CAR_Public/131121.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 21, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 231

                             Headlines


3 FELLERS: Recalls Chocolate Cream Pies Due to Undeclared Almonds
AOL INC: Overcharges Elderly "Not Tech-Savvy" Customers, Suit Says
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Subsidiary Settles Suit Over Epocrates Merger
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Lawsuit by Epocrates Shareholders Continue
AGRIA CORP: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Securities Suit

BAUSCH & LOMB: Suit Over MoistureLoc Solution Now Dismissed
CENTRAL MISSOURI CABLE: Has Policy to Willfully Fail to Pay Class
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 48,000 Units of Ram Trucks
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 6,674 Units of 4500 and 5500 Model Trucks
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 11,000 Units of 2500 and 3500 Model Trucks

CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 43 Units of Cars and SUVs
CRUNCH PAK: Recalls 5,471 Cases of Crunch Pak Apple Slices
DIGITAL MEDICAL: Did Not Pay Exact OT Rate, Fla. Suit Says
EBAY INC: Appeals Court Overturns Ruling in Suit v. StubHub
EBAY INC: Suits v. PayPal Over Electronic Fund Transfer Continue

ECOIDEAS INNOVATIONS: Recalls Dark Chocolate GOJI Berries
EI DUPONT: "Imprelis" Litigation Accord Gets Final Court Approval
EL RANCHO GRANDE: Sued Over Unpaid Extra Half Time Overtime Rate
EVERBRIGHTEN INC: Fails to Record Hours Worked, Ex-Employees Say
FANNIE MAE: NC Counties Appeal Dismissal of Tax Suit to 4th Cir.

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 1,034 Units of 2014 Chevrolet Malibu Cars
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 13 Units of 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Cars
GLAVAL: Recalls 699 Units of Various Model Buses
HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Suit Over "Unpasteurized" Juice Products
HAIN CELESTIAL: Owes $26,520 in Attorneys' Fees in Organics Suit

HOUSTON, TX: State Officers Appeal Ruling in Surcharge Suit
IGATE CORP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Withdraws Securities Suit
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Still Pending
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Nov. 22 Hearing to Name Lead Plaintiff
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Suit Over da Vinci Surgical System

JP MORGAN: Faces Antitrust Suit in N.Y. Over Credit Default Swaps
JTH HOLDING: Lawsuit Over ERC in Early Procedural Stage
LA BOULANGE: Recalls 75 Soft Caramel Jams for Undeclared Allergen
LAUNDRY CITY: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LEAP WIRELESS: Enters MoU to Settle Securities Suit Over Merger

OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION: President Accused of Self-Dealing
PALMER CANDY: Recalls 102 Cases of HyVee Choco Candies
PHC INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Shareholder Class Suit
PINNACLE PERFORMANCE: Court Certifies Class in "Dandong"  Suit
S&M ENTERPRISE: Recalls 12 oz Fruit of Wolfberry Due to Sulfite

SEQUOIA EDUCATION: Trial Ct. Ruling in "Rivera" Suit Reversed
SPOA LLC: Bid to Intervene in EEOC Suit Gets Court Approval
STATE FARM: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Gee" Suit to 7th Cir.
TEXAS LAW SHIELD: Pitches Services at Gun Classes, Suit Claims
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls 318 Units of 2013 JETTA Model Cars

VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls 16,000 Units of Tiguan SUVs
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls 214 Units of 2014 New Beetle
WASHINGTON: ESHB 1981 Is Unconstitutional, Suit Claims
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Grain Salads
WPX ENERGY: Bid to Stay Discovery in Royalty Payment Suit Denied


                             *********


3 FELLERS: Recalls Chocolate Cream Pies Due to Undeclared Almonds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3 Fellers LLC is voluntarily initiating a product recall of
3 Fellers Chocolate Cream Pies with the UPC# 891796002732 as a
precautionary measure.  The recall was initiated after it was
discovered by the company that the product may contain undeclared
almonds.  People who are allergic to almonds could have a serious
or life-threatening reaction if they consume this product.  For
consumers who are not allergic to almonds, there is no safety
issue with the product.  The company has received no reports of
illnesses associated with this product.

The recall affects products with BEST BY DATES prior to 5/7/2014
on the bottom of the container.  Products that have BEST BY DATES
prior to 5/7/2014, but declare the allergen (almonds) on the
label, are not included in this recall.

These products were distributed to Southern California, Virginia,
Maryland, District of Columbia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Ohio, and Kentucky.

No other 3 Fellers branded products are affected by this voluntary
recall.  Only products sold in the geographical area listed above
are potentially affected.

Consumers in possession of the recalled product that have an
allergy to almonds should not consume it and should discard it.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at (804) 556-
0671, Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm, EDT.


AOL INC: Overcharges Elderly "Not Tech-Savvy" Customers, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
AOL charges elderly customers as much as $17 a month for outmoded
dial-up service and free email accounts they no longer use, a
former customer claims in a federal class action.

Harvey Dunn, 76, an AOL customer for 10 years, accuses the company
of unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and violations of state
consumer laws.

AOL never told millions of elderly "not tech-savvy" customers that
it was no longer charging for content and email services, Dunn
says in the lawsuit.  He claims AOL charged him $17.95 per month
even after he switched to a broadband Internet service through
Time Warner and was no longer using dial-up.  He has canceled his
AOL account.

Dunn claims that AOL lists "AOL Service" on its bills, "recklessly
perpetuating the illusion that paying subscribers are still
receiving and using the same service they signed up for."

"AOL is well aware that the vast majority of its paying customers
are not using its nearly obsolete 'dial-up' services, and
misunderstand what they are paying for," the complaint states.
"AOL's technology allows it to easily tell which of its paying
customers are using AOL's dial-up ISP services.  AOL knows that
plaintiff, and millions of other consumers have absolutely no use
for their paid accounts, or AOL dial-up service they do not need
and are not using."

AOL became one of the most popular Internet service providers in
the country in the 1990s, with half of Americans subscribing for a
flat fee of $19.95 a month, Dunn says in the complaint.

In 2006, AOL unbundled its content and email services and offered
them for free to compete with the likes of Google and Yahoo!.

But AOL kept "paying customers in the dark," Dunn claims, because
subscription services still make up 30 percent of the company's
revenue.

Within the tech industry and at AOL it is well known that the
company is "recklessly exploiting its paying customers," Dunn
claims.

He cites a 2011 New Yorker interview with a former AOL executive
who reportedly told the magazine: "'The dirty little secret . . .
is that seventy-five per cent of the people who subscribe to AOL's
dial-up service don't need it.'"

He seeks damages, restitution, costs and an injunction, for
customers who paid for services they did not need for at least
three consecutive months.

AOL did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Azar, Esq.
          Nicole M. Duckett, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          Facsimile: (213) 617-1975
          E-mail: dazar@milberg.com
                  nduckett@milberg.com

               - and -

          Christopher K. Schuyler, Esq.
          Robert A. Wallner, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: cschuyler@milberg.com
                  rwallner@milberg.com

               - and -

          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
          ZEDLES HAEGGQUIST AND ECK LLP
          625 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
          E-mail: helenz@zhlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marcus D. Peterson, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406
          Telephone: (213) 488-7100
          Facsimile: (213) 629-1033
          E-mail: marcus.peterson@pillsburylaw.com

The case is Harvey Dunn v. AOL Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-07991-CBM-
MAN, in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Subsidiary Settles Suit Over Epocrates Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Mateo County Superior Court granted final approval to a
settlement of a suit over the merger of Epocrates, Inc. and one of
the wholly owned subsidiaries of athenahealth, Inc., according to
athenahealth's Oct. 18, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On January 11, 2013, a complaint captioned Bushansky v. Epocrates,
Inc., et al., Case No. 519078, was filed in San Mateo County
Superior Court (the "Court") on behalf of a putative class of
Epocrates' shareholders against Epocrates and each member of the
Epocrates board of directors.

This complaint challenged the proposed merger between Epocrates
and one of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries.  On January
25, 2013, a similar complaint was filed in the Court captioned
DeJoice v. Epocrates, et al., Case No. 519461. This second
complaint made similar allegations against Epocrates and each
member of the Epocrates board of directors and included a claim
against the company for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
duty. On January 31, 2013, the Bushansky complaint was amended to
include additional allegations. Plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the Epocrates directors breached their fiduciary
duties by allegedly agreeing to sell Epocrates at an unfair and
inadequate price, failing to take steps to maximize the sale price
of Epocrates, and making material omissions to the preliminary
proxy statement dated January 25, 2013.

The complaints sought to enjoin the merger, other equitable
relief, and monetary damages. On March 5, 2013, Epocrates and the
plaintiffs signed a memorandum of understanding in which the
parties agreed to enter into a stipulation of settlement whereby
the plaintiffs and all class members would release all claims
related to the merger in exchange for Epocrates filing a
supplement to its definitive proxy statement regarding the merger
with the SEC, which would include additional disclosures regarding
the merger agreement, and an agreement to negotiate in good faith
regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses for which
plaintiffs may seek approval from the Court.

On October 4, 2013, the Court granted final settlement approval
including a grant of fees and expenses in the amount of $335,000
to plaintiffs' counsel. The settlement has no material impact on
the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Lawsuit by Epocrates Shareholders Continue
------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit
v. Epocrates, Inc. et al., continues before the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to athenahealth's Oct. 18, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13cv0945, on behalf of a
putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and
certain of its former officers and directors.

The complaint asserts claims under sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all stockholders that
purchased Epocrates stock in its Initial Public Offering and
claims under sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares
between the February 2, 2011, IPO and August 9, 2011.

The complaint alleges that Epocrates made false or misleading
statements with respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical
clients were awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug
Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which
caused the clients to delay spending on marketing and negatively
impacted Epocrates' sales and revenue growth. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, plaintiff's costs, attorneys' fees, and such
other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
The company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
complaint and will continue to contest the claims vigorously.


AGRIA CORP: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $3.75 million settlement of a securities suit filed against
Agria Corporation won final approval from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
the company's Oct. 18, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013.

On February 3, 2009, a consolidated class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
was filed, alleging violations of various sections of the
Securities Act, against the company, the company's executive
officers, the company's directors and other defendants. The
lawsuit alleges that the company's initial public offering
registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose certain
alleged discussions between two Agria executives relating to
requests for additional compensation and a threatened resignation.

On December 1, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed the consolidated class action
against the Company and the underwriters defendants, and the Court
issued a judgment in favor of the Company and the underwriter
defendants.

On June 4, 2010, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the lead plaintiff reflecting an agreement in
principle and agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle all claims
asserted in the class action lawsuit. On September 20, 2010, the
court granted a preliminary approval of the settlement. The
deadline for filing objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Distribution of settlement proceeds, and attorneys' fee and
expense request by Lead Plaintiff's counsel expired on January 7,
2011, and no such objections were filed by Class Members.

On June 7, 2011, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and entered a final judgment resolving the case. The
settlement amount is within the limit of the company's applicable
insurance policies, and the settlement did not have any impact on
the company's financial position, results of operation or cash
flows.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Suit Over MoistureLoc Solution Now Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated
on behalf of purchasers of a contact lens solution with
MoistureLoc has been dismissed in the Federal District Court for
the District of South Carolina, according to the company's results
of operations for the three and six months ended June 29, 2013 and
June 30, 2012 filed on Oct. 21, 2013 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in
the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have
been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury
and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers
who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact
lens solution with MoistureLoc.

As of July 19, 2013, the Company has settled approximately 629
cases in connection with MoistureLoc product liability suits. All
U.S. based fusarium claims have now been resolved and less than
five fusarium claims involving claimants outside of the United
States remain pending. Based on this settlement experience, the
Company's Balance Sheets include an additional liability and a
corresponding insurance recovery asset which were less than one
percent of the Company's total current liabilities as of June 29,
2013 and December 29, 2012.


CENTRAL MISSOURI CABLE: Has Policy to Willfully Fail to Pay Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Wall, James Ferry & Chad White, On behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Central Missouri Cable
Contracting, Inc. and Greg Meinershagen, Case No. 2:13-cv-04215-
NKL (W.D. Mo., October 15, 2013) is brought for unpaid wages,
related penalties and damages.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants' practice and policy is to willfully fail to compensate
the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees for all
time performing compensable work.

CMCC is a Missouri corporation headquartered in Sedalia, Missouri.
CMCC provides cable installation services to telecommunications
companies by installing services in end-user consumers' homes.
Greg Meinershagen is a Missouri resident and an owner and officer
with significant managerial control over the operations, policies,
practices, and procedures of CMCC.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          Mikah K. Thompson, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 667-9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
                  mthompson@workerwagerights.com


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 48,000 Units of Ram Trucks
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           48517
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013397
TC ID number:             2013397
Manufacturer recall
number:                   N49

Affected products:

   Maker     Model      Model year(s) affected
   -----     -----      ----------------------
   RAM       1500       2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
   RAM       2500       2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
   RAM       3500       2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

On certain 2008-2012 Ram 2500 and 3500 4x4, Ram 3500 cab chassis,
and 2008 Ram 1500 Mega Cab 4x4 vehicles, the left outer tie rod
ball stud could fracture, potentially resulting in a loss of
vehicle control and a crash causing injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will install a redesigned left outer tie rod assembly.

The recall supersedes recall 2011-253(L16).  Vehicles that were
repaired under the previous campaign will also need to be repaired
under this campaign.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 6,674 Units of 4500 and 5500 Model Trucks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D., Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           6674
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013396
TC ID number:             2013396
Manufacturer recall
number:                   N63

Affected products:

   Mak     Model     Model year(s) affected
   ---     -----     ----------------------
   RAM     4500      2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
   RAM     5500      2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Certain Ram 4500 and 5500 four wheel drive vehicles may experience
a fracture of the ball stud on the left outer tie rod assembly,
potentially resulting in a loss of vehicle control and a crash
causing injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will install a redesigned left outer tie rod assembly.

The recall supersedes recall 2010-465(K28).  Vehicles that were
repaired under the previous campaign will also need to be repaired
under this campaign.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 11,000 Units of 2500 and 3500 Model Trucks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           11000
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013395
TC ID number:             2013395
Manufacturer recall
number:                   N62

Affected products:

   Maker     Model      Model year(s) affected
   -----     -----      ----------------------
   RAM       2500       2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
   RAM       3500       2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008

A safety defect may exist in aftermarket steering linkage
equipment sold as service replacement parts for 2500 and 3500 4x4
pickup trucks.  If the drag link assemblies in question were
installed improperly, the left tie rod ball stud may fracture,
potentially resulting in a loss of vehicle control and a crash
causing injury and/or property damage.  Chrysler will notify
owners of all 2003-2008 Dodge Ram heavy duty trucks (other than
those covered by recall 2013-397 (N49)) since those vehicles could
potentially have had the affected linkages installed during
service.  Owners will be instructed to take their vehicle to a
dealer for inspection and repair if required.

The recall supersedes recall 2009-019 (H46).  Parts replaced under
the previous campaign will also need to be replaced under this
campaign.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 43 Units of Cars and SUVs
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Engine
Units affected:           43
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013394
TC ID number:             2013394
Manufacturer recall
number:                   N52

Certain vehicles equipped with a 2.4L gasoline engine may
experience a loss of engine oil pressure and subsequent engine
failure, causing a loss of motive power.  A loss of motive power,
in conjunction with driving conditions and driver reactions, could
increase the risk of a crash.

Dealers will replace the balance shaft module.

Affected products:

   Maker        Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----        -----       ----------------------
   DODGE        AVENGER     2013
   JEEP         PATRIOT     2014
   JEEP         COMPASS     2014
   CHRYSLER     200         2013


CRUNCH PAK: Recalls 5,471 Cases of Crunch Pak Apple Slices
----------------------------------------------------------
Crunch Pak of Cashmere, Washington is voluntarily recalling 5,471
cases of Crunch Pak Apple Slices due to a possible health risk
from Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported in association with this recall to
date.  No other Crunch Pak products are affected by this recall.
FDA is aware that the company is undertaking this voluntary
action.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The company sold the recalled product to retail customers and
because, in some cases, the recalled product was shipped to
regional distribution centers, Crunch Pak is taking the extra
precautionary measure of issuing this recall nationwide to assure
that consumers who may have purchased the product are properly
alerted.

The following products are subject to this nationwide recall

   -- 14 ounce bag Crunch Pak Tart Apple Slices with UPC
      732313141209 and best before date of 11/14/13;

   -- 2 ounce bag Crunch Pak Tart Apple Slices with Low Fat
      Caramel Dip Multi pak of 5 with UPC 732313091139 and best
      before date of 11/14/13;

   -- 2 ounce bag Multi pak of 6 Crunch Pak Tart Apple Slices with
      UPC 732313121034 and best before date of 11/14/13;

   -- 3 pound bag Crunch Pak Tart Apple Slices with UPC
      732313481206 and best before date of 11/14/13;

   -- 12 ounce bag Crunch Pak Sweet Honeycrisp Apple Slices with
      UPC 732313120013 and best before date of 11/14/13;

   -- 2 ounce bag Multi pak of 5 with Monsters University Crunch
      Pak Blue Raspberry Flavorz Apple Slices with UPC
      732313089969 and best before date of 11/18/13

* In order to identify the recalled products, both the product
description or UPC code AND the Best-if-Used-By-Date must be used.
The UPC code and best by date are printed on the back of the
packages.  Because the UPC code is used for all items in these
categories, the UPC code alone will not identify the recalled
product.

Consumers who have recalled product in their possession should not
consume it, should destroy or discard it, and retain the receipt
of purchase.  Consumers with questions may contact Crunch Pak at
1-509-888-7648, M-F, 8:00am - 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
For a copy of this press release and photos of the recalled
products, please visit http://www.crunchpak.comdisclaimer icon.

This voluntary recall was initiated after a single, random sample
of 14 oz. package of Crunch Pak brand Tart Apple Slices, taken by
the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, tested positive for
Listeria monocytogenes.

Crunch Pak representatives are already contacting retail customers
who received the product directly from the company and asking that
they remove the recalled product from store shelves and
inventories and that no product is available for consumer
purchase.

"We are issuing this voluntary recall to reduce even the slightest
risk to public health.  There is nothing more important than the
health and safety of those who enjoy our products," said Tony
Freytag of Crunch Pak.  "We have always been committed to food
safety, and we will continue to make food safety a core competency
of our company.  We realize that food safety is a constant effort,
and we are using this opportunity to further evaluate our food
safety systems."


DIGITAL MEDICAL: Did Not Pay Exact OT Rate, Fla. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
John Terzakis, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Digital Medical Imaging, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company and Alan Fraynd, individually, 1:13-cv-23732-MGC
(S.D. Fla., October 15, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff, who
worked in excess of 50 hours per week on a regular basis while
employed by the Defendants, and those similarly situated were not
compensated at a rate of one and one-half of their wages for all
of the overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

DMI is a Florida corporation transacting business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, and is based in Miami.  DMI is a business, which
performs diagnostic medical procedures and provides digital
imaging and patient care, including, CT scans and X-Ray scans.
Alan Fraynd manages and operates DMI and exercised authority to,
among other things, hire and fire employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina M. Avalos, Esq.
          TRIPP SCOTT, P. A.
          110 Southeast Sixth Street, 15th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-7500
          Telecopier: (954) 761-8475
          E-mail: cma@TrippScott.com


EBAY INC: Appeals Court Overturns Ruling in Suit v. StubHub
-----------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court's
decision in a suit over the sale of concert tickets
by StubHub, according to eBay Inc.'s Oct. 18, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Regulatory agencies or courts may claim or hold that the company
is responsible for ensuring that the company's users comply with
these laws and regulations or that the company or the company's
users are either subject to licensure or prohibited from reselling
event tickets in their jurisdictions. In October 2007, two
plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit in North
Carolina Superior Court alleging that StubHub sold (and
facilitated and participated in the sale) of concert tickets to
plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets were resold in
violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resale price law
(which has been subsequently amended).

In February 2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, concluding that immunity under the
Communications Decency Act did not apply. The trial court further
held that StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive
trade practices statute as it pertained to the two named
plaintiffs, and certified its decision for immediate appeal to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals.

In February 2012, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned
the lower court's decision, and the Court of Appeals' decision is
now final. Similar actions are expected in other states. Laws and
regulations governing the resale of event tickets outside the U.S.
(for example, in Europe) may be more restrictive, and carry
harsher penalties and fines, than corresponding U.S. laws and
regulations. In 2012, France passed a law prohibiting the habitual
resale of event tickets without permission from the event
organizer.

In addition, the unauthorized resale of football (soccer) tickets
is illegal in the U.K., where a StubHub site was launched in 2011.
While the company has secured a number of commercial partnerships
in the UK in order to enable the company's customers to buy and
sell football (soccer) tickets, if the company is unable to
maintain these partnerships or develop new partnerships on
acceptable terms, the company's tickets business would suffer.


EBAY INC: Suits v. PayPal Over Electronic Fund Transfer Continue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class-action lawsuits Devinda Fernando and Vadim
Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc. and Moises Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc. continue
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to eBay Inc.'s Oct. 18, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Although there have been no definitive interpretations to date,
PayPal has taken actions as though its service is subject to the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E of the U.S. Federal
Reserve Board. Under such regulations, among other things, PayPal
is required to provide advance disclosure of changes to its
service, to follow specified error resolution procedures and to
reimburse consumers for losses from certain transactions not
authorized by the consumer.

PayPal seeks to pass most of these losses on to the relevant
merchants, but PayPal incurs losses if the merchant does not have
sufficient funds in its PayPal account. Additionally, even
technical violations of these laws can result in penalties of up
to $1,000 for each non-compliant transaction or up to $500,000 per
violation in any class action, and the company could also be
liable for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc. and Moises
Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. These lawsuits contain
allegations related to violations of aspects of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E and violations of a previous
settlement agreement related to Regulation E, and/or allege that
PayPal improperly held users' funds or otherwise improperly
limited users' accounts.

These lawsuits seek damages as well as changes to PayPal's
practices, among other remedies. A determination that there have
been violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E
or violations of other laws relating to PayPal's practices could
expose PayPal to significant liability. Any changes to PayPal's
practices resulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to
incur significant costs and to expend substantial resources, which
could delay other planned product launches or improvements and
further harm the company's business.


ECOIDEAS INNOVATIONS: Recalls Dark Chocolate GOJI Berries
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 14, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Ecoideas Innovations Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Ecoideas Innovations Inc. is recalling Ethnoscience brand Dark
Chocolate GOJI Berries from the marketplace because they contain
milk which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy
to milk should not consume the recalled product described below.

Affected products: 170 g. Ethnoscience Dark Chocolate GOJI Berries
with UPC 0 75405 00123 1

The product has been sold in Ontario and possibly in British
Columbia and Quebec.

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

There has been one reported reaction associated with the
consumption of this product.


EI DUPONT: "Imprelis" Litigation Accord Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter granted final approval of a
settlement in IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, NO. 11-MD-02284, (E.D. Pa.)

This multidistrict litigation poses the question: If a tree falls
in the forest, was it caused by DuPont's herbicide, Imprelis?
Rather than squarely answer that question, the parties reached a
class action settlement after months of negotiation, and the Court
preliminarily approved that settlement in February of 2013. In the
months that followed, the parties engaged in a wide-ranging notice
program, leading to the filing of over 37,000 claims, 581 opt
outs, and 24 timely objections.

Settlement Counsel has moved for final approval of the settlement
and for attorneys' fees.

Judge Pratter awards counsel for Plaintiffs attorneys' fees in the
amount of $6,500,000 and costs in the amount of $500,000.

Incentive awards for settlement class representatives are awarded
in the amount of $63,000 (22 individual property owners will
receive an incentive award of $1,500, and 12 multi-residential or
commercial property owners, golf courses, and lawn care operators
will each receive an incentive award of $2,500).

Copies of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Memorandum and
Order are available at http://is.gd/b46NrFand http://is.gd/05yDvW
from Leagle.com.


EL RANCHO GRANDE: Sued Over Unpaid Extra Half Time Overtime Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Geovani De Jesus Martinez and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. El Rancho Grande 2, Inc. and George A.
Rodriguez, Case No. 1:13-cv-23737-KMW (S.D. Fla., October 15,
2013) alleges that although the Plaintiff worked an average of 64
hours a week for the Defendants between April 1, 2011, through
October 10, 2013, he was never paid the extra half time rate for
any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

George A. Rodriguez is a corporate officer, owner or manager of El
Rancho Grande 2, who ran its day-to-day operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          J. H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
                  DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com


EVERBRIGHTEN INC: Fails to Record Hours Worked, Ex-Employees Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Rosendo, Leonides Rescalvo, Rogelio Rosendo and Catarino
Venancio, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Everbrighten Inc. (d/b/a Wasabi Lobby), Tong Lin, Chang Qing
Chen and Jacky Chen, Case No. 1:13-cv-07256-JGK (S.D.N.Y.,
October 15, 2013) alleges that the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the Plaintiffs' hours worked and failed
to pay the Plaintiffs, and similarly situated employees,
appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the straight
rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.

The Defendants own, operate and control a Japanese restaurant in
New York under the name Wasabi Lobby.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


FANNIE MAE: NC Counties Appeal Dismissal of Tax Suit to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina counties of Rowan, Henderson, Beaufort,
Guilford and Stanly appealed the dismissal of their consolidated
amended complaint against Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and Federal Housing
Finance Agency, as conservator for Federal National Mortgage
Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

In his memorandum opinion and order dated September 16, 2013,
Chief Judge William L. Osteen, Jr., of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, ruled that
Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac," together with
Fannie Mae, "the Enterprise Defendants") are exempt from payment
of the excise tax imposed by Sections 105-228.28, et seq., of the
North Carolina General Statutes.

Defendants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are federally chartered
private corporations.  Defendant Federal Housing Finance Agency
("FHFA") is an independent federal agency, created under the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.  On September 6, 2008,
the Enterprise Defendants were placed under the conservatorship of
the FHFA.

The Plaintiff Counties filed a two-claim, putative class action
complaint.  In the first claim, the Plaintiff Counties seek the
payment of real estate transfer taxes allegedly owed by the
Enterprise Defendants from at least 1972 to the present.  During
that period, the Enterprise Defendants have been transferors in
thousands of real estate transactions in the Plaintiff Counties
and throughout North Carolina.  The Plaintiff Counties allege that
the Enterprise Defendants have improperly claimed exemptions from
the Transfer Tax, including (1) an exemption based on being
"federal instrumentalities" and (2) an exemption based on their
Charter Exemptions.  In the second count, the Plaintiff Counties
seek a declaration that North Carolina counties are entitled to
assess and collect the Transfer Tax from the Enterprise
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
          James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          1700 K Street
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Aaron F. Goss, Esq.
          John S. Hughes, Esq.
          WALLACE & GRAHAM, PA
          525 North Main Street
          Salisbury, NC 28144-0000
          Telephone: (704) 633-5244

               - and -

          Debra Brewer Hayes, Esq.
          Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
          REICH & BINSTOCK
          4265 San Felipe
          Houston, TX 77027-0000
          Telephone: (713) 622-7271
          E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
                  chunter@rbfirm.net

               - and -

          Larry Stephen McDevitt, Esq.
          David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
          VAN WINKLE, BUCK, WALL, STARNES & DAVIS, PA
          11 North Market Street
          P. O. Box 7376
          Asheville, NC 28802-0000
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
                  dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
          WALLACE, WHITLEY & BLACK
          301 North Main Street
          Salisbury, NC 28144-0000
          Telephone: (704) 633-5244

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Jill L. Nicholson, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
          321 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 832-4522
          E-mail: jnicholson@foley.com

               - and -

          Clay Campbell Wheeler, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
          4208 Six Forks Road
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Personal: 919-420-1717
          E-mail: CWheeler@kilpatricktownsend.com

               - and -

          Michael Joseph Ciatti, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-0000
          Telephone: (202) 661-7828
          E-mail: mciatti@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Cory Hohnbaum, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          100 North Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 503-2561
          E-mail: chohnbaum@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Alexander Johnson, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP
          555 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1206
          Telephone: (202) 942-5783
          E-mail: Michael.Johnson@aporter.com

               - and -

          Rebecca A. Leigh, Esq.
          301 Greene Street
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 389-1800
          Facsimile: (336) 389-0060
          E-mail: rebecca@leighlaw.com

The appellate case is Rowan County, North Carolina, et al. v.
Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., Case No. 13-02255,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The
original case is Rowan County, North Carolina, et al. v. Federal
National Mortgage Association, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00859-WO-
LPA, in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina at Greensboro.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 1,034 Units of 2014 Chevrolet Malibu Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Heater and Defroster
Units affected:           1034
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013402
TC ID number:             2013402
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13380

Affected products: 2014 Chevrolet Malibu

Certain vehicles may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging.  The heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) controls in these vehicles
may intermittently become inoperable when the vehicle is started.
If this occurs, the HVAC system will remain on the previous
settings in place at the time the vehicle was shut off.  This
could interfere with windshield defrosting and/or defogging,
causing reduced visibility and increasing the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will reprogram the electronic climate control module.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 13 Units of 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           13
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013401
TC ID number:             2013401
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13342

Affected products: 2013 Chevrolet Malibu

On certain vehicles equipped with 8-way power adjustable seats,
the seat wiring may chafe against the seat frame and cause a
short.  This could result in unintended seat movement, inoperative
seat adjustment, sparking under the seat, smoke and/or fire.
These issues could increase the risk of injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will inspect and repair wiring as necessary.


GLAVAL: Recalls 699 Units of Various Model Buses
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           699
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013400
TC ID number:             2013400

Affected products:

   Maker     Model        Model year(s) affected
   -----     -----        ----------------------
   GLAVAL    UNIVERSAL      2009, 2010
   GLAVAL    TITAN          2009, 2010
   GLAVAL    CONCORDE       2009, 2010
   GLAVAL    TITAN II       2009, 2010
   GLAVAL    CONCORDE II    2009, 2010
   GLAVAL    PRIMETIME      2009, 2010
   GLAVAL    SPORT          2009, 2010
   GLAVAL    ENTOURAGE      2009, 2010
   GLAVAL    APOLLO         2009, 2010

On certain buses, a circuit board contained within the door header
could overheat, potentially resulting in a fire causing injury
and/or damage to property.

Dealers will inspect and replace affected circuit boards.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Suit Over "Unpasteurized" Juice Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stark, Reyna Gillead, Kenna Braner, and Oscar Ruiz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc., ZSBPW LLC, and Blueprint Wholesale
LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-07246-DLC (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2013) is a
purported class action lawsuit related to the Defendants' alleged
false claims that their fruit and vegetable juice products,
BluePrintJuice and BluePrintCleanse are "Unpasteurized" and "100%
Raw."

The Defendants' Juice Products are neither unpasteurized nor raw
as they undergo a treatment process known as high pressure
processing, also known as high pressure pasteurization, which
neutralizes the benefits of the live enzymes, probiotics,
vitamins, protein and nutrients that would otherwise be retained
in a raw and unpasteurized juice, the Plaintiffs allege.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation based in
Lake Success, New York.  Hain Celestial is a natural and organic
food and personal care products company that operates in North
America and Europe.  Blueprint Wholesale LLC is a New York limited
liability company headquartered in Long Island City, New York.
ZSBPW LLC is a New York limited liability company headquartered in
New York.  The Defendants market and sell their Juice Products
widely throughout New York, California and other states.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq.
          Neal Jamison Deckant, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave.,
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          15 Morris Lane
          Great Neck, NY 11024
          Telephone: (516) 236-6456
          Facsimile: (516) 773-7931
          E-mail: Spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          DEWEY & LEBOEUF, L.L.P.(NYC)
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 259-6097
          Facsimile: (212) 632-0306
          E-mail: jlevin-epstein@dl.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth K. Lee, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP (LA)
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-5152
          Facsimile: (213) 239-5162
          E-mail: klee@jenner.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Owes $26,520 in Attorneys' Fees in Organics Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
awarded $26,520 to the Plaintiff's counsel's work after August 10,
2013, in the class action lawsuit initiated by Rosminah Brown, et
al., against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.  The Court concluded
that Hain Celestial dragged its feet and delayed discovery.

In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that Hain Celestial falsely
advertises, markets, and labels certain Jason and Avalon Organics
brand cosmetics products as organic.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lisa Margaret Burger, Esq.
          Howard Judd Hirsch, Esq.
          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 759-4111
          Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
          E-mail: lburger@lexlawgroup.com
                  hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com
                  mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Amir David Benakote, Esq.
          Behram Viraf Parekh, Esq.
          Heather Marie Baker, Esq.
          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          KIRTLAND AND PACKARD
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Third Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          E-mail: adb@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  mlk@kirtlandpackard.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq.
          Kathleen Brenna Roney, Esq.
          William Lewis Stern, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-6626
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: cvetesi@mofo.com
                  KRoney@mofo.com
                  wstern@mofo.com

               - and -

          William J. Friedman, IV, Esq.
          107 S. West St.
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (571) 217-2190
          Facsimile: (202) 449-8316
          E-mail: pedlarfarm@gmail.com

The case is Brown, et al. v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case
No. 3:11-cv-03082-LB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).


HOUSTON, TX: State Officers Appeal Ruling in Surcharge Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve McCraw and Susan Combs (the "Texas Defendants") appealed an
order granting in part and denying in part their motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Texas Defendants are officers of the state of Texas.  Steve
McCraw is Director of Texas Department of Public Safety ("DPS")
and Susan Combs is Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
Plaintiff Bertha Fontenot is a resident of Ft. Bend County, Texas;
while Plaintiffs David Miller and Santa Zamarron are residents of
Harris County, Texas.

The class action lawsuit arose from the imposition of surcharges
for certain traffic violations in Texas.  The plaintiffs were
convicted of violating Section 521.025 of the Texas Transportation
Code, which provides that drivers in Texas must "have in the
person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of
driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated."

The Plaintiffs contend that conviction for violating Section
521.025 is not an offense subject to a surcharge.  They argue that
City of Houston's automated system erroneously reported that
persons convicted of Section 521.025 (a non-surchargeable offense)
were instead convicted of 521.021 (a surchargeable offense).  The
DPS subsequently assessed and, in some instances, collected
surcharges of up to $300 from those incorrectly reported as being
convicted of Section 521.021. The surcharges received by the DPS
were subsequently remitted to the Comptroller.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Ronald Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN, L.L.P.
          Three Riverway
          Houston, TX 77056-3034
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
          E-mail: mweber@crowleynorman.com

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Angela Veronica Colmenero, Esq.
          ASSISTANT AG, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          300 W. 15th Street
          William P. Clements Building
          Austin, TX 78701-0000

The appellate case is Bertha Fontenot, et al. v. City of Houston,
et al., Case No. 13-20611, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.  The original case is Bertha Fontenot, et al. v.
City of Houston, et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-3503, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston.


IGATE CORP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Withdraws Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Igate Corporation disclosed on its Oct. 18, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013 that the securities class action filed on
June 14, 2013, by "Ashish Kumar Jain, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated" was voluntarily withdrawn on
August 22, 2013 and no monetary damages were paid by the Company.
Hence the event is no longer contingent to the Company.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
No oral argument date has been set, and an appeal against the
dismissal of a securities suit against Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
remains pending, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed
against seven of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 1, 2008 and January 7, 2009. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and
omitting certain material facts in the Company's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis
was appointed lead plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. An amended complaint was
filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially similar
to the allegations described above. On May 23, 2011, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 10,
2011, that motion was granted and the action was dismissed; the
plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an amended complaint.

On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.
The allegations contained therein are substantially similar to the
allegations in the prior complaint. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing occurred on February 16,
2012, and on May 22, 2012 the Company's motion was granted. The
complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and a final judgment was
entered in the Company's favor on June 1, 2012.

On June 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal
is styled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive
Surgical, Inc. et al., No. 12-16430. Plaintiffs filed their
opening brief on September 28, 2012. The Company filed an
answering brief on November 13, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a reply
brief on December 17, 2012. No oral argument date has been set,
and the appeal remains pending.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Nov. 22 Hearing to Name Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in Abrams v.
Intuitive Surgical et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920 is scheduled to be
heard on November 22, 2013, according to the company's Oct. 18,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against nine of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive
Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court
against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013. The
Abrams lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between October 19, 2011 and April 18, 2013.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Motions
seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the Abrams case were
filed by two parties on June 25, 2013. One of those motions was
subsequently withdrawn. The remaining motion is scheduled to be
heard on November 22, 2013.

By agreement with the plaintiff in the Abrams action, no response
to the complaint is required until after a lead plaintiff is
appointed by the Court and that duly appointed lead plaintiff
files a consolidated complaint or informs the company that it has
chosen to proceed with the complaint already on file. Also by
agreement with plaintiff, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on October 15, 2013, and the Company must respond by
December 16, 2013.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Suit Over da Vinci Surgical System
------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action filed in Louisiana state court seeking
damages on behalf of all patients who were allegedly injured by
the da Vinci Surgical System at a single hospital in Louisiana,
according to the company's Oct. 18, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

The Company is currently named as a defendant in about 50
individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and
federal courts by plaintiffs who allege that they underwent
surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical System and
sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some cases, death
as a result of such surgery.

In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action filed in Louisiana state court seeking
damages on behalf of all patients who were allegedly injured by
the da Vinci Surgical System at a single hospital in Louisiana.
The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying
degrees, that the plaintiffs' injuries resulted from purported
defects in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the
Company's part to provide adequate training resources to the
healthcare professionals who performed plaintiffs' surgeries.

The cases further allege that the Company failed to adequately
disclose and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits
of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety
of causes of action, including for example, strict liability based
on purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express
and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in
many cases, punitive damages.

Except for a few cases, including the Taylor case, these cases
generally are in the early stages of pretrial activity.
Plaintiffs' attorneys are engaged in well-funded national
advertising campaigns soliciting clients who have undergone da
Vinci surgery and claim to have suffered an injury. The
plaintiffs' attorneys are now alleging that Intuitive Surgical is
liable for those injuries under products liability theories. The
Company has seen a substantial increase in these claims; however,
the Company has not received detailed information regarding many
of these claims.

In an effort to provide an orderly process for evaluating claims
before they result in costly litigation, the Company has entered
into tolling agreements with certain plaintiffs' counsel acting on
behalf of such claimants. The tolling agreements provide that the
statute of limitations for each individual will be tolled for a
period of three to six months in exchange for the individual's
agreement that, if he or she ultimately files a lawsuit, it will
be filed in certain agreed upon venues. The tolling agreements
provide the parties and their legal counsel with additional time
to evaluate the claims, and to explore whether the claims have
merit and whether they can be resolved without litigation. The
Company does not currently know how many individuals will
ultimately file lawsuits or decide not to pursue their claims, nor
is the Company able at this time to estimate the financial impact
of their claims or predict the final disposition of such claims.
Based on currently available information, the Company believes
that it has meritorious defenses in the above matters and intends
to assert them vigorously.


JP MORGAN: Faces Antitrust Suit in N.Y. Over Credit Default Swaps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association brought a
purported antitrust class action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase &
Co. and other banks on behalf of those who purchased or sold
credit default swaps in the United States and its territories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          George S. Trevor, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Thomas Kay Boardman, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: tboardman@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Lawrence, Esq.
          THE LAWRENCE LAW FIRM
          101 California Street, Suite 2710
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 504-1601
          Facsimile: (415) 504-1605
          E-mail: jeffreyl@jlawrencelaw.com

               - and -

          Wayne T. Lamprey, Esq.
          GOODIN, MCBRIDE, SQUERI, DAY & LAMPREY
          505 Sansome Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 392-7900
          Facsimile: (415) 398-4321
          E-mail: wlamprey@goodinmacbride.com

The case is Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association v.
JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-07634-KBF, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).


JTH HOLDING: Lawsuit Over ERC in Early Procedural Stage
-------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint that alleges JTH Holding, Inc.'s
electronic refund check (ERC) represents a form of refund
anticipation loan is at an early procedural stage, according to
the company's Oct. 18, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2013.

The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Florida and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012
in New York and Minnesota, since the initial filings.

In April 2012, a motion to consolidate all of the then-pending
cases before a single judge in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a new complaint in the consolidated action. The consolidated
complaint alleges that an electronic refund check (ERC) represents
a form of refund anticipation loan (RAL) because the taxpayer is
"loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that an ERC is therefore
subject to federal truth-in-lending disclosure and state law
requirements regulating RALs. The plaintiffs therefore allege
violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer statutes.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the plaintiffs
allege potential damages in excess of $5 million, but the Company
may be able to recover any damages from the providers of the
financial products that designed the programs and related
disclosures. The Company is aware that virtually identical
lawsuits have been filed against several of its competitors. The
Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is
probable, nor has the Company accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the claims in this case, and intends to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome or
the impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows. The case is at an early
procedural stage.


LA BOULANGE: Recalls 75 Soft Caramel Jams for Undeclared Allergen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
La Boulange Cafe & Bakery voluntarily initiated a product recall
of 75 Soft Caramel Jams in 8.4 oz. jars with lot number 822713 as
a precautionary measure.  This product was sold exclusively in 20
La Boulange Cafe & Bakery stores in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The recall was immediately initiated after it was discovered by
the company that the product was inadvertently mislabeled and
filled with Hazelnut Jam (containing undeclared hazelnut).  People
who are allergic to hazelnut could have a serious or life-
threatening reaction if they consume this product.  For consumers
who are not allergic to hazelnut, there is no safety issue with
the product.  The company has received no reports of illnesses
associated with this product.

The recall affects Soft Caramel Jam products sold from August 15,
2013 to November 11, 2013 with lot number 822713 on a white label
on the bottom of the container.  No other La Boulange Cafe &
Bakery branded products are affected by this voluntary recall.

Consumers in possession of the recalled product that have an
allergy to hazelnut should not consume it and should discard it or
return to a La Boulange Cafe & Bakery for a refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company by phone at (415) 440-0356
ext. 3, option 3, Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm, PST or by email at
contact@laboulangebakery.com. Media may contact the company at
(206) 318-7100.


LAUNDRY CITY: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Laundry City LLC d/b/a Laundry City and Lawrence Pross, Case
No. 1:13-cv-05657-SJ-SMG (E.D.N.Y., October 15, 2013) alleges
that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law, he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of
hours premium, liquidated damages and statutory penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Laundry City LLC d/b/a Laundry City is a New York domestic
business corporation headquartered in Woodside, New York.
Lawrence Pross is the Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of
Laundry City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


LEAP WIRELESS: Enters MoU to Settle Securities Suit Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
A memorandum of understanding was reached regarding the settlement
of In re Leap Wireless International, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Lead Case No. 37-2013-00058491-CU-BT-CTL, according to the
company's Oct. 18, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On August 15, 2013 the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, consolidated four separate putative class
action lawsuits challenging a proposed merger transaction by the
company.

The Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 12, 2013, is
entered by and among AT&T, Inc. ("AT&T"), Leap Wireless
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Leap" or the
"Company"), Mariner Acquisition Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T ("Merger Sub"), and Laser,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, providing for the merger of Merger
Sub with and into Leap, with Leap surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of AT&T (the "merger agreement").

The consolidated action is captioned In re Leap Wireless
International, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 37-2013-
00058491-CU-BT-CTL. On October 17, 2013, the lead plaintiff
entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the
settlement of this putative class action.

Leap believes that no further disclosure is required to supplement
the proxy statement under applicable laws and Leap, AT&T and the
other defendants to the class action continue to deny that the
process by which the proposed transaction was negotiated or is
being executed was or is insufficient in any way and that any
defendant acted improperly; however, to avoid the risk that the
putative stockholder class actions may delay or otherwise
adversely affect the consummation of the transactions and to
minimize the expense of defending such action, Leap has agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed transaction, all
of which are set forth below. In addition, AT&T has agreed to
forbear from asserting its right to prevent termination of the
voting agreement, dated July 12, 2013, among Leap, AT&T and
affiliates of MHR Fund Management if a Change of Recommendation
(as defined in the merger agreement) is made by Leap as a result
of a Superior Proposal (as defined in the merger agreement) as
permitted by Section 6.2(f)(i) of the merger agreement, and to
forbear from asserting its right to prevent a Change of
Recommendation by Leap under Sections 6.2(f)(ii)(A), (B), (C), and
(E) of the merger agreement.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
completion of the merger and court approval following notice to
Leap's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego
will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it
will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed
merger, the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated
thereby, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law), among other claims, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of
the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement,
the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a
petition in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be
paid by Leap, its successor, or its insurer, which the defendants
may oppose. Leap, its successor, or its insurer will pay or cause
to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Diego will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.

In addition, it filed a Form 8-K to provide Leap stockholders with
additional information regarding Laser, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Leap, which
has become available since the date of the proxy statement. Laser,
Inc. is the "Stockholders' Representative" under the merger
agreement and is expected to be the Stockholders' Representative
party to a CVR Agreement to be entered into at the effective time
of the merger. Leap believes that no further disclosure is
required to supplement the proxy statement under applicable laws;
however, in an effort to ensure Leap stockholders have current
information with respect to the Stockholders' Representative prior
to the special meeting of its stockholders, Leap is making the
disclosures with respect to the Stockholders' Representative.


OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION: President Accused of Self-Dealing
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill McHenry, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Carl Goff, an individual; Kris Morgan, an individual;
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:13-cv-04773-PJH
(N.D. Cal., October 15, 2013) arises from the alleged fraudulent
self-dealing and fiduciary breaches of the Defendants.

Carl Goff is the President of International Union of Operating
Engineers ("IUOE"), Local 3.  Kris Morgan was until recently the
Director of the Local 3 JAC Rancho Murieta Training Center.  The
Ranch is the California training center for the Operating
Engineers & Participating Employers Pre-Apprentice, Apprentice and
Journeyman Affirmative Action Training Fund (sometimes referred to
herein as "the training trust" and sometimes as "JAC", for "Joint
Apprenticeship Committee"), an Alameda, California based, Taft-
Hartley regulated employee benefits program affiliated with
Local 3.  Local 3, headquartered in Alameda County, is the largest
local trade union operating under the IUOE, with approximately
40,000 members in northern California and elsewhere.  The
Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

Mr. Morgan recently was forced to resign from his position as
Director at the Ranch after certain employer-side JAC trustees
learned he was operating a side-business at the Ranch designing
and selling simulators with the use of trust fund assets and
labor, resulting in his personal profit and that of others.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Goff had known about this side-business
and allowed it to take place before the employer trustees
discovered its existence; after their discovery of the simulator
side-business, Mr. Goff and Business Manager Russ Burns attempted
to prevent any audit of Mr. Morgan's wrongful activities at the
Ranch.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Mark Moore, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          MOORE & LEVIANT LLP
          20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite 140
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (877) 360-7020
          Facsimile: (310) 870-7020
          E-mail: jmm@mllawyers.net
                  hsl@mllawyers.net


PALMER CANDY: Recalls 102 Cases of HyVee Choco Candies
------------------------------------------------------
Palmer Candy Company of Sioux City, IA is recalling 102 cases of
HyVee Chocolate Caramel Clusters and 90 cases HyVee Chocolate
Covered Caramels because they may contain undeclared peanuts.
People who have an allergy to peanuts run the risk of a serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled product was distributed throughout the Midwest to
HyVee Stores.

The recalled products can be identified by the following:

   -- HyVee Chocolate Caramel Clusters - UPC 7723212515 9 oz
      plastic tub with the following lot code: Sell By: 04/07/14
      F30202 located on the bottom of each tub.

   -- HyVee Chocolate Covered Caramels - UPC 7723212520 12 oz
      plastic tub with the following lot code: Sell By: 10/07/14
      F30202 located on the bottom of each tub.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with either of the
products being recalled.  The recall was initiated after it was
discovered that the HyVee Chocolate Caramel Clusters were
mispackaged in HyVee Chocolate Covered Caramel labels.  The HyVee
Chocolate Covered Caramel label does not list peanuts as an
ingredient.

Consumers who have purchased HyVee Chocolate Caramel Clusters or
HyVee Chocolate Covered Caramels are urged to return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may
contact Palmer Candy Company (800) 831-0828, Monday - Friday, 8:00
AM - 4:30 PM.


PHC INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Shareholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAZ Partners LP and Peter Blakeslee appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the judgment entered
on September 30, 2013, pursuant to the Opinion and Order entered
on the same date granting the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissing their consolidated complaint in the
lawsuit known as In Re: PHC, Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Norman Berman, Esq.
          Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: nberman@bermandevalerio.com
                  norenstein@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: cwaldman@wolfpopper.com
                  pavery@wolfpopper.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS
          60 State Street, 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 573-5118
          Facsimile: (617) 573-5090
          E-mail: psheehan@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A Professional Corporation
          475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com
                  kerr@browerpiven.com

The appellate case is MAZ Partners LP, et al. v. PHC, Inc., et
al., Case No. 13-02273, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.  The consolidated class action lawsuit is In
Re: PHC, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 1:11-cv-11049-GAO,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
Boston.


PINNACLE PERFORMANCE: Court Certifies Class in "Dandong"  Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GE DANDONG ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. PINNACLE
PERFORMANCE LTD. ET AL., Defendants, NO. 10 CIV. 8086 (JMF), (S.D.
N.Y.), District Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the request of the
named plaintiffs -- Ge Dandong, Loh Tuck Woh Peter, the Singapore
Government Staff Credit Cooperative Society, Ltd. (SGSCCS), Ni Yan
Amy, Ang Soo Cheng, Choh Gek Hong Johnson, Ng Shook Phin Susan,
and Zhao Yuzheng -- pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, for certification of a proposed class.

In the lawsuit, a group of Singaporean investors assert various
claims against Morgan Stanley & Co. and certain of its affiliates
related to a series of credit-linked notes issued by Defendant
Pinnacle Performance Limited.

The class is defined as:

  All persons who purchased Pinnacle Notes Series 1, 2, 3, 6, 7,
  9, and 10 or their successors in interest and thereby suffered
  damages, excluding: the Defendants named herein; any of
  Defendants' Officers or Directors or their immediate family
  members; or any firm trust, partnership, corporation, or entity
  in which a Defendant or its Officers or Directors or their
  immediate family members, has a controlling interest.

In addition, Judge Furman denied the Defendants' motion to exclude
the declarations of Plaintiffs' experts -- "denied as moot" with
respect to a declaration by Ilya Eric Kolchinsky; and "denied on
the merits" with respect to the declaration by Craig A. Wolson.

A copy of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/COu6Xzfrom Leagle.com.


S&M ENTERPRISE: Recalls 12 oz Fruit of Wolfberry Due to Sulfite
---------------------------------------------------------------
S&M Enterprise of Bayonne, NJ, is recalling all lots of Fruit of
Wolfberry in 12 oz plastic bag packages.  People who have
allergies to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled Fruit of Wolfberry in 12 oz plastic bag packages were
distributed in retail stores in New York during June 2013 to
August 2013.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered by NYDSAM that
the sulfites-containing product was distributed in packages that
did not reveal the presence of sulfites.  Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by lack of supplier's knowledge
about sulfites declaration on packages.

Consumers who have purchased Fruit of Wolfberry in 12 oz plastic
bag packages are urged to return them to the place of purchase for
a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company
at 201-332-8878. (Monday to Friday, 10AM-5PM, Eastern Time Zone).


SEQUOIA EDUCATION: Trial Ct. Ruling in "Rivera" Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Rivera and eight other plaintiffs commenced a putative class
arbitration under an agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration
Act. After the arbitrator rendered an award applying the FAA to
find class arbitration unavailable, defendants Sequoia Education,
Inc. and Corinthian Colleges filed a petition to confirm the
award. Concluding the arbitrator violated public policy by failing
to apply California law in interpreting the arbitration agreement,
the trial court vacated the award and ordered rehearing by the
arbitrator.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One
now vacates the order of the trial court, and remands the case to
the trial court for entry of a judgment confirming the arbitration
award.

The case is SEQUOIA EDUCATION, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; DAVID RIVERA et al.,
Real Parties in Interest, NO. A134411.

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/FzKBP8from Leagle.com.


SPOA LLC: Bid to Intervene in EEOC Suit Gets Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit against
Spoa, LLC (d/b/a Basta Pasta) for alleged violations of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights
Act of 1991. The EEOC intends to pursue the case on behalf of a
class of female employees. The EEOC claims that owner Michael
Sakellis sexually harassed former waitress Jane Doe, former
manager Dimitra Kokkinakos, and "similarly situated female
employees."

A number of motions are now pending before the court including:
plaintiff Doe's motion to intervene as of right; plaintiff Doe's
motion to proceed under a pseudonym; and defendant Spoa's motion
to dismiss and/or for more definite statement, opposition to
permitting the case to proceed anonymously, and request for
hearing.

In an October 15, 2013 Memorandum available at http://is.gd/8Vtmeq
from Leagle.com, District Judge Catherine C. Blake granted
plaintiff Doe's motion to intervene; granted Doe's motion to
proceed under a pseudonym; denied Spoa's motion to dismiss; and
granted in part and denied in part Spoa's motion for a more
definite statement.

The case is EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. SPOA, LLC,
CIVIL NO. CCB-13-1615, (D. Ma.).


STATE FARM: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Gee" Suit to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Gee appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit from the dismissal of his purported class action lawsuit
against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company alleging the Company
improperly calculates depreciation when making initial claim
payments for damaged personal property.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Andrew N. Levine, Esq.
          O'ROURKE & MOODY
          55 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 849-2020
          Facsimile: (312) 849-2021
          E-mail: alevine@orourkeandmoody.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-0000
          Telephone: (312) 258-5613
          Facsimile: (312) 258-5600
          E-mail: jcancila@schiffhardin.com

The appellate case is Fred Gee v. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company, Case No. 13-3265, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.  The original case is Fred Gee v. State Farm Fire
and Casualty Company, Case No. 1:11-cv-00250, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


TEXAS LAW SHIELD: Pitches Services at Gun Classes, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Crowley, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated and Terrilyn Crowley, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Texas Law Shield, LLP., Walker &
Rice, LLP, Walker & Rice, P.C., Walker, Rice & Wisdom, LLP,
Walker, Rice & Wisdom, P.C., T. Edwin Walker, Darren R. Rice,
Michael Wisdom and Kirk W. Evans, Case No. 201365980 (D. Tex.,
Harris Cty., October 30, 2013) alleges that most concealed handgun
license ("CHL") classes in Texas include a pitch by a salesperson
for Texas Law Shield.  The salesperson promotes Texas Law Shield
as providing "peace of mind" and encourages class attendees to
become clients of Texas Law Shield to the tune of approximately
$130 per year.

The Plaintiffs say they bring this class action to recover damages
for themselves and those similarly situated regarding the
Defendants' barratry and wrongful solicitation for professional
employment.

The Corporate Defendants regularly conduct business in Texas and
are headquartered in Houston, Texas.  The Individual Defendants
are partners or officers of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth R. Wynne, Esq.
          David E. Wynne, Esq.
          WYNNE & WYNNE LLP
          711 Louisiana, Suite 2010
          Pennzoil Place, South Tower
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-8835
          Facsimile: (713) 227-6205
          E-mail: dwynne@wynne-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls 318 Units of 2013 JETTA Model Cars
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           318
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013404
TC ID number:             2013404
Manufacturer recall
number:                   34F6/4V

Affected products: 2013 Volkswagen Jetta Model

On certain hybrid models equipped with direct-shift gearboxes,
corrosion can occur inside the gearbox due to incompatible gearbox
lubricant additives, causing electrical shorts and blowing gearbox
fuses.  This could result in a loss of motive power, which could
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will replace the existing gearbox lubricant with an
updated formulation.


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls 16,000 Units of Tiguan SUVs
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           16235
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013403
TC ID number:             2013403
Manufacturer recall
number:                   97Z9/2v

Affected products: 2009, 2010, 2011 Volkswagen Tiguan model

On certain vehicles, a fuse can overheat and damage the fuse box,
causing a partial loss of exterior vehicle lighting.  This could
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will install a fuse of an updated design.


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls 214 Units of 2014 New Beetle
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights and Instruments
Units affected:           214
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013398
TC ID number:             2013398

Affected products: 2014 Volkswagen New Beetle

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and
Retroreflective Devices.  Horizontal adjustment caps in the
headlight modules were not installed during vehicle production.
Without the caps installed, the horizontal aim of a headlight
assembly could be adjusted.

Dealers will inspect and if necessary, install the required caps
on the headlight modules.


WASHINGTON: ESHB 1981 Is Unconstitutional, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that Washington
state retroactively -- and unconstitutionally -- eliminated
pension benefits for retired public employees who return to full-
time work in higher education, a class action claims in state
court.

Lead plaintiff Laurie Levy claims the Legislature in 2011 changed
longstanding pension rules without due process and in violation of
the Washington Constitution, which prohibits passage of any law
"impairing the obligations of contracts."

Levy sued the state and the Washington Department of Retirement
Systems, in King County Court.  She wants the law -- Engrossed
Substitute House Bill 1981, or ESHB 1981 -- enjoined as
unconstitutional.

"Under Washington law prior to January 1, 2012, State employees
who retired with a PERS [Public Employees Retirement System]
pension were entitled to receive their full benefit even if they
returned to work, provided that the employer was a 'higher
education employer' and the individual elected to become covered
under that employer's retirement plan," according to the
complaint.

But in 2011, the Legislature revoked the higher education
exemption, through ESHB 1981.

"Effective January 1, 2012, in ESHB 1981, the Legislature changed
the PERS pension benefit such that individuals who retired with a
PERS pension would lose their pension benefits after working more
than 867 hours for a higher education employer.  As a result,
plaintiff Levy and other PERS retirees were forced to either (1)
work 867 hours or less to preserve their pension benefits or (2)
lose vested pension benefits.  Plaintiff Levy continued to work,
and has lost thousands of dollars in pension benefits as a result
of the repeal of the higher education exception," the lawsuit
states.

Levy retired from the University of Washington in 2002, then
returned to work full time at the university, with her retirement
benefits.  But when ESHB 1981 took effect, the state began
withholding her pension, costing her "thousands of dollars in
pension benefits."

She claims the state cannot retroactively eliminate a vested
benefit.

For the class, she claims that ESHB 1981 is an unconstitutional
impairment of contracts, violates due process, is an
unconstitutional taking and a breach of contract.

She seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction and damages for all
PERS members who had retirement benefits withheld.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Spoonemore, Esq.
          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 3650
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
          E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
                  rspoonemore@sylaw.com

The case is Levy v. Washington State of Retirement Systems, Et
Ano, Case No. 13-2-36923-1, in the Washington Superior Court, King
County.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Grain Salads
----------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market's Northern California region is recalling
ready-to-eat Artichoke Wheatberry Salad and Southwest SooFoo*
Salad in response to a recall issued today by Glass Onion
Catering.  The salads are being recalled as a preventive measure
because they have the potential to be contaminated with E. coli
O157:h7, a bacteria that may cause illness.

Symptoms of E. coli O157:H7 infection may include abdominal cramps
and diarrhea which is often bloody.  Most infected people recover
within a week; however, some may develop complications that
require hospitalization.  Young children and the elderly are at
highest risk for a potentially life-threatening complication known
as hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) which includes kidney failure.
To date, 26 illnesses have been reported; however, none of the
illnesses are linked to products specifically sold at Whole Foods
Market.

Customers may have purchased the Artichoke Wheatberry Salad and
Southwest SooFoo Salad from the fresh deli case, salad bar and/or
in pre-packed pint or half-pint containers in the Prepared Foods
department.  Both products have been pulled from all venues and
carry an expiration date between Nov. 9 and Nov. 13. Four PLUs are
associated with these salads:

   -- 28563300000- Artichoke Wheatberry Salad;
   -- 28563400000- Artichoke Wheatberry Salad;
   -- 28563700000- Southwest SooFoo Salad; and
   -- 28563800000- Southwest SooFoo Salad

The recalled salads were sold in the following 10 of the company's
40 Northern California stores:

   -- Capitola, 1710 41st Ave, Capitola, CA 95010;
   -- Fremont, 3111 Mowry Ave., Fremont, CA 94538;
   -- Oakland, 230 Bay Place, Oakland, CA 94612;
   -- Lafayette, 3502 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Lafayette, CA 94549;
   -- Los Gatos, 15980 Los Gatos Blvd, Los Gatos, CA 94032;
   -- Napa, 3682 Bel Aire Plaza, Napa, CA 94558;
   -- Noe Valley, 3950 24th St, San Francisco, CA 94114;
   -- Redwood City, 1250 Jefferson Ave, Redwood City, CA 94062;
   -- San Mateo, 1010 Park Pl, San Mateo, CA 94403; and
   -- Walnut Creek, 1333 Newell Ave, Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Customers who have purchased these products should discard them,
and may bring in a receipt to any of the above stores for a full
refund.  Questions about the recall can be directed to 512-477-
5566, ext. 20060, Monday-Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CST.

Read the complete Glass Onion Catering recall notice on the FDA
website.

*SooFoo is a separate corporate entity; Whole Foods Market sources
SooFoo grains as an ingredient in its Southwest SooFoo Salad.  The
SooFoo ingredient is not related to the recall.


WPX ENERGY: Bid to Stay Discovery in Royalty Payment Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James O. Browning denied a motion to stay discovery
in the case captioned THE ANDERSON LIVING TRUST f/k/a THE JAMES H.
ANDERSON LIVING TRUST, THE PRICHETT LIVING TRUST, CYNTHIA W.
SADLER, and ROBERT WESTFALL, Plaintiffs, v. WPX ENERGY PRODUCTION,
LLC f/k/a WPX ENERGY SAN JUAN, LLC and WILLIAMS PRODUCTION
COMPANY, LLC, and WPX ENERGY ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC, f/k/a WILLIAMS
PRODUCTION RMT COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, NO. CIV 12-0040 JB/KBM,
(D. N.M.).

The case arose from a dispute over the royalty payments that the
Defendants -- producers of oil and gas in New Mexico and Colorado,
and working interest holders in oil-and-gas leases belonging to
the Plaintiffs -- owe to the Plaintiffs -- royalty interest
holders on the leases.  The Plaintiffs brought the action as a
class against the Defendants on behalf of all owners of "non-cost
bearing" royalty interests in the subject wells.

The primary issue in the case is whether the Court should issue a
protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to
stay discovery given that the Court has granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Judge Browning concluded that discovery is proper for the claims
the Court did not dismiss, and the parties may engage in discovery
on "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim
or defense."

A copy of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/djC05ifrom Leagle.com.

Karen Aubrey, Law Office of Karen Aubrey, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
and Brian K. Branch, The Law Office of Brian K. Branch,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Turner W. Branch, Cynthia Zedalis,
Branch Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Bradley D. Brickell,
Brickell & Associates, P.C., Norman, Oklahoma, Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs Anderson Living Trust, Pritchett Living Trust, Cynthia
W. Sadler and Robert Westfall.

Bradford C. Berge, Robert J. Sutphin, Holland & Hart LLP, Santa
Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants Williams Production
Company, LLC and. Williams Production RMT Company, LLC.


                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *