CAR_Public/131111.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 11, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 223

                             Headlines

ACER AMERICA: Attorneys Awarded Less Than Half of Requested Fees
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Health Data
APPLE INC: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Class Suit Claims
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit in Massachusetts
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Violates Credit Card Consumer Laws, Suit Says

ATOSSA GENETICS: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in Washington
ATP OIL: Directors Misrepresented Financial Condition, Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Fannie Mae Sues Banks Over Libor Manipulation
BANKRATE INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Public Offerings
BEEMSTERBOER SLAG: Faces Class Action Over Petcoke Emissions

BELL MOBILITY: Cassels Brock Discusses Class Action Certification
BHP BILLITON: Fails to Pay Natural Gas Royalties, Suit Claims
BNC MORTGAGE: Faces "Coloma" Class Suit Over Disputed Property
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Roth" Suit
CONGREGATION DE STE-CROIX: Faces Second Abuse Class Action

EAST COAST TREE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Florida Suit Claims
ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Seek to Revive Darvon, Darvocet MDL
EMC MORTGAGE: Wins OK of $1.7MM Deal to Settle Interest Rate Suit
EXXON MOBIL: Judge Rejects Two Motions in Oil Spill Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Supreme Court Signs Off $9.5-Mil. Settlement

FREMONT INVESTMENT: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act
GARDEN FRESH: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Wages in California
GLADSTONE PORTS: Faces Class Action Over Massive Dredging Project
GOLD'S GYM: Fails to Pay Sales Associates' OT Wages, Suit Claims
ILLINOIS: Retirees Sue Over Health Insurance

IMELDA MARCOS: Tycoon Pays $43MM for Monet; $10MM to Victims
JOHNS HOPKINS: Settlement Moving Forward in Suit Over Gynecologist
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settles Risperdal Marketing Suit for $2.2 Mil.
KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized HIV Test
KBR INC: Ordered to Pay $1.96-Mil. in OT Class Action Damages

KEEL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages in Alabama
KEEL & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Wages in Alabama
MELROSE EATERY: Pays Workers Less Than Minimum Wage, Suit Says
NEW SOUTH WALES: Jones Day Discusses Class Action Ruling
NVA UTILITIES: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages

ORANGE BLOSSOM: Recalls Hot Dog Relish Due to Possible Clostridium
PAUL BELLO: Sued in New York Over Unpaid Overtime Fees and Wages
PELLA CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Windows
PHILIPS ORAL: TINA Files Amicus Brief to Oppose Settlement
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Limits Medical Expenses' Insurance Coverage

RADIOSHACK CORP: Got Prelim. Approval of $6,000 Class Settlement
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Salad Products Over Listeria Scare
RESER'S FINE: Expands Recall on Chicken, Ham and Beef Products
RLG PIZZA: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Compensation
S&P DATA: Faces Class Suit by Customer Service Sales Rep in Ohio

SAC CAPITAL: $1.2-Bil. Class Action Settlement Challenged
SAINT JOSEPH'S ORATORY: Reviewing Bid to Institute Class Action
SIDRA INVESTMENT: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
TJX COMPANIES: Has Policy to Deny Earned Wages, Class Suit Says
UNITED FINANCIAL: Violates Truth in Lending Act, Suit Claims

UNITED STATES: Class Seeks "Just Compensation" for Property
UNILIFE CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
URBAN ACTIVE: December 31 Settlement Claim Filing Deadline Set
VICAL INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action in California
WAFFLE HOUSE: Faces Class Suit Over Overtime Fees in Alabama

WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: Repeatedly Violates FACTA, Suit Claims
YELP INC: Controls Reviews to Pander to Advertisers, Suit Claims

                             *********

ACER AMERICA: Attorneys Awarded Less Than Half of Requested Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge awarded less than half the requested attorneys'
fees in a class action accusing Acer of making and selling
computers that lack the memory to run the pre-installed operating
system, according to Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiffs Lora and Clay Wolph claimed the defect causes the
computers to freeze, crash, require rebooting and load slowly.

Microsoft Windows Vista Premium, the pre-installed operating
system, requires 2 gigabytes of Random Access Memory (RAM) to run
properly, but the computers have just 1 GB total, according to the
2009 complaint against Acer America Corp.

Buyers claimed they were forced to spend extra memory on
additional RAM and could not uninstall Vista Premium "without
experiencing other significant difficulties."  They said Acer
refused to provide alternative operating systems, such as Windows
XP.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White rejected the computer maker's
motion to reconsider his order granting class certification.

The two parties reached a settlement on Jan. 16, and White
preliminarily approved a revised settlement on April 11.

The class then asked the judge to approve the final settlement and
award attorneys' fees for three law firms.

Though White said the final settlement would come in a separate
order, he approved attorneys' fees of $943,217, costs of $171,768
and incentive awards of $4,000 -- lower than requested.

"In total, the court finds that it would have been reasonable to
spend 1,750 hours on litigating and settling this action, which is
a reduction of 62 percent from the requested 4,633.2 hours," he
said.

The proposed settlement was submitted in August and is awaiting
final approval.  It offers four options to class members for
relief, depending on their specific situations: receiving a 16 GB
USB flash drive with ReadyBoost technology that increases a
computer's speed and performance; a check for $10 or up to $100 in
reimbursement for past repairs; or a 1 GB or 2 GB laptop dual in-
line memory module that allows computers to operate with at least
2 GB of RAM.

The case is Wolph, et al., v. Acer America Corporation, Case No.
3:09-cv-01314-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Health Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harry Hitzeman, writing for Daily Herald, reports that two Kane
County residents are seeking class action status for a lawsuit
filed after the medical information for 4 million patients at
Advocate Health Care was stolen from a Park Ridge office this
summer.

According to a recently filed lawsuit, Aurora resident Matias
Maglio and Alexander Gil -- a resident of an unidentified town in
Kane County -- are seeking damages from the July 15 theft, in
which four computers were stolen.  The lawsuit argues their names,
addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and medical
diagnoses were pilfered and that Advocate should be held
responsible.

"There are more than 4 million individuals who have had their
personal information compromised as a result of Advocate's actions
and/or inaction," argues the lawsuit, which also maintains the
theft was a violation of the Illinois Personal Information
Protection Act and Illinois Medical Patients Rights Act.

The Downers Grove-based medical group, which operates 11 hospitals
in Chicago area and suburbs, announced the theft in late August
and began notifying patients then.

The lawsuit argues Advocate should have taken action sooner and
was, therefore, reckless and negligent.

Advocate officials did no comment directly on the lawsuit this
week, but pledged to put their patients first and take additional
steps to protect their information.

"We deeply regret any inconvenience this incident has caused our
patients who have entrusted us with their care," Advocate said in
an email.

"Our focus continues to be delivering the highest level of care
and service.  We are also committed to providing all individuals
impacted with tools and resources to protect their personal
information.  Although we are unable to comment specifically on
active litigation matters, we want to reassure our patients that
nothing leads us to believe the information has been misused.

"Additionally, in order to prevent an incident like this from
happening again, we are enhancing our security practices and
taking steps to ensure that all computers across the Advocate
system are encrypted," the statement read.

Messages left for the plaintiff's attorney, Robert Foote, and
others at his firm were not returned.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and is due in court Jan. 9,
2014.


APPLE INC: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Kalin, individually and on behalf of all the classes and
aggrieved employees v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-04727-WHA
(N.D. Cal., October 10, 2013) alleges that the Defendant failed to
pay wages and has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Apple, Inc. is a California corporation that is headquartered in
California.  During the four years preceding the filing of the
Complaint and continuing to the present, Defendant operated retail
stores in California and elsewhere within the United States and
the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Wang, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Harvey J. Berger, Frank
G. Haluska, Timothy P. Clackson, and Edward M. Fitzgerald, Case
No. 1:13-cv-12544-JLT (D. Mass., October 10, 2013) is a federal
securities class action brought on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased ARIAD
securities between December 12, 2011, and October 8, 2013,
inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

ARIAD is a global oncology company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of medicines to transform the
lives of cancer patients.  The Company's approach to structure-
based drug design has led to several molecularly targeted
medicines for drug-resistant or difficult-to-treat cancers.

ARIAD is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.  ARIAD is a global oncology company with a mission
to discover, develop and commercialize small-molecule drugs to
treat cancer in patients with the greatest and most urgent unmet
medical need -- aggressive cancers where current therapies are
inadequate.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  astewart@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM&GROSS LLP
          600 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM&GROSS LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Violates Credit Card Consumer Laws, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Johnson and Layne Butler, on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals and themselves individually v. Ashley
Furniture Industries, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation; and Does 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:13-cv-02445-BTM-DHB (S.D. Cal.,
October 10, 2013) alleges violations of credit card consumer
protection laws.

Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation
engaged in business in the state of California.  The Company is a
retail seller of furniture and other home furnishings throughout
the United States by and through numerous retail stores.  The
Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee George Werner, Esq.
          WERNER LAW FIRM
          18200 Von Karman Ave., Suite 900
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 553-1328
          Facsimile: (949) 553-8454
          E-mail: leegwerner@gmail.com


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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP
          1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101-1170
          Telephone: (206) 223-2053
          Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  lfportnoy@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLP
          60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


ATP OIL: Directors Misrepresented Financial Condition, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors misrepresented the
financial condition of ATP, an oil and gas company, in a $1.5
billion offering, and filed for bankruptcy less than 2 years
later, sending the share price from $15.36 to 30 cents,
shareholders claim in a federal class action in Louisiana.


BANK OF AMERICA: Fannie Mae Sues Banks Over Libor Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Timiraos and Andrew R. Johnson, writing The Wall Street
Journal, report that Fannie Mae on Oct. 31 sued nine of the
world's largest banks over alleged manipulation of interest rates,
joining the legal battles in the rate-rigging scandal.

The lawsuit, filed on Oct. 31 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan,
said that the mortgage-finance giant sustained an estimated $800
million in damages from banks that allegedly manipulated the
London interbank offered rate and other financial benchmarks.
Fannie also sued the British Bankers' Association, a private
association of large British banks.

                      The Libor Settlements

Banks across the world face a hefty bill for alleged attempts to
manipulate Libor, the London interbank offered rate benchmark, and
other interest rate indexes.

Freddie Mac sued more than a dozen banks and the BBA in March in
federal court over similar allegations.

The firms targeted in the suits include U.S. banks Bank of America
Corp., Citigroup Inc., and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co, and global
lenders Barclays Bank PLC, UBS AG, the Royal Bank of Scotland PLC,
Deutsche Bank AG, Credit Suisse Group AG and Rabobank Group.

Four of the banks -- Rabobank, RBS, UBS and Barclays -- have
reached settlements with regulators in which they admitted
wrongdoing and agreed to pay billions of dollars in total.

All of the defendants declined to comment on Oct. 31.

Fannie alleges that the banks colluded to suppress the U.S. dollar
Libor, causing it to lose money on interest-rate swaps that it
uses to hedge risks of investing in mortgages.  The lawsuit
included an analysis that found the banks' Libor submissions "were
particularly striking on days in which they settled large swap
positions with Fannie Mae," according to the complaint.

Fannie and Freddie buy loans from lenders and package them into
securities.  Most of the securities are sold to investors but they
keep some in their own portfolios.

Fannie said in the filing it was seeking at least $800 million in
damages for estimated losses plus punitive damages.

"Fannie Mae filed this action to recover losses it suffered as a
result of the defendants' manipulation of Libor," a company
spokesman said.  "We have a responsibility to be good stewards of
our resources."

The Oct. 31 suit is the latest legal salvo by the mortgage-finance
giants, which were bailed out by the U.S. government in 2008.  At
the peak of the credit crisis, the firms had cost taxpayers more
than $150 billion, but more recently, the companies have generated
large profits that have gone to the U.S. Treasury.

Fannie and Freddie's regulator filed suits against 18 of the
world's largest banks in 2011 seeking unspecified damages on $200
billion in mortgage securities sold during the housing bubble; it
settled the fourth of those lawsuits, with J.P. Morgan, for $4
billion.


BANKRATE INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Public Offerings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Bankrate, Inc., Thomas R. Evans,
Edward J. Dimaria, Seth Brody, Peter C. Morse, Bruce Nelson,
Richard J. Pinola, Christian Stahl, James Tieng, Mitch Truwit,
Apax Partners, L.P., Apax Partners LLP, Apax Partners Europe
Managers Ltd., Allen & Company LLC, Citigroup Global Markets,
Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA), LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co.,
J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Stephens, Inc., and Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-07183-JSR (S.D.N.Y,
October 10, 2013) is a securities class action lawsuit brought in
connection with, among other things, Bankrate's initial and
secondary public offerings.

Bankrate is a Delaware corporation majority-owned by Ben Holding
S.a r.l., a company beneficially owned by the Apax VII Funds and
controlled by Apax Partners.  Bankrate is a publisher and
distributor of personal finance information to consumers through
Bankrate-owned Web sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Jeroen Van Kwawegen, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1493
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com
                  jeroen@blbglaw.com


BEEMSTERBOER SLAG: Faces Class Action Over Petcoke Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Sfondeles, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that a
black cloud of dust keeps blowing onto Jean Tourville's Southeast
Side home.

"I can't open my windows or doors, and when I do, there's about a
quarter inch of black soot that comes inside," Ms. Tourville, 77,
said during a Loop news conference on Oct. 31 with other
homeowners.

Ms. Tourville, along with three other nearby homeowners
surrounding the Calumet River, filed a class action lawsuit
claiming mounting piles of "petcoke" -- a byproduct of the oil
refinery process -- is consistently blowing black dust in and
around their homes.

The suit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court comes a week after
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency filed a complaint
against Beemsterboer Slag Corp. for allegedly violating
environmental laws, regulations and permits, including not
submitting an annual emissions report last year for its facility
on 106th Street.

The Oct. 31 suit targets the owners and operators of three
terminals in the 2900 block of East 106th, the 3200 block of East
100th and the 10700 block of South Burley, including KCBX, KMR,
Beemsterboer, DTE, Calumet Transload and Koch Carbon.

Ms. Tourville, who lives near 109th and Mackinac, described the
heaping piles of petcoke as the "Himalayas."  The suit alleges the
piles are up to five stories high.  Ms. Tourville said she started
to notice the black soot years ago on sidewalks, on cars and
awnings.  She power-washes her patio, home and yard every two
weeks just to get rid of the dirt.

"They're not just little hills.  They're like mountains of dirt,"
Ms. Tourville said.  "When you see it in person, you're shocked."

Jane Gould, a homeowner in the 101st block of Avenue M, said she's
worried about petcoke's health effects.

"It's a constant concern for the kids that are in the
neighborhood.  We have a lot of them," Ms. Gould, 54, said.  "You
see them riding up and down . . . and all I think is they're
breathing this.  It's an eyesore.  It's a health issue.  It can't
be anything else than a health issue."

Alfredo Mendoza, another plaintiff, said he can no longer have
family gatherings outside: "Sometimes you have a cookout and you
notice on your potato salad, you see black dust over it.  How can
you eat this stuff? And when the wind blows, the dust becomes like
a black sky."

Safety data provided to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration on petcoke's hazards warns that excessive exposure
to petcoke dust can cause skin, eye or respiratory infection.
Repeated inhalation of petcoke can cause impaired lung function.

"The petcoke safety data sheet for the product itself warns you're
not supposed to breathe this, and if you do, you're supposed to
get fresh air immediately," said Thomas Zimmerman, the homeowners'
attorney.  "The problem that we have is there is no fresh air to
run to because the petcoke is polluting the area all throughout
the neighborhood."

Petcoke contains concentrated amounts of sulfur, as well as the
heavy metals nickel and vanadium, which is classified as a
possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research
on Cancer, the suit says.  The petcoke data sheet, however, states
there is no evidence that the exposure causes cancer.

The four-count suit seeks that the companies enclose the piles of
petcoke to stop the heap from blowing onto the surrounding
neighborhoods.  It also seeks monetary damages for the
inconvenience homeowners endure in constantly having to clean
their homes, yards and patios.

IEPA spokesman Andrew Mason said Beemsterboer contacted the agency
on Oct. 30 and is cooperating with state authorities, which he
said "will hopefully lead to a quicker resolution."  The issue now
goes straight to the attorney general's office for review,
Mr. Mason said.

Beemsterboer could not be reached for comment on Oct. 31.


BELL MOBILITY: Cassels Brock Discusses Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Hall, Esq., and Sarah McKinnon, Esq., at Cassels Brock
report that the Ontario Superior Court recently certified a class-
action lawsuit against Bell Mobility in which the plaintiff
challenges the company's practice of putting expiry dates on its
prepaid cell phone cards and its practice of treating any unused,
outstanding balance as forfeited.  Among other things, the
plaintiff claims that the company's practices contravene Ontario's
Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and, in particular, its Gift Card
Regulation.

It is important to note that this ruling does not decide the
merits of the case, but allows the plaintiff's claim to proceed to
trial as a class action to determine several issues involving the
company's practices handling expiry dates and regarding Ontario's
Gift Card Regulation.  Bell Mobility estimated to the Court that
there are approximately 1,040,400 people in the class -- being
persons who purchased prepaid cards branded Bell Mobility, Virgin
Mobile and Solo Mobile, paid on a pay-per-use basis, with balances
in their accounts at the end of an active period between May 4,
2010 and October 4, 2013 (the date the action was certified).

The lawsuit alleges that the prepaid phone cards and credits are
"gift cards" and that the use of expiry dates is contrary to the
Gift Card Regulation.  The argument is essentially as follows: (i)
the CPA stipulates that businesses cannot put expiry dates on gift
cards; (ii) a prepaid cell phone plan is a gift card under the CPA
-- the consumer has prepaid for a voucher (which can take several
forms and includes electronic credit) which the holder may apply
to the purchase of goods or services; and (iii) as such, pursuant
to the CPA, prepaid cell phone plans must be effective as though
they had no expiry dates and Bell Mobility's practice of seizing
the credit balances of its consumers constitutes a breach of
contract.

Bell Mobility responded that it is not subject to the Gift Card
Regulation, arguing alternatively that the prepaid plan for
wireless services fits within the "one specific good or service"
exemption set out in the Gift Card Regulation, and that the
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has
exclusive jurisdiction over wireless services.  The defendant also
pointed out that the Ontario government's website states that the
Gift Card Regulation is not intended to apply to prepaid phone
cards.  To this, the plaintiff replied that the website is
relevant but not determinative of a legal conclusion.  On the
issue of jurisdiction, the plaintiff argued that since there was
no federal law in place during the relevant period, the provincial
laws of general application continue to apply until any federal
law which creates an operational conflict takes effect.

The class action will also address the allegation that the company
seized unused balances on the date of expiry (rather than after
the expiry date as stated in its service agreements and
communications to its customers) and breached the phone card
agreement, resulting in unjust enrichment of the company.

By certifying the claim as a matter that may continue to trial
under Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court ruled that
there appears to be a plausible claim and a factual basis to
support hearing the matter as a class action.

It is worth noting that on June 3, 2012, the CRTC released The
Wireless Code which establishes a mandatory code of conduct for
mobile and wireless services providers, and would require
providers to give prepaid card consumers seven days following the
expiry date of the activated card to "top-up" their account
without losing their remaining credit balances.  The Code will
come into effect on December 2, 2013.

Cassels Brock expects this case will be of great interest to the
prepaid card community, including consumers and providers of
prepaid payment products.


BHP BILLITON: Fails to Pay Natural Gas Royalties, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Rath, On Behalf Of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated
v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Arkansas) Inc.; and BHP Billiton
Petroleum (Fayetteville), L.L.C., BHP Billiton Marketing Inc.,
Case No. 4:13-cv-00602-BSM (E.D. Ark., October 23, 2013) is
commenced based upon the Defendants' alleged underpayment of
royalties on natural gas from wells in Arkansas through improper
accounting methods (like starting with a price that is too low and
taking improper deductions) and by failing to account for and pay
royalties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith L. Grayson, Esq.
          GRAYSON & GRAYSON, P.A.
          209 East Main Street
          Heber Springs, AR 72543
          Telephone: (501) 206-0905
          E-mail: graysonandgrayson@att.net

               - and -

          Charles R. Hicks, Esq.
          111 Center Street, Suite 1200
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 371-0068
          E-mail: charlesrhicks@comcast.net


BNC MORTGAGE: Faces "Coloma" Class Suit Over Disputed Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zaldy Coloma and Gen Coloma, individuals, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. BNC Mortgage, Inc., as the
Original Lender; U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for
the Issuing Trust, Structured Asset Securities Corporation
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-BC2; American Home Mortgage Servicing,
Inc., as the Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming
any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in
the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff's
title, or any cloud on Plaintiff's title thereto, and Does 1-100
inclusive, Case No. 1:13-cv-00519-SOM-BMK (D. Haw., October 10,
2013) is brought on behalf of homeowners for declaratory judgment,
injunctive and equitable relief, and for compensatory, special,
general and punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs dispute the title and ownership of a real property
("Home") in that the originating mortgage lender, and others
alleged to have ownership, have unlawfully sold, assigned or
transferred their ownership and security interest in a promissory
note and mortgage related to the Property and, thus, do not have
lawful ownership and security interest in the Plaintiffs' Home.

The Corporate Defendants are corporations incorporated and doing
business in the state of Hawaii at all pertinent times.  The
Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true identities and capacities of
the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger Y. Dewa, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER Y. DEWA
          1164 Bishop Street Ste 1409
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (510) 301-6101
          E-mail: rogerdewaattorneyatlaw@gmail.com


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Roth" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Roth appealed on October 10, 2013, to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from an order dismissing
her class action lawsuit against CitiMortgage Inc.

The class action lawsuit, filed on May 16, 2012, in New York,
alleges violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the New York General
Business law.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Rosario G. Sicuranza, Esq.
          THE SICURANZA LAW FIRM LLC
          445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 25
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 953-1513
          E-mail: sicuranzalaw@gmail.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Therese Craparo, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1675 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-2312
          Facsimile: (212) 849-5921
          E-mail: tcraparo@mayerbrown.com

The appellate case is Roth v. CitiMortgage Inc., Case No. 13-
03839, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  The original case is Roth v. CitiMortgage Inc., Case No.
12-cv-02446, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.


CONGREGATION DE STE-CROIX: Faces Second Abuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sue Montgomery, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that
after paying C$19 million in damages and issuing a lukewarm
apology to the men they abused as children in their schools, the
Congregation de Ste-Croix may have to dip into its funds again.

Lawyers representing more alleged victims of the congregation
filed a motion on Oct. 31 in Quebec Superior Court asking
permission for a class-action suit on behalf of people abused in
six other institutions run by the congregation's priests and
brothers, including the iconic St-Joseph's Oratory.

Lawyer Alain Arsenault said 25 people have already come forward
since the first lawsuit, which was settled earlier this year.  
That class-action suit, which began with just one former student,
compensated 206 victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the
brothers, each receiving on average $60,890 in damages.  The abuse
took place in College Notre Dame, College de St-Cesaire and Notre-
Dame-de-Pohenegamook, and involved 80 perpetrators who were
members of the religious order.

Two of the religious brothers now face criminal charges in
connection with the abuse.

The motion filed on Oct. 31 asks that the suit cover all victims
from the Oratory, two orphanages, Ecole Notre Dame des Neiges,
College de Ste-Croix (which is now Maisonneuve CEGEP) and College
de St-Laurent (now St-Laurent CEGEP).

The money distributed earlier this year to victims is believed to
be the biggest class-action settlement against a religious order
in Canada, but Arsenault believes this suit could be even larger.

"This is meant to throw a wider net and capture all that wasn't
caught the first time around," Mr. Arsenault said at a press
conference to announce the action.  "The first one involved mostly
brothers but this time around, there will be priests."  He said of
the 25 victims who have come forward so far, 15 are alleging abuse
at the hands of a priest.

The lead plaintiff, identified only as J.J., claims he was
sexually abused once or twice a week over a period of two years
while he attended Ecole Notre Dame des Neiges.  He's asking for
$350,000 in damages.

His family lived in a building owned by the congregation which was
near St-Joseph's Oratory.  J.J. was often at the Oratory and
claims to have been abused several times by a priest.  He never
spoke to anyone about it, until the abuse committed by other
members of the congregation hit the news.

That first came to light in 2008 when a former brother of the
order came to The Gazette with documents showing that abuse had
taken place and that even the Vatican was aware of it.  In one
instance, an abused student was paid C$250,000 to keep quiet.

Some brothers, such as Claude Hurtubise, who is still alive and
living in Laval, were named by 37 victims in the first class-
action suit as being their abuser.

But despite the media coverage about the abuse, the congregation
doesn't seem any more willing to address the issue.

A Roman Catholic priest has been fired from the Oratory after he
tried to talk to his colleagues about an 18-year-old who told him
he had been abused by a priest from another parish.


EAST COAST TREE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Florida Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott R. Slechta, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. East Coast Tree Company, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and
Jeffrey Gomez, Individually, Case No. 0:13-cv-62226-WPD (S.D.
Fla., October 10, 2013) alleges that during the time period from
October 10, 2010, through April 19, 2013, the Defendants failed to
compensate the Plaintiff at the rate of one and a half times the
Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 within a single work week.

East Coast, a Florida Profit Corporation, is a landscaping company
located in Palm Beach County.  Jeffrey Gomez is a resident of
Florida, who owns and operates the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly A. McCallum, Esq.
          RUBENSTEIN LAW, P.A
          2 South University Drive, Suite 235
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 661-6000
          Facsimile: (954) 515-5787
          E-mail: kelly@Rubensteinlaw.com


ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Seek to Revive Darvon, Darvocet MDL
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that lawyers blaming heart abnormalities on the painkillers Darvon
and Darvocet and their generic equivalents are trying to jumpstart
their cases on appeal after a federal judge dismissed the vast
majority of the actions.

In a petition filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, plaintiffs' attorney Louis Bograd wrote that the cases
raised an issue of first impression: Can patients bring their
state law claims against a generic manufacturer that, by
continuing to sell an "unreasonably dangerous prescription drug,"
violated the federal misbranding statute?

In so arguing, Mr. Bograd, senior litigation counsel at the Center
for Constitutional Litigation, an appellate law firm in
Washington, hopes to revive the multidistrict litigation over the
painkillers, which were pulled from the market in 2010 due to
potentially fatal heart rhythm abnormalities.

"Nothing changed between the date when the FDA ordered the drug
pulled and the dates when various plaintiffs were taking the
product," he said.  "There was plenty of information that should
have led a responsible drug manufacturer to pull the drug
earlier."

The plaintiffs filed their brief on October 9. The drug companies
are set to file their response on November 12.

Attorneys for the brand name companies -- Mary Larimore --
larimore@icemiller.com -- a partner at Ice Miller in Indianapolis,
for Eli Lilly and Co., or Gina Saelinger -- gsaelinger@ulmer.com
-- a partner at Ulmer & Berne in Cincinnati who represents
Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- did not return calls for comment.

Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- a New York partner
at Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, lead counsel for the
generic manufacturers, called plaintiffs' appeal "another effort
to create a loophole where none exists."

"Since Mensing, plaintiffs have attempted to artificially
constrict the scope and holding of Mensing and to create
exceptions to Mensing," he wrote in an email to The National Law
Journal, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Pliva
v. Mensing.

U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves in Frankfort, Ky., who is
overseeing the multidistrict litigation, tossed nearly all of the
200 cases last year based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Pliva v. Mensing.

That 2011 ruling found that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers
couldn't be held liable for failing to warn about risks associated
with their products if they relied on federally approved labeling
used by the brand-name companies.  Judge Reeves also found that
most patients didn't take the brand-name drugs.

Briefing before the Sixth Circuit had been held up pending the
ruling in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, in which the U.S.
Supreme Court found on June 24 that Pliva's holding applied to
design-defect claims.

In his brief, Mr. Bograd latched onto a footnote in Bartlett
indicating that generic companies could be liable if, under the
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's misbranding statute, they failed to
pull a federally approved drug from the market that was later
found to be "dangerous to health."

"This is an issue the Supreme Court expressly identified as
something they had not held pre-empted in Bartlett and Mensing,"
Mr. Bograd said.  "It's therefore a live and viable legal theory
until somebody tells us otherwise, and it's also one that applies
to every single one of the Darvon plaintiffs."

He also cited the Sixth Circuit's March 13 decision in Fulgenzi v.
Pliva, which found that generic companies could be liable if they
didn't change the labeling of a drug after the FDA required the
brand name companies to do so.  In 2009, the FDA ordered the
warning labels on Darvon and Darvocet updated, but the cases
allege that the generic manufacturers hadn't done so at the time
the plaintiffs were prescribed the drugs.

"Where the plaintiffs took the drug after the relevant date, those
cases are no-brainers," he said.


EMC MORTGAGE: Wins OK of $1.7MM Deal to Settle Interest Rate Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gallegos, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
EMC Mortgage can pay $1.7 million to settle claims over mortgage
loans with allegedly misleading interest rates, a federal judge
ruled.

The class, led by Armando and Melania Plascencia, had filed the
2007 federal complaint against Lending 1st Mortgage.  EMC, as the
buyer of the loans that Lending 1st had originated, was later
added as a defendant.

Like "thousands of other" home owners, the Plascencias allegedly
bought optional adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARM, with the
promise that the loans had "a low, fixed interest rate."

In reality, however, the "plaintiffs were charged a different,
much greater interest rate than promised," the said. "Further,
defendants disguised from plaintiffs the fact that defendants'
Option ARM loan was designed to, and did, cause negative
amortization to occur.  Further still, once lured into these
loans, consumers cannot easily extricate themselves from these
loans.  Defendants' Option ARM loan includes a stiff and onerous
prepayment penalty making it extremely difficult to extricate from
the loans."

After the class settled with 1st Lending in May 2013, its makeup
was redefined to include only borrowers who took out option ARM
loans that EMC bought.  Just 572 loans are eligible under this
class definition.

Last month, the class stipulated to a new settlement with EMC.

Any class member of the class who chooses not to opt out will
receive a cash payment and no claims will be required.

"In order for settlement payments to be related to the amount of
negative amortization (the primary source of restitution sought by
settlement class members) incurred by settlement class members,
the payment schedule contains payment amounts that range from
$505-$5,469, depending upon the original principal amount of the
Loan and the time period for which the settlement class member
made regular monthly payments on account of the loan," the
agreement states.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken gave the deal preliminary
approval Friday, October 18, 2013.  In addition to a $1.7 million
fund for the settlement class, the lead plaintiffs will recover up
to $2,500 each in incentive payments.  Class counsel, in this case
Jeffrey Berns of Berns Weiss in Woodland Hills, Calif., will seek
up to 30 percent in compensation from the fund for services, costs
and expenses.

Wilken said there will also be a website containing information
about the settlement agreement and how to access claims.

The final hearing for the settlement is set for January 16, 2014.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          Lee A. Weiss, Esq.
          BERNS WEISS LLP
          20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite 140
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Toll Free: (855) 681-0000
          E-mail: jberns@law111.com
                  lweiss@law111.com

               - and -

          J. Mark Moore, Esq.
          SPIRO MOORE LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468
          Facsimile: (310) 235-2456
          E-mail: mark@spiromoore.com

               - and -

          Gerson H. Smoger, Esq.
          SMOGER & ASSOCIATES
          3175 Monterey Blvd.
          Oakland, CA, 94602-3560
          Telephone: (510) 531-4529
          Facsimile: (510) 531-4377
          E-mail: gerson@texasinjurylaw.com

               - and -

          Mark R. Cuker, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY LLC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 557-0099
          Facsimile: (215) 557-0673
          E-mail: mcuker@wcblegal.com

               - and -

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          ARBOGAST BOWEN LLP
          11400 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 477-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2309
          E-mail: david@arbogastbowen.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: Cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

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


EXXON MOBIL: Judge Rejects Two Motions in Oil Spill Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has rejected two
motions by Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit filed following an oil spill
from a ruptured pipeline in Mayflower.

U.S. District Judge Brian Miller in Little Rock denied the
company's request to dismiss the lawsuit and dismiss certain
class-action allegations.  Exxon Mobil had argued that some
members of the class have no standing in the case.

Judge Miller's rulings filed on Oct. 31 say the issues are not
"plain enough from the pleadings" to strike the class allegations.
He denied the motion to dismiss, saying that an amended complaint
by the plaintiffs meets pleading standards.

The company's Pegasus pipeline ruptured on March 29 and spilled
thousands of barrels of oil in Mayflower, a community about 25
miles northwest of Little Rock.


FACEBOOK INC: Supreme Court Signs Off $9.5-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that if the
outlook has been cloudy for cy pres awards in federal class
actions lately, on Nov. 4 thunder rumbled, with a downpour surely
on the way.

After weighing the case for a month, the U.S. Supreme Court
finally signed off on Nov. 4 on a $9.5 million settlement of a
Facebook class action that leans heavily on cy pres relief -- in
this case, $6.5 million awarded to a charitable foundation,
controlled partly by Facebook, to educate the public about online
privacy.

But Chief Justice John Roberts also served notice that the high
court is on the lookout for a case to determine "when, if ever,
such relief should be considered."  Leaving little doubt as to
which way he's leaning, Justice Roberts cited a law review article
that's critical of cy pres relief as furthering "the pathologies
of the modern class action."

"Obviously, we prefer to win than to lose," said Ted Frank of the
Center for Class Action Fairness, which had asked the high court
to take up the Facebook settlement.  "But we basically got a road
map going forward."

The order is ominous news for legal nonprofit groups that have
been relying on cy pres awards in a challenging financial
environment.  California law allows parties and judges broad
discretion to fashion cy pres relief to charitable organizations
when distributing funds to the class isn't practical.  A typical
scenario involves a case with small economic injury per class
member but millions of potential claimants.  Under the 2005 Class
Action Fairness Act, more of those cases are moving to federal
court, where the cy pres law is still developing.

Marek v. Lane, 13-136, stems from Facebook's short-lived Beacon
feature that broadcast details of users' online purchases from
third-party retailers like Zappos.com and Overstock.com.  Lead
plaintiff Sean Lane alleged that he bought a ring as a Christmas
gift for his wife, but Facebook ruined the surprise by
broadcasting news of the purchase to his 700 Facebook friends.

Because the potential class of 3.6 million members was so large,
plaintiffs lawyers led by Scott Kamber -- skamber@kamberlaw.com --
of KamberLaw in New York and Facebook proposed a cy pres
settlement where Facebook would spend $6.5 million to create a
foundation that educates users about online privacy.  The
foundation's three-person board of directors includes a Facebook
executive.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of
California approved the settlement, which also included about $2.3
million in attorneys fees.

The settlement was controversial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  A 2-1 panel upheld it, with Judge Procter Hug
Jr. writing that it bore "a substantial nexus to the interests of
the class members."  Judge Andrew Kleinfeld dissented, and five
other judges signed Judge Milan Smith Jr.'s dissent from denial of
en banc review.

Before the Supreme Court, Mr. Frank and other attorneys for
objectors argued that class members weren't getting a nickel even
though some may have been entitled to $2,500 in statutory damages.
The Supreme Court put the case on its weekly conference three
times before denying cert on Nov. 4.

Mr. Frank suggested one reason the court might have passed on this
case: At the district court level, before he became involved, the
parties had stipulated that providing monetary relief to the class
was not feasible -- even though a subsequent Facebook settlement
has proven that untrue.

But Mr. Frank was cheered by the "statement" Roberts issued with
cert denial.

"I agree with this court's decision to deny the petition for
certiorari," the chief justice wrote.  "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."

Citing an article by Northwestern University law professor
Martin Redish and others, "Cy Pres Relief and the Pathologies of
the Modern Class Action: A Normative and Empirical Analysis,"
Roberts said that "in a suitable case, this court may need to
clarify the limits on the use of such remedies."

"I think he's looking at a broader scope -- what judicial
authority is there for this?" Mr. Frank said on Nov. 4.  "That's
why he cited the Martin Redish article."

Though it could be some time before the high court finds the right
vehicle, Mr. Frank said, "I think this will get the attention of
more district judges" when considering cy pres relief.

Joan Graff, director of California's Legal Aid Society-Employment
Law Center, said federal judges are already aware of appellate
rulings that limited cy pres awards to beneficiaries with a close
nexus to the plaintiff class.  "There's clearly been a tightening
of the noose around cy pres awards," Ms. Graff said.  "You almost
feel like if you're not in the class you don't meet the nexus."

Ms. Graff called cy pres funds a great resource for legal services
programs at a time when other forms of support are precarious.
However, the scrutiny being applied by objectors, who can tie up a
settlement in appellate courts for years, is discouraging some
parties from considering cy pres awards in the first place, she
said.

"If there is an abuse, it can be changed in a particular
instance," Ms. Graff said.  "But that's not a reason to throw out
cy pres altogether."


FREMONT INVESTMENT: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Manalang and Leticia Manalang, Individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Fremont Investment
& Loan, as the Original Lender; HSBC Bank USA; National
Association, as Trustee for The Issuing Trust; Fremont Home Loan
Trust 2006-D; Litton Loan Servicing, LP, as the Mortgage Servicer
and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right,
title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the
complaint adverse to Plaintiff title, or any cloud on Plaintiff
title thereto; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:13-
cv-00521-DKW-RLP (D. Haw. October 10, 2013) accuses the Defendants
of violating the Truth in Lending Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger Y. Dewa, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER Y. DEWA
          1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1409
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (510) 301-6101
          E-mail: rogerdewaattorneyatlaw@gmail.com


GARDEN FRESH: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Wages in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Moreno v. Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp., Case No. 37-2013-
00071988-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., October 17,
2013) alleges that the Company did not pay its workers' overtime
wages.


GLADSTONE PORTS: Faces Class Action Over Massive Dredging Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Burdon, writing for Central Telegraph, reports that claims
of a cover-up over Gladstone's massive dredging project could be
key to a fishing industry class action against Gladstone Ports
Corporation.

Fisherman Trevor Falzon is leading the class action, which
includes more than 20 fishermen, crabbers and trawlers who want
more compensation for alleged lost fishing grounds.

It's the second case fishers have brought against the port,
claiming they weren't adequately compensated for the Western Basin
Dredging and Disposal Project.

Mr. Falzon said the latest case could include revelations of what
he called a "cover-up".  He claimed information about the
environmental effects of the project had been hidden from
regulators.  But a port corporation spokeswoman maintained no
environmental information had been withheld from state or federal
authorities.

Mr. Falzon alleged a report about a leaking bund wall was kept
under wraps for more than a year, before being released two weeks
ago.

"There's hundreds more things that have happened that they haven't
told us about," he said.

"In getting this case together, we've learnt they're not
forthcoming giving up the documentation, and even when we've been
to the authorities, it all fell on deaf ears."

That report found the bund wall, part of the Western Basin
dredging project, was leaking and causing turbidity problems in
the harbor.  In getting this case together, we've learnt they're
not forthcoming giving up the documentation, and even when we've
been to the authorities, it all fell on deaf ears

While the port acknowledged dredging operations had contributed to
some increased turbidity, it has maintained the project did not
contribute to fish disease problems in the harbor dating to 2011.

Mr. Falzon said while the case was mainly about compensation for
fishermen, he believed the port had a responsibility to release
information to regulators and the public.

"How can they do this when they had clear directions to release
information?" he said.  "The whole harbor development should be
stopped until it's sorted out."

The port spokeswoman said all reports related to the project were
"made available to all government departments and relevant
authorities".

But questions about the release of reports regarding the overall
environmental condition of the harbor unrelated to the dredging
project went unanswered on Oct. 31.

The spokeswoman said the port had released "hundreds of reports on
its website as required by license conditions", and GPC had met
all its obligations for reporting environmental incidents.  She
said GPC also provided "a full list of reports" undertaken for the
dredging project to the Federal Government's independent inquiry
into the harbor management.  She added "additional reports were
published when requested - as stipulated by the project's
conditions".


GOLD'S GYM: Fails to Pay Sales Associates' OT Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Richardson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gold's Gym International, Inc.; and Gold's Texas
Holdings Group, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-04104-L (N.D. Tex.,
October 10, 2013) seeks damages against Gold's Gym for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, Mr. Richardson alleges that Gold's Gym failed to pay
him and other sales associates for all time worked.  Hence, he
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, statutory
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.

Gold's Gym International, Inc. and Gold's Texas Holdings Group,
Inc. are Texas corporations headquartered in Irving.  The
Defendants own and operate health and fitness facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com


ILLINOIS: Retirees Sue Over Health Insurance
--------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that Illinois
cut pensions of state university retirees in exchange for free
health insurance for life -- then broke its word by charging for
the insurance, based on a percentage of the reduced pensions,
retirees claim in a class action.

Teresa Proctor and 24 other named plaintiffs sued Illinois and the
State Universities Retirement System, for a class of "thousands,"
in Federal Court.  The class consists of employees who retired
before working for the system 20 years.

In 1998, the defendants offered retirees the choice of accepting
reduced payments in exchange for free health insurance.  
"Plaintiffs, and thousands of others, entered into a signed
contract with defendant SURS whereby they made an 'irrevocable
election' to accept a reduction in their monthly retirement
annuities in exchange for free health insurance from the State of
Illinois for the remainder of their lives," the lawsuit states.

The state did reduce their pensions, Proctor says.  "Then, in July
2013, in derogation of the prior agreement, the defendants
unilaterally began charging plaintiffs and others a health
insurance premium calculated as a percentage of their retirement
annuity (now the reduced annuity based upon the election).  This
charge took the form of a line item deduction from the recipients'
monthly retirement annuity."

The named plaintiffs worked in diverse positions, including
professor, administrative assistant, carpenter, librarian, alumni
association chief financial officer, chief of police, and building
manager.

"The July 1 charge represented a new line item deduction to
plaintiffs' retirement checks, which SURS explained to some
retirees with the following statement: 'A change has been
processed to your insurance. This may have changed the net amount
of your benefit,'" the complaint states.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction, restoration of
the deductions taken for the insurance, with interest, damages
equal to the unfair deductions taken, costs and attorneys' fees,
and the free health insurance they were promised.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron Benjamin Maduff, Esq.
          Walker R. Lawrence, Esq.
          MADUFF & MADUFF, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, #2050
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 276-9000
          E-mail: docketclerk@madufflaw.com
                  wrlawrence@madufflaw.com

The case is Proctor, et al. v. Illinois Department of Central
Management Services, et al., 1:13-cv-07519, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


IMELDA MARCOS: Tycoon Pays $43MM for Monet; $10MM to Victims
------------------------------------------------------------
According to INQUIRER.net's Lynette Ordonez-Luna, citing reports
from Ceres P. Doyo, The New York Post and The Telegraph, a British
billionaire paid $43 million for a Monet masterpiece that once
belonged to former Philippine first lady Imelda Marcos then paid
another $10 million to thousands of Filipino rights victims to
keep it and himself from being dragged into court, US and British
media reported on Oct. 31.

The New York Post and Britain's The Telegraph said hedge fund
manager Alan Howard paid the Filipino class-action group in
exchange for a legal release on any claims regarding the ownership
of the painting "Japanese Footbridge over the Water-Lily Pond at
Giverny."

Mr. Howard, worth an estimated $1.6 billion, said he bought the
painting "in good faith" from a London gallery in 2010.  But US
investigators said the painting was stolen by Vilma Bautista,
former personal secretary of Imelda Marcos in New York, and
illegally sold it to pay off debts.

Ms. Bautista, 75, has been charged in Manhattan with conspiracy
and tax fraud over the illegal sale of the painting.

Mr. Howard, the Swiss-based founder of respected Brevan Howard
Asset Management, bought the painting from the London gallery and
dealership Hazlitt, Gooden & Fox in September 2010 after being
assured by the seller and legal advisers that the Monet
masterpiece was safe to buy, according to The Telegraph.

Mr. Howard is not accused of any wrongdoing and is not going to be
called to Ms. Bautista's trial.  But he is considering legal
action against the London gallery, the New York Post said, citing
a post on the website Smoking Gun.

                         Bautista's cut

The gallery reportedly made about $7.5 million on the sale of the
Monet.  The Telegraph said more than $30 million of the purchase
price went to Ms. Bautista.

Manhattan prosecutors said that after Ms. Bautista got the money
from the gallery, she gave $5.1 million to her nephews and another
$4.5 million to other associates.

The New York Post said she used $2.2 million to buy an apartment
in New York, spent $1.3 million on insurance and annuity products,
paid off a $637,000 mortgage and shelled out $800,000 for
miscellaneous expenses.

The prosecutors said the painting, along with several others,
vanished shortly after dictator Ferdinand Marcos was toppled from
power in February 1986.

Smoking Gun said the Monet was believed to have been the most
valuable in the collection of Imelda Marcos, who relocated to New
York after her husband's death in 1989 and who is now a
representative of Ilocos Norte province in the House of
Representatives.  But the painting did not appear on a list of
missing property suspected of being paid for with Philippine
government funds, Smoking Gun said.

                          Swift action

More than 9,500 victims of human rights violations during the
martial law regime of Marcos have filed class-action suits to
reclaim Marcos' assets in the United States, including the Monet
painting.  Through their American lawyer Robert Swift, the rights
victims filed suit against Bautista for the illegal sale of the
painting.

Messrs. Swift and Howard discussed the lawsuit and in June this
year, Mr. Howard agreed to pay the class-action group $10 million
in exchange for a legal release from all claims to the painting.

The $10 million was deposited to the class-action settlement fund
in federal court in Hawaii, which is handling the rights victims'
case.


JOHNS HOPKINS: Settlement Moving Forward in Suit Over Gynecologist
------------------------------------------------------------------
WJZ reports that in a stunning new development, there may be as
many as 9,000 victims of a Johns Hopkins gynecologist.

The report says Dr. Nikita Levy killed himself after allegations
surfaced that he secretly videotaped his patients during exams.  
Mike Hellgren told WJZ what else his victims claim he did to them.  
They say he performed extra exams and touched them
inappropriately.  Now, a class action settlement process is moving
forward in the case, with the lawyers representing the victims
praising Johns Hopkins.

Investigators say the gynecologist used a pen camera to record
exams at Johns Hopkins' East Baltimore Medical Center.  The FBI is
still sifting through thousands of images on Dr. Levy's computer.  
There may be 9,000 victims, and their lawyers are now working to
settle the class action case through a mediator.

"I think these women are in fear of getting their pap smears and
their examinations.  We have women who are in fear of seeing any
physician," said Jonathan Schochor, victims' lawyer.

"He always smiled.  Every time he was checking my privates.  He
smiled," a former patient said.  "When I went for my appointments,
there would never be another nurse in there.  It's just be him.
Just me and him."

The lawyers say it went beyond videotaping -- that Dr. Levy would
say inappropriate, unprofessional things during exams.

They're unsure whether any of the recordings were sold or placed
online.  Dr. Levy was well respected.  WJZ found his medical files
showed no previous complaints.

"Looks can be deceiving.  He was very nice.  Very, very nice.  I
actually recommended him," a former patient said.

Those representing the victims complimented Johns Hopkins for
trying to move the case forward and provide closure for the many
victims.

"Our job is to ensure our clients are treated fairly, are fully
compensated for the harm they've sustained," said Howard Janet,
victims' lawyer.  "The court will ultimately be the final
determiner of whether we've done what we needed to do."

Those lawyers will not discuss compensation.  They did say some of
the victims were minors.

The case blew open in February, when a co-worker of Dr. Levy's
noticed something suspicious and reported it to Hopkins security.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settles Risperdal Marketing Suit for $2.2 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $2.2
billion to resolve a suit involving, among other things, the
marketing for off-label use of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

It is the biggest settlement yet for a single drug, said
Zane Memeger, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, where the case was handled.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals is scheduled to plead guilty on Nov. 7 to
a charge related to its marketing of Risperdal, which had been
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of
schizophrenia, but was marketed for elderly patients with dementia
and mentally-ill children.

"The Department of Justice takes the FDA procedure seriously,"
Mr. Memeger said following a formal announcement of the deal in
Washington, D.C., on Nov. 4.  "Companies that decide to put profit
over patients will be prosecuted."

Janssen will pay $334 million as a criminal fine, $66 million as a
substitute for forfeiture of the drugs, and it has agreed to a
separate civil settlement with the federal government and several
states for about $1.3 billion, according to the plea and
sentencing agreement.

Johnson & Johnson will also pay $149 million to settle claims
related to kickbacks it allegedly paid to a long-term care
pharmacy, according to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., who gave
a prepared statement at a press conference on Nov. 4.

"In addition to these claims, we allege that Johnson & Johnson and
its subsidiary, Scios Incorporated, promoted the heart failure
drug Natrecor for off-label uses that caused patients to submit to
costly infusions of the drug -- without credible scientific
evidence that it would have any health benefit for those
patients," Mr. Holder said in the statement.  "In a separate
matter that was resolved in 2009, Scios pleaded guilty to
misbranding Natrecor and paid a criminal fine of $85 million.  To
resolve current allegations associated with the settlement we
announce today, the companies have agreed to pay an additional
$184 million."

In March 2012, Johnson & Johnson had paid $118 million to resolve
similar claims about Risperdal in Texas -- that amount is included
in the $2.2 billion total.

Starting in 2004, realtors began filing qui tam actions over the
marketing of Risperdal.  Four cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania -- Janssen
is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in New Jersey.

Whistleblowers from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will be
awarded $112 million -- Victoria Starr, the first to file, will be
getting $110 million from the federal government's share of the
Risperdal settlement, and Kurtis Barry will be getting $2 million
from the federal government's share of the Invega settlement,
according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia.

The assistant U.S. attorneys who worked on the case in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania were Charlene Fullmer, Mary Catherine
Frye, Albert Glenn and Scott Cullen.

Regarding the conduct of the drug companies, Stephen Sheller of
Sheller P.C. said, "They targeted children and the elderly."

Mr. Sheller represents Starr and has separate cases related to
Risperdal's effects on children, allegedly causing boys to develop
breasts, currently pending.  One of those children was giving a
deposition in his office when the Risperdal settlement was
announced on Nov. 4.

Thomas Sheridan -- tsheridan@sheridanandmurray.com -- of Sheridan
& Murray, who represented Mr. Barry, said that the size of the
settlement was possible largely because of the volume of sales for
Risperdal, which, he said, was at one point the leading
antipsychotic drug on the market.

Sales for the drug approached $2 billion in one year, he said,
explaining that companies typically get limited approval for their
drugs -- like the FDA's approval for Risperdal in the relatively
small schizophrenia market -- so they try to capture pieces of
other drug markets through promotion of off-label uses.

Mr. Barry had contributed evidence that the sales goals set by the
company for the drugs went beyond what would be possible from the
schizophrenia market share, according to Mr. Sheridan.  What was
striking about this case, Mr. Sheridan said, was that the
pharmaceutical company marketed the off-label uses for its drug to
the "most vulnerable members of society."

Johnson & Johnson has also agreed to go into a corporate integrity
agreement, or CIA, with the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.

"Among other things, the CIA requires J&J to change its executive
compensation program to permit the company to recoup annual
bonuses and other long-term incentives from covered executives if
they, or their subordinates, engage in significant misconduct,"
according to a release from the Department of Justice.

"The CIA also requires J&J's pharmaceutical businesses to
implement and maintain transparency regarding their research
practices, publication policies and payments to physicians.  On an
annual basis, management employees, including senior executives
and certain members of J&J's independent board of directors, must
certify compliance with provisions of the CIA.  J&J must submit
detailed annual reports to HHS-OIG about its compliance program
and its business operations," it says.

Janssen was expected to plead guilty to one count of introducing
misbranded Risperdal into interstate commerce in front of U.S.
District Judge Timothy J. Savage on Nov. 7.


KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized HIV Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Columbian's Paris Achen and The Associated Press report that a
Clark County woman has filed a lawsuit against Kaiser Permanente
for testing patients' blood for human immunodeficiency virus
without their knowledge or consent.  She's seeking to have the
suit made into a class action.

The lawsuit was filed by Mary E. Benton in Clark County Superior
Court.  The lawsuit seeks $1,000 or actual damages for each
patient whose right to opt out was negligently violated and
$10,000 or actual damages for each patient whose right to opt out
was recklessly violated.

Benton has the same name as the wife of state Sen. Don Benton of
Vancouver and is the only Mary E. Benton listed as a registered
voter in Clark County.  However, The Columbian was unable to
confirm if the plaintiff is the 51-year-old wife of the Republican
senator from Vancouver.

In April, Kaiser started phasing in a new protocol in line with a
federal recommendation to routinely test all adults for HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS.  Patients ages 50-65 were the first phase.
People older than 50 also have the fastest growing rate of HIV,
according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Ms. Benton claims that she was among about 6,500 other Oregon and
Washington Kaiser members who were tested for the disease between
April 11 and May 5 without their knowledge, which violates
Washington state law, the lawsuit says.  Her suit, filed on
Oct. 28, is on behalf of herself and the others who were affected.

The case was filed by Seattle law firm, Stritmatter Kessler Whelan
Coluccio.  The claims are brought strictly under state law, rather
than federal law, the suit says.

Attorney R. Travis Jameson of the firm declined to comment on the
case or confirm or deny whether the plaintiff is the wife of the
senator.  Don and Mary Benton did not return phone calls from The
Columbian seeking confirmation of her possible involvement in the
suit.

Kaiser Permanente Northwest apologized in mid-May for testing the
6,500 Kaiser patients without their knowledge or consent.

At that time, Kaiser said in a statement:

"We deeply regret that this lack of communication may have caused
unnecessary concern for our members and patients," and have "taken
steps to ensure that members have an opportunity to opt out of the
test going forward."

Dr. Tom Hickey, Kaiser's chief medical officer, said in a
statement on Nov. 1 that the health organization took "immediate
steps to protect the interest of our members."

He said he couldn't comment further on the pending litigation.

However, he noted that HIV remains an epidemic in the United
States, with 56,000 people infected each year.

"Kaiser Permanente remains committed to continuing its efforts to
remain a national leader in HIV/AIDS care and early detection," he
said.


KBR INC: Ordered to Pay $1.96-Mil. in OT Class Action Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Lawson, writing for Law360, reports that an Iowa federal jury
on Oct. 30 handed down a verdict requiring maintenance contractor
KBR Inc. to pay $1.96 million in total damages in a class action
to offset the company's failure to pay overtime wages to its
workers at an Archer Daniels Midland Co. corn processing plant.

The jury was ultimately swayed by arguments from the workers that
KBR and its predecessor, BE&K Inc., were in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by not compensating them for time spent
performing work-related tasks upon entering the facility and
paying for work only completed during pre-established shifts.

"We're just so happy because we think this is an important case
for workplace justice," said Dorothy O'Brien, an attorney
representing the plaintiffs.  "We're very proud to represent these
hard-working men and women."

The victory for the KBR workers broke down into two overarching
claims.  First, they successfully convinced the jury that they
were required to perform work duties from the moment they stepped
inside the main gate of the expansive Archer Daniels Midland
complex, where there was nearly a mile walk to the clock-in
station.

The jury also found that the plaintiffs were performing work-
related duties from the time they swiped in through the time they
swiped out.  But if an employee clocked into a shift early to get
a jump on a heavy workload, KBR would not begin to compensate them
until the beginning of the official shift and therefore improperly
rounded the time on its workers' time cards under the FLSA, the
jury said.

In its verdict, the jury broke down the damages into a $1.4
million reward for the opt-in FLSA class and a reward of just more
than $535,000 for the state claims class.

KBR workers Jacob Cinadr and Robert Edens first filed the FLSA
class action in 2011.  Earlier this year, KBR failed in its
attempt to secure summary judgment on the workers' walking time
and swipe-to-swipe claims, but scored a small victory in
dismissing one of the plaintiffs who failed to show up for a
deposition.

Attorneys for KBR did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on Nov. 1.

The plaintiffs were represented by Brent Edward Pelton of Pelton &
Associates PC and by Dorothy A. O'Brien of Dorothy A. O'Brien,
Attorney & Counselor Law PLC.

KBR was represented by Michael Shawn Hudson --
msh@kullmanlaw.com -- and Jerrald L. Shivers --
jls@kullmanlaw.com -- of The Kullman Firm and by Martha L. Shaff
-- MLS@bettylawfirm.com -- of Betty Neuman & McMahon PLC.

The case is Cinadr et. al. v. KBR, Inc. et. al., case number 3:11-
cv-00010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa.


KEEL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Brinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Keel & Associates Inc., Dr. Edwin Keel,
d/b/a Dr. Keel and Associates Healthcare, and Connie Keel,
individually, Case No. 3:13-cv-01883-AKK (N.D. Ala., October 10,
2013) is brought to seek relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory relief, and other appropriate
relief.

The Company provides medical services on an urgent care/walk in
basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Camp, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: rcamp@wcqp.com


KEEL & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Wages in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Brinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Keel & Associates Inc., Dr. Edwin Keel,
d/b/a Dr. Keel and Associates Healthcare, and Connie Keel,
individually, Case No. 3:13-cv-01882-AKK (N.D. Ala., October 10,
2013) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory relief, and other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.

The Defendants provide medical services on an urgent care/walk in
basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Camp, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: rcamp@wcqp.com


MELROSE EATERY: Pays Workers Less Than Minimum Wage, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abel Molina, Anahu Serrano, and Francisco Ortiz, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Melrose Eatery Inc.
d/b/a/ Melrose Restaurant, and Sam Diamantopoulos, Case No. 2:13-
cv-01152-RTR (E.D. Wis., October 10, 2013) is brought on behalf of
those who are, or were, employed by the Defendants as cooks, prep
cooks, bussers, and dishwashers.

The Plaintiffs allege that it is the policy of Melrose Eatery,
Inc. to compensate their Cooks, Prep Cooks, Bussers, and
Dishwashers at a rate less than minimum wage and to deny payment
of overtime premium wages at one and one-half times the regular
rate for hours worked over 40 hours per week.

Melrose Eatery, Inc. operates the Melrose Restaurant in Oak Creek,
Wisconsin.  Sam Diamantopoulos is the owner of Melrose Eatery,
Inc.  He oversees the day-to-day operations and has control over
the compensation and human resources aspects of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
          222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
          PO Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynord@hq-law.com


NEW SOUTH WALES: Jones Day Discusses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
John Emmerig, Esq. -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- and Michael Legg,
Esq. -- mlegg@jonesday.com  -- at Jones Day report that on
September 27, 2013, Garling J of the Supreme Court of New South
Wales handed down his judgment in the first class action
proceeding to be brought in New South Wales pursuant to Part 10 of
the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW): Konneh v State of NSW (No. 3)
[2013] NSWSC 1424.  

Part 10 was inserted into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) so as
to make "representative proceedings" available in NSW courts.[1]
Part 10 commenced on 4 March 2011 and supplements the class action
procedures that exist at the federal level and in the State of
Victoria.[2]

Unlike most other class action proceedings, which have been in the
area of commercial law such as securities and cartel class
actions, or product liability claims, Konneh v State of NSW dealt
with children who were detained by police for breach of bail
conditions.  The claims dealt with two categories of case: (i)
where a group member was not subject to bail but was nevertheless
arrested for being in breach of bail conditions, and (ii) where a
group member was subject to a bail condition which had been varied
but was arrested for being in breach of the original bail
condition.  The proceedings claimed damages for wrongful arrest,
false imprisonment and assault.

Garling J managed the class action through four questions to be
determined separately, and in advance of all other questions
pursuant to r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.  
This decision illustrates how "separate questions" can be used
effectively to resolve issues quickly and efficiently with
benefits for the parties involved as well as reducing the burden
on the court system.  

Furthermore, this decision serves to remind us of the wide-ranging
uses of the class action procedure -- in this case, in the area of
human rights and personal liberty.  

                              Issues

The separate questions examined whether s 50(1)(a) of the Bail Act
1978(NSW) applied so as to afford a defense to the State in
relation to the claims in the class action.  The claims and
separate questions were grouped into two different scenarios:
first, where Mr. Konneh or a group member was not subject to bail
at the time of arrest, and second, where Mr. Moffitt or a group
member was subject to a bail condition but it had been varied at
the time of arrest.

The State submitted that s 50 should be interpreted in a way which
had the consequence that if the police officer formed a belief on
reasonable grounds, albeit a mistaken belief, and if a person had
been released on bail and had failed to comply with a condition of
that bail, then an arrest is not unlawful.  The plaintiff
submitted that the sphere of permissible mistake of an arresting
officer extended only to whether the person had engaged in
particular conduct and not to the existence or content of the bail
undertaking itself or of any of the conditions imposed.  

                             Decision

For the first group of plaintiffs, it was determined that the New
South Wales police could not rely on s 50(1) of the Bail Act 1978
(NSW) to justify the arrest of any child or young person who was
not on bail at the time of arrest.  Garling J found that the
police had no lawful excuse for mistakenly arresting young people
who were not on bail.  Emphasizing the importance of personal
liberty, Garling J stated, "It would be a significant abrogation
of a person's fundamental right to be at liberty if a police
officer was entitled to arrest them on the mistaken belief that
they were the subject of a grant of bail, unless there is a clear
indication in the words in the Bail Act that this is so".[3]

For the second group of plaintiffs, Garling J qualified his answer
in the affirmative by stating that it depended on the facts,
matters and circumstances established by the evidence.  His Honour
held that s 50(1) of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) may apply to this
group.  However, the arresting police officers must be able to
demonstrate that they had "reasonable grounds" for their mistaken
belief.  Garling J stated, "In circumstances where the terms of
the condition are capable of being readily objectively
ascertained, it may be very difficult for an arresting officer who
has a mistaken belief as to those terms, to demonstrate that such
belief was one held on reasonable grounds, however, that must be,
in each case, a matter for evidence".


NVA UTILITIES: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Guerra, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. NVA Utilities, LLC, Nelmar Velasquez and Verizon
Communications Inc., Case No. 8:13-cv-02997-DKC (D. Md.,
October 10, 2013) is brought on behalf of similarly situated
persons to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages and
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Maryland Wage
and Hour Law.

NVA Utilities, LLC is a Maryland limited liability corporation.  
Verizon Communications Inc. is a Delaware Corporation, which
provides communication services.  Nelmar Velasquez is the sole
member of NVA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
          CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          11 Dupont Circle, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          E-mail: matthew_handley@washlaw.org

               - and -

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          509 N. Jefferson St.
          Arlington, VA 22205
          Telephone: (703) 665-9529
          E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com


ORANGE BLOSSOM: Recalls Hot Dog Relish Due to Possible Clostridium
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Orange Blossom Farm
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products: 500 ml. Hot Dog Relish sold at St. Jacob's
Farmers' Market in Ontario

Orange Blossom Farm is recalling Hot Dog Relish from the
marketplace because it may permit the growth of Clostridium
botulinum.  Consumers should not consume the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out.

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of
illness, people may die.


PAUL BELLO: Sued in New York Over Unpaid Overtime Fees and Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wil Bonilla and Rosa Emilia Argueta, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Paul Bello Poultry Farm, 411
Holbrook, Inc., "Abdul" and "Faisal," Case No. 2:13-cv-04083-SJF-
ARL (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, actual damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Paul Bello Poultry Farm is a domestic business corporation
headquartered in Holbrook, New York.  The Company and 411
Holbrook, Inc. own and operate the Bello Poultry Farm store
located at 411 Union Avenue, in Holbrook, New York.  "Abdul" and
"Faisal" are officers or owners of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eliot F. Bloom, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELIOT F. BLOOM, PC
          2 Hillside Avenue
          Williston Park, NY 11596
          Telephone: (516) 739-5300
          Facsimile: (516) 739-3202
          E-mail: eb.efbesq@gmail.com


PELLA CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Windows
-----------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that
Pella Corp., the Iowa-based window manufacturer, has been named as
a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed on Oct. 30 at the
federal courthouse in Philadelphia by a Delaware County couple.

Philip and Gail Adler claim in their civil suit that Pella
designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, warranted and sold
defective windows to them and other consumers throughout
Pennsylvania and the United States.

At the time of sale, the windows made by the defendant contained
defects that allowed water to enter the area behind the product
and result in premature wood root and deterioration, which led to
homeowners having to spend money to fix damage to wooden window
frames and other property in their residences, the complaint
alleges.

"The defect described herein reduces the effectiveness and
performance of the Windows and renders them unable to perform the
ordinary purposes for which they are sold," the suit reads.

The complaint says that Pella's brochures stress the windows'
ability to permit "more decorative style choices" and the
company's between-the-glass window fashions "stay protected from
dust and damage so they don't need constant cleaning."

At all times, the plaintiffs claim, the defendant knew that the
windows were defective but took no action to inform purchasers or
owners of the windows of the defects, recall the defective
windows, or otherwise repair the windows that had already been
purchased.

"Instead, Pella concealed this knowledge," the complaint states.

Pella chose to conceal, suppress, or omit its knowledge of the
defective windows while distributing, marketing and selling its
windows to "unsuspecting" consumers, buildings and homeowners
across the commonwealth and the country, the suit claims.

The suit says that the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million.

The Adlers, who are the lead plaintiffs in the case, say they
purchased the defective windows made by Pella through their
contractor when the couple was remodeling their home.

Pella's misrepresentations and concealment of material facts, the
complaint alleges, constitute "unconscionable commercial
practices, deception, fraud, false pretenses, [and]
misrepresentations."

The suit accuses Pella of violating the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

It contains counts of negligence, breach of warranty, fraudulent
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.

The Adlers seek class certification as well as declaratory
judgment, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, attorneys'
fees and other relief.

The couple is being represented by attorneys Harris L. Pogust --
hpogust@pbmattorneys.com -- and Andrew J. Sciolla --
asciolla@pbmattorneys.com -- of the Conshohocken, Pa. law firm
Pogust Braslow & Millrood.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-06333-EL.


PHILIPS ORAL: TINA Files Amicus Brief to Oppose Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Mayo, Esq. -- mmayo@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP
reports that the recent filing of an amicus brief by advertising
watchdog Truth in Advertising Inc. (TINA) is a good reminder that,
even where there are no objectors, class action settlements are
subject to attack by third parties.  The proposed settlement would
dispose of a class action against Philips Oral Health Care, Inc.
(Philips) for allegedly deceptively marketing its Sonicare
AirFloss plaque removal product.

On July 11, 2013, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff in the Southern
District of California preliminarily approved a class action
settlement under which class members would receive vouchers in the
amount of $33, $23, or $7, depending on whether the class members
could submit proof of purchase of a two-pack of AirFloss, a single
pack, or attest to having purchased AirFloss, respectively.  In
preliminarily approving the settlement, Judge Huff found that the
proposed settlement appeared to be the result of "serious,
informed, and non-collusive negotiations."

Though there have been no objectors (and the deadline to object
has passed), the Court has granted TINA leave to file an amicus
brief in opposition to the proposed class action settlement.  TINA
takes issue with the settlement for two reasons.  First, TINA
contends that the settlement does not provide any "meaningful
benefit" to class members because the vouchers require the class
members to purchase another product from Philips and that it
expires in one year.  Second, TINA contends that the "true
beneficiary" of the settlement is defendant Philips because (i)
the settlement does not require disgorgement of profits, (ii)
Philips is not enjoined from making the allegedly false marketing
claims, and (iii) Philips will benefit from the vouchers by
getting more business.

Similar settlements awarding coupons or vouchers instead of cash -
- so called "coupon settlements" -- have been the subject of
scrutiny over the years.  The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA),
enacted in 2005, was intended to address the perceived abuse of
coupon settlements, among other perceived abuses relating to class
action settlements.  Under CAFA, a court must hold a hearing and
make written findings that a coupon settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to class members before approving a
coupon settlement.  28 U.S.C. Sec. 1712(e).  CAFA also imposes
limits on attorneys' fees in coupon settlements.  28 U.S.C. Sec.
1712(a)-(c).

The enactment of CAFA, however, was not the death-knell of coupon
settlements.  Coupon settlements remain a viable and useful tool
for settling class action lawsuits, so long as the proposed
settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" to class members
under the circumstances.  Indeed, the Ninth Circuit recently
explained:

Although we recognize that coupon settlements are generally
disfavored, we do not mean to cast aspersions on all coupon
settlements.  The legislative history of CAFA makes clear that
Congress did "not intend to forbid all non-cash settlements."  
Indeed, coupon or other in-kind settlements may be particularly
appropriate in situations "where they provide real benefits to
consumer class members."  For instance, coupon settlements may be
appropriate where a defendant is in financial distress or where
class members have repeat-business relationships with the
defendant.

In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, 716 F.3d 1173, 1178 n.4 (9th
Cir. 2013).

The final approval hearing was set for November 4, 2013.


PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Limits Medical Expenses' Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ursula Salazar v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company, an Ohio
Company, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. CV-13-815923
(Ohio Common Pleas Ct., Cuyahoga Cty., October 22, 2013) arises
from Progressive's alleged improper reliance upon a computer
program that systematically limits and excludes from coverage part
of the reasonable medical expenses incurred after a covered
automobile accident.

Progressive is an Ohio Corporation doing business in the state of
Ohio and headquartered in Mayfield Village, Ohio.  The Plaintiff
does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Reagan, Esq.
          Alberto R. Nestico, Esq.
          KISLING, NESTICO & REDICK, LLC
          3412 W. Market Street
          Akron, OH 44333
          Telephone: (330) 869-9007
          Facsimile: (330) 869-9008
          E-mail: reagan@knrlegal.com
                  nestico@knrlegal.com

               - and -

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
                  rlk@kbklawyers.com
                  ihh@kbklawyers.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Got Prelim. Approval of $6,000 Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Radioshack Corporation received preliminary approval of its $6,000
settlement of a class action lawsuit.  The case arises from the
Company's alleged failure to reimburse its sales associates at
kiosks inside Target stores for uniform expenses.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          James S. McNeill, Esq.
          Peter Z. Stockburger, Esq.
          McKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
          4435 Eastgate Mall, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92121
          E-mail: jmcneill@mckennalong.com
                  pstockburger@mckennalong.com

The case is Becerra, et al. v. RadioShack Corporation and Does 1
through 10 inclusive, Case No. 11-cv-03586-YGR, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.


RESER'S FINE: Recalls Salad Products Over Listeria Scare
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2013
Starting date:            November 3, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Reser's Fine Foods Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

  Brand name       Common name            Size          UPC
  ----------       -----------            ----          ----
  Market Pantry    Coleslaw               425 g    6 28919 00240 5
  Market Pantry    Macaroni Salad         454 g    6 28919 00239 9
  Market Pantry    Potato & Egg Salad     454 g    6 28919 00238 2
  Market Pantry    Potato Salad           454 g    6 28919 00237 5
  Reser's Fine     Creamy Spinach Dip     16 oz.   0 71117 61206 6
   Foods
  Reser's Fine     Crunchy Cole Slaw      425 g    0 71117 18244 6
   Foods
  Reser's Fine     Crunchy Cole Slaw     1.25 kg   0 71117 61225 7
    Foods
  Reser's Fine     Gourmet Red Potato    1.81 kg   0 71117 00164 8
    Foods            Salad
  Reser's Fine     Gourmet Red Potato     340 g    0 71117 61209 7
    Foods            Salad
  Reser's Fine     Potato Salad with      454 g    0 71117 61252 3
    Foods          Deviled Egg
  Reser's Fine     Potato Salad with      454 g    0 71117 18243 9
     Foods          Egg
  Reser's Fine     Potato Salad with     1.25 kg   0 71117 61321 6
     Foods         Egg
  Reser's Fine     Traditional Cole Slaw   425 g   0 71117 61254 7
     Foods          with Oil & Vinegar
  Reser's Fine     Cheesy Macaroni Salad   454 g   0 71117 18241 5
     Foods
  Reser's Fine     Ranch Pasta Salad with  454 g   0 71117 61250 9
     Foods           Bacon
  Reser's Fine     Potato Salad            454 g   0 71117 18242 2
    Foods
  Reser's Fine     Potato Salad          1.25 kg   0 71117 61320 9
     Foods
  Reser's Fine     Macaroni Salad         454 g    0 71117 18240 8
     Foods
  Reser's Fine     Macaroni Salad       1.25 kg    0 71117 61322 3
     Foods
  Reser's Fine     Homestyle Potato      454 g     0 71117 61251 6
     Foods           Salad
  Reser's Fine     Potato Salad*        3.63 kg    0 71117 00215 7
  Reser's Fine     Loaded Baked         2.27 kg    71117 11586 4
    Foods          Potato Salad*
  Reser's Fine     Cole Slaw*           3.18 kg    0 71117 15124 4
     Foods
  Reser's Fine   Chicken Salad Dressing*   3.63 kg   71117 14761 2
    Foods
  Reser's Fine   Macaroni Salad*      3.63 kg      0 71117 00216 4
     Foods
  Reser's Fine   Four Bean Salad*     3.63 kg      71117 61281 3
     Foods
  Reser's Fine   Diced Potato with    3.63 kg      71117 65135 5
   Foods           Egg Salad*
  Stonemill        Red Potato         2.27 kg    0 71117 61629 3
  Kitchens         Salad with Dijon

The Health Hazard Alert issued on October 26, 2013 has been
updated to include additional products and codes.  This additional
information was identified through a recall in the United States.

Reser's Fine Foods Inc. is recalling various salad products from
the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled
products.

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

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.


RESER'S FINE: Expands Recall on Chicken, Ham and Beef Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reser's Fine Foods, a Topeka, Kan. establishment, is expanding its
recall of chicken, ham and beef products to include all products
produced between Oct. 10 and Oct. 25, 2013.  The company
previously expanded its recall on Oct. 26, 2013, to include
product produced between Sept. 5 and Oct. 9, 2013.  This is in
addition to the 22,800 pounds of product recalled on Oct. 22,
2013. The products are being recalled due to possible
contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The company announced that these products are being recalled in
conjunction with other foods regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).  A full list of products being recalled in
this expansion can be found on FDA's website here.  Products
regulated by FSIS bear the establishment number "EST. 13520" or
"P-13520" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  Only products made
at the Topeka, Kansas salad facility, also designated by the plant
code #20 after the code date "Use By Nov 03 13 #20" are affected
by this recall.  No other Reser's facilities are involved in this
action.

Products subject to this recall expansion include the following:

  Unit UPC        Pack Size         Product
  --------        ---------         -------
  074865797238    5 lbs       Block & Barrel Gourmet White Meat
                                Chicken Salad
  077509633084    12 oz       Chef Solutions Cranberry Pecan White
                                Meat Chicken Salad
  071117182309    12 oz       Dillons Ham Salad
  822486158873    5 lbs       Cobblestreet Market Chicken Salad
  011110059680    16 oz       Kroger Wholesome at Home BBQ Beans
                                with Beef & Sauce
  011110066930    5 lbs       Kroger BBQ Beans with Beef and Sauce
  071117141788    16 oz       Miller's BBQ Beans with Beef
  071117141795    3 lbs       Miller's BBQ Beans with Beef
  071117023978    7 oz        Mrs. Weaver Ham Salad
  071117023961    7 oz        Mrs. Weaver Chicken Salad
  071117113976    5 lbs       Resers White Meat Chicken Salad with
                                Rotisserie Dressing
  071117113983    5 lbs       Resers Gourmet White Meat Chicken
                                Salad
  071117114003    5 lbs       Resers Chicken Salad
  071117004076    5 lbs       Resers Smoked Chicken Salad
  071117113921    5 lbs       Resers White Meat Chicken Salad with
                                Cranberries and Pecans
  071117190083    12 oz       Resers White Meat Chicken Salad
  071117141320    5 lbs       Resers Classic White Chicken Salad
  071117002812    5 lbs       Resers Carolina Barbecue Beans with
                                Beef
  071117135121    5 lbs       Resers White Chicken Salad
  071117114195    5 lbs       Resers Shredded White Chicken Salad
  071117141399    5 lbs       Resers Ham Salad Supreme
  071117190113    12 oz       Resers Ham Salad
  071117114027    5 lbs       Resers Ham Salad
  051933380905    12 oz       SAV-A-LOT Ham Salad
  007111711495    10 lbs      Stonemill Cranberry Pecan White
                                Chicken Salad
  071117615029    3 lbs       Stonemill
  041303820278    12 oz       Everyday Essentials White Meat
                                Chicken Salad
  074865800372    5 lbs       SYSCO Classic Chicken Salad
  758108301498    5 lbs       US Foodservice Chicken Salad
  758108301665    5 lbs       US Foodservice Ham Salad
  681131917544    4 oz        Walmart Chicken Salad
  081131917542    12 oz       Walmart Chicken Salad
  081131917566    12 oz       Walmart Ham Salad
  073474030040    5 lbs       Yoder Ham Salad

The products were distributed to retailers and distributors
nationwide.

The problem was discovered through microbiological testing by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency.  A traceback investigation and
follow-up testing by FDA at the facility determined there was
potential cross contamination of products with Listeria
monocytogenes from product contact surfaces.  Upon further review,
the company determined that products produced on additional dates
should be recalled.  FSIS has not received reports of illnesses
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
illness should contact a healthcare provider.  The Nov. 4
expansion of this recall was initiated by the firm out of an
abundance of caution after learning of the potential contamination
of non-food contact surfaces with Listeria monocytogenes.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Reser's Fine Foods Consumer Hotline at 1-888-257-7913
(8 a.m. - 10 p.m. Eastern Time).


RLG PIZZA: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Dubyk, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
RLG Pizza Inc. d/b/a Vitarelli's Pizza, a Florida Profit
Corporation and Richard Gryl, Individually, Case No. 9:13-cv-
81028-KAM (S.D. Fla., October 10, 2013) is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Constitution to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wage compensation, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

RLG Pizza is a Florida Corporation and a restaurant located in
Palm Beach County.  Richard Gryl owns and operates RLG Pizza.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly A. McCallum, Esq.
          RUBENSTEIN LAW, P.A
          2 South University Drive, Suite 235
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 661-6000
          Facsimile: (954) 515-5787
          E-mail: kelly@Rubensteinlaw.com


S&P DATA: Faces Class Suit by Customer Service Sales Rep in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anastasia Weems, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. S&P Data Ohio, LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-02243-CAB (N.D.
Ohio, October 10, 2013) is a collective action instituted by the
Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant's alleged practices and
policies of not paying its hourly, non-exempt employees, including
the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees, for all
hours worked.

The Defendant operates a call center, which provides customer
service and sales support.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


SAC CAPITAL: $1.2-Bil. Class Action Settlement Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaja Whitehouse, writing for New York Post, reports that SAC
Capital Advisors' potential $1.2 billion deal to resolve criminal
insider-trading charges is coming under fire before it's even
done.

The lawyer for a class-action suit over SAC's trading in drug
company Elan has asked a federal judge to reject the potential
settlement with Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara.

The lawyer, Ethan Wohl, lodged his objection to the deal, which
has been under negotiation for several weeks, in a letter to
Manhattan federal judge Laura Swain on Nov. 1.

Mr. Wohl cited published reports that the settlement may not
include a guilty plea specifically tied to SAC's trading in Elan,
which is at the center of his class-action case, or Wyeth, another
drug company.

Illegal trading in those two stocks in 2008 helped SAC reap
profits and avoid losses of $276 million, making it the biggest
insider trading case in history, according to prosecutors.

"A plea on those terms, if tendered, should be rejected," Mr. Wohl
said in the letter, citing the size of the Elan trades along with
a growing number of Wall Street settlements that have been
rejected by judges for inadequate admissions of guilt.

Federal judges have started to balk at rubber-stamping settlements
in which defendants neither admit nor deny wrongdoing.  Most of
the cases have involved the Securities and Exchange Commission.

SAC was expected to settle criminal charges brought by the US
Attorney's office as early as last week.  The deal would require
SAC to admit guilt, stop managing outside money and pay a $1.2
billion fine.

The plea deal, however, may not include an admission of wrongdoing
in connection with the $276 million in allegedly illegal trading
in Elan and Wyeth because the government hasn't obtained any
convictions in that case yet, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The main trader in that case, Mathew Martoma, is scheduled to go
to trial in January.  He stands accused of helping SAC dump its
stakes in the drug giants ahead of a report on a botched clinical
trial the two companies were working on in 2008.

Steve Cohen, the billionaire founder of the $14 billion SAC hedge
fund, is unlikely to settle if the firm has to plead guilty to
charges that will leave it exposed to a potentially expensive
class-action suit, experts said.

"A guilty plea to that count and it's game-over," said
Michael Bachner, a white collar defense lawyer and former
prosecutor, referring to SAC's ability to fight off the class
action lawsuit.  A spokesman for SAC declined to comment as did a
spokeswoman for the US Attorney's office.


SAINT JOSEPH'S ORATORY: Reviewing Bid to Institute Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The management of Saint Joseph's Oratory of Mount Royal is
currently studying the motion for authorization to institute a
class action, which it became aware of on Nov. 1.

As presented, the motion does not mention any present member of
the Oratory's personnel.

Oratory management and staff strongly and unequivocally condemn
all inappropriate acts towards both minors and adults.


SIDRA INVESTMENT: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul Basit Mandvia and all other similarly situated v. Mohammad
A. Hanif aka Hanif Shakoor, Sarah Hanif, Wafia Hanif, Sidra
Investment, LLC, Ayaz & Adnan, LLC d/b/a Tigerland Express #2,
Sarah Fuels, Inc. d/b/a Tigerland Express #2, Mainoor Investment,
Inc., SMSA Investments, LLC, Case No. 4:13-cv-02999 (S.D. Tex.,
October 10, 2013) is a collective action filed to recover unpaid
overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sidra Investment, LLC; Ayaz & Adnan, LLC d/b/a Tigerland Express
#2; and SMSA Investments, LLC are validly existing Texas limited
liability companies.  Sarah Fuels, Inc. d/b/a Tigerland Expess #2;
and Mainoor Investment, Inc., are validly existing Texas
corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Ali Zakaria, Esq.
          Digant Jariwala, Esq.
          M ALI ZAKARIA & ASSOCIATES PC
          6161 Savoy Drive, Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77036
          Telephone: (713) 789-7500
          Facsimile: (713) 774-2423
          E-mail: ali@zakarialaw.com


TJX COMPANIES: Has Policy to Deny Earned Wages, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Roberts, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. The TJX Companies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; Marshalls of CA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; Homegoods, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:13-cv-04731-MEJ (N.D. Cal., October 10,
2013) alleges that TJX's policy and practice is to deny earned
wages, including overtime pay, to its non-exempt hourly employees
at its department store facilities throughout the country.  In
particular, the Plaintiff contends, TJX requires its employees to
be present and perform work in excess of eight hours per day or 40
hours per work week but fails to pay them overtime accordingly.

The TJX Companies, Inc., a Delaware company based in
Massachusetts, is the largest international apparel and home
fashions off-price department store chain in the United States.  
The company operates business in four major divisions: Marmaxx and
HomeGoods (both in the U.S.), TJX Canada and TJX Europe.  
Marshalls of CA, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with
a principal place of business in Massachusetts.  HomeGoods Inc.,
is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in
Massachusetts.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names,
capacities, relationships, and extent of participation in the
alleged conduct of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
                  kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Shaun Setarehm Esq.
          Hayley Schwartzkopf, Esq.
          Adrienne Herrera, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 711
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarhlaw.com
                  hayley@setarehlaw.com
                  adrienne@setarehlaw.com


UNITED FINANCIAL: Violates Truth in Lending Act, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Marquez Gapasin, an Individual, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated v. United Financial Mortgage
Corporation, as the Original Lender; Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Trustee for The Issuing Trust, Alliance Securities
Corp., Mortgage Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA1;
OneWest Bank, FSB, as the Mortgage Servicer and all persons
unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate,
lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint
advers to Plaintiff title, or any cloud on Plaintiff title
thereto; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:13-cv-
00524-DKW-KSC (D. Haw., October 10, 2013) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger Y. Dewa, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER Y. DEWA
          1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1409
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (510) 301-6101
          E-mail: rogerdewaattorneyatlaw@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: Class Seeks "Just Compensation" for Property
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Deck, Jr., For Himself and As Representative of A Class
of Similarly Situated Persons v. The United States of America,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00789-VJW (Fed. Cl., Oct 10, 2013) seeks "just
compensation" for the value of the Plaintiff's property, which was
taken from him by the federal government through the operation of
the National Trails System Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Fernlund ("Thor") Hearne, II, Esq.
          Lindsay S.C. Brinton, Esq.
          Meghan S. Largent, Esq.
          ARENT FOX, LLP
          112 South Hanley Drive, Suite 200
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 296-4000
          Facsimile: (314) 727-6913
          E-mail: thornet@ix.netcom.com
                  brinton.lindsay@arentfox.com
                  largent.meghan@arentfox.com

               - and -

          Debra J. Albin-Riley, Esq.
          ARENT FOX, LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 629-7400
          Facsimile: (213) 629-7401
          E-mail: riley.debra@arentfox.com


UNILIFE CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 1
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Unilife Corporation and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Middle District of
Pennsylvania, and docketed under 13-cv-02690, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Unilife between July 13, 2011 and
September 9, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Unilife securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 31, 2013 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Unilife designs and manufactures medical devices. The Company
produces retractable syringes.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company's Unifill syringes failed to comply with the Food and
Drug Administration's validation processes (2) the Company's
Quality Management System failed to comply with FDA regulations;
(3) the Company purposefully increased its purchases of Unifill
component parts to make suppliers believe that Unilife was
producing at increased volumes despite the fact that there was no
customer demand or manufacturing capacity to support such
purchases; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 30, 2013, a former Unilife employee named Talbot Smith
filed a complaint against the Company alleging that Unilife
terminated his employment for reporting various regulatory
violations to the appropriate authorities.  For example, Mr. Smith
alleges that the Company purposefully ran fake production at the
Company's facility in order to lead visiting investors to believe
that demand for the Company's products were high.  Moreover,
according to Mr. Smith, the Company purposefully suppressed
internal reports demonstrating that the cost of developing the
Company's syringes were higher than the price the Company was able
to sell to customers.

On September 3, 2013, Forbes published an article concluding that
the Company's main manufacturing facility was operating at 3% of
capacity, or roughly 2 million syringes per annum.  On this news,
Unilife securities declined $0.52 per share or more than 14%, to
close at $3.03 per share on September 4, 2013.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its  
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  


URBAN ACTIVE: December 31 Settlement Claim Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
WCPO reports that if you are among the thousands of people in Ohio
and Kentucky who used to belong to the Urban Active health club,
you could be getting some money back as well.

The chain of health clubs -- which has since been sold and renamed
-- was hit with a class action lawsuit in 2011 for hidden fees.

The suit accused the club of charging extra for fitness classes
that members had been told were part of their monthly plan.

On Sept. 30, 2013, the courts approved a proposed settlement,
where members can receive an average of $20 in refunds.

You need to apply online to receive your check by Dec. 31, 2013.

Click here for a link to the settlement page, or go to
http://www.urbanactivelawsuit.com


VICAL INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP on Nov. 1 disclosed that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Vical
Incorporated common stock during the period between February 8,
2012 and August 12, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 1, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact Jim Baker by telephone at
(619) 230-0063 (ext. 118) or via e-mail at
jimb@johnsonandweaver.com

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

The complaint alleges that Vical and certain of its officers
and/or directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Vical is a biopharmaceutical company that researches and develops
products based on patented DNA delivery technologies for the
prevention and treatment of serious and life-threatening
illnesses, including cancer.  All of Vical's potential products
are in the research and development stage, and no revenues have
yet been generated from the sale of any products.  Vical's
strongest candidate to receive approval by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for eventual sale and marketing to consumers was
Allovectin-7(R), an immunotherapy vaccine that targets cancer.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated the federal securities laws by repeatedly touting the
importance and potential success of Allovectin-7(R) through press
releases, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings,
investor/analyst conference calls, and other publicly available
documents.  Due to Defendants' dissemination of materially false
and misleading statements, the investing public was led to believe
that Allovectin-7(R) would receive approval from the FDA after the
completion of the vaccine's Phase 3 clinical trial.  Defendants
continued to mislead investors about Vical's current and future
business and financial condition even after they became aware of
Allovectin-7(R)'s disappointing results.  As a result of
Defendants' false and misleading statements, Vical stock traded at
artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Vical common stock during the Class Period.  Plaintiff is
represented by Johnson & Weaver, LLP --
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- a nationally recognized  
shareholders' rights law firm.  Johnson & Weaver, LLP represents
individual and institutional investors in securities class action
and shareholder derivative lawsuits.


WAFFLE HOUSE: Faces Class Suit Over Overtime Fees in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Waffle House stiffs
workers for overtime, 15 named plaintiffs claim in a federal class
action in Alabama.


WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: Repeatedly Violates FACTA, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia M. Fullwood, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wolfgang's Steakhouse, Inc., Case No. 1:13-
cv-07174-KPF (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2013) alleges that the
Defendant has violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act repeatedly by printing the expiration date of credit cards on
sales receipts.

Wolfgang's Steakhouse, Inc., is a New York corporation.  The
Company owns and operates restaurants in New York, California,
Florida and Hawaii.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin Lawrence Frank, Esq.
          Bridget Veronica Hamill, Esq.
          FRANK & BIANCO LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: mfrank@frankandbianco.com
                  bhamill@frankandbianco.com

               - and -

          Khaled (Jim) El Nabli, Esq.
          Joseph H. Lilly, Esq.
          Alan J. Harris, Esq.
          NABLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1101
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 808-0716
          Facsimile: (212) 808-0719
          E-mail: Jim_ElNabli@NabliLaw.com
                  JoeLilly@att.net
                  AlanHarrisEsq@aol.com


YELP INC: Controls Reviews to Pander to Advertisers, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Yelp
"controls its reviews to pander to advertisers" and violates labor
laws by refusing to pay reviewers for their work, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Allen Panzer sued the search and social networking
site under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The site's 108 million monthly visitors can see tens of millions
of posted reviews of restaurants, bars, vendors and other
businesses and professionals, the lawsuit states.

Describing Yelp's review system as "cult-like," Panzer says the
reviewers who make the site profitable are not paid a "single
cent."

Panzer, of Houston, claims he has written about 70 reviews for
Yelp, and that a "large and ever-growing stable of non-wage-paid
writers" have made the site a success.

Claiming that the reviewers are employees under federal labor
laws, Panzer says that he and tens of thousands others should be
paid for their work.

The company "could not exist, nor make its enormous returns,
without its domination and control over non-wage writers," the
lawsuit states.

Yelp ducks the law by calling reviewers "Yelpers," independent
contractors, volunteers or interns, Panzer claims.

"Business journal commentators have compared said business
practices to a 21st Century galley slave ship with pirates banging
the drum to keep up the fast pace and to fill the pockets of their
stockholders with treasure," according to the complaint.

Rather than paying workers, Yelp bestows titles to create a
hierarchy of reviewers.  Writers can receive "Elite" status and
are given titles such as Duke, Duchess, Baron, or Baroness, the
complaint states.

"Yelp has devised a system of cult-like rewards and disciplines to
motivate its non-wage paid writers to labor without wages or
expense reimbursement, in violation of equitable principles and
the FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act], by offering such rewards as
trinkets, badges, titles, praise, social promotion, free liquor,
free food, and free promotional Yelp attire, such as red panties
with 'Make Me Yelp!'" the lawsuit states.

Though its writers are unpaid, Yelp encourages them to work faster
and churn out reviews, Panzer claims.

He says that reviewers may lose their Yelp accounts if they write
unfavorable reviews about Yelp's advertisers.

But he and his co-plaintiffs claim that "they must write glowing
reviews of the venues that sponsor company events, where they are
often offered free food, liquor, and use of the premises, under
threat of losing their 'elite' status."

"Defendant controls its reviews to pander to advertisers," the
complaint states.

Panzer claims the writers have an incentive to write misleadingly
negative reviews of businesses on Yelp because to maintain their
elite status they have to reach a quota of one- and two-star
reviews.

"By shirking its responsibilities to pay its workers, defendant is
in essence thumbing its nose both at their workers and the taxing
authorities of all states and the U.S. government," the lawsuit
states.

Panzer seeks unpaid wages and liquidated and statutory damages for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, quantum meruit, and
unjust enrichment.

Yelp spokeswoman Kristen Whisenand told Courthouse News in an
email: "This suit is frivolous on its face and we're sorry the
court has to waste its time adjudicating it."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randy Rosenblatt, Esq.
          THE YELP-CLASS-ACTION LAW FIRM
          2419 East Harbor Blvd. #110
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (888) 648-2444
          E-mail: info@yelpclassaction.info

The case is Panzer, et al. v. Yelp, Inc., Case No. CV13-07805-DDP
(JCG), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.


                             *********

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  * * *