract due to previously-
settled allegations regarding illegal backdating of CTI options
that allegedly prevented certain current or former employees from
exercising certain stock options. The Company intends to
vigorously defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The
Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.

By stipulation of the parties, on September 30, 2009, the court
ordered that these cases, including all claims against CTI in
Israel and the motion to approve the class action, be stayed until
resolution of the actions pending in the United States regarding
stock option accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability
to investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.

On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiffs have
filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action. The defendants
responded to this amended complaint on November 11, 2012, and the
plaintiffs filed a further reply on December 20, 2012. A pre-trial
hearing for the case was held on December 25, 2012, during which
all parties agreed to attempt to settle the dispute through
mediation. The mediation process is currently ongoing.

Separately, on July 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an
order that CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a reserve to
satisfy any potential damage awards that may be awarded in this
case, but did not seek to enjoin the Share Distribution. The
Company does not believe that the motion has merit. On July 25,
2012, the court indicated that it will not rule on the motion
until after it rules on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs. On August 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to appeal the court's order to the Israeli Supreme Court and
on November 11, 2012, CTI responded to plaintiff's motion. The
parties are awaiting a decision.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively. The Katriel
litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009,
against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number
4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd.
The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and
both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court.
These cases have been consolidated with the Tel Aviv District
Court cases discussed above. The Company did not accrue for these
matters as the potential loss is currently not probable or
estimable.

Additional cases have been filed by individual plaintiffs
similarly seeking to recover damages up to an aggregate of $3.6
million allegedly incurred as a result of the inability to
exercise certain stock options. The cases generally allege the
same causes of actions alleged in the potential class action
discussed above. The Company accrued $0.1 million for one of these
cases but did not accrue for the other matters as the potential
loss is currently not probable or estimable.

Comverse, Inc. (CNS) is a provider of software and systems
enabling services for converged billing and active customer
management, mobile Internet, and value-added services. The
Company's product portfolios includes value added services,
billing and active customer management, and mobile Internet. The
Company's offerings include Comverse ONE, Comverse VAS, Comverse
mobile Internet and Comverse global services. The Company's ONE
deployment modes include Comverse ONE converged billing and active
customer management, Comverse ONE real-time billing, Comverse ONE
postpaid billing & active customer management, Comverse ONE online
and converged charging, and create ONE of your own solutions. CNS
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Comverse Technology, Inc.


CREDIT BUREAU: Court Narrows Claims in FDCPA Class Action Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in putative class action cases have sued Defendants
Credit Bureau Collection Services, Inc. (CBCS), Van Hattum &
Associates, P.C. (VHA), and one of the following Defendants:
Advantage Health/Saint Mary's Medical Group (No. 1:13-CV-30);
Spectrum Health Hospitals (No. 1:13-CV-84); Metropolitan Hospital
(1:13-CV-159); Spectrum Health Primary Care Partners (1:13-CV-
173); Michigan Medical Patient Care (1:13-CV-261); Life EMS, Inc.
(1:13-CV-267); and Sparrow Health System (1:13-CV-341)
(collectively the Provider Defendants).

The cases are SARA EAGER, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT BUREAU COLLECTION
SERVICES, INC., ADVANTAGE HEALTH/SAINT MARY'S MEDICAL GROUP, and
VAN HATTUM & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-30,
NO. 1:13-CV-84., 1:13-CV-159, 1:13-CV-173, 1:13-CV-261, 1:13-CV-
267, 1:13-CV-341, (W.D. Mich.).

Plaintiffs allege in each case that Defendants violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et
seq. (Count 1), the Michigan Collection Practices Act (MCPA),
M.C.L. Section 445.251 et seq. (Count 2), and the Michigan
Occupational Code (MOC), M.C.L. Section 339.101 et seq., by, among
other things, making false statements in state court collection
complaints.  Plaintiffs allege that they owed consumer debts to
the Provider Defendants for personal medical care or services.
Plaintiffs further allege that the Provider Defendants retained
CBCS -- a debt collection agency -- to collect the delinquent
debts. CBCS subsequently forwarded the delinquent accounts to VHA
-- a law firm -- to file collection actions. VHA, in consultation
with CBCS, filed collection actions solely on behalf of the
Provider Defendants, but included in each complaint debts owed to
other providers. Each three-paragraph form state-court complaint
alleged that the plaintiff-Provider Defendant had received an
assignment of the other claims from the other providers.
Plaintiffs allege that such allegation was false because none of
the other providers had assigned their claims to the plaintiff-
Provider Defendant, and VHA, CBCS, and the Provider Defendant knew
this when the complaints were filed.

CBCS and the Provider Defendants have filed motions to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In addition,
Plaintiffs have filed motions to amend their complaints to drop
their state law claims.

According to District Judge Gordon J. Quist, Plaintiffs' claims
against all Provider Defendants will be dismissed on the grounds
of res judicata/collateral estoppel (as applicable) or because the
Provider Defendants are not debtor collectors/collection agencies
under the FDCPA and the MOC. Plaintiffs' MOC claims against CBCS
alleging violations of M.C.L.A. Sections 339.915(q) and 339.915a
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Finally, all FDCPA
and MOC claims against CBCS in Case Nos. 1:13-CV-159, 1:13-CV-267,
and 1:13-CV-341, the claims of Plaintiffs Cross, Ewing, Jones, and
Sanders in Case No. 1:13-CV-84, and the claims of Plaintiff Repper
in Case No. 1:13-CV-261 will be dismissed on the grounds of res
judicata/collateral estoppel.

The following claims remain:

- Case Nos. 1:13-CV-30 and 173: Plaintiffs' surviving FDCPA and
  MOC claims against CBCS and Plaintiffs' claims against VHA.

- Case No. 1:13-CV-84: Plaintiffs Whiteside's and Brown's
  surviving FDCPA and MOC claims against CBCS and all Plaintiffs'
  claims against VHA.

- Case Nos. 1:13-CV-159, 267, and 341: Plaintiffs' claims against
  VHA.

- Case No. 1:13-CV-261: Plaintiffs Gorman's and Woday's surviving
  FDCPA and MOC claims against CBCS and all Plaintiffs' claims
  against VHA.

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


DOLGENCORP LLC: Requires Class to Work Over 40 Hours, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In her amended class action complaint against DolgenCorp, LLC,
Lisa Kocmich alleges that the Defendant had a policy and practice
of requiring her and all others similarly situated, who are or
were employed by the Defendant, to work in excess of 40 hours each
workweek without paying them wages and overtime compensation as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Calhoun Bales, Esq.
          Abigail S. Pressler, Esq.
          JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS
          9700 Dr. MLK Jr. St. N, Suite 400
          St Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (727) 823-9100
          Facsimile: (727) 579-9109
          E-mail: jbales@johnbales.com
                  apressler@johnbales.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christine E. Howard, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          401 E Jackson St., Suite 2300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 769-7500
          Facsimile: (813) 769-7501
          E-mail: choward@laborlawyers.com

               - and -

          Joel S. Allen, Esq.
          Melissa M. Hensley, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          1717 Main St., Suite 3200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 466-4000
          Facsimile: (214) 466-4001
          E-mail: Joel.Allen@morganlewis.com
                  melissa.hensley@morganlewis.com

The case is Kocmich v. DolgenCorp, LLC, Case No. 8:13-cv-02705-
RAL-MAP, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Tampa).


FACEBOOK INC: US Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal on Beacon Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court in a four-page decision on Monday denied a
petition for a writ of certiorari that asked them to hear an
appeal from the order approving the settlement of privacy class
action lawsuits over Facebook Inc.'s "Beacon" program.

In August 2008, 19 individuals brought a putative class action
lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of
California against Facebook and the companies that had
participated in Beacon, alleging violations of various federal and
state privacy laws.  The putative class comprised only those
individuals whose personal information had been obtained and
disclosed by Beacon during the approximately one-month period in
which the program's default setting was opt out rather than opt
in.  The complaint sought damages and various forms of equitable
relief, including an injunction barring the defendants from
continuing the program.

Facebook agreed to pay $9.5 million pursuant to the settlement.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the parties allocated that
fund in an unusual way: Plaintiffs' counsel were awarded nearly a
quarter of the fund in fees and costs, while the named plaintiffs
received modest incentive payments.  The unnamed class members, by
contrast, received no damages from the remaining $6.5 million.
Instead, the parties earmarked that sum for a "cy pres" remedy
because distributing the $6.5 million among the large number of
class members would result in too small an award per person to
bother.  The cy pres remedy agreed to by the parties entailed the
establishment of a new charitable foundation that would help fund
organizations dedicated to educating the public about online
privacy.  A Facebook representative would be one of the three
members of the new foundation's board.

The parties also agreed to expand the settlement class barred from
future litigation to include not just those individuals injured by
Beacon during the brief period in which it was an opt-out program
-- the class proposed in the original complaint -- but also those
injured after Facebook had changed the program's default setting
to opt in.  Facebook thus insulated itself from all class claims
arising from the Beacon episode by paying plaintiffs' counsel and
the named plaintiffs some $3 million and spending $6.5 million to
set up a foundation in which it would play a major role.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved the settlement as "fair, reasonable, and adequate" in
2010.

Petitioner Megan Marek was one of four unnamed class members who
objected to the settlement. Her challenge focused on a number of
disconcerting features of the new Foundation: the facts that a
senior Facebook employee would serve on its board, that the board
would enjoy nearly unfettered discretion in selecting fund
recipients, and that the Foundation -- as a new entity --
necessarily lacked a proven track record of promoting the
objectives behind the lawsuit. She also criticized the overall
settlement amount as too low.  The District Court rebuffed these
objections, as did a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit on appeal.

A petition for rehearing en banc was denied, over the dissent of
six judges in 2013.

Chief Justice John J. Roberts issued a statement Monday on the
High Court's decision.  According to Judge Roberts, "I agree with
this Court's decision to deny the petition for certiorari.
Marek's challenge is focused on the particular features of the
specific cy pres settlement at issue. Granting review of this case
might not have afforded the Court an opportunity to address more
fundamental concerns surrounding the use of such remedies in class
action litigation, including when, if ever, such relief should be
considered; how to assess its fairness as a general matter;
whether new entities may be established as part of such relief; if
not, how existing entities should be selected; what the respective
roles of the judge and parties are in shaping a cy pres remedy;
how closely the goals of any enlisted organization must correspond
to the interests of the class; and so on."

Judge Roberts also noted that the Supreme Court has not previously
addressed any of these issues.  "Cy pres remedies, however, are a
growing feature of class action settlements. See Redish, Julian, &
Zyontz, Cy Pres Relief and the Pathologies of the Modern Class
Action: A Normative and Empirical Analysis, 62 Fla. L. Rev. 617,
653-656 (2010). In a suitable case, this Court may need to clarify
the limits on the use of such remedies," Judge Roberts said.


FINANCIAL FREEDOM: Court Approves Bid to Bifurcate Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell granted, in part,
defendants' motion to bifurcate discovery and to commence with
discovery that tests merits of named plaintiff's claims in the
case captioned ALBERT J. DEGUTIS, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL FREEDOM,
LLC and FINANCIAL FREEDOM ACQUISITION, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO.
2:12-CV-319-FTM-38DNF, (M.D. Fla.).

Judge Chappell held that discovery regarding the merits of Albert
Degutis' individual claims will commence immediately.

The Court further held that:

- Discovery regarding Plaintiff's individual claims will last
  until December 17, 2013.

- Defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding Plaintiff's
  individual claims is due on or before January 17, 2014.

- Class discovery is stayed and will commence after the Court's
  ruling on the motion for summary judgment, if necessary.

- Plaintiff's Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to
  File Motion for Class Certification is granted to the extent
  that Plaintiff's deadline to file its motion for class
  certification is stayed in light of the above directives.

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/sB9yK5from Leagle.com.


FINANCIAL FREEDOM: FDUTPA Claim Remains in "Degutis" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell granted, in part, and
denied, in part, a motion to dismiss the case captioned ALBERT J.
DEGUTIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL FREEDOM, LLC and FINANCIAL
FREEDOM ACQUISITION, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-319-FTM-
38DNF, (M.D. Fla.).

The Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss on July 30, 2012.

Judge Chappell held that Counts I (breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing), II (breach of contract), and IV
(unjust enrichment) are dismissed with prejudice.

The Motion is denied as to Count III (violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act).  Judge Chappell said
because the Plaintiff is bringing a claim regarding deceptive acts
and practices under the Florida statute, the Court finds that the
Plaintiff's claims under Count III are not preempted. They are
expressly exempted under 12 C.F.R. Section 560.2(c) as it
encompasses commercial law and is vital to state interest only
incidentally affecting lending operations.

The Court ordered the Defendants to file an answer to Count III
within 21 days of the date of the Order.

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/3ql4e6from Leagle.com.


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Named as Defendant in Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action was filed on August 28, 2013, against The
First Marblehead Corporation alleging that the Company made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in various SEC filings, press releases and other
public statements, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2013.

On August 28, 2013, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against FMD, Daniel Meyers, FMD's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the FMD Board of Directors, and Kenneth Klipper, FMD's
Chief Financial Officer and one of FMD's Managing Directors. The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in various SEC filings, press releases and other
public statements concerning our corporate income tax filings. The
complaint alleges various claims under the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper. No class has
been certified in the action.

The Complaint states: "We intend to vigorously assert our
defenses. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be
successful, and adverse developments and/or an adverse resolution
of the lawsuit could have a material effect on our consolidated
financial position and results of operations, which could, in
turn, have a negative effect on the price of our common stock. In
addition, although we carry insurance for these types of claims,
we are not presently able to reasonably estimate potential losses,
if any, related to the lawsuit and a judgment significantly in
excess of our insurance coverage could materially and adversely
affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.

"We are involved from time to time in routine legal proceedings
occurring in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of
management, there are no matters outstanding, other than those
referenced above, that would have a material adverse impact on our
operations or financial condition."

The First Marblehead Corporation, is a specialty finance company
focused on education loan programs for K-12, undergraduate and
graduate students in the United States, as well as tuition
planning, tuition billing, refund management and payment
technology services. It also offers a number of ancillary services
in support of its clients, including loan origination, retail
banking, portfolio management and securitization services. It
offers an integrated suite of services through its Monogram loan
product service platform, which the Company refers to as the
Monogram platform, as well as certain services on a stand-alone,
fee-for-service basis. Its subsidiary Union Federal Savings Bank,
which the Company refers to as Union Federal, offers retail
banking products, including education loans, residential and
commercial mortgage loans, time and savings deposits and money
market deposit accounts. In October 2012, the Company acquired
Cology, Inc.


GLOBECOMM SYSTEMS: Lawsuits May Prevent Merger Completion
---------------------------------------------------------
Globecomm Systems Inc., said that class action lawsuits may be
filed by third parties challenging a planned merger and which may
prevent the Merger from completing in the expected timeframe,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013.

On August 25, 2013, Globecomm Systems entered into a definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Wasserstein Cosmos Co-Invest, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
("Parent"), and Cosmos Acquisition Corp., an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Subsidiary").  Parent and Merger
Subsidiary are affiliates of Wasserstein & Co., LP.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, and subject to the conditions
thereof, Merger Subsidiary will merge with and into Globecomm, and
Globecomm will become an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent (the "Merger").  The Merger Agreement was unanimously
approved by Globecomm Systems' board of directors.

The Company states: "Class action lawsuits may be filed by third
parties challenging the contemplated Merger. Globecomm, members of
our board of directors, the acquiring party and members of the
acquiring party's board of directors, among others, may be named
as defendants in these class action lawsuits brought by Globecomm
stockholders challenging the Merger. If lawsuits are filed and the
plaintiffs are successful, they may prevent the parties from
completing the Merger in the expected timeframe, if at all, and,
in any event, lawsuits, if filed, could adversely affect our
business, financial position and results of operations and divert
management's attention and resources from other matters."

Globecomm Systems Inc. (Globecomm) provides satellite-based
managed network solutions. The Company offers a range of system
integration, system products and network services for its
customers. It provides end-to-end satellite-based communications
solutions. It supplies infrastructure solutions for satellite-
based communications, including hardware and software to support a
range of satellite systems. It's wholly owned subsidiaries
Globecomm Network Services Corporation, Globecomm Services
Maryland LLC, Cachendo LLC, B.V. Mach 6, Telaurus Communications
LLC, Melat Networks Inc., Carrier to Carrier Telecom B.V. (C2C)
and Evosat SA Proprietary Ltd provide satellite communication
services capabilities. It provides customers managed access
services to the United States Internet backbone, video content and
the public switched telephone network. On March 5, 2010, it
completed the acquisition of C2C and Evocomm. In April 2011, the
Company acquired ComSource, Inc.


HSBC BANK: TILA Violation Class Action in New York Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted a motion to dismiss the
case captioned BRUCE SCHWARTZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. HSBC BANK
USA, N.A., Defendant, NO. 13 CIV. 769 (PAE), (S.D. N.Y.).

Mr. Schwartz brought this putative class action against HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., alleging that certain practices of and disclosures by
HSBC in connection with its credit card billing practices violated
the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1601 et seq.
In particular, Mr. Schwartz alleged that, on the monthly billing
statements it sent him, HSBC inaccurately or incompletely
disclosed the annual interest rate and the "balance subject to
interest."  Mr. Schwartz also claimed HSBC improperly charged late
fees and interest on payments he submitted by mail during one
billing cycle.

HSBC moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim, or,
alternatively, to strike certain class allegations pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d)(1)(D).

Judge Engelmayer granted the motion to dismiss and directed the
Clerk of Court to close the case saying Mr. Schwartz's three
allegations of TILA violations fail to state a claim.

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


INTELLIGENT MEXICAN: Workers' Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane J. Boyle dismissed without prejudice the case
captioned JAIME VARELA and YESICA WIEGERT, individually and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID
BENITEZ GONZALES, ANA CRISTINA BENITEZ, INTELLIGENT MEXICAN
MARKETING, INC., and MARKETING AND INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-1278-B, (N.D. Tex.).

The Plaintiffs brought the action alleging that they were paid
depressed wages while employed by the Defendants as a result of
Defendants' illegal worker hiring scheme. They further asserted
that the Defendants, through their scheme, violated and conspired
to violate the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Act.

Judge Boyle found that the allegations supporting Plaintiffs' RICO
and RICO conspiracy claims are inadequate to establish Plaintiffs'
standing to sue under RICO. The Court further found that
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint does not state a claim for
violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and Section 1962(d).

Since the Order is the Court's first review of Plaintiffs'
allegations, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs should be
given the opportunity to overcome the deficiencies noted.

If Plaintiffs are able to replead and overcome the grounds for
dismissal, they should do so by no later than 30 days from the
date of the Order, ruled Jydge Boyle.  Furthermore, any repleading
will be accompanied by a synopsis of no more than 10 pages,
explaining how the amendments overcome the grounds stated for
dismissal in the Order. Should Plaintiffs replead, the Defendants
are granted leave to file responses to Plaintiffs' synopsis. Any
response must be filed within 14 calendar days of the repleading.
No further briefing will be permitted.

A copy of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/HCa0GZfrom Leagle.com.


KERRY INC: Court Wants Release Terms in "Bates" Suit Deal Revised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William M. Conley directed parties in DONNA BATES,
CATHERINE A. STEFFA, and CAREN CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiffs, v. KERRY,
INC., Defendant, NO. 13-CV-142-WMC, (W.D. Wis.), to correct the
release provision in the proposed settlement agreement resolving
the lawsuit.

Pending before the Court are the parties' joint stipulation for
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA,
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of settlement agreement.

"All appears very much in order, but before the court grants these
motions, the parties must correct the release language in the
settlement agreement itself so that it is consistent with the
description of the putative class members' legal rights and
options described in the proposed notice," ruled Judge Conley.

"In other words, for those employees who do not opt into the FLSA
collective action but also do not opt out of the class action, the
release -- consistent with the proposed notice -- should be
limited to the Wisconsin state law claims. The reason the court
requires this change has been extensively explained in other,
similar FLSA collective action and Rule 23 class action
settlements," he added.

According to Judge Conley, once the court is in receipt of an
amendment to the settlement agreement, the court will promptly
issue an order preliminarily approving the settlement and
certifying a class action and a collective action for settlement
purposes.

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


LENDING 1ST: "Plascencia" Suit Deal Gets Initial Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken granted preliminarily approval of a
class action settlement resolving the case captioned ARMANDO
PLASCENCIA and MELANIA PLASCENCIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LENDING 1ST
MORTGAGE, LENDING 1ST MORTGAGE LLC, EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, and
DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:07-CV-04485-
CW, (N.D. Cal.).

The Settlement Class is defined as all individuals who, between
August 29, 2003 and May 12, 2011, have or have had a Monthly
Option ARM loan that: (a) was originated or otherwise approved by
LENDING 1st MORTGAGE within the State of California; (b) was then
sold to EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION; and (c) was secured by real
property in the United States.

Plaintiffs Armando Plascencia and Melania Plascencia are appointed
as the representatives of the Settlement Class.

These attorneys are appointed as lead Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class:

Jeffrey K. Berns Mark R. Cuker Lee A. Weiss WILLIAMS CUKER
BEREZOFSKY LLC BERNS WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite 140 Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Philadelphia, PA 19102 Toll Free: (855) 681-0000 Tel.: (215) 557-
0099 jberns@law111.com Fax: (215) 557-0673 lweiss@law111.com and
mcuker@wcblegal.com

J. Mark Moore David M. Arbogast SPIRO MOORE LLP ARBOGAST BOWEN LLP
11377 W. Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor 11400 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd
Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel.: (310)
235-2468 Tel.: (310) 477-7200 Fax: (310) 235-2456 Fax: (310) 943-
2309 mark@spiromoore.com david@arbogastbowen.com

Gerson H. Smoger Christopher A. Seeger SMOGER & ASSOCIATES SEEGER
WEISS LLP 3175 Monterey Blvd 77 Water Street, 26th Floor Oakland,
CA, 94602-3560 New York, NY 10005 Tel.: (510) 531-4529 Tel.: (212)
584-0700 Fax: (510) 531-4377 Cseeger@seegerweiss.com
gerson@texasinjurylaw.com

Jonathan Shub SEEGER WEISS LLP 1818 Market Street, 13th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel.: (610) 453-6551 jshub@seegerweiss.com

Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc., is approved and
designated as the Settlement Administrator for the Settlement.

A hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on January 16, 2014, to
determine whether the provisions of the Settlement Agreement
should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/gls7ZFfrom Leagle.com.


MARIN HOUSING AUTHORITY: Court Okays Discovery in "Hall" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HALL v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COUNTY OF MARIN is a putative class
action brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The Plaintiffs
contend that Defendant Marin Housing Authority violated the U.S.
Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1437 et seq., based on an alleged
pattern and practice of conduct related to the allocation of rent
payments, among other things. Pending before the Court is
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and to
Reschedule Motion for Class Certification.  The discovery dispute
was referred by Judge Seeborg to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley for decision.

After carefully considering the parties' written submissions, and
having had the benefit of vigorous oral argument on October 17,
2013, Magistrate Judge Corley grants, in part, the Plaintiffs'
motion to compel as the documents Plaintiffs seek are relevant and
discoverable.

While Plaintiffs' document requests seeking "tenant files" were
overbroad, their narrowed requests, as articulated at oral
argument, seek relevant and discoverable documents, Magistrate
Judge Corley concluded.

The case is JACQUELYN HALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN, Defendant, CASE NO. 12-04922 RS
(JSC), (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/M1XwGefrom Leagle.com.


NORFOLK, VA: Court Tosses Claims Dismissal Bid in "Winingear" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Henry Coke Morgan denied the City of
Norfolk's motion to dismiss state law claims and hybrid class
action allegations in WILLIAM KEITH WININGEAR, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12CV560, (E.D. Va.).

Norfolk had asserted that state law claims and hybrid class action
allegations in the case should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim and for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1).

The Court concluded that Plaintiffs' state law claims do not raise
a novel or complex issue of state law. Retaining the state law
claims is also plainly more convenient, economical, and efficient
for the parties, who would otherwise be forced to litigate two
complementary claims that are premised on the same facts in
separate forums, at great expense, added Judge Morgan.

A copy of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/zefuBffrom Leagle.com.


OPKO HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Suit in Nevada Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. faces a consolidated suit over its acquisition
of PROLOR Biotech, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 30, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Six putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Merger:

(1) Peter Turkell v. PROLOR Biotech, Inc., et al. (Case No. A-13-
680860-B), filed April 29, 2013 in the Eighth Judicial District
Court in and for Clark County, Nevada;

(2) Floyd A. Fried v. PROLOR Biotech, Inc., et al., (Case No. A-
13-681060), filed May 1, 2013 in the Eighth Judicial District
Court in and for Clark County, Nevada;

(3) Marc Henzel v. PROLOR Biotech, Inc., et al. (Case No. A-13-
681020-C), filed May 1, 2013, in the Eighth Judicial District
Court in and for Clark County, Nevada;

(4) Bradford W. Baer, et al., v. PROLOR Biotech, Inc. et al. (Case
No. A-13-681218-B, filed May 3, 2013 in the Eighth Judicial
District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada;

(5) James Hegarty v. PROLOR Biotech, Inc., et al (Case No. A-13-
681250-C), filed May 6, 2013 in the Eighth Judicial District Court
in and for Clark County, Nevada; and

(6) Jorge L. Salas, et al. v. PROLOR Biotech, Inc., et al. (Case
No. A-13-681279-C), filed May 6, 2013 in the Eighth Judicial
District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada.

These six lawsuits were consolidated into a single action which
names PROLOR, the members of PROLOR's Board of Directors, OPKO,
and POM as defendants. The consolidated lawsuit is brought by
purported holders of PROLOR's Common Stock, both individually and
on behalf of a putative class of PROLOR's stockholders, alleging
that PROLOR's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger by purportedly failing to maximize
stockholder value, that PROLOR and its Board of Directors failed
to disclose material information to PROLOR's stockholders, and
that OPKO and POM aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, including
increased consideration to PROLOR's stockholders, equitable
relief, including, among other things, rescission of the Merger
Agreement along with rescissionary damages, and an award of all
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to enjoin the vote of the PROLOR
stockholders to approve the Merger. By Order dated August 27,
2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction.

OPKO believes that the claims made in these lawsuits are without
merit and intends to defend such claims vigorously; however, there
can be no assurance that OPKO will prevail in its defense of the
consolidated lawsuit.

Further, additional claims beyond those that have already been
filed may be brought by the current plaintiffs or by others in an
effort to rescind the Merger Agreement and/or to seek monetary
relief from OPKO. An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation
surrounding the Merger could result in a substantial award of
monetary damages and/or rescission of the Merger Agreement. In
addition, the cost of defending the litigation, even if resolved
favorably, could be substantial. Such litigation could also
substantially divert the attention of OPKO's management and its
resources in general. Due to the preliminary nature of the
consolidated lawsuit, OPKO is not able at this time to estimate
its outcome.


PETSMART INC: Still Faces "Moore" Labor Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart, Inc. continues to face a labor suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the company's Aug. 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 4,
2013.

In May 2012, the company was named as a defendant in Moore, et al.
v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., a lawsuit originally filed in
California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. PetSmart
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The complaint brings both individual and class action claims,
first alleging that PetSmart failed to engage in the interactive
process and failed to accommodate the disabilities of four current
and former named associates. The complaint also alleges on behalf
of current and former hourly store associates that PetSmart failed
to provide pay for all hours worked, failed to properly reimburse
associates for business expenses, and failed to provide timely and
uninterrupted meal and rest periods. The lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages, statutory penalties, and other relief,
including attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief.


PETSMART INC: Suit Over Jerky Treats Consolidated With "Adkins"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case against Petsmart Inc. over jerky treats containing duck or
chicken imported from China was consolidated with another case
involving the same products, and Nestle Purina PetCare Company, is
currently defending the company, according to PetSmart's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 4, 2013.

On December 22, 2012, a customer filed a lawsuit against the
company captioned Matin, et al. v. Nestle Purina PetCare Company,
et al. in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The plaintiff claims he purchased jerky
treats containing duck or chicken imported from China that caused
injury to his pet, and he seeks to assert claims on behalf of a
nationwide class of consumers. The company tendered the claim to
Nestle Purina, and Nestle Purina is currently defending the case
on the company's behalf. The case was subsequently transferred to
the Northern District of Illinois and consolidated with another
case involving the same products, Adkins, et al. v. Nestle Purina
PetCare Company, et al.


PETSMART INC: "Pace" Plaintiff Wants to Add Claims in Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in Pace v. PetSmart, Inc. is currently seeking to
amend her complaint to assert additional claims under California's
Private Attorney General Act, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 4, 2013.

On February 20, 2013, a former employee filed a complaint in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Orange captioned
Pace v. PetSmart, Inc. PetSmart removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
complaint seeks to certify a class of all former PetSmart
employees in California since February 20, 2010, who were not paid
all wages owed upon their separations.

The complaint also challenges PetSmart's use of pay cards for
separation payments and seeks waiting time penalties, attorneys'
fees, and other relief. The plaintiff is currently seeking to
amend her complaint to assert additional claims under California's
Private Attorney General Act as well as individual claims for
wrongful termination and disability discrimination.


POM WONDERFUL: Court Moves Summary Judgment Hearing Dates
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in IN RE: POM WONDERFUL LLC MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION, NO. ML 10-02199 DDP (RZX), (C.D. Cal.), has
filed an ex parte application seeking to continue upcoming summary
judgment hearing dates until after the class opt-out period has
expired. Though a nationwide Plaintiff class has been certified in
this case, the parties have not yet agreed upon a class notice
plan, and notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)
has not been sent to potential class members. Potential class
members have not, therefore, yet had any opportunity to opt out of
the class.

Nevertheless, Defendants filed four motions for summary judgment
and Plaintiff filed one summary judgment motion, all of which were
currently set for hearing on October 28, 2013. Defendants moved to
continue those hearings until the expiration of the class opt-out
deadline, which has yet to be established. Plaintiffs opposed the
continuance.

District Judge Dean D. Pregerson granted in part the Defendant's
ex parte application.  The Court ruled that all pending motions
for summary judgment are continued until the expiration of the
class opt-out period.  Any motion to decertify the class must be
filed within three weeks of the date of the order.  The parties
were also ordered to file a joint status report regarding class
notice, including a suggested hearing date for the motions for
summary judgment, within fourteen days of the resolution of any
such motion.

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/oaYWJ5from Leagle.com.


REGIS CORPORATION: Gets $1.1 Million From Class Suit in 2012
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Regis Corporation's Aug. 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, the Company is a defendant in various
lawsuits and claims arising out of the normal course of business.
Like certain other large retail employers, the Company has been
faced with allegations of purported class-wide consumer and wage
and hour violations. In addition, the Company is a nominal
defendant, and nine current and former directors and officers of
the Company are named defendants, in a shareholder derivative
action in Minnesota state court.

The derivative shareholder action alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in
connection with their approval of certain executive compensation
arrangements and certain related party transactions. The Board of
Directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee to investigate
the claims and allegations made in the derivative action, and to
decide on behalf of the Company whether the claims and allegations
should be pursued.

The derivative action has been stayed by the court pending the
decision of the Special Litigation Committee. The company does not
know when the Special Litigation Committee will complete its work,
or what it will decide. Litigation is inherently unpredictable and
the outcome of these matters cannot presently be determined.
Although the actions are being vigorously defended, the Company
could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of
claims that could have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations in any particular period.

During fiscal year 2013, the Company incurred $1.2 million of
expense in conjunction with the derivative shareholder action.
During fiscal year 2012, the Company was awarded $1.1 million in
conjunction with a class-action lawsuit. During fiscal year 2011,
the Company settled a legal claim with the former owner of Hair
Club for $1.7 million.


SANDERSON FARMS: Oral Arguments in RICO Violations Suit in Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments whether a suit alleging Sanderson Farms, Inc.
violated Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Acts should be dismissed or not is tentatively set during
the week of November 18, 2013, according to the company's Aug. 27,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2013.

As reported in Item 3 of the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2012, two of the company's former employees
filed a complaint on February 16, 2012, alleging violations of the
federal and State of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations ("RICO") Acts against the company and seven of the
company's current and former employees in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs contend in their complaint that the Company
conspired to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants at the
Moultrie plant to "save Sanderson millions of dollars in labor
costs because illegal aliens will work for extremely low wages".

The action is brought as a class action lawsuit on behalf of all
legally authorized hourly employees that worked at the Moultrie
plant in the four years before the filing of the case. The
plaintiffs are suing for money damages, injunctive relief and
revocation of the company's license to conduct business in the
State of Georgia.

On September 13, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting a
motion to dismiss the Complaint, but provided the plaintiffs an
opportunity to file an Amended Complaint on one of the alleged
violations. After an Amended Complaint was filed by the plaintiffs
on October 5, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on October 29, 2012.

On February 5, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and entered an Order dismissing the Amended Complaint with
prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on February 8,
2013. The Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants was filed on March 19,
2013, and the Brief for Defendants-Appellees was filed on April
22, 2013. The Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief was filed May 6,
2013.

No party requested oral argument, but on July 17, 2013, the
Company received notice that the matter has been tentatively set
for oral argument during the week of November 18, 2013. This
matter is pending.


SOCIAL SECURITY: "Padro" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Carol Bagley Amon entered final approval of a
settlement resolving the case captioned LORRAINE PADRO, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant, NO. 11-CV-1788 (CBA) (RLM), (E.D. N.Y.).

This class action was brought by claimants for Social Security
disability benefits whose claims were denied by one of five
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) at the Queens Office of
Disability Adjudication and Review: ALJ Michael D. "Manuel"
Cofresi, Seymour Fier, Marilyn P. Hoppenfeld, Hazel C. Strauss,
and Hearing Office Chief David Z. Nisnewitz.  On May 3, 2013, the
Court conditionally certified the class for settlement purposes
only, preliminarily approved the settlement, and approved notices
of the proposed settlement to be sent to class members.

Under the terms of the settlement, a class member whose claim for
disability benefits was denied or partially denied during the
period from January 1, 2008 through the date on which the
settlement agreement is approved is entitled to a readjudication
of his or her claim before an ALJ other than a Named ALJ, with
certain exceptions.

Judge Amon ruled that the class action settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and ordered the Clerk of Court to
terminate all pending motions, enter judgment and close the case.

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Memorandum & Order
is available at http://is.gd/609M4afrom Leagle.com.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Deal in Credit Card Users' Suit Has Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Chalres R. Breyer granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in:

* ROBERT MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
  situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., a Texas
  Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, CASE
  NO. C-12-5978-CRB, (N.D. Cal.); and

* JAMIE LUMOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
  situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., a Texas
  corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, CASE
  NO. C-13-1429-CRB, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court consolidated the actions for the purpose of the order
preliminarily approving the settlement and notifying the putative
class members.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement based on
the terms set forth in the parties' Stipulation of Settlement. The
Court preliminarily finds that the terms of the proposed
settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class,
pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court preliminarily certified a Settlement Class defined as:
All individuals who used a credit card or debit card to complete a
purchase or transaction at a Southwest airport ticket counter or
cargo counter resulting in an electronically printed receipt
between October 17, 2007 and January 25, 2013.

The Court appointed Eric A. Grover, Daniel F. Gaines and Todd D.
Carpenter as Class Counsel, and Robert Miller and Jamie Lumos as
the Class Representatives.

The Court confirmed Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator.

The Court will hold a Final Settlement Approval Hearing on March
14, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. to consider the fairness, reasonableness
and adequacy of the proposed settlement as well as the award of
costs, fees and incentive awards.

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/qFr8hffrom Leagle.com.

ERIC A. GROVER -- eagrover@kellergrover.com -- (SBN 136080),
KELLER GROVER LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiff ROBERT MILLER on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated.

TODD D. CARPENTER -- todd@carpenterlawyers.com -- (SBN 234464),
CARPENTER LAW GROUP, San Diego, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMIE
LUMOS on behalf of herself and others similarly situated


STERLING JEWELERS: Jan. Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a labor suit against Sterling Jewelers Inc. have
proposed that a hearing on claimants' motion for class
certification be held during the week of January 20, 2014,
according to the company's Aug. 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 3, 2013.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
Sterling Jewelers Inc. ("Sterling"), a subsidiary of Signet
Jewelers Limited, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that US store-level employment
practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional
activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. In June 2009, the arbitrator ruled that the arbitration
agreements allowed the Claimants to proceed on a class-wide basis
and attempt to seek class certification. Sterling challenged the
ruling and the District Court vacated the arbitrator's decision in
July 2010.

The Claimants appealed that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. In July 2011, the Second Circuit reversed the
District Court's decision and instructed the District Court to
confirm the Arbitrator's Award (i.e., to allow the Claimants to
move forward with a proposed class claim in arbitration). Sterling
filed a petition for rehearing en banc of the Second Circuit
panel's decision, which was denied on September 6, 2011.

Sterling filed a petition writ of certiorari with U.S. Supreme
Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision, which was
denied.


STERLING JEWELERS: Deadlines Set in N.Y. Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Schedules have been set in a suit filed against Sterling Jewelers
Inc. by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"),
according to the company's Aug. 29, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 3, 2013.

On September 23, 2008, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Sterling
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
The EEOC's lawsuit alleges that Sterling engaged in intentional
and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and
promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003
to the present.

The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-
monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact
discovery closed on May 13, 2013. Pursuant to the Court's case
management order, on June 21, 2013, the EEOC designated its
experts and produced their reports. Sterling's disclosure of its
experts and their reports are due on October 3, 2013.

The EEOC's expert rebuttal submission is due on December 20, 2013.
Expert discovery is ongoing, and all expert depositions must be
completed by January 10, 2014. Any dispositive motions must be
filed by February 4, 2014. In the event that no dispositive
motions are filed, a status conference is set for February 7,
2014.

Sterling denies the allegations of both parties and has been
defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or
amount of loss is able to be estimated.

In the ordinary course of business, Signet may be subject, from
time to time, to various other proceedings, lawsuits, disputes or
claims incidental to its business or not significant to Signet's
consolidated financial position.


TUESDAY MORNING: Trial in "Randell" Labor Suit Set for December
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the labor suit Julia Randell, et al.,
v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., No. BC403298 and trial has been set for
December 3, 2013, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company is defending against a class action lawsuit filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, on December 5, 2008
-- Julia Randell, et al., v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., No. BC403298
(Cal. Super. Ct.) -- in which the original complaint alleged
violations of California's meal and rest period laws.

The named plaintiffs, who are former employees of the Company,
subsequently amended the complaint three times. Narrowing their
class allegations, the two named plaintiffs moved on March 14,
2012 to certify a class on the issue of whether the Company's
alleged practice of providing "on-duty" meal periods to Senior
Sales Associates violates the California Labor Code.

The Court granted that motion on June 20, 2012, certifying a class
comprised of current and former Senior Sales Associates who worked
for the Company in California, and who were required to take meal
breaks "on duty" at any point from April 1, 2005 to the present.
The Company filed motions to decertify the class and for summary
judgment on January 4, 2013, which the Court denied on March 29,
2013. Discovery is continuing and trial has been set for December
3, 2013. The Company believes the claims are without merit and
will continue to vigorously defend against them.


U.S. NURSING: Nurses' Class Suit Deal Gets Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granted final approval of a class
action settlement resolving the case captioned SHAMEKA BOLTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. U.S. NURSING CORP., and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, NO. C 12-4466 LB, (N.D. Cal.).

The "settlement class" is defined as:  All present and former non-
exempt U.S. Nursing employees who were placed to work in health
care facilities on a temporary basis during labor disputes at any
time since July 25, 2008 through preliminary approval of the
Settlement.

In sum, the settlement agreement provides for a total payment of
$1.7 million allocated to the following categories: (1) $1,635,000
to participating class members as class relief, provided that U.S.
Nursing shall separately pay the employer's share of the
applicable payroll taxes4; (2) $15,000 to the State of California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency; (3) $40,000.00 in
settlement administration costs, with any remainder being
distributed to Participating Class Members; (4) a $10,000.00
incentive award to Ms. Bolton; and (5) reasonable attorneys' fees,
as awarded by the court.

The court finds that viewed as a whole, the settlement is
sufficiently "fair, adequate, and reasonable" such that approval
of the settlement is warranted.

The court approves the $1,700,000.00 settlement amount (including
$27,917.61 to the claims administrator), and awards $450,000.00 in
attorney's fees and costs to the class counsel.

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


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Court Heard Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on August 27, 2013, heard Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company alleging
violations of the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's sale of counterfeit
versions of its products, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two shareholder class action
complaints were filed against Ubiquiti Networks, certain of
Ubiquiti Networks' officers and directors and the underwriters of
Ubiquiti Networks' initial public offering in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  On
January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint, which alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf
of a purported class of those who purchased Ubiquiti Networks
common stock between October 14, 2011 and August 9, 2012 and/or
acquired Ubiquiti Networks stock pursuant to or traceable to the
registration statement for the initial public offering. The
Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the sale of counterfeit versions
of Ubiquiti Networks products. The consolidated complaint seeks,
among other things, damages and interest, rescission, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 26, 2013, Ubiquiti Networks filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an opposition
to Ubiquiti Networks' motion to dismiss. On August 27, 2013, the
court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

According to Ubiquiti Networks, "We believe that the allegations
in the consolidated complaint are without merit and intend to
vigorously contest the litigation. However, there can be no
assurance that we will be successful in our defense. Because the
case is at a very early stage, we cannot currently estimate the
loss or the range of possible losses we may experience in
connection with this litigation."

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. is a communications technology Company.
designs, manufactures and sells broadband wireless solutions
worldwide. The Company offers a portfolio of wireless networking
products and solutions, including systems, high performance
radios, antennas and management tools, designed for wireless
networking and other applications in the unlicensed radio
frequency (RF) spectrum. The Company offers solutions that
incorporate its RF technology, antenna design and firmware
technologies, which it refers to as AirTechnologies. It offers a
portfolio of communications networking products and solutions and
it recently introduced products in the video surveillance,
wireless backhaul and machine-to-machine communication markets. As
of June 30, 2012, Ubiquiti's AirTechnologies included UBNT,
airControl, airGrid, airMAX, airView, airOS and design, UniFi and
design, and a number of trademark applications and registrations
in the United States.


UNITED STATES: Case Mgmt Conference in "Haskell" Moved to Feb.
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles r. Breyer continued the November 1, 2013
case management conference in HASKELL v. HARRIS to February 7,
2014 at 8:30 a.m.

The case is ELIZABETH AIDA HASKELL, REGINALD ENTO, JEFFREY PATRICK
LYONS, JR., and AAKASH DESAI, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney
General of California; EVA STEINBERGER, Assistant Bureau Chief for
DNA Programs, California Department of Justice, Defendants, CIVIL
CASE NO. C 09-4779 CRB, (N.D. Cal.).

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

PETER C. MEIER -- petermeier@paulhastings.com -- (SB# 179019),
PAUL HASTINGS LLP San Francisco, CA, MICHAEL T. RISHER --
mrisher@aclunc.org -- (SB# 191627), AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. San Francisco, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ELIZABETH AIDA HASKELL, REGINALD ENTO,
JEFFREY PATRICK LYONS, JR., and AAKASH DESAI, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated

Enid A. Camps, Deputy Attorney General, Attorneys for Defendants,
KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California and EVA
STEINBERGER, Assistant Bureau Chief for DNA Programs, California
Department of Justice.


UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Plaintiff Denied More Time to Respond
-------------------------------------------------------------
In SYLVIA WONASUE, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND ALUMNI
ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. PWG-11-3657, (D. Md.),
Ms. Wonasue alleges disability discrimination, retaliation, and
unlawful termination after Defendants allegedly denied her request
for reasonable accommodations while she was pregnant, and then
constructively discharged her from her position. Defendants filed
their Motion for Summary Judgment on July 19, 2013, and Ms.
Wonasue's response was due August 5, 2013.  Ms. Wonasue did not
file an opposition.  Instead, she filed a motion on September 17,
2013, six weeks after the response deadline, seeking leave to file
her response to Defendants' motion on September 20, 2013. This was
Ms. Wonasue's first request for additional time to respond, and
her first indication that she intended to respond to Defendants'
motion.

District Judge Paul W. Grimm denied Ms. Wonasue's motion to extend
saying she has not shown excusable neglect or good cause for her
delay in filing her opposition or her Motion to Extend Time to
file her opposition.

Judge Grimm notes that Ms. Wonasue has been indifferent to the
Court's scheduling order since the inception of the case. In
February, 2012, she filed a consent motion for extension of time
to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, which Chief Judge
Chasanow, who was assigned to the case at that time, granted; in
June, 2012, she asked for an extension of the scheduling order
deadline, which Chief Judge Chasanow granted; and she moved for an
extension of time to complete discovery on November 2, 2012, which
Chief Judge Chasanow granted.

Judge Grimm added that since she is denying Ms. Wonasue's motion,
she will be considering the Defendants' summary judgment motion as
unopposed, such that "those facts established by the motion" will
be "uncontroverted."  Nonetheless, she said, the Defendants will
have to demonstrate that, based on those facts, they are entitled
to judgment as a matter of law, because "[t]he failure to respond
to the motion does not automatically accomplish this."

"Thus, although this ruling prevents Plaintiff from opposing
summary judgment, it is not a sanction, let alone a dispositive
sanction," Judge Grimm ruled.

A copy of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/rgmtdtfrom Leagle.com.


WET SEAL: Labor Suit in Calif. Won't Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A labor suit originally filed against The Wet Seal, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco is back to the trial court where it will proceed on
behalf of only the three named plaintiffs and not as a class
action, according to the company's Aug. 27, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 3, 2013.

On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on
behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees
who were employed and paid by the Company from September 29, 2004
through the present.

The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges
various violations under the State of California Labor Code and
the State of California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs
are seeking reimbursement for alleged uniform and business
expenses, injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties,
interest, and attorney's fees and costs.

On August 16, 2011, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification. Plaintiffs appealed and, on October 12, 2012, the
California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. On
January 23, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs'
petition for review.

On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued an order to send
the case back to the trial court where it will proceed on behalf
of only the three named plaintiffs and not as a class action.


WET SEAL: Nov. 18 Final Approval Hearing on $7.5M Accord
--------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a final approval of a settlement reached in a suit
filed on behalf of current and former African American retail
store employees of The Wet Seal, Inc. has been scheduled for
November 18, 2013, according to the company's Aug. 27, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Aug. 3, 2013.

On July 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of certain
of the Company's current and former African American retail store
employees. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint
alleged various violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, including
allegations that the Company engaged in disparate treatment
discrimination of those African American current and former
employees in promotion to management positions and against African
American store management employees with respect to compensation
and termination from 2008 through the present.

Plaintiffs also alleged retaliation. Plaintiffs also sought
reinstatement or instatement of Plaintiffs and class members to
their alleged rightful employment positions, lost pay and benefits
allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs and class members, compensatory
damages for emotional distress, front pay, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and interest.

On May 8, 2013, the Company and Class Representatives filed papers
memorializing an amicable resolution to the case pending final
court approval. The Settlement Agreement provides for a cash
payment of $7.5 million and also includes programmatic relief
under which the Company agrees to post open positions, implement
new selection criteria and interview protocols, revamp its annual
performance reviews and compensation structure, add regional human
resource directors, implement more diversity and inclusion
communications and training for field and corporate office
employees, and enhance its investigations training and processes.

The Company has also reflected its commitment to use diverse
models in its marketing and to partnerships with organizations
dedicated to the advancement and well-being of African Americans
and other diverse groups. On June 12, 2013, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement and in June 2013 the
Company issued payment to the settlement administrator for $7.5
million. A hearing on final approval has been scheduled for
November 18, 2013.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of "Conlee" Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by plaintiffs in securities suit filed against WMS
Industries Inc. are appealing the dismissal of the case with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according
to the company's Aug. 29, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On May 25, 2011, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of the company's executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne
C. Conlee (the "Conlee lawsuit").

On October 13, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in the Conlee lawsuit. As amended, the lawsuit alleged that,
during the period from September 21, 2010 to August 4, 2011, (the
date the company announced the company's fiscal 2011 financial
results), the company made material misstatements and omitted
material information related to the company's fiscal year 2011
guidance. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of stockholders who
purchased stock between these dates.

The lawsuit specifically alleged violations of (i) Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "34 Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of
the 34 Act. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages. The
company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 8, 2011, and, on July 25, 2012, the Court granted the
company's motion without prejudice.

On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a further amended
complaint, which re-asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the 34 Act and under SEC Rule 10b-5. The company filed a motion
to dismiss the further amended complaint on October 26, 2012 and
on April 24, 2013, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss with prejudice. On May 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, which appeal is currently pending.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Stock Suit Over Scientific Games Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
WMS Industries, Inc. continues to face the suit In re WMS
Industries Inc. Stockholder Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP) in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, according to the company's Aug. 29,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The following complaints challenging the Merger of the Company
with Scientific Games, Scientific Games International, Inc., and
SG California Merger Sub, Inc. have been filed in various
jurisdictions:

(i) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Shaev v. WMS Industries,
Gamache, et al., (C.A. No. 8279);

(ii) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, Gardner v. WMS Industries, Scientific Games Corp., et
al., No. 2013 CH 3540 (Ill. Cir., Cook County);

(iii) in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of
Lake County, Illinois, Gil v. WMS Industries, Scientific Games
Corp., et al., No. 13 CH 0473 (Ill. Cir., Lake County);

(iv) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Hornsby v. Gamache, et al.
(C.A. No. 8295);

(v) in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of
Lake County, Illinois, Sklodowski v. WMS Industries, Inc. et al.,
(Ill. Cir., Lake County);

(vi) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Barresi v. WMS Industries
Inc., Gamache, et al., (C.A. No. 8326); and

(vii) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 152 Pension Fund and UA
Local 152 Retirement Annuity Fund v. WMS Industries Inc., Gamache,
et al., (Ill. Cir., Cook County).

Each of the actions is a putative class action filed on behalf of
the public stockholders of WMS and names as defendants the
Company, its directors and Scientific Games. The Shaev, Hornsby,
Barresi and Plumbers & Pipefitters actions also name Merger Sub
and Financing Sub as defendants. The complaints generally allege
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger and
that the entity defendants aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. The complaints seek, among other relief, declaratory
judgment and an injunction against the Merger.

On February 25, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the Delaware actions under In re WMS Industries Inc. Stockholder
Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). On March 1, 2013, the plaintiffs
in the consolidated Delaware actions filed an amended complaint,
adding allegations that the disclosures in WMS' preliminary proxy
statement were inadequate.

On March 7, 2013, plaintiff Gardner filed a Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint, asserting the same claims being asserted
in the consolidated Delaware action.

On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
submitted a letter to the Delaware Chancery Court stating that
they had conferred with plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and
agreed to stay the consolidated Delaware action.

Plaintiffs in the Gardner Action and the three other Illinois
actions moved for and obtained consolidation of all the Illinois
cases into the Gardner Action. On April 1, 2013, plaintiffs in the
Gardner Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger, scheduled for May 10,
2013. On April 19, 2013, plaintiffs in all other actions agreed to
a stay pending resolution of the Gardner Action.

On April 26, 2013, lead counsel in the Gardner Action, on behalf
of counsel for all plaintiffs in all actions, agreed with counsel
for all defendants in the Gardner Action to withdraw their motion
for preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the
stockholder vote in return for the agreement by WMS to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the Merger, all of
which were set forth in a Report on Form 8K that was filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2013. The
agreement with lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Gardner
Action will not affect the amount of Merger consideration that the
Company's stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger or
any other terms of the Merger Agreement. The litigation is still
pending.

The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the Gardner Action and specifically deny that
any breach of fiduciary duty occurred, or that any further
disclosure is required to supplement the Definitive Proxy
Statement under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.

The outcome of these lawsuits cannot be predicted with any
certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a
material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of the
Company. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting
permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion
of the Merger. The defendants believe that the claims asserted
against them in the lawsuits are without merit and plan to defend
against them vigorously. Additional lawsuits arising out of or
relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the
future.


WPX ENERGY: Court Denies Bid for Joint Scheduling Conference
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James O. Browning denied the defendants' motions
for an order setting joint scheduling conferences for two
separate, unconsolidated cases captioned:

THE ANDERSON LIVING TRUST f/k/a THE JAMES H. ANDERSON LIVING
TRUST, THE PRICHETT LIVING TRUST, CYNTHIA W. SADLER, and ROBERT
WESTFALL, Plaintiffs,
v.
WPX ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC f/k/a WPX ENERGY SAN JUAN, LLC and
WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, and WPX ENERGY ROCKY MOUNTAIN,
LLC, f/k/a WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY, LLC, Defendants,

and

STEVEN J. ABRAHAM, and H LIMITED PARTNERSHIP on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
WPX ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC, f/k/a WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY,
LLC, WILLIAMS FOUR CORNERS, LLC, and WILLIAMS ENERGY RESOURCES,
LLC, Defendants, NOS. CIV 12-0040 JB/KBM, CIV 12-0917 JB/ACT,
(D.N.M.).

Judge Browning said the Plaintiffs in the Anderson and Abraham
cases do not agree to consolidate the cases for a scheduling
conference, and the Court will not force consolidation at this
time.

The Anderson case and the Abraham case arise from overlapping,
although not identical, disputes over alleged unpaid royalty
payments. The Plaintiffs in Anderson "each own a non-cost bearing
interest in the revenues derived from the production and sale of
hydrocarbons pursuant to the terms of oil and gas leases owned or
partially owned by Williams."  The Plaintiffs in Abraham bring
their action as a class action "on their behalf and on behalf of
all current and former owners of Royalty burdening San Juan Basin
oil and gas leases and wells now or formerly owned by WPX and its
corporate predecessors that are or have been productive of
conventional natural gas in the San Juan Basin."

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/7P30srfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Anderson Living Trust, Pritchett
Living Trust, Cynthia W. Sadler, and Robert Westfall, are
Turner W. Branch -- tbranch@branchlawfirm.com --   Cynthia Zedalis
-- czedalis@branchlawfirm.com --  Branch Law Firm, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, and:

   Brian K. Branch, Esq.
   The Law Office of Brian K. Branch
   902 Roma Avenue, N.W.
   Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
   Phone: 505.764.9710
   Fax: 505.764.9722

        - and -

   Karen Aubrey, Esq.
   Law Office of Karen Aubrey
   320 Paseo De Peralta, Suite A
   P.O. Box 8435
   Santa Fe, NM 87504
   Phone: (505) 982-4287
   Fax: (505) 986-8349

        - and -

   Bradley D. Brickell, Esq.
   Brickell & Associates, P.C.
   1014 24th Ave NW # 100
   Norman, OK 73069
   Tel: 405-360-0400

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Steven J. Abraham and H Limited
Partnership:

   Jake Eugene Gallegos, Esq.
   Michael J. Condon, Esq.
   GALLEGOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
   460 St Michaels Dr.
   Santa Fe, NM 87505
   Tel: 505-983-6686

Attorneys for the Defendants WPX Energy Production, LLC, WPX
Energy Rocky Mountain. LLC, Williams Four Corners, LLC, and
Williams Energy Resources, LLC, are Bradford C. Berge, Robert J.
Sutphin, Elisa C. Dimas, Holland & Hart LLP, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
and:

   Sarah Gillett, Esq.
   HALL ESTILL HARDWICK PC
   320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 200
   Tulsa, OK 74103-3706
   Telephone: (918) 594-0439
   Facsimile: (918) 594-0505


                             *********

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  * * *