/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/131120.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 20, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 230


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
AU OPTRONICS: Mississippi Attorney Says CAFA Case Straightforward
BABYCOTTONS OF MIAMI: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Violation
BAYER AG: Among 500 Women Registers for Yasmin, Yaz Class Action
BCBG MAX: Purchasers of Miley Cyrus Jewelry Brand Can Get Refund

BIOMET INC: Canadian Patients File Hip Device Class Action
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Glenn Lerner Evaluates Pradaxa Claims
CANADA CARTAGE: Employees File Overtime Class Action
CLUB CAR: Recalls Golf & Transport Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
COLE REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty

COMCAST CORP: Judge Narrows Class in Subscribers' Antitrust Suit
DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over GranuFlo Side Effects
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Special Education Class Action Can Proceed
DREAM ON ME: Recalls Cradle Gliders Due to Infant Fall Hazard
DSW INC: Fails to Operate Blind-Friendly POS Devices, Suit Says

ERGO BABY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Business Practices
FIRST LIBERTY: Settles Debit Card Fee Class Action for $2.5 Mil.
FRAN'S FRYERS: Recalls Various Raw Poultry Products
GLASS ONION: Recalls Grilled Chicken Salad Due to Possible E. Coli
GOODYEAR TIRE: Politician Files Asbestos Class Action

HERD ENTERPRISES: Accused of Rolling Employees' Overtime Hours
HERR FOODS: Did Not Have System to Track Hours Worked, Suit Says
ILLINOIS: Class Actions Challenge Parole Revocation Process
KIWIBANK: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Penalty Fees
L.L. BEAN: Recalls Girl's Pajamas Due to Violation

LES SCHWAB: Responds to Assistant Managers' Overtime Class Action
LEXISNEXIS: Porter Wright Discusses Class Action Ruling
M&M RETAIL: Two Insurers Must Cover TCPA Class Action Settlement
MASSMUTUAL: Employees File Class Action Over 401(K) Plans
NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Clay Bowl Outdoor Fireplaces

NEW ZEALAND: Taranaki Hapu Joins Treaty Settlement Class Action
OSWALDO CONSTRUCTION: Sued by Painter Over Improper Overtime Rate
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Additional Chicken, Ham and Beef Products
SINGAS FAMOUS: Employee Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
SOUTH AFRICA: Revenue Service May Face Taxpayers' Class Action

STATE FARM: Ohio Supreme Court Decertifies Windshield Class Action
STEP2 COMPANY: Recalls Ride-On Wagon Toys Due to Fall Hazard
STERICYCLE INC: Faces Class Actions Over Excessive Disposal Fees
TACO TRUCK: Faces FLSA Suit by Drivers, Cooks, Preps & Cashiers
TAQUERIA MI PALENQUE: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Work

TESLA MOTORS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
US FOREST SERVICE: Faces Suit Over Timber Sale Operation Shutdown
WOOD CASTLE: Recalls Bunk Beds Due to Entrapment Hazard
WYCEN FOODS: Recalls Chinese Style Chicken Sausages Due to MSG

* Class Actions Over False Advertising Claims on the Rise
* Directors Want Australian Gov't to Regulate Litigation Funders
* New Template for Assessing Costs Cuts Class Action Motion Awards


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that after
acknowledging last month that hackers gained access to the
personal and financial data of 38 million of its active users,
Adobe Systems Inc. on Nov. 11 was targeted by a class action filed
in the Northern District of California.

Adobe's "substandard security practices and on-going security
problems" left its networks and software products customers
"vulnerable to attack, theft and misuse" of their personal
information, Girard Gibbs partner Eric Gibbs --
ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- wrote in the complaint.  The lawsuit
alleges breach of contract and violations of California's data
protection laws.

In an emailed statement, Adobe spokeswoman Wiebke Lips declined to
address the allegations.

Named plaintiff Christina Halpain is suing the San Jose-based
software maker, which produces widely used programs like
Photoshop, Acrobat and Reader.  As widely reported, hackers in a
period stretching between mid-August and mid-September breached
Adobe's own source codes and the network where it stored the
credit card information of millions of users.

However, Adobe waited until Oct. 3 -- two weeks after it first
learned of the breach, according to the suit -- to notify its
customers that their personal data, like login IDs, passwords and
credit and debit card numbers, had been compromised.

Adobe originally announced that the breach exposed information
tied to 2.9 million customers.  But three weeks later the company
revealed that, in fact, data for 38 million users had been
breached and the code behind another one of its programs,
Photoshop, had been stolen.

Ms. Halpain, a Huntington Beach website designer, earlier this
year purchased a year-long subscription to Adobe's Create Cloud
for $29 a month, giving her access to the company's graphic- and
web-design software, including Muse, InDesign and Illustrator.

But Adobe's inability to protect users' data has made the Cloud
service she pays for less valuable, the suit alleges.  Ms. Halpain
would have to pay an early termination fee to drop her
subscription, and reacting to the breach has already cost her time
and money, Mr. Gibbs wrote.

Although the company offered her access to a credit monitoring
service, Ms. Halpain bought her own subscription to a different
surveillance provider for approximately $15 per month.
Ms. Halpain says that as a result of the breach she's also had to
notify clients that websites she's built for them using Adobe
software are potentially vulnerable.

"Unfortunately," Ms. Halpain's attorney wrote, "many Adobe users
have invested substantial amounts of money in their Adobe software
or committed to annual subscriptions for Adobe services under the
mistaken belief and understanding that Adobe's software was secure
and are now stuck with software products and services that are of
less value to them."

The suit notes that Adobe's most recent data breach was just one
in a long string of hacks.  In the past seven years, Adobe has had
at least eight separate breaches of its network and software,
according to the complaint.

AU OPTRONICS: Mississippi Attorney Says CAFA Case Straightforward
Yall Politics reports that it is unclear, based on oral arguments
on Nov. 6, how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in a Mississippi
case in which some contend state Attorney General Jim Hood is
trying to circumvent the federal Class Action Fairness Act.

Based on a transcript of the arguments, most of the justices'
questioning focused on whether the lawsuit State of Mississippi ex
rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp. qualified as a "mass action" under

Attorney Jonathan Massey, of Massey & Gail LLP and who argued on
behalf of Hood Wednesday, called the case "straightforward."

"There is only one plaintiff in the case, the state of
Mississippi," he told the justices.  "It is not a citizen for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, the
requirements of even minimal diversity, let alone the 100-person
numerosity requirement of CAFA, cannot be met."

BABYCOTTONS OF MIAMI: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Violation
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Babycottons, of Miami, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of about
1,100 Children's nightgowns.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The nightgowns fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Babycottons children's 100% cotton nightgowns
sold in sizes 24 months through toddler size 6.  The nightgowns
were sold in six prints including Alphabet (style 1413W245), BC
Flowers (style 1413S220), Fairies (style 1413W125), Fairies Dots
(style 1413W127), Mei Mei (style 1413S200) and Summertime (style
1413S190).  The style numbers are printed on a hangtag attached to
the garments.  The white Alphabet gown has long sleeves with an
alphabet print and image of an item beginning with that letter.
The white and peach BC Flowers gown has the initials "BC" printed
in the middle of the chest with a flower vines print.  The white
Fairies gown has long sleeves white pink fairies.  The Fairies
Dots gown has long sleeves with a white polka dot and solid pink
background and a fairy applique in the center with a white ribbon.
The white and pink polka dots Mei Mei gown has short sleeve with
two girls printed on the center of the chest.  The white
Summertime gown has short sleeves with girls swimming in a coral
and fish print.  All of the gowns have ruffles on the sleeves,
neck or bottom.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in Peru and sold
exclusively at Babycottons boutiques nationwide from February 2013
through July 2013 for $48.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled nightgowns away
from children and return to Babycottons for a full refund.

BAYER AG: Among 500 Women Registers for Yasmin, Yaz Class Action
Melody Horrill, writing for 7News Adelaide, reports that an
Adelaide law firm has been inundated with hundreds of
registrations for a potential class action against a German-based
contraceptive pill maker.

Lucy Mazzarolo is among 500 women who have registered for a
potential class action against Bayer, which makes the pills Yasmin
and Yaz.  More than a year after she gave birth, a blood clot
caused a stroke and left her virtually blind.  She used Yasmin
before and after the birth, and blames the pill.

"Just the thought of not being able to see my daughter grow, she
was 14 months old at the time, so that really hit hard," she said.

Her vision has improved, but it will never be the same.

Lawyer Tim White said: "At the severe end it's blood clotting
causing pulmonary embolism or strokes which usually result in
being hospitalized, often in intensive care."

Family planning expert Dr Edith Weisberg said there was a very low
risk of increased blood clotting with all combined pills
containing oestrogen.

Experts said the chances are marginally higher for Yaz or Yasmin
users, but that pales in comparison to the natural risk of
clotting when pregnant or after giving birth.

Bayer said it will vigorously defend any legal action, though
company has already paid $1.4 million to women in the United

BCBG MAX: Purchasers of Miley Cyrus Jewelry Brand Can Get Refund
Emerson Poynter LLP on Nov. 12 disclosed that if you purchased
Miley Cyrus-branded jewelry from Walmart after July 1, 2005, that
was manufactured by BCBG Max Azria you may obtain a cash refund in
a recent class action settlement.

In July of 2010, Emerson Poynter LLP filed a class action
complaint in the Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, which
alleged Miley Cyrus-branded jewelry manufactured by BCBG Max Azria
and sold at Walmart contained cadmium and could pose a danger to
its wearers.  Recently, the case was settled.  The class action
settlement provides cash benefits to those that purchased
Miley Cyrus-branded jewelry at any Walmart in the United States.
In fact, if you purchased the jewelry at any Walmart, and haven't
before obtained a refund for your purchase, you may now obtain a
refund at the highest retail price Walmart received at any of its
retail stores.

Emerson Poynter asks purchasers of Miley Cyrus-branded jewelry
products to visit the settlement's website at
http://www.canamoresettlement.comfor more information, and to
file a claim online.  You may also print out claim forms, and mail
them to the settlement's administrator.

If you need any help at all, just call the attorneys at Emerson
Poynter LLP at (800) 663-9817.  They will help you file your
claim, or file it for you.

CONTACT: Emerson Poynter LLP
         Telephone: (800) 663-9817

BIOMET INC: Canadian Patients File Hip Device Class Action
HarrisMartin reports that Canadian recipients of several Biomet
hip devices have filed a class action on behalf of themselves and
their insurers, alleging that Biomet failed to warn of the risks
and is liable for compensatory and punitive damages for design and
manufacturing flaws.

The statement of claim was filed jointly by three Canadian law
firms Nov. 4 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the
Class Proceedings Act 1992.

Steven Dalton Dine, the sole named plaintiff and class
representative, is seeking compensatory damages of $100 million
for class members, or an amount determined by the court.

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Glenn Lerner Evaluates Pradaxa Claims
The national law offices of Glen Lerner Injury Attorneys on
Nov. 12 disclosed that they are currently evaluating Pradaxa class
action claims.  Multi-District Lawsuits have been already been
filed (MDL No. 2385, United States District Court, Southern
District of Illinois).  These lawsuits have linked people who were
hospitalized due to serious bleeding or blood loss to Pradaxa use.
Those who believe they or a loved one's personal health and
quality of life has suffered due to Pradaxa may be eligible for
money damages and are encouraged to call 1(800) GET-GLEN for a
free case evaluation.

"Even though the FDA has notified health care professionals and
the general public about the potential dangers of using Pradaxa,
there are patients who are still being harmed by this drug," said
Personal Injury Attorney Glen Lerner.  "That is why our class
action attorneys are offering to evaluate claims from possible
users who believe they or a loved one may have suffered serious
health complications after taking this blood thinning drug."

According to an U.S. FDA safety announcement released on 12-19-
2012, patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves who used
Pradaxa were more likely to experience blood clots forming on
their mechanical heart valves, heart attacks and strokes, than
users of other anticoagulants (blood thinners).  The FDA also
released a Drug Safety Communication on 11-02-2012 stating that
Pradaxa can cause bleeding that could potentially lead to serious
or even fatal outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial
fibrillation.  More information about the blood thinning drug
Pradaxa may be found at http://www.fda.govkeyword search term

                 About Glen Lerner Injury Attorneys

The national law offices of Glen Lerner Injury Attorneys have been
helping those who have been injured by dangerous drugs since 1991.
Over the last decade the firm has grown into one of the largest
Plaintiffs personal injury firms in the country with offices in
Nevada, Arizona, Minnesota, Illinois, Louisiana and Florida.  They
have settled or tried to verdict close to 75 cases in excess of a
million dollars in the last decade alone.  Their attorneys are
experienced at going up against large corporate pharmaceutical
giants and are able to handle personal injury cases and class
action medical and product liability class action claims.  For
additional information, visit http://www.GETGLEN.comor call 1
(800) GET-GLEN.

