CAR_Public/131112.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 224

                             Headlines


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consumers Sue Over Proposed US Airways Merger
AMERICAN AIRLNES: Plaintiffs in "Fjord" Dismiss Antitrust Suit
BROOKSAMERICA MORTGAGE: Court Rejects Class Action Settlement
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: "Dozens" of Landowners to Join Class Action
COOPER CROUSE-HINDS: Recalls Ceiling Boxes Due to Impact Hazard

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Reaches Settlement in Gender Bias Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Fights Bid for $10MM Fees in Motor Fuel MDL
CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation Stayed
DISH NETWORK: Bid to Stay Proceedings in "Lyon" Suit Denied
FAMILY DOLLAR: 9th Cir. Remands "Scott" Suit to District Court

FLORIDA: Order on Compensation Trial in "Mendez" Suit Reversed
FOSTER FARMS: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Salmonella Outbreak
GLOBAL CLIENT: Atty. Fees and Cost Award in "Carlsen" Suit Upheld
GLOBAL FITNESS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
GOLDMAN SACHS: Ordered to Produce Documents in "Chen-Oster" Suit

HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Action
INFINITY GREEN: Recalls Candelabra LED Bulbs Due to Fire Hazard
JOHNS HOPKINS: Judge Clears Way for Settlement Talks in Levy Case
JTC PAINTING: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Boutros" Class Action
KANKAKEE COUNTY: Court Certifies Class in Suit vs. Sheriff

LENOVO GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Notebooks' Wi-Fi Problems
LUDI TRADING: Recalls Certain Bulk Dehydrated Garlic
MCGLAUGHLIN SPRAY: "Slemmer" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Summary Judgment in TCA Suit Under Appeal
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Retired GM Employees Appeal Dismissal of Suit

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sun Life Seeks Indemnity for Lawsuits
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Wants Securities Claims Over Restatement Junked
MOLYCORP INC: Continues to Faces Securities Lawsuit in Colorado
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit for $7.5MM
OMNICON GROUP: Plaintiffs Want Suit Over Merger Consolidated

ONE WORLD TECH: Recalls Ryobi Battery Chargers Due to Burn Hazards
OPTIMER PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Merger
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Lawsuit Over Grant to CEO
RJ REYNOLDS: Appeals Court Rejects "Due Process" Arguments
SAKS INC: Reaches Settlement of Consolidated Suit Against Merger

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Court Clarifies Order in "David" Case
SUPERVALU INC: RICO Act Violations Suit Stayed Due to IOS Issue
SUPERVALU INC: Mediation in Suit Over C&S Deal Expected This Fall
SUPERVALU INC: Save-A-Lot Settles Lawsuit Over Method of Pay
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 3 Class Suits by Homeowners

TELECOM NETWORK: Appeals Court Reverses Wage and Hour Suit Ruling
VISA INC: Merchants Could Be Entitled to Compensation
WEST BROM: Customers to Launch Class Action Over Mortgage Hike

* New FCC Interpretation May Increase TCPA Class Action Liability


                             *********


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consumers Sue Over Proposed US Airways Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of consumer plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit against American Airlines, Inc., seeking to enjoin, on
antitrust grounds, a proposed Merger with US Airways Group, Inc.,
according to American Airlines' Oct. 17, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2013.

On November 29, 2011, the Debtors (AMR Corporation, its principal
subsidiary, American Airlines, Inc. and certain of AMR's other
direct and indirect domestic subsidiaries) filed voluntary
petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code. Each of the
Debtors continues to operate its business and manage its property
as a debtor in possession pursuant to sections 1107 and 1108 of
the Bankruptcy Code.

On August 6, 2013, a group of consumer plaintiffs filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Bankruptcy Court seeking to
enjoin, on antitrust grounds, the proposed Merger with US Airways
Group, Inc.  The consumer plaintiffs allege that the proposed
Merger is anticompetitive and would violate the Clayton Antitrust
Act. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to
vigorously contest the matter.


AMERICAN AIRLNES: Plaintiffs in "Fjord" Dismiss Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action Carolyn Fjord, et al.,
v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. 13-3041-SBA, which was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to American Airlines' Oct. 17,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit captioned Carolyn Fjord, et al.,
v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. 13-3041-SBA was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint alleges that the effect of the Merger
may be to substantially lessen competition, or tend to create a
monopoly, in the transportation of airline passengers in the
United States and certain submarkets, in violation of Section 7 of
the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 18.

The complaint seeks a declaration that the Merger Agreement
violates Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, an injunction
against the Merger, or divestiture, an award of fees and costs,
including attorney's fees, and other relief. On August 6, 2013,
the plaintiffs refiled their complaint in the Bankruptcy Court,
and on October 2, 2013 voluntarily dismissed the California
action.

Even if the company successfully resolve the DOJ Action, the
courts in these private lawsuits could enjoin the Merger, or could
further materially delay its consummation. If such private
lawsuits are not successfully resolved, it is possible that the
Merger Agreement may be terminated and the Merger abandoned. Even
if successfully resolved, such private lawsuits could result in
terms, conditions, requirements, limitations, costs or
restrictions that would delay completion of the Merger, impose
additional material costs on or materially limit the revenues of
the company or the combined company, or materially limit some of
the synergies and other benefits the company anticipates following
the Merger.

Additional lawsuits may be filed against US Airways Group, AMR
and/or the directors of either company, in connection with the
Merger. One of the conditions to the closing of the Merger is that
no order, writ, injunction, decree or any other legal rules,
regulations, directives or policies will be in effect that prevent
completion of the Merger. Consequently, if a settlement or other
resolution is not reached in the pending lawsuits, and such other
potential lawsuits, if any, and the plaintiffs secure injunctive
or other relief prohibiting, delaying or otherwise adversely
affecting the defendants' ability to complete the Merger, then
such injunctive or other relief may prevent the Merger from
becoming effective within the expected time frame or at all.


BROOKSAMERICA MORTGAGE: Court Rejects Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julian D. Perlman, Esq. -- jperlman@bakerlaw.com -- at
BakerHostetler reports that a California federal court has
rejected a proposed settlement to a class action over alleged
material omissions in Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan
documentation (Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Settlement Approval in Peel, et al. v. BrooksAmerica Mortgage
Corp., et al.).  Lead plaintiffs and defendants, which included
several divisions of Washington Mutual, agreed to settle the
dispute by creating a settlement fund of $10 million, which would
be used to pay class counsels' fees and costs, incentive payments
to the lead plaintiffs, and the costs of providing notice and
administrative services to the class (as well, of course, as
payments to the members of the class who do not opt out of the
settlement).

The Court rejected the settlement because the proposed settlement
class was significantly broader that the class originally
certified.  Whereas the original class consisted of individuals
whose loan documents were characterized by the omissions at issue
in the case, the settlement class was broadened to include all
individuals who obtained such loans, irrespective of whether their
loan documentation omitted materials terms.  Plaintiffs had argued
that the expanded class definition was necessary because to
identify members of the original class would be extremely
difficult without incurring great expense.

The Court was not persuaded that the expanded class and settlement
should be approved, noting that it could well include individuals
who suffered no injury whatsoever.  While the Court did not
expressly focus on the issue in its opinion, it is likely that the
Court was concerned that compensating individuals who were
actually harmed had taken a back seat to other concerns.  As is
always the case, the Court was sensitive to the fact that there is
always the possibility of collusion in class action settlements,
and that attorneys and lead plaintiffs, who are compensated for
their maintenance of a suit, may not be sufficiently concerned
about how payments to class members are calculated and
distributed, where it does not impact their personal recovery.
While lead plaintiffs and their counsel were likely satisfied with
the compensation they were to receive as part of the proposed
settlement, it appears not enough concern was paid to compensating
those members of the originally certified class who had been
injured, and only those injured class members.


BURLINGTON RESOURCES: "Dozens" of Landowners to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Lymn, writing for Forum News Service, reports that
lawyers have heard from "dozens" of western North Dakota
landowners interested in joining a class-action suit against oil
companies for natural gas royalties that went up in flames.

Landowners are suing 10 oil producers to collect damages for the
natural gas they flare instead of collecting and selling, which
would in turn bring more royalties to the mineral owners.  The
suits accuse the producers of violating North Dakota laws
regulating how much natural gas can be flared off, when it can be
flared and when royalties are due.

The cases have been assigned to various Northwest District judges.
The companies being sued -- which include Burlington Resources,
Continental Resources, Marathon Oil and XTO Energy -- have not yet
filed responses.

Those producers may soon have more company.

Landowners with wells operated by producers not already being sued
have shown interest in joining the suit, Texas-based lawyer
Britton Monts said.

Oil producers in North Dakota flare nearly one-third of the
natural gas that comes up with oil because the gas is worth far
less and is difficult to capture and transport.

Millions of dollars could be at stake; roughly $100 million in gas
is flared monthly.

The law firms began publicizing the suits in mid-October with a
media blitz and a website.

"Since then, we've had a lot of people calling us asking about
what they could do to pursue a claim," said Derrick Braaten, a
Bismarck lawyer heading up the case.

The website includes a form for interested landowners to fill out
with information like well location and operator, and how long the
person has owned the minerals.

Interested landowners have filled out the website form or called
the firms about the case, and Mr. Monts said the Facebook page for
the lawsuit has been visited about 6,000 times.

Mr. Braaten said most of the plaintiffs currently on the suit are
clients of his from before this case.

"Our clients would ask us, you know, 'Why is this happening here?
What's going on with it?'" he said, "and that would lead us to
start looking into it a little bit."

The law firms expect to consider potential plaintiffs for months
to come, Mr. Monts said.

"The court will put some deadlines on that at some point," he
said.  "That would be a ways off since we're just getting
started."


COOPER CROUSE-HINDS: Recalls Ceiling Boxes Due to Impact Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cooper Crouse-Hinds, LLC, of Syracuse, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 22,400 ceiling boxes designed to support ceiling
light fixtures.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The ceiling box can crack causing the light fixture to fall from
the ceiling, posing an impact hazard to consumers.

Cooper Crouse-Hinds is aware of one ceiling box cracking.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves five models of Cooper Crouse-Hinds non-
metallic, polycarbonate ceiling boxes with manufacturer or part
numbers TP16002, TP16022, TP16023, TP16122 and TP16307.  The
black, round ceiling boxes are 1.5 to 2.25-inches deep and measure
between 3.5 and 4-inches in diameter.  These devices are used in
the installation of ceiling lighting.  "CROUSE-HINDS" and "14.8
CU. IN" or "20.8 CU. IN." appear inside the box.  The part number
is on the product's packaging.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/yrSq4f

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold at electrical supply stores and sales to commercial
contractors, professional installers and other end users by
authorized distributors nationwide from December 2012 to April
2013 for between $1.50 and $4.

Consumers should immediately contact Cooper Crouse-Hinds to
determine if their product is recalled and whether they will
receive a full refund, a free replacement, or a free repair of the
ceiling box.  If unable to determine via phone, Cooper Crouse-
Hinds will send a representative to conduct an on-site
identification of the recalled product.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Reaches Settlement in Gender Bias Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., reached
an agreement in principle to settle the matter, according to the
company's Oct. 16, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 1,
2013.

A case brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and
former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law. Shirley "Rae" Ellis
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., United States District Court (San
Francisco), Case No. C-04-3341-MHP.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive
relief, interest and attorneys' fees. Class certification was
granted by the district court on January 11, 2007. On September
16, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the order of class certification and remanded to the
district court for further proceedings. On September 25, 2012, the
district court certified a class of women in the United States
denied promotion to warehouse general manager or assistant general
manager since January 3, 2002.

Currently the class is believed to be approximately 1,150 people.
A trial has been set for March 2014. In October 2013 the parties
reached an agreement in principle on a settlement, which is
subject to the execution of definitive documentation and court
approval. Any payments to class members would be contingent upon
proof of liability in individual hearings.  Payments under the
settlement would be immaterial to the Company's operations or
financial position.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Fights Bid for $10MM Fees in Motor Fuel MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. has opposed a motion filed by plaintiffs in
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL
Docket No 1840, for an award of $10 million in attorneys' fees, as
well as an award of costs and payments to class representatives,
according to the company's Oct. 16, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended September 1, 2013.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer.

The Company is named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);
Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP
Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D.
Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v.
Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202
(D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et
al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP
Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D.
Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No.
06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America
Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara
Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751
(S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC,
et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan
Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07
0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et
al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP
Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D.
Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil
Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt,
et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D.
Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in
which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which is
subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the
extent allowed by law, to install over five years from the
effective date of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers
in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does
not provide for cash payments to class members. On September 22,
2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised settlement, which
did not materially alter the terms. On April 24, 2012, the court
granted final approval of the revised settlement. A class member
who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the order approving
the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award of $10 million
in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and payments to
class representatives. The Company has opposed the motion.


CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
The federal court in the District of Columbia has delayed
proceedings on the merits of the Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, of which CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) is a
defendant, after it directed parties in the suit to confer and
propose a schedule on a remand proceedings, according to CSX
Corp.'s Oct. 16, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2013.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSX
Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) and three other U.S.-based Class I
railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices
relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an
illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. In November
2007, the class action lawsuits were consolidated and are now
pending in federal court in the District of Columbia. The suit
seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by purported class
members as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs
are expected to allege damages at least equal to the fuel
surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to prove
the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal the
District Court's class certification decision. In August 2013, the
D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class certification
decision and remanded the case to the District Court to reconsider
its class certification decision. On October 15, 2013, the
District Court held a case management conference to determine the
scope and schedule of the remand proceedings.  The parties were
directed to confer and propose a schedule to the District Court on
the remand proceedings. In the interim, the District Court has
delayed proceedings on the merits of the case.


DISH NETWORK: Bid to Stay Proceedings in "Lyon" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya denied a Motion for Costs and
to Stay Proceedings filed by DISH NETWORK L.L.C. in the case
captioned JAQUITA LYONS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C., a Colorado limited
liability company, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-00192-RM-KMT,
(D. Colo.).

DISH's Motion, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(d), seeks an assessment of costs, including reasonable
attorney's fees, against Plaintiff and for a stay of these
proceedings until it receives payment of these costs. DISH asserts
that this assessment of costs and fees is appropriate because
Plaintiff previously dismissed an action in another federal court
-- in Florida -- that included the same claims.  According to
DISH, in that prior action, the Plaintiff alleged that DISH
violated Plaintiff's rights under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii), on 264 distinct occasions.

The Plaintiff's complaint in the Florida Action apparently also
included claims for violations of Florida's Consumer Collection
Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Sedtion 559.55 et. seq.  DISH maintains
that, after the parties "engaged in full written discovery" and
"on the eve of being deposed (and after DISH's counsel had spent
considerable time preparing for the deposition)," Plaintiff moved
the court to dismiss her case. The Florida district court granted
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff filed its present action on January 25, 2013,
asserting two claims for violations of the TCPA on behalf of
herself and a class of others similarly situated.  DISH maintains
that the Plaintiff's claims under the TCPA in this action are
based upon the same telephone calls that gave rise to her claims
in the Florida Action.

Judge Tafoya ruled that the Plaintiff's decision to file her
action in Colorado court was not tantamount to forum shopping.
Because DISH is headquartered in Colorado, this District
constitutes a proper and convenient venue choice for this action,
he says.

Judge Tafoya concluded that the Plaintiff did not act vexatiously
by dismissing the Florida Action and filing the present action in
the Colorado District.  Therefore, the court declined to award
DISH any costs or fees associated with defending the Florida
Action.

A copy of the District Court's October 15, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/EBKEDZfrom Leagle.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: 9th Cir. Remands "Scott" Suit to District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in SCOTT v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC. appealed from a
district court's grant of Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss and/or strike class claims under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(c), 12(f), and 23(d)(1)(D), and the district court's
denial of Plaintiffs' first motion to amend their complaint.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
finds that the district court's denial of leave to amend the
complaint was based on an erroneous interpretation of Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011), and the denial was
thus an abuse of discretion. Without resolving the class
certification issue, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the
case for the district court to consider whether, based on the
Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Wal-Mart, the proposed amended
complaint satisfies the class certification requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The sex discrimination and equal pay action is captioned, LUANNA
SCOTT; SHUNDERIA GARLINGTON; RUTH BETH; WENDY BEVIS; KATHERINE
BRACEY; RUBY BRADY; MARIE ALICE BROCKWAY; VICKIE CLUTTER; DIANE
CONAWAY; JUDY CORROW; TRACI DAVIS; CAROL DINOLFO; REBECCA DIXON;
PAMELA EWALT; NANCY FEHLING; TERESA FLEMING; IRENE GRACE; DOROTHY
HARSON; CHARLENE HAZELTON; SHELLY HUGHES; CHRISTAL J. JOSLYN; ADA
L. KENNEDY; NEITA LAFRENIERE; MARGIE A. LITTLE; CAROL MARTIN;
LEANNE MAXWELL; WANDA MAYFIELD; DORIS MOODY; VANESSA L. PEEPLES;
VERONICA PERRY-PREDDIE; RUTH ELLEN PHELPS; SHEILA PIPPIN; LANA
RADOSH; MICHELLE RODGERS; VADA ROSE; VICKEY JO SCRIVWER; LINDA R.
SILVA; SHARON SIPES; NANCY SMITH; MARIE E. SPELLISSY; SYLVIA C.
TENORIO; JUDY TIDRICK; BEVERLY L. TRIPLETT; CAROLSUEVANFLEET;
DEBBIE VASQUEZ; CLAIRE WHITE; BONNIE WILLIAMS; CINDY MARIE
ZIMBRICH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and LINDA L. FULMER; JEAN
MACQUARRIE; HELEN ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiffs, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES,
INC., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12-1610.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 16, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/LuTH1ffrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. -- rwiggins@wcqp.com -- WIGGINS,
CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS PC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellants.

John Robbins Wester -- jwester@rbh.com -- ROBINSON, BRADSHAW &
HINSON, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- David
Bennet Ross -- dross@seyfarth.com -- Rebecca S. Bjork --
rbjork@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, New York, New York;
David C. Wright, III, Adam K. Doerr -- adoerr@rbh.com -- ROBINSON,
BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


FLORIDA: Order on Compensation Trial in "Mendez" Suit Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Department of Agriculture appealed from a multimillion
dollar judgment in a class action for inverse condemnation. The
class action sought compensation as a result of the Department's
destruction of thousands of citrus trees in Palm Beach County
during the Department's Citrus Canker Eradication Program (CCEP).
The Department raises multiple issues dealing both with the
court's order establishing a taking, as well as with the jury
trial on compensation.

In a Corrected Opinion, the District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District, addressed the Department's contention that the
trial court failed to apply the correct statutory presumption of
harm and burden of proof in the takings portion of the trial as
well as the exclusion of scientific evidence in the compensation
portion of the trial.  As to the application of the statutory
presumption in the takings trial, the Florida Appeals Court held
that not only was the evidence establishing a taking overwhelming,
thus meeting the burden of proof to overcome the presumption, the
issue of a compensable taking had already been resolved in Haire
v. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 870
So.2d 774 (Fla. 2004), and Patchen v. Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, 906 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 2005).
The Appeals Court, however, reversed the compensation trial,
saying the trial court excluded significant scientific evidence
relevant to the appraisers' valuation of the citrus trees.

The case is FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER
SERVICES and THE FLORIDA COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, Appellants,
v. DAVID MENDEZ and LILLIAN MENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Appellees, NO. 4D11-3271.

A copy of the District Court's October 16, 2013 Corrected Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/5WfyNQ from Leagle.com.

Wesley R. Parsons -- wparsons@cspalaw.com -- and Karen H. Curtis
-- kcurtis@cspalaw.com -- of Clarke Silverglate, P.A., Miami, for
appellants.

William S. Williams -- bwilliams@foryourrights.com -- and Margaret
M. Bichler -- mbichler@foryourrights.com -- of Lytal Reiter, LLP,
West Palm Beach, Robert C. Gilbert -- rcg@grossmanroth.com -- of
Grossman Roth, P.A., Coral Gables, Jamie Alan Cole -- jcole@wsh-
law.com -- of Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.A.,
Fort Lauderdale, and Michael J. Pucillo --
mpucillo@bermandevalerio.com -- of Berman DeValerio, for
appellees.


FOSTER FARMS: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Salmonella Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat&Poultry reports that a law firm is investigating a potential
class-action lawsuit against Foster Farms after the company's raw
poultry products were linked to a Salmonella Heidelberg outbreak
that sickened more than 300 people across 20 states.

Girard Gibbs LLP, with offices in San Francisco and New York, is
searching for the potential plaintiffs for the case.

"Consumers expect companies to implement and follow safe practices
in handling their products," said Eric Gibbs, an attorney with the
firm.  "When hundreds of consumers fall ill as a result of eating
a company's contaminated food, consumers expect those responsible
to address the injuries they may have caused."

Forty-two percent of those sickened by the pathogen were
hospitalized, an unusually high hospitalization rate for an
outbreak, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease
Control.  Seven strains of Salmonella Heidelberg were linked to
Foster Farms poultry; and the CDC said the outbreak strains were
resistant to antibiotics used to treat such infections.

Under threat of plant closures by the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, Foster Farms implemented a number of food-safety
interventions at three of its California processing plants that
were linked to the outbreak.  The company also refuted official
claims about antibiotic-resistant strains of Salmonella in its
chicken products.

Foster Farms commissioned a study by the Veterinary Medical
Teaching Hospital Microbiology Lab at the UC Davis School of
Veterinary Medicine to evaluate the antibiotic resistance patterns
of the Salmonella Heidelberg found on its chickens, but not human
patients.

"The UC Davis study found that the Foster Farms Salmonella
Heidelberg samples tested were susceptible to [could be treated
by] a number of common antibiotics including those referenced by
the CDC including ampicillin; cephalosporins [cefoxitin, ceftiofur
and ceftriaxone]; fluoroquinolones, [ciprofloxacin]; as well as
others, including amoxicillin, azithromycin, gentamicin,
kanamycin, streptomycin, sulfisoxazole, tetracycline, and
trimethoprim-sulfa," the company said in an overview of its food-
safety interventions.


GLOBAL CLIENT: Atty. Fees and Cost Award in "Carlsen" Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Client Solutions, LLC, and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust
appealed from a district court order granting a motion for
approval of attorney fees and costs pursuant to the terms of a
Settlement Agreement in the case is CHAD M. CARLSEN; SHASTA L.
CARLSEN; CARL POPHAM; MARY POPHAM, husbands and wives,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
Washington families, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GLOBAL CLIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; ROCKY
MOUNTAIN BANK & TRUST, a Colorado financial institution,
Defendants-Appellants, NO. 12-35571.

On August 2, 2009, plaintiffs filed a class action alleging
violations of Washington's Debt Adjusting Act, Wash. Rev. Code ch.
18.28, and Washington's Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code
ch. 19.86.  On January 31, 2012, a Class Action Settlement
Agreement and Release was filed.  The parties negotiated a
Settlement Agreement on the merits which involved a full refund of
all fees collected by defendants to the members of the plaintiff
class, as well as payment of the class administration expenses.
Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Appoint Special Master to
Determine Reasonable Attorney Fees under Rule 54(d)(2)(D). The
court entered an Order preliminarily approving the class
settlement, issued a class notice, set a fairness hearing, and
entered an Order appointing a special master to determine
reasonable attorney fees. The Special Master entered a fee award
based on the plaintiff's lodestar calculation of $1,092,098.10.
The Special Master recommended a multiplier of 1.65, resulting in
a final award of $1,831.015.04. Defendants filed objections to the
Special Master's report. Based on the Report and the Settlement
Agreement, plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs.
The court entered a final order and judgment approving the class
settlement. The court also entered an order granting and approving
attorney fees as recommended by the Report.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the district court approval of attorney fees and costs, saying the
district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined
that the application of the 1.65 multiplier was warranted under
Washington law because of the unusually high risks of the case and
the quality of work in an exceptional case.  The Ninth Circuit
also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that the risk was not eliminated until the Settlement
Agreement was signed and approved by the court.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 16, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/q7zxMi from Leagle.com.


GLOBAL FITNESS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in Gascho, et al. v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, on
Nov. 1 disclosed that the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio has preliminarily approved a class
action settlement.  The Plaintiffs in the action include
individuals who signed a gym membership or personal training
contract between January 1, 2006, and October 26, 2012, with
Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, which formerly did business as a
health club chain under the name Urban Active Fitness.  The
Plaintiffs, represented by the Vorys and Isaac Wiles firms based
in Columbus, Ohio, alleged that Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, was
liable to Class Members due to improper sales, servicing, and
billing practices.  Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, represented by
Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, continues to deny any and all
wrongdoing but has agreed to the terms of the settlement to fully
resolve all issues.

Now that the Court has preliminarily approved the settlement, a
notice, explanation of the settlement, and directions on how to
file a claim form were mailed and emailed to Class Members on
October 30, 2013.  Class Members have 60 days to file a claim.
Class Members may obtain additional information and file a claim
at http://www.UrbanActiveLawsuit.com

The settlement was reached after more than two years of litigation
and months of negotiation, including mediation.  The settlement
provides that:

    Any Class Member who signed a contract with Urban Active and
files a claim form will receive a $5 payment.  There are over
600,000 former members eligible to receive this award.
    Any Class Member who paid a $15 facility improvement fee or
maintenance fee to Urban Active and files a claim form will
receive a $20 payment.  There are over 315,000 former members
eligible to receive this award.
    Any Class Member who canceled a gym membership contract with
Urban Active and files a claim form will receive a $20 payment.
There are over 380,000 former members eligible to receive this
award.
    Any Class Member who canceled a personal training contract and
files a claim form will receive a $30 payment.  There are over
60,000 former members eligible to receive this award.

Class Members may qualify for each of the groups listed above,
meaning many Class Members could be eligible to receive between
$25 and $75.

The parties agreed that after years of litigation, and recognizing
the cost, complexity, and risks of continued litigation, that this
settlement is a fair, reasonable, and efficient way to provide
monetary compensation to the class members and bring closure to
all parties involved.

According to The Columbus Dispatch's Tim Feran, total settlement
could exceed $19 million.

A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for February, The
Columbus Dispatch notes.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Ordered to Produce Documents in "Chen-Oster" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In H. CRISTINA CHEN-OSTER; LISA PARISI; and SHANNA ORLICH,
Plaintiffs, v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. and THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP,
INC., Defendants, NO. 10 CIV. 6950 (AT) (JCF), (S.D.N.Y.), the
plaintiffs allege that their employers, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., engaged in a pattern of gender
discrimination against female professional employees in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section
2000e et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C.
Admin. Code section 8-107 et seq.  Specifically, the plaintiffs
contend that they have been discriminated against with respect to
compensation, promotion, and performance evaluation. The
plaintiffs seek to represent "a Class of all female financial-
services employees who are at the Associate, Vice President, and
Managing Director corporate level" at Goldman Sachs in one of the
four revenue-generating divisions: Securities, Investment Banking,
Investment Management, and Merchant Banking.

On July 28, 2013, the plaintiffs submitted a letter motion
pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
seeking an order to compel Goldman Sachs to produce (1) all
internal complaints made by putative class members during the
discovery period that relate to compensation, promotion, or
performance evaluation, (2) unredacted copies of all discoverable
complaints, and (3) internal complaints made by female employees
who are not in the putative class. Goldman Sachs opposed the
application.

Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV granted in part and denied
in part the plaintiffs' motion and directed Goldman Sachs to
provide plaintiffs' counsel with all internal complaints that are
"conceivably related" to gender discrimination made by female
employees in the four revenue-generating divisions, regardless of
whether the complainant is a member of the putative class.
"Conceivably related" includes, but is not limited to, any
complaints that contain explicit gender discrimination language as
well as any complaints that pertain to compensation, promotion, or
performance evaluation where a female employee compared herself or
a female colleague to one or more male colleagues.

"All complaints shall be turned over to plaintiffs' counsel
subject to the protect order guiding discovery in this case,
without the redaction of names," says Judge Francis.

A copy of the District Court's October 15, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/j07aDr from Leagle.com.


HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied, without prejudice, a motion
to conditionally certify a collective action and send notice to
class members in the case captioned SANDRA KELLY, JANICE WALTMAN,
AND SYLVIA PATINO, INDIVIDUALLY & ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-00441-JRG, (E.D. Tex.).

Judge Gilstarp said the Plaintiffs have failed to submit
sufficient evidence to support their proposed nation-wide class.

"The evidence, however, does suggest the existence of certain
Account Managers who are similarly situated as Plaintiffs," he
added.  "Thus, the Court deems it proper to permit Plaintiffs
additional discovery to either obtain further support for its
proposed class or to determine a lessor appropriate scope of its
class definition."

"If Plaintiffs choose to resubmit such motion, they shall do so
within ninety (90) days from [Oct. 17, 2013]," ruled Judge
Gilstrap.

The parties were further ordered to jointly submit a proposed
docket control order to the Court, which provides a defined period
of immediate discovery limited to the certification issues
discussed.

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


INFINITY GREEN: Recalls Candelabra LED Bulbs Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Infinity Green, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,000 Candelabra LED Bulbs.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bulbs can overheat and catch fire, posing a fire hazard.

Infinity Green Products has received two reports involving bulbs
overheating and catching fire.  No injuries have been reported.

The candelabra light bulbs come with a universal adaptor and look
like a standard candle light bulb.  They have a white base with a
silver heat sink with a screw-in universal adaptor.  Recalled
model numbers are UDC3CW in cool white, and UDC3WW in warm white.
The bulbs do not have markings and the single package has
"Lighting Facts per bulb" with data about the wattage, etc.
printed on a small label at the end of box.  Bulbs also come in
four packs colored blue or yellow with "Infinity LED," "fully
dimmable down to 5%" and "Candelabra LED" printed on the package.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/iH5gCg

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Heartland America by catalog and online at Heartlandamerica.com,
OfficeSuperSavers.com, Toolking.com, Wayfair.com and Green Express
Direct.com from June 2013 through October 2013 for about $17.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled LED bulbs and
contact Infinity Green Products for instructions on how to receive
a prepaid postage label to return the product and get a full
refund.  Infinity Green Products is contacting its customers
directly.


JOHNS HOPKINS: Judge Clears Way for Settlement Talks in Levy Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Janet, of Janet, Jenner & Suggs, and Jonathan Schochor, of
Schochor Federico and Staton on Nov. 1 disclosed that
Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Sylvester Cox has cleared the
way for settlement negotiations to begin between Johns Hopkins
Hospital and victims of Johns Hopkins gynecologist Nikita Levy,
M.D. who allegedly made photographs and videos of his patients
during exams and other procedures and is also allegedly guilty of
sexual boundary violations during treatment of his patients.
Dr. Levy died in February 2013 from an apparent suicide, shortly
after allegations against him became public.

Judge Cox on Oct. 30, certified a Mandatory Conditional Settlement
Class including all of Dr. Levy's patients.  Mr. Schochor,
Chairman of the Class Action Steering Committee and Janet,
Vice-Chair, are spearheading the Class Action lawsuit on behalf of
the Plaintiffs.  At this time, Mr. Schochor represents 1,700
clients and Mr. Janet represents 850 victims.  The Steering
Committee, which represents all Class members, is comprised of
eight law firms.

There are a total of 3,800 known victims of Dr. Levy to date.

"We believe that Johns Hopkins has signaled its desire to enter
into good faith negotiations by joining Plaintiffs' counsel in
requesting certification of the Class," said Mr. Schochor.
"We hope to work diligently on behalf of our clients and with
Hopkins to achieve a global resolution of these cases that
properly compensates the victims involved and ends this tragic
nightmare for all involved."

"These women feel betrayed, violated, and humiliated. Their
stories echo those of victims of sexual abuse, who experience
anxiety, distrust and problems in intimate relationships, I expect
negotiations geared toward arriving at a fair and reasonable
settlement will get underway before the year's end," said
Mr. Janet.  "At this time, former Levy patients are not required
to take any action in order to be included in the pending class
action."

The attorneys reiterated that plaintiffs need to be fully
compensated for what occurred.  They also need to re-engage in the
medical system and to obtain proper health care for themselves and
their children, the attorneys said.

Notice of the Class Action will go out to known patients of
Dr. Levy through correspondence.  Notice will also be provided
through the media in the coming weeks.


JTC PAINTING: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Boutros" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned KAMAL BOUTROS, SAMUEL ZUNIGA, Plaintiffs, v. JTC
PAINTING AND DECORATING CORP., JOHN CARUSO, Defendants, NO. 12
CIV. 7576 (PAE), (S.D. N.Y.).

Two painters, Kamal Boutros and Samuel Zuniga, filed their initial
complaint on October 10, 2012, bringing claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and a putative
class action under the New York Labor Law.  The plaintiffs allege
that their longtime employer, JTC Painting and Decorating
Corporation, and its owner John Caruso failed to pay them overtime
pay to which they were allegedly statutorily and contractually
entitled. Zuniga also alleged that JTC retaliated against him
after he filed this lawsuit, in violation of the FLSA. JTC moved
to dismiss arguing that (1) plaintiffs fail to plead facts
sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction under the
FLSA; (2) Boutros's FLSA claim was mooted by JTC's offer of
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68; and (3) if
Boutros's FLSA overtime claim is moot, the Court should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law
claims.

Judge Engelmayer held that Mr. Boutros and JTC still have a live
controversy and Mr. Boutros's FLSA claim is not moot.

The Court directed the parties to meet and confer and to prepare a
revised Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order in
accordance with the Court's Individual Rules. Counsel for the
parties were are directed to submit the Civil Case Management Plan
and Scheduling Order to the Court.

A copy of the District Court's October 15, 2013 Opinion & Order is
available at http://is.gd/pRVy7ffrom Leagle.com.


KANKAKEE COUNTY: Court Certifies Class in Suit vs. Sheriff
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael P. McCuskey granted a motion for class
certification filed in the case captioned DARNELL FONDER,
Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF OF KANKAKEE COUNTY and KANKAKEE COUNTY,
Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-2115, (C.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiff's complaint "challenges the Sheriff's policy that
requires the strip search of all arrestees being detained by the
Sheriff before their initial appearance before a judge[.]"

The court concluded that the Plaintiff has met the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The case is referred to Judge Bernthal so that a new scheduling
order may be entered.

A copy of the District Court's October 15, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/nRdpG8from Leagle.com.


LENOVO GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Notebooks' Wi-Fi Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that a Lenovo Group
Ltd. unit faces a class action in Washington. D.C., over an
alleged defect in its Ideapad U Series notebook computers that a
user claims prevents reliable wireless Internet connections,
saying the company first concealed the problem then provided false
assurances of a fix, breaching its product warranties.

Plaintiff Michael Wheeler's suit, filed Oct. 22, accuses Lenovo of
hyping up its Lenovo Ideapad U Series, Ultrabook or Ultraportable
notebook computers as impeccably designed and offering dependable
Wi-Fi connectivity even after becoming aware of a "uniform and
inherent" defect preventing them from obtaining speeds fast enough
for even basic Internet browsing.

As a result, the product can't perform in accordance with Lenovo's
marketing materials and warranties, according to the complaint.

As Mr. Wheeler alleged, Lenovo has refused to remedy the problem,
instead attempting to deflect the blame and skirt its warranty
obligations by fingering bugs in Microsoft Corp. software as the
cause.

"Lenovo concealed and/or failed to disclose to plaintiff, the
class, and everyone the defective nature of the affected
computers, and failed to remove the affected computers from the
marketplace or take adequate remedial action," the suit said.
"Rather, Lenovo sold and serviced the affected computers even
though it knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the affected
computers had a defective Wi-Fi."

The company allegedly knew about the defect while simultaneously
placing the computers in the market and continuing its $50 million
"Book of Do" national marketing campaign.  Mounting consumer
complaints eventually forced it to acknowledge the defect, which
it characterized as an "unidentified hardware defect," the suit
said.

Later, Lenovo claimed to have fixed the problem with a hardware
design update that was implemented for all U Series products
manufactured after July 23, 2013, but not only did the update
offer nothing to those who had purchased the devices before that
date; it has proven not to address the defect, rendering all U
Series notebooks useless for their intended mobile and wireless
computing functions, according to the complaint.

Lenovo allegedly denies that the defect triggers its obligations
under product warranties to repair or replace, claiming that the
devices merely need to be "reset" or that the defect is caused by
third-party software.

The so-called factory reset option is "pointless and worthless,"
the suit said, and requires owners to compound their losses by
relinquishing their devices for Lenovo to diagnose.

Mr. Wheeler is asking for certification of a districtwide class of
U Series device buyers on claims for violations of the District of
Columbia Consumer Protection and Procedures Act and for breach of
express and implied warranties, plus unjust enrichment.  He noted
that his suit predates the expiration of the warranty period and
said that Lenovo should be estopped from asserting a statute-of-
limitation defense against any class members because it actively
hid the presence of the defect.

The suit follows a class action unfolding in California federal
court demanding an injunction requiring Lenovo to establish a
common fund for U Series device repairs.

U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney refused to dismiss that request
in a July order and also allowed claims under state consumer
deception laws to advance, rejecting the company's argument that
it was shielded from liability because the defects were already
public knowledge at the times of sale.

Representatives for Lenovo were not immediately available on
Nov. 1 for comment.

Mr. Wheeler is represented by Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com
-- and Nicholas A. Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com -- of
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP and by Jordan L. Chaikin of Parker
Waichman LLP.

Counsel information for Lenovo was not immediately available.

The case is Michael Wheeler et al. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.,
case number 13-0007150, in the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia.


LUDI TRADING: Recalls Certain Bulk Dehydrated Garlic
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 1, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Ludi Trading Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
                          Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail, Warehouse
CFIA reference number:    8430

Affected products: 12.5 kg. Dehydrated Garlic Granule (40-80 mesh)
with 3700/086063065 code


MCGLAUGHLIN SPRAY: "Slemmer" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel and Paula Slemmer brought a class action against two
corporations, Barnhardt Manufacturing Co. and McGlaughlin Spray
Foam Insulation, Inc.  Barnhardt is the manufacturer of a type of
home insulation known as spray polyurethane foam (SPF), and
McGlaughlin is a certified installer of SPF. Plaintiffs allege
that SPF is a toxic substance that creates health hazards for
those living in homes where it is used.

By Order dated July 3, 2013, the Court granted, in part, and
denied, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Class
Action Complaint. Plaintiffs have since amended their Class Action
Complaint and both defendants filed motions to dismiss Count VI
(Medical-Monitoring) of the Amended Class Action Complaint.

District Judge Jan E. DuBois grants the motions to dismiss saying
plaintiffs have failed to identify a "serious latent disease."
Plaintiffs' allegation that the "serious latent disease" to be
monitored is "lung damage, and throat, eye and nose irritations"
does not give defendants "fair notice of what the . . . claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests," he says.

Judge DuBois added that the plaintiffs' proposed monitoring regime
of "diagnostic tests and pharmaceutical interventions" fails to
identify specific medical monitoring procedures as required. The
Amended Class Action Complaint fails to aver that a monitoring
program procedure exists that makes early detection of a specific
disease possible, the Court said.

Judge DuBois concluded that plaintiffs' allegation that
"[m]onitoring procedures exist that make the early detection of
any latent disease possible that are different from those normally
recommended in the absence of the exposure" is insufficient.
Because plaintiffs have already amended their complaint to address
deficiencies, a further amendment would be futile, Judge DuBois
said. Accordingly, the dismissal is with prejudice.

The case is DANIEL SLEMMER and PAULA SLEMMER, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
McGLAUGHLIN SPRAY FOAM INSULATION, INC. and BARNHARDT
MANUFACTURING CO., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6542, (E.D.
Penn.)

Copies of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Memorandum and
Order are available at http://is.gd/rWvZVaand http://is.gd/43aSOR
from Leagle.com.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Summary Judgment in TCA Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated lawsuit related to the use of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of retained asset accounts,
known as Total Control Accounts ("TCA") have appealed a summary
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, according to the company's Oct. 16, 2013, Amendment No. 1
to Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a defendant in a
consolidated lawsuit related to its use of retained asset
accounts, known as Total Control Accounts ("TCA"), as a settlement
option for death benefits.

Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,
filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court
on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company. (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011). These consolidated
putative class action lawsuits raise breach of contract claims
arising from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use of the TCA
to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group
Life Insurance program.

On March 8, 2013, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed
that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Various state regulators have also taken actions with respect to
retained asset accounts. The New York Department of Financial
Services issued a circular letter on March 29, 2012 stating that
an insurer should only use a retained asset account when a
policyholder or beneficiary affirmatively chooses to receive life
insurance proceeds through such an account and providing for
certain disclosures to a beneficiary, including that payment by a
single check is an option. In connection with a market conduct
exam, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company entered into a consent
order with the Minnesota Department of Commerce regarding the
Company's use of TCAs as a default option.

The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss arising from the TCA matters.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Retired GM Employees Appeal Dismissal of Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs who are retired General Motors employees have appealed
the dismissal of their lawsuit against Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, according to the company's Oct. 16, 2013, Amendment No. 1
to Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on July 22, 2011). This
lawsuit was filed by 45 retired General Motors ("GM") employees
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and the amended
complaint includes claims for conversion, unjust enrichment,
breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, fraudulent insurance acts, unfair trade practices, and
ERISA claims based upon GM's 2009 reduction of the employees' life
insurance coverage under GM's ERISA-governed plan. The complaint
includes a count seeking class action status.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is the insurer of GM's group
life insurance plan and administers claims under the plan.
According to the complaint, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
had previously provided plaintiffs with a "written guarantee" that
their life insurance benefits under the GM plan would not be
reduced for the rest of their lives. On June 26, 2012, the
district court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed that
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sun Life Seeks Indemnity for Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada contends that Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some
or all of the claims in sales practices lawsuits filed against it,
according to Metropolitan Life's Oct. 16, 2013, Amendment No. 1 to
Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Over the past several years, the Company has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the current
cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble
damages and attorneys' fees. The Company continues to vigorously
defend against the claims in these matters. The Company believes
adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial
statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for
sales practices matters.

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(Super. Ct., Ontario, October 2006). In 2006, Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as successor to the purchaser of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Canadian operations, filed
this lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company remains liable for "market conduct claims"
related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and that have been transferred
to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to indemnify Sun Life for
these claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale
agreement for the sale of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment.
Both parties appealed. In September 2010, Sun Life notified
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company that a purported class action
lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v. Sun Life
Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and transferred to Sun
Life. An amended class action complaint in that case was served on
Sun Life, again without naming Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
as a party.

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup.
Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices
claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life
contends that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is obligated to
indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these
lawsuits. The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.


MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Wants Securities Claims Over Restatement Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. seeks to dismiss an amended
consolidated securities complaint filed against it, according to
the company's Oct. 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2013.

On June 11, 2012, the company announced the pending restatement of
the Company's financial statements for the periods ending on or
before January 31, 2012 (the "June 11, 2012 Announcement"),
related to the Company's accounting treatment of rebates
associated with volume discounts provided by vendors. The restated
financial statements were filed on January 11, 2013.

After the June 11, 2012 Announcement, stockholders of the Company
commenced three purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising from the
circumstances described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement (the
"Securities Actions"), entitled, respectively:

Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler
and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-DJC, filed June 12, 2012
(the "Collier Action");

Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-DJC, filed June
18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and

Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler,
and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-DJC, filed July 11, 2012
(the "Heszkel Action").

Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of
those persons who purchased shares of the Company between
September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class
Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues
raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period
rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's
financial condition materially false and misleading in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the Securities Actions. The
Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 11, 2013.


MOLYCORP INC: Continues to Faces Securities Lawsuit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc. still faces the securities lawsuit, Angelo Albano,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Molycorp, Inc., et al., according to the company's Oct. 15, 2013,
Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In February 2012, a purported class action lawsuit captioned,
Angelo Albano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Molycorp, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado. This federal court action alleges,
among other things, that the Company and those officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with statements relating to its third quarter fiscal 2011
financial results and fourth quarter 2011 production guidance that
the Company had filed with or furnished to the SEC, or otherwise
made available to the public.

In July 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, certain of its private equity investors, and certain
underwriters involved in the company's public offerings in 2011.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that some or
all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act . The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages and other relief. In October 2012, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss all the claims in the amended
complaint. The Company believes the allegations are without merit
and that it has valid defenses to such allegations. The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously. The Company is unable to
provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of
these claims may impact its future consolidated financial position
or results of operations.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit for $7.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in In re OCZ Technology Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. C 12-05265-RS, according to OCZ's
Oct. 15, 2013, Form FORM 10-Q/A Amendment No. 1 filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
August 31, 2013.

On October 11, 2012, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. C 12-05265-RS) against the
company, the company's former Chief Executive Officer, and former
Chief Financial Officer.

Between October 12, 2012 and November 6, 2012, a number of similar
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
same defendants.

The shareholder class action lawsuits have been consolidated as In
re OCZ Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C
12-05265-RS, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on
March 5, 2013. The amended class action complaint asserts claims
for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of
a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
OCZ common stock and/or call options between July 6, 2011 and
January 22, 2013. The amended complaint generally alleges that OCZ
and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements
regarding OCZ's business and financial results and seeks
unspecified money damages and other relief.

In October 2013, the parties reached a settlement in principle of
the federal shareholder class action litigation. The settlement is
subject to negotiation of final documentation and court approval.
There can be no assurance that the settlement will be approved by
the Court.

                       The Settlement

On October 2, 2013, the Company announced that it had reached a
settlement in principle in the federal shareholder class action
litigation filed in connection with the Company's previously
announced financial restatement. The settlement is subject to
negotiation of final documentation and court approval. Subject to
Court approval, the settlement of $7.5 million will be funded by
the Company's Directors and Officers liability insurance. The
settlement may include an additional payment of the lesser of $6.0
million or 4% of the net proceeds in the event that the company or
any portion of it is sold within six months of the executed
settlement agreement.


OMNICON GROUP: Plaintiffs Want Suit Over Merger Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in three cases challenging the merger of Omnicom Group
Inc. with Publicis Groupe S.A. asked the court to consolidate the
actions, according to Omnicon's Oct. 17, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A putative class action challenging the merger was filed on August
5, 2013 on behalf of Omnicom shareholders in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County. The action, entitled Paul
Ansfield v. Wren, et al., names as defendants Omnicom and its
board of directors, as well as Publicis and HoldCo. It alleges
that the members of the Omnicom board breached their fiduciary
duties by, inter alia, approving a merger that is purportedly
detrimental to Omnicom's shareholders.  The action also alleges
that Publicis aided and abetted the Omnicom board's breach of
their fiduciary duties. The action seeks an injunction barring or
rescinding the Business Combination, damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Two additional purported class actions were subsequently filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County: Lee
and Lee v. Omnicom Group, et al., filed on August 14, 2013, and
Fultz v. Crawford et al., filed on August 20, 2013. Both of these
actions name as defendants Omnicom and its board of directors, as
well as Publicis, and make substantially the same allegations and
seek substantially the same relief as the Ansfield case.

On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiffs in the Ansfield and Lee actions
filed a motion to consolidate those actions with each other and
with all subsequently filed or transferred actions arising out of
the same facts and circumstances, to select plaintiffs as lead
plaintiffs and to approve plaintiffs' selection of counsel as co-
lead counsel.  On October 3, 2013, the Plaintiffs in all three
cases asked the Court to consolidate the three cases, and to
approve lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs' selection of counsel as
co-lead counsel.

Omnicom believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to
defend vigorously against them. Due to the inherent uncertainties
of such matters, and because discovery is not yet completed, the
company is unable to predict potential outcomes or estimate of the
range of potential damages, if any. Management does not presently
expect that the outcome of these matters will have a material
adverse effect on the company's results of operations or financial
position.


ONE WORLD TECH: Recalls Ryobi Battery Chargers Due to Burn Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
One World Technologies Inc., of Anderson, S.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 578,000 in the United States and 49,000
in Canada Ryobi P113 Dual Chemistry Battery Chargers.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The chargers can malfunction, posing fire and burn hazards to
consumers.

One World Technologies has received 25 reports of the P113 charger
overheating, resulting in reports of property damage to the
charger and its surroundings such as workbenches, countertops and
carpeting.

The recall involves Ryobi model P113 dual chemistry battery
chargers designed for use with both NiCd and Li-Ion portable power
tool batteries.  Battery chargers included in this recall are
green and grey and have "Ryobi"printed in white lettering on the
front of the charger.  The model number and date code can be found
on the data plate located on the bottom of the charger.  Model
P113 chargers with year/week (YY/WW) date codes between 0731-0852,
without a nine digit part number, are included in the recall.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Direct Tools Factory Outlet, The Home Depot and other retail
stores nationwide and online at Homedepot.com from September 2007
to December 2009 individually and as part of a kit for between $30
and $270.

Consumers should immediately remove any battery from the charger,
stop using the recalled charger, unplug it and contact One World
Technologies for a free replacement charger.


OPTIMER PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reached a settlement in a suit
relating to its merger plan with Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Cubist") and PDRS Corporation, according to Optimer's Oct. 15,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

This disclosure is being filed in connection with Optimer
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Optimer") entry into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") regarding the
settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of July 30, 2013 (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among Optimer, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Cubist") and PDRS Corporation.

As disclosed on page 72 of the Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A filed by Optimer with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 18, 2013 (the "Proxy Statement"), several
virtually identical putative stockholder class action complaints
related to the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the
"Merger") have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey.

On September 12, 2013, the New Jersey court entered an order
consolidating those actions and appointing a lead plaintiff. On
September 13, 2013, the Delaware court separately entered an order
consolidating those actions and appointing a lead plaintiff. After
the plaintiffs in the Delaware and New Jersey actions reached an
agreement to coordinate certain pre-trial proceedings, on
September 13, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation in the
New Jersey action providing for limited, expedited discovery and a
schedule for the filing of any motion seeking a preliminary
injunction in advance of an October 15, 2013 hearing date.  The
complaints generally seek, among other things, equitable relief to
enjoin Optimer and Cubist from consummating the Merger on the
agreed-upon terms and an award of attorneys' fees.

Optimer entered into the Memorandum of Understanding with the
plaintiffs in each of the actions regarding the settlement of all
of the lawsuits on October 14, 2013.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Lawsuit Over Grant to CEO
----------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed on its Oct. 17, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that on October 10, 2013, a putative derivative and class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company and certain officers and directors
(the "Delaware Derivative Action"). Among other things, that
complaint makes allegations about Mr. King's Original Grant (The
Grants included a grant to Mr. Steven W. King, the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer, to purchase up to 500,000
shares of the Company's common stock), a portion of which
management had already recommended to cancel. Specifically, the
Delaware Derivative Action seeks, among other things, a
declaration that the Original Grant was not authorized by the 2011
Plan, and seeks to rescind the 250,000 options that plaintiff
claims exceeded the 2011 Plan's Section 162(m) Limit.


RJ REYNOLDS: Appeals Court Rejects "Due Process" Arguments
----------------------------------------------------------
Sun Sentinel reports that a federal appeals court on Oct. 31
rejected arguments by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. that its
due-process rights had been violated as cigarette makers try to
fend off thousands of lawsuits in Florida.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals stems from a 2006 Florida Supreme Court opinion in a
class-action lawsuit against the tobacco industry.

The Supreme Court determined such lawsuits have to be heard
individually instead of as a class action, but it also established
critical findings about the health dangers of smoking and
misrepresentation by cigarette makers -- findings that have led to
a flood of lawsuits filed by sick smokers or their survivors.

R.J. Reynolds, in appealing two verdicts against it, argued that
applying the findings to suits filed by individual smokers
violated its due-process rights.  It pointed, for example, to
ambiguity about whether the jury in the original class-action suit
found that each tobacco company acted wrongfully with respect to
any specific brand of cigarette or any individual plaintiff,
according to Thursday's ruling.

But the appeals court rejected R.J. Reynolds' arguments.  "We
cannot say that the procedures, however novel, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Florida to manage thousands of these suits under
Florida law violated the federal right of R.J. Reynolds to due
process of law," said the 26-page ruling, written by Judge William
H. Pryor and joined by judges James C. Hill and James R. Hall.


SAKS INC: Reaches Settlement of Consolidated Suit Against Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saks Incorporated reached in late October a settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit challenging Hudson's Bay
Company's proposed acquisition of the Company, according to Sak's
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated October 21, 2013.

On October 3, 2013, Saks Incorporated filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission a definitive proxy statement, with respect
to the special meeting of Saks shareholders scheduled October 30,
2013, to, among other things, vote on the approval of the merger
with Hudson's Bay Company.

The seven putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed
acquisition of Saks by Hudson's Bay were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County: Cohen v. Saks
Inc. et al., Index No. 652724/2013, filed Aug. 2, 2013; Jennings
v. Arredondo et al., Index No. 652725/2013, filed Aug. 2, 2013;
Oliver v. Saks Inc. et al., Index No. 652758/2013, filed Aug. 6,
2013; Teitelbaum v. Arredondo et al., Index No. 652793/2013, filed
Aug. 8, 2013; Sabattini v. Saks Inc., et al., Index No.
652817/2013, filed Aug. 9, 2013; Oliver v. Saks, Inc. et al.,
Index No. 652854/2013, filed Aug. 14, 2013; and Golding v.
Arredondo et al., Index No 653036/2013, filed Aug. 30, 2013. The
following two additional lawsuits were filed in Tennessee: Golding
v. Saks Inc., Case No. 13-1127-II, was filed on August 9, 2013 in
the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, and Firemen's
Retirement System of St. Louis v. Saks Inc., et al., Case No. 13-
C3299, was filed on August 15, 2013 in the Circuit Court for
Davidson County, Tennessee. On August 12, 2013, the plaintiff in
the Golding case in Tennessee filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal. By order dated September 5, 2013, the New York court
consolidated the cases before it. The complaints allege that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's shareholders in connection with the merger by agreeing
to sell the Company for inadequate merger consideration and by
agreeing to terms in the merger agreement that discourage
competing bidders. The complaints also challenge certain of the
disclosures that Saks and its directors  have made in the
Definitive Proxy Statement.  The complaints also allege that
Hudson's Bay aided and abetted the directors' breach of their
fiduciary duties. These lawsuits seek, among other relief, an
injunction barring the merger and damages.

On October 21, 2013, the parties to the consolidated action in New
York reached an agreement in principle providing for the
settlement of the outstanding litigation on the terms and
conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU").
Pursuant to the MOU, the defendants agreed to make certain
supplemental and amended disclosures to the disclosures in the
Definitive Proxy Statement, and Hudson's Bay has agreed to forbear
from exercising certain rights under the merger agreement.

The effect of Hudson's Bay's forbearances is to (1) decrease the
termination fee payable by Saks to $68.5 million from $73.5
million in the event that the merger agreement is terminated under
circumstances triggering payment of the termination fee by Saks,
(2) shorten the time period Saks is required to give Hudson's Bay
to "match" an alternative proposal to acquire Saks made by a third
party from four business days to three business days and (3)
extend the deadline for Saks to give Hudson's Bay notice of the
receipt of an alternative acquisition proposal or the entry into a
confidentiality agreement from 48 hours to 72 hours.

The MOU further provides that, among other things, (1) the parties
will enter into a definitive stipulation of settlement (the
"Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County, for review and
approval; (2) the Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the
outstanding litigation in New York on the merits; (3) the
Stipulation will include a general release of defendants of claims
relating to the merger and related transactions; and (4) the
proposed settlement is conditioned on, among other things,
completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class certification,
and final approval by the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
New York County  after notice to Saks' shareholders.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the Special Meeting
or the amount of merger consideration to be paid to shareholders
of Saks in connection with the proposed merger.

The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or duties or
engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been
alleged in the referenced lawsuits, and expressly maintain that,
to the extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously
complied with any applicable fiduciary and other legal duties and
are entering into the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate
the burden and expense of further litigation, to put the claims
that were or could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any
possible delay to the closing of the merger that might arise from
further litigation.


SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Court Clarifies Order in "David" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susie Morgan granted a Motion for Reconsideration
or Clarification of Order filed by defendant Malvern C. Burnett,
Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., and The Gulf Coast Immigration Center,
LLC in the case captioned, "Before the Court in KURIAN DAVID, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Section
"E", Defendants, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Section "E",
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NOS. 08-1220, 12-557, (E.D. La.)"

The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of
approximately 578 workers from India.  After class certification
of plaintiffs' claims was denied on January 4, 2012, the action
proceeded with the 12 named plaintiffs. The statutes of
limitations for plaintiffs' claims were tolled for the putative
class members from the filing of the class action complaint on
March 7, 2008 until at least February 3, 2012, the deadline for
plaintiffs to file an appeal from Judge Zainey's Order and Reasons
denying class certification.  The putative class members' state
law claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of
contract were tolled an additional 120 days to May 3, 2012 by
Order of Judge Zainey following plaintiffs' consent motion.

On July 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court to
toll the statutes of limitations with respect to the putative
class members who would have been represented by the class
representatives identified in the caption to these proceedings if
a class had been certified. Plaintiffs sought tolling with respect
to claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, the Klu
Klux Klan Act of 1871, discrimination claims pursuant to the Civil
Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981), as well as state law tort and
contract claims. The Court, employing its discretion and equity
powers, tolled the statutes of limitations for the putative class
members through August 28, 2013. Burnett has requested the Court
to reconsider and clarify its order.

Accordingly, Judge Morgan ruled the Court's Order of August 28,
2013, is clarified to provide that the statutes of limitations are
tolled through August 28, 2013 only with respect to federal law
claims brought in this action.

A copy of the District Court's October 14, 2013 Order and
Reasonsis available at http://is.gd/kIplBC from Leagle.com.


SUPERVALU INC: RICO Act Violations Suit Stayed Due to IOS Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings have been stayed in a case filed against Supervalu
Inc. pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain
former officers of International Outsourcing Services, LLC,
according to Supervalu's Oct. 17, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
(12 weeks) ended September 7, 2013.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"), Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.,
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The
Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all
proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the
criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.


SUPERVALU INC: Mediation in Suit Over C&S Deal Expected This Fall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
ordered mandatory mediation for Supervalu Inc. and plaintiffs in a
suit challenging the transaction between the company and C&S
Wholesale Grocers, Inc., according to Supervalu's Oct. 17, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period (12 weeks) ended September 7, 2013.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets.

In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of
the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's
bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to
C&S which were located in New England. Since December 2008, three
other retailers have filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions.

The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The
complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued
through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and
the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company
and C&S purchased from each other.

Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed these decisions. On
February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit
for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied
the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District
Court. On September 19, 2013, the District Court held a hearing on
the Company's motion to stay the proceedings at the District Court
pending a decision on the second 8th Circuit appeal regarding
class certification and summary judgment and took the matter under
advisement. The District Court ordered the parties to mandatory
mediation which is expected to take place sometime in Fall 2013.


SUPERVALU INC: Save-A-Lot Settles Lawsuit Over Method of Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a suit filed by a former Assistant
Store Manager at Save-A-Lot over the fluctuating work week method
of pay, according to Supervalu Inc.'s Oct. 17, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period (12 weeks) ended September 7, 2013

In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-
Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent
current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week
method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the
District of Connecticut.

FWW is a method of compensation whereby employees are paid a fixed
salary for all hours worked during a week plus additional
compensation at one-half the regular rate for overtime hours.

Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful or, if lawful,
that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method of pay,
including in situations involving paid time off, holiday pay, and
bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District Court
granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue
of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the
United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's motion for
summary judgment on the same issue.

This FWW practice is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and other state laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in
the case. The same plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer filed
two additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU.
Shortly before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases
filed by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011,
the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at
Hartford granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot
determining FWW was a legal practice in Connecticut.

In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano)
filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania
state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the
Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary
damages and attorneys' fees.

On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the
matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the
Company's aggregate obligation, including with respect to
settlement funds, plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs and
settlement administration costs.

The settlement is subject to the applicable courts' preliminary
and final approval. The parties expect to file a motion seeking
preliminary approval in November 2013. The Company recorded a
litigation settlement charge of $5 million before tax ($3 million
after tax) in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 in connection with
the expected settlement of this matter.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 3 Class Suits by Homeowners
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., disclosed in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that SunTrust Mortgage has been
named in three putative class actions similar to those that other
financial institutions are facing which allege that the company
acted improperly in connection with the practice of force placing
homeowners' insurance in certain instances.

Generally, the plaintiffs in these actions allege that SunTrust
Mortgage violated various duties by failing to properly negotiate
pricing for force placed insurance and by receiving kickbacks or
other improper benefits from the providers of such insurance. The
first case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. SunTrust Mortgage filed a motion to
dismiss this case and this motion was granted in part and denied
in part. The second case, Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage,
Inc. et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. SunTrust Mortgage filed a motion to
dismiss in this case that remains pending. The third case, Yaghoub
Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
SunTrust Mortgage has filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to
transfer in this case that remain pending.


TELECOM NETWORK: Appeals Court Reverses Wage and Hour Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENTON v. TELECOM NETWORK SPECIALISTS, INC. is a wage and hour
class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, violation of
meal and rest break requirements and failure to pay overtime. The
proposed class consisted of approximately 750 cell-phone tower
technicians, most of whom were hired and paid by staffing
companies that contracted with TNS. The remainder of the
technicians -- approximately 15% of the proposed class -- were
hired and paid by TNS directly.  Plaintiffs alleged that TNS was
the employer of both categories of technicians and moved to
certify their claims.  The trial court denied the motion,
concluding that, even if it assumed TNS was the employer of every
class member, plaintiffs could not establish TNS's liability
through common proof because: (1) the technicians worked under "a
diversity of workplace conditions" that enabled some of them to
take meal and rest breaks; and (2) the staffing companies that
hired and paid many of the TNS technicians had adopted different
meal, rest break and overtime policies throughout the class
period.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, reversed the order and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  According to the Appeals Court, although the reasons
set forth in the trial court's written order do not provide a
sufficient basis for denying class certification, the record
demonstrates that TNS raised additional arguments which the court
did not address.  Most notably, the Calif. Appeals Court said, the
court's order made clear that it had assumed without deciding that
TNS's status as a joint employer of the contractor technicians was
amenable to class treatment. Additionally, the court did not
address whether it was proper to certify a single class comprised
of technicians who were hired and paid directly by TNS and
technicians who were hired and paid by a staffing company.

The case is LORENZO BENTON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
TELECOM NETWORK SPECIALISTS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO.
B242441.  A copy of the Appeals Court's October 16, 2013 Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/jro9fgfrom Leagle.com.

Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Randall B. Aiman-Smith -- ras@asmlawyers.com
-- Reed W.L. Marcy -- rwlm@asmlawyers.com -- and Hallie Von Rock
-- hvr@asmlawyers.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Cook Brown, Brian D. Bertossa -- bbertossa@cookbrown.com -- and
Carrie E. Bushman -- cbushman@cookbrown.com -- for Defendant and
Appellant.


VISA INC: Merchants Could Be Entitled to Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------
Ken Musante, writing for Times-Standard Online, reports that in
2005, retailers brought a class action lawsuit against Visa and
MasterCard.  The retailers argued that the companies used unfair
and monopolistic forces to increase the processing costs. The
lawsuit claims that merchants paid excessive fees for accepting
Visa and MasterCard.  A negotiated settlement resulted in the
defendants agreeing to pay $7.25 billion.  As a merchant accepting
credit cards, you are entitled to a portion of this settlement.

This settlement comes on the heels of the benefits provided by the
Durbin Amendment, which only addressed the Interchange rate for
debit cards.  The amendment was implemented in the fourth quarter
of 2011 and permanently lowered Interchange fees on debit cards
(both PIN debit and signature debit) from cards issued by large
banks (more than $10 billion in assets).  Chase, US Bank, Bank of
America, Wells Fargo and Umpqua Bank are all over $10 billion and
classified as large.

Interchange is the largest portion of merchant processing fees and
is the fee paid by the merchant's bank to the card issuing bank as
an inducement for the issuer to issue cards.  The Durbin Amendment
was a major win for card-accepting establishments.  This
settlement too may be a significant opportunity for merchants.

The monetary portion of the settlement consists of two funds.  The
first is a cash fund in the amount of $6.05 billion.  The second
is a fund is estimated to be $1.2 billion and is a rebate of a
portion of interchange fees for an eight-month period to start by
July 29, 2013.

The amount each merchant may receive is not yet known, as the fund
is impacted by the number of merchants who opt out of the
settlement and settle directly with Visa and MasterCard, the
amount of the attorney fees and the number of merchants filing a
claim.

Even with this sizable set aside for large "opt out" merchants and
attorney fees, there 1is still a huge fund remaining and unless
merchants act, they will lose out on the opportunity, so every
merchant who does not register, results in a greater amount for
those who do.

If and when the court grants final approval of the class
settlement, claim forms will be sent to all known class members.
Claim forms will also be available at this website, although they
are not available at this time:

     http://www.paymentcardsettlement.com/en

Merchants should be aware that they may register themselves for
free.  Your merchant processor should be able to assist you with
these forms as well.  While companies are available to assist you
for a fee, you do not need to pay anyone should you choose to
register yourself.

In closing, recognize that your portion of the settlement will
only be available to you IF you register.  Once the forms are
available, you may do so directly without any fee whatsoever.
Companies do exist to assist you should you wish, but they will
charge a fee for their assistance.  Talk to your merchant
processor about how you may minimize your registration costs.


WEST BROM: Customers to Launch Class Action Over Mortgage Hike
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express & Star reports that thousands of customers at the
West Brom Building Society are ready to launch legal action over
increases to tracker mortgage rates.

The company is introducing a two per cent rate hike for its 6,700
buy-to-let tracker mortgage borrowers from December 1.11  This
will lead to many customers having to make much higher repayments
than they currently do.  But the move has led to 1,000 people
registering an interest in a "class action" which will challenge
the legality of the increase.

A "class action" is when a number of people affected by something
get together and have one legal case rather than pursuing separate
legal cases.

Neil Patterson from property publishers Property118.com, which is
hoping to launch the action, is currently waiting on legal opinion
as to how to proceed with the case.  The company has said the
action will cost around GBP100,000 and it has already raised
enough to cover the initial legal work and the costs of obtaining
counsels' opinion.  The company's website states it started the
campaign as it believes "the actions of West Brom are immoral" and
adds "we believe the actions of West Brom are unlawful, i.e. they
have no legal grounds to increase their tracker rate margins".

The website says it is also fearful of other lenders following
suit.

All borrowers affected are landlords of multiple property
portfolios and are operating all over the country and not just
within the West Midlands.  They took out their mortgages between
2006 and 2008 and are paying an average rate of 1.65 per cent.

In a statement the West Brom said: "Market conditions have changed
significantly since these buy-to-let mortgages were taken out,
resulting in an increased cost of funding them.  At the same time,
the landlords in question have seen their interest rates fall by
up to 80 per cent, with a consequent increase in their income.

"We have held off on making any changes to rates for as long as we
feel reasonable, but have acted now to balance the interests of
the Society's wider membership."


* New FCC Interpretation May Increase TCPA Class Action Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon S. Petersen, Esq., and Adrienne Lee, Esq., at Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton, report that plaintiffs frequently sue
businesses in class actions for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the "TCPA").
The TCPA generally prohibits calls and text messages to cell
phones using automated systems or artificial or pre-recorded voice
unless the consumer gives "prior express consent."  The TCPA
imposes statutory penalties of $500 per negligent violation, and
up to $1,500 per knowing or willful violation.  In class actions,
the potential liability usually extends back four years prior to
the filing of the complaint.  The numbers can get very high, very
quickly -- for example, at least $500,000 for 1000 calls; at least
$5 million for 10,000 calls, etc.  Though the TCPA does not
authorize attorneys' fees itself, plaintiffs usually recover them
in class actions.

These cases often turn on whether the business has obtained "prior
express consent."  Since 1992, the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"), charged with implementing the TCPA, has
interpreted this to mean that "persons who knowingly give their
phone number have in effect given their invitation or permission
to be called at the number which they have given, absent
instructions to the contrary."  In re Rules and Regulations
Implementing the TCPA, 7 FCC Rcd. 8752, 8769 (Oct. 16, 1992).

The FCC, however, is now set to reverse itself.  On June 11, 2012,
the FCC published a new interpretation of "prior express consent"
for telemarketing calls that will go into effect on October 16,
2013.  The FCC's new interpretation now requires a prior, signed,
written agreement, specifically agreeing to receive telemarketing
calls or text messages via auto-dialer and/or pre-recorded voice.
This rule does not apply to debt collection calls or texts, unless
such calls or texts include or introduce any type of advertisement
or marketing materials.

Under the new rule, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(f)(8) specifically
provides:

The term prior express written consent means an agreement, in
writing, bearing the signature of the person called that clearly
authorizes the seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the
person called advertisements or telemarketing messages using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice, and the telephone number to which the signatory authorizes
such advertisements or telemarketing messages to be delivered.

(i) The written agreement shall include a clear and conspicuous
disclosure informing the person signing that:

(A) By executing the agreement, such person authorizes the seller
to deliver or cause to be delivered to the signatory telemarketing
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
or prerecorded voice; and

(B) The person is not required to sign the agreement (directly or
indirectly), or agree to enter into such an agreement as a
condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services.

(ii) The term "signature" shall include an electronic or digital
form of signature, to the extent that such form of signature is
recognized as a valid signature under applicable federal law or
state contract law.

What courts will do with the FCC's new interpretation remains to
be seen. Courts are required to give deference to an agency's
interpretation of a statute, but only if the statute is unclear.
See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984).

To date, most courts have followed the FCC's old interpretation
finding sufficient consent to be called if a cell phone number is
provided. See Emanuel v. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc., 2013 WL
1719035, *6 (C.D. of Cal., April 18, 2013) (telemarketing case;
court agreed with the "many federal courts" that "have concluded
that when a customer provides a company his or her phone number in
connection with a transaction, he or she consents to receiving
calls about that transaction" on the phone); Saunders v. NCO Fin.
Sys., 2012 WL 6644278, *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (debt collection case;
"the authorities are almost unanimous that voluntarily furnishing
a cellphone number to a vendor or other contractual counterparty
constitutes express consent"); Pinkard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
2012 WL 5511039, *5-6 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (telemarketing case;
"distributing one's telephone number is an invitation to be
called"); Greene v. DirecTV, Inc., 2010 WL 4628734, *3 (N.D. Ill.,
2010) (telemarketing case; plaintiff "expressly consented to the .
. . phone call by releasing her cell phone number as the one at
which she wished to be reached."); Ibey v. Taco Bell Corp., 2012
WL 2401972, *3 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (telemarketing case; "plaintiff
expressly consented to contact by Defendant when he initially
texted . . . to Defendant"); Ryabyschuck v. Citibank, 2012 WL
5379143, *3 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (telemarketing case; where "lone text
message at issue was sent to a number voluntarily provided by
Plaintiff to Defendant without caveat . . . These circumstances
unmistakably display some measure of prior consent"); Roberts v.
Paypal, Inc., 2013 WL 2384242, *7 (N.D.Cal.) (telemarketing case;
granting defendant's summary judgment motion finding that
plaintiff consented to receive text messages from defendant
"simply by providing his cell phone number."); Jamison v. First
Credit Services, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43978 *45 (N.D.Ill.,
2013)(debt collection case; court denied class certification in
suit against auto financing company, finding that "issues of
individualized consent predominate[d]" because Honda set forth
"evidence showing that a significant percentage of the putative
class consented to receiving calls on their cell phone" by
providing their cell phone numbers).

Other courts, however, have disagreed with the FCC's old
interpretation, requiring prior written consent to be called,
specifically via an auto-dialer or prerecorded voice, for both
telemarketing calls and debt collection calls.  In the debt
collection case of Leckler v. Cashcall, 554 F.Supp.2d 1025 (N.D.
Cal. 2008), the court held that the FCC's interpretation allows
for "implied" consent and "flies in the face of Congress' intent."
Id. at 1029-1030, vacated on other grounds 2008 WL 5000528.
"Although the Court does not doubt that by providing her cell
phone number in her loan application and in subsequent
correspondence plaintiff consented to be called by defendant, such
consent was implied through her actions and conduct . . . rather
than expressly given in words . . . explicitly stating that
plaintiff consented to be called with an autodialer or prerecorded
voice." Id. at 1030; see also Edeh v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., 748 F.Supp.2d 1030, 1038 (D. Minn. 2010) (debt collection;
"express" means "explicit" and not "implicit;" defendant debt
collector "was not permitted to make an automated call" unless
debtor "had previously said something like this: 'I give you
permission to use an automatic telephone dialing system to call my
cellular phone.'"); Thrasher-Lyon v. CCS Commercial LLC, 2012 WL
5389722, *2 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (telemarketing case; "agreeing to be
contacted by telephone, which [plaintiff] effectively did when she
gave out her number, is much different than expressly consenting
to be robo-called."); Travel Travel Kirkwood, Inc. v. Jen N.Y.,
Inc., 206 S.W.3d 387, 392 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (telemarketing case;
"If consent is not manifested by explicit and direct words, but
rather is gathered only by implication or necessary deduction from
the circumstances, the general language, or the conduct of the
parties, it is not express consent.  Rather, it is merely implied
consent.").

Plaintiffs' class action attorneys, of course, will take the most
aggressive position.  To avoid being sued in TCPA class actions,
businesses should consider adopting the elements of the new FCC
rule for both telemarketing and debt collection calls and texts.
Businesses should also consider an even broader consent agreement,
one in which the person agrees to receive calls or texts on the
particular cell phone number provided, regardless of whether it is
the signatory who receives this call or a friend or relative who
might be in possession of the cell phone at the time.


                             *********

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  * * *