/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/131125.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 25, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 233


965 FIRST REST: Class Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Premium
AB&I FOUNDRY: Fixes Prices for Pipes and Fittings, Suit Claims
AES SHADY: Bokoshe Residents File Class Action Over Toxic Waste
ALGO CENTRE: Court Hears Class Action Certification Request
AMAZON.COM INC: Never Pays Post-Shift Screening Time, Suit Says

AUSTRALIA: CFS Reaches Comprise in 2005 Bushfire Class Action
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Newman Ferrara Files Securities Class Action
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Calif. Suit Over Transmission Fluid
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Class Action Over Pay-for-Delay Deal
C&S WHOLESALE: Removed "Cagle" Suit to E.D. Calif. Court

CHICAGO TITLE: Appeals Class Certification Order in "Mahon" Suit
EDEN MANAGEMENT: Rejects People With Mental Issues, Suit Claims
ELECTROLUX HOME: Washing Machine Suit Removed to Federal Court
ESTEE LAUDER: Origins Unit Recalls Face Creams Over Mold
EUROPAN CAFE: Sued by Workers Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages

FAMILY DOLLAR: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
FAST & FRESH: Faces FLSA Violation Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIRST INT'L BANK: Faces "Labajo" Class Suit Over Debt Collection
FRITO-LAY INC: To Settle Overtime Class Action for $1.6 Million
GARDEN FRESH: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action in Calif.

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Nearly 60,000 Chevy Malibu Cars
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Hodge Jones Launches "Pandemrix" Class Action
HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
INSTANT INSURANCE: TCPA Violations Suit Transferred to Illinois
JOE'S CRAB: Calif. Appeals Court Revives Overtime Class Action

JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles RMBS Claims for $4.5 Billion
LIBERATO RESTAURANT: Owes Minimum and Overtime Wages, Class Says
MACY'S INC: Actor Files Class Action Over Alleged Racial Profiling
MEDTRONIC INC: FDA Issues Warning on Recalled Guidewires
MERRILL LYNCH: Appeals Denial of Arbitration in Wage & Hour Suit

MF GLOBAL: Judge Allows Class Action Over Missing Funds to Proceed
MI CORRECTIONS DEP'T: Faces Suit Over Children in Adult Prisons
MONTERREY MARKET: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Licensing Group Likely After Class Action Ruling
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Cert. Order in "Johnson" Suit

NMI RETIREMENT: Ordered to Pay Johnson $7,500 Service Award
NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Faces False Advertising Suit Over Cosamin
OLD LINE: Circuit Court Approves Class Action Settlement
OMEGA FLEX: Seeks Dismissal of Defective Tubing Class Action
OMNI DRY: Faces FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages

ORGANON USA: Pa. Woman Files Nuvaring Product Liability Suit
PARISIENNE 501 DELI: Accused of Not Paying Wages and OT Premium
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Tariff Hike
PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: Denial of Class Cert. in Breach Suit Appealed
SEARS ROEBUCK: DRI's Amicus Brief Seeks Review of Washer Cases

SPECIALTY COMPOUNDING: Bacterial Outbreak Linked to Sterile Drugs
SPOTIFY LTD: Sued Over Automatic Subscription Renewals
TESLA MOTORS: NHTSA Opens Probe Into Electric Car Battery Fires
TOYOTA MOTOR: Consumer Reports Pull Recommendation on 3 Vehicles
UNICITY INT'L: Sued Over Undisclosed Recording of Phone Calls

UNITED FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
USPLABS LLC: Hawaii to Collect, Destroy OxyELITE From Stores
WANG MA LLC: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime Premium, Suit Claims
YARD HOUSE: Class Seeks Equal Access to Restaurant and Triangle
YOUTUBE LLC: Copyright Suit Dropped After Class Action Dismissal

* Industry Losses From Asbestos & Environmental Claims Up in 2012
* Lewis Urges Union to Launch Class Action v. Newspapers


965 FIRST REST: Class Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Premium
Juan Galicia, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. 965 First Rest. Corp. d/b/a Madison
Restaurant, Victor J. Echevarria, Nicolas Mouhlas, and Gregory
Panagiotakos, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:13-cv-07269-AKH
(S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff and the
proposed class are entitled to, among other things, unpaid wages
and unpaid overtime premium from the Defendants.

965 First Rest. Corp. is a New York business corporation based in
New York County.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
shareholders, officers or managers of the Company.  The Defendants
operate a restaurant doing business as Madison Restaurant located
in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com

AB&I FOUNDRY: Fixes Prices for Pipes and Fittings, Suit Claims
Las Vegas Supply, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AB&I Foundry, Tyler Pipe Company, McWane,
Inc., Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company, and Randolph Holding
Company, Case No. 4:13-cv-04792-KAW (N.D. Cal., October 15, 2013)
is an antitrust class action lawsuit alleging that the Defendants
conspire to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices for cast
iron soil pipe and fittings that they sold directly to the
Plaintiff and other class members.

AB&I is a division of McWane, Inc., with its principal place of
business located in Oakland, California.  McWane, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.  Tyler
Pipe Company is a division of McWane, Inc., headquartered in
Tyler, Texas.  Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company is a North
Carolina corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Randolph Holding Company, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Charlotte Pipe and is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Charlotte.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
          Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
          Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212)687-1980
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Meghan Boone, Esq.
          1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 833-6575
          E-mail: ccormier@cohenmilstein.com

AES SHADY: Bokoshe Residents File Class Action Over Toxic Waste
Jennifer Loren, writing for NewsOn6.com, reports that the battle
over a toxic Oklahoma dumpsite has taken a remarkable turn.  Three
years ago, 6 Investigates told you about pollution problems in
Bokoshe, in LeFlore County.  People there claim they are being
poisoned by a coal ash disposal site.  The local power plant,
AES Shady Point, has dumped enough coal ash there to build a
20-acre mountain less than a mile from town.  It's loaded with
chemicals like arsenic, mercury, chromium and lead, all of which
are known to cause cancer.

But residents have just learned wastewater from the oil and gas
process called fracking has added to the contamination, and they
say it's reached Oklahoma's underground drinking water.

In a class action lawsuit, Bokoshe residents are now suing nearly
50 companies including the dumpsite owners and oil and gas
companies, claiming years of dumping coal ash and fracking
wastewater created a critically dangerous threat to their health
and property.

Bokoshe resident Dub Tolbert has led the fight to stop coal ash
from being dumped there ever since the dumpsite became his next-
door neighbor in 1998.  Then, he discovered that the tanker trucks
that so often lined the rural roads there had been dumping
hundreds of millions of gallons of fracking wastewater in
Bokoshe's dumpsite.

Fracking wastewater often contains high levels of salt and toxic
chemicals.  It's a by-product of fracking: pushing huge amounts of
water, sand and chemicals underground to release oil and gas.
When the fracking wastewater comes back up, it has to be disposed
of very carefully.

NewsOn6.com uncovered documents from 2009 tracking truckloads of
fracking wastewater directly from oil and gas wells in Arkansas to
Bokoshe.  Documents show some of the Arkansas frack jobs used
thousands of gallons of hydrochloric acid and millions more
gallons of undisclosed chemicals.  Officials with the Arkansas Oil
and Gas Commission say all fracking wastewater has to be disposed
of in injection wells in that state. It cannot be dumped there.

Also in 2009, an inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency
found toxic contaminants were running off the Bokoshe dumpsite,
into the tributary of a creek that runs right through nearby
residential property.  Attorneys for the Bokoshe residents claim
that wastewater has polluted, not just surface water, but
underground drinking water, as well.

"It's a very serious problem and it's not going to go away.  It's
not going to go away because they quit dumping.  It's not like a
landfill.  It's going to continue to pollute this countryside,"
said Randy Miller, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

Residents can prove toxins have polluted their water and their
lawsuit is trying to prove it's also causing the cancer.

Dub Tolbert and his neighbors claim that pollution is putting
their health at risk. As their lawsuit states, there are
"significant concentrations of cancer victims" near the dumpsite.
They say 14 of the people who live closest to it were diagnosed
with cancer in the last seven years.

NewsOn6.com visited the dumpsite office to get their side.  A
spokesperson said, "I mean it is what it is. It's in court.  We're
doing everything that we're supposed to be doing," but refused
further comment.

It turns out the owners of the dumpsite, a company called Making
Money Having Fun, had permits from the state to dump the coal ash
and "produced water" at the site.

Produced water is the fluid that comes to the surface of a well
before, during and after it produces oil and gas.  According to
state regulators at the Oklahoma Corporation, it's considered a
deleterious substance and includes fracking wastewater.

State regulators with the Oklahoma Department of Mines were in
charge of inspecting the site, because it's actually permitted as
a mine reclamation project.  They required site operators to test
the wastewater before it was accepted to make sure it wasn't too
polluted, but those tests were based on the honor system and were
never certified nor even witnessed by authorities.

"Frankly . . . it's a 'not in my backyard' kind of thing," said
Bret Sholar, former ODM inspector.  "I would be concerned if it
was in mine, just because of what it is.  It's a big fly ash site
. . ."

Mr. Sholar was the inspector responsible for enforcing state
regulations at the site when the wastewater was dumped there, yet
he says it wasn't his job to know what was in the wastewater.  He
pointed us to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which regulates
our oil and gas industry.

"They're the ones that authorized the water and where it came
from, so they could probably answer that question a whole lot
better than I could. Otherwise, I'd be guessing," said Mr. Sholar.

Mr. Sholar did acknowledge that once the wastewater was on site,
it was the responsibility of his agency.  That's why, he said, his
agency has always required regular water monitoring on the site.
The results, he says, have never given him any cause for concern.
But, at the same time, he admits the EPA's water testing results
were concerning enough to stop fracking wastewater from being
dumped there.

"We decided it was not something that we wanted to accept anymore
. . . just as a policy" said Mr. Sholar.  "Because of some of the
concerns that people had, whether they're valid or not, we decided
we're just not going to accept water at sites anymore."

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission also pulled its permit,
meaning oil and gas companies haven't been able to dump fracking
wastewater in Bokoshe since 2009.

Dub Tolbert and his neighbors fear it's too little too late.

"But, we will get something done about it.  I think, sooner or
later, there'll be enough people that understand and say 'You
know, we don't need to make that mess down there in Oklahoma,'"
said an emotional Tolbert.

The lawsuit, he says, may be their last hope.

The permit to dump coal ash there is still active.  State
regulators confirmed the power plant can dump the ash there for
another 30 years.

ALGO CENTRE: Court Hears Class Action Certification Request
Kevin McSheffrey, writing for The Standard, reports that the
class-action lawsuit launched as a result of the collapse of the
Algo Centre Mall on June 23, 2012, has taken a tiny step forward.

The Notice of Action for a class-action lawsuit with the Superior
Court of Ontario was launched in July of 2012 with the filing of a
statement of claim.  The lawsuit is claiming C$30 million on
behalf of the victims of the partial collapse of the Algo Centre

On Tuesday, Nov. 12, a request for certification of the class-
action lawsuit was heard in Toronto by Justice Belobaba, of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Roland Aube, of Aube Law Office in Elliot Lake and local lead
counsel for the plaintiffs, says with a certification hearing a
judge decides whether or not this lawsuit qualifies as a class-

Three other legal firms are representing the plaintiffs.  Feifel
Broadbent Gualazzi specializes in personal-injury litigation,
Roy O'Connor of Toronto -- being the senior firm, as well as
involvement of Douglas Elliott, of Elliot Lake.

"A judge has to confirm that this fits the model for a class-
action," says Mr. Aube.  "The judge has to agree that there are
identifiable classes, and that they are represented by the
representative plaintiffs.

"So, the judge approves the class definition . . ., who are the
people entitled to sue the defendants."

He adds that the plaintiffs would be those who were directly
affected by the collapse of the Algo Centre Mall.  They would
include tenants, occupants, employees of the businesses in the
mall and the family members of those affected, injured and the
family members of those who died.

The collapse claimed the lives of two Elliot Lake residents: 74-
year-old Doloris Perizzolo and 37-year-old Lucie Aylwin.

In addition, 22 other were treated in hospital for minor injuries
sustained in the collapse.

The judge presiding over the Nov. 12 hearing was Justice Belobaba.

"Justice Belobaba has done many class-action lawsuits and he
appears to be comfortable in this area of the law."

The judge did not give formal approval for the class-action to go
ahead at the hearing.

Aube says Justice Belobaba said he would release his formal
decision about Jan. 10, 2014.

However, he adds that Justice Belobaba will recognize that Jack
and Elaine Quinte, who owned Hungry Jack's Restaurant in the mall
food court, as appropriate plaintiffs in the action.  The Quintes
are representing the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Mr. Aube adds that the plaintiffs are confident that the
certification will be issued by Jan. 10.

"We'll go on to the next step from there."

Mr. Aube estimates there could be between 250 and 300 plaintiffs.

AMAZON.COM INC: Never Pays Post-Shift Screening Time, Suit Says
Alan Rosenthal, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com.DEDC, LLC, and
Amazon.com DEDC, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-01701-GMS (D. Del.,
October 15, 2013) alleges that the Defendants have never paid the
Plaintiff and other warehouse workers for time expired during the
Defendants' mandatory, post-shift screening process.

Amazon.com, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Seattle, Washington.  Amazon.com.DEDC, LLC is a Delaware business
entity headquartered in Seattle, Washington.  Amazon.com DEDC,
Inc., is a Delaware corporation based in Seattle, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Spiller Kimmel, Esq.
          Plaza 273 Building
          56 West Main Street, Fourth Floor
          Newark, DE 19702
          Telephone: (302) 565-6100
          Facsimile: (302) 565-6101
          E-mail: LKimmel@kcrlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          Twining Office Center
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          Jerry Martin, Esq.
          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Scott P. Tift, Esq.
          Seth Hyatt, Esq.
          217 Second Ave North
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Colm F. Connolly, Esq.
          Michael J. Puma, Esq.
          Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
          William O. Mandycz, Esq.
          1007 Orange Street, Suite 501
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 574-3000
          Facsimile: (302) 574-3001
          E-mail: cconnolly@morganlewis.com

AUSTRALIA: CFS Reaches Comprise in 2005 Bushfire Class Action
Sean Fewster, writing for The Advertiser, reports that Graziers,
the CFS and the man whose vehicle sparked the deadly 2005 "Black
Tuesday" bushfires have reached a compromise in their multi-
million dollar legal dispute.

On Nov. 13, the Supreme Court was told that, after months of out-
of-court negotiations, the parties had brokered a compromise deal
to resolve the matter without a trial.

All that remains is for the deal to be signed by all parties and
approved by a Supreme Court judge -- which is expected to happen
by December 3.

In November last year, The Advertiser revealed a group of Eyre
Peninsula graziers, led by Robert Proude, was suing the CFS and
ute-owner Marco Visic for compensation.

The 2005 fires killed nine people, burned 77,000ha and destroyed
93 homes.  Mr. Proude subsequently filed Supreme Court action
against Mr. Visic and the CFS, claiming the total value of his
destroyed property, including 2205 sheep, was AUD1,862,795.

In December, other graziers were granted permission to join the
lawsuit as a class action -- together, they claimed the CFS
mismanaged its response to the fires.  Mr. Visic filed papers
agreeing with that assertion, saying any compensation should come
out of CFS coffers and not his wallet.

In June, the CFS asked the court to throw out the case, saying the
fires were beyond anyone's capacity to control.  It claimed it and
its volunteers were therefore not liable for the damage caused.

In July, Justice Malcolm Blue dismissed that application, saying
the question of whether the CFS owed a duty of care to bushfire
victims was too complex to be answered outside of a full trial.

Since then, the parties have repeatedly met behind closed doors in
unsuccessful attempts to settle the matter.  The matter was
scheduled to go to trial in February.

Last month, lawyers for all parties told Justice Blue a settlement
had been formulated, with only the precise wording of the
agreement still to "be hammered out".

Today Simon Ower, for Mr. Proude and the graziers, said that had
been done and the document was in the process of being signed by
all parties.  He said the February trial date was no longer
required, and asked 42 graziers who "opted out" of the class
action be allowed to "opt back in".

Mr. Ower said those graziers chose not to participate due to
misunderstanding and error.

"It was a topic of conversation in the area, and the general view
among people insured was that they did not want to risk liability
and so opted out," he said.

"In affidavits, they have said 'had I known the true position at
the time, I would not have opted out'.

"There is no prejudice at all to allowing these people who opted
out, mistakenly, to opt back in (to the settlement)."

Lawyers for the CFS and Mr. Visic said they did not oppose the 42
graziers rejoining the action, provided the settlement was

Justice Blue has his conditional permission to the group
rejoining, and referred the case to Justice Tim Anderson for
approval of the compromise.

The matter returns to court next month.

BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Newman Ferrara Files Securities Class Action
Newman Ferrara LLP on Nov. 14 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the Unites States District Court, Southern
District of New York against BlackBerry Limited and certain of its
executive officers, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.  The case is entitled, Vu Tran v. Blackberry Limited, et.
al, 13 CIV 7972 (SDNY).

Investors who purchased BlackBerry securities between
September 27, 2012 and September 20, 2013 may apply with the Court
to be appointed Lead Plaintiff no later than December 3, 2013.
The Lead Plaintiff will direct the litigation on behalf of the
other class members.

As alleged in Newman Ferrara's Complaint, BlackBerry and certain
of its officers made a series of materially false and misleading
statements and omissions related to the Company's business and
operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In particular, it is alleged that BlackBerry actively misled
investors about the success and financial prospects of its new
BlackBerry 10 line of smart phones and claimed falsely that the
line would herald in the Company's financial recovery.  However,
unbeknownst to investors, the introduction and poor market
reception of the BlackBerry 10 line was actually further hurting
the Company's business, operations and financial situation.

On September 20, 2013, BlackBerry admitted finally that it would
incur massive charges due to unsold BlackBerry 10 inventory.
According to the Company's release:

"[BlackBerry] expects to report a primarily non-cash, pre-tax
charge against inventory and supply commitments in the second
quarter of approximately $930 million to $960 million, which is
primarily attributable to BlackBerry Z10 devices."

To make matters worse, the Company further announced it is
preparing for deep staff cuts of up to 40% of its employees by
year end.

As a result of these disclosures, BlackBerry stock plummeted from
a closing price of $10.52 per share on September 19, 2013, to a
close of $8.73 per share on September 20, 2013.  Thereafter,
BlackBerry shares continued to slide on heavy trading volume as
investors liquidated their positions.

Investors who purchased shares of BlackBerry during the Class
Period may contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton --
jnorton@nfllp.com -- by e-mail or call (212) 619-5400 to discuss
this lawsuit or the Lead Plaintiff process.

Whistleblowers: Persons with knowledge that may aid in the
investigation of this matter are encouraged to contact the firm.
Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Bill, whistleblowers are
protected from employer retaliation and may be entitled to as much
as 30 percent of the recovery if the information provided leads to
a successful action.

Newman Ferrara -- http://www.nfllp.com-- maintains a multifaceted
practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in
complex commercial and multi-party litigation, securities fraud
and shareholder litigation, consumer protection, civil rights, and
real estate.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Calif. Suit Over Transmission Fluid
Michael Callaghan, Matthew Caldwell, and Rodney Pena,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. BMW of North America, LLC, a New Jersey
limited liability company, and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, a
corporation organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of
Germany, Case No. 3:13-cv-04794-RS (N.D. Cal., October 15, 2013)
is a consumer class action lawsuit concerning certain Mini Cooper
vehicles equipped with the 6-Speed automatic transmission.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants make misrepresentations
and material omissions by marketing the Class Vehicles as being
equipped with automatic transmission fluid that does not need to
be replaced.

BMW of North America, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability
company headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  BMW of North
America is responsible for the importation, distribution,
marketing and sale of the Class Vehicles in the United States of
America.  Bayerische Motoren Werke AG is a German corporation
headquartered in Munich and is the ultimate parent of BMW of North
America.  BMW AG designs and manufactures motor vehicles, parts
and other products for sale in Europe and for export and sale
throughout the world.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roland K. Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Philip Pifko, Esq.
          Natasha Ketan Mehta, Esq.
          BARON BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard
          Encino Plaza, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aengus Hartley Carr, Esq.
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 743-2479
          Facsimile: (415) 989-0932
          E-mail: acarr@cbmlaw.com

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Class Action Over Pay-for-Delay Deal
Emily Atkin, writing for Law360, reports that Miami-Luken Inc., a
wholesaler to pharmacies, accused Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals Inc. of orchestrating a $120 million pay-for-delay
deal to keep generic versions of its stroke prevention medication
off the market, according to a putative class action filed in
Pennsylvania federal court on Nov. 8.

Miami-Luken says it has been buying Boehringer's Aggrenox at
artificially inflated prices because Boehringer paid off a
potential competitor in 2008, agreeing to give it a share of
Aggrenox's profits in exchange for delaying sale of the generic
for seven years.

Miami-Luken alleges that co-defendant Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
later bought by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., received U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approval for the drug in 2009, but
has held off because of the settlement.

"But for the parties' ongoing performance under the reverse
payment agreements, generic competition for Aggrenox would have
occurred earlier and prices for both branded and generic versions
of Aggrenox would have been lower," the complaint said.  "As of
today, there is still no generic equivalent of Aggrenox on the
market in the United States."

The complaint echoes allegations in a 2009 Federal Trade
Commission suit that the agreement with Barr to promote some of
Boehringer's drugs was actually compensation to delay Barr's
competitive entry of a generic version of Aggrenox.  The FTC said
evidence indicated that the settlement was entered in exchange for
Barr's receipt of a share of Boehringer's monopoly profits from
the sale of the drug.

The Nov. 8 suit claims that the settlement and co-promotion deal
were linked, and that the deal for Barr was contingent on agreeing
to Boehringer's settlement offer.

"It was a pretext for a series of ongoing payments to Barr for
entering into, and perpetuating, an unlawful market allocation
agreement pursuant to which Barr agreed not to compete with
Boehringer in exchange for a continuing share of Boehringer's
monopoly profits from the sale of Aggrenox," the complaint says.

The co-promotion deal gave Barr about $120 million over seven
years, based on Aggrenox's sales, for a Barr subsidiary to promote
the drug to obstetricians and gynecologists, according to
Miami-Luken.  But the deal wasn't worth nearly that much, the
complaint claims, because promoting a stroke prevention drug to
obstetricians and gynecologists had "little or no reasonable
expectation of benefit," and the payments were based on global
sales figures, not any increase the promotion may have caused.

The FTC asked the D.C. Circuit in September to force Boehringer to
turn over documents about the co-promotion deal that it said were
crucial to showing an antritrust violation.  It was appealing a
D.C. federal court's 2012 ruling that Boehringer's financial
analyses of the agreements with Barr were protected under the
opinion work product doctrine.  The FTC's suit argued that
Boehringer used a number of tactics to delay the investigation
into its agreements with Barr, such as inappropriately redacting
documents and failing to conduct a careful and thorough search.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond on
Nov. 12 to requests for comment.

Miami-Luken is represented by Howard J. Sedran --
hsedran@lfsblaw.com -- and Keith J. Verrier --
Kverrier@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman; Bruce
E. Gerstein, Joseph Opper and Noah Silverman of Garwin Gerstein &
Fisher LLP; Stuart E. Des Roches -- stuart@odrlaw.com -- and
Andrew W. Kelly -- akelly@odrlaw.com -- of Odom & Des Roches LLP;
David P. Smith -- dsmith@ssrllp.com -- David C. Raphael Jr. --
draphael@ssrllp.com -- and Erin R. Leger -- eleger@ssrllp.com --
of Smith Segura & Raphael LLP; and Russel Chorush --
rchorush@hpcllp.com --and Miranda Jones -- mjones@hpcllp.com -- of
Heim Payne & Chorush LLP.

Counsel information for Boehringer was not immediately available.

The case is Miami-Luken Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH &
Co. KG et al., case number 2:13-cv-06543, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

C&S WHOLESALE: Removed "Cagle" Suit to E.D. Calif. Court
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., and Tracy Logistics, LLC, removed the
lawsuit filed by Casey Cagle (Case No. 34-2013-00148383) from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Sacramento,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:13-cv-
02134-MCE-KJN to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Russell Wheeler, Esq.
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: awheeler@rrexparris.com

               - and -

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Jonathan Michael Lebe, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

               - and -

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brandon Reed McKelvey, Esq.
          Julie Grace Yap, Esq.
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: bmckelvey@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          One Century Plaza
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3063
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com

CHICAGO TITLE: Appeals Class Certification Order in "Mahon" Suit
Chicago Title Insurance Company appealed an order granting the
class certification motion filed by Deborah Mahon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated.

Deborah Mahon moved for certification of a class consisting of all
persons, who paid for a lender's policy of title insurance issued
by Chicago Title and its agents in connection with the refinancing
of a mortgage loan on property located in Connecticut that was
completed any time from January 1, 2000, to the present (the
"Class Period") where the subject property previously had been
mortgaged by an institutional first mortgage within the
statutorily applicable look-back period and paid more than the
statutory discounted refinance rate for such title insurance as
set forth in the Defendant's rate manual to eligible Connecticut

Ms. Mahon contends that the Defendant (1) overcharged her for
title insurance in connection with a refinance transaction on
June 30, 2003; and (2) engaged in the routine, wrongful practice
of overcharging borrowers entitled to the discounted refinance
rate for title insurance.

Chicago Title Insurance Company is represented by:

          Derek E. Diaz, Esq.
          200 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 274-2395
          Facsimile: (216) 274-2398
          E-mail: ddiaz@hahnlaw.com

               - and -

          Stewart I. Edelstein, Esq.
          COHEN AND WOLF, P.C.
          1115 Broad Street
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 368-0211
          E-mail: sedelstein@cohenandwolf.com

Deborah Mahon is represented by:

          Ingrid L. Moll, Esq.
          20 Church Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1678
          E-mail: imoll@motleyrice.com

The appellate case is Mahon v. Chicago Title Insurance Company,
Case No. 13-03863, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  The original case is Mahon v. Chicago Title
Insurance Company, Case No. 09-cv-690 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

EDEN MANAGEMENT: Rejects People With Mental Issues, Suit Claims
Kimberly O'Connor and H.O.P.E., Inc., d/b/a Hope Fair Housing
Center, an Illinois Not-for-Profit Corporation v. Eden Management
LLC, d/b/a Eden Supportive Living; 311 Lincolnway Properties LLC
d/b/a Eden Fox Valley; 222 State Street Properties LLC, d/b/a Eden
Champaign LLC; Michael Hamblet, Sr.; Michael Hamblet, Jr.; Maria
Drosos; Carleen Curalli; Kimberly Cross; Governor Patrick Quinn,
in his official capacity; Julie Hamos, in her official capacity as
Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family
Services; Theresa Eagelson Wyatt, in her official capacity as
Acting Medicaid Director for DHFS; Kelly Cunningham, in her
official capacity as Chief of DHFS Bureau of Long Term Care; John
K. Holton, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department on Aging; Michelle R.B. Saddler, in her official
capacity as the Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human
Services, Case No. 1:13-cv-07391 (N.D. Ill., October 15, 2013)
challenges the Eden Defendants' discriminatory policy of
categorically denying housing and services to any and all people
with mental health diagnoses in violation of the Fair Housing Act
of 1968, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The action arises out of the alleged policy and practices of the
owners and operators of a Supportive Living Facility and its
management ("Eden Defendants"), regulated and funded by the state
of Illinois, through the Departments of Healthcare and Family
Services, Department on Aging and Department of Human Services
("State of Illinois Defendants") to categorically exclude, deny
and reject any and all applicants for its facilities who have,
have had, or whom they believe to have, any mental health issues,
impairments, disabilities, diagnosis or problems, without any
consideration, inquiry, or evaluation as to whether the applicants
are eligible for or qualified for its Supportive Living Facility.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer K. Soule, Esq.
          James Brady Griffin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Lambert, Esq.
          533 S. Division Street, Suite B
          Elmhurst, IL 60126
          Telephone: (630) 333-9144
          Facsimile: (630) 607-0266
          E-mail: jsoule@sbllegal.com

               - and -

          Susan Ann Silverstein, Esq.
          601 E Street NW B4-453
          Washington, DC 20049
          Telephone: (202) 434-2060
          E-mail: ssilverstein@aarp.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          John E. Huston, Esq.
          Karen Elaine Konieczny, Esq.
          160 North LaSalle Street, Suite N-1000
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 793-2380
          E-mail: John.Huston@illinois.gov

ELECTROLUX HOME: Washing Machine Suit Removed to Federal Court
Thomas Kallies, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
Gloria Waters and William Hall, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed suit in the Brooke County Circuit Court
on Sept. 6, naming Electrolux Home Products Inc. as the defendant.

The plaintiffs are accusing Electrolux of marketing and selling
defective washing machines. The case has since been removed to
federal court.

In their class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs accuse Electrolux of
marketing and selling front-loading washing machines that are
prone to accumulate mold.

According to the plaintiffs, the defective washing machines were
sold under brand names including Frigidaire and Kenmore.  The
plaintiffs claim Electrolux knowingly concealed the fact that the
washing machines were prone to accumulate mold and mildew which
can permeate throughout the consumer's home and ruin clothes.

The plaintiffs are accusing Electrolux of breaching implied
warranties by selling products they allegedly knew were defective.

The plaintiffs are seeking an undisclosed amount in damages.  They
are being represented by Wexler Wallace LLP.

The defendant removed the suit to U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia on Oct. 31.

The removal notice says the federal court has jurisdiction
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Electrolux is represented by Jeffrey A. Holmstrand --
jholmstrand@fsblaw.com  -- of Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso in

Circuit Court of Brooke County Case No. 13-C-118
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Case No. 5:13-cv-00151

ESTEE LAUDER: Origins Unit Recalls Face Creams Over Mold
The Associated Press reports that Origins is voluntarily recalling
one of its face creams after finding mold in it.

The beauty products company said on Nov. 18 that it found mold in
several products from one batch of its Dr. Andrew Weil for Origins
Mega Mushroom Soothing Face Cream.  Origins says the mold could
heighten the risk of infection for some people, such as those with
compromised skin, weakened immune systems or people who wear
certain contact lenses if the cream were to get in their eyes.

Origins, owned by The Estee Lauder Companies Inc., says no other
products were affected.

The recalled product, distributed in North America, was sold in
50-milliliter jars and in 30-milliliter jars as part of the
Origins Mega Relief gift set.

Origins says it has already removed unsold products from
distribution and urged to consumers to see if purchased products
are identified as batch "#A43" on the bottom of the jar.
Consumers who have the Dr. Andrew Weil for Origins Mega Mushroom
Soothing Face Cream batch code #A43 should not use the product and
instead dispose of it or return it for an exchange or refund in
stores or online.

EUROPAN CAFE: Sued by Workers Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
Moises Dolores, Eduardo Castelan, Gelacio Reyes and Gregorio
Miranda, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Europan Cafe, L.L.C. d/b/a Europan, Theodorou Hristos,
Frank Parente, Evangelos Gavalas, Nick Glendis, James Nicozisis
and John Does #1-10, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:13-cv-
07270-RJS (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2013) is brought by former
counter workers, kitchen staff, bus boys and delivery employees,
who worked for the Defendants, to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Europan Cafe is a New York corporation doing business under the
trade name Europan.  Europan Cafe and the Doe Defendants operate
restaurants in various New York locations.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, operators and managers of the Europan

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor Bell Graham, Esq.
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10000
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com

FAMILY DOLLAR: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
Joel Brakken, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a
woman is suing after a Family Dollar store allegedly failed to pay
her in a timely fashion following termination.

Tammy Sue Massey, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated persons, filed a lawsuit Nov. 5 in the Ohio
County Circuit Court against Family Dollar Stores of West Virginia
Inc.  According to the complaint, West Virginia law requires
employers promptly pay terminated employees their final paycheck
in full within a specific time period following termination.

Ms. Massey alleges that despite the law, Family Dollar withheld
her final pay and waited until the next regular payday to pay her
following its decision to terminate her after 15 years of

Ms. Massey is bringing the lawsuit on her behalf and on behalf of
a class of West Virginia employees to remedy Family Dollar's
violations of state law.  Ms. Massey is seeking a certification of
the proposed class, unpaid wages and benefits, treble or
liquidated damages, fees and other damages.  She is being
represented in the case by attorneys James G. Bordas III, Jason E.
Causey and Michelle Marinacci of Bordas and Bordas PLLC.

Circuit Court of Ohio County Civil Action No. 13-C-377

FAST & FRESH: Faces FLSA Violation Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages
Alvaro Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Fast & Fresh Deli, Inc. (d/b/a Fast & Fresh), Fiesta
Food Market NY Corp. (d/b/a Fiesta Food Market) and Nurudin
Ronwzani, Case No. 1:13-cv-05665-ILG-RER (E.D.N.Y., October 15,
2013) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid
overtime wages.

Fast & Fresh and Fiesta Food Market are delis/grocery stores owned
by Nurudin Ronwzani and are located in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FIRST INT'L BANK: Faces "Labajo" Class Suit Over Debt Collection
Christina and John Labajo, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. First International Bank & Trust, and Mutual
of Omaha Bank, Case No. 5:13-cv-01861-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.,
October 15, 2013) seeks to recover damages from the Defendants in
connection with their participation in a scheme to access and
utilize the Automated Clearing House network to collect unlawful
debts in violation of the law of California.

First International Bank & Trust is a North Dakota state-chartered
bank headquartered in Watford, North Dakota.  Mutual of Omaha Bank
is a savings association headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          550 West C Street Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Steve Six, Esq.
          J. Austin Moore, Esq.
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
          1350 Broadway, Suite 908
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (917) 595-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 876-4476
          E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@KOlawyers.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Anna C. Haac, Esq.
          2000 L Street NW Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James R. McGuire, Esq.
          Rita F. Lin, Esq.
          425 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: jmcguire@mofo.com

FRITO-LAY INC: To Settle Overtime Class Action for $1.6 Million
Alex Lawson, writing for Law360, reports that Frito-Lay Inc. has
agreed to pay $1.6 million to settle a class action alleging that
the company failed to pay overtime wages and denied meal and rest
breaks to workers who sold and delivered its products to stores
and arranged the displays at those locations, according to a
Nov. 13 filing in California federal court.

The lead plaintiff in the suit, Sidney Elliott, asked the court
for preliminary approval of the settlement, which will establish
the $1.6 million fund for a proposed class of route sales
associates, or RSAs, detailers and merchandisers who have worked
the company in California since 2007.  Attorneys for the
plaintiffs estimated that the class could exceed 4,100 members.

Mr. Elliott told the court that the agreement met all the
standards for preliminary approval and made note of the extensive
negotiations that lead to the deal.

"The settlement agreement was reached after vigorous arm's-length
negotiations by experienced counsel on both sides," Mr. Elliott
said.  "Prior to reaching the settlement, the parties exchanged
multiple sets of written requests for discovery, produced
approximately 9,200 pages of documents, personnel files, wage
statements, time records and employment policies, and took four

The $1.6 million settlement fund will also cover costs and
attorneys' fees and is aimed at resolving "any and all issues
related to this litigation," according to the motion.

Mr. Elliott filed suit against the food giant in 2011, alleging
that the company's RSAs were cheated out of overtime wages because
the company used an illegal fluctuating workweek as opposed
California's mandated 40-hour workweek calculations.

As part of the same complaint, Mr. Elliott said that detailers and
merchandisers, who are in charge of arranging and maintaining the
company's product displays in stores, were not given meal and rest
periods due to the restrictive nature of the company's common
scheduling policy.

Frito-Lay subsequently denied all allegations and put forward 36
affirmative defenses.

The proposed settlement would establish three subclasses for each
of the job titles named in the suit and each qualifying class
member will receive a payout through a system that will award a
different point value based on the strength of the claims raised.

"Specifically, each week worked in a qualified RSA position will
receive a distribution factor of five; a qualified merchandiser
position will receive a distribution factor of two; and a
qualified detailer position will receive a distribution factor of
one," Mr. Elliott said.

An attorney for Frito-Lay declined to comment on the case and an
attorney for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on Nov. 12.

Mr. Elliott and the putative class members are represented by
Ira Spiro and Jennifer L. Connor of the Spiro Law Corp. and Joseph
J. Gigliotti of Gigliotti & Gigliotti LLP.

Frito Lay is represented by Samantha D. Hardy, Ashley Teiko Hirano
and Guy Nels Halgren of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The case is Sidney Elliott et al. v. Rolling Frito-Lay Sales LP et
al., case number 8:11-cv-01730, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

GARDEN FRESH: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action in Calif.
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Nov. 12 disclosed that on
October 17, 2013, the San Diego employment law lawyers at
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action Complaint
against Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. ("Soupplantation") alleging
the popular casual eatery chain wrongfully classified their
Service Managers as exempt from overtime and therefore allegedly
failed to pay all wages due to these employees for overtime hours
worked.  Moreno, et al. vs. Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp., Case
No. 37-2013-00071988-CU-OE-CTL is currently pending in the San
Diego County Superior Court for the State of California.

The Class Action Complaint alleges that the Service Managers spend
almost of all their workday engaging in non-exempt work tasks
throughout their shifts.  The Service Managers working for
Soupplantation work the cash register, greet customers, conduct
inventory checks, sweep the floors, stock the buffet bar and
conduct an array of prep work such as washing dishes and
organizing utensils.  As a result of their daily duties, the
lawsuit claims that the Service Managers should have been properly
classified as non-exempt employees entitled to overtime wages and
the legally required 30 minute uninterrupted meal periods.

Norman B. Blumenthal, one of the attorneys representing the
Service Managers in the lawsuit, stated "California companies who
misclassify workers do not pay their share of unemployment taxes,
which means the taxpayers are subsidizing those who are
perpetrating this fraud."

The San Diego employment law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
represents many current and former employees of large corporations
in unpaid overtime lawsuits.

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Nearly 60,000 Chevy Malibu Cars
The Associated Press reports that General Motors is recalling
nearly 60,000 Chevy Malibu midsize cars to fix window defrosters
that may not work and power seat wiring that can catch fire.

The largest of the recalls covers more than 44,000 Malibus from
the 2014 model year.  GM says a computer that runs the ventilation
system can revert to the previous setting even if a driver sets
the controls to defrost.  If that happens, the driver won't be
able to clear the windshield to see where they're going.  The
problem happens when the cars are started.

GM dealers will reprogram the computer at no cost to customers.
The company says it doesn't know of any crashes or injuries from
the problem.

The recall includes 42,696 Malibus in the U.S., with another 1,034
in Canada and 676 in Mexico.

GM also is recalling nearly 15,000 Malibus in North America from
the 2013 model year because wiring beneath the seats can catch

The company says wires in cars with eight-way power front seats
can rub against the seat frames.  This can wear away the
insulation and cause a short circuit that can cause sparking or a
fire.  The problem also can make the seats move unintentionally,
and cause melted wires and smoke, GM said.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Hodge Jones Launches "Pandemrix" Class Action
Hodge Jones & Allen on Nov. 12 disclosed that it has launched a
class action on behalf of 38 people (mainly children) who have
commenced legal action against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) the
manufacturers of the "Pandemrix" swine flu vaccine.

The Claimants have been diagnosed with the serious neurological
disorder, narcolepsy, as a result of being given Pandemrix.
Around 6 million people in the UK were vaccinated with Pandemrix
in 2009-11.

The legal action follows the Government's decision in September
this year, to confirm a link between Pandemrix and narcolepsy

In a significant development, GlaxoSmithKline have now invoked a
Government indemnity agreed with the Department of Health in 2007
which requires any compensation claims and costs to be paid out of
Government funds.

Compensation could be up to and possibly exceed 1m for each
sufferer.  Earlier this year, the Health Protection Agency carried
out a study which estimated the number of potential narcolepsy
sufferers affected by Pandemrix was 1 in 52,000 to 55,000,
indicating there is likely to be over 100 people affected in the

Following dozens of cases coming forward in recent weeks, lawyers
and campaigners from five European countries* (including the UK)
have formed a new European Alliance calling for a public inquiry
in EU states where the Pandemrix vaccine was used.  Approximately
800 children and young adults are known to be affected across
Europe, although this figure could rise further as the process of
diagnosis is a lengthy one.

Delegates from the new alliance met over 8-10 November and called
on Governments and GlaxoSmithKline to support research and
compensation to restore the quality of life of sufferers.  They
also demanded more engagement from the EU as the vaccine was
promoted at an EU level.

Peter Todd, a solicitor and partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, is
representing the UK families seeking compensation and who attended
the meeting of the European Alliance in Stockholm said: "I did not
expect GSK to invoke their entitlement to be indemnified by the UK
government -- however they have done so immediately after the UK
government itself admitted a link between the vaccine and
narcolepsy.  This is a quite unprecedented situation".

Mr. Todd added: "Narcolepsy is a serious, incurable condition
requiring a lifetime of medication and management.  Many of the
activities that most people take for granted can be totally
compromised, such as study, work and the ability to have sole care
of young children.  The innocent victims of this deserve support
and provision for their futures".

HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
Truth In Advertising reports that in November 2013, a class action
lawsuit was filed against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. claiming
that the company falsely advertises various Celestial Seasonings
teas.  Specifically, plaintiffs claim the company advertises that
its tea products -- including Sleepytime Herbal Tea, Sleepytime
Kids Goodnight Grape, and several flavors of green tea -- are
"100% natural" when, in reality, the products are not natural and
contain contaminants like pesticides, herbicides, insecticides,
and toxins. (Von Slomski et al v. The Hain Celestial Group, Case
No. 13-cv-01757, C. D. CA.).

INSTANT INSURANCE: TCPA Violations Suit Transferred to Illinois
The purported class action lawsuit initiated by Casey Blotzer, et
al., against Instant Insurance Marketing, et al., was removed from
California to Illinois.  The Plaintiffs allege violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to the
Defendants' marketing of auto insurance.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415, Suite 415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq.
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3598
          Telephone: (619) 338-6500
          Facsimile: (619) 234-3815
          E-mail: spetersen@sheppardmullin.com

The new case is Blotzer, et al. v. Instant Insurance Marketing, et
al., Case No. 1:13-cv-07389 (N.D. Ill., October 15, 2013).  The
old case is Blotzer, et al. v. Instant Insurance Marketing, et
al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01797 (S.D. Cal., August 1, 2013).

JOE'S CRAB: Calif. Appeals Court Revives Overtime Class Action
Ben James and Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, report that a
California state appeals court on Nov. 12 revived a proposed
overtime class action brought by Joe's Crab Shack managers against
the restaurant chain, reversing the trial court's denial of class
certification and sending the suit back for the court to
reconsider the managers' commonality.

The appeals court found that the trial court should avoid its
overly focused examination of the individual differences among the
managers, which do not predominate over the common issues.  The
managers all claim that they were required to work overtime hours
without pay and that they were misclassified as exempt when they
actually spent a majority of their time performing hourly tasks.

"By refocusing its analysis on the policies and practices of the
employer and the effect those policies and practices have on the
putative class, as well as narrowing the class if appropriate, the
trial court may in fact find class analysis a more efficient and
effective means of resolving plaintiffs' overtime claim," the
Nov. 12 opinion said.

The lead plaintiffs in the case -- Lisa Saldana, Craig Eriksen,
Chanel Rankin-Stephens and Roberto Martinez -- alleged Ignite
Restaurant Group Inc., owner of the Joe's Crab Shack chain, didn't
compensate the class members for meal and rest breaks even though
they frequently worked in hourly roles, including filling in as
cooks, bussers and kitchen staff.

Martinez originally sued Joe's Crab Shack in September 2007 and
Ms. Saldana, Mr. Eriksen and Rankin-Stephens joined the suit when
the court ruled that he was not an adequate representative.  Their
proposed class would include all managers, including general
managers, senior kitchen managers and front mangers in California.

California Superior Court Judge Charles F. Palmer denied their
motion for class certification in May 2012, holding that a class
action wasn't the best way to resolve the case because of the need
for individual inquiries.  He pointed out that the lead plaintiffs
said in dispositions that they were unable to estimate the number
of hours they spent on exempt versus nonexempt tasks.

Judge Palmer also said class certification wasn't appropriate
because the plaintiffs weren't typical class members or adequate
class members, that common issues did not predominate over
individual issues and that class treatment was not the best
vehicle for resolving the dispute, according to the ruling.

In reversing the trial court's ruling, the appeals court cited the
California Supreme Court's Brinker decision, finding that
"classwide relief remains the preferred method of resolving wage-
and-hour claims, even those in which the facts appear to present
difficult issues of proof."

In order to address the concerns of the higher-ranked general
managers who Ignite claimed opposed the litigation, the court can
exclude them from the litigation or group them into a subclass,
the appeals court said in its unpublished decision.

John Glugoski of Righetti & Glugoski PC, counsel for plaintiffs,
said on Nov. 13 he is pleased with the decision and optimistic
about the effect it will have on class actions and task
classification.  Managers are frequently expected to wear more
than just the managerial hat and work alongside employees
performing nonexempt functions such as washing dishes and mopping
floors, he said.

By encouraging the managers to bring forward individual claims
instead of proceeding as a class action, the trial court is hoping
that many plaintiffs will not make the effort and will drop their
claims, Mr. Glugoski said.

"What was encouraging in the decision was the reference to Brinker
showing that the court recognized a renewed commitment to the
class action procedure," he said.

Representatives for Ignite did not immediately respond to requests
for comment on Nov. 13.

Ignite Restaurant Group and subsidiary Crab Addison Inc. are
represented in this matter by Michael Kun of Epstein Becker &
Green PC.

Landry's Restaurants Inc., which owned Joe's Crab Shack until
2006, is represented by Mary Lynch of the Law Offices of Mary E.
Lynch and Charles Barker of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by John Glugoski of Righetti &
Glugoski PC.

The case is Martinez v. Joe's Crab Shack Inc., case number
B242807, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second
Appellate District, Division Seven.

JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles RMBS Claims for $4.5 Billion
According to an article posted by Jenna Greene at The Blog of
Legal Times, JPMorgan Chase has reached a $4.5 billion deal to
settle claims by 21 institutional investors, agreeing to
repurchase faulty residential mortgage-backed securities.

The investors, which include Black Rock Financial Management,
Goldman Sachs Asset Management and the Prudential Insurance Co. of
America, alleged that some of the mortgages included in the pools
did not meet underwriting standards.

The claims stem from the representations and warranties of the
securities, in which the bank agreed to buy back the loans if they
didn't meet the standards described.  The deal also includes
claims related to mortgage servicing.

"This settlement is another important step in J.P. Morgan's
efforts to resolve legacy related [residential mortgage-backed
securities] matters," the bank said in a news release.  "The firm
believes it is appropriately reserved for this and any remaining
RMBS litigation matters."

Houston-based Gibbs & Bruns was lead counsel for the investors.
Its fees will be in addition to the settlement amount, according
to the firm.  The 32-lawyer firm also represented investors in an
$8.5 billion settlement with Bank of America and Countrywide in
2011, a deal which also includes $85 million in legal fees.
(Approval of the settlement is pending.)

Lawyers who worked on the JPMorgan deal include Kathy Patrick
(dubbed "The Woman Wall Street Fears Most" by Forbes), Scott
Humphries, Robert Madden and David Sheeren, according to the
firm's news release.

The trustees of 330 mortgage backed securities issued by JPMorgan
have until Jan. 15 to accept the settlement offer.  The investors
"support the agreement and have asked the Trustees to accept it,"
according to Gibbs & Bruns.

The $4.5 billion settlement is not part of a larger dealt that the
bank is negotiating with the government.  On Oct. 25, JPMorgan
resolved some claims, agreeing to pay Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
$5.1 billion for similar repurchase obligations.

The payment to the institutional investors does not cover
mortgage-backed securities that originated with Washington Mutual.
In separate litigation with Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan argues that
liability for Washington Mutual's securities belongs to the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which acted as the failed bank's
receiver before it was purchased by JPMorgan in 2008.

The deal also does not cover "any direct individual claims for
securities fraud or other alleged disclosure violations,"
according to Gibbs & Bruns.

In dividing the payment, the trustees will hire a single financial
expert, who will determine the current and future losses suffered
by the investors.

LIBERATO RESTAURANT: Owes Minimum and Overtime Wages, Class Says
Simon Grullon, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Manuel Antonio Liberato d/b/a Liberato Restaurant, Case No.
1:13-cv-07249-RWS (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2013) alleges that under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law the
Plaintiff and the proposed class is entitled to recover from the
Defendant unpaid overtime, minimum wages and spread of hours

Manuel Antonio Liberato owns and operates a restaurant called
Liberato Pizza located in Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq.
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com

MACY'S INC: Actor Files Class Action Over Alleged Racial Profiling
Daniel Beekman and Larry Mcshane, writing for New York Daily News,
report that 'Treme' star Rob Brown, who says he was detained in a
cell at Macy's Herald Square location after buying a watch for his
mother, filed class action lawsuits against the department store
and the NYPD for racially profiling shoppers.

The African-American actor handcuffed and held in an alleged shop-
and-frisk incident went nationwide on Nov. 13 with his charges
against Macy's.

Rob Brown, in a scathing new 42-page federal class-action lawsuit,
charged that Macy's "policies and practices have left . . .
customers of color feeling victimized, humiliated, traumatized"
from coast to coast.  The Manhattan court filing cited 14 other
minority customers who sued Macy's alleging they were singled out
for criminal suspicion because of their race.

'Treme' star Rob Brown says Macy's security 'policies and
practices have left . . . customers of color feeling victimized,
humiliated, traumatized.'

In a second federal lawsuit against the NYPD, Mr. Brown leveled
similar charges in a New York class action over the alleged police
targeting of minority shoppers.

The NYPD is "continuing to enforce, encourage and sanction
policies" against customers at high-end retail stores "merely
because of the color of their skin," the 31-page suit charged.

Brown, one of the stars of the HBO series "Treme," had earlier
filed a state lawsuit over his 45-minute detention last June,
naming both Macy's and the NYPD as defendants.

That state suit was dropped on Nov. 12 in anticipation of the
class-action filings, which need the approval of a federal judge.

Jim Sluzewski, a spokesman for Macy's, said the company could not
comment on pending litigation.

"But, as we have said before, Macy's does not tolerate
discrimination of any kind, including racial profiling," he added.

Store officials have emphatically denied they were involved in
either the detention or questioning of Brown.

The NYPD declined comment on Nov. 13, referring questions to the
city's Law Department.  "We are awaiting a formal copy of the
lawsuit and will review the claims once we receive it," a Law
Department spokeswoman said.

According to court documents filed by attorney Douglas Wigdor --
dwigdor@thompsonwigdor.com -- of Thompson Wigdor LLP, the NYPD
routinely ignores the Fourth Amendment rights of minority
shoppers.  "The NYPD targets black, Hispanic, Asian and other
nonwhite individuals who shop at 'high-end' department or retail
stores in New York City for illegal stops, searches, seizures and
arrests," the suit charged.

In court papers, Mr. Brown also accused the NYPD with a failure to
train and supervise its police force.

Mr. Brown, 29, charged that he was handcuffed by NYPD detectives
and "paraded" past other shoppers in the flagship 34th St. store
in a racial profiling incident.  He claimed that he was accused of
using a bogus American Express card to buy his mom a $1,300 silver
Movado watch with gold trim on June 8.

The lawsuit accused the retailer of false imprisonment, assault
and battery, negligent training and supervision of security
personnel, and violating state and city civil rights laws.  The
conduct was "continuing to occur in Macy's stores" across the
country, the suit added.

The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against Macy's to halt
its behavior, along with unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for Mr. Brown and the other members of the class action.

The other lawsuits mentioned in Brown's suit were filed around the
country, including cases in Brooklyn, Garden City, L.I., Kentwood,
Mich., Woodbridge, Va., and Aventura, Fla.

The Brooklyn-raised Mr. Brown -- who made his movie debut opposite
Sean Connery in 2000's "Finding Forrester" -- said three white,
plainclothes NYPD detectives quickly descended upon him.

Mr. Brown was buying the watch as a present for his mother's
graduation from Metropolitan Community College -- but the wrongful
stop made him late for the ceremony, the actor said.

According to his earlier lawsuit, one of the cops told Brown that
"he could not afford to make such an expensive purchase."

The Hollywood star and Amherst College graduate was placed in a
holding cell in handcuffs and missed part of his mother's
graduation.  "To be late for my mother's graduation ceremony --
that was devastating," Mr. Brown told the Daily News.

MEDTRONIC INC: FDA Issues Warning on Recalled Guidewires
David Koenig, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
federal health officials say that defects in some Medtronic
devices used in heart procedures are severe enough that they could
cause serious injury or death.

The warning covers about 15,000 recalled guidewires, which are
inserted through an artery and used to guide other devices into
place, such as stents to hold open blocked arteries.

A recall of the guidewires began Oct. 21 after Medtronic received
reports of four complaints, including one patient who went into
cardiac arrest but was resuscitated, company spokesman Joseph
McGrath said Saturday.

The recall notice warned hospitals and distributors worldwide that
coating on the guidewires could break off, which could raise the
possibility of blocking a blood vessel.  The wires are coated to
make them slide through blood vessels more easily.

Medtronic announced on Nov. 15 that the Food and Drug
Administration had classified the recall as Class I, a category
reserved for products with reasonable potential to cause serious
injury or death.

The Minneapolis company said the recall affected certain lots made
since April.  The company said it has taken steps to prevent new
shipments of the wires. It also has notified regulators around the

Problems with the guide wires can be reported to Medtronic by
calling 877-526-7890 during weekdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT;
adverse reactions or quality problems can be reported to the FDA
at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/HowToReport/default.htm

MERRILL LYNCH: Appeals Denial of Arbitration in Wage & Hour Suit
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc., and Bank of America Corporation appealed from an order
denying their motion to compel individual arbitration in the
purported class action lawsuit initiated by Roman Zelster and Anna

In the underlying lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law by refusing to pay them, and similarly situated
financial solutions advisors, for overtime work.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Ossai Miazad, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Liu, Esq.
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Susan H. Stern, Esq.
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Michael D. Mandel, Esq.
          Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          Telephone: (310) 315-8202
          Facsimile: (310) 956-3113
          E-mail: mmandel@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Philip A. Goldstein, Esq.
          1345 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10105
          Telephone: (212) 548-2167
          E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com

The appellate case is Zeltser, et al. v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 13-03859, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The original case is Zeltser, et
al. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01531,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

MF GLOBAL: Judge Allows Class Action Over Missing Funds to Proceed
Roxanne Palmer, Jamie Santo and Stephanie Russell-Kraft, writing
for Law360, report that a New York federal judge on Nov. 12
refused to toss a proposed class action alleging officers of the
bankrupt broker-dealer MF Global lied to investors about the
company's financial stability -- including a $1.6 billion
shortfall in customer funds -- writing in a strongly worded order
that the firm couldn't possibly be blameless.

District Judge Victor Marrero dismissed the defendants' motions to
dismiss, sharply criticizing their insistence that they had done
nothing wrong to cause the firm's "catastrophic" collapse in 2011,
saying that many of the plaintiffs' allegations had been made
based on public record and that MF Global's demise is "not a
complete mystery."

Judge Marrero found that despite "dire signs" of mounting crisis,
MF Global continued to issue securities in public exchanges and
assure investors that everything was running smoothly up until the
end of October 2011, when $1.6 billion suddenly disappeared from
the company.

"Defendants' contentions would suggest that the fall of MF Global
plaintiffs portray either never happened, or, if it did occur,
that -- since no one associated with the company played a causal
role in the events -- perhaps the debacle must have been the
fateful work of supernatural forces, or else that the explanation
for a spectacular multibillion dollar crash of a global corporate
giant is simply that 'stuff happens,'" Judge Marrero wrote.

The suit, brought by investor Joseph DeAngelis in November 2011,
names MF Global Chief Financial Officer Henri J. Steenkamp, Chief
Operating Officer Bradley I. Abelow and Chief Risk Officer Michael
G. Stockman as co-defendants with Jon Corzine, MF Global's CEO.
The putative class includes all those who bought MF Global stock
between May 20 and Oct. 28, 2011, including individual investors
and several pension funds.

The plaintiffs allege that MF Global issued a financial statement
in May 2011 saying the firm had established a "global, robust
risk-management environment" to manage all aspects of its risks.
In reality, MF Global was suffering from serious liquidity
pressures based on its exposure to the European debt crisis.

The scheme began to unravel Oct. 24, 2011, when Moody's Investors
Service Inc. slashed MF Global's credit rating to nearly junk
status based on its exposure to European debt.  The firm struggled
to meet increased margin demands from its counterparties, quickly
transferring money between several accounts and raising concerns
that it had improperly used segregated customer funds to cover an
overdraft, according to court documents.

After initially denying that any money was missing, the firm on
Oct. 31 2011, informed regulators of a $1.6 billion shortfall in
its customer funds.  On the same day, it filed Chapter 11
protection in New York bankruptcy court, prompting the New York
Stock Exchange to suspend trading in MF Global shares.

The suit says the executives violated the Securities Exchange Act
by scheming to defraud investors, failing to disclose material
information and misleading shareholders.  A slew of other
individual and class actions have also been brought against
Mr. Corzine and others over MF Global's collapse.

Sal Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- counsel for the
plaintiffs, said on Nov. 12 that Judge Marrero's decision came as
welcome relief to the investors, who may now move on to discovery
and certification of their class.

"We're looking forward to picking up the pace of our litigation
and getting some recovery for our investor class," Mr. Graziano
told Law360.

Counsel for the defendants could not immediately be reached for
comment on Nov. 12.

The plaintiffs are represented by Salvatore Jo Graziano of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and by Jonathan M.
Plasse -- jplasse@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP.

The MF Global execs are represented individually by Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Dechert LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP,
Lankler Siffert & Wohl LLP, De Feis O'Connell & Rose PC, Steptoe &
Johnson LLP, Robinson McDonald & Canna LLP and Richards Kibbe &
Orbe LLP.

The case is DeAngelis et al. v. Corzine et al., case number 1:11-
cv-07866, and the multidistrict litigation is In re: MF Global
Holdings Ltd. Investment Litigation, case number 1:12-md-02338,
both in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New

MI CORRECTIONS DEP'T: Faces Suit Over Children in Adult Prisons
John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3; John Doe 5; John Doe 6; and
next friends of minors John Doe 4 and John Doe 7, on behalf of
themselves and a class of all others similarly situated v.
Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"); Rick Snyder, Governor
of the State of Michigan; Daniel H. Heyns, Director, Michigan
Department of Corrections; Thomas Finco, Deputy Director of MDOC
Correctional Facilities Administration; Dennis Straub, former
Deputy Director of MDOC Correctional Facilities Administration;
Randy Treacher, Chief Deputy Director of MDOC Correctional
Facilities Administration; Willie Smith, Warden of Carson City
Correctional Facility; Heidi Washington, Warden of Charles Egeler
Reception and Guidance Center; Mary Berghuis, Warden of Earnest C.
Brooks Correctional Facility; Paul Klee, Warden of Gus Harrison
Correctional Facility; John Prelesnik, Warden of Richard A.
Handlon Correctional Facility; Cathleen Stoddard, Warden of
Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility; Cindi S. Curtin, Warden
of Oaks Correctional Facility; David Bergh, Warden of Thumb
Correctional Facility; Jeffrey Woods, Warden of Chippewa
Correctional Facility; Robert Napel, Warden of Marquette Branch
Prison; and Kenneth Mckee, Warden of Bellamy Creek Correctional
Facility, Jointly and severally, Case No. 2:13-cv-14356-RHC-RSW
(E.D. Mich., October 15, 2013) is a proposed class action lawsuit
that seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and damages on behalf
of children confined in adult prisons operated by the MDOC.

During the last three years, at least 500 children ranging in age
from 14-17 ("youthful prisoners") have been incarcerated in MDOC's
adult prisons for sentences of a year or more, the Plaintiffs
allege.  During their imprisonment, the Plaintiffs contend, these
youth have been housed in cells with adult prisoners, and have
been forced to shower, eat, recreate and work with adult prisoners
without adequate supervision to ensure their safety and without
regard to their status as children.

Placing children in adult prisons without regard to their youthful
status and vulnerability has resulted in increased punishment and
degrading treatment through the use of tasers, solitary
confinement and deprivation of rehabilitative programming and
educational services, the Plaintiffs add.

MDOC is a Department of the State of Michigan and with the
Defendant Governor, is responsible for the care and custody of
youthful prisoners incarcerated in prisons in the State of
Michigan.  Rick Snyder is the Governor of the State of Michigan
and is invested with executive power pursuant to the Michigan
Constitution.  The other Individual Defendants are directors,
wardens or officers of State Correctional Facilities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah LaBelle, Esq.
          Anlyn Addis, Esq.
          221 N Main St., Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 996-5620
          E-mail: deblabelle@aol.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
          Peggy Goldberg Pitt, Esq.
          Cary S. McGehee , Esq.
          117 W 4th St., Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-9800
          E-mail: mpitt@pittlawpc.com

               - and -

          Jennifer B. Salvatore, Esq.
          Nakisha Chaney, Esq.
          Edward Macey, Esq.
          101 N. Main Street, Suite 555
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 663-7550
          E-mail: jsalvatore@nachtlaw.com

MONTERREY MARKET: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
Juan Del Sol, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Monterrey Market III, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
and Rafael Diaz, individually, Case No. 9:13-cv-81043-KLR (S.D.
Fla., October 15, 2013) is brought to recover from the Defendants
overtime compensation, liquidated damages and costs and reasonable
attorney's fees.

Monterrey Market III, LLC is a Florida limited liability company
headquartered in Greenacres, Florida.  Rafael Diaz owns, manages
and operates Monterrey Market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq.
          1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Licensing Group Likely After Class Action Ruling
Ernie Smith, writing for Associations Now, reports that the recent
ruling allowing current and former college athletes to move
forward with a class-action lawsuit over name and likeness rights
sets up an interesting possibility: Players could form a trade
group to work out licensing issues, one legal expert says.

The 1994 movie Blue Chips, a Nick Nolte film about college
basketball, raised a question that's still being asked to this
day: If these star players are so important to success of college
sports, why don't they get paid for their services?

It only makes sense that, two decades later, a former player from
the Blue Chips era is at the forefront of efforts to answer that
very question -- with the help of a recent court ruling.

"While we are disappointed that the court did not permit the
athletes to seek past damages as a group, we are nevertheless
hopeful that the court's decision will cause the NCAA to
reconsider its business practices."

More on a case that started with one player but could turn college
sports on its head:

The case: In 2009, former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon noticed
that a player in a video game featuring classic college basketball
teams bore a likeness to him.  After consulting with a lawyer, he
filed a lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, claiming that the NCAA violated antitrust law by
prohibiting student athletes from entering into commercial
agreements to license their own names and likenesses.  He sought
class-action status so that he could represent other current and
former college athletes in seeking compensation for past and
future financial losses caused by the NCAA rule.  Last summer,
during the litigation, the NCAA ended a long-term licensing deal
with Electronic Arts, which created the game that used O'Bannon's

The decision: On Nov. 8, the federal judge in California hearing
the case granted partial class-action certification. U.S. District
Judge Claudia Wilken ruled [PDF] that current and former Division
I men's basketball and football Bowl Subdivision team members
could, as a group, challenge the NCAA policy prohibiting players
from being compensated for use of their names and likenesses.  But
she denied their request to seek damages for past use.  Though
that still leaves the door open for individual suits for damages,
the NCAA saw that part of the decision as a victory, with chief
legal officer Donald Remy noting in a statement that damages
claims "going back nearly a decade would be completely
unmanageable and unprecedented."  Lawyers for the plaintiffs were
nonetheless pleased.  "The court's decision is a victory for all
current and former student-athletes who are seeking compensation
on a going-forward basis," said Michael Hausfeld, who represented
the players, in a news release.  "While we are disappointed that
the court did not permit the athletes to seek past damages as a
group, we are nevertheless hopeful that the court's decision will
cause the NCAA to reconsider its business practices."

Could the next step be a trade group for players? That's a
question raised by Sports Illustrated columnist and legal expert
Michael McCann, who notes that a class-action lawsuit could
suddenly create a demand for an organized system to help work out
licensing deals, getting around the issues raised by
Mr. O'Bannon's lawsuit.  There could be other benefits for players
as well.  "The trade association would also seek negotiated
compensation for college athletes in the form of long-term
disability and pension benefits," Mr. McCann writes.  "Many of the
trade association's goals would embrace those of the National
College Players' Association, a California-based advocacy group
for college athletes' rights."  The lawsuit is not the only factor
driving this issue: Last month, the Grambling State University
football team essentially went on strike and forfeited a game,
citing poor practice and playing conditions.

However, Mr. McCann writes, a trade group may not come in time to
help former players like O'Bannon, a major college star who was
unable to find success in the NBA and now has a career outside of
basketball.  The court's denial of the class action for damages
claims means it's unlikely that O'Bannon and former college stars
will receive compensation in a suit.

"This is disappointing news for those players' attorneys, who have
spent considerable resources on the case in hopes of gaining a
sizable share of an award or settlement," Mr. McCann writes.

NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Cert. Order in "Johnson" Suit
Defendant-Petitioner Nextel Communications, Inc. wants the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to determine
whether the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York:

   (1) erred in certifying a nationwide issue class in the
       lawsuit commenced by Michael S. Johnson, et al., when the
       allegedly common issues would not resolve liability on any
       of the Plaintiffs' claims, the claims are being asserted
       under the laws of 27 different states, and Nextel has
       numerous individualized defenses including statute of
       limitations and absence of injury; and

   (2) violates due process to decide the Plaintiffs' entitlement
       to punitive damages and punitive-to-compensatory ratio
       before compensatory damages themselves are calculated.

A group of 587 former employees of Nextel Communications, Inc.
sought to bring legal malpractice and other claims against a law
firm that represented them in individual employment disputes with
Nextel, and against Nextel itself.  The District Court certified a
nationwide issue class, identifying ten issues that supposedly all
587 employees shared.  The District Court also approved a trial
plan that "trifurcated" the proceedings so that common issues and
individual issues would be tried in successive stages, and
punitive damages and compensatory damages (in that order)
calculated by different juries.

Defendant-Petitioner Nextel Communications Inc. is represented by:

          Mark David Harris, Esq.
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3530
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: mharris@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Lawrence R. Sandak, Esq.
          1 Newark Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 274-3256
          Facsimile: (973) 274-3299
          E-mail: lsandak@proskauer.com

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq.
          1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 355-6435
          E-mail: jenniferc@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Nicholas Styant-Browne, Esq.
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Allen Zweig, Esq.
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10117
          E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Thyne, Esq.
          Angela Marjorie Roper, Esq.
          77 Jefferson Place
          Totowa, NJ 07512
          Telephone: (973) 790-4441
          E-mail: angela.roper@njlegalmalpractice.com

               - and -

          Michael Howard Sussman, Esq.
          Christopher Dale Watkins, Esq.
          1 Railroad Avenue, 3rd Floor
          P.O. Box 1005
          Goshen, NY 10924
          E-mail: sussman1@frontiernet.net

The appellate case is Johnson, et al. v. Nextel Communications
Inc., Case No. 13-03862, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. The original case is Johnson, et al. v. Nextel
Communications Inc., Case No. 07-cv-8473, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

NMI RETIREMENT: Ordered to Pay Johnson $7,500 Service Award
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that
U. S. District Court for the NMI designated judge Frances
Tydingco-Gatewood ordered the CNMI government on Nov. 13 to pay
Betty Johnson her $7,500 service award by Nov. 25, 2013.

Ms. Tydingco-Gatewood noted that the settlement agreement in
Ms. Johnson's class action against the NMI Retirement Fund and the
CNMI government provides that Johnson receive a service award.

The $7,500 is an incentive in recognition of Ms. Johnson's time
and effort in bringing the class action as class representative.

In the same order, the judge moved the status conference in
Ms. Johnson's class action -- currently scheduled for Friday,
Nov. 15-to Jan. 13, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.

At the conference, Ms. Tydingco-Gatewood said, the court will also
hear arguments on the award of attorneys' fees if the parties in
the case are unable to resolve this issue through settlement

Ms. Johnson's lawyers were required to file their briefs and other
documents by Nov. 22, 2013, and the CNMI government and the Fund
by Dec. 16, 2013.

Ms. Johnson has four lawyers: Bronster Hoshibata law firm,
Bruce Jorgensen, Stephen Woodruff, and Timothy Lord.

The Honolulu-based counsel, Bronster Hoshibata law firm, is
seeking $17.5 million in attorney's fees and costs; Mr. Jorgensen
is demanding $18.6 million, $29.6 million, or $38.9 million;
Mr. Woodruff is asking for $1.01 million; and the San Rafael,
California-based Mr. Lord is seeking either $3.6 million or $5.9

Ms. Tydingco-Gatewood had directed the counsels and the CNMI
government to talk about the attorneys' fees issue with Hawaii
chief bankruptcy judge Fobert Faris, who conducted the settlement
discussions in the class action.

NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Faces False Advertising Suit Over Cosamin
Matthew Boorman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., and Nutramax
Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-07251-JSR (S.D.N.Y.,
October 15, 2013) accuses the Company of false and misleading
advertisement with respect to its Cosamin Products, which it
claims to have been proven to reduce joint pain.

Nutramax is a manufacturer and marketer of supplements for humans
and animals, including Nutramax sells its products nationally
through various online and brick-and-mortar retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Domenick Zaremba, Esq.
          40 Wall Street, 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 400-7223
          Facsimile: (212) 400-7224
          E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          The Waterfront Building
          200 First Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: bsweet@dscslaw.com

OLD LINE: Circuit Court Approves Class Action Settlement
Old Line Bancshares, Inc., the parent company of Old Line Bank, on
Nov. 13 disclosed that on November 12, 2013, the Circuit Court for
Prince George's County, Maryland approved its previously-disclosed
Stipulation of Settlement to resolve all claims asserted on behalf
of a putative class of WSB Holdings, Inc. stockholders in
connection with Old Line Bancshares, Inc.'s acquisition of WSB
Holdings, Inc., which was completed on May 10, 2013.  As
previously disclosed, the settlement required Old Line Bancshares,
Inc. and WSB Holdings, Inc. to make certain additional disclosures
related to the merger, which disclosures were included in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus of Old Line Bancshares, Inc. and
WSB Holdings, Inc. previously sent to their respective
stockholders, and does not include any payment to class members.

Also as previously disclosed, the parties to the settlement had
not reached any agreement with regard to the attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses, if any, that would be awarded class counsel,
and class counsel had filed an application requesting an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of
$400,000.  At the November 12 hearing approving the settlement,
the Court denied class counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses, finding that, among other things,
the lawsuit was not meritorious when filed.  Old Line Bancshares,
Inc. does not know whether class counsel will file a Notice of
Appeal with respect to the determination on attorneys' fees and

James W. Cornelsen, President and Chief Executive Officer of Old
Line Bancshares, Inc., stated, "We are pleased that this matter
appears to be behind us and that the Court recognized this action
lacked merit when filed and that class counsel's actions in this
matter were undeserving of payment.  We look forward to continuing
our progress of integrating WSB Holdings, Inc.'s operations into
those of Old Line Bancshares, Inc."

Frank Bonaventure and Harold G. Belkowitz, shareholders in the law
firm Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver, a Professional Corporation,
represented Old Line Bancshares, Inc.  Mr. Bonaventure said, "We
are very pleased that the judge was able to cut through to the
core issues of this case and reach the correct decision."

Old Line Bancshares, Inc. is the parent company of Old Line Bank,
a Maryland chartered commercial bank headquartered in Bowie,
Maryland, approximately 10 miles east of Andrews Air Force Base
and 20 miles east of Washington, D.C. Old Line Bank has 23
branches located in its primary market area of suburban Maryland
(Washington, D.C. suburbs and Southern Maryland) counties of Anne
Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Prince George's and St. Mary's.  It
also targets customers throughout the greater Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area.

OMEGA FLEX: Seeks Dismissal of Defective Tubing Class Action
Carolina Bolado and Matt Fair, writing for Law360, report that
corrugated stainless steel tubing maker Omega Flex Inc. on Nov. 13
asked a Florida federal judge to toss a putative class action,
arguing that the plaintiffs have no standing because they failed
to claim any damage from the allegedly defective product.

Robert Ellis -- robert.ellis@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis
LLP told U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas that the
plaintiffs, who claim that Omega's corrugated stainless steel
tubing TracPipe is defective and can cause house fires, have not
actually suffered any damages and have not alleged that the tubing
in their homes has shown any defect or failed to perform as

"These plaintiffs have alleged no failure of their product,"
Mr. Ellis said.  "They have to allege something more concrete than
an unquantified potential future risk of injury."

The tubing, used to transmit gas to gas-fueled appliances in
homes, is safe when properly bonded and grounded, according to
Mr. Ellis.  He said that in order for the tubing to ignite and
cause a fire, a series of very rare events has to occur, beginning
with a lightning strike of an improperly bonded or grounded tubing
that results in a hole in the TracPipe wall through which natural
gas can leak.

"Is this really an issue of it's just a matter of time?" Mr. Ellis
said.  "Absolutely not."

But Gary Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield Bryson & Mason
LLP, representing lead plaintiffs Philip G. Hall and Deborah
Haase, said the product is unsafe and that various state attorneys
general and fire marshals are advising the public to check their
tubing to make sure it is properly installed or to possibly remove
it altogether.

He said his clients, who are seeking to represent a class of
Florida residents who own homes with TracPipe in them, are asking
for damages to cover the expenses of taking these recommended

He added that the link between the tubing and house fires is "not
theoretical," and that this type of tubing has caught fire 150
times in the last 10 years.

"The time to do something is now," Mr. Mason said.  "It's too late
to come forward with an action when there's been death or physical
injury.  The court can remedy this now."

Mr. Mason referred to a case in Pennsylvania in which Terrence and
Judith Tincher were awarded by a jury more than $1 million in
damages after finding that defective Omega Flex tubing in their
house was largely to blame for a 2007 lightning-sparked fire.

Mr. Ellis said that his client believes the instructions given to
the jury in that case were flawed and likely will be overturned by
an appeals court, and he pointed out that two other similar cases
have been tried since then and both have resulted in full defense

Mr. Hall is represented by Robert B. Brown III -- bob@wbmllp.com
-- Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- and Daniel K. Bryson --
dan@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, J. Andrew Meyer
and Rachel Soffin of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group,
Charles J. LaDuca and Sandra Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP,
D. Aaron Rihn of Robert Peirce & Associates PC and Joseph S.
Bellissimo of Bellissimo & Peirce.

Omega Flex is represented by Robert B. Ellis --
robert.ellis@kirkland.com -- Benjamin T. Kurtz --
benjamin.kurtz@kirkland.com -- and Kassie Couey --
kassie.couey@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Heather
Carney Costanzo -- hcostanzo@gunster.com -- and Michael W. Marcil
-- mmarcil@gunster.com -- of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart PA.

The case is Hall et al. v. Omega Flex Inc., case number 0:13-cv-
61213, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of

OMNI DRY: Faces FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages
Adrian Campos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Yon Rhee d/b/a Omni Dry Cleaners, Case No. 1:13-cv-07248-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, is entitled to recover from the
Defendant unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Yon Rhee owns and operates a dry cleaner called Omni Dry Cleaners
located in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Louis Kraselnik
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com

ORGANON USA: Pa. Woman Files Nuvaring Product Liability Suit
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
central Pennsylvania woman is suing the makers of the NuvaRing
birth Charles E. Schmidt Jr. control system over allegations that
she developed a blood clot in her lung as a result of her use of
the product.

Sharon L. Young, who lives in York County, filed suit at the
federal District Court in Harrisburg over claims that she
developed a pulmonary embolism in the spring of 2012 as a result
of using the NuvaRing.

The plaintiff, who began using the device around March of that
year, says she began to experience chest discomfort with shortness
of breath about a month later.

A subsequent CT scan ordered by a cardiologist revealed emboli in
her right lung, the complaint states.

The woman was immediately admitted to Harrisburg Hospital and
began a regimen of anticoagulation therapy.

Ms. Young, who was 41 years old at the time of her injuries,
claims her health issues were a direct result of using NuvaRing.

The plaintiff continues to undergo follow-up medical care,
including examinations, appointments and continued use of
medications, the lawsuit states.

The defendants in the lawsuit -- they are Organon USA Inc., N.V.
Organon, Schering Corp., Merck & Co. Inc., and Merck Sharp & Dohme
-- are accused of failing to disclose the known safety hazards
associated with NuvaRing.

The package insert accompanying the product, which says that the
vaginal ring is expected to be associated with similar risks to
that of birth control pills and that the safety information they
provide to consumers is derived primarily from studies of birth
control pills, is misleading, the complaint alleges.

The safety information, the suit states, was not derived primarily
from studies of NuvaRing.

The defendants failed to warn of the extent of the risk of venous
thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary
embolism, and even death associated with the use of the product,
according to the complaint.

The defendants knew, but failed to disclose that the NuvaRing had
a higher risk of thromboembolic complications than birth control
pills, the lawsuit says, due to the "markedly potentiated
androgenic effects caused by the synthetic, third-generation
progestin used in the NuvaRing.

"Defendants negligently and/or recklessly marketed the NuvaRing as
a novel vaginal delivery system, and placed the product into the
stream of commerce without conducting adequate tests to regulate
the exposure and/or release rates of estrogen and Progestin to a
user, including Plaintiff, of such product," the complaint reads.

Instead, the suit claims, the defendants marketed the product as
having a low risk of side effects and they continue to minimize
the product's side effects by focusing on the "incidence of minor
side effects," such as headaches, nausea and breast tenderness.

Ms. Young, the plaintiff, claims that she would have never used
the NuvaRing had she known the true risks and dangers associated
with the birth control system.

The lawsuit contains counts of strict products liability, breach
of implied and express warranties, negligence, intentional and/or
negligent misrepresentation, successor liability and violation of
consumer protection laws.

The plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75,000, plus attorneys'
fees and costs.  She is being represented by Charles E. Schmidt,
Jr. of the Harrisburg law firm Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers.

The plaintiff's counsel noted in the complaint that the matter
should be transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri for
inclusion in the NuvaRing Products Liability multidistrict
litigation, but on Nov. 14, a day after the suit was filed, U.S.
District Judge Sylvia H. Rambo, of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, issued an order that says the action cannot be
transferred until the plaintiff complies with certain procedural
rules for removal of so-called tag-along actions.

FDA issues stern warning on Medtronic devices

PARISIENNE 501 DELI: Accused of Not Paying Wages and OT Premium
Jose Manuel Mizhquiri Guallpa, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Parisienne 501 Deli & Grocery,
Inc., d/b/a Parisian Deli; and Yong Suk Park; jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:13-cv-07267-WHP (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2013)
alleges that the Defendants owe the Plaintiff and similarly
situated current and former employees unpaid wages and overtime

Parisienne 501 Deli & Grocery, Inc., a New York business
corporation, and its owner Yong Suk Park operate a restaurant,
doing business as Parisian Deli, located in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com

PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Tariff Hike
Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli communications
operator, on Nov. 14 disclosed that it was served with a lawsuit
and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as a class
action, filed against Partner on November 13, 2013 in the Central
District Court.

The claim alleges that Partner increased tariffs for its
subscribers not in accordance with their agreements.

If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action, the total amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS150

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.

PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: Denial of Class Cert. in Breach Suit Appealed
Eric Cruise, et al., appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from an order denying class
certification in their lawsuit against Principal Global Investors,
et al.

The underlying lawsuit involves a single retirement investment
that contained the commingled contributions of many different
pension plans and that was centrally managed by the Defendants.
Thus, the Plaintiffs argue, the Defendants' alleged breach of
fiduciary duty -- the failure to maintain daily liquidity in the
investment, resulting in a universal withdrawal freeze affecting
each proposed class member -- is necessarily common to each of the
members of the proposed class.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
          Benjamin B. Gould, Esq.
          KELLER & ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Ron Kilgard, Esq.
          Gary A. Gotto, Esq.
          James A. Bloom, Esq.
          KELLER & ROHRBACK P.L.C.
          3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 248-0088
          E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          David Harris Goldman, Esq.
          Michael J. Carroll, Esq.
          Kodi Ann Brotherson, Esq.
          BABICH & GOLDMAN
          501 S.W. Seventh Street, Suite J
          Des Moines, IA 50309-4537
          Telephone: (515) 244-4300
          E-mail: dgoldman@babichgoldman.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Lencyk, Esq.
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          E-mail: alencyk@wolfpopper.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Gregory C. Braden, Esq.
          MORGAN & LEWIS
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-0000
          Telephone: (202) 739-5604
          E-mail: gbraden@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Deborah S. Davidson, Esq.
          MORGAN & LEWIS
          77 W. Wacker Drive, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601-0000
          E-mail: ddavidson@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Campbell, Esq.
          13200 Sunset Circle
          Clive, IA 50325
          Telephone: (515) 326-2647

               - and -

          Matthew Roger Eslick, Esq.
          Angel A. West, Esq.
          700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Telephone: (515) 283-3100

The appellate case is Eric Cruise, et al. v. Principal Global
Investors, et al., Case No. 13-08035, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  The original case is Eric
Cruise, et al. v. Principal Global Investors, et al., Case No.
4:10-cv-00198-JEG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa, Des Moines.

SEARS ROEBUCK: DRI's Amicus Brief Seeks Review of Washer Cases
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that DRI:
The Voice of the Defense Bar has filed an amicus brief with the
U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to review two cases involving front-
loading washing machines.

Petitioners in Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Larry Butler, et al. and
Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer, et al. both are seeking leave following
opinions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirming certification of class-action lawsuits -- despite the
Supreme Court's grant, vacate and remand order to reconsider their
prior opinions in light of a consumer class action involving
Comcast Corp.

In Sears, owners of Kenmore-brand front-loading washing machines
sold by Sears, and manufactured by Whirlpool, sued over alleged
mold problems.

In Whirlpool, two Ohio residents bought front-loading washers
manufactured by Whirlpool.

Months after their purchases, the plaintiffs noticed the smell of
mold or mildew coming from the machines and from laundry washed in
the machines.  In fact, one found mold growing on the sides of the
detergent dispenser.  The other saw mold growing on the rubber
door seal, despite keeping the machine doors open to dry.

The two filed suit, alleging tortious breach of warranty,
negligent design and negligent failure to warn.

In Sears, the Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment
and remanded the case to the federal appeals court.

In Whirlpool, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the Sixth
Circuit that the consumers could proceed as a group.

After being asked by the nation's high court to reconsider their
decisions in light of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, both circuits
affirmed their original decisions.

DRI, which filed a brief with the Supreme Court in Sears in April
and filed a brief with the Sixth Circuit in Whirlpool last year,
is urging justices to grant review to clarify that courts must
look to controlling state law before certifying a class suit under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)'s "predominance"

The defense bar's 24-page brief argues that the lower courts
failed to "rigorously analyze" the predominance requirement and
affirmed certification of the class-action suits without examining
controlling state law and, in the case of Whirlpool, without
undertaking a choice-of-law analysis.

Had the circuits properly exercised their duty under Rule
23(b)(3), DRI maintains they would have "necessarily concluded"
that common questions did not predominate under applicable state

In the defense bar's opinion, the court's review is necessary to
make sure that procedural rules are not interpreted so
"expansively" that they override state tort principles that are
supposed to govern.

SPECIALTY COMPOUNDING: Bacterial Outbreak Linked to Sterile Drugs
The Associated Press reports that state health officials have
connected a Central Texas compounding pharmacy to a bacterial
outbreak that sickened 17 patients in Corpus Christi hospitals
earlier this year.

Bacteria found in an unopened bag of sterile drugs at a local
hospital was "indistinguishable" from that found in the blood of
those sickened, Texas Department of State Health Services
spokesman Chris Van Deusen told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

Mr. Van Deusen told The Associated Press on Nov. 19 that while
state testing had identified the bacterium in the products before,
the most recent results showed a "genetic match" between the
bacteria found in the product and bacteria in blood samples of 15
of the patients.  Still, Mr. Van Deusen said the investigation
continues and authorities have not concluded that Cedar Park-based
Specialty Compounding is to blame for the illnesses.

As of Nov. 19, Specialty Compounding representatives had not
received any word from state about the findings, said David Ball,
a spokesman for the company.  He pointed out that the company's
own testing and testing by the FDA had not found the particular

Those whose blood contained the bacteria -- two died -- had all
received calcium gluconate, an additive in some IV solutions.  The
Food and Drug Administration announced a voluntary recall of the
company's sterile products in August.

The bacterium was Rhodococcus equi.

The state finding followed an FDA report released last week that
found a dead fungus in one batch of calcium gluconate and five
different kinds of bacteria in a batch of calcium gluconate and
sodium chloride solution.  It did not find Rhodococcus equi, but
the agency concluded after its month-long inspection that the
company should not "perform any sterile drug production at this

"The pharmacy's own testing similarly detected no Rhodococcus equi
in its facility, in its products, or on its personnel," the
company said in a prepared statement on Nov. 19.  "For this
reason, it seems clear that Specialty Compounding was not the
source of the infections."

The statement said the company is addressing the findings from the
FDA's inspection and is cooperating with federal and state health

SPOTIFY LTD: Sued Over Automatic Subscription Renewals
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
Spotify continues to grow in popularity, but the music streaming
service still needs to prove its mettle as a business.  The
Sweden-based company has been hit with a class action lawsuit in
San Francisco by a subscriber named Melissa Bleak who claims that
automatic renewal charges to her premium account violate a
California law requiring affirmative consent.

According to the complaint, when users upgrade to a premium plan
that provides access to music on any device, customers are
informed on Spotify's website that "if you do not cancel your
subscription before the end of the free trial the credit card you
provide will automatically be charged the Spotify Premium
subscription fee of US $9.99 + $0.00 sales tax per month, until
you cancel.  You can cancel at any time by logging into your
Spotify account and following the cancelation instructions."

Customers are further informed that they are authorizing Spotify
to automatically bill their credit card each month.  But the
lawsuit contends that this isn't enough.

"In the Premium Plan notice Defendant failed to provide a
hyperlink to the Terms, and the Terms are not referenced at all on
the Unlimited Plan notice," says the lawsuit.  "Moreover,
Defendant failed to provide a box to check or any other method by
which Plaintiff's and Class Members could provide their
affirmative consent to Defendants."

Spotify declined comment.

The company, which earlier this year said it had six million
subscribers and 24 million active users, is reportedly on the
verge of raising more than $200 million in new funding.  With
deals with large record companies including Sony, EMI, Warner
Music and Universal, Spotify's revenues have grown nearly fourfold
in the last two years to almost $600 million, but with heavy
licensing costs, its losses have widened to more than $75 million
a year.

The company has also recently made partnerships in the TV space,
including a cross-promotional deal with Bravo that allows users to
see playlists for The Real Housewives and other shows.

TESLA MOTORS: NHTSA Opens Probe Into Electric Car Battery Fires
Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
U.S. government's auto safety watchdog has opened an investigation
into battery fires in Tesla Model S electric cars.

The National Highway Traffic Administration says fires broke out
in two of the cars in the U.S. after the undercarriage hit metal
road debris.  The debris pierced the batteries and caused a
thermal reaction and fires.  In each case, the car warned the
driver of the damage, and both escaped without getting hurt.

The probe affects more than 13,000 cars from the 2013 model year
that were sold in the U.S. Tesla has sold about 19,000 of the cars
worldwide.  They start at $70,000 but often run more than

Tesla's batteries are located beneath the passenger compartment
and protected by a quarter-inch-thick metal shield.  Experts say
that if the batteries are damaged, that can cause arcing and
sparks and touch off a fire.

NHTSA, in documents posted on its website on Nov. 19, said it
opened the preliminary evaluation "to examine the potential risks
associated with undercarriage strikes" on the Tesla cars.  The
investigation could lead to a recall, but a decision likely is
months away.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a blog posting that the company asked
the government to investigate, even though its cars catch fire at
a far lower rate than gas-powered vehicles.

"While we think it is highly unlikely, if something is discovered
that would result in a material improvement in occupant fire
safety, we will immediately apply that change to new cars and
offer it as a free retrofit to all existing cars," Mr. Musk wrote.

He also wrote that Tesla has done an over-the-air software update
to give the car more ground clearance at highway speeds.

Mr. Musk wrote that the software change was made to cut the
chances of underbody damage.  "The theoretical probability of a
fire injury is already vanishingly small, and the actual number to
date is zero," he wrote.

Tesla plans another software update in January to give the driver
more control of the air suspension ride height.

The low-slung Model S has a 6-inch clearance between the ground
and the undercarriage.  Other cars with gas engines sit lower,
such as the Mercedes CLA Class at 3.9 inches and a Dodge Charger
at 5 inches, according to the Edmunds.com auto website.  But the
Tesla automatically lowers itself about another inch at highway
speeds, the company's website said.

According to the U.S. Fire Administration, there are around
194,000 vehicle fires on U.S. roads each year.  The vast majority
-- 61 percent -- start in the engine area, while 15 percent start
in the passenger area. Approximately 300 people die and 1,250 are
injured in U.S. vehicle fires each year.  Most happen in gas-
powered cars, which make up the vast majority of cars on U.S.
roads.  Electric vehicles make up less than 1 percent of the cars
sold in the U.S.

General Motors and Nissan make the top-selling battery-powered
cars in the nation, the Volt and Leaf.  Neither knows of any
real-world blazes in those vehicles.  A Chevrolet Volt caught fire
two years ago after a government crash test, but the government
closed an investigation into the incident after GM agreed to a
safety campaign to bolster shielding around the battery.

The Model S can go up to 265 miles (425 kilometers) on a single

Musk wrote that at first, a NHTSA investigation didn't seem like a
good use of the agency's time given the higher frequency of
gasoline-powered car fires.  But he changed his mind.  "If a false
perception about the safety of electric cars is allowed to linger,
it will delay the advent of sustainable transport and increase the
risk of global climate change, with potentially disastrous
consequences worldwide.  That cannot be allowed to happen," Musk

He has said previously that the car won't be recalled.

Palo Alto, Calif.-based Tesla's stock rose more than 400 percent
earlier in the year as the Model S won accolades from Consumer
Reports and other magazines.  But it has fallen 37 percent since
news of the first fire was reported on Oct. 2.

The first U.S. fire occurred along a freeway in Kent, Wash., near
Seattle when a Model S struck a curved metal object which pierced
the shield and the battery.  In the second case, a Model S caught
fire Nov. 6 near Smyrna, Tenn., after the driver struck a trailer
hitch in the road.  Another fire was reported Oct. 17 in Mexico
when a Model S burned after a high-speed crash.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Consumer Reports Pull Recommendation on 3 Vehicles
Reuters reports that Toyota Motor Corp.'s reputation for quality
took a hit on Oct. 28 when influential magazine Consumer Reports
pulled its recommendation on three of the Japanese automaker's
vehicles, including its popular flagship Camry sedan, due to poor
crash test results.

While Toyota's luxury Lexus and namesake brands were ranked most
reliable in the U.S. auto industry in Consumer Reports' annual
new-car reliability survey, the magazine said it will no longer
recommend the Camry, Prius v model or RAV4 sport utility vehicle
because they received "poor" ratings in a crash test started last
year by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

"We're a year into it, we've got over 50 vehicles tested and
there's enough that are doing adequately on this test that now
we're making the shift and pulling recommendations from any car
that gets a poor" rating, Jake Fisher, director of auto testing at
Consumer Reports, said of the IIHS test.

"Honestly, we don't take this lightly, but virtually every vehicle
now in the family sedan category has been tested and the only one
that has gotten a 'poor' is the Camry," he added.  "At this point,
we don't feel we can continue to recommend people buy a Camry when
there's other good choices out there that do better on the test."

Consumer Reports is one of the most widely trusted names for
consumers shopping for cars, and companies try to ensure their
vehicles earn the magazine's coveted "recommended" rating.

Last year, the IIHS, a non-profit group funded by the insurance
industry, increased the rigor of its tests to include crashes that
involve only a front corner of a vehicle.  Consumer Reports waited
to adjust its buyer recommendations until it saw how the entire
industry was affected by the test.

The magazine does not recommend consumers buy a car that fares
poorly in any crash tests.

In the first nine months of the year, the Camry was the third-
most-sold vehicle in the United States, behind two full-size
pickup trucks.  Its sales were up 1.3 percent from the year-ago
period to 318,990 cars, compared with an increase of almost 14
percent by rival Honda Motor Co.'s Accord sedan.

Toyota has made changes to the Camry to improve its performance in
the crash tests and IIHS is planning to retest the car in
December, IIHS spokesman Russ Rader said.  Companies that have
modified a vehicle design sometimes seek a retest.

Last December, when IIHS gave the Camry its "poor" rating, it said
the company's engineers had "a lot of work to do to match the
performance of their competitors."  Toyota officials said on
Oct. 28 they "are looking at a range of solutions" to address the
car's performance in the crash test.

Last month, Toyota's Corolla small car, which was redesigned for
the 2014 model year, received a "marginal" rating on the IIHS
crash test.

In addition to the three Toyota vehicles, Consumer Reports also
dropped Volkswagen's Audi A4 car from its recommended list due to
a "poor" rating on the IIHS test, Mr. Fisher said.

Ten other vehicles also lost their recommended status, but that
was due to the overall quality of vehicles in their segments and
not related to their crash test performances, he said.

The IIHS, which continues to score vehicles on side, rear, roll-
over and front-end crashes, added an overlap test because nearly
one-fourth of U.S. front-of-vehicle crashes that result in serious
injury or death involve a single corner that strikes another
vehicle or an object like a tree or utility pole.

In the overlap test, IIHS crashes a vehicle at 40 miles per hour
into a 5-foot-high barrier on the driver's side that overlaps one-
quarter of the vehicle's width.

                   Lexus Tops Reliability Survey

In its annual reliability rankings, Toyota's Lexus was at the top,
followed by the Toyota brand. Rounding out the top 10 were Honda's
Acura, Audi, Mazda, Nissan's Infiniti, Volvo, Honda, General
Motors Co's GMC truck brand and Subaru.

The vehicle with the top predicted reliability score was the 2014
Subaru Forester SUV, while Ford Co.'s C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid
vehicle received the worst score, Consumer Reports said.

Two popular models, Honda's redesigned 2013 Accord with a V6
engine and the 2013 Nissan Altima, scored too poorly for Consumer
Reports to continue recommending them.

One of the main problem areas in the survey was in-car
electronics, including infotainment systems.  Of the 17 categories
tracked, the area generated the most complaints, including buggy
systems with screen freezes, touch control lag or a reluctance to
recognize a cell phone or other device.

For instance, last year, Ford tumbled to nearly the bottom of the
survey due to flaws in its touch-screen navigation and
entertainment system, MyFord Touch.

This year, continued problems with the infotainment system, as
well as several EcoBoost turbocharged V6 models having poor
reliability, left Ford's namesake and Lincoln luxury brands ranked
No. 26 and 27, respectively, ahead of only BMW's Mini.  Of the 31
Ford models in the survey, only one, the F-150 pickup with the
3.7-liter V6 engine, was above average, while seven scored

GM's Cadillac brand fell the most in the survey, dropping 14 spots
to No. 25 as its CUE infotainment system suffered from issues
similar to Ford's.  The GM brand also lost the benefit of older
cars that typically have fewer problems than newer models.

GM's Buick and Chevrolet brands ranked No. 12 and No. 17,

Smaller U.S. rival Chrysler ranked No. 18, while its Ram truck,
Jeep SUV and Dodge brands were No. 19, No. 23 and No. 24,

Tesla Motor Inc.'s Model S electric sedan performed well enough in
the reliability survey to earn a recommendation for the first

Consumer Reports said the findings in its survey are based on
subscribers' experiences with 1.1 million vehicles.  It uses the
findings to compile reliability histories on vehicles and predict
how well new cars will hold up.

UNICITY INT'L: Sued Over Undisclosed Recording of Phone Calls
Tony Holmes, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Unicity International, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-07590-
MMM-JC (C.D. Cal., October 15, 2013) is brought on behalf of all
persons, who placed calls to the Defendant from cordless or
cellular telephones in California whose telephone conversations
with the Defendant were intentionally recorded without disclosure
by the Defendant.

Unicity International, Inc., is a Utah corporation with its
principal place of business in Orem, Utah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
          1181 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 120
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 542-3555
          Facsimile: (949) 606-9690
          E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com

               - and -

          Rosemary F. Luzon, Esq.
          401 West A Street, Suite 2350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-2416
          Facsimile: (619) 234-7334
          E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven C. Smith, Esq.
          Derrick C. Hughes, Esq.
          SMITH LC
          1800 North Broadway Suite 200
          Santa Ana, CA 92706
          Telephone: (714) 550-7720
          Facsimile: (714) 550-1251
          E-mail: ssmith@smith-lc.com

UNITED FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
Stevy Carothers, a single man; James Chandler, a married man;
Carol Doss, a married woman; Randal Hughes, a man; Edward Dean
Linzey, a single man; James Mask, a man; Edward Dean McMillan, a
single man; Lizzie McMillan, a single woman; Ronald Seger, a man;
Frank Walker, a married man; Troy Weaver, a married man; Shayla
White, a single woman; on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. United Furniture Industries Incorporated, an
Ohio corporation; United Furniture CA, Inc., a Mississippi
Corporation; United Furniture Industries NC, LLC, a Mississippi
limited liability company; Larry George and Jane Doe George,
husband and wife; Douglas Hanby and Jane Doe Hanby, husband and
wife, Case No. 1:13-cv-00203-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss., October 15, 2013)
alleges unlawful failure to pay overtime wage in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Corporate Defendants are headquartered in Okolona,
Mississippi.  The Individual Defendants are owners of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard T. Phillips, Esq.
          Jason L. Nabors, Esq.
          P.O. Drawer 1586
          Batesville, MS 38606
          Telephone: (662) 563-4613
          Facsimile: (662) 563-1546
          E-mail: flip@smithphillips.com

               - and -

          Trey A.R. Dayes, III, Esq.
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AR 85012
          Telephone: (602) 258-8900
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com

USPLABS LLC: Hawaii to Collect, Destroy OxyELITE From Stores
The Associated Press reports that Hawaii's Department of Health is
asking stores to give up supplies of a dietary supplement that's
under investigation for possible ties to hepatitis and liver

The department said on Nov. 18 it's collecting bottles of OxyELITE
Pro with plans to destroy them on Nov. 19.

The supplement is used for weight loss and muscle-building.  It
comes in pill and powder form.

Health officials say there have been 36 cases of hepatitis and
liver failure where use of the supplement has been the only common

Inspectors have inventoried nearly 330,000 capsules and more than
520 pounds of powder that were pulled from store shelves.
Officials say the retail value of that product is about $250,000.

WANG MA LLC: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime Premium, Suit Claims
Jesus Alvarado, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Wang Ma LLC d/b/a China City Buffet 5:13-cv-00944-DAE
(W.D. Tex., October 15, 2013) seeks to recover unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime, statutory liquidated damages, and reasonably
attorneys' fees.  The Plaintiff also seeks to certify the matter
as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wang Ma LLC is a Texas limited liability company.  The Company
employs Jesus Alvarado, and the similarly situated employees, to
perform restaurant work at China City Buffet Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Melissa Morales Fletcher, Esq.
          115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
          San Antonio, Texas 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: melissa@themoralesfirm.com

YARD HOUSE: Class Seeks Equal Access to Restaurant and Triangle
Christie Rudder v. Yard House USA, Inc.; Darden Inc.; Greenlaw
Partners, LLC; Greenlaw Management, Inc,; Madison Marquette Retail
Services; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:13-cv-
01610-RNB (C.D. Cal., October 15, 2013) seeks an injunction
requiring the Defendants to provide "full and equal" access to
their public facilities for disabled persons as required by law,
compensation for the Plaintiff's injuries, and reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses for enforcing the

The Yard House Defendants are the owners, operators, lessors or
lessees of the Yard House Costa Mesa, restaurant and bar located
in Costa Mesa, California.  The Triangle Defendants are the
owners, operators, lessors or lessees of "The Triangle" outdoor
entertainment and retail space located in Costa Mesa, California,
and the common areas, used by the public including the parking,
exterior paths of travel, elevators and restrooms.  The Plaintiff
is currently unaware of the true identities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia Barbosa, Esq.
          Kevin Bayley, Esq.
          16531 Bolsa Chica, Suite 205
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (714) 465-9486
          E-mail: PBarbosa@barbosagrp.com

YOUTUBE LLC: Copyright Suit Dropped After Class Action Dismissal
Owen Gibson, writing for The Guardian, reports that following a
six-and-a-half-year crusade, the Premier League has walked away
from its long-running legal battle over copyright infringement
with the Google-owned video-sharing website YouTube.

According to documents filed in New York and seen by the Guardian,
the Premier League, the French Tennis Federation and several music
publishers have agreed to drop the legal case, which was launched
in 2007.

The move is likely to lead to clubs being able to use the platform
to show delayed highlights of their matches on their own YouTube
channels.  While the court case was ongoing they had been
prevented from showing any on-pitch action and limited to behind-
the-scenes videos and interviews.

In 2007, the Premier League promised to take on YouTube for what
it claimed was extensive copyright infringement as clips recorded
from the TV were uploaded to the site.  It launched a class action
in the US, offering others the opportunity to also take on the
video sharing site in the wake of a separate US$1 billion claim by
media owner Viacom.

But in May this year, a New York judge denied a motion to hear the
case as a class action, ruling it was "unrealistic" to consider
the claims of the various rights holders in a single case.  The
latest development means that all sides have agreed to walk away.

Under the terms of the "voluntary dismissal", both sides will pay
their own costs.  Over recent years YouTube, bought by Google for
$1.65 billion in 2006 and now with 1 billion users, has been
seeking to evolve from a platform for user-generated videos to
become also home to a wide range of professionally produced

The Premier League has taken advantage of new tools introduced to
allow rights holders to quickly identify illegally uploaded
content and have it taken down or monetize it.  The Premier
League, in a bid to protect its GBP5.5 billion rights deal, has
opted to have the content removed.

The Premier League refused to comment but is likely to refocus its
attention on taking legal action against live streaming websites
that present an obvious threat to its broadcasting revenues.  In
July, it won a landmark case requiring the six largest internet
service providers to block a streaming service.

* Industry Losses From Asbestos & Environmental Claims Up in 2012
Insurance Journal reports that while generally not a material drag
on the U.S. property/casualty industry's earnings, industry losses
from asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims resumed an upward
climb in 2012, according to a new A.M. Best Co. report.

The report said annual incurred A&E losses rose 12 percent in 2012
after a 31 percent decline in 2011.  This comes amid a rising
number of lung cancer lawsuits related to asbestos and evolving
mass tort exposures on the environmental side.

A.M. Best said that as it continues to monitor issues related to
asbestos, the current estimated ultimate industry asbestos
exposure could very well increase in the medium term.  In December
2012, the ratings agency had raised its estimate of net ultimate
asbestos losses for the U.S. P/C industry to $85 billion from its
previous 2011 estimate of $75 billion.  The higher asbestos loss
estimate reflected ongoing losses of roughly $2 billion per year
with claim payments averaging $2.5 billion per year.

On asbestos litigation, the report noted that in addition to more
traditional mesothelioma filings, the volume of lung cancer cases
appears to be rising as more lawyers seek higher settlements in
the face of more successful lawsuits relative to past settlements.
The report pointed to industry participants' observation that the
number of such suits has begun to increase significantly.

The report said that as more tobacco lung cancer cases go to court
and receive damage awards, it may be creating an incentive for
asbestos plaintiffs' attorneys to file suits alleging asbestos
exposures as at least a contributor to the lung cancer.

* Lewis Urges Union to Launch Class Action v. Newspapers
Tim Shipman, writing for Mail Online, reports that a Labour
candidate has urged union bosses to use new Press regulations to
launch class action complaints against newspapers who criticize

Clive Lewis -- who is a member of three unions -- criticized the
Daily Mail's exposure of bullying by Unite thugs.

In a chilling insight into the way Left-wingers plan to use the
Royal Charter, the would-be MP said unions should get together to
file complaints to combat 'scurrilous' reporting.  He told a new
trade union think tank that in the past, only people specifically
affected by a news story have been able to launch a grievance
against a newspaper.

But under the terms of the Royal Charter -- approved by the Privy
Council last month to the delight of the Hacked Off pressure group
-- third party groups will be able to complain en masse in
so-called class action cases.

The measure has been opposed by newspaper industry groups, who say
it is likely to be used by activists to deter legitimate
investigative journalism.

The Mail revealed how Unite thugs targeted the families and
neighbors of staff at the Grangemouth petrochemical plant in
Scotland during strike action last month.

The paper has also led the way in covering the scandal in Falkirk,
where Unite was accused of seeking to rig a Labour candidate

Stephen Deans, the Unite boss in Scotland who was also chairman of
Falkirk West Labour Party, has now lost his job at Grangemouth and
the local party has been taken into special measures.

However, Labour candidate Mr. Lewis has sought to paint Mr. Deans
-- whose fight with the owners of Grangemouth nearly led to the
plant closing -- as a wronged man.

In a speech to the Unite-sponsored Centre for Labour and Social
Studies (Class), he said: 'Let's take for example the case of the
chap who has had his life ruined by scurrilous accusations and
innuendo in the Daily Mail.

'Under the new Royal Charter, his trade union, as an interested
third party, could say actually, "We now have an interest in this.

'We think this generalization affects not just him but all the
trade union movement and its members and we are going to put in an
official complaint and take this through the process".'

Mr. Lewis, the candidate for Norwich South, describes himself on
his Twitter account as a 'proud socialist' and former BBC

He is a member of three unions -- Unite, the GMB and the National
Union of Journalists.

Shipley MP Philip Davies, one of 15 Conservatives who voted
against the Charter earlier this year, said the unions will use
their financial muscle to 'bully hard-pressed newspapers'.

'All that will happen is that newspapers will be afraid to publish
things that are in the public interest,' he said.

Mr. Davies also praised the Mail's reporting of Unite's
activities, adding: 'Not only are they intimidating people in
industrial disputes they're now trying to intimidate people who
write about it.'

Kent MP Tracey Crouch, another Charter Tory rebel, said: 'It is
just the sort of behavior that newspapers have warned about.'

On Nov. 12, Ed Miliband again refused to re-open his party's
inquiry into Falkirk, calling for people to 'move on' -- despite
the evidence that his officials never got to the bottom of what


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

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

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

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *