CAR_Public/131218.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 250

                             Headlines



ANZ BANK: Hearing in Melbourne Class Action Over Fees Ends
ANZ BANK: Fiji & Pacific Customers Not Affected by Class Action
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued for Understating Iclusig Side Effects
BANK OF AMERICA: Countrywide Increased Default Risk, Suit Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses "Riddle" Class Action Suit

BODY CENTRAL: Seeks Removal of Class Action to Federal Court
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Suit Over Generic Version of Aggrenox
BRICKMAN GROUP: Faces Overtime Class Action in Pennsylvania
CAMBRIDGE, NE: Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation Farmers Mull Suit
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Faces Class Suit Over Transit Fare Card System

COMMUNITY BANK: Wins Final OK of $2.5MM Overdraft Suit Settlement
CVS CAREMARK: Cal. Court Refused to Certify Class in "Ortiz" Suit
FAB UNIVERSAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
FIRSTMED EMS: Faces Class Action in N.C. Over WARN Violation
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Sells Defective HVAC Systems, Class Claims

HITACHI DISPLAYS: More Deals Reached in LCD Price-Fixing Cases
INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL: No Class Status in Filipino Workers' Suit
INSTITUTE FOR INTEGRATIVE: Court Narrows Claims in "Stoler" Suit
JUSTMUGSHOTS.COM: Jan. Hearing Set for Class Action Dismissal Bid
L'OREAL: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Anti-Wrinkle Cream Class Actions

LINEAR LLC: Recalls PERS Transmitters Due to Signal Failure
LINKEDIN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
NAT'L HOCKEY: To Vigorously Defend Players' Concussion Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Imported Illegally Cropped Timber, Suit Says
NQ MOBILE: Class Seeks $500-Mil. That Was Wiped Out in Single Day

NUVENCO INC: Recalls Bed Bug Heating Units Due to Fire Hazard
ONTARIO, CANADA: Sued Over "Shameful" EMDC Living Conditions
QUEEN CITY INVESTMENT: Ran $50-Mil. Ponzi Scheme, Class Claims
RAM'S IMPORTS: Recalls IQ Girls' Hooded Pink Leopard Jackets
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Calif. Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss

SHAW INDUSTRIES: Recalls Aristocrat II Carpet Due to Fire Hazard
SOLOWAVE DESIGN: 20,000+ Home Playground Tube Slides Recalled
SUFFOLK COUNTY: Atty. Fee Bid Okayed in Suit vs. Commissioner
SYMANTEC CORP: "Haskins" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by Aggrenox Consumers, 3rd-Party Payors

TORO CO: Recalls 34,500 TimeMaster and TurfMaster Lawn Mowers
TREK BICYCLES: Recalls 6,800 Madone Bicycles Due to Crash Hazard
UBER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Drivers' Class Action
WESTERN UNION: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Colorado
WORLD FAMOUS: Recalls UVX 1 and UVX 2 Waterproofing Protector

YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Denied Approval of Investors' Suit Settlement

* Recent Arbitration Agreement Ruling May Affect EPLI Sales


                             *********


ANZ BANK: Hearing in Melbourne Class Action Over Fees Ends
----------------------------------------------------------
BankingDay reports that the Federal Court's hearing of the ANZ
exception fees class action test case ended in Melbourne on
Dec. 10, with counsel for both sides presenting their final oral
submissions to the bench.

Counsel for the bank Alan Archibald and Michael O'Bryan made
detailed presentations defending ANZ against claims it had
overcharged customers and had acted unconscionably.

Both counsel relied on evidence given to the court by British
banking expert, Will Inglis.


ANZ BANK: Fiji & Pacific Customers Not Affected by Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Panapasa, writing for Fiji Times Online, reports that
ANZ Bank customers in Fiji and the Pacific will not be affected by
the class action lawsuit in Australia.

And according to a spokesperson for the bank, this was an
Australia-only issue and maintained its stance that it would
continue to vigorously defend the class action brought against it
in regard to exception fees by the publicly-listed litigation
funder IMF (Australia) Limited.

"About 43,500 ANZ customers in Australia represented by law firm
Maurice Blackburn are claiming $A57million ($F96.78 million) from
ANZ, over claims that the bank charged them "exorbitant fees","
the spokesperson said.

"These include dishonor fees on bank accounts, as well as over-
limit fees and late payment fees on credit cards.

"ANZ is not the only bank that is facing such a case in Australia.
Maurice Blackburn has also launched a broader class action suit
involving 170,000 customers and seven other banks -- the largest
collective legal action in Australia."  Banks involved in the
broader class action suit were Citibank, Commonwealth Bank,
National Australia Bank (NAB), St George, Westpac, BankSA and
Bankwest.

"ANZ's position has not changed from what has been publicly
communicated since September 6, 2012," the spokesperson told this
newspaper on Dec. 10.

On September 6 last year, the bank said, the decision by the
High Court of Australia effectively expanded the law of penalty
with implications for many Australian businesses.

For the IMF class action, ANZ said, it was a first step in the
overall proceedings, which would continue into 2013.

"This action is still at the preliminary stages.  The matter will
now return to the Federal Court.  The High Court has not
determined whether ANZ's fees are penalties," said ANZ Australia
chief executive Philip Chronican.

In December 2009, the bank abolished 27 fees on personal accounts,
reduced overdrawn, dishonor, late payment and removed those fees
for recipients of government benefits with an access basic
account.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued for Understating Iclusig Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Harvey J. Berger, Timothy P. Clackson, Edward M. Fitzgerald,
and Frank G. Haluska, Case No. 1:13-cv-13082-WGY (D. Mass.,
December 3, 2013) is a federal securities fraud class action
brought on behalf of persons who, between December 12, 2011, and
October 8, 2013, inclusive, purchased, otherwise acquired, or
contracted to acquire Ariad securities.  The Company's most
advanced drug is ponatinib, trade-named Iclusig.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants characterized Iclusig
as well tolerated, the Plaintiff notes.  The Plaintiff adds that
the Defendants assured investors that Iclusig's side effects were
easily managed and that data from ongoing clinical trials did not
indicate increased risk of serious cardiovascular side effects.
However, the Plaintiff contends, these statements were materially
false and misleading when made because on October 9, 2013, Ariad
issued a press release disclosing that ongoing trial data showed
evidence of serious cardiovascular risks associated with Iclusig.

Founded in 1991, Ariad is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Ariad is a biotechnology company that
focuses on the development of oncology treatments.  The Company's
most advanced drug is ponatinib, trade-named Iclusig.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Thornton, Esq.
          Garrett J. Bradley, Esq.
          Andrea M. Landry, Esq.
          THORNTON & NAUMES, LLP
          100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 720-1333
          Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
          E-mail: mthornton@tenlaw.com
                  gbradley@tenlaw.com
                  alandry@tenlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  mstocker@labaton.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Countrywide Increased Default Risk, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, (n.k.a. Bank of
America Home Loans); Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Bank of America
Corp., Bank of America N.A., and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2013-00689943-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., November 25, 2013)
brought against the Defendants for equitable (injunctive and
declaratory) relief, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that Countrywide knew that a significant
percentage of its income deficient loans were originated in
California, and if housing prices were to level or decline in
California, these California income deficient borrowers would
default and their homes foreclosed upon in large numbers that the
resulting effect would lead to declines in home prices that would
be so severe that the aggregate principal loan balances of a very
high percentage of its post-June 2005 cash-out refinance borrowers
would be greater than the market value of their homes.  In other
words, Mr. Marino contends, Countrywide had materially increased
the risk that cash-out refinance borrowers entering into loans
with Countrywide after June of 2005, would be subject to a
deficiency judgment in the event of default.

Bank of America is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.  Bank of America N.A. is a federally
chartered bank and B of A's principal banking subsidiary.  BANA
has substantial business operations and offices in New York.

Countrywide Financial Corporation is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Calabasas, California.  CFC, itself or through
its subsidiaries, is engaged in mortgage lending and other real
estate finance-related businesses, including mortgage banking,
securities dealing, and insurance underwriting.  On July 1, 2008,
Countrywide merged with Bank of America and is now a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bank of America.  Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., is a
New York corporation headquartered in Calabasas, California.
Countrywide Home Loans originates and services residential home
mortgage loans and is a subsidiary of CFC.  Pursuant to the merger
on July 1, 2008, Countrywide Home Loans was acquired by Bank of
America and now operates under the trade name "Bank of America
Home Loans."  At all relevant times, until December 15, 2004, Full
Spectrum Lending, Inc., was a California corporation that
transacted business throughout the State of California and was a
subsidiary of CFC.  On December 15, 2004, Full Spectrum was merged
into and became a division of CHL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George H. Spizzirri, Esq.
          806 E. Avenida Pico, Suite I - #313
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 218-4765
          Facsimile: (949) 218-6737
          E-mail: georgespizzirri@gmail.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses "Riddle" Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Riddle and Marilyn Fischer, individually and on behalf of a
putative class, claim that their mortgage lender, Bank of America
(BOA), and private mortgage insurance companies were part of a
scam involving kickbacks and unearned fees in violation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Defendants claim
that Plaintiffs failed to bring their claims within RESPA's
statute of limitations. Plaintiffs seek to invoke the doctrine of
equitable tolling to save their claims. Previously, the Court
denied Defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to
conduct limited discovery on the statute of limitations and
equitable tolling issues. That discovery is complete, and
Defendants have moved for summary judgment.

In a November 18, 2013 Memorandum available at http://is.gd/2rolkL
from Leagle.com, District Judge Berle M. Schiller granted the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment saying the clock has run
on Plaintiffs' RESPA claims and despite ample opportunity, they
are unable to create a triable fact that they are entitled to
equitable tolling.  The Court, therefore, dismissed the case.

The case is THOMAS J. RIDDLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1740, (E.D.
Pa.).


BODY CENTRAL: Seeks Removal of Class Action to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that a popular Fairview Heights clothing store
seeks to remove a class action lawsuit alleging it videotaped
women in the dressing room without their knowledge.

Defendant Body Central filed a notice of removal on Dec. 2 through
attorney Susan Bassford Wilson of Constangy, Brooks & Smith in
St. Louis claiming removal requirements have been met.

It argues that removal is appropriate due to diversity of
citizenship.  The plaintiffs are citizens of Illinois and seek to
represent an Illinois-only class.  Body Central is a citizen of
Florida.

It also claims the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.  The
plaintiffs do not specify the amount of monetary relief they seek,
but relief is sought for the plaintiffs and every member of the
putative class.

"None of the plaintiffs have alleged or stipulated that they are
seeking less than $75,000," the notice states.  "Without
addressing, or admitting to, the merits of plaintiffs' claims and
without waiving any rights or defenses to which Body Central may
be entitled, even individually the plaintiffs recovery could
easily exceed the jurisdictional limits."

Body Central says removal is proper according to the Class Action
Fairness Act, claiming the class could be as large as 62,988
people.

The class is described as "all customers, visitors and/or business
invitees of the Body Central store located at 134 St. Clair
Avenue, Fairview Heights State of Illinois, who have used the
changing rooms in the store from 2008 to the present."

According to the complaint filed Sept. 3, plaintiffs
Trania Pawnell, Kimberly Stacker and Jamie Manske say the store
video recorded them and other women in the changing rooms.

Because the women claim they did not give consent to be
videotaped, Body Central's actions were unauthorized and illegal,
the suit states.

"As a direct and proximate result of defendant's intrusion upon
the privacy of the individual plaintiffs while each was in a
changing room, plaintiffs have suffered embarrassment, mental
anguish and emotional distress," the complaint states.

David I. Cates and Ryan J. Mahoney of Cates Mahoney LLC in Swansea
represent the plaintiffs.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 13-L-451


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Suit Over Generic Version of Aggrenox
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH &
Co. Kg; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.;
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales
Corp, Case No. 2:13-cv-06992-MSG (E.D. Pa., December 2, 2013) is a
civil antitrust action seeking treble damages arising out of the
Defendants' alleged unlawful exclusion of generic competition from
the market for capsules that combine 200 mg extended release
dipyridamole and 25 mg acetylsalicylic acid -- a product sold by
Boehringer under the brand-name Aggrenox.  Aggrenox is prescribed
to reduce the risk of stroke in patients, who have had transient
ischemia of the brain or completed ischemic stroke due to
thrombosis.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG is a German limited
partnership headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany.  Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH is a German private limited liability
company headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany.  Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Ridgefield, Connecticut.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania.  Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd., is an Israeli corporation headquartered in
Petach Tikva, Israel.  Teva is a leading manufacturer of generic
drugs, and it is one of the largest sellers of generic drugs in
the United States.  Teva purchased Barr in 2008, and Barr is now a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva.  Barr is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  Prior to 2004, Barr
was known as Barr Laboratories, Inc.  In 2008, Barr became a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva.

Duramed is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake,
New Jersey.  Until 2008, Duramed was a subsidiary of Barr.  In
2008, when Teva purchased Barr, Duramed became a subsidiary of
Teva.  Duramed is now known as Teva Women's Health Inc.  Duramed
Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  Until 2008, DPSC was a subsidiary
of Barr.  In 2008, when Teva purchased Barr, DPSC became a
subsidiary of Teva.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  dsorensen@bm.net
                  ccoslett@bm.net

               - and -

          Peter R. Kohn, Esq.
          Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
                  jlukens@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Barry S. Taus, Esq.
          Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
          E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
                  atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


BRICKMAN GROUP: Faces Overtime Class Action in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action and collective action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of all Supervisors (Landscaping Supervisors, Work Order
Supervisors, Crew Supervisors, Irrigation Supervisors, etc.)
employed by The Brickman Group, Ltd., LLC.  The lawsuit, captioned
Amador v. The Brickman Group, Ltd., LLC, No. 3:13-cv-02529 (M.D.
Pa.), was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.  The case is brought on behalf of all
current and former Supervisors employed by The Brickman Group
anywhere in the United States who were only paid half-time
overtime according to the "fluctuating work week" method of
compensation, whereby they receive only half-time overtime pay for
hours worked over 40 in a workweek, from October 8, 2010 through
the present.

The case alleges that The Brickman Group violated the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania state wage laws by paying
overtime at only half-time, rather than at a rate of time and
one-half the required regular rate.  "The Brickman Group appears
to be engaging in violations of the federal and state overtime
laws, and should be held accountable for failing to properly
compensate its Supervisors for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek," said Shanon Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- of Berger &
Montague, P.C., one of the attorneys representing the plaintiff.
Another attorney for the plaintiff, C. Andrew Head of Fried &
Bonder LLC, stated, "It is important that this conduct be
addressed by the courts, so that a determination can be made that
Brickman Group's policy of paying only half-time overtime to all
of its Supervisors across the United States violates the law."

Current and former Supervisor employees of The Brickman Group may
obtain additional information about this lawsuit by calling
Alexandra L. Koropey at (215) 875-3063, or by email at
akoropey@bm.net

Information concerning the above case, including an electronic
copy of the complaint and opt-in consent form, is also available
at http://www.bergermontague.com

The case is being prosecuted by Berger & Montague, P.C., based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Fried & Bonder, LLC, based in
Atlanta, Georgia.  The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. --
http://www.bergermontague.com-- consists of over 60 attorneys who
represent plaintiffs in complex litigation.  The firm has played
lead roles in major cases for almost 40 years resulting in
recoveries of billions of dollars for its clients and the classes
they represent.  The law firm of Fried & Bonder, LLC --
http://www.friedbonder.com-- represents plaintiffs in complex
litigation, with a focus on class and collective actions for
unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and state wage laws.


CAMBRIDGE, NE: Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation Farmers Mull Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
McCook Daily Gazette reports that smarting from the loss of 40,000
acre feet of water during the 2013 irrigating season, farmers from
the Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District are giving
consideration to a class action lawsuit to protect their
interests.

More than 100 F-CID irrigators gathered on Dec. 6 at the Cambridge
Community Building for a briefing by Dave Domina, a veteran
attorney with extensive experience in the water field.

No official action was taken, however, the overwhelming consensus
was to pursue compensation and/or legal action.

The Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District serves between 350 and
400 irrigators in four Southwest Nebraska counties: Hitchcock,
Red Willow, Furnas and Harlan.  With four canals that span a
combined total of 156 miles, F-CID's 12 employees serve irrigators
with 45,669 acres of farmland.

Brad Edgerton is the general manager of the Frenchman-Cambridge
District.  The district works closely with other irrigation
districts up and down the Frenchman and Republican River valleys,
including the Frenchman Valley, Hitchcock & Red Willow and
Bostwick districts, stretching all the way from Palisade on the
west to Superior on the east.


CHICAGO TRANSIT: Faces Class Suit Over Transit Fare Card System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago's newly privatized transit fare card system, widely
derided as a fiasco, deducts money from riders' bank accounts
crediting it to their cards, double bills them, sometimes doesn't
issue cards at all, and issued one woman 274 cards, according to a
federal class action and news reports.

Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that lead
plaintiff Min Ro sued the private contractor, Cubic Corp., Cubic
Transportation Systems, its Chicago affiliate, and the Chicago
Transit Authority.

The CTA runs the city's buses and trains, including the famous El.

In 2011 the CTA awarded Cubic a $454 million contract to develop
an automated fare system for customers to pay for bus and train
rides with a single fare card throughout the Chicago region.

The Ventra system went live in September this year.  It was to
replace the old fare system by Dec. 15, but that date has been
pushed back indefinitely.

"The Ventra system experienced a multitude of problems after being
rolled out to the public, such as extremely poor customer service,
failing to deliver Ventra cards to customers, overcharging
customers, and equipment and Ventra card failures, making the
planned transition to the Ventra system in the time-frame
represented impossible," the complaint states.

Many people who ordered a Ventra card online never received it in
the mail.  Others received multiple cards.  One rider received 274
Ventra cards, all in her name, according to RedeyeChicago.com, an
online Tribune newspaper.

Riders also frequently report being charged twice for one fare.

Speaking to a Ventra customer service agent often requires waiting
on hold for more than an hour, and is impossible during evenings
and weekends.

On Nov. 13, Ventra card-readers at almost half of CTA's train
stations failed just before evening rush hour.  Commuters waited
in long lines waiting until the CTA decided to wave 15,000 people
through the turnstiles for free.

"The reason that neither Cubic nor the CTA notified the public
about any potential problems was that the CTA faced significant
pressure to begin the Ventra implementation on schedule based on
its promises and representations to the public," the complaint
states.  "Furthermore, Cubic had a powerful financial incentive to
get the CTA to proclaim Ventra largely bug-free and well on its
way to full deployment, as once that happened, the CTA was
contractually obligated to begin paying Cubic at least $2.5
million per month."

Ro says she paid a $5 non-refundable fee for her first Ventra
Card, a fee the card contract stated would be "credited to your
Ventra account as transit value if you register your account
within 90 days of purchasing your Ventra Card."

She says she registered in September, but never got the $5 credit.

"Additionally, plaintiff attempted to load transit value onto her
Ventra card and Ventra account on various dates since September,
2013, at various Ventra vending machines and online at
www.ventrachicago.com.  Although the Ventra system debited money
from plaintiff's bank account when she attempted to load transit
value onto her Ventra card and Ventra account, the transit value
was never loaded onto her Ventra card or Ventra account," Ro
claims.

A mock Ventra Twitter account spoofing the new system has gained
almost 4,000 followers.

Recent tweets include: "Happy #CyberMonday, Chicago! Today, we're
offering 2-for-1 charges on #Ventra!" And: "Problems with your
#Ventra Card? Never fear! Just learn how to hang glide, go up to
the roof, aim for the closest CTA station and go!"

The CTA claims the contract will save it more than $50 million in
the next 10 years.

But due to the system's problems, CTA President Forrest Claypool
has vowed not to pay Cubic any money until 99 percent of calls to
the Ventra call center are answered within five minutes, 99
percent of payment taps are registered within 2.5 seconds, and 99
percent of Ventra card readers work.

Ro seeks restitution and damages for breach of contract, fraud,
and unjust enrichment.

The Ventra deal was made three years after Chicago privatized its
parking spaces, in another deal criticized as a boondoggle.  The
city sold 36,000 parking spaces to an investment group led by
Morgan Stanley for $1.16 billion -- just one-tenth the amount that
Chicago drivers are projected to spend for parking over the 75-
year life of the contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
          Frank James Stretz, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  adam@attorneyzim.com
                  frank@attorneyzim.com

The case is Ro v. Cubic Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-
08614, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


COMMUNITY BANK: Wins Final OK of $2.5MM Overdraft Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a New
York bank will pay $2.5 million to thousands of consumers who
accused it of strategically charging excessive overdraft fees, a
federal judge ruled.

The settlement that U.S. District Judge Robert Mariani granted
final approval stems from a class action William and April Johnson
filed last year in Scranton, Pa.  They claimed that Community Bank
NA and its Pennsylvania-based subsidiary, First Liberty Bank and
Trust, reordered customer debit card transactions so as to jack up
overdraft fees.

Rather than deduct transactions chronologically, the bank would
deduct costlier charges first, sometimes leading to multiple
overdraft fees, according to the complaint.

For example, if a customer made ten $10 deductions from a $100
account, and then a $101 deduction, the bank would re-sequence the
order of the transactions to deduct the $101 first, thereby
immediately overdrawing the account, the complaint states.

Although only the $101 charge should incur a fee, Community Bank
would make sure to charge fees on each of the $10 expenses as
well, the plaintiffs claimed.

After one day of mediation this January, the parties reached a
$2.5 million settlement agreement that they signed on March 2.

The settlement class, which was certified in June, includes about
50,000 Community Bank customers whose accounts incurred overdraft
fees as a result of "debit re-sequencing" between July 20, 2006
and Aug. 15, 2010.

Community Bank will pay all distributions to class members, $5,000
service awards to each named plaintiff, and attorneys' fees and
costs, according to the settlement.

The bank also agreed for at least the next two years to use either
a low-to-high or a chronological posting order for debit card
charges, charge no more than four overdraft fees per account per
day, and stop charging overdraft fees for accounts overdrawn by
less than $5.

Judge Mariani noted no class member has objected to the
settlement, and only five have opted out.

"The litigation in this case could be very complex, expensive, and
protracted, even compared to other class actions, which are known
to exhibit such qualities," Mariani wrote.  "The case involves
approximately 50,000 class members contesting an area of financial
regulatory law that, as discussed below, is unclear and in the
process of development.  Plaintiffs testify that, if this case
were to proceed to trial, they would need to retain data analysts
and experts in the fields of marketing and banking.  The court
finds such testimony credible, as the issue of how banks structure
their debit card transactions -- and why they chose one structure
over others -- is well outside the knowledge of the average lay
juror.  Moreover, as discussed below, the plaintiffs have already
spent nearly $23,000 on retained experts, despite the fact that
this case settled in the very early stages of litigation."

Absent settlement, establishing liability and damages will be
difficult, the ruling states.

"At the outset, there are the inherent risks and uncertainties
that any plaintiff faces in litigating a case all the way through
trial and appeal," Mariani wrote.  "But even aside from that,
defendants could and did rely on substantial legal arguments to
prevent plaintiffs' recovery."

Those arguments included a claim that the bank had long since
disclosed its debit resequencing practice to the plaintiffs, and
that, in the recent case of Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.,
the 9th Circuit found that the National Bank Act pre-empted state
law attempts to regulate the posting order of debit card
transactions, according to the ruling.

The judge declined to rule on the merits of those claims at this
time, however, and approved the plaintiffs' application for
awards, fees, and costs.

The bank's parent, Community Bank System Inc., reported $35.9
million in revenues last year.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Marion K. Munley, Esq.
          MUNLEY, MUNLEY & CARTWRIGHT
          227 Penn Avenue
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 346-7401
          E-mail: mmunley@munley.com

               - and -

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK PC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James C. Oschal, Esq.
          ROSENN, JENKINS & GREENWALD
          15 S. Franklin St.
          Wilkes Barre, PA 18711-0075
          Telephone: (570) 826-5621
          E-mail: joschal@rjglaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan B. Fellows, Esq.
          Suzanne O. Galbato, Esq.
          BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, LLP
          One Lincoln Center
          Syracuse, NY 13202-1355
          Telephone: (315) 422-0121
          E-mail: jfellows@bsk.com
                  galbats@bsk.com

The case is Johnson, et al. v. Community Bank, N.A., et al., Case
No. 3:12-cv-01405-RDM, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania (Scranton).


CVS CAREMARK: Cal. Court Refused to Certify Class in "Ortiz" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California refused to certify the
proposed classes in the lawsuit initiated by Elizabeth Ortiz, et
al.

In their complaint, the Plaintiff employees seek damages for
unpaid off-the-clock work for deliveries and mileage reimbursement
under California law.  The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class with
three subclasses of nonexempt employees, who worked for the
Defendants in California at approximately 1,000 CVS stores:

   (1) "Inter-store unpaid wages class," consisting of all
       non-exempt hourly CVS employees from September 13, 2008
       to the present who transported medications and/or
       merchandise from one CVS store to another CVS store and
       were not paid for that time;

   (2) "Inter-store unpaid expense reimbursement class,"
       consisting of all non-exempt hourly CVS employees from
       September 13, 2008 to the present who transported
       medications and/or merchandise from one CVS store to
       another CVS store and were not reimbursed for mileage or
       other expenses; and

   (3) "Inter-store underpaid expense reimbursement class,"
       consisting of all nonexempt hourly CVS employees from
       September 13, 2008 to the present who submitted mileage
       reimbursement requests and did not receive the full
       reimbursement required by law.

The Plaintiffs also allege dependant claims seeking penalties for
failure to furnish accurate wage statements, waiting time
penalties for failure to pay all wages owed upon termination and
failure to maintain accurate payroll records.

Judge Laporte ruled that because the Plaintiffs' proposed
subclasses fail for lack of commonality and also because the third
proposed subclass was not pled in the operative complaint, the
Court need not reach the remaining components of the Rule 23(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure analysis or the requirements
of Rule 23(b)(3).  Hence, the certification is denied.

A case management conference is scheduled for January 14, 2014, at
3:00 p.m.  A joint case management conference statement will be
filed no later than January 7, 2014.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall Bruce Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Reed W. L. Marcy, Esq.
          Carey A. James, Esq.
          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1020
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 562-6800
          Facsimile: (510) 562-6830
          E-mail: ras.asm@gmail.com
                  reedmarcy@sbcglobal.net
                  Caj1.asm@gmail.com
                  hallievonrock@yahoo.com

The 3rd Party Plaintiff Susan Howard is represented by:

          Janine Renee Menhennet, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: jmenhennet@markham-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael David Weil, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          The Orrick Building
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
          Telephone: (415) 773-5700
          Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: mweil@orrick.com

               - and -

          Byron Robert Lau, Esq.
          Timothy Joseph Long, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE
          777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612-2438
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2499
          E-mail: blau@orrick.com
                  tjlong@orrick.com

               - and -

          Heidi Larson Howell, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6106
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: hhowell@sidley.com

The case is Ortiz, et al. v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 3:12-cv-05859-EDL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco).


FAB UNIVERSAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 10
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Fab Universal Corporation and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 13 CIV 8716, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Fab Universal securities between June 15, 2012
and November 18, 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 Fab Universal securities
during the Class Period, you have until January 17, 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.

Fab Universal engages in the distribution of digital entertainment
products and services worldwide through three segments: wholesale,
retail and kiosk/licensing.

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 it
overstated the number of Kiosks it has deployed in the People's
Republic of China, its Kiosks are inundated with pirated digital
entertainment content and its Chinese subsidiary issued RMB 100
million ($16.4 million) of bonds to Chinese investors.

On November 14, 2013, analyst firm Alfredlittle.com issued a
report asserting that the Company's financial performance,
business prospects, and true financial condition have been
overstated.  On this news, shares of Fab Universal fell $0.21 per
share or more than 4%, from $5.46 per share to $5.25 per share on
November 14, 2013.

On November 18, 2013, analyst firm GeoInvesting.com issued a
Report revealing a bond offering which it asserts should have been
disclosed in the Company's 2013 Second Quarter l0-Q and 2013 Third
Quarter l0-Q.  On this news, shares of Fab Universal fell $0.89
cents per share or more than 16.82% from a close of $5.29 on
November 15, 2013 to a close of $4.40 on November 18, 2013.

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


FIRSTMED EMS: Faces Class Action in N.C. Over WARN Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Faulkner, writing for StarNewsOnline.com, reports that an
employee of the shuttered FirstMed EMS has filed a class-action
suit against the Wilmington-based company seeking 60 days worth of
wages and other compensation for about 2,000 employees who lost
their jobs on Dec. 6.

The suit, filed on Dec. 10 in U.S. District Court for Eastern
North Carolina, says that FirstMed violated the federal WARN act
in not giving advance written notice to employees of their
terminations.

WARN, which stands for the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, requires employers under certain circumstances
to provide 60 days' notice of covered plant closings and mass
layoffs.  Though the law is a federal one, the notice would be
filed with the N.C. Department of Commerce.  No notice had been
filed as of Dec. 10.

The suit was brought by Branden Engle who worked at the company's
facility in Toledo, Ohio.

Though FirstMed is named as defendant, the suit says that Enhanced
Equity Fund II LLP owns all of FirstMed's shares and is the
ultimate owner of the company.

FirstMed EMS was formed in 1988 and provided patient
transportation in Ohio, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia,
Kentucky and West Virginia through various local companies. In
2011, FirstMed expanded by acquiring American Ambulette and
Ambulance Inc., Life Ambulance, MedCorp and TransMed.

The company moved its corporate headquarters to Wilmington last
year and was based out of The Cotton Exchange downtown.

In addition to unpaid wages, salary, commissions and bonuses, the
suit seeks accrued holiday pay, vacation pay, pension and 401(k)
contributions and COBRA benefits.


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Sells Defective HVAC Systems, Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue K. Selby, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P. and Goodman
Global, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-02162-SLB (N.D. Ala., November 27,
2013) is a product liability class action lawsuit in connection
with alleged defective air conditioners, air handlers, heat pumps
or similar products designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised
and sold by the Defendants.

In contrast to the Defendants' warranties and representations
concerning the products, the Plaintiff alleges that the products
were defective at the time of sale and thereafter because they
leaked freon or other refrigerants, and otherwise do not perform
as expressly warranted and represented.

The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised and
sold the alleged defective products for many years in many states,
including throughout Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          K. Edward Sexton, II, Esq.
          GENTLE, TURNER, SEXTON, DEBROSSE & HARBISON
          501 Riverchase Parkway East, Suite 100
          Birmingham, AL 35244
          Telephone: (205) 716-3000
          Facsimile: (205) 716-3010
          E-mail: esexton@gtandslaw.com

               - and -

          Eric D. Hoaglund, Esq.
          MCCALLUM HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY LLP
          905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 824-7767
          Facsimile: (205) 824-7768
          E-mail: ehoaglund@mhcilaw.com


HITACHI DISPLAYS: More Deals Reached in LCD Price-Fixing Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on Dec. 10 disclosed that additional settlements have
been reached in the Canadian LCD price-fixing class actions with
Japan Display Inc. (successor to Hitachi Displays, Ltd.) ("JDI")
and Innolux Corporation (successor to Chi Mei Optoelectronics
Corporation) ("Innolux").

The LCD price-fixing class actions allege price-fixing in the
market for LCD (liquid crystal display) panels and LCD
televisions, computer monitors and laptop computers containing LCD
panels.

JDI has agreed to pay $3,150,000 and Innolux has agreed to pay
$10,000,000 for the benefit of persons in Canada who bought LCD
Panels or LCD Products between January 1, 1998 and December 11,
2006.  The settlements represent a resolution of disputed claims.
JDI and Innolux do not admit any wrongdoing or liability.  The
litigation is continuing against the non-settling defendants.

The class actions have been certified against JDI and Innolux for
settlement purposes.  Motions to approve the proposed settlements
will be heard by the Ontario Court in the City of London on
January 10, 2014 at 9:00 a.m., the British Columbia Court in the
City of Vancouver on January 24, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. and the Quebec
Court in the City of Quebec on February 20, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.  At
these hearings, the Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec Courts
will determine whether the settlements are fair, reasonable, and
in the best interests of settlement class members.

Previous settlements have been reached with Chunghwa Picture
Tubes, Ltd.; Epson Imaging Devices Corporation (formerly known as
Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation); and Samsung Electronics
Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics Canada Inc.

The settlements achieved to date in this litigation total
$37,623,000.  At the approval hearing, the courts will be asked to
approve a protocol for distribution of the settlement funds for
all settlements, plus accrued interest, less court-approved legal
fees, disbursements, administration expenses, and applicable
taxes.

The law firms of Siskinds LLP, Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman and
Siskinds Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l. are class counsel.  Their full
contact information is available online at
http://www.classaction.ca

Class Counsel legal fees and disbursements must be approved by the
courts.  Class Counsel will collectively be requesting that legal
fees of up to 25% of the settlement funds, plus disbursements and
applicable taxes be approved by the Courts and paid out of the JDI
and Innolux settlement funds.


INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL: No Class Status in Filipino Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt denied a motion for class
certification filed by plaintiffs in the case captioned ISIDRO
BARICUATRO, ET AL v. INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., ET AL, SECTION "'N" (2), CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2777, (E.D.
La.).

The plaintiffs are Filipino workers (including welders and pipe
fitters) who allege that they were fraudulently recruited in the
Philippines, given E-2 or B-1/OCS visas, and then brought to
Louisiana, where they were exploited in the oil and gas industry
and housed in deplorable conditions. They have filed suit against
three Louisiana companies (Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc. (GIS);
Thunder Enterprises, Inc.; and D&R Resources, LLC) and four
individuals connected to one or more of these companies: Mark
Pregeant; Danilo N. Dayao; Nilfil Peralta; and Randolf Malgapo. In
addition, they have sued four Philippines companies alleged to
have recruited and/or obtained visas for certain of the
plaintiffs: DNR Offshore and Crewing Services, Inc. (DNR); Pacific
Ocean Manning, Inc. (POMI); V Manpower Philippines, Inc., f/k/a V
People Manpower Philippines, Inc. (V People); and Industrial
Personnel and Management Services, Inc. (IPAMS).

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants: (1) subjected them to
forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1589-90); (2) violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) (18
U.S.C. Section 1961-68); (3) violated the plaintiffs' civil rights
(42 U.S.C. Section 1981); (4) violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) (19 U.S.C. Sections 203(m), 206 & 207); (5) violated
the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. Section 1985) and the
Thirteenth Amendment; (6) committed the torts of fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, false imprisonment, and intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress under Louisiana law;
and (7) breached contracts and/or covenants of good faith and fair
dealing. The plaintiffs also assert these claims on behalf of
others similarly situated, as a putative class action under FRCP
23 and a putative collective action under the FLSA. The Court has
conditionally certified the FLSA collective action. The Court has
also granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' false
imprisonment claims. A motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
claims pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003
(TVPA), 18 U.S.C. Section 1589 et seq., is pending.

According to Judge Engelhardt, the plaintiffs' Motion for Separate
Trials of Claims and Issues Pursuant to FRCP 42(b) is denied
without prejudice. To the extent that the plaintiffs' motion for
separate trials relates to trial of Rule 23 class issues, it is
moot in light of the Court's rulings on certification. The Court
agreed with the defendants that the Plaintiffs' motion falls short
of presenting a serious, workable trial plan. Thus, for this
reason, the motion will be denied without prejudice insofar as it
relates to the FLSA class claims.

The Court directed the parties to confer and produce within 30
days a joint proposal for adjudicating the FLSA claims.

A copy of the District Court's November 18, 2013 Order and Reasons
is available at http://is.gd/DgRI8bfrom Leagle.com.


INSTITUTE FOR INTEGRATIVE: Court Narrows Claims in "Stoler" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In BAILEY STOLER, AMY HESS, and JESSICA MARCUS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
INSTITUTE FOR INTEGRATIVE NUTRITION and JOSHUA ROSENTHAL,
Defendants, NO. 13 CIV. 1275, (S.D. N.Y.), the Defendants moved
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to
dismiss the Second Cause of Action (Retaliation under Title VII),
the Third Cause of Action (Interference under the FMLA), the
Fourth Cause of Action (Retaliation under the FMLA) and the Sixth
Cause of Action (Retaliation under City Law) of plaintiffs Bailey
Stoler, Amy Hess and Jessica Marcus, asserted in the complaint.

According to District Judge Robert W. Sweet, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Second and Sixth Causes of Action is denied
as to plaintiffs Stoler and Marcus and granted as to plaintiff
Hess. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth
Causes of Action is denied for all Plaintiffs.

"Stoler and Marcus have sufficiently alleged facts establishing a
prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII that: (1) they
participated in protected activity; (2) known to defendants; (3)
they suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the
retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged
wrongful action or actions of the employer," ruled Judge Sweet.
"Stoler and Marcus have alleged sufficient facts to survive a
motion to dismiss under Title VII," he added.

"Hess . . . did not make a complaint about the alleged policy
discriminating against pregnant women prior to her filing of the
[Amended Complaint]," Judge Sweet further ruled.

A copy of the District Court's November 18, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/bx9wYbfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

   Valdi Licul, Esq.
   Rebecca J. Osborne, Esq.
   VLADECK, WALDMAN, ELIAS & ENGELHARD, P.C.
   1501 Broadway, Suite 800
   New York, NY 10036-5560
   Telephone: (212) 403-7300
   Facsimile: (212) 221-3172

Andrew P. Marks, Esq. -- amarks@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON,
P.C., New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendants.


JUSTMUGSHOTS.COM: Jan. Hearing Set for Class Action Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a consumer fraud lawsuit filed in California asserts that
JustMugShots.com Corp. illegally extorts a $199 fee from
individuals whose mug shots it posts online within hours of their
arrests.

That makes at least three suits against the company, which
publishes the names and mug shots of arrested individuals on
www.justmugshots.com and mugshots.mobi.

The latest action, filed on Dec. 11 in Los Angeles County, Calif.,
Superior Court, was brought by Los Angeles resident Zim Rogers,
whose mug shot stemming from his arrest more than 10 years ago for
various traffic violations the company published online.

"When he suddenly found these, he was pretty shocked and appalled
and contacted the company to say this is old stuff, so long ago,"
said Rogers's attorney, Brian Kabateck -- bsk@kbklawyers.com --
managing partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner in Los Angeles.  "They
said sure, we'll take off our web site."

But the company takes down photos only if individuals can provide
proof that charges were dropped or that they were never convicted.
Otherwise, they must fork over the $199 fee, the suit says.

JustMugshots.com did not respond to a request for comment.  A
lawyer who represents the company in other consumer cases,
Joshua Jones -- jjones@reedscardino.com -- an attorney at Reed &
Scardino in Austin, declined to comment on the California suit but
said generally: "Any claims of extortion we completely reject
because these mug shots are acknowledged public records and it's
not extortion to publish public records."

Since its founding last year, JustMugshots.com has seen its share
of litigation.  Another case filed a year ago under Ohio's right
of publicity statute, and removed to federal court in the Northern
District of Ohio, named JustMugshots.com along with additional
defendants operating similar sites, like BustedMugshots.com and
findmugshots.com.  In its motion to dismiss, JustMugshots.com
argued that publishing the pictures was a matter of public
interest.  The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case against
JustMugshots.com on Dec. 5, 2013.

Another class action filed in the Northern District of Illinois on
Oct. 8, 2013, seeks $5 million under the Illinois consumer fraud
statute.  In a motion to dismiss, JustMugshots.com defended its
First Amendment right to publish information that is publicly
available from law enforcement agencies.  A hearing on that motion
is scheduled for Jan. 31, 2014.

Unlike the earlier suits, the new case was brought on behalf of a
class of thousands of California consumers asserting state law
claims for misappropriation of likeness.  The suit claims that the
sites sell advertising space linked to the names of the arrested
individuals.

"Ours is simply a California-only class filed under California's
privacy law and statutes that prevent you from profiting from
using another person's likeness," Mr. Kabateck said.  "So it's
solely limited to California residents, not a national class, and
totally under California law."

Mr. Kabateck said he is seeking an injunction to halt the
company's practice and reimbursement to potential class members
who were forced to pay to remove their mug shots.


L'OREAL: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Anti-Wrinkle Cream Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge has refused to dismiss putative class actions
alleging that L'Oreal made outlandish claims about its anti-
wrinkle products, such as that they "boost the activity of genes"
and "stimulate cell regeneration."

U.S. District Judge William Martini let stand 24 of the 26 counts
in a dozen cases centralized in New Jersey, In Re L'Oreal Wrinkle
Cream Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, finding the
plaintiffs sufficiently alleged fraud and other wrongs.

The 30 creams at issue belong to six product lines marketed by
L'Oreal and luxury subsidiary Lancome Inc.: Absolue, Genifique,
High Resolution, Renergie, Visionnaire and Youth Code.

The plaintiffs, all women, claim L'Oreal engaged in a false
advertising campaign from the time the products were brought to
market but knew or should have known they "cannot provide the
promised age-negating results."

The first suit was filed in June 2012, about three months before
the Food and Drug Administration issued a letter directing
L'Oreal, of Berkeley Heights, N.J., to stop advertising that its
skin creams have druglike qualities.

The suits allege L'Oreal made scientific claims based on in vitro
testing that used cells in test tubes and petri dishes -- a poor
indicator of the products' effect on human skin.  In addition, the
tests were biased or included too few participants, the plaintiffs
say.

L'Oreal employed subtle disclaimers using footnotes and asterisks,
falsely claimed that the products are patented, and used photo
edits to exaggerate their effectiveness, the suits claim.

The advertisements induced consumers to buy products they
otherwise would not have, the plaintiffs contend.

One named plaintiff, Rosemarie Murphy, claims she spent a combined
$140 on a one-ounce container of Genifique Youth Activating
Concentrate and a half-ounce container of Genifique Eye Youth
Activating Concentrate at Bloomingdale's in Hackensack and used
them regularly, but experienced no results.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated
the cases a year ago and assigned them to Judge Martini, who sits
in Newark.

As of Dec. 10, there were 12 class suits in all, lodged by
plaintiffs in New Jersey, California, Illinois, Massachusetts and
Florida.

L'Oreal sought to dismiss all the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), for
failing to make out a claim on which relief can be granted, and
Rule 9(b), requiring fraud claims to be pleaded with
particularity.

Denying the motion, Judge Martini said identification of a
specific store is not necessary.  The plaintiffs approximated when
they viewed the advertisements and named specific products, he
said.

Some plaintiffs identified specific advertising statements, and
their claims "certainly satisfy Rule 9(b)," Judge Martini said.
As for those who pleaded more generally, L'Oreal "will be able to
ascertain the exact statements identified in the Complaint" during
discovery, he said.

Judge Martini also turned away L'Oreal's bid to strike claims --
because of lack of standing -- pertaining to 14 of the 30 products
that weren't purchased by any of the lead plaintiffs.  He opted to
save that issue for the class certification stage.

All the products at issue are closely related, within the same
product lines and part of the same advertising campaign, Martini
said.  He also noted the federal courts are split on whether class
representatives can pursue claims related to products they did not
personally buy.

Judge Martini did dismiss with prejudice two counts of unjust
enrichment to the extent they are based on New Jersey law, which
bars claims when the products were purchased from a third party.

Claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and other states'
consumer fraud statutes, as well as claims of breach of express
warranty, remain.

Caroline Bartlett of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody &
Agnello in Roseland, the plaintiffs' counsel, says there have been
no settlement talks, and the next step will be to establish a
discovery schedule.

The class could be large because of the popularity of the products
and the consumer fraud statutes, some of which provide a six-year
limitations period, Mr. Bartlett adds.

The lead defense counsel, Jeremy Feigelson --
jfeigelson@debevoise.com -- of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York,
did not reply to a request for comment.


LINEAR LLC: Recalls PERS Transmitters Due to Signal Failure
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Linear LLC, of Carlsbad, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 48,000 Personal Emergency Reporting System (PERS)
Transmitters.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The battery clips in the transmitters can corrode causing the
transmitters to operate intermittently or not at all, without
generating a warning.

Linear received one report of a transmitter that failed to
operate.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Linear PERS transmitters are components of Linear
PERS products and allow users to push a button on the transmitter
to summon assistance.  Transmitter models DXS-LRC, DXS-LRC-LA,
DXS-LRP and DXS-LRW manufactured from June 2013 to July 2013 with
date codes 1306 and 1307 representing the year and month, and 1329
(representing the 29th week of 2013) are included in the recall.
The model and date codes appear on the back of the transmitter.
The DXS-LRC transmitters are gray plastic pendants with a black
circle in the center and can be worn as a pendant around the neck
or on a wristband.  The DXS-LRP transmitter is a white pendant
with a green swirl design on the front.  The DXS-LRW transmitter
has a solid black wristband with a black plastic face and black
button in the center.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/XIRfw6

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Independent PERS distributors and dealers nationwide from June
2013 through August 2013 for about $45.

Consumers should immediately contact Linear to receive a free
replacement transmitter.


LINKEDIN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Colon, writing for SC Magazine, reports that LinkedIn has
asked a California federal judge to toss out a class-action suit
that claims the social networking company hacks into users'
accounts for promotional use.

The argument, which was filed on Dec. 6 in a federal court in
San Jose, Calif., asserts that the suit is "meritless" because
members consent to the site's terms, which allow LinkedIn to send
invitations to their contacts.  It believes users consented to
having their email accounts accessed.

Additionally, the company states that the four plaintiffs, each
LinkedIn members, should have known what they were signing up for
since any "reasonably prudent Internet user" would have realized
the permissions they were granting to the company after going
through the various permission screens for the "Add Connections"
feature.

The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs in September argued
that when users entered their email addresses to enable the "Add
Connections" feature, LinkedIn "pretended to be" the owners of the
external email accounts in order to access users' contacts onto
its servers for promotional use.

It stated that the company "attempts to hack into your email
account by tunneling through any open email program on a user's
desktop."  In doing so, it would then send endorsement emails to
users' external email accounts, which in some cases include
contacts with whom the user may not want to connect, such as
former spouses or even clients.

However, in its letter to U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh, the 259
million-member network said it believes that the plaintiffs'
claims of deception have no credit.

"Plaintiffs do not come close to meeting this standard because
they do not allege what screens they saw, how they were supposedly
deceived by the screens, and what actions they took in reliance on
them," the motion said.

The company goes on to argue that the case doesn't fall into the
class-action realm because if the plaintiffs were "embarrassed" by
the invitations sent to their contacts, or did not understand the
permission screens prior to enabling the "Add Connections"
feature, they are "individualized" scenarios.

In an email to SCMagazine.com, Larry Russ of Russ August and
Kabat, attorney for the plaintiffs, commented on LinkedIn's recent
filed motion.

"In an attempt to stand up to criticism regarding its marketing
practices, LinkedIn insults the intelligence of its own members by
blaming them for allowing LinkedIn to spam email adder sses
harvested from users' email accounts," Mr. Russ said. "Contrary to
LinkedIn's latest pleadings, its deceptive and cryptic welcome
screens do not give LinkedIn the right to illegally spam harvested
email addresses for the purpose of enriching LinkedIn.  One would
expect a company that claims to be about people's professional
reputations to be aware of the harm caused by its spamming
practices."


NAT'L HOCKEY: To Vigorously Defend Players' Concussion Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg E. Clifton, Esq. and Paul V. Kelly, Esq. --
Paul.Kelly@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis P.C. report that
10 former players have filed a class action lawsuit against the
National Hockey League over injuries caused by concussions
sustained during their professional careers.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington D.C., comes six
months after another civil action in May accused the NHL of
failing to warn former player/enforcer Derek Boogard about the
long-term health risks of head injuries.  The ten named
plaintiffs, including former Toronto Maple Leaf Gary Leeman, filed
suit on behalf of themselves and all former players who retired on
or before February 14, 2013, and have suffered concussion and
related injuries as a result of playing in the NHL.

The plaintiffs allege the NHL took insufficient action to protect
its players from unnecessary harm.  This inaction, they argue,
occurred although the league knew or should have known of
scientific evidence showing that players who sustain repeated head
injuries are at a greater risk for disabilities during and after
their hockey careers.

The lawsuit contends that because the NHL sets the league's rules
and regulations, it influences the risks to which players are
exposed.  As a result, the suit asserts, the NHL unilaterally
assumed a duty to act in the best interests of the health and
safety of the players and to provide truthful information
regarding risks to their health.  According to the complaint, "The
NHL's active and purposeful concealment of the severe risks of
brain injuries exposed players to unnecessary dangers they could
have avoided had the NHL provided them with truthful and accurate
information and taken appropriate action to prevent needless
harm."

The complaint further states that because of the NHL's failure to
warn, "many of the players, including plaintiffs, sustained
repetitive brain injuries while in the NHL and now suffer from
latent or manifest neurodegenerative disorders and diseases, all
of which, in whole or in part were caused by the NHL's acts and/or
omissions."

The complaint also accuses the NHL of "promoting a culture of
violence" that lauds players for their fighting skills.  This
culture, the players argue, continues to contribute to injuries
today, as the league has refused to ban fighting and body-checking
and has permitted the use of "enforcers," players whose main job
is to fight or body-check opponents.

As increasing attention is being paid to head injuries sustained
in sports, this lawsuit comes just three months after the NFL
faced a similar suit over its handling of concussions.  In August,
the NFL reached a $765-million settlement with thousands of
formers players over the long-term effects of head trauma suffered
during their careers.  That agreement included compensation for
cognitive injuries, the funding of medical exams for retirees, a
research program and the payment of attorney's fees.

The former NHL players are seeking more than $5 million in
damages, an NHL-sponsored medical monitoring program for the
players' brain trauma or injuries, and attorney's fees and costs.
According to initial media report, the NHL intends to vigorously
defend this action and refute its claims.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Imported Illegally Cropped Timber, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a federal class action, shareholders claim Lumber Liquidators'
environmental misdeeds cost them 13 percent of their stock equity,
after the company could no longer prop up the share price with
lies, according to Ryan Abbott, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiff Gregg Kiken accused Lumber Liquidators Holdings and
its top executives of securities fraud.

Kiken claims the company imported illegally harvested timber and
sold wood with illegal levels of formaldehyde.

According to the complaint and an investigation conducted by the
nonprofit group Environmental Investigation Agency, Lumber
Liquidators imported the illegal lumber from Russia through a
Chinese wood-flooring company called Suifenhe Xingjia Economic and
Trade Company.

The class claims the Chinese operation conceals its illegal
logging through falsified documents and bribes.

"The EIA Report further alleges that analysis of U.S. import
records and other undercover sources indicate that Xingjia's
largest customer is Lumber Liquidators," the complaint states.
"According to the EIA Report, Lumber Liquidators has done business
with Xingjia since at least 2007.  The EIA Report further claims
that the head of Lumber Liquidators' sourcing operations visited
Xingjia's office and sawmills in the RFE [Russian Far East] in May
2012, and that thereafter Lumber Liquidators made Xingjia its
chief Chinese supplier of solid oak flooring."

The complaint adds: "The EIA Report includes photos of what are
alleged to be boxes of oak flooring stacked at one of Xingjia's
factories bearing one of Lumber Liquidators' brands -- Virginia
Mill Works Co."

According to Lumber Liquidators' Web site, the company has
"hundreds of stores" nationwide, selling engineered hardwood,
bamboo, cork, laminate, vinyl and solid hardwood flooring.

"Illegal logging is having unprecedented environmental, social and
economic impacts in the Russian Far East, threatening indigenous
communities and the last remaining Siberian tiger habitats in the
world," the Environmental Investigation Authority said in a
statement.  "The illegal trade in wood also harms the billion-
dollar forest products industry in the United States."

The class claims Lumber Liquidators' actions also hurt
shareholders.

"On September 26, 2013, agents from the DHS, FWS, and DOJ
[Department of Homeland Security, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Department of Justice] executed sealed search warrants at Lumber
Liquidators' corporate offices in Toano and Richmond, Virginia,
related to the importation of certain wood products.

"On this news, Lumber Liquidators shares declined $5.83 per share
or more than 5 percent, to close at $107.13 per share on
September 27, 2013," the class claims.

The share price dropped another $16.07, or 13 percent, down to
$99.29 per share after "well-known hedge fund manager Whitney
Tilson criticized the company for importing illegally sourced
timber from Russia in direct violation of U.S. laws," according to
the complaint.

Liquidators reported $813.3 million in net sales in 2012.

Its CEO Robert Lynch, CFO Daniel Terrell and chairman and founder
Thomas Sullivan are also named as defendants.

The complaint states: "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: (1)
certain of the company's products failed to comply with applicable
laws and regulations government formaldehyde emissions from
composite wood products; (2) the company imported flooring
products sourced from illegally logged wood in the RFE in
violation of the Lacey Act; (3) as a result of the foregoing
violations, the company faces the risk of large fines, penalties,
forfeitures, judgments and/or settlements in connection with
government regulatory actions and/or consumer class actions; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, the company's statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times."

The class wants the company and its executives to pay damages to
be determined at trial.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq.
          DIMURO GINSBERG PC
          1101 King Street, Suite 610
          Alexandria, VA 22314-2956
          Telephone: (703) 684-4333
          Facsimile: (703) 548-3181
          E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          Steven P. Harte, Esq.
          Erica G. Sorg, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com
                  Whitney@blockesq.com
                  Steven@blockesq.com
                  Erica@blockesq.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Kristen M. Ward, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
                  kward@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

The case is Williamson, et al. v. Lumber Liquidators Holdings,
Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-01487-AJT-TCB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).


NQ MOBILE: Class Seeks $500-Mil. That Was Wiped Out in Single Day
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that the Chinese data security firm NQ Mobile concealed that its
main product is "actually spyware," and its market value fell by
$500 million on the news, a shareholder claims in a federal class
action.  Josh Hsieh sued NQ Mobile, three investment banks that
underwrote its initial public offering and 12 company directors.

NQ Mobile, founded in 2005, is a Cayman Islands company with
headquarters in Texas and China.  It sells security services for
smart phones.

The company went public in May 2011, issuing "7.75 million
American Depository Receipts . . . representing 38.75 million
Class A common shares," the complaint states.

Hsieh's lawsuit cites an 81-page report issued by research firm
Muddy Waters LLC on Oct. 24, "which began, 'NQ is a massive
fraud,'" according to the complaint.

"Muddy Waters uncovered evidence that a majority of NQ's China
revenue is fraudulent; its largest customer is actually owned by
the company; NQ's market share was overstated several times over;
the company's most important product, its 'Antivirus 7.0,' was
actually spyware that made customer phones more susceptible to
hacking; NQ is surreptitiously gathering personally identifiable
information from customer phones without their knowledge or
consent and transmitting back to the Peoples' Republic of China;
and several acquisitions were actually shell companies," the
complaint states.

Hsieh claims that NQ's share price then dropped from $22.98 to
$12.09 in one day.

"The company's market capitalization fell from more than $1
billion to approximately $500 million, wiping out approximately
half a billion dollars of shareholder value in a single day.
Trading was halted," Hsieh says in the complaint.

NQ's directors denied the allegations and held a press conference
the day after Muddy Waters' report broke "repeating many of their
earlier false statements to investors," Hsieh claims.

It wasn't long before other media outlets came sniffing around.

"On November 3, 2013, Bloomberg News published an article
confirming many of Muddy Waters' accusations.  Two days later, on
November 5, 2013, the company's own lead manager in the IPO,
defendant Piper Jaffray, announced it had suspended its rating on
the stock. . . .  Shares plunged further, closing at $9.52," the
complaint states.

Hsieh seeks class certification and damages for Securities
Exchange Act violations.

The investment bank defendants are Piper Jaffray & Co. of
Minnesota, and New York-based Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. and Canaccord
Genuity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George L. McWilliams, Esq.
          P O Box 58
          Texarkana, TX 75504
          Telephone: (903) 277-0098
          E-mail: glmlawoffice@gmail.com

The case is Hsieh v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-
01048, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas (Marshall).


NUVENCO INC: Recalls Bed Bug Heating Units Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nuvenco Inc., dba PackTite, of Ft. Collins, Colo., announced a
voluntary recall of about 9,000 PackTite Heating Units for Bed Bug
Control.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The bed bug heaters can overheat, melt and cause a fire, posing a
fire hazard.

PackTite has received three consumer complaints of heaters
overheating, melting and, in one case, the items being treated
were singed.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves PackTite bed bug heating units sold with
PackTite original bed bug treatment systems.  Consumers place
items for bed bug treatment inside PackTite's black canvas bag and
turn the heater on inside the bag.  The white heaters are attached
to a black wire frame that fits in the bag.  PackTite is printed
in white on the bag.  The bags measure 36 inches long by 19 inches
wide by 24 inches tall.  The recalled heaters do not have any
visible text on the up-facing side of the heater casing, but they
do have reset instructions on the underside of the heater.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/QYzaEl

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at pest control companies and pest control product distributors
nationwide, including Atlantic Pest Solutions, Bedbug Central,
Bedbug Supply, Broadway Exterminating, Dana Pest Control, Do My
Own Pest Control, Grainger, M&M Environmental Isotech, K-9 Sweeps,
Orkin, Pestaway, Round-the-Clock Pest Control, Steritech, Stern
Environmental, Tallman Scientific, Univar and US Bedbugs from
October 2009 through January 2013 for between $300 and $330 for
the system and $53 for the heater when sold separately.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled heating units
and contact PackTite for a free replacement heater.


ONTARIO, CANADA: Sued Over "Shameful" EMDC Living Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Richmond, writing for The London Free Press, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed on Dec. 9 on behalf of two former
inmates at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre over violence,
overcrowding and living conditions at the troubled London jail is
seeking $325 million in damages from the province.

The statement of claim describes a jail rotting under the pressure
of jammed and unsanitary ranges, abusive or negligent guards and
management, brutal cellblock overlords, improper medical treatment
and a provincial government turning a blind eye to the situation.

"It's an attack on the systemic problems that exist there and have
been for a very long time," lawyer Kevin Egan said on Dec. 9 of
the lawsuit that has yet to be certified as a class action.

"The conditions are shameful.  I don't think the province is going
to do anything out of sympathy for the inmates or an epiphany
they're doing something wrong."

Overcrowding, violence and inadequate health care form the three
foundations of the claim, although the most inflammatory will
likely be allegations about the hundreds of annual assaults at
Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC).

The province and its employees "have fostered an atmosphere of
violence, brutality and intimidation" by failing to follow its own
rules for supervising inmates, the claim states.

Rather that taking steps to lessen the risk of violence, the
province and its employees "instead encouraged and promoted
violence upon and among inmates."

The statement of claim was filed on Dec. 9 in Superior Court in
London by McKenzie Lake law firm that has collected complaints
from more than 100 inmates and former inmates at EMDC the past
three years.  The statement of claim contains allegations not yet
proven in court

After inquests, police probes, battles in the legislature and
rising media attention, the $325-million class-action suit may
finally make the province stand up and take notice of the
nightmarish conditions at the jail, Egan said.

The conditions at EMDC have deprived inmates of their right to
personal security under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, and the court warrants sending them to jail, the claim
says.

Inmates have also suffered cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment
contrary to the charter, the claim says.

"You go to jail as a punishment, not to be punished," Mr. Egan
said. "There's a difference."

The London lawyer represented the family of Londoner Randy
Drysdale, killed by a gang of inmates at EMDC in 2009.  Mr. Egan
is representing the family of Sarnia resident Adam Kargus, killed
in the jail Oct. 31.

An inmate from London and one from Tillsonburg are the
representative plaintiffs in the claim that covers people jailed
at EMDC from January 2010 to August 2013.

The province has received notice of the claim, but not the
statement of claim itself.

"Given this is a legal matter that will shortly be before the
court, it would be inappropriate to speak to this matter,"
Brent Ross, spokesperson for the Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services, said on Dec. 9.

The main allegations of the statement of claim include:

   -- Inmates aren't properly supervised, with guards at times
unable and at times unwilling to see or hear what is happening,
routinely closing the doors to their stations.

   -- Guards discouraged assaulted inmates from making complaints,
"inflicted excessive, inappropriate and unnecessary physical
assaults on inmates" and constructed or encouraged inmates to
assault others, particularly sex offenders.

   -- Guards advised inmates to follow the rules set by the larger
and more violent inmates, known as servers.

   -- Supervisors didn't properly investigate complaints of
excessive force.

   -- Two and sometimes three inmates were crowded into cells
built for two because EMDC, constructed to hold 150 inmates, often
has more than 400.

   -- Neither ventilation nor plumbing systems were updated to
handle the increase in inmates.  As a result, inmates live in
unsanitary conditions, sleeping on floors beside toilets, the
toilets often unclean or not working properly.

   -- Cells weren't cleaned to remove bacteria, and black mold and
bed bugs were common. Sick prisoners weren't separated from the
healthy.

   -- The province and EMDC didn't respond to complaints from
inmates about unsanitary conditions.

   -- The province failed to provide competent and trained medical
staff, especially for diagnosing serious illness or injuries, and
also failed to take inmates to hospital in a timely fashion when
necessary.

   -- Staff at EMDC failed to ensure inmates didn't steal
medication prescribed to other inmates and failed to properly
screen and identify inmates whose mental or physical illnesses put
them in harm's way.

   -- Inmates were discouraged from seeking proper medical care,
or reporting injuries from assaults by other inmates or guards.

   -- Inmates placed in isolation and segregation received no
medical supervision, and those with special mental or physical
needs were housed in the general population with no regard for
their needs.

"Patient care instructions from doctors and hospitals were
regularly and routinely disregarded," the statement of claim says.

The Lawsuit

    $300 million: for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
assault and battery

    $25 million: punitive damages

    Two inmates are representative plaintiffs

    Statement of claim represents all inmates at EMDC between
Jan. 1, 2010, and Aug. 25, 2013

    Lawsuit has yet to be certified as class action

    Claims province broke Charter rights and court warrants
providing inmates with right of security

    Claims province broke Charter rights by subjecting inmates to
cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

Inmate Stories

Two inmates are representative plaintiffs in the class-action
lawsuit.



Glenn Johnson, London, at EMDC from May 3, 2012, to Dec. 30, 2012

    slipped in puddle of water and got concussion
    forced by inmate to sleep on floor
    protested and was assaulted by inmate
    denied stitches for cut
    told to fight another inmate for entertainment of others
    when refused, assaulted by gang of inmates
    later attacked by three inmates and stabbed in back with
pencil
    sexually touched by inmate while sleeping on floor
    urine thrown at him
    constant threats against him
    inmate threatened to rape his wife and daughter when released
    asked to move to different range, denied
    strip-searched and pepper-sprayed during lockdown
    given food he couldn't eat due to allergies
    when complained, no meal provided for days in a row
    got ringworm from another inmate and denied treatment
    got infected arm but not given any antibiotics

Michael Smith, Tillsonburg, July 9 to 12, 2012

    told by guards inmates post rules and to follow them or get
hurt
    dragged from the range to the washrooms where his right cheek
sliced through by a piece of plastic tray
    Assailants made him clean and bandage his own wound
    later taken to hospital, got 13 stitches and plastic surgery
    has permanent damage to cheek and suffers trauma

                          Impact of EMDC

According to statement of claim inmates have suffered:

    physical injuries;
    fear and intimidation;
    damage to interpersonal relationships;
    impaired ability to complete or pursue education;
    impaired ability to obtain and sustain employment, resulting
in lost or reduced income and ongoing loss of income;
    reduced earning capacity;
    impaired ability to deal with persons in authority;
    impaired ability to trust other people or to sustain intimate
relations;
    impaired ability to express emotions in a normal and healthy
manner;
    loss of friendship, companionship and support of friends and
community; and,
    denial, repression, dissociation and guilt.


QUEEN CITY INVESTMENT: Ran $50-Mil. Ponzi Scheme, Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Capannari and John A. Anderson commenced a securities class
action lawsuit in Ohio against Glen Galemmo, Queen City Investment
Fund II, LLC, and others.  The lawsuit is brought on behalf of
approximately 200 investors, who were fraudulently and unlawfully
induced by the Defendants to invest over $50 million of their
money in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in the history of
Hamilton County, Ohio.

The Plaintiffs say that they and the Class members principally
purchased membership interests in Fund II, an Ohio limited
liability company purportedly formed by Mr. Galemmo as an
investment fund to achieve capital appreciation by investing in
stocks, bonds and other types of securities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Rubin Cummins, Esq.
          Phyllis Elaine Brown, Esq.
          CUMMINS & BROWN, LLC
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 1000
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-0600
          Facsimile: (513) 241-6464
          E-mail: jcummins@cumminsbrownlaw.com
                  pbrown@cumminsbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Stuart Wayne, Esq.
          Thomas P. Glass, Esq.
          Brett M. Renzenbrink, Esq.
          STRAUSS & TROY CO., LPA
          The Federal Reserve Building
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile: (513) 629-9426
          E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com
                  tpglass@strausstroy.com
                  bmrenzenbrink@strausstroy.com

The case is Capannari, et al. v. Galemmo, et al., Case No. 1:13-
cv-00883-SJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio (Cincinnati).


RAM'S IMPORTS: Recalls IQ Girls' Hooded Pink Leopard Jackets
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ram's Imports Inc. of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 756 IQ Girls' Hooded Pink Leopard Jackets.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The jackets have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a
strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.  In
1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves girls pink hooded jackets.  The jacket is 97 %
cotton 3% spandex.  The jackets have pink and black leopard print
drawstrings and pink and black leopard print on the sides of the
jacket.  "IQ girls" is printed on the sewn-in label located on the
back of the neck.  The model number included in the recall is
86557 and can be found printed on a sewn in label in the back of
the neck.  The recall involves jacket sizes girls 4 through 12.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/jvi7WL

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold
exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide October
2010 through August 2013 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
garment to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to Ram's
Imports Inc. for a full refund.


REGUS MANAGEMENT: Calif. Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit against Regus Management Group,
LLC and three of its affiliated entities has survived a motion to
dismiss.  The lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California, and is docketed as Case
No. 3:12-cv-04000.  Plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend that Regus
assesses hidden and unreasonable charges.

On November 1, 2013, all claims involving one of the three named
plaintiffs were dismissed by the Court pursuant to a settlement
agreement.  Based on the settlement, the Court dismissed claims by
one of the two California plaintiffs against Regus and the
Affiliates and "alternative counterclaims" asserted by Regus
against the California plaintiff that, according to the operative
pleading, arose in "the event, and only in the event" that the
Court determined that Regus or the Affiliates "imposed
unauthorized charges and . . . that any portion of" the agreements
of Regus and its Affiliates were "void, or otherwise
unenforceable."

Previously, on April 22, 2013, the Court had entered an order
allowing certain claims brought by the plaintiffs to proceed after
Regus and the Affiliates had moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs'
claims.  The complaint asserts that Regus fails to adequately
disclose charges assessed to its California and New York office
space clients and that Regus makes false and/or misleading
advertising statements concerning the space advertised to
customers of Regus in California.

A copy of the operative complaint has been made available online
at http://www.arilaw.comand other public documents can be
obtained upon request.  For questions regarding this lawsuit,
please contact Neha Sareen at ARI Law Group at neha@arilaw.com or
415-857-3487. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the reason
for their inquiry.


SHAW INDUSTRIES: Recalls Aristocrat II Carpet Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Shaw Industries Inc., of Dalton, Ga., announced a voluntary recall
of about 16,300 yards Aristocrat II Carpet.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The carpet fails to meet federal flammability standards, posing a
fire hazard to consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Aristocrat II brand wall-to-wall carpet with
style number 7L514.  The carpet was sold in one color, "Pale
Clay."  A date stamp on the back of the carpet reads "USA 760 MEA
52545," the date "06-07-2013," a time range between 00:45 and 3:00
and the words "Pile: 100% Polyester."  The stamp is repeated every
six feet.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/7QHlGb

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold
exclusively at Lowe's stores nationwide between June 2013 and
September 2013 for about $1 a square foot.

Consumers should immediately contact Shaw Industries to determine
if their carpet is included in the recall and for instructions on
returning the product for refund or replacement.


SOLOWAVE DESIGN: 20,000+ Home Playground Tube Slides Recalled
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Solowave Design Corp., of Hamburg, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 10,800 in the U.S. and 9,900 in Canada Tornado
brand home playground tube slides with port holes.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The plastic port hole-type windows in the tube slide can break,
posing a laceration hazard to children.

Solowave has received 23 reports of minor injuries to children,
including cuts and scrapes, from contact with broken port holes.

The recall involves Solowave Tornado brand home playground tube
slides with port holes.  The slides are green, six or seven feet
long and have three or five port hole-style plastic windows in the
sides.  The slides were sold with Solowave's Centennial,
Centennial II, Lexington, Rocky Mountain Deluxe and Sheridan play
systems and were also sold separately.  Solowave Design is stamped
on the outside of the slides near the middle of each tube slide
section.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/D5t2LU

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at Toys
R Us and other stores nationwide, and online at toysrus.com from
February 2008 through August 2013 for between $1,300 and $1,800 as
part of a play system, or between $275 and $370 for the slide
only.

Consumers should stop using the recalled slide immediately and
contact Solowave to receive a free repair kit for the port hole
windows.


SUFFOLK COUNTY: Atty. Fee Bid Okayed in Suit vs. Commissioner
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joanna Seybert granted a motion for attorneys' fees
filed by plaintiff class members in the case captioned INGRID
TORRES, DORA MARTINEZ, and JESSICA ADAMS, on behalf of themselves,
their families and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GREGORY BLASS, Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of
Social Services, Defendant, NO. 12-CV-3603(JS)(WDW), (E.D. N.Y.).

"The Plaintiffs are awarded $165,715.20 in fees, $5,239.50 in
travel expenses, and $1,001.82 in costs for a total of
$171,956.52," ruled Judge Seybert.

A copy of the District Court's November 18, 2013 Memorandum &
Order is available at http://is.gd/NbL0Mofrom Leagle.com.

Laura Francine Redman, Esq., Marc Cohan, Esq., Petra T. Tasheff,
Esq. National Center for Law & Economic Justice, New York, NY,
Linda Hassberg, Esq., Empire Justice Center Touro Law PAC, Central
Islip, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq., Christopher M. Gatto, Esq., Suffolk
County Attorney's Office, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendant.


SYMANTEC CORP: "Haskins" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed without prejudice Kathleen
Haskins' second amended complaint against Symantec Corporation.
Judge Tigar directed the Plaintiff to file a third amended
complaint no later than 21 days from the December 2, 2013 issuance
of the order.

Symantec Corporation produces antivirus, data management utility
and enterprise software products.

In 2006, hackers infiltrated Symantec's network and stole the
source code used in the 2006 versions of Symantec's Norton
Antivirus, pcAnywhere, Norton SystemWorks (Norton Utilities and
Norton GoBack), Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition, and Norton
Internet Security software.  The Plaintiff alleges that Symantec
knew as early as 2006 that its network had been breached and the
source code stolen, but neither performed a reasonable
investigation into the breach nor informed consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula Michelle Roach, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDEN, LLC
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: toreardon@bholaw.com
                  tblood@bholaw.com
                  proach@bholaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Richard Lyle Coffman, Esq.
          THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
          First City Building
          505 Orleans Street, Suite 505
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 833-7700
          Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
          E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq.
          Molly Roberta Melcher, Esq.
          Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
          E-mail: lpulgram@fenwick.com
                  mmelcher@fenwick.com
                  tnewby@fenwick.com

The case is Haskins v. Symantec Corporation, Case No. 3:13-cv-
01834-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by Aggrenox Consumers, 3rd-Party Payors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraternal Order of Police Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, on
its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Limited, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., Barr Laboratories Inc.,
Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc., Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp.,
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Boehringer Ingelheim
International GmbH, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-06999-MSG (E.D. Pa., December 3, 2013) is
an antitrust action brought on behalf of a proposed class of
consumers and third-party payors, who indirectly purchased,
reimbursed, or otherwise paid for Aggrenox, a brand name drug
containing 25 mg aspirin and 200 mg extended-release dipyridamole,
in capsule form, indicated to lower the risk of stroke in people,
who have had a transient ischemic attack or stroke due to a blood
clot.

The Defendants' unlawful market allocation agreement has prevented
less expensive generic versions of Aggrenox from entering the
market, causing the Plaintiff and the End-Payor Class to pay
overcharges, the Plaintiff alleges.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania.  Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., manufactures and distributes generic drugs for sale
throughout the United States at the direction, under the control,
and for the direct benefit of its parent company.  Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited is an Israel corporation
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.  Teva is a leading
manufacturer of generic drugs, and is one of the largest sellers
of generic drugs in the United States.  Teva purchased Barr
Pharmaceuticals Inc.  on December 23, 2008.

Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  On December 23, 2008, Barr became
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva.  Barr Laboratories Inc. is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliffe Lake, New Jersey.

Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  Until 2008, Duramed
was a subsidiary of Barr.  In December 2008, when Teva purchased
Barr, Duramed became a subsidiary of Teva and is now known as Teva
Women's Health Inc.  Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp. is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.
Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp. was a subsidiary of Barr until
December 2008, when it became a subsidiary of Teva.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG is a German limited
partnership headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany.  Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH is a German limited liability company
headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany.  Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Ridgefield, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GOSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 315-3454
          Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
          E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Adam Giffords Kurtz, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GOSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Ave., 20th Floor
          New York, NY, 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: AGKurtz@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark B. Goldstein, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GOSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: mbgoldstein@pomlaw.com


TORO CO: Recalls 34,500 TimeMaster and TurfMaster Lawn Mowers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Toro Co., of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall
of about 34,500 in the United States and 1,600 in Canada
TimeMaster and TurfMaster lawn mowers.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The mower's blade can break and injure the user and others nearby.

Toro has received ten reports of blades breaking.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall involves 2013 Toro TimeMaster 30" and 2013 Toro
TurfMaster 30" lawn mowers with the following model and serial
numbers: Model number 20199 with serial numbers ranging from
313000101 to 313020271; model number 20200 with serial numbers
ranging from 313000101 to 313007366; and, model number 22200 with
serial numbers ranging from 313000101 to 313007146.  The phrases
"TimeMaster" or "TurfMaster" and "Toro" are printed on the front
of the black and red mower.  "Toro" is also printed on the side of
the mower.  The model and serial numbers are located on a decal
affixed to the engine base above the left rear tire.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/gUUZna

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at Toro
dealers nationwide from November 2012 through October 2013 for
between $999 and $1,799.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mowers and
contact Toro for a free repair.


TREK BICYCLES: Recalls 6,800 Madone Bicycles Due to Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Trek Bicycles Corp., of Waterloo, Wis., announced a voluntary
recall of about 6,800 Trek model year 2013 Madone bicycles.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The bicycle's front brake can fail, posing a crash hazard.

Trek has received five reports of loose front brake attachment
bolts.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves model year 2013 Trek Madone bicycles with
model numbers 5.2, 5.9, 6.2, 6.5, 7.7 or 7.9, and serial numbers
starting with WTU and ending with G or H.  A list of all serial
numbers included in the recall is at http://www.trekbikes.com.
Some of the recalled models are custom-ordered Project One
Madones.  The model number is printed on the bicycle frame.  The
serial number is printed on a sticker underneath the frame of the
bicycle.  The bicycles were sold in a variety of colors.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/8BaqnB

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan, United States
and Germany

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
take the bicycles to a Trek dealer for a free replacement front
brake system.


UBER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Drivers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Rachel Swan, writing for SF Weekly, reports that a San Francisco
judge isn't buying Uber's claim that its drivers are independent
contractors rather than employees -- an argument it deployed to
stave off a class-action lawsuit over tips and expenses.

On Dec. 5, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen rejected the startup's
motion to dismiss, allowing a group of jilted drivers to pursue
claims that the company hijacks portions of its drivers'
gratuities and refuses to reimburse them for fuel and other
automobile expenses.  Judge Chen also ruled that drivers in other
states can join the suit, since Uber's licensing agreement
includes a clause specifying that all disputes be settled under
California law.

Chen did, however, absolve Uber's President Travis Kalanick and
Vice President Ryan Graves from individual allegations, saying
that they aren't necessarily culpable for all of the company's
labor practices.  It was a small silver lining in what could
ultimately be a severe blow to the car-hire startup.

And the suit could extend well beyond Uber.  In his opinion,
Judge Chen notes that Uber exercises enough control over its
drivers' day-to-day operations to "make the existence of an
employment relationship plausible on its face."  If that claim
prevails, it could undermine one of the core tenets of the
car-hire startup business model, also implemented by Lyft,
Sidecar, and scads of other companies.  All define themselves as
technology startups rather than transportation companies, a status
that they say exempts them from laws and regulations governing
conventional taxis.

If that contention falls apart under judicial scrutiny, it could
also impair the startups' rather tenuous standing with the
California Public Utilities Commission, whose members are still
delineating rules to keep Uber and its ilk from unfairly driving
taxis out of business.

Uber is profiting enormously from what could be an unfair labor
strategy, with more than $22 million in revenue harvested during
the last week of November, according to reports leaked to
Valleywag.  But this class-action suit could stymie its business,
especially if it paves the way for others.


WESTERN UNION: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 10 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
on behalf of purchasers of The Western Union Company common stock
during the period between February 7, 2012 and October 30, 2012,
inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 10, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Western Union and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Western Union, headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, is a
provider of money movement and payment services worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects, including
failing to disclose that Western Union: (a) was experiencing
difficulties complying with its increased compliance duties
required by its Southwest Border Agreement with the state of
Arizona, which was to crack down on illegal money laundering
practices between the states along the U.S. and Mexican border;
(b) was spending significantly more than forecast on its efforts
to satisfy the Southwest Border Agreement compliance and
monitoring program; (c) had downplayed the impact that changes in
its compliance and regulatory environment were having on the
Company's operations during the Class Period, including its
operations in Mexico and Latin America; and (d) was under
competitive pricing pressure to charge a premium for its core
money transfer product.

The complaint further alleges that on October 30, 2012, the
Company disclosed disappointing third quarter 2012 financial
results and reduced its 2012 revenue, operating margin and
earnings per share outlook, blaming the Company's disastrous
results and outlook in large part on the implementation of new
system requirements in its Mexican operations required to comply
with the Southwest Border Agreement.  As a result of the new
requirements, the complaint alleges that the Company was forced to
terminate its relationship with 40% of its Mexican locations, as
many of its agents were unable to meet the new heightened
standards, and that the disruption in the Company's Mexican
locations further caused a disruption in Western Union's Latin
American operations.  In addition, the Company disclosed that it
was subject to intense competition in certain of its key
corridors.  As a result of these disclosures, the price of Western
Union stock plummeted $5.20 per share on October 31, 2012, a
decline of 29%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Western Union common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff
is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


WORLD FAMOUS: Recalls UVX 1 and UVX 2 Waterproofing Protector
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 12, 2013
Posting date:             December 12, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37135

Affected products: World Famous UVX 1 and UVX 2 Waterproofing
Protector

The recall involves the World Famous UVX 1 and UVX 2 waterproofing
protector sold in a 946 ml can.  The recalled products can be
identified by item number 066 and UPC 069808000667 or item number
062 and UPC 069808000629. UVX 1 Waterproofing Protector is for
nylon and synthetic fabrics and UVX 2 Waterproofing Protector is
for most canvas products.  Both products display the World Famous
trademark on the top left corner of the front label.  The item
number is located on the top right corner of the front label.

The recalled products do not have the mandatory labeling for
consumer chemical products under Canadian Law.

These consumer chemical products do not have the proper hazard
labeling required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers
Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.
Improper labeling information may lead to serious injuries.

Neither Health Canada, nor World Famous Sales of Canada Inc. has
received any reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related
to the use of these products.

Approximately 4,225 units of UVX 1 and 7,505 units of UVX 2
Waterproofing Protectors were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold from
January 2012 to December 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     K-G Spray-Pack Inc.
                    Vaughan
                    Ontario
                    Canada

   Distributor      World Famous Sales of Canada Inc.
                    Concord
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product.
Products can be returned to the store where they were purchased
either for a refund or exchange for a replacement product with the
correct label.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Denied Approval of Investors' Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Better and the YRC Investors Group bring the securities class
action captioned STAN BETTER and YRC INVESTORS GROUP, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YRC
WORLDWIDE INC., WILLIAM D. ZOLLARS, MICHAEL SMID, TIMOTHY A. WICKS
and STEPHEN L. BRUFFET, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2072-KHV,
(D. Kan.) on behalf of all who purchased common stock of YRC
Worldwide Inc. between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009.

Plaintiffs allege that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and
Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (Count I). They also
allege that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a)
(Count II). Plaintiffs assert that by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse
facts, defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme and course
of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of
YRC common stock.

On August 19, 2013, the Court overruled plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary class certification and preliminary approval of a
proposed settlement, finding that plaintiffs had not shown that
the proposed class satisfied Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., or that the
proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.  This matter comes
before the Court on plaintiffs' Amended Unopposed Motion For
Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement.

District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil denied Plaintiffs' request for
preliminary class certification and preliminary approval of the
proposed amended settlement.

In a November 18, 2013 Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/BTRt3cfrom Leagle.com, the Court said it cannot
preliminarily approve the amended settlement because the amended
settlement proposes to twice distribute settlement funds to class
members who timely submit claims and then distribute any remaining
funds to the cy pres recipient. Without more information, the
Court said, it cannot determine whether the amount of remaining
funds would be too small to make further individual distributions
economically viable. The parties point to no specific reasons that
would make further distributions to class members impossible or
unfair. Also, the record contains no information as to whether the
parties have any pre-existing relationship or connection with
FINRA or the FINRA Foundation. Before approving the proposed cy
pres clause, the Court would require such information to determine
whether the parties have designated the beneficiary at arm's-
length, ruled the Court.

"On this record, plaintiffs have not shown that the proposed
amended settlement provides sufficient value or benefit to class
members to justify releasing their class action claims against
defendants," Judge Vratil concluded.


* Recent Arbitration Agreement Ruling May Affect EPLI Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Bronson, writing for Insurance Business America, reports
that employers can now require workers to sign arbitration
agreements waiving their right to file class-action lawsuits over
workplace issues, a federal court recently ruled.  According to
one industry expert, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision
may have insurance ramifications for producers -- particularly
with regard to employment practices liability insurance.

In recent years, class-action lawsuits have fueled high sales of
employment practices liability insurance (EPLI), a product which
covers costs related to legal action and other financial damages
stemming from wrongful workplace actions.  Now, however, the
appeals court has made it possible for businesses to limit such
legal exposure.

Dr. Robert Hartwig, an economist and president of the Insurance
Information Institute, believes the new opportunity for businesses
to limit their legal exposure will not result in a decrease for
EPLI demand, however -- merely its cost to commercial clients.
That could be a powerful sales tactic for producers.

"In general, programs or strategies that avoid or minimize
litigation can benefit the employer in terms of EPLI cost,"
Dr. Hartwig said.  "If there is a demonstrated reduction in the
overall cost of litigation, which is the result of fewer cases or
potential cases, that is potentially a benefit."

Because carriers assess businesses individually, Dr. Hartwig
added, a choice to limit exposure to class-action lawsuits would
reflect favorably on the company's risk, thereby decreasing costs
and helping producers make a sale.

Dr. Hartwig added that EPLI is "one of these products that's
become more ubiquitous" in recent years, and will continue to be a
strong profit source for producers.  Even with class-action
lawsuits potentially off the table for some employers, the
potential for litigation based on employment practices is a
powerful motivator for commercial clients.

"In some sense, the headlines sell themselves," Dr. Hartwig said.
"Scarcely a month goes by where you don't read about some lawsuit
involving employees versus their employers."

Ann Longmore, EPLI leader for Willis, said the risk is
particularly high for small commercial enterprises, which could
make them a prime target for producers.

"Smaller companies do have to worry about one big, bad case taking
them down," she said.  "A single individual could take them down."

Dr. Hartwig agreed.

"The lesson that can be learned here is that this is not
necessarily litigation that only involves giant corporations.  It
can involve medium and small corporations as well," he said.  "My
guess is every broker or agent out there has a story about
litigation against a moderate-sized employer.  Those sorts of
stories help sell the product."

The Appeals Court case involved a Fort Worth-based homebuilder,
which required all its employees to sign agreements to resolve
workplace disputes in individual cases rather than sue as a group.
The ruling overturns a previous decision by the National Labor
Relations Board, which held that such employer requirements go
against federal law allowing employees to pursue collective
action.


                             *********

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  * * *