CANADA CARTAGE: Employees File Overtime Class Action
Lawyers from the law firm Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP on
Nov. 12 announced a class action lawsuit against Canada Cartage
Diversified GP Inc., Direct General Partner Corporation, and
Canada Cartage System, Limited regarding unpaid overtime.

Canada Cartage, with headquarters in Mississauga, Ontario, engages
in the business of dedicated trucking, warehousing, distribution,
and logistics services across Canada.  Direct Distribution Centres
is the warehousing division of Canada Cartage, with locations
across Canada.

The proposed representative plaintiff, Marc-Oliver Baroch, worked
as a shunter at a Canada Cartage location in Mississauga, Ontario
for approximately seven years.  Mr. Baroch brings this action on
his own behalf as well as on behalf of all individuals who, at any
time since March 1, 2006, were employed by Canada Cartage or its
related companies and who were entitled to receive overtime
compensation pursuant to the Canada Labour Code and its

The Statement of Claim alleges that Canada Cartage regularly
required or permitted some or all of its former and current
employees to work hours in excess of their standard hours of work
in order to complete the common duties of their employment.
However, according to the lawsuit, Canada Cartage did not properly
compensate these employees for overtime, notwithstanding its
obligations to do so.

The Statement of Claim further alleges that in or about July 2012,
Canada Cartage improperly and unilaterally reduced class members'
rates of pay without reasonable notice in order to make it appear
as though class members were being appropriately paid overtime.
In fact, according to the Claim, Canada Cartage manipulated class
members' rates of pay such that their gross weekly earnings
remained unchanged.

"This case seeks to pull back the curtain to reveal the long-
standing and systemic practice by Canada Cartage of not fully
compensating its employees for overtime," said Eric R. Hoaken, a
partner at Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP.  "The essence of the
claim is that Canada Cartage did not meet its obligations to the
class members and actively sought to mislead them about their
entitlement to overtime.  These practices must stop."

Additional information about this case is available at

          Eric R. Hoaken, Esq.
          Tel: (416) 645-5075
          E-mail: ehoaken@counsel-toronto.com

CLUB CAR: Recalls Golf & Transport Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Club Car, LLC, of Augusta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,450 Precedent golf and transport vehicles.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer

Improper assembly can cause the front wheel spindles to crack
causing the wheel to become loose affecting the steering, posing a
crash hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled vehicles include various sizes, models and colors of
model year 2013 Precedent golf and transport vehicles used for
short-distance transportation.  The electric or gas powered
vehicles seat two or four people.  They can be identified by model
and serial number: the model number is indicated in the first two
letters of the serial number and can be found above and to the
right of the accelerator pedal.  A list of recalled models and
serial numbers is below.

   Model                   Model number      Serial number range
   -----                   ------------      -------------------
Prec I2 Excel                 PH       1347-422884 to 1348-423890
Precedent I2 4 Pass Excel     PJ       1347-422863 to 1348-423402
Precedent I2 Gas              PR       1347-422745 to 1348-423858
Precedent I2L Gas             CF       1348-423366 to 1348-423390
Precedent I2L Excel           PD       1348-423421

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Authorized Club Car dealers nationwide in June 2013 for between
$5,000 and $8,000

Club Car is providing a free inspection and repair of the wheel
hub retaining nut.  The firm is contacting its customers directly.

COLE REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A. and Kirby McInerney LLP on Nov. 12
disclosed that they have filed a class action lawsuit against
Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc. on behalf of investors who
currently hold shares in the company, alleging that Cole breached
its fiduciary duties to its stockholders when it agreed to sell
the company to American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. for less
than what it is worth.

On October 23, 2013, American Realty and Cole announced that they
had signed an agreement to merge the two companies, a transaction
that was valued at $11.2 billion, and which would merge Cole with
and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Realty.  The
plaintiffs, however, contend that the resulting offer is too low
and undervalues Cole, according to our complaint filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, case number 24-C-13006758

The complaint alleges: 1) In addition to the inadequate price, the
agreement guarantees hefty payments to a few select individuals,
including Cole's founder and Executive Chairman, Christopher H.
Cole; and 2) that these individuals, who will greatly benefit from
the deal, owe fiduciary duties to Cole's public stockholders.
Instead, they have breached those duties by agreeing to lock up
the merger with unreasonable deal protection devices, including a
no-shop provision, a matching rights provision, and a $100 million
termination fee provision, that prevents other bidders from making
a superior offer for Cole.

"American Realty's offer does not reflect the value of Cole's
stock and does not adequately compensate the stockholders. If the
deal goes through, a few privileged individuals will benefit at
the expense of the stockholders, who will be irreparably harmed,"
said Hassan Murphy, managing partner of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy,

If you currently own common stock in Cole and would like to learn
more about this class action lawsuit, please contact either:

          Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A.
          Telephone: 1-800-277-0150
          Web site: http://www.mfmrk.com

          Kirby McInerney LLP
          Telephone: (888) 529-4787
          Web site: http://www.kmllp.com

Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A. -- http://www.mfmrk.com-- is
Baltimore-based law firm specializing in complex civil and
criminal litigation.

Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based
law firm concentrating in securities, stockholder, whistleblower,
antitrust and consumer litigation.

COMCAST CORP: Judge Narrows Class in Subscribers' Antitrust Suit
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that following the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection this spring of
the class certification for a group of two-million subscribers
suing Comcast over allegedly anti-competitive behavior, the
federal trial judge in Philadelphia has decided that the
plaintiffs can now seek certification of a narrower class.

Comcast had argued that the high court had left no room for the
plaintiffs to file another motion for class certification since it
hadn't vacated and remanded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit's decision upholding the initial class
certification.  Rather, the Supreme Court had reversed the

"The Supreme Court reversed our prior certification order because
the plaintiffs' proffered evidence on antitrust impact was not
limited to the overbuilding theory, and thus failed the
predominance requirement," said U.S. District Judge John R. Padova
of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, summarizing the high
court's opinion.

"Importantly, the Supreme Court did not decide as a matter of law
that classwide proof could never be established," Judge Padova

Although he gave no indication of his take on the merits of the
narrowed class proposal, he decided that the plaintiffs would be
allowed to pursue a new certification.

The difference in opinion between the plaintiffs and Comcast in
their interpretation of the Supreme Court's allowance for another
class certification became clear at the first status conference
following the high court's opinion.

In the joint statement from the parties, the class argued "that
this 'court has the authority to consider the proposed motion for
certification of a more modest class,' based on the 'long-settled'
rule of mandate that 'a district court may consider any matter
left open by the Supreme Court's mandate,'" Judge Padova said.
Both the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit left open the
potential for a newly constituted class, they argued.

However, "Comcast argued that under the rule of mandate, an
inferior court has no power or authority to deviate from the
mandate issued by an appellate court, and the Supreme Court's
outright reversal was completely dispositive of whether the class
could ever meet Rule 23(b)(3)," according to the opinion."  Lower
courts are free to rule on issues that weren't finally decided on
appeal, Judge Padova said, citing longstanding precedent, but the
Third Circuit hasn't ruled specifically on how the law of mandate
should apply to a motion for class certification after reversal of
an earlier certification decision on appeal.  He looked to other
circuits for guidance.

In 2007, the Second Circuit's ruling in In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation "made clear that, following remand,
the district court has discretion to consider a modified class
certification, as long as it is consistent with the issues decided
by the appellate court," Judge Padova said.

However, the Fifth Circuit ruled differently in its 2010 decision
in Gene & Gene v. BioPay.  There, it reversed a recertification
and held that an issue decided on appeal can't be re-examined on
remand, according to the opinion.

Judge Padova, though, found that the Fifth Circuit case is
distinguishable from this one since the proposed class wasn't
significantly changed for the subsequent motion for certification.

He also looked to the recent case sent back, in a similar fashion,
from the Supreme Court to the Northern District of California in
Dukes v. Wal-Mart.  The high court had used the exact same
sentence to conclude both the Wal-Mart and Comcast decisions:
"'The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed,' without
specifically providing for further proceedings thereafter on
remand," Judge Padova said.

When the Wal-Mart case got back to the California district court,
the plaintiffs refined their class, and the store, similarly to
Comcast's recent move, asked the court to dismiss or strike the
class allegations, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision had
precluded the formation of a new class.

The district court had disagreed.

"Because the Supreme Court only decided that there was
insufficient evidence to establish a nationwide policy of
discrimination, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs
could bring a narrower class-action claim, which the Supreme Court
had not considered and did not foreclose," Judge Padova said.
That court later found that the narrowed class still failed to
meet Rule 23 requirements.

Judge Padova took a similar line of reasoning in finding that the
plaintiffs can pursue a narrowed class for certification.

"Based on the Third Circuit's law of mandate authorities, we find
that the Supreme Court's mandate in Comcast does not preclude a
new motion on behalf of the plaintiffs for certification of a
narrowed class based on a revised antitrust impact analysis,"
Judge Padova said.

"That case law clearly states that any issue left open by an
appellate court may be addressed at the discretion of the district
court, as long as it is consistent with the appellate court's
decision, irrespective of an explicit order remanding the matter
for further proceedings," he said.

DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over GranuFlo Side Effects
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
GranuFlo class-action lawsuit against DaVita HealthCare Partners
Inc. is one of several lawsuits seeking class-action status on
behalf of patients who have been allegedly harmed by GranuFlo and
NaturaLyte side effects.

Inside a GranuFlo Class-Action LawsuitDefendants in lawsuits
alleging GranuFlo side effects vary.  DaVita HealthCare Partners
is one.  Fresenius Medical Care is another.  Both defendants
operate a network of dialysis clinics nationwide.  However, with
Fresenius, there is the added wrinkle of serving as the
manufacturer of the dialysis duo, GranuFlo and NaturaLyte.  The
two serve as agents integral to the dialysis process, involving
production and regulation of bicarbonate levels.  If levels are
too high, there is a risk of GranuFlo cardiac arrest and similar
outcomes involving NaturaLyte.

One GranuFlo sudden death lawsuit capably summarizes the issues at
play.  The introduction of GranuFlo to the market in 2003 brought
a change to previous protocols involving formulations based on
acetic acid. GranuFlo, according to the lawsuit, was based not on
acetic acid, but rather diacetate.  To that end, GranuFlo added 8
mEq/L of acetate rather than the standard 4 mEq/L, effectively
doubling the levels of acetate in dialysate.

This can pose a risk to the patient, as the lawsuit Melvin Nunes,
individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Stella Nunes v. DaVita Healthcare Partners Inc., outlines.

"If a physician orders a bicarbonate level of 37 mEq/L for the
patient, the clinic may set the dialysis machine to deliver 37
mEq/L from the bicarbonate concentrate alone.  If the clinic is
using GranuFlo, the patient may receive a total buffer load of 45
mEq/L instead of the 37 mEq/L of bicarbonate normally prescribed
by the physician.

"Some DaVita clinics may have delivered, or may still be
delivering, total buffer levels as high as 48 mEq/L, exposing
patients to increased risk," the lawsuit goes on.  "The result is
the delivery of higher bicarbonate levels than warranted, which
can cause danger to patients."

The lawsuit, Case 1:13-cv-00574, alleges that the late Stella
Nunes attended the DaVita dialysis clinic at Vacaville,
California, in late December 2010.  It is alleged that either
GranuFlo and/or NaturaLyte was used as part of Nunes' treatment.
According to the lawsuit, Ms. Nunes began to experience shortness
of breath while undergoing treatment, ultimately losing
consciousness. Evacuated to the hospital, Ms. Nunes was diagnosed
as having suffered a heart attack -- alleged to have been related
to GranuFlo cardiac arrest.

Ms. Nunes died the next day, December 27, 2010.  The lawsuit,
dated March 6 of this year, was filed in US District Court for the
District of Colorado.  The NaturaLyte class-action lawsuit does
not name Fresenius Medical Care.

But other GranuFlo class-action lawsuits might. Fresenius first
became aware of the increased bicarbonate issue related to its
products in the fall of 2011, and alerted dialysis clinics on
November 4 of that year.  However, only clinics in Fresenius' own
dialysis network were alerted.  It wasn't until the internal memo
was leaked to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that an
investigation ensued, and on March 29 of last year, the FDA issued
a Class 1 recall of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte.

The recall was too late for Stella Nunes.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Special Education Class Action Can Proceed
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, the families of disabled children embroiled in an eight-
year legal fight with the District of Columbia over special
education services can move ahead with their claims, a Washington
federal judge has ruled.

The Nov. 8 ruling revives a class action, first filed in 2005,
that accused city officials of failing to identify young children
eligible for special education services.  The plaintiffs suffered
a setback in April after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit reversed the trial judge's certification of a class,
undoing the judge's previous findings that the city was liable for
violations of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act.

Back in the trial court, Senior Judge Royce Lamberth on Nov. 8
denied the city's request to dismiss the case.  Judge Lamberth
certified four subclasses of plaintiffs in response to the D.C.
Circuit's ruling.  The appeals court was concerned about a class
made up of members with different types of claims.

The ruling means the plaintiffs get another chance to prove the
city is liable for violations of federal law.  The plaintiffs want
a court order requiring the city to take certain steps to fix how
it identifies children eligible for special education services and
then provides those services.  The city said in court filings it
has already "demonstrated marked improvement" in providing the
required services.

The case was one of a number of class actions to face a challenge
following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in 2011's Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. v. Dukes, which tightened the standards for class
certification.  The D.C. Circuit found the plaintiffs in the
special education case, DL v. District of Columbia, failed to show
they suffered common harm from a policy or practice that affected
each class member.

In his ruling, Judge Lamberth approved four subclasses: children
who were not identified for services; children who weren't
provided with a timely evaluation; children who didn't receive a
timely decision about their eligibility; and children who weren't
provided with a "smooth and effective" transition into preschool

Judge Lamberth previously found the city liable for violations of
the federal disabilities law.  Following the Wal-Mart decision,
Judge Lamberth denied the city's request to decertify the class,
prompting the appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

Lawyers for the District of Columbia argued in the trial court
that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs were too
old to still have standing to sue.  The city's attorneys also said
they challengers no longer had current claims pending against the
city for educational services or for reimbursement for services
they received outside the D.C. public school system.

Judge Lamberth said that as long as the plaintiffs had standing at
the time they filed their complaint, they kept that standing even
as they aged.  Due to the "inherently transitory" nature of
litigation over special education services-litigation typically
outlasts the children's eligibility for age-specific services-
Judge Lamberth said the population of students at issue still had
a "live claim."

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Bruce Terris of Washington's
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, said Judge Lamberth's decision "gives
us the opportunity to get the injunction reinstated and ensure the
improvements the District has made continue into the future."

Ted Gest, a spokesman for the D.C. attorney general's office, said
the city's lawyers were studying the decision.

DREAM ON ME: Recalls Cradle Gliders Due to Infant Fall Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dream on Me Inc., of South Plainfield, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 700 Lullaby Cradle Glider.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The mattress support board can fall out or slide out of the bottom
of the cradle glider posing a risk that babies can fall out and
suffer injuries.

Dream On Me and CPSC have received reports of two incidents while
infants were asleep inside the cradle.  A one-month old infant
fell to the floor when the mattress support board partially fell
out, but the child was uninjured.  A second report involved a
four-month old infant who did not fall out of the cradle after the
mattress support board became partially disengaged.

The recall involves the Lullaby Cradle Glider manufactured by
Dream On Me Inc.  The cradle is made of solid pine with slats on
all four sides and a base that has a gliding side-to-side motion.
The inner dimensions of the cradle measure 34.5 inches by 20.5
inches and includes a mattress pad and four wheels for easy
movement.  The cradle is sold in one design, four colors 640-C,
cherry; 640-W,white; 640-E, espresso; and 640-N, natural. A label
identifying the date of manufacture as October 2011 is located on
the mattress support board.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
online only through K-Mart, Sears, Toys R Us and Walmart from
October 2011 through June 2013 for about $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cradles and
contact Dream On Me to obtain a free repair kit.  Instructions for
assembly will be included in the repair kit.

DSW INC: Fails to Operate Blind-Friendly POS Devices, Suit Says
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DSW Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01491-LPL (W.D. Pa.,
October 14, 2013) is brought by a blind individual as a civil
rights class action against the Company for failing to design,
construct, and own or operate Point Of Sale Devices that are fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people.

DSW Inc. is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Stephanie Goldin, Esq.
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Roy W. Arnold, Esq.
          James L. Rockney, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Reed Smith Centre
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716
          Telephone: (412) 288-3131
          E-mail: rarnold@reedsmith.com

ERGO BABY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Business Practices
Walter L. Cofer, Esq. -- wcofer@shb.com -- Greg Fowler, Esq. --
gfowler@shb.com -- and Simon Castley, Esq. -- scastley@shb.com --
at Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP report that a California resident has
filed a putative statewide class action against the company that
makes the Ergo Baby Carrier(R), alleging that the defendant
deceives consumers into believing that the product is usable with
newborns, when it actually requires the additional purchase of an
insert for infants weighing less than 12 pounds. Lloyd v. The Ergo
Baby Carrier, Inc., No. BC525894 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cnty., filed October 28, 2013).

According to the plaintiff, "the true cost of her Baby Carrier
included the cost of the Infant Insert purchase and that by hiding
the necessity of this additional product, the Defendant's actions:
are unfair, fraudulent, deceptive, and unlawful under California
Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq.; are untrue or
misleading advertisements under California Business & Professions
Code Sec. 17500, et seq.; are unlawful acts as defined by
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act Sec. 1770(a)(2); (a) (5);
and (a)(9)."  She seeks injunctive relief, restitution,
disgorgement, interest, costs, and attorney's fees.

FIRST LIBERTY: Settles Debit Card Fee Class Action for $2.5 Mil.
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports
that an area bank with branches in Lackawanna and Luzerne counties
agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that
alleged it manipulated the posting of debit card transactions to
increase chances customers would overdraw their accounts so it
could maximize its profits from fees.

First Liberty Bank & Trust, a division of Community Bank N.A.,
agreed to pay the funds to 48,976 members of the class-action suit
who were charged overdraft fees between July 20, 2006, and
Aug. 15, 2010, according to court documents filed in federal court
in Scranton.

The agreement resolves a lawsuit filed in 2012 by William and
April Johnson, customers at First Liberty's branch in Jermyn.  The
suit, filed by attorney Jeffrey Ostrow of Fort Lauderdale, Fl.,
challenged First Liberty's policy relating to multiple debit card
transactions posted on a single day.

The lawsuit claimed the bank posted the transaction with the
highest dollar amount first, rather than posting transactions in
the chronological order they were made.  That allowed it to
increase chances the charge would overdraw the account, earning
the bank a fee of $32 per overdraft.

For instance, if an account had a balance of $50 and five debit
card transactions were made -- four for $10 and one for $100 --
the bank would post the $100 transaction first, even if it was the
last charge made.  That would cause the account to overdraw,
allowing it to collect four separate, $32 fees for each
transaction.  Had it posted the four $10 transactions first, there
would be only one overdraft fee.

The policy was "unconscionable," Mr. Ostrow stated in the lawsuit,
because the bank could easily cause transactions to be declined if
there were insufficient funds.  First Liberty altered its policy
in May 2011, and began posting debits from lowest to highest
amount, but that did not compensate customers harmed by its
previous policy, the suit stated.

The lawsuit is among dozens of class action complaints relating to
debit card fees that have been filed against banks nationwide,
according to the law firm of Trief & Olk of New York. I n November
2011, Bank of America settled one of the lawsuits for $410

A proposed settlement in the First Liberty case was reached in
June and approved by U.S. District Judge Robert Mariani.  A
hearing to approve final settlement of the case was scheduled for
Nov. 12 at 10:30 a.m. before Judge Mariani.

The settlement calls for the $2.5 million to be paid into an
escrow account that will be divided among the class members.  The
amount paid to each person will be dependent upon the number of
overdraft fees they were charged and other factors.  The Johnsons
will also receive an additional $5,000 as lead plaintiffs in the

Attempts on Nov. 11 to reach the bank's attorney, James Oschal --
joschal@rjglaw.com -- of Wilkes-Barre, or officials with the
bank's corporate offices in DeWitt, N.Y. were unsuccessful.

In court papers, Mr. Ostrow stated that he believes the settlement
is fair because it equates to roughly 50 percent of what could
have been recovered had the plaintiffs prevailed on all counts.
It also takes into consideration the chance the bank would have
prevailed in its defense that clients agreed to the policy when
they opened their accounts.

In addition to the monetary settlement, First Liberty agreed to
continue the policy of posting from lowest to highest for at least
two more years, to limit the number of overdraft fees charged on
any single day to four and to refrain from charging a fee unless
an account has a negative balance of $5 or more.

FRAN'S FRYERS: Recalls Various Raw Poultry Products
Fran's Fryers, a Milford, Texas, establishment, is recalling
approximately 251 pounds of various raw poultry products because
they were produced without the benefit of federal inspection, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

These Fran's Fryers products are subject to recall:

   -- 2-lb. packages of "Boneless Dark 2# Chicken Leg Meat";
   -- 2-lb. and 5-lb. packages of "Chicken Breast Tenders";
   -- 3-lb. and 5-lb. packages of "Chicken Bone In Breast";
   -- 5-lb. package of "Ground Turkey 5#";
   -- 5-lb. packages of "Cut Up Fryer"; and
   -- 5-lb. packages of "Whole Fryers"

Each package bears the establishment number "P 20784" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.  The products were produced on Nov. 11,
2013, and shipped to retail establishments in Texas.

The problem occurred due to a miscommunication between the company
and FSIS inspection program personnel assigned to the
establishment regarding the need for inspection coverage on the
federal holiday.  The company produced product without the
presence of inspection program personnel.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact
a health care provider.

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

Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the
recall can contact the plant manager, Brady Sweet, at (972) 493-

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System
can be accessed 24 hours a day at:

GLASS ONION: Recalls Grilled Chicken Salad Due to Possible E. Coli
Glass Onion Catering, a Richmond, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 181,620 pounds of ready-to-eat salads and
sandwich wrap products with fully-cooked chicken and ham that may
be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The company announced that the products are being recalled in
conjunction with other foods regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).  A full list of products being recalled will
be available on FDA's website at:

Products regulated by FSIS bear the establishment number "P-34221"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  FSIS products subject to
recall include:

   -- 12 oz. packages of "delish pan pacific chop salad";

   -- 13.4 oz. packages of "delish California style grilled
      chicken salad";

   -- 9.9 oz. packages of "delish uncured applewood smoked ham &
      cheese wrap";

   -- 10.5 oz. packages of "delish grilled chicken caesar wrap";

   -- 10.9 oz. packages of "delish southwestern chicken wrap";

   -- 11.5 oz. packages of   "delish greek brand low-calorie
      grilled chicken wrap";

   -- 9.9 oz. packages of "delish white chicken club wrap";

   -- 11.2 oz. packages of "delish asian style chicken wrap";

   -- 13.4 oz. packages of "atherstone Fine Foods Southwestern
      Style White Chicken Wrap with Chimichurri Sauce";

   -- 10.5 oz. packages of "atherstone Fine Foods Asian Style
      White Chicken Wrap with Mango Vinaigrette";

   -- 9.9 oz. packages of "atherstone Fine Foods Grilled White
      Chicken Caesar Wrap with Caesar Dressing";

   -- 10.7 oz. packages of "super fresh Foods California Grilled
      Chicken Salad, Low Fat Mendocino Mustard Dressing";

   -- 10.7 oz. packages of "Lunch Spot Southwestern Style Chicken
      Wrap, Chile & Lime Dressing";

   -- 9.2 oz. packages of "super fresh Foods Pan Pacific Chopped
      Chicken Salad, Ginger Soy Dressing";

   -- 10.7 oz. plastic containers of "TRADER JOE'S Field Fresh
      Chopped Salad with Grilled Chicken"; and

   -- 11 oz. plastic containers of "TRADER JOSE'S MEXICALI SALAD
      with Chili Lime Chicken."

The products were produced between Sept. 23 and Nov. 6, 2013 and
shipped to distributions centers intended for retail sale in
Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah and
Washington.  When available, the retail distribution list(s) will
be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS began monitoring a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses on
Oct. 29, 2013 then was notified by FDA on Nov. 6, 2013 that
California authorities had reported case-patients consuming pre-
packaged salads with grilled chicken.  Working in conjunction with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), FDA, the
California Department of Public Health, the Washington State
Department of Health, and the Arizona Department of Health
Services, FSIS has determined that there is a link between the
grilled chicken salads and the illness cluster.  Twenty-six case-
patients have been identified in three states with
indistinguishable E. coli O157:H7 PFGE (genetic fingerprint)
patterns with illness onset dates ranging from Sept 29, 2013 to
Oct. 26, 2013.  Based on epidemiological information, 15 case-
patients reported consumption of ready-to-eat pre-packaged salads
prior to illness onset.  A traceback investigation determined
Glass Onion Catering was the supplier of the products implicated
in the outbreak.

While uncommon to find E. coli O157:H7 in a poultry product, FSIS
will continue its investigation in conjunction with the FDA to
identify the source of the contamination.  FSIS continues to work
with the CDC, FDA and state public health partners on this
investigation and will provide updated information as it becomes

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days
(3-4 days, on average) after exposure the organism.  While most
people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney
failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).  This condition
can occur among persons of any age but is most common in children
under 5-years old and older adults.  It is marked by easy
bruising, pallor, and decreased urine output.  Persons who
experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some products may be in a
consumer's refrigerators. Because this is a ready-to-eat product,
FSIS advises all consumers to destroy the product.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Tom Atherstone, company president, at (510) 236-8905.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

GOODYEAR TIRE: Politician Files Asbestos Class Action
Tara Palmeri, writing for New York Post, reports that Assembly
Speaker Sheldon Silver's law firm has filed a class-action suit on
behalf of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, accusing more than 70 companies
of potentially causing the Long Island congresswoman to develop
lung cancer from asbestos.

But the bizarre Weitz & Luxenberg suit fails to mention that the
69-year-old Democrat smoked heavily for 40 years -- and that she
never actually worked with the cancer-causing substance.

Instead, Rep. McCarthy's attorney, Daniel Blouin, claims she came
in contact with asbestos in her youth when her father and brothers
worked as boiler makers in Navy yards and powerhouses.  He says
toxic fibers attached to their clothing.  The complaint names more
than 70 companies for potentially exposing her to asbestos --
including Goodyear Tire, Con Ed and Pfizer.

"Ms. McCarthy never directly worked with asbestos products
herself, although she now finds herself a victim of this deadly
carcinogen whose health effects were well known by the
manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos products for decades
before Ms. McCarthy was ever exposed," Mr. Blouin said in an
e-mail to The Post.

Mr. Blouin never mentions the pol's hazardous habit in the papers
filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, but he admits smoking was likely
a contributing factor.

"It has been conclusively proven that cigarette smoking and
asbestos exposure act synergistically to cause lung cancer,"
Mr. Blouin said.

"There is no doubt, scientifically, that in addition to exposure
to asbestos dust, smoking played a role."

He says the rate of lung cancer in smokers who also were exposed
to asbestos has been shown to be 4,000 percent or more higher than
the rate in smokers who were not exposed to asbestos.

The home-heating provider Lennox responded to the papers, claiming
McCarthy's "pre-existing medical histories" may have caused her

Ms. McCarthy is such an avid smoker that she's known around
Capitol Hill for taking breaks -- between votes.

The 16-year-veteran of Congress took a medical leave from her post
in June to get treatment at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer

Although she announced that she was diagnosed with a "treatable
form of cancer," several members of Ms. McCarthy's staff have
resigned -- including her chief of staff.  But Ms. McCarthy says
she's in good spirits.

"My doctor at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where I'll
receive my treatment, has told me that I begin my treatment in
good physical health and that he looks forward to my return to
work after I recover," she said in a statement last June.  "I am a
fighter, as many people know, and I am committed to beating this
latest challenge in my life."

Ms. McCarthy was called in on Nov. 8 for a discovery deposition.

A spokesperson for her office didn't return phone calls.

HERD ENTERPRISES: Accused of Rolling Employees' Overtime Hours
John McKinzie v. Herd Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a BFS, Case No.
0:13-cv-62237-JIC (S.D. Fla., October 14, 2013) alleges that on
average, the Plaintiff worked between 45 and 50 hours per week;
however, the Defendant would only pay him for 40 hours of work
each week.  Mr. McKinzie contends that the Defendant illegally
"rolled" his overtime hours until the following workweek, and did
not pay at one and one half of his regular hourly rate of pay.

Herd Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a BFS, owns and operates an HVAC
company in five states with 18 separate offices, including Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dennis Card., Jr., Esq.
          Consumer Law Organization, P.A
          2501 Hollywood Boulevard, #100
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 921-9994
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: Dcard@consumerlaworg.com

HERR FOODS: Did Not Have System to Track Hours Worked, Suit Says
Kalvin Drummond, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Herr Foods Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:13-cv-05991-BMS
(E.D. Pa., October 14, 2013) accuses the Defendants of failing to
pay the Plaintiff and Class proper overtime compensation and to
implement a system to track the number of hours worked each
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Herr Food Inc. is a business entity headquartered in Nottingham,
Pennsylvania.  The Doe Defendants are presently unknown persons or
entities, who directed, aided, abetted or assisted with creating
and executing the policies and practices of the Defendants, which
resulted in their failing to pay the Plaintiffs proper

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Matthew D. Miller, Wsq.
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Ste. 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

ILLINOIS: Class Actions Challenge Parole Revocation Process
Steve Schmadeke, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that three
class-action lawsuits are challenging how the state revokes parole
for thousands of ex-cons each year, a process the plaintiffs'
attorneys allege is an unconstitutional sham that can needlessly
keep parolees behind bars.

About 40 percent of Illinois' prison population is locked up on
parole violations ranging from being charged with a new crime to
failing to check in as required with a parole officer, according
to the lawsuits.

The federal suits filed by professors at Northwestern University
law school and an attorney at Uptown People's Law Center allege
that Illinois is violating state law and the constitutional rights
of parolees in the more than 10,000 parole revocation hearings it
holds each year.

Parolees often wait weeks or months before an initial hearing that
is supposed to be held or waived in about 10 days, the lawsuits
allege.  In extreme cases, people remain locked up even after they
are acquitted of the charge that was the basis for their parole
violation, the attorneys allege.

"I think everybody should care about the fact that the prisons are
overcrowded and we're keeping people in prison and in the Cook
County Jail for no reason," said Alexa Van Brunt, a clinical
assistant professor of law at Northwestern.  "It's a waste of
money and resources."

"Prison is not the solution to some of these violations," she

A spokesman for the Illinois Department of Corrections said he
would not comment on pending litigation.

The legal battle began in 2006 when the attorneys sued the state
over its process for initial hearings that often did not come for
more than a month after a parolee was arrested on a warrant.

A consent decree -- an agreed order on how the state would correct
the alleged shortcomings for those on parole in Cook County -- was
put in place a year later, but the attorneys have recently asked a
federal judge to declare that Illinois is not living up to the

In court filings the state has denied violating the agreement and
said the plaintiff's attorneys -- who are charging that the
violations are "systematic and ongoing" -- relied on a few
"cherry-picked" cases from the approximately 350 parole files
turned over by the state to build their case.

An evidentiary hearing with testimony from parolees and
corrections employees was held over two days late last month, but
U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman has yet to rule.

Last month, the attorneys filed their most recent lawsuit,
alleging that the way Illinois conducts final parole revocation
hearings is unconstitutional, in particular because parolees are
unable to have an attorney represent them.

California appoints counsel, and other states devote part of their
public defender's office to handling parole revocation cases, said
another plaintiff's attorney, Sheila Bedi, a clinical associate
professor of law at Northwestern.

Access to an attorney is essential because of the complex nature
of the revocation process, Ms. Van Brunt said.  Parolees typically
have just a few minutes to decide whether they want an initial
hearing, according to the lawsuit.

If they opt for a hearing, they must provide a list of witnesses
-- with contact information -- within minutes or they lose the
right to call them, the lawsuit said.

Parolees lost at the initial hearing in all but about 4 percent of
the 344 cases examined by the attorneys.  Ms. Van Brunt said
almost all cases have the same outcome at the final hearing, even
though there is a higher standard of proof.

"If there is a right to counsel, it will hopefully ameliorate some
of the problems," she said.  "It could be a huge solution to a lot
of due process problems."

KIWIBANK: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Penalty Fees
Laura Walters, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that Kiwibank is
just as bad as the big Australian-owned banks when it comes to
charging unlawful fees, Fair Play on Fees says.

State-owned Kiwibank is the latest bank to be sued by the Fair
Play on Fees class-action group over alleged overcharging of
penalty fees.  Proceedings have already begun in the High Court
against ANZ and the former National Bank, which ANZ acquired in

The Fair Play on Fees campaign was launched in March by Auckland
lawyer Andrew Hooker, Australian heavyweight legal firm Slater &
Gordon and litigation funder Litigation Lending Services (NZ).

The group plans to sue all the major trading banks for charging
penalties such as dishonor fees and late credit-card payment fees,
which it says do not represent the real costs incurred.

More than 6000 Kiwibank customers had signed up to the class
action so far, Mr. Hooker said.

In total more than 35,000 Kiwi clients of ANZ, Kiwibank, ASB,
Westpac and BNZ had registered to join the campaign.

Hooker said he expected that number would double.

The campaign had targeted Kiwibank next because it was "just as
bad" as the other major banks when it came to charging default
fees, Mr. Hooker said.

Kiwibank is a subsidiary of state-owned enterprise New Zealand

Kiwibank customers who signed up to the class action said they
were annoyed they had changed banks to support Kiwibank and had
still been hit with big penalty fees, he said.  Many Kiwibank
customers had signed up to the class action relative to the bank's
customer base, he said.

Lead plaintiffs for the case against Kiwibank are Auckland couple
Leanne and Sydney Briggs.

The Briggses banked with Kiwibank for more than 6-1/2 years and in
that time were charged almost NZD2000 in default fees.

Leanne Briggs said she could not take on the bank on her own.

"I knew there were going to be fees but they are just getting out
of hand."

In September 2008, Briggs was charged NZD105 in dishonor payments
and an out-of-order account fee. The working mum said she withdrew
her Kiwibank accounts last year and was now banking with ASB
without issue.

Mr. Hooker said the campaign also planned to target ASB, along
with BNZ and Westpac.  Another case would be announced before
Christmas, he said.

"Banks aren't the direct debit police."

The law was well-established and it was not the role of banks to
penalize people even if those penalty fees were written into the
bank's terms and conditions, he said.  The honor, dishonor, and
credit-card fees charged by banks did not fairly represent the
cost of dealing with those events, Mr. Hooker said.

Small business owner Gary Watson had also signed up to the
Kiwibank case.  The owner and director of North Shore inflatable
boat company Terminator Boats said he began business banking with
Kiwibank in 2008.

"When times were tough I did not expect Kiwibank to kick me with
heavy-handed fees," Mr. Watson said.  He was still with Kiwibank
but planned to change to another bank better suited to helping
small businesses.

"When you're struggling anyway, trying to keep your head above
water fees on top of that doesn't help at all."

Kiwibank communications manager Bruce Thompson said the bank was
aware of the legal action only from media reports.

Kiwibank would not comment or take action until it had received
notice from Fair Play on Fees.

Mr. Hooker said Fair Play on Fees' only communication with the
banks was via the media and the court system.

Documents relating to the Kiwibank case would be lodged with the
court on November 22.

Kiwibank customers have until November 21 to register to ensure
their inclusion in the case, Hooker said.

Today was also an opportunity for customers of all banks to take a
stand against unlawful fees, he said.

The High Court last month allowed former customers of ANZ and
National Bank until December 13 to sign up to the lawsuit.

Previously, there was no guarantee those who signed up after June
would be included in the action.

The next administrative hearing against ANZ/National Bank was
expected to take place on November 28.

A trial date was expected to be set early next year.

L.L. BEAN: Recalls Girl's Pajamas Due to Violation
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
L.L. Bean Inc., of Freeport, Maine, announced a voluntary recall
of about 800 L.L. Bean girl's pajama sets.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pajama sets fail to meet the federal flammability standard for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes Girl's or Little Girl's jersey knit aurora
purple pajama sets sold by L.L. Bean.  The sets have a solid
purple top with long sleeves and purple pants with a pattern and a
solid purple waistband.  The pajamas were sold in girls sizes
small (size 8) through extra large (size 18) and little girls
sizes small (size 4) through large (6X/7).  The pajamas product ID
numbers included in the recall are 284889 and 284890 printed on
the second side seam label under the care label.  GPU#6 is also
printed on the garment label located on the inside left seam near
the bottom of the pajama top.  L.L. Bean is printed inside the
back of the neck of the garment.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at L.L.
Bean retail stores nationwide from June 2013 through September
2013 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajama sets away
from children and contact L.L. Bean to receive a free replacement,
a full refund or store gift certificate.

LES SCHWAB: Responds to Assistant Managers' Overtime Class Action
Tire Business reports that a Seattle law firm has filed a class-
action lawsuit against Les Schwab Tire Centers Inc., alleging the
tire retailing giant routinely forces employees to work overtime
without pay by designating them as assistant managers.

"The trick of trying to apply a managerial-sounding title to a
worker in an attempt to avoid overtime pay is just about as old as
the wheel itself," said Steve Berman, managing partner of the
Seattle firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro L.L.P., in a press
release. Mr. Berman and his firm filed the class action Nov. 6
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of

According to the lawsuit, Bend, Ore.-based Les Schwab
intentionally misclassified workers as assistant managers, forcing
them to work 12-hour days and six-day weeks without overtime pay.

Washington State's wage and hour laws require overtime pay for any
worker who works more than 40 hours in a calendar week.  It
exempts bona fide executives, administrators and professionals,
but the class action alleges that the duties Les Schwab gives its
assistant managers do not adhere to the rules for state exemptions
to wage and hour laws.

According to the lawsuit, assistant managers at Les Schwab are
regularly assigned menial tasks that usually go to hourly workers,
such as cleaning up the backroom or stockroom, changing light
bulbs and sweeping the parking lot.

On Jan. 1, 2013, the lawsuit states, Les Schwab suspended its
policy of exempting assistant managers from overtime pay.  It said
what Washington assistant managers for the dealership seek is the
overtime pay they allegedly accrued before the company changed its

Les Schwab follows the same pattern throughout all its 600-plus
stores, the lawsuit alleges.

Mr. Berman and his associates are asking all Les Schwab employees
who think the company misclassified them to contact the law firm.

In February 2013, a jury in the Multnomah County, Ore., Circuit
Court found that Les Schwab forced more than 200 assistant store
managers in Oregon to work overtime without pay in contravention
of state wage laws.

Dale Thompson, chief marketing officer for Les Schwab Tire
Centers, told Tire Business via e-mail that, for more than 60
years, the dealership "has taken pride in performance, value and
honesty.  Our assistant managers play a vital role in managing our
stores and providing world-class customer service.

"Les Schwab Tire Centers firmly believes it has complied with all
applicable wage regulations.  We are committed to creating a
culture of loyalty, hard work and promotion from within.

"Our employees are the heart of our company and we remain
committed to getting work done quickly and efficiently to get
customers back on the road."

LEXISNEXIS: Porter Wright Discusses Class Action Ruling
Caroline H. Gentry, Esq. -- cgentry@porterwright.com -- at Porter
Wright Morris & Arthur LLP reports that on November 5, 2013, the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court handed down
a pair of class action decisions that are major wins for companies
and employers.  The Sixth Circuit held that courts, not
arbitrators, must decide whether an arbitration clause permits
classwide arbitrations -- and that an arbitration clause that is
silent on the issue bars classwide arbitrations.  The Ohio Supreme
Court followed recent decisions from the United States Supreme
Court and held that trial courts must conduct a rigorous analysis
when ruling on class certification, including resolution of
factual disputes, factual findings and an examination of the
merits where necessary.  Both decisions addressed issues that have
been vigorously debated by parties and lower courts, and they
unambiguously did so in favor of class action defendants.

The Sixth Circuit held that courts, not arbitrators, must decide
the "gateway" issue of whether an arbitration clause permits
classwide arbitration -- and that clauses that are silent on the
issue do not permit classwide arbitrations.

In Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Crockett, No. 12-3574, (6th Cir. Nov. 5,
2013), the plaintiff was a Texas attorney who alleged that his
firm was being charged steep fees for using research databases
outside of its LexisNexis Subscription Plan without any displayed
warning.  The parties' contract contained an arbitration clause
that was silent on the issue of classwide arbitration.  Crockett
filed a classwide arbitration demand for $500 million on behalf of
two putative classes, and LexisNexis asked a federal district
court to declare that the arbitration clause did not authorize
classwide arbitration. The district court awarded judgment to

On appeal, Crockett argued that an arbitrator, rather than a
court, should have decided whether the arbitration clause
authorizes classwide arbitration.  The Sixth Circuit disagreed.
Resolving an issue left open by the United States Supreme Court,
it held that "the question whether an arbitration agreement
permits classwide arbitration is a gateway matter, which is
reserved 'for judicial determination unless the parties clearly
and unmistakably provide otherwise.'"  The Sixth Circuit concluded
that because the arbitration clause was silent on the issue of
classwide arbitrability, it did not "clearly and unmistakably"
assign that question to an arbitrator and the court was therefore
the proper decisionmaker.

Turning to the parties' arbitration clause, the Sixth Circuit held
that because it did not expressly address classwide arbitrations
it must be read to bar them.  The court felt compelled to reach
this conclusion even though "[t]he idea that the arbitration
agreement in this case reflects the intent of anyone but
LexisNexis is the purest legal fiction," the arbitration clause
appeared in an "adhesion contract" and its provisions made
Crockett's individual claim "economically unfeasible."
Nevertheless, the Sixth Circuit concluded that under United States
Supreme Court precedent, the arbitration clause was not
unconscionable and it must be interpreted to bar classwide

Reed Elsevier is a major win for companies and employers.
Classwide arbitrations are effectively barred unless they are
expressly authorized by an arbitration clause.  Defendants can ask
courts to enforce this limitation at the outset and need not
submit the question to an arbitrator, who may rule differently and
whose decision is not easily appealable.  Finally, plaintiffs
cannot avoid these results by arguing that the parties' contract
is one-sided, adhesive or unconscionable.  All of these holdings
are a major win for companies and employers that do not want to be
forced to defend class arbitrations.

The Ohio Supreme Court effectively overruled a prior decision by
holding that trial courts must "rigorously analyze" class
certification requirements, including resolution of factual
disputes, factual findings and an examination of the merits where

In Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013-Ohio-4733, the
Ohio Supreme Court reversed a decision certifying a class of
policyholders who alleged that State Farm failed to disclose
benefits available for claimants with damaged windshields.
Applying the United States Supreme Court's recent class action
decisions in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) and
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the Ohio
Supreme Court held that (1) a trial court's "rigorous analysis" at
the class certification stage must "resolve factual disputes" and
make factual findings with regard to each class action
prerequisite, and (2) trial courts may examine the underlying
merits of a claim where necessary to its rigorous analysis,
effectively overruling Ojalvo v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State
Univ., 12 Ohio St. 3d 230 (1984).

Cullen answered the question of whether Comcast and Wal-Mart apply
to Ohio class actions (an issue that had been debated by lower
courts) in the affirmative, and "clarified" a prior decision that
some lower courts had interpreted as barring any examination of
the merits at the class certification stage.  For the first time,
the Ohio Supreme Court held that trial courts must resolve factual
disputes and make factual findings at the class certification
stage as part of its required "rigorous analysis" of whether a
proposed class should be certified.  These holdings will result in
greater scrutiny by trial courts at the class certification stage
and are a major win for companies and employers that defend class
actions in Ohio state courts.

M&M RETAIL: Two Insurers Must Cover TCPA Class Action Settlement
C. Zachary Rosenberg, Esq. -- zrosenberg@bakerlaw.com -- at
Baker & Hostetler LLP reports that on October 31, 2013, the
Northern District of Illinois forced two insurers to cover a $6
million settlement of a TCPA class action despite claims that
their insured, M&M Retail Center, Inc., settled for an inflated
amount it knew it would never have to pay.  Maxum Indemnity Co. v.
Eclipse Manufacturing Co., 1:06-cv-04946 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2013)

In a previous ruling, the Court held that the two insurers, Maxum
Indemnity Co. and Security Insurance Co. of Hartford, had the duty
to defend M&M in the underlying class action lawsuit.  In that
case, the class plaintiffs alleged that they received five blast
faxes in violation of the TCPA.  Copies of the fourth and fifth
faxes were produced in the litigation, but no one could locate
copies of the first, second, and third faxes and their contents
were unknown.  So, the court awarded summary judgment to M&M on
the first through third faxes and summary judgment to the class
plaintiffs on the fourth and fifth faxes for a total of
$3,862,500.  This amount equals $500 per fax, the liquidated
damages amount provided for under the TCPA.  The class then filed
a motion for reconsideration, asking the court to reconsider its
award of summary judgment to M&M for the first, second, and third

While that motion for reconsideration was pending, the parties
participated in a settlement conference and determined that M&M
could not pay the $3.86 million judgment and would have to enter
bankruptcy if the class pursued it.  At that point, both parties
understood that the only way the class could collect on a judgment
was through M&M's insurance policies.  At later a settlement
conference before a Magistrate Judge, M&M consented to entry of a
judgment for $5,817,150, allocated as $150 per fax for faxes one
through three and the full $500 per fax for faxes four and five.
The insurers were invited to that settlement conference, but
declined to participate.  Following this conference, the District
Judge held a fairness hearing and found that the settlement was a
"result of good faith arm's length negotiations by the parties"
and "made in reasonable anticipation of liability."  The District
Judge also vacated the summary judgment ruling, which was a
condition of settlement.

Then, in the coverage case, the insurers claimed that M&M only
agreed to such a high judgment because it colluded with the class
plaintiffs and knew it would never have to pay.  Specifically, the
insurers argued that since the District Court already awarded M&M
summary judgment for faxes one, two, and three, M&M would never
have agreed to pay $150 per fax for those faxes if it would have
had to satisfy the judgment itself.  M&M responded that it entered
into the settlement in reasonable anticipation of its liability
and did nothing wrong. The Court first noted that M&M's decision
must be viewed through the lens of a prudent uninsured.  It was
not persuaded by M&M's argument that the settlement for $150 per
fax for faxes one, two, and three was reasonable because the
Court's summary judgment award on those faxes could have been
overturned on the class plaintiff's motion for reconsideration or
a subsequent appeal, finding those possibilities remote.
Nonetheless, the Court held that in M&M's favor for other reasons,
finding no collusion because an experienced Magistrate Judge
guided negotiations, the insurers who did not participate were
invited to do so, the value of the faxes for faxes 1-3 was
discounted from $500 per fax to $150 per fax, and the District
Judge in the underlying class action determined the settlement to
be fair.

The Court also held that TCPA blast fax claims fall within
advertising injury coverage and are not uninsurable punitive
damages, following the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Std.
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lay, 2013 IL 114617 (IL 2013).  Given this
ruling, insurers should consider active participation in
settlement talks in underlying litigation and, if necessary,
object early to terms they find unreasonable.  And, parties
settling TCPA claims should evaluate disagreements with their
insurers early and often in this new frontier of class litigation.

MASSMUTUAL: Employees File Class Action Over 401(K) Plans
Dan Berman, writing for BenefitsPro, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed by MassMutual employees against the insurer claiming
breach of fiduciary duty is the latest salvo against management of
401(k) plans and might have broader effects than previous

Besides claiming MassMutual, located in Springfield, Mass.,
charged excessive fees and engaged in self-dealing by limiting
investment options almost exclusively to its own products, the
suit alleges that the firm's CEO, Roger Crandall, controls the
group annuity contract that offers the Fixed Interest Account that
invests in a general fund.

There have been more than 30 lawsuits filed against 401(k)
sponsors in the past few years.  Many have been settled out of
court, including one earlier this year against Cigna.

The $500 million held in the general fund struck one expert as

"It's a relic to put $500 million in a general account," said
Thomas Clark, director of fiduciary oversight for Fiduciary Risk
Assessment and FRA PlanTools based in Charlotte, N.C.  "What's
interesting here is if the allegations are true that such a large
plan is continuing to use a general account" for its fixed income

Most plans, he said, use synthetic products that spread the risk
while guaranteeing a rate of return, adding that, as far he knew,
only large insurance companies offering 401(k)s to their own
employees still used the investment product.

Still, he said, using a general account was not illegal per se and
that the details of the case would determine if MassMutual was in
the wrong.

The CEO, the court suit said, was among other company executives
named as plan fiduciaries, a role in which they were bound to make
decisions in the "best of interests of the plan, not themselves or
MassMutual."  Instead, the suit claimed decisions were made in the
best interests of the defendants.

The lawsuit alleged that excessive fees were "larded" in the plan.
The plan, which has 14,000 participants and over $1 billion in
assets, was charged $5 million in fees in 2010.  The employees
claim they were charged higher fees than those outside the company
for similar services.

As evidence that the company was engaged in self dealing, the
lawsuit quoted plan documents: "It will be a breach of this
agreement for the plan sponsor to adopt any change or amendment
that would have an adverse effect on MassMutual's administrative
procedures or the financial experience of MassMutual."

MassMutual vowed to fight the lawsuit.

"We believe the comprehensive retirement benefits we offer our
participants help them save toward a secure financial future, and
we will defend vigorously against these baseless allegations," the
insurer said in a statement.

NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Clay Bowl Outdoor Fireplaces
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nantucket Distributing LLC, Middleboro, Mass., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,200 Clay Bowl Outdoor Fireplaces.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

When fire is lit, pieces of the clay fireplace bowl can blow off
of the bowl posing impact and burn hazards

The firm received three reports from consumers stating that while
a fire is lit, pieces of the exterior clay bowl blew off into the
surrounding area.  No injuries have been reported.

The product is an outdoor fireplace made of clay and steel.  A
black metal bowl sits in a clay bowl which sits in a steel bowl
frame.  The complete fireplace has a circumference of 72 inches
and stands 24 inches high.  The recalled model number CTFB215 is
located on the color label, which is on the box that the product
comes in.  The model number also appears in the assembly
instructions.  Product comes with a screened, domed lid that sits
on top of the bowl, and a fire poker.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Christmas Tree Shops and And That! stores from July 2013 through
October 2013 for about $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fireplace and
return it to any Christmas Tree Shops or And That! store to
receive a full refund.

NEW ZEALAND: Taranaki Hapu Joins Treaty Settlement Class Action
Taryn Utiger, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that at least one
Taranaki hapu is joining a nationwide class action lawsuit against
the Crown and up to four others are also considering getting

The lawsuit aims to prove the treaty settlement process is flawed,
divides iwi, and causes fighting within tribes, Wellington-based
lawyer Moana Sinclair has said.

Ms. Sinclair visited Taranaki on Nov. 12 to speak with a group of
iwi members and offered them the opportunity to support a case
pending against the Crown.  The class action lawsuit currently
includes claims from Rangitane o Manawatu, as well as Deirdre
Nehua, the widow of Maori activist Syd Jackson.

Ms. Sinclair said five Taranaki hapu had expressed interest in
supporting the lawsuit, including South Taranaki tribe Ngaruahine
hapu Ngati Tu.

Hori Manuirirangi, of Ngati Tu, said the hapu would be joining the
class action lawsuit because the Government forced Ngaruahine to
create a new body to receive its NZD67.5 million treaty

That body did not represent all hapu, he said.

"The process is usurping the mana of our marae and of our hapu.
They are making iwi elect a body that doesn't actually represent

"They will be signing with the wrong group," he said.

Ms. Sinclair said Mr. Manuirirangi's feelings were echoed across
the country and the crown's handling of the Treaty of Waitangi
settlements forced iwi into a position where they had processes
imposed on them.

"There is a growing national Maori voice which is multi-tribal and
it's saying the treaty settlement process is unjust," she said.

She was confident the class action lawsuit would eventually force
the Government to talk to all hapu and make treaty settlements
with individual or collective hapu, rather than full iwi.

She said Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia had already
intervened on Treaty settlements in Manawatu because members of
the iwi complained that the Crown were not talking to the right

"She told Minister [Chris] Finlayson the settlement could not be
signed off because there were issues to be resolved.

"That intervention may happen in Taranaki," she said.

In June this year Glen Skipper of Te Atiawa lambasted the Treaty
settlement process, which he said had caused division within the
influential Taranaki tribe.

Mr. Skipper, the chairman of Ngati Tawhirikura hapu made a call
for the iwi to vote against the creation of the new body, Te
Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust, that would receive and control the
$87 million promised to the iwi.

His pleas fell on deaf ears and the trust was created.

Ngati Tawhirikura does not have a representative on the new board,
he told Ms. Sinclair on Nov. 12.  "We sent a letter to the
authority saying they no longer have a mandate to deal with our

"If we don't have a voice on the board then it's not our claim,"
he said.

Mr. Skipper said it was unlikely the Office of Treaty Settlements
would see it the same way and the hapu would be considering what
benefits it could have if they joined the class action lawsuit.

OSWALDO CONSTRUCTION: Sued by Painter Over Improper Overtime Rate
Carlos Rosales-Herrera, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. Oswaldo Sialer, d/b/a Oswaldo
Construction Services, Case No. 2:13-cv-01892-RDP (N.D. Ala.,
October 14, 2013) accuses the Defendants of willfully and wantonly
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiff, who worked as a painter for the Defendants during the
Class Period, and those similarly situated overtime hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in given work week at a rate of one and one
half times the regular hourly rate of pay.

Oswaldo Sialer is doing business as Oswaldo Construction Services
and is conducting business in Jefferson County, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward I. Zwilling, Esq.
          600 Vestavia Parkway, Suite 251
          Birmingham, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 822-2701
          Facsimile: (205) 822-2702
          E-mail: ezwilling@szalaw.com

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

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

Products subject to the recall expansion includes:

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

The products were distributed to retailers and distributors

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

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


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

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.  To report a problem with a meat, poultry or processed egg
product to FSIS at any time, visit:


SINGAS FAMOUS: Employee Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
Selvin Zapet, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by Singas Famous Pizza &
Restaurant Corp., Singas Famous Pizza, Inc., Enrique Almela,
Gregory Tsanis, Paul Betzios and Charlie Durr; and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by Singas Famous Pizza &
Restaurant, Singas Famous Pizza, Inc., Enrique Almela Gregory
Tsanis, Paul Betzios and Charlie Durr v. Singas Famous Pizza &
Restaurant Corp. Singas Famous Pizza Brands, Corp., and Singas
Famous Pizza, Inc., Enrique Almela,  Gregory Tsanis, Paul Betzios
and Charlie Durr and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by Singas Famous Pizza & Restaurant Corp., Singas
Famous Pizza Brands, Corp., Singas Famous Pizza, Inc., Enrique
Almela, Gregory Tsanis, Paul Betzios and Charlie Durr, Case No.
1:13-cv-05663-BMC (E.D.NY., October 14, 2013) is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, and damages arising
from record-keeping violations owed to the Plaintiff and all
similarly situated persons, who are presently or were formerly
employed by the Defendants.

The Defendants operate a number of restaurants known as "Singas
Famous Pizza" throughout New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
          Suzanne B. Leeds, Esq.
          111 Broadway, 14th Floor, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com

SOUTH AFRICA: Revenue Service May Face Taxpayers' Class Action
Evan Pickworth, writing for BDlive, reports that the office of the
tax ombud is but a month old, but moves towards South Africa's
first tax class-action lawsuit and test cases to end uncertainty
are evident amid calls for a wider taxpayer movement to provide a
unified voice against abuse.

While new tax ombud Bernard Ngoepe has resolved one case in his
first month in office, the industry aired a growing list of
grievances in areas that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the
ombud, including the wrongful freezing of bank accounts.  The
ombud can only resolve service, procedural and administrative
disputes arising from the application of the Tax Act.

"Talk of a class action is rumbling.  There is a concern by
taxpayers they could be victimized if they do it alone, so they
are considering this," South African Institute of Tax
Practitioners (Sait) CEO Stiaan Klue said on Nov. 10.

Mr. Klue confirmed he had been approached to head and reinvigorate
the nonprofit Taxpayers Movement of South Africa -- which was set
up in 2010 but has not managed to get going.  While he said he
would not take on such a role full-time for a few years -- as he
will complete his second and final term at Sait first -- he said
there was a strong need for such an institution and he would
consider being a part-time adviser.

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) was now a world-class
revenue authority, and this had to be recognized, he said.  He
believed disputes could be settled far more quickly if the
engagement was done in a professional manner with SARS via a well-
structured body.

The frustration for SARS and the Treasury is that many taxpayers,
including multinational companies, are said to be not paying their
fair share, which is why they are focusing strongly on reining
them in.  However, this does not mean taxpayers' rights should be
trampled upon in the process.

South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (Saica) project
director for tax Piet Nel said on Nov. 8 that "frustration levels"
seemed to be rising among taxpayers, and that there may well be
some support from individual practitioners to take on SARS in
court action.

The idea behind collective action would be to save costs, but also
to avoid being "singled out" or "victimized" by SARS, a number of
sources said.

Leading Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs tax lawyer Beric Croome said he
was not aware of a tax class-action suit at the moment, but that
he had heard about the possibility -- which was first mentioned by
audience members at a tax conference he had attended.

"To me, litigation should be the last resort, but for the first
time I think it (a class action) is being considered," he said.
According to Dr. Croome, a non-governmental organization or
similar body that can speak for taxpayers at the grassroots level
to assist the poor or indigent is lacking in South Africa.

He said that as some problems would not fall within the ambit of
the ombud, it may be appropriate for a legal resources centre or
other nongovernmental organization to assist.  "There is concern
some smaller businesses might not be able to afford attorneys and
advocates to go to court," he said.

Following the recent high-profile exchange-control test case by
billionaire Mark Shuttleworth, another significant development
would be tax test cases to clarify rules and clear up uncertainty.

Mr. Nel confirmed that Saica had been approached by a member, who
is a tax manager in a big company, to ask it "to take SARS on" on
an administration justice issue.  But he said Saica had declined
to institute action, as "it is better for members to do that". But
both Mr. Nel and Mr. Klue said their institutions would consider
providing technical evidence as "friends of the court".

Some of the frustrations mentioned by taxpayers and professionals
include losing out on tender business because tax clearance
certificates were not issued in time, bank accounts being closed
as they tried to get reasons for assessments, 21-month delays in
getting voluntary disclosure application responses, unreasonable
provisional tax penalties, and requests for amnesty being granted
then being denied years later.

International tax attorney Daniel Erasmus, who is based in the US,
said on Nov. 8 that there was a need for taxpayers to be
represented on a far broader base to "address certain abuses by
SARS", since to challenge them in court "can cost a fortune".

"There is a suspicion SARS are aware of this and pretty much
defend any action, as they have very deep pockets.  The problem is
not one organization is prepared to take on the responsibility for
fear of reprisals in one form or another."  He said the test case
route may be a more popular method for taxpayers.

STATE FARM: Ohio Supreme Court Decertifies Windshield Class Action
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a class-action lawsuit alleging that
an insurance company did not disclose the option to replace
damaged windshields to its policyholders does not meet the legal
requirements for a class action.

The high court issued its 26-page ruling in Cullen v. State Farm
Mutual Auto Insurance Co. Nov. 5.

In 2003, plaintiff Michael Cullen contacted State Farm to report
damage to the windshield of his car.  After speaking with his
agent, Mr. Cullen spoke to a representative from Lynx Services
LLC, a company that began handling windshield claims for State
Farm in 1996.

Twinsburg Glass & Mirror then repaired his windshield.  Two years
later, Mr. Cullen sued State Farm, requesting class certification
and a declaratory judgment that the insurer's practices were
illegal and violated obligations owed by fiduciaries pursuant to
Ohio law.

In addition, Mr. Cullen asserted claims for breach of contract,
bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty, and sought compensatory
and punitive damages.

The complaint defined the class to include all State Farm
policyholders on or after Feb. 18, 1990, and alleged State Farm
had denied them full payment on windshield claims because, instead
of replacing windshields, it repaired some windshields with a
chemical compound that it knew or should have known was "only
temporary, not entirely translucent and incapable of restoring the
windshield to its pre-accident condition" and that State Farm was
not "paying the insured to replace the glass," less any

Mr. Cullen and the class demanded "damages in an amount to be
determined at trial under principles of Ohio common law" or that
State Farm be ordered to "tender benefits sufficient to replace
the windshields in accordance with policy requirements."

A trial court concluded Mr. Cullen and the class satisfied the
requirements for certification.  State Farm appealed, and the
state's Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed.

State Farm then appealed to the state Supreme Court.

"Cullen's action seeking a declaration that State Farm's practices
are illegal and violated fiduciary obligations merely lays a
foundation for a subsequent individual determination of liability
and does not satisfy the requirements for class certification
pursuant to Civ.R. 23(B)(2)," Justice Terrence O'Donnell wrote for
the court.

On Nov. 11, the Washington Legal Foundation called the court's
decision a victory.  WLF had called on the court to decertify the

In its brief, filed last August, WLF argued that whether each
policyholder was misled by the company into agreeing to windshield
repair -- as opposed to complete replacement -- would have to be
litigated on a policyholder-by-policyholder basis.

The court agreed with WLF that such a trial would be unmanageable
if each of the 100,000 policyholders were called to testify
regarding his unique set of reasons for agreeing to have his
windshield repaired.

"There is little doubt that the only reason the plaintiffs'
lawyers sought class certification was to coerce the defendant
into settling the case without regard to the merits of the
plaintiffs' claims," WLF Chief Litigation Counsel Richard Samp
said in a statement.

"Class actions of this sort -- in which the claims of each
policyholder turn on facts specific to him -- are virtually never
appropriate because they could never be brought to trial; yet they
serve the purposes of the plaintiffs' bar by imposing tremendous
settlement pressure on defendants."

According to its website, WLF is a public interest law firm and
policy center that litigates in support of civil justice reform,
to ensure that unwarranted lawsuits do not drive up costs for all

STEP2 COMPANY: Recalls Ride-On Wagon Toys Due to Fall Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Step2 Company, LLC of Streetsboro, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 14,000 Step2 Whisper Ride Touring Wagon.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The removable blue seat backs can detach and allow the child in
the wagon to fall out, posing a fall hazard.

Step2 has received 29 reports of the seat back detaching, 28 of
which resulted in children falling out of the wagon.  Fourteen of
these resulted in bumped heads and nine resulted in bruises,
scratches or lacerations.

The recall involves Step2 Whisper Ride Touring Wagons.  The two-
seat plastic wagon is 25-inches wide by 41.25-inches long by
20-inches high with blue seats, a tan wagon base and a red canopy.
The Step2 logo appears on the canopy and on the side of the wagon

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold
exclusively at Toys R Us stores nationwide and online at
ToysRUs.com from February 2013 to August 2013 for about $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the wagon and inspect it
to determine if the seat belt is attached to the removable blue
seat back.  If so, the wagon is included in this recall.
Consumers with the recalled wagons should contact Step2 to obtain
a free repair kit.

STERICYCLE INC: Faces Class Actions Over Excessive Disposal Fees
Brian Maffly, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that
some of its customers say medical waste is not the only thing
Stericycle Inc. is burning these days.

The Illinois-based waste handler, which operates a controversial
incinerator in North Salt Lake, is charging excessive fees without
the customers' consent or even knowledge, according to proposed
class-action lawsuits filed in Utah and four other states.

The Hair Restoration Center of Utah, located in Cottonwood
Heights, signed a fixed-price contract with Stericycle in
May 2010, agreeing to pay $152 a month for disposal of a single
medium-size container.  But from the beginning, the hair center's
operators, Michael and Trudy Zufelt, were charged higher amounts
that weren't related to any additional costs, according to the
suit they filed in August in federal court.

By 2011, the charge reached $187.76 a month.  It kept increasing
until June 2013, when they were billed $384.60, the suit said,
more than double what the Zufelts agreed to pay barely two years
before for the same level of service.

The hair center filed suit in August on behalf of itself and
proposing to represent others "similarly situated," seeking $5
million for breach of contract and violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Similar suits have been filed in Pennsylvania, California, Florida
and Illinois, according to Stericycle's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The suits arose after the
state of New York settled whistleblower allegations against
Stericycle brought by a former employee.

The employee, Jennifer Perez, said she witnessed Stericycle
"routinely adding undisclosed charges to its customers' bills" and
without justification.

Since its founding in 1989, Stericycle has come to dominate the
medical waste market through acquisitions. It now has 522,000
customers worldwide.  The majority are dental offices and
outpatient clinics such as the Hair Restoration Center of Utah.

"Because of Stericycle's ongoing acquisitions, customers and
potential customers had very few options for alternative waste
removal companies," the hair center's suit states.  "Stericycle
does not inform customers that, despite the original contract
agreement, it will automatically add unauthorized fees and
surcharges to each invoice."

The company has also come under increasing fire for incinerating
waste, which releases dioxins, furans and mercury. Utah regulators
have recently accused the company of exceeding pollution limits
specified in its permit, rigging a stack test and failing to
accurately report test results.  The company is fighting those
allegations, while public health advocates and community activists
are calling for the plant's shutdown.

Stericycle did not respond to a message left at its corporate
communications office.  In SEC filings, however, company officials
promised investors they would "vigorously" defend against the
class-action lawsuits.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of
our customer contracts and that these complaints are without
merit," officials wrote in one recent filing.

That's pretty much what the company told the Zufelts when they
complained about excessive charges in June.  The contract allows
Stericycle to "adjust" charges in response to fuel prices,
regulatory changes and other factors that push up its costs.

Trudy Zufelt asked to cancel the hair center's contract, the suit
said, but the company informed her that it had been automatically
renewed for two years and that the Zufelts would be liable for the
remaining value of the contract, according to her suit.

However, the company had pledged not to hold customers to long-
term contracts as part of a 2003 settlement with the states of
Arizona and Utah over alleged anti-trust violations.

The states had sued Stericycle and BFI Waste Systems for allegedly
colluding to divide service territories for the sake of
suppressing competition.  In a 1997 arrangement, BFI and
Stericycle conspired to divide existing and future customers,
equipment, and even employees, according to claims in court
filings.  The alleged purpose was to unlawfully restrain fair
trade and monopolize the medical waste market in Utah, Arizona and

Stericycle in 1999 bought out BFI's medical waste assets,
acquiring the North Salt Lake incinerator among other facilities.

The Zufelts tried to remind the company by e-mail of its legal
obligations under the anti-trust settlement.  Stericycle never
responded, the suit said, but it soon canceled their contract.

The courts have transferred the various class-action suits to a
federal court in Illinois, which will coordinate the litigation.

TACO TRUCK: Faces FLSA Suit by Drivers, Cooks, Preps & Cashiers
Jonathan Velazquez v. The Taco Truck, LLC, Jason Scott and Chris
Viola, Individually, Case No. 2:13-cv-06105-WJM-MF (D.N.J.,
October 14, 2013) is brought as a collective action on behalf of
persons similarly situated -- non-exempt drivers, cooks, cook
preps, cashiers -- who suffered damages as a result of the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Taco Truck, LLC, is headquartered in Hoboken, Hudson County,
New Jersey, and is in the restaurant business.  TTT operates food
trucks, stores and kiosks offering Mexican fare throughout the
state of New Jersey.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
partners, officers, or managers of TTT.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          66 Willow Avenue, Suite 1A
          Hoboken, NJ 07030
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com

TAQUERIA MI PALENQUE: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Work
Julio Briseno, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Taqueria Mi Palenque, Inc.
and Agustin Flores, individually, Case No. 1:13-cv-07355 (N.D.
Ill., October 14, 2013) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for the Defendants' failure to
pay overtime pay to the Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly
paid employees for all time they worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks.

Taqueria Mi Palenque, Inc.'s principal place of business is
located in Northlake, Illinois.  Agustin Flores is involved in the
day to day business operations of Taqueria.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TESLA MOTORS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
Chelsea Allison, writing for The Recorder, reports that after
three of its vehicles burst into flames in recent months,
Tesla Motors Inc. is now under fire for allegedly misleading
investors about its sedans' safety.

Plaintiffs lawyers from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg and Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman filed a 40-page securities class action in the
Northern District of California on Nov. 8.  The suit, on behalf of
named plaintiff Robert Rahimi, seeks to recoup losses sustained
over the stock's precipitous fall -- down nearly 30 percent in six
weeks, a loss of more than $6.5 billion in market capitalization.

Investors and car buyers alike have been drawn to the electric
vehicles in part due to their superior safety profile.  The
company's home page heralds its five-star rating from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration and calls the Model S "the
safest car in America."

But such statements overlooked the serious design flaws that now
plague the electric carmaker, the suit alleges, and misrepresent
how the lithium ion battery can turn the Model S into an inferno
on the road.

At no time did Tesla "warn that the Model S was vulnerable to a
battery pack puncture during normal driving conditions that could
ignite a fire that would destroy the vehicle," the complaint

The complaint also targets Elon Musk, the company's founder and
CEO, and Deepak Ahuja, its CFO, saying they haven't done enough to
offset the risk to the business posed by the safety problem.  The
plaintiffs lawyers behind the Nov. 8 filing aim to represent those
shareholders who purchased Tesla stock between May 10 and Nov. 6,

The case has been assigned to Judge Charles Breyer.  Tesla has yet
to respond to the suit.  A company spokeswoman did not respond to
a request for comment.

US FOREST SERVICE: Faces Suit Over Timber Sale Operation Shutdown
Murphy Company, an Oregon corporation, High Cascade Inc., a
Washington corporation, South Bay Timber, LLC, a California
limited liability company, and American Forest Resource Council,
an Oregon nonprofit corporation v. United States Forest Service,
an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, and
United States Bureau of Land Management, an agency of the United
States Department of Interior, Case No. 1:13-cv-01827-CL (D. Ore.,
October 14, 2013) seeks to halt the Defendants' alleged
devastating and unlawful shutdown of all Forest Service and BLM
timber sale operations in response to the Government shutdown.

The Plaintiffs -- three wood products companies and a wood
products trade association -- on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated wood products industry members, seek to
continue their orderly, revenue and job generating timber sale
operations on previously awarded federal contracts during this
period of lapsed appropriations, and also until such time as the
Forest Service and BLM comply with all applicable laws, including
the Administrative Procedures Act notice and comment rulemaking
requirements relating to agency suspension direction for timber
sale operations.

The United States Forest Service is a federal agency within the
United States Department of Agriculture that is responsible for
management of the National Forest System and Forest Service timber
sale contracts.  The United States Bureau of Land Management is a
federal agency within the United States Department of Interior
that is responsible for management of BLM public lands and BLM
timber sale contracts.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael E. Haglund, Esq.
          Julie A. Weis, Esq.
          200 SW Market Street, Suite 1777
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (503)225-0777
          Facsimile: (503) 225 -1257
          E-mail: mhaglund@hk-law.com

               - and -

          Scott W. Horngren, Esq.
          5100 SW Macadam, Suite 350
          Portland, OR 97239
          Telephone: (503)222-9505
          Facsimile: (503) 222-325 5
          E-mail: shorngren@amforest.org

WOOD CASTLE: Recalls Bunk Beds Due to Entrapment Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wood Castle Furniture, of Albany, Ore., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,000 Riley Duo Bunk Beds.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The openings between the guardrails on the bunk bed can exceed 3
1/2 inches in width, which is too wide and does not meet safety
standards.  This presents an entrapment hazard where a child could
be seriously injured or become asphyxiated.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Riley Duo model bunk beds with model number C
5702, E 5702 or M 5702. The Duo has a twin size mattress frame on
top and a full size mattress frame on the bottom.  The solid wood
bunk bed was sold in cherry, eastern maple or pacific coast maple.
A warning label on the end rail of the top bunk has model number
"5702" and "Duo Bunk" printed on it.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at Dania
Furniture and Room and Board Furniture stores nationwide and
online at Roomandboard.com from January 2008 through December 2011
for between $1,500 and $1,700.

Consumers should immediately contact Wood Castle Furniture for a
free repair.  Either the consumer or a company representative can
determine if the guardrails spacing is too wide.  Consumers with
young children should discontinue use of the bunk bed until the
hazard has been remedied.

WYCEN FOODS: Recalls Chinese Style Chicken Sausages Due to MSG
Wycen Foods Inc., a San Leandro, Calif., establishment is
recalling approximately 809 pounds of Chinese style chicken
sausages, a dried snack food, because they are misbranded and
contain monosodium glutamate (MSG), which is not declared on the
label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

Product subject to recall:

   -- Individual "Chinese Style Chicken Sausage."

The products were produced June 12, Aug. 14, Sept. 4, and Oct. 24,
2013 and were sold at a single San Francisco retail location.  The
products have a shelf life of one year.  Some consumers may
refrigerate, continue to air dry or freeze them.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a label verification
activity.  The problem occurred when the company changed the
product's formulation to include MSG, but neglected to list the
ingredient on the label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and to ensure
that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact
the company's Chief Operating Officer, Cynthia Wong, at:
(510) 351-1988.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The
toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a

* Class Actions Over False Advertising Claims on the Rise
Jennifer Kaplan, writing for Eat Drink Better, reports that the
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, an affiliate of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, recently issued a report on emerging legal
threats, The New Lawsuit Ecosystem: Trends, Targets and Players.
The purpose of the report:

This report brings together leading practitioners and scholars to
describe the lawsuit "ecosystem" for the areas of litigation abuse
of most concern to the business community.  This report dissects
the trends of the litigious culture that sustains big ticket
litigation, the players that drive it, and how those players try
to manipulate or change the law to their favor.  Even when
successful, these lawsuits rarely benefit anyone except the small
handful of plaintiffs' lawyers who bring them.  Defending these
lawsuits drains millions of dollars from businesses that could be
spent spurring business expansion and creating new jobs with few
countervailing benefits.

The report identifies Food Class Action Litigation as one of the
biggest threats of the time.

Ms. Kaplan said "I'm not at all surprised that the Chamber is
alarmed".  Class action suits against food manufacturers for
misleading 'natural' labeling are on the rise.

                    Filling the Regulatory Gap

The number of class action lawsuits over false advertising claims
is indeed on the rise.  It's not hard to see why.  According to
the Institute of Food Technologists, sales of foods/drinks
formulated without preservatives topped $14.5 billion in 2009;
sales of products with a natural claim reached $22 billion and the
number of shoppers who say a no additive/preservative claim is
very important rose 10% over the past two years.  Consumers
believe limiting processed foods is among the most important
components of healthy eating and 50% of consumers deliberately
avoid preservatives, 49% avoid MSG, 47% artificial flavors, 44%
colors/dyes, 43% growth hormones, and 29% genetically modified

As Ms. Kaplan written before, the FDA, USDA and FTC will not
regulate the term 'natural' when it comes to our food.  The term
'natural' can mean just about anything because it has no
nutritional meaning.  In fact, I contend that the term 'natural'
is the single most commonly used food greenwash tactic (the Sin of
Vagueness).  A wide assortment of products, ranging from
Skinnygirl Cocktails to Frito Lay's SunChips to Wesson Oil, have
been guilty of this marketing ploy.

In the absence of regulations to stop false advertising, the class
action lawsuit has been filling a regulatory gap. Some lawsuits
have been effective in compelling product companies to stop making
false advertising claims.  For example, Naked Juice settled a
class action lawsuit and will remove the term 'natural.' Others,
like Barbara's Bakery, agreed as part of their class action
lawsuit settlement to go the extra step to mend their ways (they
will use costly third-party verification such as the Non-GMO
Project and stop using unnatural ingredients.) However, most of
the larger food companies are fighting back.

According to Bonnie Patten, Executive Director of

It appears that the U.S. Chamber Institute is taking the position
in its report, The New Lawsuit Ecosystem, that the rapid increase
in class-action lawsuits against food and beverage companies since
2008 is due exclusively to aggressive attorneys.  However, such a
conclusion is neither warranted nor helpful to Chamber of Commerce

Ms. Patten also points out that it's not just consumers' attorneys
that challenge the marketing campaigns of food and beverage
makers.  The BBB's National Advertising Division is a long time
police of false advertising such as in the cases of Tropicana,
MillerCoors and Prego.  Ms. Patten goes on to say:

While there can be no doubt that not all false advertising or
deceptive marketing lawsuits filed against food product and
beverage companies are meritorious, it can likewise be said that
not all of these suits lack merit.

Ms. Patten suggests that companies would be well served not to
make claims on packaging that is "at odds with the actual
ingredients in the product."  She contends that terms such as
"green," "light," "low fat or low sugar," "local," or "humane" are
all terms that can get a company into trouble because the
government does not regulate or adequately define these terms.

"I personally find it curious that the Chamber is taking the
position that the rise in misleading 'natural' advertising
litigation is largely driven by the financial interests of
plaintiffs' lawyers and the agendas of certain advocacy groups,"
Ms. Kaplan said.  Isn't the rise in the number of 'natural'
marketing claims behind the increase? Clearly, without an
overabundance of claims there would be little to sue over.

And, why is it surprising that plaintiffs' lawyers and advocacy
groups are taking the lead? Since the government won't regulate
it, who other than advocacy groups and their lawyer's have the
tools to force food companies to stop making erroneous claims?
And, while I see why the lawyers get a bad rap, the advocacy
groups?  Isn't it their job to force change?  If not them, then
who? The whole argument is absurd.

So, it looks like for now consumers and their class action
lawsuits will have to do what the FDA, USDA and FTC won't.  Some
people feel that litigation is the best path to stopping false
marketing tactics surrounding the 'natural' label on food.
Evidence would suggest that they are right and class action
lawsuits are the only mechanism that can currently fill the
regulatory gap that now exists because the FDA, USDA and FTC.

While we can hope that the FDA, USDA and FTC chose to define the
term 'natural,' it is likely to happen any time soon.  For the
time being it seems as if litigation -- and fear of litigation --
is the best path to stopping the mislabeling of foods.

* Directors Want Australian Gov't to Regulate Litigation Funders
Annabel Hepworth, writing for The Australian, reports that the
nation's most powerful company directors are demanding a
regulatory crackdown on litigation funders and are urging the
government to investigate whether regimes encouraging a
"proliferation" of class actions against major companies are a
drain on the economy.

In a submission to the Productivity Commission, the Australian
Institute of Company Directors says that increasingly, major
lawsuits against companies are being funded by professional
litigation funders subject to "little or no regulation".

The group says that many class actions are driven by lawyers and
litigation funders, leaving companies facing potentially
significant costs and disruption.

It is calling for measures to prevent law firms from setting up
companies that finance class actions, as well as subjecting
litigation funders to capital adequacy requirements so they have
enough assets to pay costs where companies and directors are
successful in defending claims.

"In addition, little attention has been paid to the impact of
these claims on Australian productivity and the economy as a
whole," the submission says.

The demands come as federal Attorney-General George Brandis
criticized the involvement of law firms in companies that finance
class action, saying he was concerned about "wildcat and
opportunistic" class actions.

The AICD declares the "excessive cost" and distraction to
companies of "unmeritorious" claims should not be underestimated
and the economic considerations of "allowing litigation funders to
initiate litigation with a view to forcing settlements for profit
should not be ignored".

"The commercial reality is that directors may feel that it is
prudent to settle this type of litigation because it distracts the
board and employees from focusing on core business activities,"
the submission says.

"The cost and time involved in defending these actions is
extensive and there are still many unsettled areas of Australian
class action law, particularly in relation to actions commenced by
shareholders, which adds to the level of uncertainty for

"The commencement of a large scale shareholder class action can
itself place pressure on the target entity's share price."

Because of the size and scale of class action litigations, the
company directors say, the cases can hit tax revenues by hitting
company profits.

The company directors' arguments are echoed by an advocacy group
linked to the US Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

The US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform has told the
Productivity Commission that Australia has the potential to become
"the jurisdiction of choice for plaintiffs, lawyers and funders
promoting class actions.  This unchecked acceleration in
litigation has implications for Australia's civil justice system,
cost of doing business and global reputation as an investment

In a paper it has put before the PC, the institute warns that the
growth in funded class actions and lawsuits has increased the cost
of doing business in Australia and this is "a trend which will
continue if the current situation remains unchanged".

While the big class action law firms like Maurice Blackburn and
Slater & Gordon have yet to make submissions to the Productivity
Commission's 15-month inquiry on access to justice, they have
previously rejected concerns about the growing litigation risk
facing Australian companies.

Class action law firms have argued that class actions backed by
litigation funders results in recoveries for victims of wrongs and
that there has not been a surge of litigation or of unmeritorious
claims as there is a loser-pays rule for costs in civil cases.

Law firm King & Wood Mallesons recently estimated that securities
class actions settlements in 2012 totaled AUD480 million after the
record AUD200 million settlement in the Centro class actions.
This is almost half the total of such settlements over the past 20
years, when the class actions regime in the Federal Court started.

The Productivity Commission has raised the prospect of changing
Labor's light-touch regulation of the litigation funders.

* New Template for Assessing Costs Cuts Class Action Motion Awards
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that Justice
Edward Belobaba's new "template" for assessing costs has resulted
in plaintiffs' counsel in three cases being awarded about C$1.5-
million less than they had requested.

All the assessments were released on Nov. 8, 2013 and followed on
successful certification motions.

In Rosen v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., Justice Belobaba awarded
C$290,000 (all figures include disbursements) to plaintiffs'
counsel Koskie Minsky, who had asked for C$575,000.  Defendant's
counsel Lenczner Slaght said costs should not exceed C$315,000.

In Dugal v. Manulife Financial, plaintiffs' counsel, Siskinds LLP,
asked for C$1.18-million.  The defense teams from Torys, Lenczner
Slaght, and McCarthy Tetrault said the award should not exceed
C$418,000.  Justice Belobaba awarded C$467,000.

In Crisante v.DePuy Orthopaedics, plaintiffs' lawyers Kim Orr
sought more than C$700,000.  Defendants' counsel Blake Cassels
asked for a cap of C$125,000.  Justice Belobaba awarded C$175,000.

Justice Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
says that class actions are becoming too expensive to promote
their goals of achieving access to justice.

"Normally, costs awards are routine and can be easily adjudicated.
Not so in the world of certification motions.  Here, excess
appears to be the norm in every aspect of the proceeding -- in the
amount of time spent by legal counsel, the volume of material
filed with the court, the number of days scheduled for the oral
hearing and the over-litigation of most issues.  No wonder, then,
that the costs that are typically sought by the successful party
are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  No wonder, also,
that the number of class actions on an annual basis is declining.
Access to justice, even in the very area that was specifically
designed to achieve this goal, is becoming too expensive."

The comments come in Rosen v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., in the
context of considering a costs award.  He suggests that most
lawyers on both sides of the class action bar are in agreement
that a "no costs" rule would "be much more sensible."
Judge Belobaba goes on to state that he was wrong in his
previously-expressed view that costs should "follow the event" in
class actions.

"I . . .  wish that the recommendations on costs as set out in the
Ontario Law Reform Commission's Report on Class Actions had been
accepted," Judge Belobaba writes.  "Instead, the provincial
legislature decided to adopt the views of the Attorney-General's
Advisory Committee and continue the 'costs follow the event'
convention for the very different world of class actions as well.
I was a member of that Advisory Committee.  I now realize that I
was wrong and that the OLRC was right.  I understand that the
provincial Law Commission is undertaking a review of the Class
Proceedings Act, including the costs provisions.  Hopefully, our
mistake will be corrected."

The case is one of three released on Nov. 8 in which the judge
issued cost orders that are dramatically lower than the sums
requested by plaintiffs' counsel.

Judge Belobaba was also critical of the reasons given by judges
for current costs awards, saying that many are "wordy, use
unreliable metrics and are analytically unclear."  As he saw it,
the guidance in the Rules of Procedure and from the Court of
Appeal "can only take you so far."

What follows in the judgment is a close analysis of the Court of
Appeal's directions on costs in Pearson v. Inco, taking
considerable pains to point out the practical difficulties,
including the lack of reliable data, to implement them fully.

This having been said, Judge Belobaba goes on to outline the
procedure he will follow in costs awards in certification motions,
apart from the ones within the categories of test cases, novel
point of law, or matters of public interest. The highlights are as

1. Costs outlines certified by counsel will be adequate, with
actual dockets not required;

2. Hourly rates must fall within the range set out by the Law
Society's Rules Committee in its Information to the Profession;

3. Apart from "obvious excesses in fees or disbursements, I will
accept the costs outline as is," and "will not drill down into any
of the detail";

4. A party who wishes to argue that a submission is unreasonable
should submit its own costs outline showing what it spent on the
motion.  "If a parallel costs outline is not submitted by the
unsuccessful party (and none is required) I will probably conclude
that the amount being requested by the successful party is not

5. Historical costs awards in similar cases will be considered.
The judgment contains a useful table of historical costs that
Judge Belobaba has compiled.

6.  The objective of the final award is to make one that is "fair
and reasonable to both sides, always remembering that the
fundamental objective of the Class Proceedings Act is access to

7. Finally, Judge Belobaba adds that "In cases where the final
fees or disbursement amount is dramatically above the norm, I will
consider making a costs award in two parts: a portion that is
payable immediately and a further portion that is payable in the

The result in this case, which involved the first certification of
an "unpaid overtime" case regarding investment advisors, was a
costs award of C$290,000.  The plaintiff had requested C$575,000;
the defendant argued that the award should not exceed C$315,000.


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

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

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

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *