CAR_Public/131216.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 16, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 248

                             Headlines


ALLE PROCESSING: Bid to Stay "Morris" Class Action Denied
AMAZON.COM INC: Removes "Heimbach" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Mass.
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Approves $500-Mil. Class Action Settlement
BP PLC: Investors Lose Bid for Class Status in Oil Spill Suit

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Court OKs $500MM Class Action Settlement
EPIC SYSTEMS: Former Employee Files Overtime Class Action
EUKOR CAR: "Versalles" Suit Moved to Vehicle Carrier Services MDL
FISHER PRICE: Faces Class Action Over Rock N Play Baby Seat
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Sued Over NaturaLyte/GranuFlo Acid Concentrate

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Settles Bid Rigging Class Action for $18.25MM
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Two Class Actions Over TCE Soil Pollutant
HBB LLC: 9th Cir. Remands "Cheramie" Suit to Dist. Court
HESS CORP: Judge Throws Class Action Over Tainted Heating Oil
KOHL'S CORPORATION: Obtains Prelim. Okay of "Brenner" Suit Deal

LEMURIA LLC: Faces "Miranda" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
MCWANE INC: Sued by Buyers of Cast Iron Soil Pipe and Fittings
MOTRICITY INC: "Callan" Plaintiffs Appeal Orders to 9th Circuit
NYK LINE: "Bui" Suit Transferred to Vehicle Carrier Services MDL
OLD REPUBLIC: "Neff" Suit Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval

PEPPERIDGE FARM: Removes "Sayward" Suit to Mass. District Court
PHELAN HALLINAN: Bid to Amend Complaint in RICO Suit Denied
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT: May Face Suit Over Olive Grove Scheme
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: District Court Ruling in Attendants' Suit Upheld

SENSIA SALON: "Fried" TCPA Suit Stayed Pending FCC Ruling
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Settlement of "Ching" Suit Wins Initial OK
SIRIUS XM RADIO: Judge Responds to Sup. Ct. Justice's Criticisms
SPEARFISH, SD: Homeowners File Class Action Over Sewage Problem
SPOKANE COUNTY, WA: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Rucker" Suit

SUN CONSTRUCTION: Court Remands "Grant" Suit to State Court
TEACHERS INSURANCE: January Bench Trial Set in Bauer-Ramazani Suit
TESLA MOTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
UNITED STATES: Sup. Court to Hear Arguments on Child Status Suit
US BANCORP: Sued Over Use of Automated Clearing House Network

USPLABS LLC: Faces Class Action Over OxyElite Pro Supplements
VILLAGE OF PALATINE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Privacy Suit
VXI GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Hourly, Non-Exempt Employees, Suit Says
WALGREEN CO: Deceives Buyers of Glucosamine Supplement, Suit Says
WASHINGTON: Trial Court Ruling in Suit vs. DSHS Overturned


                             *********


ALLE PROCESSING: Bid to Stay "Morris" Class Action Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack denied a motion to stay the case
captioned KINGBORN MORRIS, RAFAEL MATEO, and DARNELL PIERRE, on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed
by ALLE PROCESSING CORP., ALBERT WEINSTOCK, EDWIN WEINSTOCK, SAM
HOLLANDER, and MENDEL WEINSTOCK, Plaintiffs, v. ALLE PROCESSING
CORP., ALBERT WEINSTOCK, EDWIN WEINSTOCK, SAM HOLLANDER, and
MENDEL WEINSTOCK, Defendants, NO. 08-CV-4874 (JMA), (E.D. N.Y.).

"All of the factors relevant to defendants' stay request weigh
against a stay, which would halt the mailing of the class notice
and delay the trial of a case that has been pending since 2008,"
ruled Magistrate Judge Azrack.  "A stay is not justified because
even if defendants prevail on their primary argument on appeal,
the [New York Labor Law] claims would still remain in federal
court and the class would not be decertified. Accordingly,
defendants' motion for a stay is denied. The parties are directed
to mail the revised notice within twenty-one (21) days of this
order," he added.

A copy of the District Court's November 27, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/rK6HCsfrom Leagle.com.

LaDonna Marie Lusher -- llusher@vandallp.com -- Virginia &
Ambinder LLP, New York, NY, Attorney for Plaintiffs.

Jeffery A. Meyer -- jmeyer@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman, Dolowich,
Voluck, & Gonzo, LLP, Woodbury, NY, Attorney for Defendants.


AMAZON.COM INC: Removes "Heimbach" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Heimbach on September 27, 2013, commenced a putative class
action against Amazon.com, Inc. Amazon.com, DEDC, LLC, Amazon.com
DEDC, Inc. and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., captioned
Heimbach, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 130903526,
in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants failed to comply with the requirements
of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Amazon Defendants removed the lawsuit on November 1, 2013,
from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:13-cv-06385-JLS to
the proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael Jonathan Puma, Esq.
          Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5305
          E-mail: mpuma@morganlewis.com
                  rrosenblatt@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Martha J. Keon, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1601 Cherry Street
          Three Parkway, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3000
          E-mail: mkeon@littler.com

               - and -

          Sarah Bryan Fask, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          Three Parkway Suite 1400
          1601 Cherry Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3000
          Facsimile: (267) 402-3131
          E-mail: sfask@littler.com

               - and -

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Scott P. Tift, Esq.
          Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC
          217 Second Avenue North
          Nashville, TN 37201
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  stift@barrettjohnston.com


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Dec. 6 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:13-cv-13109, on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired ARIAD
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities and/or transacted in ARIAD
options contracts between December 12, 2011 and October 17, 2013,
inclusive and suffered damages as a result.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
http://www.faruqilaw.com/ARIA

There is no cost or obligation to you.

ARIAD and its executives are charged with violations of Section
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Defendants knew or recklessly failed to inform investors
that: (1) the clinical data from the pivotal Phase 2 PACE trial of
the Company's leukemia drug Iclusig demonstrated significant
cardiovascular side effects in patients treated with the drug,
such as arterial thrombotic events and strokes, before and during
the Class Period; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements
regarding the safety, outlook, and commercial prospects for
Iclusig were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On October 9, 2013, the Company updated the data from its PACE
trial, disclosing that Iclusig had shown to cause a higher rate of
blood clots and heart-related side effects than previously
reported.  As a result of this startling data, the FDA placed a
hold on new patient enrollment for the Phase 3 trial of Iclusig.
On this news, the price of ARIAD's stock plummeted by $11.31 per
share or more than 66%, to close at $5.83 on October 9, 2013.

Then, on October 18, 2013, ARIAD announced that it mutually agreed
with the FDA to completely terminate the Company's Phase 3 trial
of Iclusig based on evaluation of the recently released safety
data.  On this news, the price of ARIAD's declined by an
additional $1.83 per share or more than 40%, to close at $2.67 on
October 18, 2013.

Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired ARIAD securities and/or transacted in ARIAD
options between December 12, 2011 and October 17, 2013, excluding
defendants and their affiliates, and who suffered damages thereby.
Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions and actions
involving corporate fraud.

If you transacted in ARIAD securities as set forth above, you may,
not later than December 9, 2013, move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  In order to discuss
this action, or if you have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact:

          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          ATTN: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
                Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  fmcconville@faruqilaw.com
          Toll Free: (877) 247-4292
          Phone: (212) 983-9330

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a national law firm which represents
investors and individuals in class action litigation.  The firm is
focused on providing legal services in complex litigation in the
areas of securities, shareholder, antitrust and consumer
litigation, throughout all phases of litigation.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Approves $500-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shayndi Raice, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
federal judge gave final approval on Dec. 6 for a $500 million
class action settlement between Bank of America Corp. and pension
funds.

Bank of America has said that after this pact, it will have
resolved as much as 75% of its exposure to residential mortgage-
backed securities claims stemming from its 2008 acquisition of
Countrywide Financial Corp.

The deal wraps up several separate lawsuits against Countrywide
that alleged the firm misrepresented the quality of 429 mortgage-
backed securities sold between 2004-07.  The parties, which
included plaintiffs in three separate cases, agreed to settle all
claims for $500 million in April.  In August, the court granted
preliminary approval of the deal.

Pension funds involved in the class actions include the Maine
State Retirement System, Iowa Public Employees System and the
Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund.

Thirty-seven entities objected to the deal, including the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp.  The FDIC argued in October that the deal
wasn't fair and adequate.

Judge Mariana Pfaelzer of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California said in an opinion on Dec. 6 that the deal
was "fair, reasonable, and adequate."

The parties struck the deal through rigorous negotiations,
obtained sufficient discovery and only a few class members opposed
the deal, she said.

"We're pleased to resolve this matter," said a Bank of America
spokesman.

An attorney for the FDIC didn't immediately respond to a request
for comment.

Bank of America is waiting on court approval of an $8.5 billion
settlement struck in 2011 with private investors in mortgage-
backed securities.


BP PLC: Investors Lose Bid for Class Status in Oil Spill Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. federal
judge has refused to allow investors to proceed as a group in a
lawsuit accusing BP Plc of fraud by misleading them -- before and
after the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill -- about the company's
ability to respond to an accident.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison in Houston denied a request on
Dec. 6 to certify a class action of holders of BP's American
depository shares (ADSs) who were allegedly injured by the energy
giant.

"Plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden to establish
that damages in this case can be measured on a class-wide basis
consistent with their theories of liability," Judge Ellison wrote.

The judge said his decision was based largely on a U.S. Supreme
Court ruling from March holding that a class action against
Comcast Corp was improperly certified.

Judge Ellison said the Supreme Court decision "has appreciably
changed the landscape for class certification."  But he said he
would allow the plaintiffs another chance to argue that their case
should move forward as a class action, giving them 30 days to file
a new motion.

Geoff Morrell, a spokesman for BP, said the ruling "confirms BP's
view, as noted in our brief and at oral argument, that plaintiffs
failed to establish that this case is appropriate for class
treatment."

Steven Toll, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll, said the investors "definitely do intend to refile the
motion to address the court's concerns about the Comcast ruling."

The Dec. 6 decision follows a February 2012 ruling dismissing
claims by purchasers of ordinary BP shares on the basis of an
earlier 2010 Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of holders
of foreign securities to bring cases in U.S. courts.

The plaintiffs are led by the New York State Common Retirement
Fund and four Ohio public pension funds.

They sued BP after the April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater
Horizon drilling rig, which killed 11 people and resulted in the
largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.  The investors said
BP's shares dropped in value around 40 percent in the weeks after
the incident.

The plaintiffs had asked Ellison to certify a class of investors
who bought ADSs between November 8, 2007, and May 28, 2010. They
also asked for subclass to be certified covering purchasers of
ADSs from March 4, 2009, to April 20, 2010.

BP continues to face other litigation stemming from the Deepwater
Horizon incident, which has resulted in the company taking $42.5
billion in charges to date.

In January, BP pleaded guilty to 14 criminal counts over conduct
leading up to and after the disaster as part of a $4 billion
settlement with the U.S. Justice Department.

The case is In re: BP Plc Securities Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Texas, No. 10-md-02185.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Court OKs $500MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Mill Times reports that a federal court on Dec. 6 granted
approval of a $500 million settlement agreement between investors
and Countrywide Financial Corp. and others.  The landmark
mortgaged-back securities (MBS) class action was led by the Iowa
Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS), represented by Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

In granting approval of the nation's largest MBS class action
settlement, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, brought to a close the consolidated class action
lawsuit filed in 2010 by multiple retirement funds against
Countrywide and other defendants for securities violations
involving the packaging and sale of MBS.  Bank of America acquired
Countrywide in 2008.

"We are delighted to have secured the nation's largest MBS class
action settlement on behalf of Countrywide investors," said
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC.

The case involved allegations that the Plaintiffs and other
investors were sold billions of dollars worth of MBS certificates
backed primarily with defective Countrywide-originated loans.  By
late 2008, virtually all of those certificates were downgraded to
junk bond status.

Class representatives from the Maine State litigation that were
involved in the 429 Countrywide-sponsored offering settlement
include the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS),
which was appointed lead plaintiff by the U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, in May 2010; as well as the Oregon
Public Employee Retirement Fund; the Orange County Employees'
Retirement System; and the General Board of Pension and Health
Benefits of the United Methodist Church.

In addition to Toll, counsel for the Plaintiffs in Maine State
Retirement System et al., v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et al.,
include Julie Goldsmith Reiser -- jreiser@cohenmilstein.com -- and
Daniel Rehns -- drehns@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC.  Involved also in the settlement are the
David H. Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et al., and
Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide
Financial Corp., et al., actions.


EPIC SYSTEMS: Former Employee Files Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a
former Epic Systems employee filed a class-action lawsuit on
Dec. 6 against Verona health care software giant Epic Systems,
alleging that he and potentially another 1,000 past and present
Epic employees were not paid overtime wages to which they were
entitled.

William Parsons, a lawyer for former Epic worker Evan Nordgren,
declined to say how much money could be involved in the case but
said "we believe it's significant."

Mr. Nordgren was a quality assurance employee at Epic but has
since left the company and is attending UW Law School.

The lawsuit, filed on Dec. 6 in U.S. District Court, alleges that
Epic denied overtime pay to Mr. Nordgren and other quality
assurance employees over a three-year period preceding the filing
of the lawsuit.

Mr. Parsons said that under state and federal law, workers are
entitled to overtime pay at time-and-a-half unless they fall under
one of several exemptions specified in those laws.  He said he
does not know which exception Epic claims the quality assurance
workers fall under.

"Epic's employees, including entry level or non-technical
employees, are entitled to all the pay they worked hard to earn,"
Mr. Parsons said in a statement.  "Wisconsin businesses have an
obligation to pay their employees fairly and must comply with
federal and state labor laws.  The employees we represent worked
many overtime hours for which they were never paid.  We look
forward to helping these workers recover the wages they have
already earned."

The company said in a statement that it believes its workers were
properly paid.

"We believe the lawsuit is without merit," Epic said in its
statement.  "We provide good, professional jobs to very talented
people, and we value their contribution to improving health care.
State and federal law make it clear that employees in computer-
related jobs who primarily test software are appropriately
classified as salaried professionals.  That is precisely the role
our quality assurance team performs."

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Nordgren and other quality assurance
workers regularly worked more than 40 hours a week without
overtime compensation.

The lawsuit states that they are not and were not exempt from
overtime pay under state and federal law.

The exact number of past and present quality assurance workers is
not yet known, the lawsuit states, but is estimated to be more
than 1,000.

The lawsuit seeks an order certifying it as a class action, with
Mr. Nordgren as a representative of the class.  It also seeks an
order finding that the overtime payment violations were willful,
along with a judgment for unpaid back wages for the quality
assurance workers, in addition to other damage and attorney fees.

Located in several buildings on a sprawling campus in Verona, Epic
employs about 6,800 people.

The company had revenues of $1.5 billion in 2012, according to
Forbes.  Judy Faulkner, who founded Epic in 1979, has a net worth
of about $2.3 billion and was ranked number 243 on Forbes 2013
list of the richest 400 Americans.


EUKOR CAR: "Versalles" Suit Moved to Vehicle Carrier Services MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conditionally transferred the class action lawsuit titled
Versalles v. Eukor Car Carriers Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-
02999, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey to be part of an antitrust multidistrict litigation.  The
"Versalles" case is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the case known as In Re Vehicle Carrier
Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2471.  The case in New
Jersey is now captioned Versalles v. Eukor Car Carriers Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:13-cv-06617-ES-JAD (D.N.J., November 1, 2013).

The "Versalles" case is one of several related antitrust
litigations filed against companies that provide Vehicle Carrier
Services to original equipment manufacturers for the purpose of
shipping cars, trucks, or other four wheeled vehicles across
international waterways.  "Vehicle Carrier Services" refers to the
business of providing ocean transportation of vehicles -- like
cars, trucks, or other four wheeled vehicles -- by use of large
Vehicle Carriers known as Roll On/Roll Off vessels, or "RoRos."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Noel Williams, Esq.
          COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577

               - and -

          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON FLUEK PLLC
          608 2nd Avenue S, Suite 650
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          Erin Cathleen Burns, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com


FISHER PRICE: Faces Class Action Over Rock N Play Baby Seat
-----------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that Fisher Price and Mattel are facing
a defective products class action lawsuit over allegations the
Rock N Play baby seat has design flaws which results in it growing
mold.

The lawsuit, entitled The Fisher-Price Rock 'N Play Mold Growth
Class Action Lawsuit is Butler v. Mattel Inc., et al., Case No.
2:13-cv-00306, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, alleges Mattel and Fisher-Price were aware of the
Rock 'N Play design flaw since 2010.  Specifically, the lawsuit
claims that the baby seat design does not allow for adequate
ventilation around the seat, making the product conducive to
dangerous mold growth.  The lawsuit, states that mold "is linked
with serious respiratory illnesses and inflammatory problems in
infants and recent long-term studies have suggested that infants
exposed to environmental mold are nearly three times as likely to
develop asthma by age seven."

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received in excess of
600 consumer complaints alleging mold growth between the Rock 'N
Play's removable cushion and plastic frame, prior to the device
recall in January 2013.  At the time, 16 complaints included
reports of infants becoming sick from the mold. Fisher-Price faced
at least on lawsuit filed by a couple who alleged their son was
hospitalized for respiratory problems after being exposed to mold
that they claim developed on his Rock 'N Play seat.

The Mattel and Fisher-Price marketed the Rock 'N Play class action
lawsuit claims the defendants failed to warn consumers that the
sleeper was prone to mold growth.  The plaintiffs further claim
the defendants failed to test the product for mold growth or
humidity resistance prior to releasing it on the market, even
though they were aware that the seat would be regularly exposed to
moisture and warmth -- conditions conducive to mold growth.

According to the lawsuit, "Within seven months of the Rock 'N
Play's release, concerned consumers began to call Defendants to
complain that their Rock 'N Plays were 'moldy' and, in many
instances, that their infants were having respiratory problems
they attributed to the mold."

The lawsuit goes on to claim that tests for mold were only
conducted on the product after hundreds of consumer complaints had
been made detailing babies becoming ill from mold exposure.  And,
the lawsuit states that Mattel and Fisher-Price did not take
timely action to either fix the defect or warn consumers about the
risks, even though they were aware of the design defect.

While the defendants issued a recall of the Rock 'N Play on
January 8, 2013, the lawsuit claims that it was inadequate because
it "consists solely of a 16 page booklet of cleaning instructions
downloadable from the Internet, instructing owners to inspect the
product for visible mold and, if mold is seen, undertake an
onerous cleaning process that will cause damage to the product."

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a nationwide class of
people who acquired a Fisher-Price Rock 'N Play Sleeper that was
sold prior to the January 8, 2013 recall.  The plaintiffs also
seek to certify three subclasses of California, Pennsylvania and
Maryland residents who purchased the Rock 'N Play prior to
January 8, 2013.

The plaintiffs are represented by John R. Parker and C. Brooks
Cutter of Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP; Steven A. Schwartz --
SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- Timothy N. Mathews --
TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- and Christina Donato Saler of
Chimcles & Tikellis LLP; Thomas D. Mauriello -- tomm@maurlaw.com
-- of Mauriello Law Firm APC and James C. Shaw --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP.


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Sued Over NaturaLyte/GranuFlo Acid Concentrate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Benoit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius
Medical Care North America; Fresenius USA, Inc.; Fresenius USA
Manufacturing, Inc.; and Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc., Case No.
1:13-cv-07866 (N.D. Ill., November 1, 2013) is a class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of all similarly situated persons, who
received dialysis treatment during which NaturaLyte liquid acid
concentrate or GranuFlo powder acid concentrate were used.

On November 4, 2011, in response to the high rate of cardiac
arrests that occurred in Fresenius Medical Care clinics in 2010,
Fresenius Medical Care issued an internal memo to its dialysis
clinics regarding "these troubling findings," which discussed
dosage adjustments that needed to be made with respect to
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo Acid Concentrates.  Sometime thereafter,
the memo was leaked to the Food and Drug Administration and
Defendants were forced to issue a public product warning.  On
March 29, 2012, the FDA issued a Class 1 Recall of NaturaLyte and
GranuFlo Acid Concentrates finding that the products can
contribute to metabolic alkalosis, a condition that can result in
cardiopulmonary arrest and even death.

Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius Medical
Care North America, is a New York corporation.  Fresenius USA,
Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation.  Fresenius USA
Manufacturing, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.  Fresenius USA
Marketing, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.  The Fresenius
Entities are headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.  One or more
Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, labeled,
and distributed NaturaLyte and GranuFlo Acid Concentrates.
Fresenius Medical Care and its affiliates have a network of over
2,000 dialysis clinics at various locations throughout North
America.  One or more Defendants have derived revenue from the
sale or distribution of NaturaLyte and GranuFlo Acid Concentrates,
which are used in providing dialysis treatments throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Sharon Harris, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One N. LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  s.harris@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin Rogers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN ROGERS
          307 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 305
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 332-1188
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0192
          E-mail: Kevin@KevinRogersLaw.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Settles Bid Rigging Class Action for $18.25MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond and Ernest Scheyder, writing for Reuters, report that
General Electric Co. has agreed to pay as much as $18.25 million
to settle a class action lawsuit accusing it of rigging bids for
municipal securities, court papers filed on Dec. 6 show.

The accord requires court approval, and flows from litigation that
began in 2008 over claims that banks and finance companies
conspired to artificially fix prices for so-called municipal
derivatives.

The GE settlement involved activity by three of the company's
units: GE Funding Capital Market Services, Trinity Funding Co and
Trinity Plus Funding Co.

A spokesman for General Electric did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The settlement was revealed two days after plaintiffs sought court
approval of a separate $20 million settlement with Bank of America
Corp. over its own alleged big-rigging conduct.

The deal also came almost two weeks after a federal appeals court
reversed the convictions of three former GE banking executives for
conspiring to rig bids for contracts to invest municipal bond
proceeds.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to release its
reasoning for overturning the 2012 convictions of the three GE
Capital bankers: Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter
Grimm.

GE's settlement follows an earlier $30 million settlement by the
Fairfield, Connecticut-based company to resolve claims by state
attorneys general.

In 2011, GE also agreed to pay $70 million to resolve a
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into its role in
bid-rigging of municipal bonds.

In the lawsuit, investors contended bid-rigging by GE and other
firms violated antitrust law and forced them to receive lower
interest rates than they otherwise would have.

The lead plaintiffs include the City of Baltimore, and the Central
Bucks School District and Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority in
Pennsylvania.

The GE and Bank of America settlements follow earlier deals for
$44.6 million by JPMorgan Chase & Co, $37 million by Wells Fargo &
Co and $6.5 million by Morgan Stanley, court papers show.

As with GE, Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and UBS AG have
settled related claims brought by various state attorneys general.

The case is In re: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-02516.


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Two Class Actions Over TCE Soil Pollutant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Olson, writing for Star Tribune, reports that two class-
action lawsuits were filed against General Mills on Dec. 5 by
residents in the Como neighborhood of southeast Minneapolis, where
state-ordered testing has shown troubling concentrations of the
pollutant TCE in soil below their homes.

Updated results have been published as of Dec. 6 for 58 of roughly
200 homes in the target area, southwest of a former General Mills
facility where solvents containing TCE (trichloroethylene) were
dumped decades ago and filtered into soil and groundwater.
Thirty-seven have turned up with higher-than-acceptable levels of
the chemical.

Testing has been completed at another 16 properties, but results
haven't been released, and has been arranged but not completed at
another 65 properties, according to a map published by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), which is overseeing the
cleanup project.

Three property owners refused testing.

Prolonged exposure to high TCE levels has been linked to elevated
risks of cancer and other health problems.

A contractor funded by General Mills is installing ventilation
systems -- commonly used to remove radon from homes -- in the
problem properties to prevent the harmful buildup of TCE.

Since the public disclosure of TCE contamination in soil gas in
the neighborhood last month, only half of the property owners have
scheduled testing of the soil gas below their basements.

The high number of rental homes in the area -- many occupied by
University of Minnesota students -- has added to the challenge of
securing testing agreements from the property owners.

"It's plateaued a little bit," said Hans Neve, an MPCA site
remediation supervisor.  Property owners "might soften a bit once
they actually see the data.  Some people might be taking a wait-
and-see attitude right now."

Others are apparently taking a wait-and-sue attitude.

Three attorneys from Minneapolis and Chicago jointly sued
in U.S. District Court on behalf of two residents of the Como
neighborhood, Karl Ebert and Carol Krauze.  And a Minneapolis firm
filed a similar suit in Hennepin County District Court on behalf
of resident Jill Ruzicka.  Both cases seek class-action status to
represent all residents affected by TCE contamination below their
homes.  Both were filed ahead of a high-profile community meeting
arranged on Nov. 30 by Integrated Resource Management, a
California firm tied to pollution crusader Erin Brockovich that
investigates industrial contamination.

A General Mills representative could not be reached late on
Dec. 5.

                       Checking for Clusters

State and federal authorities have known for more than two decades
that the dumping of solvent waste from the former General Mills
site had caused TCE contamination.

Pumping to remove TCE from the groundwater and protect the city
water supply took place from the mid-1980s to 2010, when the MPCA
found that pollution levels had receded.

But more recent testing of the soil beneath sidewalks and streets
in the area found traces of TCE in the soil gas just below the
surface, prompting the latest round of cleanup efforts.

Despite the long-term risks of TCE exposure, officials with the
Minnesota Department of Health said they are not aware of any
disease clusters in the area.  A check of a state registry found
that ZIP codes in the Como area had a normal rate of birth
defects.

However, the state has not yet completed a comparable analysis of
cancer surveillance data.

Among the 58 completed tests for which results are publicly
available, four involve properties with questionable TCE levels
and those will be retested.  Only 10 have shown safe levels of TCE
below their foundations -- and five of those were outside the
target area.  At least four of the tested properties have TCE
levels that are at least 93 times greater than the safety
threshold.

The target area of 12 blocks and 200 properties is just the start.
The state will continue to order more testing until it has defined
a concentrated area of properties with harmful TCE levels and a
surrounding ring of homes where levels are safe, Mr. Neve said.

"The primary issue has to be to define this area of highest [TCE]
concentration," he said.


HBB LLC: 9th Cir. Remands "Cheramie" Suit to Dist. Court
--------------------------------------------------------
In LEE CHERAMIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HBB, LLC, a Tennessee
limited liability company, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12-55148,
Lee Cheramie appealed a district court's dismissal, without leave
to amend, of his diversity class action against HBB pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed in
part, reversed in part the district court ruling, and remanded the
case for further proceeding.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court provided no
explanation for denying the request to amend. "Such a denial is
subject to reversal for abuse of discretion. In the absence of an
explanation, it is not otherwise apparent to this court that
amendment would be futile," notes the Ninth Circuit.

"On remand Cheramie should be allowed an opportunity to file an
amended complaint, for it may be possible for him to allege facts
sufficient to state a claim for relief under California law that
would survive a motion to dismiss," the Ninth Circuit added.

Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 18, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Etanjcfrom Leagle.com.


HESS CORP: Judge Throws Class Action Over Tainted Heating Oil
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that a New York state
judge has thrown out a proposed class action involving a prominent
real estate developer that alleges Hess Corp. breached customer
contracts by delivering tainted heating oil to New York City
buildings, finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege
they suffered a discernible injury.

In a Dec. 3 order made public on Dec. 5, Judge Shirley Werner
Kornreich granted Hess's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint in its entirety, agreeing with Hess that the plaintiffs
hadn't clearly alleged how they were harmed by the oil company's
purportedly adulterated fuel deliveries.

"It is neither the court's task nor the defendant's to speculate
as to plaintiffs' injury," the judge's order said.  "If plaintiffs
have been harmed, they should explain how, rather than take refuge
in scholastic inquiries into the true nature of fuel oil."

Representatives of the parties were not immediately available for
comment on Dec. 6.

Judge Kornreich granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint as to their breach of express warranty and breach of
contract claims, while dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs'
claims of negligence, unjust enrichment and violations of the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York's deceptive
practices laws.

The two named plaintiffs are the family of Rubin Schron, a
prominent New York real estate developer, who own a commercial
building in the Flushing section of Queens; and The Related Cos.,
which owns an apartment building in Manhattan's East Harlem
neighborhood.  They filed suit in March, claiming Hess's truckers
had cut the heating oil that they delivered to large, older
buildings throughout the five boroughs with waste oil.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of all buildings
in New York City that received the allegedly tainted heating oil
from Hess.

At oral argument in August on Hess's motion to dismiss, Judge
Kornreich called the plaintiffs' allegations "very vague" on
several occasions, a position she reiterated in her order.  While
the plaintiffs claimed Hess failed to deliver the heating oil they
ordered, they didn't plead sufficient facts to support their
contention that the oil was subpar, the judge wrote.

"While plaintiffs assert that the oil that Hess delivered
contained a 'lower heat content' than the fuel that they ordered,
they do not specify what level of 'heat content' they believed
they would be getting, nor are there any allegations about the
product's actual performance," the order said.

Similarly, while the plaintiffs contended that Hess's oil
deliveries did not constitute heating oil because they allegedly
contained substantial amounts of used oil, "they have cited to no
statute, case˙or regulation which defines what compounds or
products may or may not be legally sold as 'heating oil' or 'fuel
oil,'" Judge Kornreich said.

"It makes little sense to premise an action on the claim that Hess
overcharged for its fuel, where plaintiffs apparently burned the
fuel without a problem and have not identified how they were
disappointed with the product's performance or a failure to comply
with a warranty as to heat content, or anything else, upon which
they actually relied," the judge wrote.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York's deceptive practices
laws don't apply to the plaintiffs' claims because the grades of
heating oil they purchased are not consumer products, the judge
wrote.

Plaintiffs' negligence claim fails because the complaint does not
allege that Hess breached any legal duty independent of its
contract, and their unjust enrichment claim is inappropriate
because the deliveries were made pursuant to a written contract,
the order said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Julian D. Schreibman and Elliot
Silverman of Wachtel Masyr & Missry LLP.

Hess Corp. is represented by David G. Hille --
dhille@whitecase.com -- of White & Case LLP.

The case is Mid Island LP et al. v. Hess Corp., case number
650911/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York.


KOHL'S CORPORATION: Obtains Prelim. Okay of "Brenner" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard G. Stearns granted preliminary approval of
a class action settlement in JACQUELINE BRENNER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. KOHL'S CORPORATION,
NO. 1:13-CV-10935-RGS, (D. Mass.).

The Court preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement pending
the comments of Class members on its appropriateness and the
fitness of Jacqueline Brenner to serve as Class Representative,
the court noting that Ms. Brenner is also the named lead plaintiff
in several other putative class actions filed by Class Counsel.

The court conditionally certified a Settlement Class defined as:

All Massachusetts Kohl's customers who, from April 16, 2009
through the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order,
conducted a consumer credit card purchase transaction with Kohl's
and from whom Kohl's requested and recorded the customer's
personal identification information, including but not limited
to, a ZIP code.

The court approved the parties' selection of a Settlement
Administrator, with the responsibilities set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

The court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 2:15 p.m. on
February 4, 2014 in Courtroom 21, 7th Floor of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse
Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, to consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement, the entry
of a Final Order and Judgment in the case, any petition for
attorneys' fees, costs and reimbursement of expenses made by Class
Counsel, Enhancement Awards to named plaintiff, and any other
related matters that are brought to the attention of the Court in
a timely fashion.

A copy of the District Court's November 27, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/MDEZBafrom Leagle.com.


LEMURIA LLC: Faces "Miranda" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Miranda and Maria Garcia, on behalf of themselves, and
all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v.
Lemuria, LLC, d/b/a Maid Brigade, and Charles Willes,
Individually, Case No. 1:13-cv-07856 (N.D. Ill., November 1, 2013)
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-
Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiffs assert that they worked in excess of 40 hours per
week at times throughout their employment with the Defendants, and
often made below minimum wage, as well as being denied time and
one half their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state
statutes.

Lemuria, LLC, d/b/a Maid Brigade, is a home and office cleaning
service company as a franchise of the parent company Maid Brigade,
Inc., a national home and office cleaning services company with
individual franchises throughout the nation.  Charles Willes, is
the president of Lemuria, LLC.  Guadalupe Miranda and Maria Garcia
are past employees, who performed work for the Defendants as
laborers cleaning homes and offices.

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


MCWANE INC: Sued by Buyers of Cast Iron Soil Pipe and Fittings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Security Supply Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AB&I Foundry, Tyler Pipe Company, McWane,
Inc., Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company, and Randolph Holding
Company, Case No. 4:13-cv-05114-DMR (N.D. Cal., November 1, 2013)
is brought on behalf of those who purchased cast iron soil pipe
and fittings directly from the Defendants beginning at least as
early as January 1, 2006, and continuing through the present.

McWane, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama.  AB&I Foundry is a division of McWane
headquartered in Oakland, California.  Tyler Pipe Company is a
division of McWane headquartered in Tyler, Texas.  Tyler operates
a major distribution center located in Oakland, California.

Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company is a North Carolina corporation
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Randolph Holding
Company, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charlotte and is a
Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          Qianwei Fu, Esq.
          Eric W. Buetzow, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: fscarpulla@zelle.com
                  cmicheletti@zelle.com
                  qfu@zelle.com
                  ebuetzow@zelle.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.LC.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4605
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com


MOTRICITY INC: "Callan" Plaintiffs Appeal Orders to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cliff Mosco, Rich Hardy and Evan S. Lobel appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the
judgment entered in the action, captioned Joe Callan, et al. v.
Motricity Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-01340-TSZ, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, on
October 2, 2013, including the orders of dismissal entered on
January 17, 2013, and October 1, 2013.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of shareholders, who
acquired Motricity common stock traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with Motricity's initial public
offering, or who purchased or acquired Motricity common stock
between June 18, 2010, and November 14, 2011.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs claim that the Motricity Defendants and the Underwriter
Defendants negligently prepared and made materially false
statements concerning the functionality of Motricity's software
product in the Registration Statement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John K. Grant, Esq.
          Armen Zohrabian, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: johnkg@rgrdlaw.com
                  azohrabian@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric A. Isaacson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: erici@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Karl P. Barth, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  karlb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Brian Robbins, Esq.
          Gregory del Gaizo, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com

The Motricity Defendants are represented by:

          Stellman Keehnel, Esq.
          Andrew R. Escobar, Esq.
          Katherine A. Heaton, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 839-4800
          Facsimile: (206) 839-4801
          E-mail: stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com
                  andrew.escobar@dlapiper.com
                  katherine.heaton@dlapiper.com

Defendants J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation,
Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Needham & I Company, LLC and
Pacific Crest Securities LLC are represented by:

          Stephen M. Rummage, Esq.
          Ryan C. Gist, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: steverummage@dwt.com
                  ryangist@dwt.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Wald, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: peter.wald@lw.com

               - and -

          Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          140 Scott Drive
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 328-4600
          Facsimile: (650) 463-2600
          E-mail: patrick.gibbs@lw.com

The appellate case is Joe Callan, et al. v. Motricity Inc, et al.,
Case No. 13-36029, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.


NYK LINE: "Bui" Suit Transferred to Vehicle Carrier Services MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conditionally transferred the class action lawsuit styled Bui, et
al. v. NYK Line (North America) Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-
03516, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey to be part of an antitrust multidistrict litigation.  The
"Bui" case is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the case known as In Re Vehicle Carrier Services
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2471.  The case in New Jersey is now
styled Bui, et al. v. NYK Line (North America) Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:13-cv-06621-ES-JAD (D.N.J., November 1, 2013).

The "Bui" case is one of several related antitrust litigations
filed against companies that provide Vehicle Carrier Services to
original equipment manufacturers for the purpose of shipping cars,
trucks, or other four wheeled vehicles across international
waterways.  "Vehicle Carrier Services" refers to the business of
providing ocean transportation of vehicles -- like cars, trucks,
or other four wheeled vehicles -- by use of large Vehicle Carriers
known as Roll On/Roll Off vessels, or "RoRos."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Christina H. Sharp, Esq.
          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California St., 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: smg@GirardGibbs.com
                  aep@girardgibbs.com
                  dcg@girardgibbs.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Fornaciari, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-1612
          E-mail: jfornaciari@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Edwards, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 Third Avenue, Suite 2600
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 918-3506
          Facsimile: (212) 918-3100
          E-mail: steven.edwards@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Jeremy James Calsyn, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 974-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 974-1999
          E-mail: jcalsyn@cgsh.com

               - and -

          Steven F. Cherry, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6321
          Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
          E-mail: steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Stempel, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-2541
          Telephone: (202) 739-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: sstempel@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          James L. Cooper, Esq.
          COOPER, PERSKIE, APRIL, NIEDELMAN, WAGENHEIM &
          LEVENSON, PA
          1125 Atlantice Avenue, Suite 320
          Atlantic City, NJ 08401
          Telephone: (609) 344-3161

               - and -

          Danielle M. Garten, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          555 Twelfth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1206
          Telephone: (202) 942-5014
          E-mail: Danielle.Garten@aporter.com


OLD REPUBLIC: "Neff" Suit Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in PEGGY A. NEFF and GEOFFREY E. NEFF, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE, LTD., a foreign corporation, Defendant, NO.
2:12-CV-02019-RSL, (W.D. Wash.).

This action is conditionally and preliminarily certified, for
settlement purposes only, as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) with a Settlement Class
defined as: All Persons who, between October 16, 2006, and October
18, 2013, were buyers or borrowers in a real estate transaction in
Washington State in which Old Republic provided escrow services,
from whom Old Republic collected and retained excess recording
charges.

Plaintiffs are appointed as class representatives, and Schroeter
Goldmark & Bender, Berry & Beckett PLLP, and Williamson & Williams
are appointed as counsel for the Settlement Class.

Pending a final determination on whether the Settlement should be
approved, neither Plaintiff nor any Person in the Settlement Class
will commence, maintain, or prosecute any action or proceeding
other than the Action asserting any of the Settled Class Claims,
ruled Judge Lasnik.  All proceedings in the Action, except those
relating to approving the Settlement, are stayed and all current
case deadlines in the Action are stricken except as provided in
the Preliminary Approval Order, pending determination of whether
the Settlement should be approved.

Tilghman & Co., P.C., is appointed to act as the Settlement
Administrator.

The Court will conduct the Final Approval Hearing at 10:00 a.m.,
on March 13, 2014, in the Courtroom of Judge Robert S. Lasnik of
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington in Seattle, to determine whether the proposed
Settlement, on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Agreement, is fair, reasonable and adequate.

A copy of the District Court's November 18, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/OdjV2Dfrom Leagle.com.


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Removes "Sayward" Suit to Mass. District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund Sayward, Sr. and Marc Abbott, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., Case No. 13-
3516 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., October 2, 2013) seeks to
recover unpaid wages and other damages based on the Defendant's
alleged failure to pay the putative class members all wages,
expenses, charges and other employee benefits allegedly owed to
them.

Pepperidge Farm, Inc. removed the lawsuit on November 1, 2013,
from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Suffolk County, to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because diversity of citizenship exists between one or more
members of the putative class and the Defendant.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:13-cv-12770-GAO to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
          Rachel M. Brown, Esq.
          Thomas V. Urmy, Jr., Esq.
          SHAPIRO, HABER & URMY, LLP
          53 State St., 37th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
          E-mail: imcloughlin@shulaw.com
                  rbrown@shulaw.com
                  turmy@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
          RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
          92 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 723-7700
          Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
          E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com

Pepperidge Farm, Inc. is represented by:

          Lisa Stephanian Burton, Esq.
          Peter J. Mee, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          225 Franklin Street, 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 341-7700
          Facsimile: (617) 341-7701
          E-mail: lburton@morganlewis.com
                  pmee@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Evans, Esq.
          Michael J. Puma, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: pevans@morganlewis.com
                  mpuma@morganlewis.com


PHELAN HALLINAN: Bid to Amend Complaint in RICO Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned EDWARD H. WOLFERD, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. LAWRENCE T. PHELAN; FRANCIS S. HALLINAN; DANIEL G.
SCHMIEG; PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG, LLP; FULL SPECTRUM SERVICES,
INC.; and LAND TITLE SERVICES OF N.J., INC. Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 09-1302, (E.D. Penn.) has filed a revised amended
motion for leave to amend his complaint.

The Plaintiff's proposed First Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1961 (RICO) and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 (FDCPA).
Plaintiff also seeks to bring a state law claim of Unjust
Enrichment.

In a Nov. 18, 2013 Memorandum available at http://is.gd/QuHea6
from Leagle.com, District Judge C. Darnell Jones denied the
Plaintiff's motion saying Mr. Wolferd is not a proper plaintiff
and his claims cannot be adjudicated by the Court.  Because Mr.
Wolferd lacked standing from the outset, the class has not yet
been certified, and the Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to cure
the standing deficiency, dismissal of the entire action is
warranted, Judge Jones concluded.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on Dec. 6 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of PhotoMedex,
Inc. common stock during the period between November 7, 2012
through November 14, 2013.

For more information regarding this class action suit, please
contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-
free at (877) 316-3218 or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or
visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/phmd

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.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
January 21, 2014, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that 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.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."
Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information about the case or to participate online,
please visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/phmdor contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by
e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

For more information about class action cases in general or to
learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website:
http://www.rmclasslaw.com

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.


PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT: May Face Suit Over Olive Grove Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marx, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that Gary
Sempf thought by now he would be on the cusp of retirement.  But
his life plans have been shattered by the collapse of a Queensland
olive grove investment scheme, which has cost more than 850
investors in excess of AUD39 million.

The disaster has wiped out his life savings of AUD100,000.  That
was all that was left over after paying off the debt from his sand
and gravel business once it sold about five years ago.  Worse
still, the 53-year-old is now shackled with about AUD600,000 of
debt from investment loans and has been forced to go back to work.

Mr. Sempf, who lives in Wondai, just north of Kingaroy, now toils
operating a front end loader in a quarry in Monto, about three
hours' drive away.  He gets up at 4:00 a.m. each work day and does
not return home until 6:00 p.m.

"These people lead me to believe I could retire by 55 and now I'm
in debt more than I've ever been in my life," Mr. Sempf said.

"I've gone from having money to being in debt and that's a lot for
me, especially at my age.  The whole point of working is to retire
and now it's gone."

Mr. Sempf believes his only chance of salvaging something from the
wreckage is a potential class action against one of Australia's
largest financial planning firms, Gold Coast-based Professional
Investment Services, and other financial services licensees.

Law firm Slater & Gordon is seeking investors who lost money in
the failed Brooklyn Park and Bonni-Foi olive grove schemes, which
were based near Inglewood, about 150km southwest of Toowoomba.

Lawyer Ben Whitwell is among those spearheading the investigation
into a possible action, which he alleges show that the schemes
were "inappropriately recommended" to retail clients.

He says many investors have alleged they were wrongly told they
would own the two olive groves, totaling about 450 ha, and the
associated infrastructure as a fall back security.

Australian Green & Gold Ltd., the entity legally responsible for
the olive grove investment schemes, unexpectedly announced plans
to wind up the schemes in September 2011.

Replacement managers at the Huntley Group then sold the land and
water assets for just $2.75 million, meaning investors would only
claw back about 5 per cent of what they had tipped in.

It is expected Bonni-Foi investors will retrieve just $325 for
every unit they had originally paid AUD7380 for, while Brooklyn
Park punters can expect just 48 cents per share.

Even then, that meager return is conditional on the buyer
completing the contract by 2015 and also securing the water
rights.

"The risks associated with investing in these schemes were
tremendously higher than what they were advised," Mr. Whitwell
alleged.

PIS and AG & G had one director in common and potential investors
were encouraged to secure loans through a PIS-related entity, he
claimed.

Mr. Sempf alleges that he was incorrectly assured of a 10
per cent-plus return and that his investment enjoyed government
backing which would provide for a bail out in case of its demise.
He also found that he had to pay onerous maintenance costs and
other fees.

PIS chief executive John de Zwart referred calls to a publicist,
who could not be contacted.

The group, which has more than 500 advisers nationwide, suffered
an AUD8.92 million net loss in the last financial year.  That
followed a AUD9.28 million loss in 2012.

Listed finance group Centrepoint Alliance acquired PIS in late
2010, the same year that the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission revealed concerns about the company's compliance with
financial services laws.

PIS provided an enforceable undertaking to address the issues
raised by ASIC, which said last July that an independent expert
will monitor the company for nine months.

Centrepoint, which itself reported a AUD7.3 million net loss last
year, acknowledged to investors earlier this year that PIS had
provided "inadequate care" to client relationships.

AG & G director Peter Shakespeare declined to comment.

Huntley Group managing director John Knox said the schemes failed
because the high Australian dollar meant it was cheaper for
resellers to import olive oil from Spain and Italy.  The cost of
production also exceeded the prices which could be charged, he
said.

For Mr. Sempf, the demise of his retirement nest egg means his
dreams of buying a caravan have been dashed.

Burdened with heart problems and the obligation to look after his
7-year-old son, he believes a class action is the only way he will
get justice.  "That's the only hope I've got left," Mr. Sempf
said.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: District Court Ruling in Attendants' Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed a district court ruling in BROWN v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN
CRUISES, LTD.

Appellants are eight individuals who work or worked as stateroom
attendants aboard cruise ships operated by Appellee Royal
Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. In this putative class action, the
Attendants allege Royal Caribbean unlawfully withheld or delayed
paying wages in violation of the Seamen Wage Act, 46 U.S.C.
Section 10313. When Royal Caribbean sought to enforce the
mandatory arbitration provisions in the employment and collective
bargaining agreements between the Attendants and Royal Caribbean,
the Attendants raised an affirmative defense: They argued that
because the arbitration provisions required the application of
Norwegian law to any dispute between the Attendants and Royal
Caribbean, they were contrary to public policy.

The district court found that the United Nations Convention on
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and its
implementing legislation required enforcement of the agreement to
arbitrate. The Attendants attempted to appeal, but the Eleventh
Circuit dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the
district court had not dismissed the Attendants' claims.  The
Attendants then asked the district court to dismiss their claims
so they could seek appellate review of the district court's order
compelling arbitration. The district court obliged, and an appeal
followed.

According to the Eleventh Circuit, the district court's
determination that the Attendants admitted to the existence of a
written arbitration agreement, establishing the only questionable
jurisdictional prerequisite, was not a clear error. The district
court found that the Attendants' factual allegations established
the existence of a written agreement binding the Attendants, and
that finding was not clearly erroneous.

In addition, ruled the Eleveth Circuit, the Attendants may not
raise their affirmative defense at this stage. A party opposing
arbitration pursuant to an international commercial agreement may
not seek to avoid arbitration on the basis that it is contrary to
public policy.

The case is NORRIS ANTHONY BROWN, Plaintiff, KENNETH DOWNER,
RICHARD GRAHAM YOUNG, ROAN DRUMOND SCOTT, CLIFF FITZ PATRICK,
AUZZIE DUANE DABRELL, FITZROY LLOYD JOHNSON, STANLEY ARMANDO
MULLINGS, GREGORY HUGHES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROYAL
CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-12391.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 18, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/5K00WDfrom Leagle.com.


SENSIA SALON: "Fried" TCPA Suit Stayed Pending FCC Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy F. Atlas granted a motion to stay proceedings pending
primary jurisdiction referral filed by defendants in the
telecommunications case captioned MILTON H. FRIED JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SENSIA SALON, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-00312, (S.D. Tex.).

Judge Atlas directed the parties to request from the Federal
Communications Commission a ruling on whether the equipment
Defendants' employed to send text messages to Plaintiffs qualifies
as an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The FCC is in the best position
to opine, in the first instance, on the technical and potentially
far-reaching issues implicated in Plaintiffs' claims, she said.

The Court urges the FCC to act promptly on this matter, as the
issues have widespread implications.

The Court further ordered the parties to jointly provide the Court
with a written status report the 30th of each May and November,
describing the status of the Federal Communications Commission
proceeding, including without limitation any information regarding
rulings that the agency has issued.

On or before January 13, 2014, the parties must jointly provide
the Court with a status report regarding the mediation of
Plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claim.

Defendant Air2Web's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), 8, and 23 is terminated
without prejudice.

A copy of the District Court's November 27, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/LIn4MZfrom Leagle.com.


SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Settlement of "Ching" Suit Wins Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granted preliminary approval of
a class action settlement in ALBERT CHING, Plaintiff, v. SIEMENS
INDUSTRY, INC., Defendant, NO. C 11-4838 MEJ, (N.D. Cal.).

Under the terms of the Agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay up
to $425,000 as the Maximum Gross Settlement Amount.

The Court conditionally approved, for the purposes of approving
the Settlement only, an opt-out class under Rule 23, Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, that is defined as:

All current or former Service Technicians employed to install,
inspect, repair and/or maintain fire systems ("Fire Service
Technicians") by Defendant Siemens Industry, Inc. ("Siemens") in
the State of California between August 19, 2007 and December 31,
2012, and who have not, as of the date of the preliminary
approval of the settlement, executed a general release of known
and unknown employment claims against Siemens, unless such
release specifically permits participation in this Settlement by
reference to this lawsuit.

The Court appointed Plaintiff Albert Ching as Class
Representative, Anthony J. Orshansky and David H. Yeremian of
Orshansky & Yeremian LLP as Class Counsel, and Gilardi & Co., LLC
as the Claims Administrator.

The Court established March 27, 2014 as the Final Approval
Hearing.

The Court granted the Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint to add a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 216. The allegations in the Second Amended
Complaint are deemed controverted by the Answer previously filed
by Siemens in response to the Complaint, and no further responsive
pleading is required.

A copy of the District Court's November 27, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/Y980mWfrom Leagle.com.


SIRIUS XM RADIO: Judge Responds to Sup. Ct. Justice's Criticisms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Vaughan, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
defended his custom of urging lead law firms in class actions to
staff the lawsuits with women and minority lawyers, two weeks
after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito took the unusual
step of criticizing the practice.

The judicial dustup stems from the Supreme Court's decision on
November 18 not to review a challenge to a class action settlement
that resolved antitrust claims against Sirius XM Radio Inc.

Though it declined to hear the case, Justice Alito wrote a
six-page statement criticizing the practice of Judge Harold Baer,
of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, of
encouraging firms that represent plaintiffs in class actions to
assign lawyers that reflect the gender and racial makeup of the
class.

Justice Alito likened the practice to "court-approved
discrimination" and said it might warrant further review by the
high court.

In an interview with Reuters, Judge Baer, 80, said that Justice
Alito lacked "either understanding or interest" in the
discrimination faced by blacks, Latinos and women.

"So for him to talk about it as if this is something we shouldn't
look at is unfortunate," Judge Baer said.

Justice Alito declined to comment through a Supreme Court
spokeswoman.

In court orders, Judge Baer has written that the practice is
warranted under a federal rule governing the certification of
class action lawsuits.  The rule says a judge may, among other
things, "consider any other matter pertinent to counsel's ability
to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class."

In the interview, Judge Baer said that he does not require the
firms to assign minority and women lawyers to cases.  Instead, he
said he notes the value of taking race and gender into account,
and only in cases where the plaintiffs are mainly minorities and
women.

If plaintiffs were "all white Anglo-Saxon Protestants," Judge Baer
said, "I would not likely be making these comments."

Judge Baer, whom President Bill Clinton nominated to the bench in
1994, said Justice Alito's salvo did not surprise him.

"I think the tongue-in-cheek answer would be that I was surprised
because of how much he's done in the way of supporting anti-
discrimination laws over the years," Judge Baer said.  "But that
would be just a facetious comment."

He said he was undeterred by Alito's criticism and welcomed a
Supreme Court challenge.

"That would be a wonderful thing," he said.  "They ought to do
that."


SPEARFISH, SD: Homeowners File Class Action Over Sewage Problem
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Montgomery, writing for KOTA Territory News, reports
that nearly 15 homeowners in Spearfish have come together against
the city to demand repairs to a problematic sewage problem that
has caused raw sewage backup in basements, washing machines, and
water heaters.

Kyle Mathis, Spearfish city engineer, says since then, the city
has hired an excavating company to take care of the problem.  This
project will cost $115,000.

The plan is to divert water from the line that caused the backups,
to other lines.  "If we do have higher flows in that area again,
this will hopefully, the way we modeled it, it looks like it will
reduce the high flow that currently goes through that area by 30
to 35%," said Mr. Mathis.

Larissa Cook is one of the homeowners affected by the raw sewage.
She says she thinks diverting water is only a temporary fix and
doesn't solve the real problem.

Ms. Cook says her basement flooded for the first time in 2008 and
she couldn't get help from the city.  "It's frustrating that it
takes 15 houses that come together, you have to hire a lawyer, put
together a class action law suit and threaten the city with it
before they're like 'okay we'll look into it.'  That's a little
ridiculous," said Ms. Cook.

The project is expected to take 20 days.


SPOKANE COUNTY, WA: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Rucker" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BETTY RUCKER, and others, Plaintiffs, v. SPOKANE COUNTY, a
municipal corporation, Defendant, NO. CV-12-5157-LRS (E.D. Wash.)
is a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 class action.  Plaintiff, Betty
Rucker, asserts her federal 5th and 14th Amendment due process
rights, and the rights of similarly situated class members, were
violated by Defendant Spokane County when they were incarcerated
for failing to pay legal financial obligations without a judicial
inquiry regarding the reasons for their failure to pay.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that written waivers of such a
hearing executed by her and others similarly situated were not
executed knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.

In a November 26, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/baxZMYfrom
Leagle.com, Senior District Judge Lonny R. Suko notes that over 30
years ago, in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 672, 103 S.Ct.
2064 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held:

In [probation] revocation proceedings for failure to pay a fine
or restitution, a sentencing court must inquire into the reasons
for the failure to pay. If the probationer willfully refused to
pay or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to
acquire the resources to pay, the court may revoke probation and
sentence the defendant to imprisonment within the authorized
range of its sentencing authority. If the probationer could not
pay despite sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire the resources
to do so, the court must consider alternate measures of
punishment other than imprisonment. Only if alternate measures
are not adequate to meet the State's interest in punishment and
deterrence may the court imprison a probationer who has made
sufficient bona fide efforts to pay. To do otherwise would
deprive the probationer of his conditional freedom simply
because, through no fault of his own, he cannot pay the fine.
Such a deprivation would be contrary to the fundamental fairness
required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

According to Judge Suko, "The critical issue is what process is
required to knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive a
Bearden inquiry and whether the process afforded to Ms. Rucker and
others in that regard was adequate to insure their waivers were
truly knowing, intelligent and voluntary."

Judge Suko says, "A court has a clear duty to insure that those
who appear before it and indicate they wish to waive
constitutional rights do so knowingly, intelligently and
voluntarily. This is the issue to which the parties and the court
will now turn their attention in this litigation."

Judge Suko concludes as a matter of law that the right to a
contemporaneous Bearden hearing prior to incarceration for LFO
violations may be waived.

Accordingly, Judge Suko grants the Defendant's Motion For Partial
Summary Judgment and denies the Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion For
Partial Summary Judgment.

For Plaintiffs:

   Andrew S. Biviano, Esq.
   The Scott Law Group, P.S.
   Spokane Chronicle Building
   926 W. Sprague Ave, Suite 680
   Spokane, WA 99201
   Telephone: (509) 455-3966
   Facsimile: (509) 455-3906

Michael T. Kitson, Esq. -- mtk@pattersonbuchanan.com -- argued for
Defendant.


SUN CONSTRUCTION: Court Remands "Grant" Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jay C. Zainey granted a motion to remand filed by
plaintiffs in the case captioned PATRICIA GRANT, ET AL. v. SUN
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6032, (E.D. La.).

This litigation concerns the allegedly defective drainage system
of the Penn Mill Lakes Subdivision located in St. Tammany Parish,
Louisiana.

According to the Defendants, the District Court has subject matter
jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331
because the allegations in the Second Amended Petition have
transformed this case from one that arises under state law to one
that now arises "under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the
United States" because the claims will now require the presiding
judge to interpret and apply federal law.

However, Judge Zainey found that the Defendants have not met their
burden of establishing that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter.  The case must, therefore, be
remanded to state court from which it was removed, he said.

The Plaintiffs' argument regarding the consent of all defendants
is moot. The request for attorney's fees and costs is denied.

A copy of the District Court's November 27, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/BjRDurfrom Leagle.com.


TEACHERS INSURANCE: January Bench Trial Set in Bauer-Ramazani Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Garvan Murtha granted, in part, and denied, in
part, a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants in the
case captioned CHRISTINE BAUER-RAMAZANI and CAROLYN B. DUFFY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA-COLLEGE RETIREMENT AND EQUITIES FUND, COLLEGE RETIREMENT
AND EQUITIES FUND, TIAA-CREF INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, TEACHERS
ADVISORS, INC., TIAA-CREF INDIVIDUAL & INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES,
LLC, and TEACHERS' INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:09-CV-190, (D. Vt.).

Counts II (duty of impartiality claim) and III (prohibited
transactions claim) are dismissed, ruled Judge Murtha.  The
Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial
is granted.

Accordingly, Judge Murtha said, the case will proceed as a bench
trial on Count I (duty of loyalty claim), currently scheduled for
January 21-24, 2014. The parties are directed to file a joint
trial memorandum, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
on or before January 3, 2014. A pre-trial conference will be held
January 17, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court
for the District of Vermont in Brattleboro, Vermont. In light of
this decision and the recommendation of the Early Neutral
Evaluator, the Court directed the parties to conduct a second
session with Evaluator William R. Jentes on or before January 10,
2014.

This case, which was originally filed by Norman Walker in August
2009, alleged that Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of
America-College Retirement and Equities Fund wrongfully kept
customer accounts open for days or weeks after receiving
instructions to close them, and retained all investment income
earned in the interim for itself.

A copy of the District Court's November 27, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/LIn4MZfrom Leagle.com.


TESLA MOTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 6
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla
Motor, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Northern District of California,
and docketed under 3:13-cv-05216, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Tesla securities between May 10, 2013 and November 6,
2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for 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 Tesla securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 7, 2014 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.

Tesla designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles, including its flagship Model S, and electric vehicle
powertrain components.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Tesla's
business, including: (1) Tesla's statements about the Model S's
highest safety rating and its lack of prior fire incidents were
materially misleading, due to undisclosed puncture and fire risks
in its undercarriage and lithium ion battery pack; (2) the Model S
suffered from material defects which caused the battery pack to
ignite and erupt in flames under certain driving conditions; (3)
Tesla's future sales, its next generation Model X introduction,
and its stock price were extremely vulnerable to the inherent risk
posed by the Model S's undercarriage and battery pack design
flaws; (4) Tesla was unable to maintain a level of automobile
deliveries sufficient to satisfy analyst concerns and compensate
for other declining revenue streams; and, (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Tesla's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 2, 2013, a video of a Model S burning on the roadside
was widely circulated, which Tesla attributed to a collision with
road debris.  The same day, Tesla was downgraded by an analyst who
pointed to significant execution risks it faced.  On this news,
Tesla shares declined $12.05 per share, or more than 6%, to close
at $180.95.

On October 28, 2013 a second Model S fire occurred in Mexico,
which Tesla blamed on the car's rate of speed and its crash into a
tree.  On this news, Tesla shares fell $7.32 per share, or more
than 4.3% to close at $162.86 on October 28, 2013.

Tesla's stock closed at $176.81 on November 5, 2013.  That day,
after hours, Tesla announced its Q3 2013 results, which failed to
meet analyst expectations on key metrics, including rate of
vehicle deliveries.  On November 7, 2013, Tesla confirmed a third
Model S fire, caused by impact with road debris during normal
driving conditions.  On this news, Tesla shares opened at $154.81
on November 6, 2013 -- $22.00 per share (12.44%) lower than the
prior day's closing price, and declined on November 6-7, 2013 to
$139.77.

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.


UNITED STATES: Sup. Court to Hear Arguments on Child Status Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Reeves, Esq., at Reeves Miller Zhang & Diza, formerly
Reeves & Associates, has been fighting for the rights of children
who turned 21 (aged out) and were left behind when their parents
immigrated to the United States.  The Firm has pursued a class
action challenging the US Citizenship and Immigration Services'
interpretation of Section 203(h)(3) of the Child Status Protection
Act (CSPA).  The case is currently entitled Mayorkas v. De Osorio
and it is about to be argued before the nine justices of the US
Supreme Court.

The class action began life in the United States District Court as
two cases: De Osorio v. Mayorkas and Costelo v. Napolitano.
Costelo v. Napolitano was certified by US District Court Judge
Selna as a nationwide class action.  Nancy E. Miller of Reeves
Miller Zhang & Diza was certified as the lead counsel in this
class action.  When the District Court granted summary judgment
for the government, attorneys for the parents of the aged-out
children appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The cases were consolidated (joined together for
court processing purposes) at that time.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Reeves Miller Zhang
& Diza that the plain language of the CSPA unambiguously grants
automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out
derivative beneficiaries of all family-based and employment-based
petitions.

USCIS appealed to the United States Supreme Court to review the
decision of the Ninth Circuit.  The Supreme Court agreed to hear
the case.  Briefs have been filed on behalf of the parents, the
government and various interested parties, including current and
former members of Congress who were directly involved in the
passage of the CSPA.  Oral argument in the case will be held on
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at the Supreme Court in Washington,
D.C.

Section 203(h)(3) of the CSPA allows aged-out derivative
beneficiaries to automatically convert to the appropriate category
and to retain the priority date of the petition originally filed
on behalf of their parents when their parents obtain their green
cards.  The issue we have been fighting for is whether the benefit
applies to all derivative beneficiaries in the family-based and
employment-based categories or whether it only benefits the
children of green card holders who age out while waiting for their
priority dates to become current.  This is important because which
interpretation prevails will directly affect whether families can
stay together, or, if they must be separated, for how long.  A
reading of the plain language of the statute leads to the
conclusion that the benefits apply to all family-based and
employment-based aged-out children.  That means that, when the
parents (the original beneficiaries of petitions filed by their
United States citizen (USC) parents, USC siblings, lawful
permanent resident (LPR or "green card holding") parents or
employers) get their green cards, their children who aged-out
(turned 21) while waiting for the priority date to become current,
convert to the category of adult son or daughter of green card
holders with the priority date of the petition filed for their
parent.  This is the conclusion reached by the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

No decision was expected to be issued on Tuesday, December 10th.
The US Supreme Court could issue their decision at the end of term
in June or at any time between now and then.  In the meantime, as
Nancy Miller prepares to go to Washington to attend the oral
argument, she is acutely aware that she carries the hopes of the
parents and children who are waiting to be reunited.


US BANCORP: Sued Over Use of Automated Clearing House Network
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angel L. Gordon, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. U.S. Bancorp, and U.S. Bank National Association, Case
No. 0:13-cv-03005-PJS-JJG (D. Minn., November 1, 2013) is brought
to recover damages and other relief available at law and in equity
on behalf of the Plaintiff as well as on behalf of members of the
class, who have been injured by U.S. Bank's participation in a
scheme to access and utilize the Automated Clearing House network
to collect unlawful debts.

U.S. Bancorp is a multi-state financial services holding company
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the parent company of
U.S. Bank National Association.  U.S. Bank National Association is
one of the largest commercial banks in the United States and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Steve Six, Esq.
          J. Austin Moore, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  six@stuevesiegel.com
                  moore@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          1350 Broadway, Suite 908
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (917) 595-3600
          Facsimile: (404) 876-4476
          E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Anna C. Haac, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com
                  ahaac@tzlegal.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Todd A. Noteboom, Esq.
          Peter J. Schwingler, Esq.
          LEONARD STREET AND DEINARD, PA
          150 S 5th St., Suite 2300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335-1894
          Facsimile: (612) 335-1657
          E-mail: todd.noteboom@leonard.com
                  peter.schwingler@leonard.com


USPLABS LLC: Faces Class Action Over OxyElite Pro Supplements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Long, writing for Natural Products Insider, reports that
USPlabs LLC, the manufacturer of such sports supplements as Jack3d
and OxyElite Pro, is facing a growing number of lawsuits over its
products thanks to an outbreak of hepatitis and liver failure.

In the latest development, a proposed class action lawsuit was
filed on Dec. 5 in California federal court against USPlabs and
GNC Corp., which sells USPlabs supplements.

"Defendants' claims of safe and effective weight loss and energy
health benefits are false, misleading, reasonably likely to
deceive the public, and constitute an unfair business practice,"
alleged the complaint, which was filed by the Desai Law Firm P.C.
in Costa Mesa.

The suit proposed to represent a nationwide class of "All persons
who purchased OxyElite Pro and Jack3D in the United States for
personal use."  It alleged violations of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and California Business & Professions Code as well as
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and unjust
enrichment.

Dallas-based USPlabs did not immediately respond on Dec. 6 to a
request for comment.  Pittsburgh-based GNC declined comment,
citing its policy.

Both companies previously were named as defendants in two lawsuits
that were filed on behalf of victims of a non-viral hepatitis
outbreak in Hawaii.  The outbreak has been associated with one
death, two liver transplants and dozens of other illnesses.

USPlabs has consistently proclaimed its supplements are safe.  It
also believes counterfeit products of OxyElite Pro have been sold.
Asked whether FDA has found evidence of any counterfeit products,
a spokesperson for the agency, Marianna Naum, declined comment on
Dec. 5, citing an ongoing investigation.

Ms. Naum said the agency is reviewing 37 medical records that
involve consumers who reported ingesting OxyElite Pro before they
fell ill.  She said 27 patients are from Hawaii, while the
remainder live in the continental United States.

Patients reported taking the recommended dosage of OxyElite Pro
and local health officials were unaware of any conditions that
would predispose the individuals to liver failure, Sarah Park,
M.D., State Epidemiologist with the Hawaii State Department of
Health, told Natural Products INSIDER in an October 2013
interview.

The hepatitis outbreak is the latest crisis to rock USPlabs, whose
supplements containing a stimulant known as DMAA have been linked
to deaths and other illnesses and were later seized by the
government in an enforcement action.  The products, valued at
roughly USD$8.5 million, were subsequently voluntarily destroyed.

USPlabs reformulated OxyElite Pro and Jack3d to exclude DMAA.  And
last month, the company advised FDA it would remove the ingredient
aegeline from its products after the agency claimed the substance
was not proven to be safe.


VILLAGE OF PALATINE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SENNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF PALATINE, Defendant, CASE NO.
10 C 5434, (N.D. Ill.), alleges that the Village's practice of
printing on parking tickets personal information obtained from
motor vehicle records violates the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
(DPPA), 18 U.S.C. Section 2721. The Village moved for summary
judgment.

District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted the Village of
Palatine's motion for summary judgment and directed the Clerk to
enter judgment in favor of the Defendant.

According to Judge Kennelly, the Court is persuaded that the
Village's potential or ultimate uses of personal information are
for uses by a government agency in carrying out its functions
under Section 2721(b)(1), and are thus in compliance with the
DPPA. Those purposes justify the inclusion of personal information
on parking tickets, irrespective of whether that information is
actually used for those purposes in a given particular situation,
he said.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is terminated as
moot.

A copy of the District Court's November 27, 2013 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/FzmU43from
Leagle.com.


VXI GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Hourly, Non-Exempt Employees, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anzel Milini, 1207 26th Street NE, Canton, Ohio 44714, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. VXI Global
Solutions, Inc., 20 W. Federal Street 4th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio
44503, Case No. 4:13-cv-02441-JRA (N.D. Ohio, November 1, 2013) is
a "collective action" instituted by the Plaintiff as a result of
the Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its hourly,
non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff and other similarly-
situated employees, for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

VXI Global Solutions, Inc., operates call centers in Youngstown
and Canton, Ohio, which provide customer service support.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


WALGREEN CO: Deceives Buyers of Glucosamine Supplement, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John J. Gross, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:13-
cv-06630-JEI-AMD (D.N.J., November 1, 2013) alleges that during
the class period, Walgreens sold a line of glucosamine and
chondroitin supplements with the false promise and deceptive
warranty that its products "rebuild cartilage."  Mr. Gross
contends that as Walgreens was fully aware, it is physically and
biologically impossible to "rebuild" cartilage that has been lost
or damaged.

Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Deerfield, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Bahuriak, Esq.
          BAHURIAK LAW GROUP
          210 Haddon Avenue
          Westmont, NJ 08108
          E-mail: bahuriaklawgroup@gmail.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


WASHINGTON: Trial Court Ruling in Suit vs. DSHS Overturned
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, reversed a trial
court ruling in the case captioned MICHAEL SCHATZ; DANI KENDALL;
and JOSEPH MINOR, as individuals and as class representatives for
all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. STATE OF
WASHINGTON; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES; DEPARTMENT
OF PERSONNEL; and DOES 1-10 in their official capacities,
Appellants, NO. 42332-4-II.

Psychiatric security nurses and psychiatric security attendants
who work in the forensic wards at the state's psychiatric
hospitals filed this suit against the Department of Social and
Health Services (DSHS), the Department of Personnel (Personnel),
and officials of both agencies, seeking an increase in their
salary ranges. The employees alleged that the State violated their
equal protection rights, violated the comparable worth statutes,
and acted arbitrarily and capriciously by setting their salary
ranges lower than their counterparts in the civil commitment
wards. The trial court agreed with the employees and, following a
bench trial, found that the State had violated the employees'
equal protection rights and their rights under the comparable
worth statutes. The State appealed the trial court's verdict and
award of attorney fees to the employees, arguing that (1) there is
a rational basis for paying forensic and civil nurses differently,
(2) the employees have no right to adjustment of their wages under
the comparable worth statutes, (3) the trial court improperly
granted a writ of certiorari, (4) the trial court erred by finding
that the State was collaterally estopped by a 1983 order, and (5)
the trial court erred by awarding the employees attorney fees
under both the common fund doctrine and fee-shifting statutes. The
employees cross appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by
finding that they are not entitled to double damages under RCW
49.52.070.

"Because it is reasonable for the State to pay employees the
salaries they collectively bargained for, the employees' equal
protection claim fails," ruled the Washington Appeals Court.
"Additionally, the employees are not entitled to any relief under
the 1980s era comparable worth statutes. We reverse and hold that
the employees are not entitled to attorney fees because they did
not prevail," the Court held.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 19, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/0GEST1from Leagle.com.

Kara Anne Larsen, Office of The Atty General, Po Box 40145, 7141
Cleanwater Dr Sw, Olympia, WA, 98504-0145; Alicia O. Young,
Attorney General's Office, Po Box 40126, Olympia, WA, 98504-0126,
Counsel for Appellants.

Counsel for Respondent/Cross-Appellant are Philip Albert Talmadge
-- Phil@tal-fitzlaw.com -- Talmadge/Fitzpatrick, 18010 Southcenter
Pkwy, Tukwila, WA, 98188-4630, and:

   Richard H. Wooster, Esq.
   Kram & Wooster, P.S.
   1901 South I Street
   Tacoma, WA 98405
   Telephone: (253) 572-4161
              (253) 572-4161
   Facsimile: (253) 572-4167


                             *********

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  * * *