CAR_Public/131202.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 2, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 238

                             Headlines


23ANDME INC: FDA Wants Genetic Testing Services Halted
AMYRIS INC: Dec. 11 Deadline to File Motion to Dismiss
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Lighting Connector Defect
APPLE INC: iPhone 4 Is Plagued by Latent Defect, Class Claims
ARCHON CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Rainero" Suit Denied

ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Misleads Investors Over Iclusig Product
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: "Harris" Suit Facing Dismissal
BANFIELD PET: Accused of Upselling Unnecessary Services in Ga.
BLUE DIAMOND: Accused of Misrepresenting Almond Milk Products

CALIFORNIA: Plaintiffs Win Favorable Ruling in Suit vs. CDFW
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Removes "Byrd" Class Suit to S.D. California
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Must Provide Info in "Prindle" Case
CHICAGO SOCCER: Fails to Pay OT for Time Above 40 Hrs., Suit Says
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Offers Eye Exams in Single Location, Suit Says

DFC GLOBAL: Kessler Topaz Corrects Nov. 20 Release on Class Action
ELECTROLUX HOME: Sued Over Mold/Mildew Growth in Washing Machines
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
FERMI NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss GINA Violation Suit Denied
FLINT, MI: Court Narrows Claims in "Borman" Class Action

FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs Request Warning on Acceleration Defect
GEORGIA: PUSH Coalition Challenges "Stand Your Ground" Law
GMAC MORTGAGE: Seeks Appeal in GMAC Kickback Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Settles Class Action Over Safari for $17 Million
HAIN CELESTIAL: Misrepresents Dream Drink Products, Suit Claims

ILLINOIS: Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Suit vs. Governor
ING GROEP: 2nd Cir. Refuses to Revive Subprime Class Action
INSTANT CHECKMATE: Faces "Zias" Suit Over Misidentification Claim
JC PENNEY: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in Texas
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Australian Law Firms Prepare for Hip Suit Trial

L'OREAL USA: DC Court Refused to Approve Deal in Mislabeling Suit
LANDSCAPE SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
LAVAL, CANADA: Citizen Seeks to Pursue C$23MM Suit v. Ex-Mayor
LOS ANGELES, CA: Says District Court Lacks Standing
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Chaiken" Suit Settlement Has Initial OK

MATCH.COM: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Fraudulent Profiles
METROPOLITAN TICKETS: Sued Over Bait-and-Switch Refund Policies
MONSANTO CO: Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Settlement
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Want Judge to Reconsider Ruling
NEW YORK: MTA Pays Nothing in Majority of Train Accident Lawsuits

NEW YORK, NY: Left Behind Disabled Citizens in Emergency Plans
NEW YORK, NY: Overworked Minority Female 911 Operators, Suit Says
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Trial Court Ruling in "Gordon" Suit Upheld
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit

RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Dismisses "Wills" Class Action
RICHARD FREER: Dozens of Ponzi Scheme Victims Attend Hearing
ROBERT BOSCH: Responds to Indian Employee's Tax Refund Suit
S&D FRUITS: "Melgadejo" FLSA Class Suit May Proceed
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles FACTA Class Action for $1.8 Million

TARGET CORP: Sued Over Combined Optometrist-Optician Operations
TEXAS WINDSTORM: Disqualification of TWIA Counsel Upheld
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Dismisses New Jersey Consumer Class Action
TREMOR VIDEO: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
WATTS WATER: "Trabakoolas" Suit Proceedings Stayed Until Dec. 10

WAUKEGAN, IL: Housing Authority Faces Class Action Over Bed Bugs
WEST CORP: Makes Customer Care Reps Work Off the Clock, Suit Says
WILMINGTON, DE: Faces Class Action Over Stop & Frisk Policy
WYNDHAM VACATION: Suit Over Timeshare Scam Headed for Arbitration
WYNN CASINO: Can Require Card Dealers to Share Tips, S.C. Ruled


                             *********


23ANDME INC: FDA Wants Genetic Testing Services Halted
------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has
warned 23andMe Inc., a company backed by Google Inc., to halt
sales of its genetic testing services because they have not
received regulatory clearance.

23andMe, which was founded in 2006 by Anne Wojcicki with the
backing of Google, sells DNA testing services that the company
says detect a range of genetic mutations and provide information
about a person's health risks.  Ms. Wojcicki recently separated
from her husband, Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google.

In a warning letter dated Nov. 22 and released on Nov. 25, the FDA
said it considers the company's product a medical device that
therefore requires regulatory clearance, "as FDA has explained to
you on numerous occasions."

The privately held company, which is based in Mountain View,
California, did not immediately respond to a request for comment
left before business hours.

The FDA said some of the intended uses of the company's Saliva
Collection Kit and Personal Genome Service (PGS) are particularly
concerning, including risk assessments for certain cancers.

The agency said that if the company's risk assessment for breast
or ovarian cancer reports a false positive, it could lead a
patient to undergo preventative surgery, intensive screening or
other potentially risky procedures.  A false negative, on the
other hand, could result in a failure to recognize actual risk.

The FDA said in its letter that the company submitted applications
in July and September of 2012 for several of these indications for
use.

"However," the FDA said, "to date your company has failed to
address the issues described during previous interactions with the
Agency" or provided additional information requested.  As a
result, the FDA said the applications "are considered withdrawn."

The agency said it had been "diligently working" to help the
company comply with the law, and has spent significant time
evaluating the intended uses of the product.  It said it also
provided detailed feedback to the company regarding the types of
data it needed to submit.  The agency said its interactions with
the company included more than 14 face-to-face and teleconference
meetings, hundreds of email exchanges, and dozens of written
communications.

"However, even after these many interactions with 23andMe, we
still do not have any assurance that the firm has analytically or
clinically validated the PGS for its intended uses," the FDA said.

The company's name refers to the 23 pairs of chromosomes that make
up each individual's genome.


AMYRIS INC: Dec. 11 Deadline to File Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick approved a stipulation continuing
case management conference, and regarding a motion to dismiss
briefing schedule, in DAVID BROWNING, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMYRIS, INC. and
JOHN G. MELO, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02209-WHO, (N.D. Cal.).

The stipulation provides that:

1. Defendants will file their motion to dismiss the Consolidated
   Complaint on or before December 11, 2013;

2. Lead Plaintiffs will file their opposition to Defendants'
   motion to dismiss on or before February 7, 2014;

3. The parties request that the Court hold a hearing on
   Defendants' motion to dismiss on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 at
   2:00 p.m. or such later date at the Court's convenience.
   However, should Lead Plaintiffs file their opposition before
   the February 7 deadline, the parties will advise the Court so
   that it may reset the hearing date accordingly, should it
   choose to do so;

4. The parties jointly request that the case management conference
   that was scheduled for November 19, 2013 be taken off calendar
   and rescheduled once the Court has ruled on Defendants' motion
   to dismiss, and that other related deadlines including those
   relating to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program
   also be continued and re-set after the motion to dismiss
   ruling.

A copy of the District Court's November 6, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/ut8nCYfrom Leagle.com.

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP, SUSAN J. HARRIMAN -- sharriman@kvn.com --
MICHAEL D. CELIO -- mcelio@kvn.com -- LAURIE CARR MIMS --
lmims@kvn.com -- San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Defendants
AMYRIS, INC. and JOHN G. MELO.

MILBERG LLP, DAVID AZAR -- dazar@milberg.com -- Los Angeles, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiff David Browning and Lead Counsel for Class.

BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC, EVAN J. SMITH -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com --
Beverly Hills, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Tsao and Lead
Counsel for Class.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Lighting Connector Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that a new Class Action lawsuit has been
initiated by Rendell Roman against Apple on behalf of individuals
who purchased devices from Apple that use the Lightning connector
that is prone to fraying, breakage, failure and beyond. The
complaint alleges that Apple possessed knowledge of the defect
prior to distributing the Lightning connector.

The Official Preliminary Statement

This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, and on behalf
of a nationwide class of individuals who purchased an Apple
product that came equipped with the Apple Lightning connector from
Defendant, Apple, Inc.  To date, the Apple products that can be
charged and connected to the computer exclusively by the Lightning
include: the iPhone 5, iPad (fourth generation), iPad Mini, iPod
Nano (seventh generation), and iPod Touch (fifth generation)
(collectively "Apple devices").

On September 12, 2012, Apple introduced Lightning as the new cable
used to charge and synchronize content for its new hardware
devices, including the highly anticipated iPhone 5, which sold in
excess of five million units over the weekend following its
launch.

In its official press release materials on September 12, 2012,
Apple touted the new Lightning cable as being "designed for
today's uses" and "smaller, smarter and more durable than the
previous connector."

In Apple's press release and advertising videos, the Lightning
connectors were shown to easily plug in and out of the iPhone
device, without issues of deterioration, breakage, or failure.
These images and representations understandably and intentionally
led consumers to believe that one could use the Lightning cables
repeatedly during normal use to plug and unplug the cable in order
to recharge or sync their Apple devices.

Based upon Apple's representations, Plaintiff and members of the
Class purchased the new Apple devices with the Lightning
connectors.

However, contrary to Apple's representations, advertisements, and
statements, the Lightning is defective and is prone to fraying,
breakage, deterioration, and failure, and does substantially fray,
break, deteriorate, and fail.

In particular, the Lightning end that plugs into the Apple device
deteriorates, externally and/or internally, to such a degree so as
to make charging the Apple device completely impossible, or
possible only by positioning the cord in a specific manner, using
electric tape, or something similar, to hold the Lightning cable
together, or other means to maintain the connection and angle
between the Lightning and the Apple device.  The deterioration can
and does become so severe that the exposed wires of the eroded
Lightning create a safety hazard.

These exposed wires have led to sparks and fires, endangering the
health and safety of consumers and the public.  To the best of
Plaintiff's knowledge and information, the failure occurs because
of the poor quality and manufacture of the Lightning connectors,
regardless of the level of care taken by consumers in using the
Lightning.

This defect is common to all Lightning cables, even when consumers
use and care for the cable as recommended and intended by Apple.

The defect in the Lightning renders it unsuitable for its
principal and intended purpose; namely, being the exclusive means
for synchronizing data for and charging the battery of the
associated Apple devices.

The consistent failure of the Lightning leaves consumers with
useless, expensive Apple devices, unless and until they purchase a
replacement Lightning.  Due to the Lightning's proprietary nature,
consumers are forced to purchase replacements directly from Apple,
the sole manufacturer of the Lightning, in order to recharge and
continue using their Apple devices.

Apple, which has acknowledged the problem with the Lightning,
responded to users' complaints by denying coverage beyond the
warranty period for the associated devices and requiring them to
purchase replacement cables from Apple.

In addition to the hundreds of dollars paid to purchase the Apple
devices charged by the Lightning Connector, Plaintiff and members
of the Class paid either $19 or $29 for replacement Lightning
cables, expecting, in return, that Apple would provide fully
functioning, durable cables.  Instead, Apple delivered an
admittedly defective product that fails to adequately perform its
intended function, requiring Plaintiff and Class members to
purchase multiple replacement Lightning cables -- oftentimes once
every two or three months -- in order to continue using their
Apple devices.

Apple's conduct violates, inter alia, California warranty laws.

Moreover, Apple possessed knowledge of the defect prior to
distributing the Lightning, in violation of California consumer
protection laws.  In 2012, Apple spent approximately $3.4 billion
on research and development, recently stating that "focused
investments in research and development are critical to its future
growth and competitive position in the marketplace and are
directly related to timely development of new and enhanced
products."  Prior to release, Apple undergoes stringent in-house
testing of its hardware devices, which would have revealed the
Lightning's defect.  In failing to disclose the defect at the same
time it was promoting the brilliant design and superior durability
of the Lightning, Apple committed fraud upon the millions of
unsuspecting customers who purchased Apple products chargeable
only by the Lightning without any knowledge of the defect.

Another aspect of the complaint listed various testimonials found
on the web.  The complaint formally cited this incident:

"One consumer experienced a more severe incident and warned,
"Beware these are very dangerous, picked up my charging phone in
my car and was shocked by exposed wires [of my iPhone 5 cable].
I then began checking mine and my husband's other iPhone 5 cables
to realized that they are all breaking in the same exact spot.
Not worth $19.99 Apple needs to recall these cables and introduce
a new reinforced design. NOT HAPPY!" (Kasey B from Baytown, Sep 6,
2013).

The Class Action filed against Apple includes Seven Causes of
Action as Follows:

    Violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act California Civil
Code Sec. 1750

    False and Misleading Advertising in Violation of California
Business and Professions Code Sec. 17500

    Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Practices in
Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200

    Violations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 15 U.S.C. Secs. 2301-
2312

    Breach of Express Warranty

    Unjust Enrichment

    Declaratory Relief

The Class Action case presented in the Nov. 23 report was filed in
the California Northern District Court, Santa Clara Office under
"Other Fraud."


APPLE INC: iPhone 4 Is Plagued by Latent Defect, Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Hilton, On Behalf Of Herself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-02167 (C.D. Cal.,
October 17, 2013) alleges that the Apple iPhone 4 is plagued by a
latent defect that causes its Power Button to fail, usually
shortly after the 1 year warranty covering the device has expired,
thereby rendering the phone unusable.

Ms. Hilton contends that Apple knew when it manufactured,
marketed, and sold the device that this defect existed, but failed
to disclose it, instead touting the purported superior attributes
of the telephone in Apple's various advertisements and marketing
campaigns.

Apple is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino,
California.  Apple designs, manufactures, and sells computers,
phones, mp3 players, and an assortment of other personal
technology products and related software, services, and
peripherals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350-4342
          Facsimile: (858) 430-37 19
          E-mail: rak@kariellaw.com


ARCHON CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Rainero" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gloria M. Navarro denied, without prejudice, a
motion for class certification filed by the plaintiff in the case
captioned DAVID RAINERO, Plaintiff, v. ARCHON CORPORATION,
Defendant, CASE NO. 2:07-CV-01553-GMN-PAL, (D. Nev.).

Defendant Archon Corp.'s Motion for Summary Judgment was also
denied while Mr. Rainero's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was
granted.

Mr. Rainero brought this proposed class action in his capacity as
a former shareholder of certain preferred stock shares issued by
Archon Corporation that were outstanding as of August 31, 2007.

Judge Navarro said it is apparent to the Court that the numerosity
requirement is likely met, and that there are questions of law or
fact common to the class.  However, because the parties' summary
judgment motions were still pending when the Motion for Class
Certification was briefed, arguments presented in the parties'
briefs are now moot or in need of clarification now that the
issues have been narrowed.  The resolution of these motions and
appeals likely affects the arguments of the parties relating to
Rule 23(b) of the Fed. R. Civ. P., she said.  The Plaintiff also
does not specifically address the requirements of Rule 23(g) in
his briefs, and on this basis alone the Court is unlikely to have
sufficient basis to appoint class counsel under Rule 23(g), as
required by Rule 23(c)(B), Judge Navarro added.

"Therefore, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's counsel may be
designated as interim counsel to act on behalf of the proposed
class pending determination of class certification," Judge Navarro
concluded.  "The Motion for Class Certification will be denied,
without prejudice, with leave to refile so as to correct and
revise the motion."

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/fdqAGjfrom Leagle.com.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Misleads Investors Over Iclusig Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Burch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Harvey J. Berger, Frank
G. Haluska, Timothy P. Clackson And Edward M. Fitzgerald, Case No.
1:13-cv-12626-WGY (D. Mass., October 17, 2013) alleges that
throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects.

Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
blood cancer drug, Iclusig, caused serious arterial thrombosis in
more patients than previously reported; (2) as a result, the
Company lacked a reasonable basis for its statements regarding
Iclusig; and (3) as a result of this, the Company's statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Ariad is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Ariad is an oncology
company, engaged in the discovery, development and
commercialization of medicines for cancer patients.  The Company
focuses on commercializing Iclusig (ponatinib), a cancer medicine,
and developing additional molecularly targeted therapies to treat
patients with blood cancers and solid tumors.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  csadler@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867

The Defendants are represented by:

          John F. Sylvia, Esq.
          Matthew D. Levitt, Esq.
          MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, PC
          One Financial Center, 42nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 542-6000
          Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
          E-mail: jfsylvia@mintz.com
                  mdlevitt@mintz.com


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 22
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, and docketed under 13-cv-12544, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of ARIAD between December 12, 2011
and October 8, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased ARIAD securities during the
Class Period, you have until December 9, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
represented that the Company's leukemia drug Iclusig (ponatinib),
based on its clinical data from its pivotal PACE trial of Iclusig,
was safe and effective, without serious adverse events such as
serious arterial thrombotic and cardiovascular events.
Specifically, on December 11, 2011, ARIAD announced preliminary
clinical data from the PACE trial, which purportedly yielded
"strong clinical evidence of the anti-leukemic activity of
ponatinib".  Moreover, the Company touted the "favorable safety
and tolerability profile of ponatinib".  Based upon these
representations, the Company achieved FDA approval for Iclusig on
December 14, 2012.

On October 9, 2013, the Company updated the data from its PACE
trial, revealing that the drug was shown to cause a higher rate of
blood clots and heart-related side effects than previously
disclosed.  Specifically, the Company disclosed that serious
arterial thrombosis occurred in a staggering 11.8% of Iclusig-
treated patients, and that 6.2% of the patients had
cerebrovascular events.  As a result, the FDA placed a hold on new
patient enrollment for Iclusig testing, and the Company advised
patients currently receiving the drug to lower their dosage.  On
this news, ARIAD shares declined $11.31 per share or nearly 66%,
to close at $5.83 per share on October 9, 2013.

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


ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: "Harris" Suit Facing Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered a "civil minutes -
general" in Richard Lee Harris v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals,
L.P., et al, CASE NO. CV 13-7989 FMO (VBKX), (C.D. Cal.), which
provides that:

1. No later than November 21, 2013, plaintiff must show cause in
    writing why this action should not be dismissed. Failure to
    submit a response by the deadline may be deemed as consent to
    the dismissal of the action without prejudice. Defendants may
    submit a response in the same time period.

2. A copy of all papers filed with the court will be delivered to
   the drop box outside chambers at Suite 520, Spring Street
   Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, no later than 12:00 noon
   the following business day. All chambers copies will comply
   fully with the document formatting requirements of Local Rule
   11-3, including the "backing" requirements of Local Rule
   11-3.5.  Counsel may be subject to sanctions for failure to
   deliver a mandatory chambers copy in full compliance with the
   Order and Local Rule 11-3.

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Civil Minutes is
available at http://is.gd/ISXvqvfrom Leagle.com.


BANFIELD PET: Accused of Upselling Unnecessary Services in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Banfield Pet Hospital veterinary chain aggressively upsells
unnecessary services, so the discounts it also offers "evaporate,"
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports, citing federal
class action filed by a pet owner.

Lead plaintiff Gregory Pero sued Medical Management International
dba Banfield Pet Hospital, on behalf of customers served through
Banfield outlets in PetSmart stores nationwide.

PetSmart is not a named party in the complaint, though Pero notes
that the company owns a minority interest in Banfield.

Candy conglomerate Mars -- which makes M&Ms, Twix and Skittles
candies as well as the Pedigree and Whiskas pet food brands --
owns the majority stake, Pero says.

Pero says he "holds these truths to be self-evident: (a) Pet care
providers should be honest about the true costs of their products
and services, and (b) pet care providers should not upsell
unnecessary pet care."

But the pet patriot declares that Banfield does not adhere to
these self-evident truths when it comes to its "Optimum Wellness
Plan," which has more than 1 million pet enrollees.

"Banfield aggressively markets, advertises and sells the plans
that purport to offer deep savings and discounts for preventative
pet care services and related pet care products," Pero says in the
lawsuit.

"Banfield does not provide the promised savings and discounts
under its plan, and Banfield upsells unnecessary pet care to its
clients.  This class action seeks to remedy: (a) Banfield's
deceptive marketing of savings and discounts under the plan, and
(b) Banfield's deceptive and coercive upselling of additional pet
care products and services.  Banfield's conduct violates consumer
protection laws in California and nationwide."

Pero says the plan includes physical exams, vaccines and
diagnostic tests for dogs and cats.  More expensive plans include
higher-level care, but all are tailored to puppies, kittens and
adult dogs and cats.

Banfield's employees push the plans by promising discounts on
other products and services, which are advertised in print and on
the company Web site, but those savings are rarely realized, Pero
claims.

"For at least the past four years, Banfield has misrepresented -
and continues to misrepresent -- the nature and amount of savings
and discounts to be realized through the purchase and use of the
wellness plan," Pero says.  "In this regard, for each plan
Banfield advertises a monthly payment plan that purportedly
entitles clients to minimum savings off of regular costs for
preventative pet care products and services plus fixed discounts
on additional products and services sought by customers.
Banfield, however, simply does not provide the promised savings
and discounts."

He continues: "In particular, under the wellness plan Banfield
promises substantial minimum savings on preventative pet care
(e.g., more than $600 per year savings with the base-level dog
plan, for percentage savings of more than 50 percent versus
regular costs).  Banfield also promises that the customer will
receive an additional discount on other pet care products and
services not covered under the plan (e.g., an additional 10
percent off with the base-level adult dog plan)."  (Parentheses in
complaint.)

Banfield charges a one-time membership fee of $49.95 in addition
to monthly payments that, for an adult dog, come to nearly $32 for
the cheapest plan.  These costs supposedly entitle pet owners to
savings with each visit or monthly, but hide what Pero calls "the
warped service assumptions and inflated pricing scheme on which
the purported savings and discounts are based."

He claims: "Banfield promises that plan customers always get the
services they pay for, and Banfield advertises deep savings at
every visit and during each month the client owns a plan.  In
reality, the savings begin to evaporate when the client does not
need or cannot use one or more of the bundled products or services
under the plan.  Moreover, the advertised savings cannot be
achieved each visit or each month as Banfield effectively
represents.  Rather, the client first would need to use an
uncertain number and variety of Banfield pet care products and
services over the course of an entire plan year.  Meanwhile,
Banfield overstates its regular fees and tacks on miscellaneous
fees and markups, which misrepresents the ultimate savings and
discounts earned by clients."

It all comes down to profits for Banfield, Pero says: that the
company focuses on an average patient charge to boost its bottom
line.

"In an effort to increase the average patient charge, Banfield
uses deceptive and coercive tactics to sell additional pet care
products and services to plan clients," Pero says in the
complaint.  "Among other things, Banfield systematically orders
extra diagnostic tests and medications for plan clients in order
to boost the average patient charge.  These upselling efforts
compel the client to spend money he or she would not have
otherwise spent and wipe out the savings and discounts promised
under the plans."

Pero claims the midlevel plan for his adult dog cost him $479.40
per year, but promised a "minimum annual savings" of $1,008.61.
But he says Banfield does not provide customers with retail price
lists or a breakdown of how it calculates the annual savings.

"In truth, many plan clients save nothing and others save far less
than promised," Pero says in the class action.  "The savings
depend on Banfield providing bundled pet care products and
services over the course of an entire plan year.  However,
Banfield does not actually provide all of the bundled products and
services to plan clients and/or the clients do not need all the
products and services, and as a result the purported savings
evaporate.  Importantly, if the client cancels during the plan
year any savings may be wiped out, leaving the client with little
more than a history of overpayments.  The advertised minimum
annual savings also ignore the costs of unnecessary pet care
products and services upsold to clients, as well as bogus
'hospitalization' and 'professional service' fees that Banfield
assesses on top of other charges for services supposedly
rendered."

Pero says his pets have never been injured or harmed during their
visits to Banfield's clinic.  But he says that if he'd known about
the true costs of his pets' care, he never would have signed up
for wellness plans.

The company also routinely inflates medication costs and tacks
fees onto lab tests, further overstating the plans' benefits,
according to Pero.

"Furthermore, when a client wants to cancel during the plan year,
Banfield may retroactively impose its full retail fees to date or
assess a full year's worth of plan payments," the complaint
states.  "The harsh cancellation provisions -- which apply even
when a pet dies during the plan year -- tend to wipe out the
advertised savings.  The cancellation provisions are doubly
problematic insofar as Banfield overstates the retail fees
incurred at the outset of the relationship, a fact which further
locks clients into ongoing commitments."

Pero seeks class certification and damages unfair business
practices, consumer law violations, fraud and intentional
misrepresentation.  He also wants Banfield barred from promoting
its wellness plans, restitution, and declaratory judgment that
customers may cancel their plans without penalty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Gordon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          301 North Lake Ave., Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: lee@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

The case is Gregory Pero v. Medical Management International,
Inc., dba Banfield Pet Hospital, Case No. SACV13-01749-JLS (ANx),
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


BLUE DIAMOND: Accused of Misrepresenting Almond Milk Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Diamond Growers misrepresents its almond milk products as
"all natural," a class action claims in California Federal Court,
according to Courthouse News Service.


CALIFORNIA: Plaintiffs Win Favorable Ruling in Suit vs. CDFW
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donna M. Ryu entered final judgment in favor of
plaintiffs and the class in the case captioned KEVIN MARILLEY;
SALVATORE; PAPETTI; SAVIOR PAPETTI, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLTON H. BONHAM, in his
official capacity, Defendant, CASE NO. 11-2418 (DMR), (N.D. Cal.).

Final judgment is entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b) against Defendant Charlton H. Bonham, in his
official capacity as Director of the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife, and in favor of Plaintiffs on Count I of Plaintiffs'
Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint, alleging violations of the
Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV of the United States
Constitution, ruled Judge Ryu.

The Court declared the differential fees for commercial fishing
licenses (California Fish and Game Code Section 7852), commercial
boat registrations (California Fish and Game Code Section 7881),
Dungeness crab vessel permits (California Fish and Game Code
Section 8280.6), and herring gill net permits (California Fish and
Game Code Section 8550.5), which vary based on residency and which
are enforced by Defendant Charlton H. Bonham, in his official
capacity as Director of the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV
of the United States Constitution.

Defendant Charlton H. Bonham, in his official capacity as Director
of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, is enjoined and
restrained from enforcing California Fish & Game Code Sections
7852, 7881, 8280.6, 8550.5 to the extent that such provisions
require nonresidents of California to pay a higher fee than
residents of California for the commercial fishing licenses
specified in Section 7852, commercial boat registrations specified
in Section 7881, Dungeness crab vessel permits specified in
Section 8280.6, and herring gill net permits specified in Section
8550.5, Judge Ryu concluded.

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Judgment is
available at http://is.gd/lrjTQWfrom Leagle.com.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Removes "Byrd" Class Suit to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Byrd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., a Florida corporation;
and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 37-2013-00063078-CU-MC-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., August 15, 2013) is brought on
behalf of a class of persons in California, whose telephone
conversations with the Defendants were intentionally recorded
without disclosure by the Defendants.

Caribbean Cruise removed the lawsuit on October 17, 2013, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San Diego, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the value of the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million in the
aggregate.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:13-cv-
02503-L-RBB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Maxwell Overholt, Esq.
          HIDEN ROTT AND OERTLE
          2635 Camino del Rio South, Suite 306
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 296-5884
          Facsimile: (619) 296-5171
          E-mail: eoverholt@hrollp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Darren Brian Landie, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DARREN LANDIE
          2600 Walnut Avenue, Suite E
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 544-3291
          Facsimile: (714) 544-2736
          E-mail: darren@landielaw.com


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Must Provide Info in "Prindle" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
TWYLA PRINDLE, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-1349-J-34PDB, (M.D. Fla.),
is before the court sua sponte.

On November 1, 2013, Carrington Mortgage filed its Notice of
Removal, removing this case from the Circuit Court of the Fourth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida.  Carrington
Mortgage asserted that the District Court has jurisdiction over
the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(a) and 1441.
Specifically, Carrington Mortgage alleged that the Court has
diversity jurisdiction over the action because Plaintiff, Twyla
Prindle, is a citizen of Florida, while all members of Carrington
Mortgage are citizens of Delaware and California.  Carrington
Mortgage Services bases its citizenship allegation on the fact it
is a Delaware limited liability company wholly owned by Carrington
Mortgage Holdings, LLC, which is, in turn, a Delaware limited
liability company owned by Carrington Holding Company, LLC, and
Darren Fulco, individually.  According to the Defendant,
Carrington Holding Company is a Delaware limited liability
company, and Darren Fulco is a citizen of California.  However,
because the Defendant has failed to identify the citizenship of
Carrington Holding Company's members, the Court determined that
Carrington Mortgage Services's citizenship is not properly alleged
in the Notice.  Therefore, the Court's subject matter jurisdiction
over the action is not established.

District Judge Marcia Morales Howard said she will give Carrington
Mortgage an opportunity to identify Carrington Holding Company's
citizenship, and that the Court may properly exercise jurisdiction
over the instant action. The Court directed Carrington Mortgage
Services to provide adequate allegations regarding Carrington
Holding Company's citizenship as a limited liability company.
Additionally, the Court directed Carrington Mortgage Services to
address the propriety of jurisdiction in light of the fact that
Plaintiff has pled this case individually and on behalf of a class
of persons alleged to be similarly situated.

"Defendant shall have until December 2, 2013, to provide the Court
with sufficient information so that it can determine whether it
has diversity jurisdiction over this action," Judge Howard
concluded.

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Amended Order is
available at http://is.gd/zlFWEUfrom Leagle.com.


CHICAGO SOCCER: Fails to Pay OT for Time Above 40 Hrs., Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Jimenez, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Chicago Soccer, Inc., Imre Hidvegi, and Edgar Alvarez,
Case No. 1:13-cv-07462 (N.D. Ill., October 17, 2013) alleges that
the Plaintiff and all proposed class members were subjected to an
illegal pay plan and were not paid overtime for time worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Chicago Soccer, Inc. is a retail company specializing in soccer
jerseys and official soccer products.  The Individual Defendants
are owners and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul Ely Starkman, Esq.
          Charles M. Gering, Esq.
          PEDERSEN & HOUPT, P.C.
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601-3224
          Telephone: (312) 261-2173
          Facsimile: (312) 261-1165
          E-mail: pestarkman@pedersenhoupt.com
                  cgering@pedersenhoupt.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Offers Eye Exams in Single Location, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Costco violates California
law by offering eye exams and prescription glasses in a single
retail location, a class action claims in the California Superior
Court for San Diego County.


DFC GLOBAL: Kessler Topaz Corrects Nov. 20 Release on Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued on Nov. 20 by the law firm of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:

                        Corrected Release

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of DFC
Global Corp., between January 28, 2011 and August 22, 2013,
inclusive.  If you are a member of this class, you may view a copy
of the Complaint or join this class action online at
http://www.ktmc.com/cases

DFC Global is a non-bank provider of alternative financial
services such as payday loans and secured pawn loans.  The
Company's primary customers are "unbanked" and "under-banked"
consumers that have difficulty paying their bills each month, and
as a result, seek out short-term loans to make ends meet.  DFC
Global earns approximately 65% of its revenue from offering
unsecured loans to these types of customers, a substantial portion
of which is from customers that rollover or refinance their loans
in perpetuity and pay only the finance charges.  The United
Kingdom requires payday lenders such as DFC Global to comply with
extensive regulations pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act of 1974
and the Office of Fair Trading's guidance on irresponsible lending
to ensure that customers -- which are among the most vulnerable
consumers in the U.K. -- are able to repay their loans without
undue hardship.  In addition, the U.K.'s Consumer Finance
Association, of which DFC Global is a charter member, prohibits
some of the payday lending industry's most egregious practices,
such as the rolling over of customers' loans more than three
times.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, DFC
Global misrepresented to investors that it complied with
government regulations and guidance with regard to irresponsible
lending practices, and that the Company made "prudent,"
"conservative," and "responsible" underwriting decisions when
making loans.  Additionally, the Complaint charges the defendants
with knowingly misrepresenting DFC Global's loss rates for loans,
and issuing false earnings guidance of between $2.35 and $2.55 per
diluted share for its 2013 fiscal year.

More specifically, the Complaint charges DFC Global and certain of
its executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) DFC
Global systematically issued high-fee predatory loans to consumers
that had no reasonable means to be repaid; (2) the Company
continuously rolled over or refinanced its loans in order to delay
or avoid defaults; (3) DFC Global failed to conduct adequate
affordability assessments on its customers; (4) DFC Global
understated its loan loss rates; (5) the Company's earnings
guidance for its 2013 fiscal year was inflated because it was
dependent upon the Company's improper lending practices; and (6)
as a result of DFC Global's irresponsible lending, the Company
failed to comply with industry regulations and guidance.

On March 6, 2013, the OFT announced the results of an
investigation that it was conducting on the entire payday lending
industry.  The OFT reported that it uncovered "deep rooted"
evidence of "widespread irresponsible lending" by the leading 50
payday lenders "and failure to comply with the standards required
of them."  These problems pervaded the entire payday lending
sector, including lenders that were members of the CFA and other
leading trade associations, and ran across the entire payday
lending process.  One particular area of non-compliance included
"lenders failing to conduct adequate assessments of affordability
before lending or before rolling over loans," in violation of
regulations and guidance.  Accordingly, the OFT required the
inspected lenders, including DFC Global, to substantially revise
their lending practices and become fully compliant within three
months or risk losing their license.

Raising concerns that DFC Global's lending practices were no
exception to the OFT's findings, on April 1, 2013, the Company
preannounced results for its third quarter of 2013 that were
seriously impacted by poor loan performance.  Specifically, during
the earnings conference call, the Company announced that the CFA
rollover limit caused a significant number of DFC Global's
outstanding loans in the U.K. to become immediately due and
default because they could not be repaid.  According to DFC
Global, the Company as a whole experienced a loss rate of above
25%, and a loss rate of approximately 35% in the U.K.  Because of
the spiking loss rates, the Company also slashed its fiscal year
2013 diluted operating earnings per share guidance from $2.35  --
$2.45 per share to $1.70  --  $1.80 per share.  On this news, the
price of the Company's stock declined $3.60 per share, or nearly
22%, to close at $13.04 per share on April 1, 2013, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

However, DFC Global continued to assure investors regarding its
conservative underwriting criteria, and that it had taken
additional steps to tighten those standards.  The Company also
falsely assured investors that it was in compliance with
government guidelines and that any outstanding issues with regard
to DFC Global's compliance would be resolved without significant
business interruption.

Then, on August 22, 2013, DFC Global announced earnings for its
fourth quarter of 2013 during which it again reported soaring loan
defaults in the U.K. with the Company's loan loss provision
increasing to 25.7%.  Additionally, DFC Global disclosed that it
expected to incur a recurring $10  --  $15 million of expenses for
regulatory, legal, audit, and compliance-related costs relating to
its payday lending program.  DFC Global's losses in the U.K. were
so severe that the Company was unable to provide earnings per
share guidance for fiscal 2014.  On this news, the price of the
Company's stock declined an additional $4.59 per share, or almost
29%, to close at $11.31 per share on August 23, 2013, again on
unusually heavy trading volume.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
(Darren J. Check, Esq. or D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) toll free at
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com
For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the
class action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/cases

Members of the class may, no later than January 21, 2014, move the
Court to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that
the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any
member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts
throughout the country.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com --
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government
and share in the recovery of government dollars).


ELECTROLUX HOME: Sued Over Mold/Mildew Growth in Washing Machines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Fleming, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-
05723-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y., October 17, 2013) seeks to remedy the
alleged violations of applicable law in connection with
Electrolux's design, marketing, warranting and servicing of its
Frigidaire model Affinity Front Loading Washing Machines.

The Washing Machines contain a design defect that causes them to,
among other things, accumulate mold, mildew and residue growth
within the Washing Machines, Ms. Fleming alleges.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Georgia.  Electrolux markets and sells Frigidaire
brand products, including Washing Machines, throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: richard@complexlitgroup.com
                  jamie@complexlitgroup.com


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that a
Tennessee federal judge on Nov. 22 granted final approval to a
$21.5 million settlement to be paid by Federal Express Corp. in a
class action accusing it of charging customers more than $5
million in bogus residential delivery surcharges for packages sent
to businesses and government buildings.

In July, FedEx agreed to pay the settlement, which includes $16.5
million in cash and injunctive relief valued at approximately $5
million.  The suit accused the shipping giant of committing mail
and wire fraud and breaching its contract with customers by
charging more than $5 million in bogus surcharges.

U.S. District Judge John T. Fowlkes Jr. on Nov. 22 granted the
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, overruled
all objections associated with the deal, and certified a class for
settlement purposes.  Judge Fowlkes found that the settlement was
fair, reasonable and adequate after an analysis of the risk of
fraud, the complexity of the litigation, and other factors,
according to the Nov. 22 order.

Steven J. Rosenwasser -- rosenwasser@bmelaw.com -- of Bondurant
Mixson & Elmore LLP, counsel to the plaintiffs, hailed the end of
the extended litigation.

"We are pleased that after years of litigation, we were able to
obtain a settlement that not only contains monetary relief, but
also ends the practices that we challenged," Mr. Rosenwasser told
Law360 on Nov. 22.

The class covers all persons who -- from Feb. 18, 2010, until the
resolution of the class action -- bought FedEx Express package
delivery services in the U.S. and were subjected to the
surcharges.

Manjunath A. Gokare PC, a Georgia law firm that focuses on
immigration law, sued FedEx in February 2011.  The firm said it
discovered the fraud after a package it sent to an immigration
services processing center in Vermont was slapped with a $2.50
residential surcharge and a second delivery-area fee for the same
amount.

The firm alleged that FedEx Express, which offers express package
delivery services in the U.S., breached its contract with domestic
customers by claiming that it only applied a $2.75 surcharge for
deliveries to homes or private residences.  In fact, the company
applied the per-package fees on deliveries to government offices,
commercial office towers and other nonresidential buildings,
according to the class action.

The fraud suit further alleged that FedEx applied a second fee for
shipments sent to U.S. ZIP codes that FedEx Express deemed more
costly and inconvenient to service.  The delivery-area rates were
allegedly $2.75 for packages to residences and $1.85 to commercial
locations for regular delivery, as well as $3 and $1.85 for
respective extended delivery services.

FedEx applied both the residential delivery charge and the
delivery-area charge to packages sent to nonresidential
destinations, the suit said.  Mr. Gokare said FedEx refused to
correct any billing errors with this and subsequent transactions.

The suit also claimed that FedEx Express' database, which "is
riddled with errors," incorrectly identifies government offices
and other buildings as residences.  Meanwhile, company personnel
who knew the buildings weren't residences carried out the charges
anyway, plaintiffs alleged.

The suit alleged that the shipping giant violated the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and breached
its contract with customers by intentionally applying the charges
to locations that couriers knew were nonresidences.

An amended version of the complaint added the RICO allegation and
new plaintiff Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen & Dardarian PC, an
Oakland civil rights law firm that claimed similar fraud over the
delivery of documents to federal and state courthouses.

FedEx said on Nov. 22 that it built its reputation on award-
winning customer service.

"We highly value our relationships with our customers, and these
relationships are at the core of all we do," FedEx spokesman
Ben Hunt told Law360.  "We agreed to settle this matter to avoid
the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation."

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey O. Bramlett --
bramlett@bmelaw.com -- Steven J. Rosenwasser, Joshua F. Thorpe --
thorpe@bmelaw.com -- Robert L. Ashe III -- ashe@bmelaw.com --
Naveen Ramachandrappa -- ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com -- and Manoj S.
Varghese -- varghese@bmelaw.com -- of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
LLP; Frank L. Watson and William F. Burns of Watson Burns PLLC;
and Salu Kunnatha -- skk@kunnathalaw.com -- of Kunnatha Law Firm
PC.

FedEx is represented by in-house counsel.

The case is Manjunath A. Gokare PC et al. v. Federal Express Corp.
et al., case number 2:11-cv-02131, in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division.

According to the settlement web site --
http://www.noticeclass.com/GokareSettlement-- there's a Dec. 9
deadline for returning Proof of Claim.


FERMI NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss GINA Violation Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
CARRIE WILLIAMSON, f/k/a Carrie Holzgrafe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FERMI
NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY, c/k/a Fermilab, Defendant, NO.
13 C 4221, (N.D. Ill.) asserts violation of the Genetic
Information Nondisclosure Act of 2008 (GINA), via 42 U.S.C.
Section 1981, when Fermilab required all employees to submit to a
physical exam and questionnaire that included questions about
family medical history.  Ms. Williamson also alleges, for herself
only, that Fermilab unlawfully discharged her from her position as
administrative assistant in violation of Title I of the Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

Fermilab moved to dismiss the class action portion of Count I of
Ms. Williamson's Complaint on grounds that Ms. Williamson did not
exhaust administrative remedies because her charge allegations
filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
did not contain and are not reasonably related to allegations of
class-wide discrimination. In the alternative, Fermilab argued
that the Court should limit the class period to the period
beginning December 3, 2011, 300 days before the EEOC issued its
determination letter dated September 28, 2012.

District Judge Virginia M. Kendall denied Fermilab's motion to
dismiss the class allegations saying it is not appropriate to
dispose of Ms. Williamson's class claims at the motion to dismiss
phase when it is clear from the Determination Letter that the EEOC
discovered facts that it believed supported findings of class
discrimination while conducting its investigation into Ms.
Williamson's charge.  "It is clear from the Determination Letter
that, after Ms. Williamson filed her initial charge, the EEOC
found something indicating class-wide discrimination, and the
Letter provided adequate notice to Fermilab of the existence of a
potential class," the judge said.

Fermilab may raise its alternative argument regarding the date for
commencement of the 300-day window in response to any motion for
class certification, Judge Kendall added.

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/xL0AY0from Leagle.com.


FLINT, MI: Court Narrows Claims in "Borman" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul D. Borman granted, in part, and denied, in
part, a motion to partially dismiss claims asserted in the class
action captioned ROBERT GARCEAU, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF
FLINT, ET AL., Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-15513, (E.D. Mich.).

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim of
"Harassment and/or Retaliation based upon race in violation of
Equal Protection rights asserted by Plaintiffs Dickenson II, Howe,
Garceau and Wooster." The Plaintiffs base this "race retaliation"
claim on both 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Section 1981.  The
Defendants further argued that the Plaintiffs have failed to set
forth a valid claim against the City of Flint.

The Plaintiffs have alleged that the City of Flint "has a pattern
and practice, and past historical policy," of discriminating in
favor of African-American/black employees and discriminating
against Caucasian/white employees.

Judge Borman held that the Plaintiff is seeking to assert this
claim of "Harassment and/or Retaliation" only under Section 1981
which does not provide a private cause of action. For this reason,
the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claim of 'race retaliation' under
Section 1981.

With respect the discrimination issue, Judge Borman found that the
Plaintiffs have supplied some factual content to their legal
claims, and the Court can make a plausible inference of
wrongdoing.  Accordingly, the Court denied the Defendants' request
to dismiss these claims.

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/9gmuFwfrom Leagle.com.


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs Request Warning on Acceleration Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs attorneys have asked a judge to force Ford Motor
Co. to instruct customers about what to do if their cars begin to
accelerate on their own.

The request for a preliminary injunction came on Nov. 18 and
followed Ford's motion to dismiss a group of consumer class
actions alleging that sudden acceleration defects in 35 models,
including the Explorer and Taurus, caused the value of its
vehicles to decline.

The plaintiffs claim that Ford, despite receiving hundreds of
reports of sudden acceleration since 2002, failed to install a
brake override system in its North American vehicles until 2010,
leaving drivers in an "unreasonably dangerous" situation during
that interim.

The complaints came soon after Toyota Motor Corp. agreed in
December to pay more than $1.6 billion in cash and other costs to
resolve similar claims.  In the Ford litigation, U.S. Chief
District Judge Robert Chambers of the Southern District of West
Virginia consolidated three separate nationwide class actions that
were filed by the same plaintiffs attorneys on behalf of millions
of consumers in 30 states.

In a June 27 motion to dismiss, Ford attorney Michael Bonasso --
mbonasso@fsblaw.com -- a member of Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso in
Charleston, W.Va., wrote that the absence of a brake override
system wasn't a defect.  He added that the plaintiffs have failed
to allege a specific injury or alternative defect.  Mr. Bonasso
did not return a call for comment.

Plaintiffs attorney Niall Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- wrote
that Ford "grasps at straws" in its motion.

"Ford's principal argument -- that Plaintiffs have spun their
factual and legal theories out of thin air -- is belied by
thousands of consumer reports that illustrate the hazards these
vehicles present to their drivers, their passengers, other
motorists, and pedestrians," Mr. Paul, of Spilman Thomas & Battle
in Charleston, W.Va., wrote in a Sept. 20 response.

Ford also has moved to strike allegations that are "immaterial,
impertinent and scandalous" -- specifically, that Ford misled the
U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the 1970s
and 1980s regarding sudden acceleration.

On Nov. 18, plaintiffs attorneys filed their motion for a
preliminary injunction requiring a safety warning for Ford
consumers.

"We believe that the sudden acceleration situations that occur,
and they occur a lot with Ford, pose very serious safety risks
both to drivers in the car as well as others on the road," said
plaintiffs attorney Adam Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- director
of Grant & Eisenhofer. "As we allege in our lawsuit, the absence
of reasonable fail safe systems, in these cars, causes the
problems to be ongoing."

Messrs. Levitt, Paul and three other attorneys -- Mark DiCello --
madicello@dicellolaw.com -- of The DiCello Law Firm in Mentor,
Ohio; Timothy Bailey of Charleston's Bucci, Bailey & Javins; and
Stephen Gorny -- steve@bflawfirm.com -- of Bartimus, Frickleton,
Robertson & Gorny in Leawood, Kan. -- asked to be appointed
interim co-lead counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs in the
consolidated actions.

Ford has called the appointment of lead plaintiffs' counsel
premature.  In an Aug. 8 court filing, Mr. Bonasso also wrote that
"a committee of five law firms -- while clearly the Plaintiffs'
first choice -- represents more of a political compromise than an
attempt at true efficiency and cost-cutting."


GEORGIA: PUSH Coalition Challenges "Stand Your Ground" Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that the Rainbow
PUSH Coalition sued Georgia's governor and attorney general,
claiming the state's "Stand Your Ground" law "created a perfect
storm for arbitrary killings with no recourse," and discriminates
against minorities.

Three individuals joined the Coalition as plaintiffs:

   (1) the parents of the late James Johnson III, a black man who
       was shot to death by a white man carrying a concealed gun,
       in a dispute involving Johnson's white girlfriend.  The
       killer, Adam Lee Edmondson, invoked the "stand your
       ground" law and the jury found him not guilty of murder,
       according to the lawsuit; and

   (2) Herman Smith, a black man who killed another black man,
       allegedly in self-defense, but was convicted of felony
       murder despite invoking the "stand your ground" law, and
       was sentenced to life plus 10 years in prison.

Named as defendants are Gov. Nathan Deal and Attorney General
Samuel Olens.

Georgia's Senate Bill 396 took effect on July 1, 2006, after then-
Gov. Sonny Perdue signed it in April that year.  It allows
Georgians to use deadly force to defend themselves, other persons
or property based on a "reasonable belief" that such force is
necessary to prevent death, bodily injury or a forcible felony.

Previously, Georgia allowed only "victims of a crime" to use
deadly force.

The Rainbow PUSH Coalition claims SB 396 created "an expansive and
overly broad right to self-defense" and is being enforced
arbitrarily with racial and social bias.

"If allowed to continue in effect, SB 396 will significantly harm
Georgians, and particularly Georgians of color, for at least three
reasons, the lawsuit states:

"First, SB 396 has and will subject Georgians to uneven and
arbitrary application of the law.  All Georgians, and particularly
those of color, will be compelled to at all times prove that they
are not taking part in any action which may lead an individual to
form a 'reasonable belief' that they are posing a threat to them.
Actions which individuals have claimed caused them to form a
'reasonable belief' have included playing loud music in a vehicle,
pulling into the wrong driveway or, in another state, walking home
with a bag of Skittles and ice tea.  This is because SB 396 makes
individuals who are perceived by society to be predisposed to
violence presumptively a threat and therefore require a lower
level of justification to use deadly force against.  This law
incorporates these societal prejudices and predispositions into
Georgia criminal procedures.

"Second, SB 396 will cause countless Georgians -- specifically
Georgians of color -- to be erroneously deprived of the benefits
of the Stand Your Ground law.  These same societal presumptions
have prevented many Georgians from availing themselves of this
defense.  Simply put, it is highly unlikely that an average 25-
year-old African American male will be able to invoke the defense
that he held a 'reasonable belief' that an 80-year-old unarmed
white female posed a threat to him and justified the use of deadly
force against her.

"Criminal laws are not supposed to make distinctions between
individuals based on their race, sex, age or other factors.  There
cannot be one speed limit for young black males and a different
speed limit for older white females.  Similarly, there cannot be a
divergent Stand Your Ground standard for individuals based on the
same.  These deprivations will force individuals to risk felonious
assault or death out of fear that invoking Stand Your Ground will
result in prosecution.

"Third, SB 396 interferes with the core doctrine of self-defense
as a defense of last resort.  Instead, Stand Your Ground allows an
individual the shoot first as a preventative measure.  By
eliminating the duty to retreat and using the 'reasonable belief'
standard, Georgia has created a perfect storm for arbitrary
killings with no recourse and a lack of faith in the law within
the people of Georgia."

The coalition claims the law allows people to use deadly force
with little or no provocation, and transforms police officers into
judges and juries who must determine whether to arrest those who
claims a stand-your-ground defense.

The Rainbow PUSH Coalition, formed in 1996 through the merging of
two organizations the Rev. Jesse Jackson founded, claims the law
affects it by forcing it to divert resources from its usual
activities.

The plaintiffs claim the law is unconstitutionally vague because
it does not define what actions or circumstances constitute
"reasonable" fear justifying use of deadly force.

What's more, the plaintiffs say, people facing circumstances where
deadly force may be needed find out if their use of force was
legal only afterward.

"Section 1 effectively requires all persons in Georgia to 'guess'
if the action which they are taking will fall within what others
believe to be reasonable," the complaint states.  "It is beyond
question that we would not require individuals to guess the speed
limit.  There is no law which says individuals are allowed to go
the speed which they 'reasonably believe' is correct and prudent.
But in a far more serious context we are leaving the lives of
Georgians up to chance."

The coalition claims the law creates a second class of citizens in
Georgia by denying most felons the right to use a gun to defend
themselves and their families.

Stand-your-ground forbids people who are barred from possessing
weapons to use a gun for self-defense.

The plaintiffs seek to represent all Georgians who may be
prosecuted despite invoking stand-your-ground, based on their race
or national origin, or who will be killed by people invoking self-
defense under the law.

They seek class certification and want the law enjoined as
unconstitutional.

Asked for comment, a spokeswoman for Gov. Deal said it was "a
matter for the attorney general's office."

Attorney General Olens' Office declined to comment Wednesday,
November 6, 2013.

Stand-your-ground laws, which exist in more than 20 states, came
under fire after the 2012 death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla.
George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch guard who shot Martin to
death, was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter
under Florida's stand-your-ground law.

Though the Atlanta lawsuit cites Martin's case, lead attorney
Patillo said the Rainbow PUSH Coalition began preparing its
challenge before his death.

Patillo told Reuters he believed the coalition's legal challenge
was the only pending federal lawsuit in the country against a
state stand-your-ground law.

Trayvon Martin's mother has urged a U.S. Senate panel to help
rescind stand-your-ground laws in the states that have passed
them, starting with Florida in 2005.  The laws go a step further
from the so-called "castle doctrine," by removing requirements to
retreat from danger outside one's home.

"The person that shot and killed my son is walking the streets
today, and this law does not work" Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton
told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert H. Patillo, II, Esq.
          THE PATILLO LAW GROUP, LLC
          250 Auburn Ave., Suite 301
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 590-5294
          Facsimile: (404) 525-5233
          E-mail: rpatillo@robertpatillo.com

               - and -

          Janice L. Mathis, Esq.
          THE RAINBOW PUSH COALITION
          250 Auburn Ave., Suite 303
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 525-56634
          E-mail: janicelmathis@yahoo.com

The case is Rainbow Push Coalition, et al. v. Nathan Deal, et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-03635-JEC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.


GMAC MORTGAGE: Seeks Appeal in GMAC Kickback Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360,
report that Balboa Insurance Co. on Nov. 21 asked a New York
federal judge to let it appeal her ruling barring its argument
that government-approved premiums are unassailable in a class
action alleging it paid GMAC Mortgage LLC kickbacks for
force-placing policies, saying the matter is too important to
await a final judgment.

U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan in September upheld a
racketeering class action targeting kickbacks Balboa allegedly
paid to GMAC for force-placing hazard insurance policies, saying
the lender may have gouged borrowers when demanding reimbursement
for coverage, and rejected the company's "filed-rate doctrine"
defense.

Balboa's filed rates were approved for policies sold to loan
servicers and lenders, while the plaintiffs purportedly reimbursed
GMAC for force-placed coverage as required by their mortgage loan
agreements, according to the order, a crucial distinction that the
judge said spoiled the filed-rate defense.

"The filed rate doctrine issue presented by this case is precisely
the type of issue suitable for interlocutory review," Balboa said
in a joint motion filed with fellow defendants Meritplan Insurance
Co. and Newport Management Corp.

According to Balboa, whether the filed rate doctrine applies and
bars Plaintiffs' claims is a "controlling question of law," and if
the Second Circuit were to reverse Judge Nathan's ruling and hold
that the filed rate doctrine applies, all of the plaintiffs'
claims would be subject to dismissal.

"Indeed, where courts have applied the doctrine, including in
cases similar to this one involving challenges to lender-placed
insurance, courts have dismissed complaints with prejudice," the
motion said.

It also said there are disagreements in the federal courts over
whether the filed rate doctrine operates to bar claims by
borrowers that challenge the cost of their LPI premiums.  Balboa
said that in a recently issued decision, a different New York
federal judge held that the filed rate doctrine barred a
homeowner's claims that he was overcharged for lender-placed
insurance, and a federal district court in Wisconsin reached the
same conclusion a few weeks ago.

"Moreover, neither the Second Circuit nor any other federal
circuit court of appeals has yet weighed in on the precise issue
that was the basis for this court's opinion that the filed rate
doctrine did not apply: namely, whether the doctrine bars
challenges by borrowers to the LPI premiums passed on to them by
their mortgage servicers," the motion said.

Balboa also said federal and state regulators have taken actions
concerning the LPI premiums paid by borrowers, indicating that the
proper venue for borrower complaints about their LPI premiums is
with those regulators, not the federal courts.

And the company argued that an immediate appeal opinion may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

"In addition, although the Balboa defendants do not seek a stay of
discovery pending the outcome of any interlocutory appeal, prompt
appellate review also would preserve time and resources for the
parties and the court in likely avoiding some discovery,
substantial, additional motion practice, and any trial," the
motion said.

The putative class of homeowners allege GMAC broke federal
racketeering laws by billing for the full cost of force-placed
insurance policies it purchased despite secretly receiving
mortgage tracking services from a Balboa affiliate for free, which
constituted a kickback from the insurer.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mark A. Strauss --
mstrauss@kmllp.com -- and J. Brandon Walker -- bwalker@kmllp.com
-- of Kirby McInerney LLP.

The insurers are represented by Ross E. Morrison --
rmorrison@buckleysandler.com -- Robyn C. Quattrone --
rquattrone@buckleysandler.com -- and Katherine L. Halliday --
khalliday@buckleysandler.com -- of BuckleySandler LLP.

The case is Rothstein v. GMAC Mortgage LLC et al., case number
1:12-cv-03412, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


GOOGLE INC: Settles Class Action Over Safari for $17 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that a $17 million settlement has
reportedly been reached in an Internet privacy class action
lawsuit pending against Google Inc.  The lawsuit concerns
allegations that Google and another three online companies
circumvented default privacy settings on Apple's Safari web
browser, for the purposes of placing tracking cookies without
consumers' knowledge. "Consumers should be able to know whether
there are other eyes surfing the web with them," New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman said.

As part of the agreement Google has not admitted to any wrongdoing
and stressed that they had "taken steps to remove the ad cookies,
which collected no personal information from Apple's browsers."
Other terms of the settlement reportedly stipulate that Google
honor default privacy settings on web browsers.  Google will also
"provide a separate stand-alone page or pages on the Google.com
domain designed to give information to users about Cookies (the
"Cookie Page)."

"Google shall maintain systems configured to instruct Safari brand
web browsers to expire any Cookie placed from the doubleclick.net
domain by Google through Feb. 15, 2012 if those systems encounter
such a Cookie, with the exception of the DoubleClick opt-out
Cookie.  Such systems shall remain in place until Feb. 15, 2014,
at which time all Cookies placed from the doubleclick.net domain
by Google on Safari brand web Browsers through Feb. 15, 2012
should have expired by design," the settlement states.

The $17 million settlement fund is set to be split among each of
the Attorneys General who filed against Google, in amount yet to
be designated.  The states are listed as beneficiaries of the
settlement are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, and District of
Columbia.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Misrepresents Dream Drink Products, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Anderson is suing The Hain Celestial Group Inc. because it
allegedly misrepresented its Dream drinks as "all natural" even
though the products contain artificial ingredients.

Barbara Anderson v. The Hain Celestial Group Inc. and Does, Case
No. 8:2013cv01747, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana Division.


ILLINOIS: Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Suit vs. Governor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Wilson, sheriff of Franklin County, Illinois, and Michael
Huff, sheriff of Rock Island, Illinois, filed an action in the
circuit court of Franklin County against Patrick Quinn, Governor
of the State of Illinois, seeking a judgment declaring that the
failure of the Governor to authorize full payment of a statutorily
mandated annual stipend in 2010 was contrary to the law and the
constitution of Illinois.  The trial court dismissed the action,
finding that it was barred under the State Lawsuit Immunity Act
(745 ILCS 5/1 (West 2010)). On appeal, the Plaintiffs assert that
the trial court erred in finding that the action was barred by
sovereign immunity because their claim was brought against the
Governor, not the State of Illinois, and because the suit was
brought to obtain declaratory relief, and not to enforce a present
claim to remedy a past wrong committed by the State.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, agreed with the
Plaintiffs, reversed the trial court ruling, and remanded the case
for further proceedings.

The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court erred in
granting the Governor's motion to dismiss as the factual
allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint are sufficient to
establish jurisdiction in the circuit court under the "officer
suit" exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity and to
support the remedy of mandamus.

On remand, the trial court is instructed to allow the plaintiffs
the opportunity to amend their complaint to plead their alleged
causes of action, including the remedy of mandamus.

The case is GEORGE WILSON, Sheriff of Franklin County, Illinois,
and MICHAEL HUFF, Sheriff of Rock Island County, Illinois, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PATRICK QUINN, Governor of the State of
Illinois, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 5-12-0337.

A copy of the Appellate Court's November 7, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/6bzHsofrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Appellant:

   Thomas F. McGuire, Esq.
   Jolanta A. Zinevich, Esq.
   THOMAS MCGUIRE AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
   4180 RFD, Route 83, Suite 206
   Long Grove, IL 60047
   Telephone: (847) 634-1727
   Facsimile: (847) 634-4785

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor
General, John P. Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General, 100 West
Randolph Street, 12th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Attorneys for
Appellee.


ING GROEP: 2nd Cir. Refuses to Revive Subprime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Ian Thoms, writing for Law360, report that the
Second Circuit on Nov. 22 refused to revive a shareholder class
action accusing ING Groep NV of illegally hiding its risky
mortgage-backed securities, ruling that the expiration of a
statute of limitations prevented the plaintiffs from bringing
their claims.

Affirming a lower court ruling, the appeals court said the Dutch
banking company disclosed information related to its troubled
investments in September 2007, starting the clock on a limitations
period that expired by the time the plaintiffs filed suit in
February 2009.

The plaintiffs, a group of ING investors who suffered heavy losses
when the U.S. housing market tanked, had accused ING of deceiving
investors when issuing its 6.375 percent ING Perpetual Hybrid
Capital Securities in June 2007.

But the appeals court said "a reasonably diligent plaintiff" would
have sued over ING's alleged misstatements and omissions sooner.

ING and its underwriters, including UBS, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. and Merrill Lynch, hid their instability by downplaying their
dependence on collateralized debt obligations and subprime loan
securities, the plaintiffs claimed.

The plaintiffs argued ING had the same duty to disclose its
dependence on collateralized debt obligations and subprime loan
securities.

ING countered that it wasn't the original issuer of the mortgage-
backed securities, only the purchaser, and that it didn't know how
risky the securities were.

In September 2010, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed most of the
plaintiffs' claims, retaining only one claim regarding ING's
omission of risk information.

Judge Kaplan decided the plaintiffs had only alleged that ING
should have known that the mortgage-backed securities were risky,
not that the company knew they were. The claims thus alleged
negligence, not fraud, according to the judge

Judge Kaplan later reconsidered his decision after the Second
Circuit's February ruling in Litwin et al. v. Blackstone Group LP
-- which held that the investment firm had a duty to disclose
information related to its troubled investments -- but determined
it couldn't rescue plaintiffs' claims.

After dismissing most of the claims in the suit, Judge Kaplan
later denied class certification and, ultimately, the entire case.

In affirming the judge's decision, the three-judge panel agreed
that the plaintiffs hadn't alleged ING acted with the knowledge
that its statements were false or misleading.

The Second Circuit decided that the crux of the class action with
respect to its liability claims was that ING's September 2007
statement that the company considered the mortgage-backed
securities to be of relatively high quality was inaccurate or
incomplete.

But that claim was just the opinion of the plaintiffs, who didn't
plausibly allege that ING knew the statement it issued was false
or misleading, the appeals court said.

Mitchell A. Lowenthal of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP,
which is representing the defendants, told Law360 on Nov. 22 that
"Judge Kaplan methodically addressed the case in the district
court . . .  and we are pleased that the Second Circuit fully
agreed with the conclusions Judge Kaplan reached."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment on Nov. 22.

Circuit Judges Rosemary S. Pooler, Reena Raggi and Richard C.
Wesley sat on the panel for the Second Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steven F. Hubachek --
shubachek@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Eric Alan Isaacson, Andrew J. Brown and Deborah R. Gross --
debbie@bernardmgross.com -- of the Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
PC.

The defendants are represented by Mitchell A. Lowenthal --
mlowenthal@cgsh.com -- Jared M. Gerber -- jgerber@cgsh.com --
Danielle J. Levine -- dlevine@cgsh.co -- and Michelle J. Parthum
-- mparthum@cgsh.com -- of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
and Adam S. Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- and Christopher R.
Fenton -- christopher.fenton@shearman.com -- of Shearman &
Sterling LLP.

The case is Marshall Freidus et al. v. ING Groep NV et al., case
number 12-4514, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.


INSTANT CHECKMATE: Faces "Zias" Suit Over Misidentification Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Elizabeth Warmerdam reports
that a biblical scholar sued a background check service, claiming
it falsely identified him as a convicted sex offender and charges
him $29 a month for a fraudulent, defamatory "service" he never
ordered and doesn't want.

Joe Zias sued InstantCheckmate, for himself and a proposed class,
in Santa Cruz County Court.

Zias claims he responded to California-based InstantCheckmate's
offer to pay a one-time fee of $1, through his credit card, to do
a background check on himself.  But "to his shock and horror,"
InstantCheckmate described him "as a convicted sexual offender."

The lawsuit continues: "To add insult to injury, defendant
InstantCheckmate then harvested month-after-month of 'automatic'
$29.63 fees from plaintiff's credit card despite representations
that such charges could be averted upon request -- which request
had been duly made, but ignored."

Zias claims he was suckered by the defendant's "relentless
onslaught of email spam -- sent as a daily barrage to millions
around the worldwide web."

Zias describes himself in the lawsuit as "a prominent scholar of
the Ancient Near-East, biblical history, active in on-site digs
and rigorous in his pursuit of the preservation of important
scientific and historically significant artifacts."

He says he spent 25 years working as a curator of archeology and
anthropology with the State of Israel and was responsible for
artifacts that included the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In another example of "shock and horror," Zias says in the
complaint, "in place of a photo of himself on defendant
InstantCheckmate's online database was a scientific photo of an
ancient skeleton that Zias had published in a scientific journal."

Zias thought the photo had been hacked onto the site by one of his
"disparagers" in the movie industry, who allegedly prefer box
office receipts involving ancient artifacts to scholarly
descriptions of them.

He says he called InstantCheckmate, which told him that "photos on
the InstantCheckmate website are taken from public records and
reserved exclusively for convicted sexual offenders; therefore,
plaintiff Joe Zias was being portrayed throughout the entire
worldwide web (including in Santa Cruz County) as a convicted
sexual offender!"

It's not so, he says: "Joe Zias is not a convicted sexual
offender.  Joe Zias is a happily married family man (husband and
father) and a Middle-Eastern and biblical scholar."

Upon his demand that InstantCheckmate reveal the source of the
"outrageous falsehood," he claims, InstantCheckmate "began a
campaign of denial, (including within the County of Santa Cruz)
while falsely asserting the above-described events never took
place."

Zias claims the company runs a fraud, that "InstantCheckmate's
business plan is to acquire credit card information through a
relentless campaign of spam email solicitations and while
representing database services are available for only one week's
payment ($1.00), in fact, defendant InstantCheckmate secretly
plans and does charge month-to-month ($29.63) continuously until
contacted to cease and desist."

He seeks individual and class damages, and punitive damages, for
defamation, fraud, negligence, breach of faith and violations of
the Business & Professions Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald Charles Schwartz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DONALD C. SCHWARTZ
          9057 Soquel Drive # A
          Aptos, CA 95003
          Telephone: (831) 331-9909
          Facsimile: (831) 662-9892
          E-mail: triallaw@cruzio.com


JC PENNEY: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 22
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of
Texas, and docketed under 13-cv-00750, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of JCPenney between August 20, 2013 and
September 26, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased JCPenney securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 2, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

JCPenney is a retailer, operating 1,102 department stores in 49
states and Puerto Rico as of January 28, 2012.  JCPenney's
business consists of selling merchandise and services to consumers
through its department stores and through its Internet Website at
jcp.com.  The Company sells family apparel and footwear,
accessories, fine and fashion jewelry, beauty products through
Sephora inside JCPenney, and home furnishings.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented adverse facts, including that the
Company would have insufficient liquidity to get through year-end
and would require additional investments to make it through the
holiday season, and that the Company was concealing its need for
liquidity so as not to add to its vendors' concerns.  As a result
of defendants' false statements, JCPenney's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period, reaching a
high of $14.47 per share on September 9, 2013.

Then, on September 27, 2013, JCPenney issued a press release
announcing the pricing of 84.0 million shares of its common stock
at $9.65 per share in a secondary offering, stating that "[t]he
Company intends to use the net proceeds from the offering for
general corporate purposes."  On this news, JCPenney shares
declined $1.37 per share or 13%, to close at $9.05 per share on
September 27, 2013.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Australian Law Firms Prepare for Hip Suit Trial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Janelle Miles, writing for The Sunday Mail, reports that lawyers
representing more than 1000 Australians are preparing for trial in
a class action against medical giant Johnson and Johnson over
allegedly faulty hip replacements, despite a settlement in the US.

Johnson and Johnson earlier agreed to pay almost AUD2.5 billion to
compensate about 8,000 people in the US who had received recalled
metal-on-metal hip implants.

Class action law firm Maurice Blackburn has called on Johnson and
Johnson to settle the case in Australia.

Management principal Ben Slade said a court supervised settlement
regime was the only honest and transparent solution for Australian
victims.

"The company has known for a long time that these defective
products have caused serious injuries," he said.  "It should put
an end to the suffering of injured Australians and engage in
meaningful negotiations with us."

DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, recalled
two versions of its ASR artificial hip implant in 2010 due to a
high failure rate.

Brisbane man Stuart Cain, 44, received a DePuy hip in 2007, and
has had three further replacement surgeries since then after metal
residue "killed off my femur".  He has not worked for more than 18
months.

"I haven't felt this bad and unhealthy in my entire life," he
said.  "I've got to the stage now where I don't sleep, I'm in
constant pain.  It's frightened the hell out of me."

Mr. Cain, who is part of the Australian class action, said he
would prefer to see his day in court.

"They've ruined my life," he said.

The Australian class action, headed by Maurice Blackburn and Shine
Lawyers, is set for trial in mid-2014 in the Federal Court in
Sydney.

Lawyers will alleged DePuy and Johnson and Johnson had been
negligent because they failed in their duty of care to implant
recipients.

They will also allege the companies had breached the Commonwealth
Trade Practices Act by selling a product that was defective and
caused injury.

Shine Lawyers solicitor Rebecca Jancauskas said Johnson and
Johnson had fought the Australian action "every step of the way".

"We are currently in full swing preparing for the trial which will
start on 2nd June 2014 in the Federal Court of Sydney," she said.

Comment was sought from Johnson and Johnson.


L'OREAL USA: DC Court Refused to Approve Deal in Mislabeling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a
settlement to claims that L'Oreal mislabels products as "salon-
only" unfairly awards class counsel nearly $1 million in fees
while leaving nothing for consumers, a federal judge ruled.

In July, U.S. District Judge John Bates preliminarily approved a
settlement in a class action against L'Oreal for labeling its
Matrix Biolage, Redken, Kerastase and Pureology products as
"available only in salons," while nevertheless stocking them in
Target, Kmart, and other non-salon retail stores.

Under the terms of the settlement, L'Oreal promised to remove the
"salon only" label from all of its products sold in the U.S., pay
class representatives up to $1,000 each, and pay up to $950,000 in
attorneys' fees.

Bates declined to certify the class Wednesday, November 6, 2013,
however, or give final approval of the class settlement, and
denied plaintiffs' pending motion for attorneys' fees as moot.

"Overall, the arguments raised by plaintiffs to show that this
settlement is fair are unconvincing, particularly when weighed
against the indications of unfairness raised by the objectors,"
the opinion states.  "Accordingly, the court finds that the
settlement is not fair, reasonable, and adequate."

The settlement's only available relief to class members is
injunctive, according to the ruling.  While it preserves the right
for individual class members to sue L'Oreal for damages, it
releases the company from liability for all class-wide damages --
effectively relieving L'Oreal from monetary liability for the
"salon-only" labels, as individual damages per class member would
be too small to warrant a lawsuit.

Supporters of the settlement claimed that the liability release is
not unfair because there are no viable classwide damages claims.
The original complaint sought monetary damages, but this claim was
later dropped after finding that recovering damages on a classwide
basis was not possible.

Bates was not convinced by this line of reasoning.

"In effect, the parties are asking this court to prejudge the
merits of claims not before it; to conclude that those as-yet-
unfiled claims are meritless; and hence to preclude those claims
from ever being asserted, all without the putative claimants'
participation," the 33-page opinion states.  "But assuming even
that would be appropriate, this case is not the proper vehicle.
For on the record before the court, it is impossible to determine
with any level of certainty that the class damages claims to be
surrendered by class members are valueless."

Incentive awards to class representatives, plus the large
attorneys' fees request, also support the impression that the
settlement is unfair, Bates said.

"Moreover, the result achieved here could be characterized as
worse than 'settling': counsel seeks to release class members'
(originally asserted) class-wide damages claims for precisely
nothing," the judge concluded (parentheses in original).

The case is Alexis Richardson, et al. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Case
No. 13-508 (JDB), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.


LANDSCAPE SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everardo Barbosa, and Javier Alvarado, on behalf of themselves,
and all other plaintiffs similarly situated known and unknown v.
Landscape Services and Management, Inc., and Curtis Depner,
individually, Case No. 1:13-cv-074 (N.D. Cal., October 17, 2013)
alleges that the Plaintiffs and the proposed class worked in
excess of 40 hours per week at times throughout their employment
with the Defendants, and were denied time and one half their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Landscape Services and Management, Inc., provides landscaping
services in the Chicagoland area.  Curtis Depner, is the owner of
the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

               - and -

          Ana Dominguez, Esq.
          FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784-3541
          E-mail: adominguez@fwadvocacy.org


LAVAL, CANADA: Citizen Seeks to Pursue C$23MM Suit v. Ex-Mayor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Nguyen, writing for QMI Agency, reports that a citizen in
scandal-plagued Laval, Que., wants a judge to approve a C$23-
million class action lawsuit against a former mayor and top
officials charged with gangsterism.

Gilles Vaillancourt, who ran the sprawling Montreal suburb for
23 years, was arrested this past spring along with 36 other
ex-politicians, bureaucrats and contractors.  He's charged with
conspiracy, fraud, influence peddling, breach of trust and
gangsterism.

Authorities say the suspects ran a massive kickbacks-for-contracts
scheme.

Laval resident Alexandre Lorrain wants taxpayers to be reimbursed.

"The wrongful and fraudulent acts of the respondents had the
direct effect of inflating the cost of professional services and
public infrastructure work from 20% to 30%," the lawsuit
application alleges.

The application names Mr. Vaillancourt, former top bureaucrats
Claude Asselin and Claude Deguise as well as four engineering
consulting firms.

The allegations haven't been proven in court and a judge has yet
to approve the civil suit.

Lorrain is seeking C$5 million each from the Cima+, Genivar,
Dessau, and Aecom firms.  The suit wants C$2 million from
Mr. Vaillancourt and C$500,000 each from Asselin and Deguise for a
total of C$23 million.

Mr. Vaillancourt resigned as mayor last fall amid a litany of
corruption allegations.

Police claim he has hidden about $15 million that he allegedly
received fraudulently through kickbacks from construction
companies that won municipal contracts.

Multiple police sources have told QMI Agency that Mr. Vaillancourt
is suspected of using children to smuggle kickback cash to
Switzerland and other countries.

A public inquiry has also heard that most Laval councillors used
fake names to pump money into their own party.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Says District Court Lacks Standing
---------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Matt Reynolds reports that a
federal judge lacked standing to rule against state-court
injunctions that Los Angeles uses to arrest gang members, the city
told the 9th Circuit.

Christian Rodriguez and Alberto Cazarez are the lead plaintiffs in
the federal class action alleging that Los Angeles violates due-
process rights by serving injunctions against suspected members of
the Culver City Boys gang.

In 2007, the California Court of Appeal invalidated one of the
injunctions because it found its curfew provisions impermissibly
vague.

Rodriguez and Cazarez said they needed an injunction, and U.S.
District Judge Dolly Gee agreed earlier this year that they would
likely succeed in showing that the curfew violates their due
process rights and could cause irreparable harm.

While the Los Angeles Police Department had "adopted a policy of
non-enforcement of the curfew provisions," people still believed,
absent notice, that police were enforcing the injunctions, Gee
found.

"Under these circumstances, class members who have been served
with the challenged injunctions are likely to be discouraged
during certain hours from participating in lawful activities as
mundane as carrying groceries from their car or as hallowed in a
free society as speaking to relatives or friends on the porch
outside of their home," Gee wrote in an amended 10-page order.

On appeal, Los Angeles says that Gee's order against the 26 state
court gang injunctions interferes with ongoing proceedings in
state court.

"If allowed to stand, the court's injunction creates the risk of
routine collateral attacks on state court and public nuisance
injunctions, and gang injunctions," Gary Rowe of Los Angeles firm
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland told the 9th Circuit panel on
Monday, November 4, 2013.

Judge Margaret McKeown was not persuaded.  She asked Rowe why
people misidentified as gang members were restricted to seeking a
remedy in state court.

"If I'm not a gang member presumably I shouldn't be covered by one
of these 26 orders, right," McKeown asked.

"Yes, that's correct," Rowe replied.

"But if you serve me with that, why can't I go to federal court
and say: 'Look, not only was I not a party but it says you have to
be gang member -- I'm not a gang member,'" McKeown inquired.

"There's a perfectly appropriate process in state court by which
you can opt out, so the need for federal intervention is not
necessary," Rowe said.

McKeown remained unconvinced, pressing the attorney on why there
could not be "parallel proceedings."

"Administering a gang injunction is very complicated," Rowe said.
"It would be mischievous to allow parallel proceedings, given the
state's strong interest."

Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick attorney Anne Richardson urged
the court to affirm.  She argued that the class was not asking to
"monitor the state court proceedings in anyway" and only wanted
the city to provide notice.

"All we're trying to do is ask the city to let people know that
they are no longer going to enforce these provisions," Richardson
said.

Richardson said the story would be different if state court
proceedings had been enjoined or if the injunction was
interrupting a trial.  Those are cases where "courts have found
abstention to be appropriate because there is an interference,
there is an insult," the attorney said.

"But here, there is no insult," Richardson added.  "We just want
to enforce the law that's already been articulated by the state
courts."

Judge Ronald Gould and Judge Jay Bybee joined McKeown on the
panel.

The City is represented by:

          Gary Rowe, Esq.
          GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP
          5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (310) 859-7811
          Facsimile: (310) 276-5261
          E-mail: growe@gmsr.com

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anne Richardson, Esq.
          HADSELL, STORMER, RICHARDSON & RENICK LLP
          128 N Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 381-9261
          Toll Free: (866) 457-2590
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
          E-mail: arichardson@hadsellstormer.com


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Chaiken" Suit Settlement Has Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in LAUREN CHAIKIN, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
LULULEMON USA INC., a Nevada Corporation, LULULEMON ATHLETICA
INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-02481-GPC-MDD, (S.D. Cal.).

The Court preliminarily approved the agreement, including the
Class Notice, short form Class Notice, and Claim Form.

The Court certified the Class defined as: All persons who used a
credit card to purchase merchandise at one of the Affected
Locations during the applicable Class Period, and from whom
Defendants requested and recorded their ZIP code.

The Court approved Plaintiff Lauren Chaikin as Class
Representative.

The Court appointed Plaintiff's counsel, the law firms of
Stonebarger Law, APC, Patterson Law Group, APC and Pilot Law, P.C.
as Class Counsel.

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on March 14, 2014, at
1:30 p.m., to determine whether the proposed Settlement of the
Litigation on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally
approved by the Court.

All discovery and pretrial proceedings and deadlines are stayed
and suspended until further notice from the Court, except when
such actions are necessary to implement the Agreement and the
Order, ruled Judge Curiel.

A copy of the District Court's November 6, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/5O1Yqvfrom Leagle.com.


MATCH.COM: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Fraudulent Profiles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dareh Gregorian, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
Match.com really does offer dream dates -- thousands, "if not
millions," of profiles are pure fantasy, charges a $1.5 billion
lawsuit.  The mega-popular dating site is engaging in "one of the
biggest conspiracies ever executed on the Internet," the class-
action Manhattan Federal Court suit says.

The plaintiff, Yuliana Avalos, is a mom and part-time model who
never joined the site, but says her pictures have been used "in
hundreds if not thousands of fraudulent profiles" posted on the
company's dating sites over the past six years.

"Not a day goes by when someone doesn't tell me that they saw my
pictures posted on Match.com or another website," the Florida
woman said in a statement.

The suit says she's not alone.

"Thousands" of others, including celebrities, soldiers and adult
actresses, have had their pictures plucked from Facebook and other
sites and used for bogus profiles as well -- even though they "are
not and never were" members of Match's dating sites, the suit
says.

The court filing says it's making the allegations based on
hundreds of complaints filed by other alleged victims, and through
Ms. Avalos' lawyer's own probe, which included the use of photo
recognition software.

The phony profiles are often created by scammers in other
countries for "criminal purposes," which include "romance scams"
that "entice victims to send money to people outside of the
country," said Ms. Avalos' lawyer Evan Spencer.

The suit says that at best, the company looks the other way,
because it can tell the bogus profiles are being posted with IP
addresses in foreign countries -- not the city listed on the
profile.  But the company also creates its own bogus profiles, the
federal suit says.  It doesn't elaborate on the charge -- but
notes that inflating the number of profiles on Match and its other
25 dating sites is good for their business.

The suit also says the company could easily crack down on the
numerous bogus profiles -- Avalos is pictured in more than 200 of
them -- by using facial recognition software, but chooses not to.
It charges the company with negligence and unjust enrichment, and
seeks $500 million in money damages for the "thousands" of
victims, and $1 billion in punitive damages.

Reps for Match.com and its corporate owner, IAC, which is based in
Chelsea, did not return calls for comment.

Launched in 1995, the dating website bills itself as the largest
in the world. A standard membership costs $35.99 a month.

The IAC sites together rake in about $350 million a year, the suit
says.

The company has been sued over bogus profiles by its members
before, but the suits were tossed because the terms of Match.com's
users agreement doesn't require it to "police" profiles.


METROPOLITAN TICKETS: Sued Over Bait-and-Switch Refund Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
ticket broker MetroTix made millions of dollars from hundreds of
thousands of people through bait-and-switch refund policies, a
class action claims in City Court.

Benjamin Hallmeier sued St. Louis-based Metropolitan Tickets dba
MetroTix.

Hallmeier claims MetroTix's bait-and-switch tactics include
failing to notify ticket buyers of its event cancellation policy,
changing its cancellation policy after selling the tickets,
refusing to refund the full purchase price for canceled events.

Hallmeier claims he spent $232 on tickets to a concert that was
canceled, and MetroTix refunded only $198 -- the face value of the
tickets.

"Upon information and belief, the receipt for the refund contained
the following statement: 'All tickets are NON-REFUNDABLE and NON-
EXCHANGEABLE,'" the complaint states.  "'In the event of a show
cancellation, only the FACE VALUE of the ticket will be refunded.'

"The language contained in defendant's cancellation terms in
paragraph 20, which is only available after a purchase is made or
a refund is given, is deceptive and differs significantly from the
language used in the purchase policy in that it uses the phrase
'face value of the ticket' rather than 'face value of your
purchase' which is used in the Purchase Policy.

"In any event, it is deceptive for the defendant to inform
customers in the Purchase Policy that upon an event cancellation
it will refund the face value of their purchase when in fact only
a partial refund is given."

Hallmeier estimates that MetroTix has sold tickets to more than 50
events that have been canceled since 2009, affecting more than
200,000 customers.

The class consists of all Missourians who bought tickets through
MetroTix to events that were canceled.  Hallmeier seeks actual and
punitive damages for violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act and breach of contract.

MetroTix says on its Web site that it has sold tickets to St.
Louis-area events for more than 20 years.  Customers can buy
tickets in person, over the telephone or through the Internet.

MetroTix's purchase policy, checked Thursday, November 7, 2013, on
its Web site, states in part: "Tickets and merchandise purchased
through MetroTix.Com are subject to a non-refundable per-ticket or
per-item service charge.  Purchases may also be subject to non-
refundable per-order handling and/or delivery charges.  In the
event of an event cancellation, Metrotix.Com shall use reasonable
efforts to ensure you receive a prompt refund of the face value of
your purchase.  In the event of an event cancellation, please
contact us for information regarding receiving your refund."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Steelman, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD
          901 Pine Street, Suite 110
          Rolla, MO 65401
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Toll Free: (866) 915-4793
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548


MONSANTO CO: Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the state Supreme Court has
upheld a judge's approval of Monsanto Co.'s massive settlement
with thousands of West Virginia residents.

In a 4-1 decision on Nov. 22, the court affirmed a January ruling
approving the class-action settlement of a lawsuit alleging that
the Nitro community was contaminated with dioxin from the former
Monsanto chemical plant.  The plaintiffs said Monsanto polluted
their community by burning waste from production of the defoliant
Agent Orange.

Under the $93 million settlement, thousands of Nitro-area
residents will be eligible for medical monitoring and property
cleanups.

Media outlets report that the court's majority said it found "no
substantial question of law and no prejudicial error" in various
appeals of the settlement order.  Justice Brent Benjamin
dissented.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Want Judge to Reconsider Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA Today, reports that lawyers for
the plaintiffs in an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA
concerning the use of college athletes' names and likenesses on
Nov. 22 asked a federal judge to reconsider the part of her
class-action certification ruling that is preventing the
plaintiffs from seeking billions of dollars in damages relating to
past television broadcasts.

And the newly unredacted version of a document that had been filed
by the NCAA reveals just how much money would be at stake.

In discussing the damages modeling offered by the plaintiffs'
experts, the NCAA's filing said the plaintiffs were seeking $3.2
billion in damages for a period from the 2005-06 school year
through the 2010-11 school year.  According to an excerpt of one
expert's report that was including in the NCAA filing, NCAA
Division I athletics departments had $47.8 billion in aggregate
revenues for those years.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has granted class-action status
to the part of the case in which the plaintiffs are seeking to bar
the NCAA from placing limits on the compensation that athletes can
receive in exchange for playing sports.

Though that part of the ruling disappointed the NCAA, Judge
Wilken's refusal to grant class-action status to the damages claim
disappointed the plaintiffs.  Absent class-action status, only the
roughly 20 named plaintiffs -- led by former UCLA basketball
player Ed O'Bannon -- will be able to seek monetary damages for
the use of their names and likenesses in various marketing
activities and TV broadcasts during the period covered by the
lawsuit.

In denying the plaintiffs' bid for a class that could seek
monetary damages from the NCAA, Judge Wilken said that the
plaintiffs could not identify a feasible way of determining which
current and former athletes were "actually harmed" by the NCAA's
compensation limits on athletes.

The judge also pointed out the difficulty "in determining which
student-athletes were actually depicted in videogames."  Noting
that major-college football rosters have as many as 105 players,
the judge said that the videogames' inclusion of 68 players per
team and that NCAA football teams allow multiple players to wear
the same jersey number, "makes it impossible to determine" which
athletes suffered harm from being in the game "without conducting
thousands of individualized comparisons between real-life college
football players and their potential videogame counterparts."

In the Nov. 22 filing, the plaintiffs contend that using preseason
rosters of the teams from past years is an "inherently reasonable"
way of determining which athletes were harmed and that the
plaintiffs' experts have included in reports filed with the court
a file that "contains the names of all class members on the roster
of any team that was broadcast or rebroadcast on television from
mid 2005 through mid 2012."


NEW YORK: MTA Pays Nothing in Majority of Train Accident Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Warga, writing for New York Daily News, reports that the MTA
pays nothing in majority of lawsuits filed by people who've been
hit by subway trains, a review of recent cases shows.
The MTA doesn't issue an apology when someone is hit by a subway
train -- and it doesn't whip out the checkbook, either.

About 90% of the 92 "man-under" lawsuits that were resolved in the
last five years ended in the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority's favor, according to a breakdown by the MTA.

The MTA didn't pay a dime in 73 of those cases.  It dispensed with
another nine cases with paltry go-away payments averaging $40,000,
according to the authority's information.  Five big cases did
result in payoffs totaling $33 million.

"They fight tooth and nail and they win plenty of them," said
veteran civil court lawyer Gary Pillersdorf, who has filed
lawsuits on behalf of about two dozen riders or their estates.

In the MTA's eyes, anyone who is hit by a train probably has no
one else to blame but themselves, and the authority shouldn't have
to give away any taxpayer money, no matter how horrific the
injuries inflicted.  Riders enter the system drunk as skunks and
fall onto the tracks.  They sometimes moronically go to the tracks
to retrieve umbrellas or cell phones.  And they jump to commit
suicide by train.

"We view the public interest as best served through the vigorous
defense, often including trial, of lawsuits of this nature, in
which individuals seek public funds after placing themselves in
positions of obvious danger through their own illegal or reckless
conduct," said Martin Schnabel, general counsel of the MTA's NYC
Transit division.

The MTA is rarely interested in settling man-under cases before
trial.  If it loses, it keeps fighting through appeals.

Take the case of Alice Huang.  The 18-year-old was getting off an
F train in December 2001 when she dropped her Bible on the
platform edge.  She bent down, near the idling train, to pick it
up.  As the train started to pull out of the W. 23rd St. station,
one of the cars struck Ms. Huang in the head.

The force spun her around.  One of her legs was caught between the
moving train and the platform.  Ms. Huang underwent nearly 20
operations and was permanently disabled.

During the 2004 trial, Ms. Huang's lawyer, David Dean, said the
train conductor should have seen Ms. Huang and alerted the
motorman.

The MTA's defense? The train wasn't out of place, she was.  A
conductor, located in the middle car, must visually check the
platform.  But a conductor can't look in two directions at once
and shouldn't be expected to see every possible hazard.

The jury awarded Ms. Huang $28.5 million.  The MTA appealed.  It
wound up paying $12.75 million.


NEW YORK, NY: Left Behind Disabled Citizens in Emergency Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York City's failure to prepare for the needs of its disabled
citizens during emergencies violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports,
citing a federal court decision.

After Hurricane Irene in 2011, the Center for Independence of the
Disabled and its Brooklyn chapter joined two individuals in a
lawsuit against the city and Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The lawsuit accused the city of failing to plan for the nearly
900,000 disabled persons within New York City who are vulnerable
during emergencies and disasters.

As Hurricane Irene approached, "New Yorkers with disabilities had
no idea how they could be evacuated, what shelters, if any, were
accessible, how they would obtain life-sustaining medications, or
how they could be transported when buses and subways stopped
running," the complaint stated.

Only 26 percent of the shelters open were accessible to people
with disabilities, the class claimed, forcing people like named
plaintiff Tania Morales back home for the duration of the storm
after the ramp gate at a shelter she went to was locked.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman certified the class action found
Thursday, November 7, 2013, that people with disabilities were
unable to leave their high-rise homes or locate accessible
transportation during and after the storm.

"The city's plans are inadequate to ensure that people with
disabilities are able to evacuate before or during an emergency;
they fail to provide sufficiently accessible shelters; and they do
not sufficiently inform people with disabilities of the
availability and location of accessible emergency services,"
Furman's 119-page decision states.

Sid Wolinsky, director of litigation for Disability Rights
Advocates and attorney for the class, called the ruling a landmark
victory for the disabled residents of New York City.

"For the first time, they will be provided with an equal chance of
survival during disasters," Wolinsky said in a statement.  "No
person should be left behind to suffer or die during emergencies
because of the incompetence of the city's bureaucracy."

The city's plans for evacuations were flawed in their assumptions
that people won't need assistance to leave a building and will be
able to use public transportation, according to the ruling.

"People with disabilities may require assistance evacuating their
buildings and accessible public transportation in order to reach
an evacuation center," Furman wrote.

The city also had no plan for evacuating people with disabilities
from multistory buildings, although "many people with disabilities
cannot evacuate multi-story buildings on their own, particularly
if a power outage has rendered elevators inoperable," the ruling
states.

Paratransit, which requires a 24-hour advance reservation, began
to shut down only 30 minutes after Bloomberg issued an evacuation
order during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.  Also, transportation like
MTA buses, which have two wheelchair-accessible seats, "may be too
crowded for people in wheelchairs to board," the court found.

While New York City's planning and response lacked for people with
disabilities, Furman nevertheless said that "the valor and
sacrifice of those who have come to the aid of New Yorkers in
times of emergency, from first responders to volunteers, have been
nothing short of extraordinary."

He also commended the city for the "array and detail of its plans
for every imaginable kind of emergency."

Furman did not order the city to take any actions, instead finding
"there is no question that crafting an appropriate remedy would be
better accomplished by those with expertise in such matters and
through negotiation, whether court-supervised or otherwise, than
by court order."

The parties were to submit a joint status letter on these matters
on November 26, and are due for a conference with the court on
December 3.

Mayor Elect Bill de Blasio takes the reins from Bloomberg on New
Year's Day.

The case is Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, et
al. v. Michael R. Bloomberg, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-06690-JMF,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.


NEW YORK, NY: Overworked Minority Female 911 Operators, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that New
York City Police overwork minority female 911 operators until
they're sick, and retaliate against anyone who dares take a sick
day, dispatchers claims in a federal class action.

The eight plaintiffs, who work at communication centers throughout
the city, also say their union did nothing to stop the abuses.

Lead plaintiff Cynthia Hill claims the NYPD breached a collective
bargaining agreement by declaring an ongoing emergency and
requiring "excessive double-shifts back-to-back."

"Plaintiffs work in a demanding high-stress environment where
every call counts, and can be the difference, literally, between
life and death," the lawsuit states.  The plaintiffs say they "sit
at the crossroad of all emergency relief in the city."

The NYPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment
Friday morning, November 8, 2013.

The women say that between May and July the NYPD started requiring
operators to work double 8-hour shifts three times a week.  Since
July, operators have had to work two 12-hour shifts per week.

Since May, plaintiffs have been relieved from duty at 3 p.m. after
working a mandatory double shift, then were expected to return for
their next shift that night at 11, according to the 52-page
lawsuit.

"This schedule threatens not only the health of individual
operators but all those who depend on the city's 911 emergency
response system," the 911 operators say.

The NYPD also "frequently and arbitrarily" canceled sick leave
accrued and intimidated those who tried to use it, the women say.

Anyone who does call in sick is subjected to "immediate
reprisals," including cancellation of sick days, delay or denial
of Family Medical Leave, and are hit with more mandatory overtime,
according to the complaint.

The women say supervisors hid their clock-out sheets to keep them
there, and required them to answer calls during their meal breaks.

They claim that even after working four consecutive 16-hour
shifts, defendant Donald Church, who is in charge of the call
centers, threatened them, while armed, saying he would take three
days of their vacation time if they didn't work a fifth shift.

He gave them 5 seconds to return to their desks or run the risk of
losing three more vacation days, the women claim.

They say the workload is causing "illness and fatigue in addition
to the high stress job of being an operator."

In fact, since May, "a number of operators have collapsed from
exhaustion while dispatching calls and were removed" from a call
center by paramedics, according to the complaint.

Named plaintiffs Cynthia Hill, Gail Williams, Denise Inman, Vickie
Gordon, Rolando Lopez Taura Pate, Ellen Ennis and Andrea Holly
sued the City of New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police
Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Richard F. Napolitano, Charles F.
Dowd, Michael V. Polito, Ljubomir Belusic, Francis Kelly, Donald
Church, David Lichtenstein, and Local 1549, District Council 37,
AFSCE, AFL-CIO.

They seek damages for gender and race discrimination, 1st
Amendment violations, labor violations and breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel O. Maduegbuna, Esq.
          MADUEGBUNA COOPER LLP
          110 Wall Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 232-0155
          Facsimile: (212) 232-0156
          E-mail: sam.m@mcande.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Trial Court Ruling in "Gordon" Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Nan Lee Johnson appealed from a court order dated September 12,
2012, which held that he lacked standing to pursue his class
action and entered judgment on behalf of the Philadelphia County
Democratic Executive Committee (Executive Committee) and its
Chairman, Robert A. Brady (Brady), and the Fortieth Ward (40B)
Democratic Executive Committee (Ward 40B) and its Leader, Anna M.
Brown (Brown).  Also, the Philadelphia Democratic Progressive
Caucus (PDPC) appealed the order of September 17, 2012, which
dismissed as moot its petition to intervene in the action as a
party plaintiff.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court ruling
saying the trial court correctly held that Mr. Johnson lacked
standing to continue the action and properly granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Superior Court added that the trial court properly denied
PDPC's petition to intervene in the action after Count I became
moot.  It said any of PDPC's claims as to possible future use of
the Rule VII, Article 1, Section E of the City Committee Rules
were just as unripe as Mr. Johnson's.  Therefore, even if PDPC is
correct that the trial court did not follow proper procedure in
ruling upon the petition without holding a hearing, the error was
harmless.

Judge Bowes dissented from the majority's decision to accept
jurisdiction over the appeal and said he would transfer the case
to the Commonwealth Court, which has the experience and skill-set
to handle the matter expertly.

The case is TRACY L. GORDON AND NAN LEE JOHNSON, ON THEIR OWN
BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. THE
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND ITS
CHAIRMAN, ROBERT A. BRADY, AND THE FORTIETH WARD (40B) DEMOCRATIC
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND ITS LEADER, ANNA M. BROWN, APPEAL OF: NAN
LEE JOHNSON AND PHILADELPHIA DEMOCRATIC PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS, NO.
2869 EDA 2012.

A copy of the Superior Court's November 7, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/zEABBMfrom Leagle.com.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Nov. 22 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
PhotoMedex, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of the Company during the period from
November 7, 2012 through November 14, 2013.

PhotoMedex is a skin health company providing integrated disease
management and aesthetic solutions to dermatologists, professional
aestheticians and consumers.

The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the effectiveness of the Company's key
product, the no!no! device, rested on flimsy, weak studies; (ii) a
more credible study raised serious doubts as to the effectiveness
of the Company's key product, and in fact showed that no!no! works
no better than shaving; (iii) the Company materially overstated
the prospects for the no!no! device in the Japanese market; and
(iv) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements,
assurances and expectations with regard to the Company's growth,
operations and business prospects were false and misleading at all
relevant times.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased PhotoMedex stock between November 7, 2012 and
November 14, 2013, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker, Esq.
-- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased PhotoMedex common stock during the Class Period
of November 7, 2012 through November 14, 2013, and wish to apply
to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf
must be filed with the Court no later than January 21, 2014.  You
may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.


PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gary Feinerman denied a motion to dismiss filed by
plaintiffs in the case captioned KEVIN MUIR, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PLAYTEX PRODUCTS,
LLC, and PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, NO. 13 C 3570, (N.D.
Ill.),

In the putative class action, Mr. Muir alleges Playtex Products,
LLC, and Playtex Products, Inc. sold him a diaper disposal
product, the Diaper Genie II Elite, that falsely claimed on its
packaging that it had been "Proven #1 in Odor Control."
The complaint advanced a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/1 et
seq., and submitted that Mr. Muir suffered an economic injury as a
result of Playtex's deception.

Playtex moved to dismiss the suit under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and, alternatively, under
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

In a November 6, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/v7xe9ofrom Leagle.com, Judge Feinerman held that Mr.
Muir's allegation that he was deprived of the benefit of the
bargain because the Diaper Genie II Elite product was actually
worth less than what it would have been worth had it actually been
proven superior in odor control to its competitors is sufficient
to plead actual damages under the ICFA.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Dismisses "Wills" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the case captioned
JAIME WILLS on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, Defendant, NO.
13 CIV. 2733 (PAE), (S.D. N.Y.).

In his complaint, Mr. Wills claimed that RadioShack's use of the
U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) method
for calculating overtime pay has, since May 5, 2011, violated the
rights of RadioShack's New York-based non-exempt store managers
under New York Labor Law (NYLL) Section 191 et seq.  Mr. Wills
claimed that RadioShack's payment of performance-based bonuses to
those managers precluded it from using the FWW method, and
required it to use instead the more generous "time-and-a-half"
method of calculating overtime. Mr. Wills sought to recover the
difference between the overtime pay yielded by those two methods.
He also sought liquidated damages under the NYLL, and declaratory
judgments that: (1) RadioShack's method of calculating overtime
pay since May 5, 2011 violated the NYLL; and (2) RadioShack is
collaterally estopped from contending that using the FWW method
after that date complied with the NYLL.

RadioShack moved to dismiss, on the grounds that its use of the
FWW method to calculate overtime was permitted under the NYLL.

Judge Engelmayer agreed with RadioShack, and held that the NYLL,
which in all pertinent respects tracks the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., permitted RadioShack
to use the FWW method to calculate its store managers' overtime
pay. The Court, accordingly, granted the motion to dismiss.

Judge Engelmayer directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Opinion & Order is
available at http://is.gd/u2dSM9from Leagle.com.


RICHARD FREER: Dozens of Ponzi Scheme Victims Attend Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an eastern Pennsylvania man is
headed to trial on charges he ran a bogus investment scam that
bilked dozens of people out of a total of $10 million.

More than 50 people packed the Nov. 25 preliminary hearing for
67-year-old Richard Freer in Northampton County Court.

Authorities contend the Palmer Township financial adviser
masterminded a massive scheme that bilked 90 people, most of them
elderly, out of tens of thousands of dollars in savings and
retirement funds.  He was charged in September with multiple
counts of theft, forgery and related counts.

Prosecutors allege that for years, Mr. Freer claimed to be
investing his clients' money in real estate trusts.  Investigators
said the former bank president was instead spending the cash on
himself or using it to pay other investors.


ROBERT BOSCH: Responds to Indian Employee's Tax Refund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
PTI reports that German multinational Bosch on Nov. 22 dismissed
as "mischaracterization of facts" the allegations leveled against
it by an Indian employee, saying as an employer, the firm is fair
and abides by the legal requirements in all countries.

Suraj Kamath, working for Bosch's US subsidiary, had filed a
class-action suit against the multinational engineering and
electronics company alleging harassment over tax refunds.

"We would like to state that the plaintiffs' charges are a
mischaracterization of the facts.  Bosch has acted in a lawful
manner and we are confident of our position," Cheryl Kilborn,
Bosch spokesperson, said.

In a class action lawsuit filed in a federal court in Los Angeles,
Kamath charged that Bosch unjustly enriched itself by requiring
all of its non-US citizens employees to pay to Bosch federal and
state tax refunds they had received while working in the US.

It is estimated that at least 160 persons are part of the class
action suit.


S&D FRUITS: "Melgadejo" FLSA Class Suit May Proceed
---------------------------------------------------
FLORENTINO MELGADEJO, Plaintiff, v. S&D FRUITS & VEGETABLES INC.,
et al., Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 6852 (RA)(HBP), (S.D.N.Y.),
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201 et seq. and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation and statutory
damages.

In a November 7, 2013 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/UFUQ07from Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Henry Pit
(1) authorized the plaintiff to pursue his FLSA claims as a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), (2)
approved the plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form subject
to certain revisions, (3) directed the defendants to produce
contact information for the potential opt-in plaintiffs except
with respect to their dates of birth and social security numbers
and (4) directed the defendants to post the proposed notice and
consent form in each location owned and operated by the
defendants.

Judge Pit ordered that by no later than 14 days from the date of
the opinion, the must produce the names, last known mailing
addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail
addresses and dates of employment for all non-managerial employees
of defendants who worked on or after April 19, 2010 to present in
their possession. By no later than 28 days from the date of the
opinion, the plaintiff is directed to send notice to the potential
opt-in plaintiffs, Judge Pit added.

With regards the plaintiff's motion to certify his NYLL claims as
a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), Judge Pit held
that he can address this matter only by way of a report and
recommendation.  Accordingly, "Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is addressed in a report and recommendation of even
date," he said.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles FACTA Class Action for $1.8 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that a proposed settlement of two class
action lawsuits concerning Southwest Airlines Co., has been
reached.  The class actions alleges that Southwest Airlines
willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Reporting Act
(FACTA) by printing the expiration date on customers' credit or
debit card receipts at airport ticket counters between October 17,
2007 and October 30, 2012 or at cargo counters between October 17,
2007 and January 25, 2013.  Both sides agreed to a settlement to
avoid the uncertainty and cost of a trial and provide benefits to
Class Members.  The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or
Defendant, and Southwest Airlines Co. denies any liability or
wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims asserted in
these class actions.

Southwest Airlines Co. has agreed to create a Settlement Fund of
$1,800,000 which, after fees and costs are deducted, will be
divided equally among all Class Members who timely submit a valid
Claim Form and do not exclude themselves from the settlement.  It
is estimated that approximately $1,132,053 will be available to be
divided among Class Members who timely submit a valid Claim Form.
Based on claims rates in other cases, the range of expected
recovery per Class Member who submits a valid Claim Form is
estimated at between $25 and $200.  This is only an estimate.  The
actual amount paid out will depend on the number of Class Members
who submit valid Claim Forms.

If you made a non-business related credit or debit card purchase
or transaction at a Southwest Airlines Co. airport ticket counter
between October 17, 2007 and October 30, 2012 or a cargo counter
between October 17, 2007 and January 25, 2013 and received a
printed receipt, you may be entitled to benefits as part of a
class action settlement.

For complete information on the lawsuits, how to submit a claim
and to download claim forms visit:
http://www.SouthwestFACTASettlement.comor write to Southwest
Airlines Co. Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 3059, Faribault,
MN 55021-2659.

Claim Forms are due by February 5, 2014.


TARGET CORP: Sued Over Combined Optometrist-Optician Operations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Luxottica and its subsidiary
Target violate the law with their combined optometrist-optician
operations, a class claims in Superior Court.

The case is Lillian Shallow; Kathleen Shallow v. Target Corp.;
Luxottica Group; Luxottica Retail NA, in the California Superior
Court for San Diego County.


TEXAS WINDSTORM: Disqualification of TWIA Counsel Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE TEXAS WINDSTORM INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Relator, NO.
01-13-00123-CV, Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA), by
petition for writ of mandamus, challenges a trial court order
disqualifying the law firm of Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom,
L.L.P. (MDJW) and its attorneys from representing TWIA in any of
the consolidated Hurricane Ike lawsuits pending in Galveston
County. Among other reasons, TWIA asserts that the trial court
abused its discretion because there is no disqualifying conflict
of interest under Rules 1.09 or 1.15 of the Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct and because the disqualification
movants failed to show actual prejudice.

In a November 7, 2013 Opinion available at http://is.gd/XJMfUa
from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District,
Houston, conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus
and concluded that findings support the respondent trial court's
legal conclusion that MDJW's representation of TWIA in the case
results in a violation of Rule 1.09(a)(3) of the TEX. DISCIPLINARY
RULES PROF'L CONDUCT and they are disqualified from representing
TWIA in the underlying cases.  Accordingly, the Texas Appeals
Court held that the respondent trial court did not abuse its
discretion in entering its order disqualifying MDJW from
representing TWIA in the underlying cases.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Dismisses New Jersey Consumer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph E. Irenas dismissed the case
captioned THERESA E. GILLETTE, Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
U.S.A, INC., Defendant, CIVIL NO. 13-3191 (JEI/AMD), (D. N.J.).

Theresa Gillette brought this putative class action lawsuit
asserting one violation of New Jersey's Truth in Contract Consumer
Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq. (TCCWNA).
Toyota Motor moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

According to Judge Irenas, the Complaint fails to state a claim
for violation of the TCCWNA, therefore, the motion to dismiss will
be granted.

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/xGjBHrfrom Leagle.com.

LEWIS G. ADLER, ESQ. -- lewisadler@verizon.net -- Woodbury, New
Jersey, and Paul DePetris, Esq. -- paul@newjerseylemon.com -- LAW
OFFICE OF PAUL DEPETRIS, Medford, New Jersey, and Ronald E.
Norman, Esq. -- rnorman@rnormanlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF RONALD E.
NORMAN, LLC, Washington Professional Campus II, Turnersville, New
Jersey, Counsel for Plaintiff.

J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq. -- jcooney@morganlewis.com --
Kristofor T. Henning, Esq. -- khenning@morganlewis.com --
Christopher Iannicelli, Esq. -- ciannicelli@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Counsel
for Defendant.


TREMOR VIDEO: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Nov. 22 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Tremor Video, Inc. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
Tremor Video's June 27, 2013 initial public stock offering.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 22, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/tremor/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  Any purchaser of
Tremor Video is invited to contact us concerning their eligibility
to serve as a lead plaintiff in this action, regardless of the
date of their purchase.

The complaint charges Tremor Video, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the IPO with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.  Tremor Video, headquartered in New York,
New York, is a provider of technology-driven video advertising
solutions for advertisers and agencies and publisher partners in
the United States and internationally.

Tremor Video filed with the SEC a Registration Statement which,
following several amendments and being declared effective by the
SEC, was used to conduct the IPO on June 27, 2013.  The complaint
alleges that the Registration Statement was negligently prepared
and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules
and regulations governing its preparation.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose the following material facts which
existed at the time of the IPO: (a) that the online advertising
market had materially shifted towards mobile browsing, as opposed
to desktop browsing, where the Company was at a significant
disadvantage to its competitors; and (b) that the Company was
losing sales to competitors as a result of its inferior mobile
browsing capabilities.

The IPO was successful for the Company and the underwriter
defendants, who sold 7.5 million shares of Tremor Video common
stock to the public at $10 per share, raising approximately $75
million in gross proceeds for the Company.  Yet by the time of the
filing of this action, Tremor Video stock was trading at
approximately $4 per share, a 60% decline from the IPO price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Tremor Video common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO.  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which
has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.


WATTS WATER: "Trabakoolas" Suit Proceedings Stayed Until Dec. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick, III, signed a class action joint
report on status of settlement negotiations, and a stipulation and
order staying litigation and pending deadlines until December 10,
2013, in the case captioned JASON TRABAKOOLAS, SHEILA STETSON,
JACK WHEELER, CHRISTIE MOONEY AND KEVEN TURNER individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WATTS
WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., WATTS REGULATOR CO., AND WOLVERINE
BRASS, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-01172-WHO (EDL), (N.D.
Cal.).

The parties in the case asked the Court to stay all litigation
activity until December 10, 2013, so they can continue to focus
their efforts on reaching a resolution and, if necessary,
participate in a December 6, 2013 mediation before former United
States District Judge, Hon. Layn Phillips (Ret.).

A copy of the District Court's November 6, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/lhdmGVfrom Leagle.com.

DANIEL E. GUSTAFSON, ESQ. -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com --
JASON S. KILENE, ESQ. -- jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- MICHELLE J.
LOOBY, ESQ. -- mlooby@gustafsongluek.com -- GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC,
Minneapolis, MN, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

DAVID S. MacCUISH -- david.maccuish@alston.com -- TODD BENOFF --
todd.benoff@alston.com -- LINDSAY G. CARLSON --
lindsay.carlson@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, David S. MacCuish
Attorneys for Defendants WATTS REGULATOR CO., WATTS WATER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and WOLVERINE BRASS, INC.


WAUKEGAN, IL: Housing Authority Faces Class Action Over Bed Bugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune reports that Waukegan's public housing agency
faces a federal class-action lawsuit alleging officials took
ineffective action against a burgeoning bed bug infestation in a
housing project.

The suit filed by three residents of Harry Poe Manor claims the
155-unit tower still harbors the blood-sucking insects whose
bites, often delivered while people sleep, can irritate and
inflame skin.  The suit filed on Nov. 22 in Chicago federal court
seeks class-action status to represent all the building's current
residents and those who've lived there during the alleged
infestation.

The suit seeks an injunction that would force the Waukegan Housing
Authority to disclose the extent of any infestation and make a new
plan to kill the bugs.  The litigation also asks for monetary
damages for, among other things, pain and suffering.

"It's very uncomfortable," said Amy Strege, one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys.  "I think anyone who's ever had a mosquito bite
understands that's annoying, and if you had thirty of those on
your legs in a line every day for two years . . ."

Waukegan Housing Authority Executive Director Charles Chambers
could not be reached for comment after the suit was filed on
Nov. 22.

The suit says housing authority officials hired exterminators to
use chemicals in apartments after residents complained of bugs in
the downtown Waukegan high-rise.  Public records show housing
officials have known of the problem since at least January 2011,
Ms. Strege said.

However, the suit alleges, the building managers failed to heed
federal recommendations and did not set up an "integrated pest
management plan," a holistic approach that involves educating
residents and can include fixes such as sealing cracks through
which the bugs travel and enforcing rules that keep discarded
furniture crawling with bugs from reentering the building.

Building officials failed to warn residents and prospective
residents about the bugs as the infestation spread to 80
apartments as of this summer, according to the lawsuit filed by
Timothy Phillips, Gilberto Colon and John Stewart.

Residents, meanwhile, often woke up to see the bugs' straight-line
pattern of bites, the attorneys said.  Mr. Colon reported seeing a
woman riding a building elevator with a bug crawling on her, his
attorneys said.

Pest control experts who've studied the recent bed bug resurgence
said a holistic approach is key to squashing an infestation in an
apartment building or project.

"If they're just doing it piecemeal, apartment by apartment, then
they're never going to get rid of the problem," said Louis Sorkin,
an entomologist and consultant in New York.

Residents of an infested building need to be educated on how to
recognize bed bugs and then how to prevent their spread.  They
need to be educated, for example, to avoid hauling in infested
furniture found at the curb.

"These bugs are hitchhikers and so the occupants of that residence
are going to have these bugs, say, tucked in the treads of their
shoes," said Susan Jones, an entomology professor at The Ohio
State University.

"And so you spread bugs all over."


WEST CORP: Makes Customer Care Reps Work Off the Clock, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that West Corp. makes its
"customer care representatives" work off the clock at its Wausau,
Wisconsin call center, citing a class action filed in Wisconsin
Federal Court.


WILMINGTON, DE: Faces Class Action Over Stop & Frisk Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Sullivan, writing for The News Journal, reports that a
federal civil rights lawsuit, seeking class action status, has
been filed against the city of Wilmington over what court papers
describe as a years-long unconstitutional police department policy
of stop, frisk and imprison.

While the suit concedes that "stop and frisk" by police agencies
has been ruled constitutional, attorney Stephen Norman writes that
Wilmington police take it one step further and as a matter of
routine handcuff individuals, transport them to the police station
and detain them in a holding cell for up to two hours.

"The Supreme Court has previously determined that handcuffing,
transport, search and imprisonment of individuals based only on
reasonable suspicion is unconstitutional," wrote Mr. Norman, who
then goes on to detail three incidents where exactly that
happened.

Wilmington police spokesman Cpl. Mark Ivey declined comment on
Nov. 22 citing a department policy about not commenting on pending
litigation.

Mr. Norman said on Nov. 22 that he believes there are a large
number of people in the city of Wilmington who have had their
rights deprived under this policy and likely do not know that the
police stop, frisk and imprison actions violated their rights.  He
said his office will soon be setting up a website for potential
plaintiffs in the case.

In one of two incidents described in detail in the suit, plaintiff
Jayvon Wright claims that on Nov. 23, 2011 he was tackled,
handcuffed, searched and transported to the police station and
held in a cell based only on reasonable suspicion of loitering and
disorderly conduct, two minor charges that later were dropped.

According to the suit, Mr. Wright saw a friend of his being
searched by police and walked over to ask the friend if he needed
him to call his parents and police responded by tackling him and
taking him into custody with an officer saying, "Shouldn't you be
playing basketball?"

According to the suit, Mr. Wright was told he was being charged
with resisting arrest but that charge was never filed. After about
two hours, according to the suit, Mr. Wright was released.

In a different incident on March 15, 2013, two men, Antoine Murrey
and Keith Medley, were walking from a friend's apartment to pick
up Mr. Medley's son at school across the street when three
officers emerged from a police vehicle with guns drawn, according
to the suit.

The men complied with orders to get on the ground, were
handcuffed, searched and officers searched Mr. Murrey's nearby car
after finding the keys to the car on Mr. Murrey and even drove it
around the block.  The suit claims the men were walked back into
the apartment building and were strip searched and cavity searched
under threat of officers using stun guns on them.  The two men
then were taken to police headquarters, according to the suit, and
held in a cell for an hour before being released without any
charges ever being filed.

The lawsuit states the men were never given a reason or
explanation for the search and detention.  "Medley had to
subsequently describe to his 6-year-old son why he was handcuffed
at gunpoint," according to the suit.

The suit claims these incidents and the "longstanding" policy of
the Wilmington police department violates the Constitution's
Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and the
Fourteenth Amendment protections against wrongful imprisonment and
violations of due process.

The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the policy and
damages.  Mr. Norman said he believes that city police also need
additional training.


WYNDHAM VACATION: Suit Over Timeshare Scam Headed for Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Philip A. Janquart reports
that an arbitrator must resolve claims from senior citizens who
say they were fleeced for hundreds of thousands of dollars in a
timeshare scam, a federal judge ruled.

Thomas and Donna Crook were the lead plaintiffs in the San
Francisco class action, alleging that Wyndham Vacation Resorts and
its employees intentionally target seniors with misleading
timeshare contracts.

The Crooks say they have entered into 11 timeshare agreements with
the company since 2001 for properties in Hawaii, Colorado, San
Francisco and other states.

They claimed that Wyndham employees Anita Howell and Linda Turner
did not accurately represent the terms for several of those
agreements, resulting in further investments.

One deception allegedly occurred when the Crooks complained that
Wyndham billed them for $30,000 of timeshare interests without
their knowledge.

Howell said Wyndham would buy back their timeshares if the Crooks
paid another $49,000 to upgrade to the "Presidential Reserve
level," according to the complaint.

The Crooks said they paid up, on top of their initial $100,000
investment, but that Wyndham nevertheless blocked them from
exercising the buyback option.

Another time, Howell allegedly offered to transfer the Crooks'
deeds to San Francisco without telling them it would cost another
$66,000.

Though Wyndham said specific contracts contain dispute-resolution
clauses that obligate clients to arbitrate, the Crooks argued that
the clause is unenforceable because the entire February 2011
agreement was "fraudulently obtained."

They also called the clause "unconscionable" and thus invalid, and
claimed that it does not "encompass their claim."

U.S. District Judge William Orrick disagreed and compelled
arbitration Monday, November 4, 2013.

"The plaintiffs do not claim that the specific dispute resolution
clause itself was fraudulently obtained," the order states.
"Instead, they claim that the entire February 2011 agreement and
all of their prior agreements with Wyndham were procured by fraud.
Therefore, these claims are for the arbitrator, not the court."

Determining whether the dispute-resolution clause is limited to
actions in which a buyer has defaulted or whether the merger
provision excludes plaintiffs' fraud claims requires
interpretation of the February 2011 agreement and is subject to
arbitration, Orrick found.

"Contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, the [American Arbitration
Association's] rules provide detailed procedures for consumers to
initiate disputes," he wrote.  "For all these reasons,
interpretation of the scope of the agreement must be submitted to
arbitration."

On Friday, November 8, 2013, Orrick clarified that his previous
order stayed, rather than dismissed, the case.

The case is Thomas Crook, et al. v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership,
Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-03669-WHO, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


WYNN CASINO: Can Require Card Dealers to Share Tips, S.C. Ruled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Wynn Casino Las Vegas can require card dealers to share tips with
employees of different ranks, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled.

When the Wynn restructured its table-games department, it
established a tip-pooling system among dealers, boxpersons and
casino service team leads.

Three dealers, Daniel Baldonado, Joseph Cesarz and Quyngoc Tang,
filed a class-action complaint against the casino, challenging the
system of sharing their tips with employees of different ranks.

The Labor Commissioner ruled that the Wynn's policy did not
violate Nevada law, but a Clark County judge set aside that ruling
aside, stating that the policy violated the law because it
directly benefited the Wynn.

Wynn obtained a more favorable ruling from the Nevada Supreme
Court on October 31, 2013.

"We hold that the district court erred in overturning the Labor
Commissioner's decision because the Wynn did not keep any of the
tips from the pool; rather, the Wynn distributed the money among
its employees," Justice Michael Douglas wrote for the unanimous
seven-member court.

The Clark County judge should not have based his decision on
whether the casino benefits from the policy, according to the
ruling.

"Such a test is unworkable because every tip-pooling policy
directly benefits the employer in some manner," Douglas wrote.

It was also improper for the Clark County court to overrule the
labor commissioner's denial of class certification for the
plaintiffs, the ruling states.

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Gregory J. Kamer, Esq.
          Bryan J. Cohen, Esq.
          KAMER ZUCKER ABBOTT
          3000 West Charleston Boulevard, Suite 3
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Telephone: (702) 259-8640
          Facsimile: (702) 259-8646
          Toll Free: (800) 231-4094

               - and -

          Eugene Scalia, Esq.
          Porter Wilkinson, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
          E-mail: escalia@gibsondunn.com


The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Leon M. Greenberg, Esq.
          LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          2965 S. Jones Boulevard # E4
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 383-6369

The appellate case is Wynn Las Vegas, LLC v. Daniel Baldonado, et
al., Case No. 60358, in the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada.


                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *