CAR_Public/140120.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 20, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 13

                             Headlines


AARP INSURANCE: Faces Action Over Illegal Insurance Commissions
AMERISTAR CASINOS: Reconsideration Bid in Sloan Suit Denied
AMYRIS INC: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
ANGELA BUSSIO: Court Dismisses RICO Claim in "Sung" Class Action
BALDOR ELECTRIC: Fails to Enforce "No Layoff Strategy," Suit Says

BARNES & NOBLE: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
BEN & JERRY'S: Court Refused to Certify Class in "Astiana" Suit
BODY CENTRAL: Still Faces "Mogensen" Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 8th Cir. Remands 3 Cases to District Court
CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Stockholder Class Action Dismissed

CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: N.C. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
COLE REAL ESTATE: Md. Court Dismisses Complaint Over Merger
COLE REAL ESTATE: AZ Court Stays Amended Claim Filing Deadline
COLE REAL ESTATE: Faces Suits in Connection with ARCP Merger
COLEMAN CABLE: Being Sold Too Cheaply to Southwire, Class Claims

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: Prisoner Plaintiffs Must File Separate Suits
EAST ORANGE, NJ: Judge Grants Conditional Certification to OT Suit
FLORIDA: Atty. Fee Award in Suit vs. Agriculture Dept. Affirmed
GEORGIA: Accused of Underfunding Public Defender's Office
GOLDMAN SACHS: Accused of Restraining Trade & Supply of Aluminum

GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Files Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
HEALTHCARE STAFFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Says
HRC COLLECTION: Bid for Costs and Sanctions in Mercado Suit Denied
IOVATE HEALTH: Court Denied Final OK of Hydroxycut Settlement
JACKSON NATIONAL: Meadows Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval

JTEKT CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Sale of Bearings
KENTUCKY, USA: Accused of Discrimination by Deaf Inmates' Class
LEGEND ENERGY: Faces "Pratt" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LINN ENERGY: Faces Several Litigations Over Planned Merger
LINN ENERGY: Certification Hearing in Royalty Owners Suit Delayed

LIVE NATION: Agrees to Settle Customer Suit Over Ticketing Fees
LIVE NATION: Pays Settlement in Canadian Suit v. TicketsNow
LLOYDS TSB BANK: Settles Dispute Over Currency Loan for $1.55MM
LOVELACE HEALTH: Sued Over Provision of Mental Health Services
MARIA'S HOLDING: Order Overruling Objection in "Grinberg" Upheld

NEW JERSEY: Class Sues Gov. Over Traffic Retribution Issue
NY FIRE DEP'T: Faces "Ramos" Suit Seeking Payment for Back Wages
OAKLEY TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Claims
PAUL FINANCIAL: Atty. Fee Bid Granted in "Jordan" Class Action
PORTNOFF LAW: Roethlein Suit Remanded to Commonwealth Court

QBE IHUSRANCE: Slater & Gordon Won't Pursue Class Action
RAPID CASH: Plaintiffs Lawyer Wants Class Action Ruling Upheld
RBD STAFFING: Removes "Gongora" Class Suit to S.D. California
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Hartford Says It Has No Duty to Defend Suit
SABA SOFTWARE: Court Remands "Stoll" Suit to San Mateo Super. Ct.

SAN JOSE, CA: Summary Judgment Ruling Entered in "Valdez" Suit
SHINE 1023 INC: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
SIRIUS XM: Being Sold for Too Little to Liberty Media, Suit Says
SOUTHGOBI RESOURCES: Siskinds LLP Files Class Action in Ontario
STURM FOODS: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "Suchanek" Case

TARGET CORP: Faces "Casey" Suit Over Computer and Network Breach
TARGET CORP: Two Utah Law Firms File Class Action Over Data Breach
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit by Cafeteria Employees
TRANSNET: Pensioners to File Class Action Over Owed Money
WILLIAM QUINN: Accused of Not Paying Time Spent Going to Worksite

WOODRIDGE VILLAGE, IL: Anyone Arrested Must Pay $30 Booking Fee
WRIGLEY SALES: Amended "Gustavson" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice


                             *********


AARP INSURANCE: Faces Action Over Illegal Insurance Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Bentley, writing for Sonoran News, reports that Dr. John
Milton Peacock and Robbie Cowan on Dec. 23 filed a class action
lawsuit against AARP, formerly known as the American Association
of Retired Persons, AARP Insurance Plan, UnitedHealth Group and
UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of senior citizens and
disabled individuals residing in Texas, are seeking to recoup
millions of dollars, alleging they were fooled by deceptive
practices and unlawful acts into paying artificially inflated
insurance charges for Medicare supplemental health insurance
policies so the defendants could use the inflated portion of the
payment for the payment of insurance commissions to an unlicensed
entity.

The complaint alleges, despite AARP's nonprofit status, it reaps
substantial income through business partnerships with large
insurance companies such as UnitedHealth Group and
UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company in the form of commissions.

According to the complaint, defendants, together and through their
respective subsidiaries, "have orchestrated an elaborate scheme
where AARP, as the de facto agent of UnitedHealth, helps market,
solicit, sell, and/or renew 'AARP-branded' Medicare supplement
health insurance policies ('AARP Medigap') on behalf of
UnitedHealth, and also collects and remits insurance premiums and
generally administers the AARP Medigap program for UnitedHealth,
in exchange for a 4.95 percent commission from each new policy or
renewal."

The complaint states the defendants call the payment that goes
from UnitedHealth to AARP a "royalty" for the use of AARP's
intellectual property.  However, it states they are hiding the
fact that the payment to AARP is actually "a percentage of premium
commission that is charged to unsuspecting seniors and the
disabled in addition to their insurance premium paid to
UnitedHealth for coverage."

It claims the motive to term the commission payment a "royalty" is
two-fold -- it allows AARP to avoid oversight by insurance
regulators, and it allows AARP to avoid paying taxes on the income
it generates through insurance sales.

Plaintiffs state, "Calling the commission a 'royalty' is merely a
fiction created by defendants to further their illegal scheme."

If the matter is not resolved within 31 days from its filing,
plaintiffs will amend the complaint to seek disgorgement of all
ill-gotten gains and benefits or profits taken from individuals
and businesses including all the proceeds, profits, income,
interest and accessions thereto, including treble damages, as well
as a temporary and permanent injunction against the defendants
from engaging in the alleged unlawful practices described in the
lawsuit, along with class certification.


AMERISTAR CASINOS: Reconsideration Bid in Sloan Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
LEANNE SLOAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERISTAR CASINOS, INC., and AMERISTAR
CASINO BLACK HAWK, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-01126-
RM-KMT, (D. Col.) is before the court on "Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Compel and Motion for
Additional Sanctions" filed October 15, 2013. Defendants filed
their Response on November 8, 2013.

The Plaintiff challenges the Court's Order dated October 8, 2013
denying his Motion to Compel, contending it contains clear error
that must be revisited to prevent manifest injustice, invoking
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000).

In the October 8 Order, the court acknowledged Defendants'
improper behavior directed at currently employed putative class
members during the period shortly before and shortly after mailing
of the class-wide, court-approved notice of the suit and
opportunity to join.  Similar intimidating behavior by Defendants
directed at former employees was the subject of the court's
previous order imposing significant sanctions -- the First
Sanction Order.  That order is the subject of a pending objection
to the District Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya does not agree that its two
orders are inconsistent on any basis, or that the October 8 Order
is unjust. Given that any award of sanctions is discretionary, the
Plaintiff has failed to establish clear error or manifest
injustice entitling it to reconsideration of the October 8 Order,
she said.

Therefore, the "Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Denying Motion to Compel and Motion for Additional Sanctions" is
denied, ruled Magistrate Judge Tafoya.

A copy of the District Court's November 19, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/2a5t91from Leagle.com.


AMYRIS INC: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Amyris, Inc. faces a consolidated securities lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

In May 2013, a securities class action complaint was filed against
the Company and its CEO, John G. Melo, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. In October 2013, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint,
as amended, seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the
Company's common stock between April 29, 2011 and February 8,
2012. The complaint alleges securities law violations based on the
Company's commercial projections during that period. The Company
believes the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend itself
vigorously. Because the case is at a very early stage and no
specific monetary demand has been made, it is not possible for the
company to estimate the potential loss or range of potential
losses for the case.


ANGELA BUSSIO: Court Dismisses RICO Claim in "Sung" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 12, 2012, Arleen Sung saw an advertisement on the
internet for a work-at-home financial opportunity from Angela
Bussio for the Profit Masters Academy. She followed-up on that
advertisement and signed up for the Profit Masters Academy by
paying $97.  After that, she received a message from the
defendants directing her to call them. When she did, they pitched
her allegedly bogus online businesses opportunity investment
programs.  Ms. Sung alleges that she invested $6,695 in one of
these bogus online business opportunities and defendants have
refused to refund her money.  On April 19, 2013, Ms. Sung filed a
class action complaint relating to the alleged work-at-home
scheme. Ms. Sung filed an amended complaint on July 26, 2013. She
brings claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), unfair competition, and common
law fraud and conversion. On September 5, 2013, the Defendants
moved to dismiss Ms. Sung's amended class action complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. They also moved
to dismiss her RICO claim, but did not move to dismiss the other
causes of action. In the alternative, the defendants moved to
transfer the action to Utah or compel arbitration.

District Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the RICO claim with leave to amend, but otherwise denies
the motions to dismiss, transfer, and compel arbitration.

The Court dismissed Ms. Sung's RICO cause of action for failure to
state a claim, without prejudice.

The case is captioned ARLEEN SUNG, an individual, Plaintiff, v.
ANGELA BUSSIO, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 5:13-CV-01786-RMW,
(N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the District Court's November 19, 2013
Order is available at http://is.gd/Czwrvdfrom Leagle.com.


BALDOR ELECTRIC: Fails to Enforce "No Layoff Strategy," Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy K. Mouser, Wayne P. Gullion, and Russell W. Reed, on behalf
themselves, and all others similarly situated v. Baldor Electric
Company, Case No. 4:13-cv-00207-SEB-WGH (S.D. Ind., December 31,
2013) is brought by previous employees at a manufacturing plant
operated by Baldor in Madison, Indiana.

The Plaintiffs allege that Baldor discriminated against them by
failing to apply and enforce its "no layoff strategy" to them
because they were members of a union.  During the course of their
employment with the Company, the Plaintiffs were represented by
Local 1109 of the International Association of Machinists.

Baldor is a Missouri corporation headquartered in Fort Smith,
Arkansas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas Joseph Gaunt, Esq.
          1416 N. Pennsylvania Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 216-7000
          E-mail: tjgattorney@sbcglobal.net


BARNES & NOBLE: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 8 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Barnes & Noble, Inc. common stock during the period between
February 25, 2013 and December 5, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 8, 2014.  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/barnesnoble/

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 Barnes & Noble and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Barnes & Noble is a New York City-based retailer of books
and digital media and digital media devices, including its Nook
e-book reader and accessories launched in 2009.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Barnes & Noble
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future business prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
or failed to disclose that: (i) Barnes & Noble's Nook e-book
reader sales had dramatically declined; (ii) the Company would
shutter its Nook manufacturing operations altogether; (iii) the
carrying value of the Nook assets were impaired by millions of
dollars; (iv) the carrying value of the Nook inventory was
overstated by $133 million; (v) the Company was expecting fiscal
2014 retail losses in the high single digits; (vi) Barnes & Noble
had over-accrued certain accounts receivables; (vii) Barnes &
Noble was unable to provide timely audited financial results for
fiscal 2013; and (viii) the Company might be forced to restate its
previously reported financial results.

The complaint further alleges that following the July 8, 2013
resignation of Barnes & Noble's Chief Executive Officer and a
July 29, 2013 earnings restatement, on August 20, 2013, Barnes &
Noble disclosed much worse company-wide financial results for its
first quarter 2014 than the market had been led to expect,
including lower sales and losses that more than doubled from the
first quarter of 2013.  Barnes & Noble also disclosed that the
Company's Chairman had placed on hold his previous bid to take the
Company's bookstore business private.  On this news, the Company's
stock price fell more than $2 per share, or approximately 12%.

Then, on December 5, 2013, Barnes & Noble disclosed in a filing
with the SEC that it had been notified on October 16, 2013 that
the SEC had commenced an investigation into Barnes & Noble's past
accounting, including its decision to restate earnings for fiscal
2011 and fiscal 2012.  Barnes & Noble also disclosed that the SEC
was looking into a former employee's allegations that Barnes &
Noble had improperly allocated "certain information technology
expenses" between its Nook and consumer bookstore groups in its
financial reporting.  The filing also disclosed that after a
review of Barnes & Noble's deferred tax assets and liabilities, it
had "concluded" that a deferred tax liability should be reversed.
On this news, the price of the Company's stock declined again,
falling almost $2 per share, or 12%, when trading resumed on
December 6, 2013.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Barnes & Noble 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.


BEN & JERRY'S: Court Refused to Certify Class in "Astiana" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California refused to certify a class in the
class action lawsuit initiated by Skye Astiana against Ben &
Jerry's Homemade, Inc.

The case is brought on behalf of individuals, who purchased ice
cream products produced by Ben & Jerry's, including ice cream,
frozen yogurt, and popsicles, which contained alkalized cocoa and
were labeled "all natural."  The Plaintiff claims that both the
packaging and the advertising for the Ben & Jerry's ice cream
products were deceptive and misleading to the extent that the
cocoa was alkalized with a "synthetic" agent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ellen Mary M. Doyle, Esq.
          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue, 17th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: edoyle@fdpklaw.com
                  jkravec@fdpklaw.com
                  wlison@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          Facsimile: (310) 278-5938
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ronald J. Levine, Esq.
          HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP
          210 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 452-3800
          E-mail: rlevine@herrick.com

The case is Astiana v. Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc., Case No.
4:10-cv-04387-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (Oakland).


BODY CENTRAL: Still Faces "Mogensen" Securities Lawsuit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Body Central Corp. continues to face a securities lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 28, 2013.

On August 27, 2012, a securities class action, Mogensen v. Body
Central Corp. et al., 3:12-cv-00954, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors.  The amended complaint, filed on February
22, 2013, on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's stock
between November 10, 2011 and June 18, 2012, alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false or
misleading statements about the business and operations, thereby
causing the stock price to be artificially inflated during that
period.  The complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified
amount, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 8th Cir. Remands 3 Cases to District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), Congress
permitted removal from state to federal court of certain class
actions, including "mass actions."

"[T]he term 'mass action' means any civil action . . . in which
monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be
tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve
common questions of law or fact," Section 1332(d)(11)(B)(i), but
does not include an action in which "the claims have been
consolidated or coordinated solely for pretrial proceedings,"
Section 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(IV).

Groups of plaintiffs filed product liability actions in Missouri's
Twenty-Second (City of St. Louis) Judicial Circuit against four
manufacturers of transvaginal mesh medical devices. Three groups
included claims against Boston Scientific Corporation for alleged
defects in its devices.  Each group comprised less than 100
plaintiffs. The three groups filed similar motions proposing that
the state court assign each group "to a single Judge for purposes
of discovery and trial."  After the motion hearing, Boston
Scientific removed the three cases to federal court. Two district
judges granted plaintiffs' motions and remanded the cases to state
court on the ground that no case included more than 100 plaintiffs
and plaintiffs had not proposed to the state court that the
actions be "tried jointly."  Boston Scientific petitioned for
permission to appeal, arguing that the three groups of plaintiffs
have proposed to try their cases jointly within the meaning of 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11)(B)(i), transforming their cases into a
single mass action subject to federal jurisdiction.

Reviewing the issue de novo, the United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit, concluded that it has jurisdiction and, in each
case, grant Boston Scientific leave to appeal. The Eighth Circuit
further vacated the district court orders remanding the three
cases to state court, and remanded the cases to the district court
for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Boston
Scientific's motion to consolidate the petitions for permission to
appeal and the motions by counsel for Althea Evans and Laura
Taylor for leave to file a sur-reply were also granted.

The cases are:

* Dawn Atwell, et al. Respondents v. Boston Scientific Corporation
  Petitioner, NO. 13-8031.

* Althea Evans, et al. Respondents v. Boston Scientific
  Corporation Petitioner, NO. 13-8032.

* Laura Taylor, et al. Respondents v. Boston Scientific
  Corporation Petitioner, NO. 13-8033.

A copy of the Circuit Court's November 18, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Go6b3Tfrom Leagle.com.


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Stockholder Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical
company focused on developing safe and effective, approved
medicines targeting orphan neuromuscular and neurological
diseases, disclosed that on January 3, 2014, the previously
reported stockholder class action lawsuit that had been filed
against Catalyst and certain of its officers and directors was
dismissed without prejudice.  In the Court's order, the plaintiffs
were granted leave to file an amended complaint within 20 days.
Catalyst has no information as to whether any such amended
complaint is planned by the plaintiffs.  If an amended complaint
is filed in the case, Catalyst intends to vigorously defend the
amended lawsuit.

In October and November 2013, three securities class action
lawsuits were filed against Catalyst and certain of its officers
and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.  The complaints, which were substantially identical,
purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities
laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased Catalyst's common
stock between October 31, 2012 and October 18, 2013.  Two of the
lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, and the
last remaining case was the case dismissed on Jan. 3, 2014.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: N.C. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice a securities suit
against Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd., according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Following the receipt of the Complete Response Letter from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administartion regarding the NDA for Northera
(droxidopa) in March 2012 and the subsequent decline of the price
of the Company's common stock, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed on April 4, 2012 and another purported class action
lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina against the company and
certain of the company's executive officers.

The complaints generally allege that, during differing class
periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and the individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making various statements
related to the Company's development of Northera for the treatment
of symptomatic neurogenic OH and the likelihood of FDA approval.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs.  Following consolidation of the three
lawsuits and the appointment of a lead plaintiff, a consolidated
complaint was filed on October 5, 2012, on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from November 3, 2008 through March 28,
2012.  On November 16, 2012, the Company and the other defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint.  On October 10, 2013, the court
granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment
in favor of the defendants.  The plaintiffs had 30 days to file a
notice of appeal.  The Company and its officers intend to
vigorously defend against any appeal but are unable to predict the
outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this
time.


COLE REAL ESTATE: Md. Court Dismisses Complaint Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Maryland state court issued a ruling granting a motion to
dismiss a consolidated amended complaint against Cole Credit
Property Trust, III, Inc., according to Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

In connection with the Cole Holdings Merger, between March 20 and
April 30, 2013, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland making various
claims alleging that the Cole Holdings Merger injured the Company
and its shareholders. On April 30, 2013, the actions were
consolidated by order of the Court as one action called In Re Cole
Credit Property Trust, III, Inc. Derivative And Class Litigation,
Case No. 24-C-13-001563. On May 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action and derivative complaint naming
as defendants Holdings; Cole REIT Advisors III, LLC ("CR III
Advisors"); Merger Sub; CCA; Cole Capital Corporation; Equity Fund
Advisors, Inc.; Cole Realty Advisors, Inc.; each of the Company's
directors; and the Company as a nominal defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges a variety of claims
against some or all of the defendants including claims for
breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding abetting those breaches;
unjust enrichment; corporate waste; breaches of the Company's
charter and the advisory agreement with CR III Advisors; and
disclosure violations in connection with disclosures for the
Company's 2013 annual meeting. The plaintiffs seek, among other
relief, class certification; various forms of injunctive relief;
compensatory damages; and restitution. On June 7, 2013, defendants
in the consolidated action moved to dismiss the amended complaint
for, among other reasons, lack of standing and failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. On July 15, 2013,
plaintiffs opposed defendants' motion. A hearing was held on
August 27, 2013 before a Maryland state judge. On October 23,
2013, the Maryland court issued a ruling granting defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, with
prejudice.


COLE REAL ESTATE: AZ Court Stays Amended Claim Filing Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ordered
plaintiffs in a suit over the Cole Holdings Corporation Merger to
file an amended, consolidated complaint, but has since stayed the
deadline of that filing, according to Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On April 8, 2013, a putative class action and derivative action
was filed in the U.S. District Court, Arizona District, captioned
Schindler v. Cole Holdings Corporation, et al., No. CV-13-00712-
PHX-ROS ("Schindler") making various claims alleging that the Cole
Holdings Merger injured the Company and its shareholders. On June
7, 2013, Schindler amended the complaint naming as defendants
Holdings; CR III Advisors; Merger Sub; the Company's directors;
and the Company as nominal defendant. The amended complaint
alleges a variety of claims against some or all of the defendants
including claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting those breaches; unjust enrichment; corporate waste; and,
in connection with disclosures for the Company's 2013 annual
meeting, violations of Sections 14 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Schindler seeks, among other relief, class
certification; various forms of injunctive relief; compensatory
damages; and restitution.

On October 23, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona issued an order granting defendants' motion to consolidate
the Carter and Schindler actions, granting Schindler's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and of his selection for lead
plaintiffs' counsel, and denying Carter's motion for appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead liaison counsel. On November 1, 2013,
the court ordered plaintiffs to file an amended, consolidated
complaint, but has since stayed the deadline of that filing
pending further order of the court.


COLE REAL ESTATE: Faces Suits in Connection with ARCP Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc. continues to face several
lawsuits over its ARCP Merger Agreement, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Four lawsuits have been filed in connection with the announced
ARCP Merger Agreement. The first, Wunsch v. Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc., et al ("Wunsch"), No. 13-CV-2186, is a putative
class action that was filed on October 25, 2013 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona. The Company, ARCP,
ARCP Merger Sub, and the Company's directors -- Christopher Cole,
Thomas Andruskevich, Marc Nemer, Scott Sealy and Leonard Wood --
are named as defendants. The named plaintiff claims to be a
stockholder of the Company and purports to represent "all owners
of the Company's common stock as of October 23, 2013."

The complaint asserts two claims: first, that the individual
defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff and the
other public stockholders of the Company; and second, that the
entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches. The plaintiff
seeks, among other relief: class certification; to enjoin the ARCP
Merger or, if it is consummated, to rescind it; an accounting of
all damages caused; and attorneys' fees.

On October 30, 2013 and October 31, 2013, three other putative
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned as: Operman v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al ("Operman"); Branham v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al ("Branham"); and Wilfong v. Cole
Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al ("Wilfong"). All of these
lawsuits name the Company, ARCP, and the Company's directors as
defendants; Branham and Wilfong also name ARCP Merger Sub as a
defendant. All of the named plaintiffs claim to be stockholders of
the Company and purport to represent all holders of the Company's
stock.

Each complaint includes the same claims asserted in the Wunsch
lawsuit described above: first, that the individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and to other
public stockholders of the Company; and second, that the entity
defendants aided and abetted those breaches. In addition, the
Operman lawsuit claims that the individual defendants breached
their duty of candor to stockholders; the Branham lawsuit also
asserts a claim derivatively, on behalf of the Company, against
the individual defendants for their alleged breach of fiduciary
duties owed to the Company. Among other remedies, the complaints
seek injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from completing
the proposed ARCP Merger or, in the event that an injunction is
not awarded, unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees.


COLEMAN CABLE: Being Sold Too Cheaply to Southwire, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was initiated in the Delaware Chancery Court alleging
that the Company is being sold too cheaply to Coleman Cable, Inc.

Southwire and Coleman announced on January 6, 2014, that Cubs
Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwire
("Purchaser"), has commenced the previously announced tender offer
for all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Coleman at a
price of $26.25 per share, net to the seller in cash, without
interest, less any applicable withholding taxes.

Coleman Cable, Inc. is a manufacturer and innovator of electrical
and electronic wire and cable products for residential and
commercial construction, industrial, OEM, and consumer
applications, with operations in the United States, Honduras, and
Canada.

Southwire Company is one of North America's largest wire and cable
producers.  Southwire and its subsidiaries manufacture building
wire and cable, metal-clad cable, cord products (including
Tappan(TM) sound, security, and communication cables through
Tappan Wire & Cable Inc.), utility cable products, industrial
power cable, OEM wire products, SCR(R) copper and aluminum rod,
and continuous casting technology.

Following the first announcement of the Proposed Transaction,
several law firms announced that they are investigating the
transaction.  Among them are:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-4568
          Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
          E-mail: WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Zach Groover, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR LLP
          8150 North Central Expy., Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (877) 728-9607
          E-mail: shareholder@powerstaylor.com

               - and -

          Ofer Ganot, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: oganot@pomlaw.com


CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: Prisoner Plaintiffs Must File Separate Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order of dismissal with
leave to amend in the case captioned DYRELL W. JONES, Plaintiff,
v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; et al., Defendants, NO. C-13-4350 EMC
(PR), (N.D. Cal.).

A procedural problem unique in prisoner litigation arose in this
pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Although
one inmate filed the original complaint, two additional inmates
signed the first amended complaint. The Court considered whether
the three incarcerated pro se Plaintiffs should proceed together
in a single action or instead should be required to each maintain
a separate action.

The Court concluded that each Plaintiff should proceed in a
separate action. Plaintiff Dyrell Jones was permitted to file a
second amended complaint alleging only his own claims, and the
other two Plaintiffs -- Keenan G. Wilkins a/k/a Nerrah Brown and
Coby Phillips -- were dismissed without prejudice to each one of
them filing a separate action.

A copy of the District Court's November 19, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/Z9ezFxfrom Leagle.com.


EAST ORANGE, NJ: Judge Grants Conditional Certification to OT Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eunice Lee, writing for The Star-Ledger, reports that a group of
East Orange officers suing the city for unpaid overtime is now
bringing the full weight of a class action lawsuit, an attorney
representing several officers said on Jan. 7.

U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh on Dec. 30 granted
conditional certification, which allows attorney Andrew Glenn to
take collective action representing current and former East Orange
officers alleging unpaid overtime.  Mr. Glenn said the unpaid
overtime is between $8 million to $15 million and dates back to
Sept. 24, 2009.  Meanwhile, the number of cops joining the lawsuit
has doubled to more than 50 officers, he said.

Mr. Glenn filed a motion in May on behalf of three lead plaintiffs
-- Stephen Rochester, Jermaine Wilkins and Raymond Donnerstag --
seeking class action status.  At the time, 21 officers had joined
the lawsuit which was initially filed Sept. 24, 2012, in federal
court in Newark.

The suit claims that the city violated federal statutes under the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mr. Rochester, a 10-year veteran who still works for the police
department, claims he was routinely ordered to show up early to
work and stay late to finish reports.  He estimates he's worked
400 hours in unpaid overtime.  Messrs. Wilkins and Donnerstag also
still work for the city police department.

Judge Cavanaugh ordered the city to publicly post information on
the class action suit "conspicuously at all of its locations,
preferably in lunch rooms and/or break rooms, where all laborers
will have an opportunity to easy access and review."

The city is also required to provide Mr. Glenn with the names and
contact information of all officers employed by the city since
Sept. 24, 2009.  He said he expects the number of officers joining
the suit to grow even more.

Mr. Glenn filed the motion in late May, just days before
Robert Bowser lost a bid for a fifth term as mayor in fiercely
contested Democratic primary race.


FLORIDA: Atty. Fee Award in Suit vs. Agriculture Dept. Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES and THE
FLORIDA COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, Appellants, v. TOBY BOGORFF,
et al., Appellees, NO. 4D12-1550, the Department of Agriculture
appealed an award of attorney's fees in a class action for inverse
condemnation in which the class prevailed. Primarily, it argued
that the court erred by not using the "benefits achieved" standard
of section 73.091, Florida Statutes (2009), when the Department
made a "written offer" to the class members by sending each of
them a letter enclosing an application for compensation provided
under section 581.1845, Florida Statutes (2001).

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District holds
that the letter was not a written offer as contemplated by the
statute. With the exception of fees incurred by the class attorney
representing other clients in related litigation, the Florida
Appeals Court affirms the award.  With respect to costs, the
Florida Appeals Court reverses the expert witness fee incurred in
providing testimony as to the amount and reasonableness of the
fee, as this is not a recoverable cost.

The Florida Appeals Court remands the case for the trial court to
correct the award in accordance with its opinion.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 20, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/KlXeS6from Leagle.com.

Wesley R. Parsons -- wparsons@cspalaw.com -- and Karen H. Curtis
-- kcurtis@cspalaw.com -- of Clarke Silverglate, P.A., Miami, for
appellant.

For appellees, Robert C. Gilbert -- rcg@grossmanroth.com -- of
Grossman Roth, P.A., and:

   Coral Gables, Esq.
   Jamie Alan Cole, Esq.
   Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L.
   2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 700
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Telephone: 305-854-0800
   Facsimile: 305-854-2323


GEORGIA: Accused of Underfunding Public Defender's Office
---------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that Georgia's 8th
Judicial District underfunds its public defender's office so badly
that its juvenile courts have more judges than public defenders,
denying children the right to counsel, and sending adults to jail
for months before trial, a class action claims in state court.

Four children and four adults sued Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal and
the director of Georgia's Public Defender Standards Council W.
Travis Sakrison, in Fulton County State Court.

Lead plaintiff N.P. by his next friend Shaneka Darden claims the
Cordele Judicial Circuit is so "severely understaffed and grossly
underfunded" that children get no meaningful representation and
receive only "assembly-line justice."  The plaintiffs claim that
though public defender representation is mandatory for children at
risk of detention, commitment or probation, some children are
tried and sentenced without counsel.

In 2012, the circuit handled 681 juvenile delinquency cases, but
the public defender reported handling only 52 of them, according
to the complaint on behalf of two classes, children and adults.
And the circuit does not have attorneys specialized in the defense
of juveniles, the class claims.  Adults who cannot afford a lawyer
stay in jail for months after arrest, and children at risk for
detention go through the courts without access to a public
defender, according to the 85-page complaint.

The Cordele Judicial Circuit, based in Cordele, is in South
Central Georgia, south of Macon. It includes Crisp, Ben Hill,
Dooly and Wilcox counties.  Cordele, pop. 11,300, calls itself
"the watermelon capital of the world."

"The circuit's public defender office is severely understaffed and
grossly underfunded," the lawsuit states.  "It has only three
full-time lawyers and, since July 1, 2013, a lawyer under contract
to work no more than 75 hours per month.  This is half the number
of attorneys in the Cordele Circuit District Attorney's office.
The disparity is even greater with respect to investigators: while
the District Attorney's office is assisted by numerous local and
state law enforcement agencies, the circuit's public defender
office has a single investigator who typically only conducts
initial interviews with people detained in jail for the sole
purpose of completing the public defender eligibility application.
Unlike other circuit public defender offices in the state, the
Cordele Circuit Public Defender Office does not receive county
funds to employ additional assistant public defenders and
investigators.

"The circuit's public defenders are required to handle such an
excessive number of cases that they are unable to provide
representation in all of the courts and cases in the circuit.
Each county has a Superior Court and a juvenile court.  There are
three Superior Court judges and one juvenile court judge.  Thus,
there may be more judges presiding over courts than there are
public defenders.  On many occasions, all of the public defenders
must be in one court to deal with a large volume of cases and are
unable to be in another court.  The public defenders are unable to
spend more than a few minutes per case which does not allow them
to develop representational relationships with the people they are
supposed to represent."

Most adults who cannot afford an attorney spend weeks or months in
jail and see a public defender only for a few minutes during bond
hearings or arraignments, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim the circuit public defenders have no time to
get to know the people they represent, assess the charges against
them, conduct investigations or offer meaningful legal advice.

Defendants who plead not guilty must investigate their own cases
and find witnesses on their own.  Defendants must also pay a $50
public defender fee, even when the lawyers miss their hearings,
according to the lawsuit.  The minor plaintiffs, most of whom were
charged with burglary, theft or disorderly conduct, say their
probation could be revoked if they fail to pay the $50 fee.  They
say the circuit fails to tell defendants that the fee can be
waived, and the public defenders rarely ask for waivers or
preliminary hearings.

Until mid-2009, the Cordele Circuit Public Defender received both
state and county money for assistant public defenders.  However,
the circuit's county governments stopped funding two attorney
positions in 2008 and 2009, leaving the office with only three
full-time attorneys to handle cases in four superior courts and
four juvenile courts.  By comparison, the District Attorney's
office has seven attorneys, with one dedicated to the circuit's
juvenile courts, according to the complaint.

In 2010 and 2011, Cordele public defenders handled about 1,200
cases per year.  In 2012, their caseload grew to 1,384, the
lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs claim judicial circuits with comparable caseloads
receive county funding for assistant public defenders and are much
better staffed.  They seek class certification, an injunction and
damages for constitutional violations.

"Poor people accused of crime in the Cordele Circuit are not
'represented by counsel' in any meaningful way and, instead, are
processed through the courts in assembly-line fashion at
arraignments and largely neglected the rest of the time," Southern
Center attorney Atteeyah Hollie said in a statement.  "Children
are frequently not represented at all."

Gov. Deal's office declined to comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by Stephen Bright with the Southern
Center for Human Rights at 83 Poplar St. NW, in Atlanta, Georgia
30303 -- sbright@schr.org -- and attorneys from Washington, D.C.-
based Arnold & Porter.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Accused of Restraining Trade & Supply of Aluminum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Javorsky and Brick Pizzeria LLC, on behalf of themselves,
and all others similarly situated v. The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc., GS Power Holdings LLC, Metro International Trade Services
LLC, JPMorgan Chase & Company, Henry Bath LLC, Glencore Xstrata
PLC, Pacorini Metals AG, Pacorini Metals USA LLC, Nems (USA) Inc.,
London Metal Exchange Limited, LME Holdings Limited, and John Does
1-25, Case No. 1:13-cv-09222-UA (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2013)
accuses the Defendants of engaging in illegal acts and practices
to restrain trade and supply of aluminum stored in London Metal
Exchange-approved warehouses.

The Defendants own or operate a majority of LME-approved
warehouses in seven of the nine regions in which the warehouses
exist in the United States of America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rosalee Belinda Connell Thomas, Esq.
          Douglas G. Thompson, Esq.
          Michael Glenn McLellan, Esq.
          Eugene J. Benick, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN LLP
          1077 30th Street, NW, Suite 150
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
          E-mail: rbcthomas@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  ebenick@finkelsteinthompson.com


GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Files Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation, Case
No. 1:13-cv-02115 moved to dismiss an amended class action
complaint, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former
executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern
District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The
lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013,
primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition
segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's
announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second
and third quarter 2012 financial statements. Two additional,
similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and Connors v. Great
Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02450,
were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on March 28, 2013,
and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three actions were
consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115, on June 10, 2013. The
plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on August 9,
2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss on October 8, 2013.
The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend this
action.


HEALTHCARE STAFFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Tymeco Jones, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
826 South 6th Street, Camden, NJ 08104; Iesha Bullock, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, 6202 Cresent Court,
Glassboro, NJ 08028; and Teairra Pizarro, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, 1038 N. 31st Street Apt. 8, Camden, NJ
08105 v. Healthcare Staffing/Silver Care d/b/a Alaris Health at
Cherry Hill, 1417 Brace Road, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034; and John Does
1-10, Case No. 1:13-cv-07910-NLH-AMD (D.N.J., December 31, 2013)
seeks redress from violations by the Defendants of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated proper overtime
compensation in violation of the FLSA and New Jersey Wage Laws.

Healthcare Staffing/Silver Care d/b/a Alaris Health at Cherry Hill
is an entity operating a nursing home in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
The Doe Defendants are presently unknown persons.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Ste. 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com
                  mmiller@swartz-legal.com


HRC COLLECTION: Bid for Costs and Sanctions in Mercado Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan denied Defendants' Motion for
Costs and Motion for Sanctions in the case captioned LINDA W.
MERCADO, etc., and JOSHUA RODRIGGS, etc., Plaintiffs, v. HRC
COLLECTION CENTER, etc., and ROLFE & LOBELLO, P.A., etc.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-122-J-32JBT, (M.D. Fla.).

On February 21, 2013, the Court adopted the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and granted
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, denied Plaintiffs' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability, and directed the
Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against
Plaintiffs. On February 26, 2013, the Clerk entered Judgment in a
Civil Case in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs,
providing that Defendants recover their costs of action.

The Defendants filed their Motion for Costs on April 9, 2013, six
weeks after entry of the Judgment. Plaintiffs opposed the Motion
for Costs as untimely, and because Defendants failed to certify
that they made a good faith effort to resolve the motion before
filing. The Court agreed that the motion is due to be denied for
non-compliance with applicable rules.

The Defendants also sought sanctions "against Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs' attorneys for filing and failing to dismiss the Class
Action lawsuit filed against the Defendants, upon notice of case
law precluding Plaintiffs' claims. . . ."  The Plaintiffs opposed
the imposition of sanctions on the merits, and asserted that the
Motion for Sanctions is untimely, as well as not in compliance
with Local Rules requiring certification of their good faith
attempt to resolve the motion before filing.

According to Judge Corrigan, "the Report and Recommendation, which
the Court adopted, indicates that there is no binding Delaware
Supreme Court case on point. For that reason, the Court utilized
the most analogous Delaware Supreme Court case in determining how
that court likely would interpret its statute of limitations on
the facts of this case. The Court also considered an unpublished,
non-binding Middle District of Florida opinion, which addressed
the precise issue presented in this case, and considered the
applicability of the Delaware Supreme Court case. Moreover, the
Court considered, but rejected, Plaintiffs' argument that
interpreting the Delaware statute of limitations to begin to run
when the creditor charges off the account and declares payment
immediately due in full permits the creditor to artificially
prolong the running of the statute of limitations merely by not
declaring the debt due. The record before the Court does not
provide a basis for finding either that Plaintiffs filed this
lawsuit for an improper purpose, or that their legal contentions
were unwarranted by existing law or were warranted only by
frivolous arguments for extending, modifying, or reversing
existing law or for establishing new law, as would be required for
imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 11."

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion for Costs and Motion for
Sanctions is denied.

A copy of the District Court's November 19, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/jtCb29from Leagle.com.


IOVATE HEALTH: Court Denied Final OK of Hydroxycut Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz denied final approval of
a class action settlement in the case captioned ANDREW DREMAK, on
Behalf of Himself, All Others Similarly Situated and the General
Public, Plaintiff, v. IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NOS. 09MD2087 BTM (KSC), 09CV1088 BTM(KSC), (S.D.
Cal.).

The proposed settlement relief consists of a $10 million Cash
Component and a $10 million Product Component. Any amount
remaining in the Cash Component after payment of Notice and Claim
Administration Expenses, necessary taxes and tax expenses, and
Eligible Cash Claims constitutes the "Residual Settlement Amount."
Any amount remaining in the Product Component after payment of
Eligible Product Claims, Product Bundle Shipping Expenses, and any
amounts needed to pay Eligible Cash Claims, will, at Iovate's
option, either (1) be provided by Iovate to the general public
pursuant to the cy pres doctrine in the form of Additional
Product; or (2) be added to the Residual Settlement Amount.

Judge Moskowitz held that the cy pres distribution is not "guided
by (1) the objectives of the underlying statute(s); and (2) the
interests of the silent class members."

"It appears that the cy pres relief is being used as a vehicle to
settle the personal injury cases, not to provide an indirect
prospective benefit to the entire class," ruled Judge Moskowitz.
"Because the cy pres distribution violates the Ninth Circuit's
standards governing cy pres awards, the Court cannot find that the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate," he concluded.

A copy of the District Court's November 19, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/uWnNkRfrom Leagle.com.


JACKSON NATIONAL: Meadows Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in the case captioned NANCY MEADOWS, as Trustee of the
Estate of Maxine Derry, and RUSSEL HEMAN, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan
corporation, Defendant, CASE NO. C 12-1380, (N.D. Cal.)

Judge Wilken ruled that the following class is conditionally
certified:

  All purchasers of fixed or fixed index annuities that Jackson
  distributed in California to persons age 60 and older beginning
  October 24, 2002 and ending January 12, 2012.

Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP; Bonnett, Fairbourn Friedman & Balint,
P.C.; Evans Law Firm, Inc.; Barrack, Rodos & Bacine; and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP were appointed as Class Counsel.

The final hearing to determine whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and whether it should be approved, will
be conducted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 17, 2014.

A copy of the District Court's November 19, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/SYvYgJfrom Leagle.com.


JTEKT CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Sale of Bearings
------------------------------------------------------------
William Aviles Hardwood Floors, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JTEKT Corporation, Koyo Corporation
of U.S.A., Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp., Nachi America Inc., NSK Ltd.,
NSK Americas, Inc., Schaeffler AG, Schaeffler Group USA Inc., AB
SKF, SKF USA, Inc., NTN Corporation, and NTN USA Corporation, Case
No. 5:14-cv-00114-HRL (N.D. Cal., January 8, 2014) is brought for
damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to federal
antitrust laws and state antitrust, unfair competition, and
consumer protection laws.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in a lengthy
conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the bearings
industry by agreeing to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of
these products, which were sold to manufacturers in the United
States and elsewhere.  As a direct result of the anti-competitive
and unlawful conduct alleged in the lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserts
that it and the Class paid artificially inflated prices for
Bearings and for industrial machinery containing Bearings.

JTEKT Corporation is a Japanese corporation headquartered in
Osaka, Japan.  The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell
Bearings throughout the United States and in other countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          E-mail: pgorc@prattaltorneys.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314)226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul A. Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrcttlawgroup.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 380-5018
          E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.nct

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          Brendan Frey, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND
          WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  bfrey@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
                  bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Gregory Johnson, Esq.
          G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
          6688 145th Street West,
          Apple Valley, MN 55124
          Telephone: (952) 930-2485
          E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com

               - and -

          Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 U.S. Hwy. 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  valerie@lovelacelaw.com


KENTUCKY, USA: Accused of Discrimination by Deaf Inmates' Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Adams and Michael Knights, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. the Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky., January 1, 2014) alleges
that the Department of Corrections and other Defendants
discriminated against the Plaintiffs by refusing to provide them
the accommodations required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiffs, who are deaf and hearing-impaired inmates in
Kentucky, seek to force the Corrections Department to provide
interpreter services for medical visits, video phones that allow
deaf callers to see sign language and other hearing devices,
according to Brett Barrouquere at The Associated Press.  Without
the devices, the inmates said they can't adequately communicate
with prison staff, other inmates and their lawyers, which deprives
them of rights and privileges granted to other inmates.

The Defendants are the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Justice
and Public Safety Cabinet, Kentucky Department of Corrections, J.
Michael Brown, LaDonna Thompson, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Paula
Holden, Deputy Commissioner Jim Erwin, Randy White, Gregory Howard
and Clark Taylor.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory Allen Belzley, Esq.
          Camille Bathurst, Esq.
          BELZLEY BATHURST, ATTORNEYS
          P.O. Box 278
          Prospect, KY 40059
          Telephone: (502) 292-2452
          E-mail: gbelzley@aol.com

               - and -

          Deborah Golden, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          11 Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          Facsimile: (202) 319-1010

               - and -

          Patrick J. McCarthy, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP - DC
          1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005-3314
          Telephone: (202) 682-7240
          Facsimile: (202) 857-0940
          E-mail: edward.mccarthy@weil.com


LEGEND ENERGY: Faces "Pratt" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
James Pratt, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees v. Legend Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 6:13-cv-00090
(S.D. Tex., December 31, 2013) is brought for unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees, seeks
damages and reasonable attorney's fees.

Legend Energy Services, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company.  The Company is one of the oil industry's premier coiled
tubing service specialists with service centers in Victoria and
Andrews, Texas, Elk City, Oklahoma, Ft. Lupton, Colorado and
Dickinson, North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          ROSS LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          E-mail: charles@rosslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Amie Pratt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF AMIE PRATT
          710 Buffalo Street, Suite 401
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 947-3693
          Facsimile: (866) 497-3864
          E-mail: Amie@amieprattlaw.com


LINN ENERGY: Faces Several Litigations Over Planned Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Purported stockholder class actions have been filed against, among
others, Linn, Energy LLC, Berry Petroleum Company, LinnCo, LLC and
the members of the Berry board of directors, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2013, Amendment No. 1 Form 10-K/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012. Multiple actions seek an injunction
barring or rescinding the merger and damages in connection with
the proposed transactions.

If a final settlement is not reached, or if dismissals of these
actions are not obtained, these lawsuits could prevent or delay
the completion of the merger, and result in substantial costs to
the company Berry and LinnCo, including costs associated with the
indemnification of directors.


LINN ENERGY: Certification Hearing in Royalty Owners Suit Delayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing and the hearing on class certification in a suit filed
against LinnCo LLC by royalty owners have been deferred by court
order pending the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of
interlocutory appeals of two unrelated class certification orders,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits,
including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty
payments and royalty valuations. The Company has established
reserves that management currently believes are adequate to
provide for potential liabilities based upon its evaluation of
these matters. For a certain statewide class action royalty
payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been established, the
Company has denied that it has any liability on the claims and has
raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted by the court, will
result in no loss to the Company. Discovery related to class
certification has concluded. Briefing and the hearing on class
certification have been deferred by court order pending the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of interlocutory appeals of
two unrelated class certification orders.


LIVE NATION: Agrees to Settle Customer Suit Over Ticketing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation
against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. have agreed in principle
on the terms of a revised settlement and intend to present those
terms to the court for preliminary approval upon execution of a
long-form settlement agreement, according to the company's Nov. 5,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful.

The complaint asserted a claim for violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and sought restitution or
disgorgement of the difference between (i) the total shipping fees
charged by Ticketmaster in connection with online ticket sales
during the applicable period, and (ii) the amount that
Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery of those
tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class action and
adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in
respect of its ticket order processing fees constitute false
advertising in violation of California's False Advertising Law.

On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or
disgorgement of the entire amount of order processing fees charged
by Ticketmaster during the applicable period. In April 2009, the
Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint adding new claims that (a) Ticketmaster's order
processing fees are unconscionable under the UCL, and (b)
Ticketmaster's alleged business practices further violate the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs later filed a
third amended complaint, to which Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in
July 2009. The Court overruled Ticketmaster's demurrer in October
2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and
the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of
Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs'
Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to
vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to
certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to
Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form. Litigation
continued, and in September 2011, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The
parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was
approved preliminarily, but in September 2012 the Court declined
to grant final approval. The parties have agreed in principal on
the terms of a revised settlement and intend to present those
terms to the court for preliminary approval upon execution of a
long-form settlement agreement. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live
Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of law or liability
in connection with the matter.

As of September 30, 2013, the Company has accrued $35.4 million,
its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement. This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and
the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.


LIVE NATION: Pays Settlement in Canadian Suit v. TicketsNow
-----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of consumer class action complaints filed in
various provinces of Canada against TNow Entertainment Group, Inc.
(TicketsNow) was paid in January 2013, according to Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

In February 2009, four putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in various provinces of Canada against TicketsNow,
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. and Premium Inventory, Inc.
All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and
causes of action. Each plaintiff purports to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or TicketsNow from February
2007 to present and alleges that Ticketmaster conspired to divert
a large number of tickets for resale through the TicketsNow
website at prices higher than face value. The plaintiffs
characterize these actions as being in violation of Ontario's
Ticket Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the
Amusement Act of Alberta or the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.
The Ontario case contains the additional allegation that
Ticketmaster's service fees violate anti-scalping laws. Each
lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the
class.

In February 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that resolved all of the resale market claims. The court approval
process for the settlement has been completed, with final
approvals given in all provinces. The settlement was paid in
January 2013, the full amount of which was funded by an escrow
established in connection with Ticketmaster's 2008 acquisition of
TicketsNow.


LLOYDS TSB BANK: Settles Dispute Over Currency Loan for $1.55MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
British-based Lloyds Bank stands to shell out $1.55 million after
a federal judge tentatively approved a settlement of claims that
it gouged American borrowers, according to Jonny Bonner at
Courthouse News Service.

John and Aurora Dugan joined Matthew Tapscott as the lead
plaintiffs in the 2012 federal class action concerning "dual
currency" loans made by Lloyds TSB, long hailed as one of the "big
four" U.K. clearing banks.

Lloyds stated the International Mortgage Service, or IMS, loans in
U.S. dollars and offered them to individuals in California,
Hawaii, Florida and New York, the class said.  They could be
redenominated into foreign currency at borrowers' discretion.

Once redenominated, the debts were allegedly subject to a
"principal cap" of 120 percent, plus a 1.5 percent variable
interest rate above Lloyds' "cost of funds," and secured by real
property in the United States.

Lloyds nevertheless ignored the cap provisions while "arbitrarily"
increasing borrowers' interest rates on the "highly risky and
complex" loans, the class claimed.

When the American dollar depreciated by more than 40 percent
against the Japanese yen between 2006 and 2012, loan caps were
allegedly exceeded, and "uncapped" balances ballooned to more than
20 percent higher than the negotiated principal cap.

The class said borrowers were exposed to "foreign currency
exchange rate risk" when their funds were transferred to Japanse
yen.

"Lloyds has foreclosed upon borrowers based on the alleged
uncapped loan balances," the 48-page complaint stated.  "Lloyds
has systematically concealed its disregard of the cap from
plaintiffs and the class by failing and refusing to tell class
members their loan balances in dollars."

The parties entered settlement talks in 2013 after the Northern
District of California certified the class.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup on January 7, 2014, granted
their proposed $1.55 million settlement preliminary approval on
Jan. 7.

Lloyds estimated a class of 148 borrowers, the six-page order
states.  These individuals are to receive mail notification by
Feb. 7, and $50,000 of the proposed amount will go to a settlement
administrator.

Once approved and mailed, class members will have 60 days to cash
settlement checks.  Uncashed checks are to be paid to EAH Housing,
an affordable housing nonprofit in San Rafael, Calif.

Members who wish to be excluded from the settlement must submit
written opt-out forms by March 7, Alsup added.

The Steptoe firm, which was previously appointed as class counsel,
must move for award of attorney's fees and costs at least 45 days
prior to the deadline for settlement class members to object to
the proposed settlement.  Their fees will not come from the $1.6
million settlement cash payment, according to the ruling.

A motion for final approval of the proposed settlement is due on
March 14, and a final hearing and scheduling conference on the
matter is slated for April 17.

Lloyds has branches in Hong Kong and New York, among other
locations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence Fredric Janssen, Esq.
          Lawrence Paul Riff, Esq.
          William Karl Swank, Esq.
          Morgan Linscott Hector, Esq.
          STEPTOE JOHNSON LLP
          633 W. Fith St., 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-439-9427
          Facsimile: (213) 439-9599
          E-mail: ljanssen@steptoe.com
                  lriff@steptoe.com
                  wswank@steptoe.com
                  mhector@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Fennell, Esq.
          Libretta Porta Stennes, Esq.
          STEPTOE AND JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-3000
          E-mail: SFennell@steptoe.com
                  lstennes@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Andrew P. Owen, Esq.
          THE TRIAL LAW FIRM, PC
          800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 347-0290
          Facsimile: (213) 347-0299
          E-mail: aowen@oslaw.com

               - and -

          Justin Potter Karczag, Esq.
          Peter J. Bezek, Esq.
          Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 West Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495
          Facsimile: (805) 965-0722
          E-mail: jkarczag@foleybezek.com
                  pbezek@foleybezek.com
                  rcurtis@foleybezek.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy Cadle Hocevar, Esq.
          Bruce Alan Khula, Esq.
          Chaundra C. Monday, Esq.
          Martha S. Sullivan, Esq.
          Dante A. Marinucci, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS US LLP
          4900 Key Tower
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 479-8500
          Facsimile: (216) 479-8780
          E-mail: amy.hocevar@squiresanders.com
                  bruce.khula@squiresanders.com
                  chaundra.monday@squiresanders.com
                  martha.sullivan@squiresanders.com
                  dante.marinucci@squiresanders.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Dosker, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 954-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-9887
          E-mail: mark.dosker@squiresanders.com

The case is Dugan, et al. v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, Case No. 3:12-
cv-02549-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco).


LOVELACE HEALTH: Sued Over Provision of Mental Health Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Forshay and her daughter Emily Haddaway, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lovelace Health
Plan doing business as Lovelace Health System, Inc., and as
Lovelace Insurance Company, and Health Care Service Corporation
doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico, Case
No. 1:13-cv-01248-KBM-RHS (D.N.M., December 31, 2013) alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
and the New Mexico Mental Health Parity Law.

The complaint seeks to rectify Lovelace Health Plan's alleged
failure to provide mental health services on par with other
medical services as required by the ERISA and the Parity Law.

Lovelace Health Plan owns and operates the Lovelace Health Plan
HMO based in New Mexico.  The Plan is available as a fully-insured
benefit to group subscribers of any size and to their
employee/dependent beneficiaries.  Lovelace Health Plan does
business in New Mexico as Lovelace Health System, Inc., and
Lovelace Insurance Company.

Health Care Service Corporation, doing business in New Mexico as
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico, announced on
November 11, 2013, that it had reached an agreement with Lovelace
to acquire Lovelace, and will assume the management and
liabilities of Lovelace.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Boyd, Esq.
          Josh Ewing, Esq.
          FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD, P.A.
          20 First Plaza, NW, Suite 700
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 842-9960
          Facsimile: (505) 842-0761
          E-mail: jwb@fbdlaw.com
                  je@fbdlaw.com

               - and -

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
          8560 West Sunset Blvd., Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598-3690
          Facsimile: (310) 564-0040
          E-mail: meiram@psych-appeal.org


MARIA'S HOLDING: Order Overruling Objection in "Grinberg" Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In YANIV GRINBERG et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MARIA'S
HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent; MICHAEL VINCZE,
Objector and Appellant, NO. B244535, Appellant Michael Vincze
challenged the judgment entered in the underlying class action
pursuant to a settlement, as well as the trial court's ruling that
he lacked standing to object to the settlement because his
objection was untimely.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, affirmed the trial court's order overruling Mr. Vincze's
objection as untimely.  His appeal from the judgment approving the
class settlement was dismissed, and respondents were awarded their
costs on appeal.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 18, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/N2L4Jyfrom Leagle.com.

For Objector and Appellant Michael Vincze:

   George Hakim, Esq.
   Law Offices Of George Hakim
   3255 Wilshire Blvd Ste 606
   Los Angeles, CA 90010
   Telephone: (213) 251-4040

Eli M. Kantor -- ekantor@beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com -- for
Plaintiffs and Respondents Yaniv Grinberg, Anthony Astorino and
Cory Miles.

For Defendant and Respondent Maria's Holding Corporation:

   Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq.
   Daniel J. Turner, Esq.
   Anthony J. Zaller, Esq.
   Farinaz Tojarieh, Esq.
   VAN VLECK TURNER & ZALLER LLP
   6310 San Vicente Blvd., Ste. 430
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Telephone: (323)592-3505
   Facsimile: (323)592-3506


NEW JERSEY: Class Sues Gov. Over Traffic Retribution Issue
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that six residents of Fort Lee,
N.J., filed a class action January 9, 2014, against Gov. Chris
Christie and the three aides who were fired or quit after causing
four days of massive traffic jams on the George Washington Bridge,
as political retribution for a mayor who refused to endorse
Christie.

As revealed in emails that made national news January 8, 2014,
Christie's top aides caused all but one entry lane to the bridge
at Fort Lee to be closed for four days -- from Sept. 9 through 13
-- after Fort Lee's Democratic mayor, Mark Sokolich, refused to
endorse Christie for re-election last year. The enormous traffic
jams delayed emergency vehicles, kept children from school, made
people late for work and made life miserable for people in the
town of 36,000, across the Hudson River from New York City.

Lead plaintiff Zachary Galicki sued the state, Christie, the Port
Authority of New York & New Jersey (which runs the bridge), and
three of Christie's top staffers:

   * deputy chief of state Bridget Anne Kelly, whom Christie
     fired January 9, 2014, saying she had lied to him;

   * David Wildstein, a Port Authority official and longtime
     friend of Christie, who was appointed to his job by
     Christie.  He resigned in December after the scandal became
     public and was held in contempt January 9, 2014, by the New
     Jersey Legislature after refusing to testify about the
     scandal; and

   * Bill Baroni, deputy director of the Port Authority, who also
     resigned in December.

The emails, released in response to a FOIA request from The
Associated Press, show Christie's aides reveling in the headache:
"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," Kelly wrote; "Is it
wrong that I am smiling?" Baroni wrote after Mayor Sokolich
contacted him about the enormous traffic jam; and, referring to
Christie's Democratic opponent in the upcoming election, and to
Mayor Sokolich's complaint that they would be late to school,
Wildstein wrote: "These are the children of Buono voters."

According to the emails, published first in the Bergen Record on
January 8, 2014, Wildstein also wrote that an official at the Port
Authority was "helping us to retaliate."

In one email, referring to Mayor Sokolich, Wildstein wrote: "It
will be a tough November for this little Serbian," a remark
Sokolich, who is of Croatian heritage, said he found
"condescending, offensive, insulting and slanderous."

In their federal lawsuit, the six named plaintiffs claim the
traffic jams made them late for work, deprived them of liberty and
property, and cost them wages in docked pay.

They seek damages and punitive damages for constitutional
violations including denial of due process and equal protection,
"willful, wanton, arbitrary and egregious official misconduct,"
abuse of authority, and unconstitutional denial of the right to
travel.

Newspapers were full of speculation January 9, 2014, about the
impact the scandal will have on Christie's chances for the
Republican presidential nomination in 2016, and in the race itself
if he is nominated.  He has been admired as a straight shooter by
members of both parties, but also regarded as a bully.  In a two-
hour press conference January 9, 2014, in which he announced
Kelly's firing, Christie said, "I'm not a bully," a statement,
perhaps, with long-ago reverberations of a similar statement
President Nixon made as the Watergate crisis began.

The brazen stupidity of the messages also brings to mind Lt. Col.
Oliver North's failure to understand, before the Iran-Contra
scandal became public knowledge, that emails do not disappear just
because they are deleted.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rosemarie Arnold, Esq.
          1386 Palisade Avenue
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: (201) 461-1116
          E-mail: rarnold@rosemariearnold.com

The case is Galicki, et al. v. State of New Jersey, et al., Case
No. 2:14-cv-00169-KM-MCA, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Newark).


NY FIRE DEP'T: Faces "Ramos" Suit Seeking Payment for Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Ramos, both individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. The City of New York Fire
Department, Salvatore J. Cassano, as Commissioner of The City of
New York Fire Department, Michael R. Bloomberg, as Mayor of the
City of New York, The City of New York, Case No. 1:13-cv-09225-KBF
(S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff and the
Class are entitled to back wages for unpaid wages and other relief
from the Defendants for all work performed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fausto Ernesto Zapata, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C
          277 Broadway, Suite 206
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 766-9870
          Facsimile: (212) 766-9869
          E-mail: fz@fzapatalaw.com


OAKLEY TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannette Liciaga, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Oakley Transport, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
Case No. 8:13-cv-03276-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., December 31, 2013)
alleges that the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees of
Oakley worked in excess of 40 hours in a week without receiving
pay at one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours.

Oakley Transport, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation,
headquartered in Polk Country, Florida.  The Company is primarily
engaged in operating a trucking and recruiting service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


PAUL FINANCIAL: Atty. Fee Bid Granted in "Jordan" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston granted a motion for attorneys' fees
and incentive awards in the case captioned GREGORY M. JORDAN, ELI
GOLDHABER and JOSEPHINA GOLDHABER individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PAUL FINANCIAL, LLC,
LUMINENT MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., HSBC BANK USA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE
OF LUMINENT MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-2, RBS FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INC.,
and DOES 2 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, NO. C 07-04496 SI,
(N.D. Cal.).

The Court has determined that attorneys' fees and incentive awards
should be awarded, specifically:

1. Class counsel fees in the amount of $437,500.00.

2. Named plaintiffs' service award in the amount of $5,000 each
    to be paid in accordance with the parties' Settlement
    Agreement.

The case concerns the Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage loans
acquired by RBS from Paul Financial, LLC.  In 2005, plaintiff
Gregory Jordan and plaintiffs Eli and Josephina Goldhaber, entered
into Option ARM loans with defendant Paul Financial.  Mr. Jordan
filed a putative class action complaint against Paul Financial on
August 30, 2007. The complaint was amended to add the Goldhabers
as plaintiffs as well as defendants Luminent Capital, Luminent
Trust, HSBC, and RBS. The complaint states three causes of action:
1) violations of the Truth in Lending Act; 2) fraudulent
omissions; and 3) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

A copy of the District Court's November 19, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/bq1H5mfrom Leagle.com.


PORTNOFF LAW: Roethlein Suit Remanded to Commonwealth Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In BEVERLY ROETHLEIN AND ROBERT ALBANESE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED AND JERRY KONIDARIS AND THEODORA
G. KONIDARIS, Appellees v. PORTNOFF LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD. AND
MICHELLE R. PORTNOFF, ESQUIRE, Appellants, NOS. 46 & 47 EAP 2012,
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District considered
whether Pennsylvania's Loan Interest and Protection Law ("Act 6"
or "the Act") provides taxpayers with a cause of action to
challenge costs imposed for the collection of delinquent taxes or
to seek damages and attorneys' fees for improperly-imposed costs.
The Supreme Court also considered whether Section 7103 of the
Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act ("MCTLA") authorizes a
municipality to recover the administrative costs it incurs in
collecting delinquent taxes.

In a November 20, 2013 Opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/qPnlw0from Leagle.com, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court held that Act 6 does not provide a cause of action for
claims which do not involve the loan or use of money. It further
concluded that Section 7103 of the MCTLA allows a municipality to
recover fees it pays to a third-party tax collector for the
purpose of collecting delinquent taxes. In light of its
conclusions, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the
Commonwealth Court, and remanded the matter to the Commonwealth
Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.


QBE IHUSRANCE: Slater & Gordon Won't Pursue Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bennet, writing for The Australian, reports that class
action law firm Slater & Gordon explored taking QBE Insurance to
task over its recent savage profit downgrade, but backed away
after finding no evidence of the company breaching disclosure
obligations.

In the latest profit warning in recent years, QBE last month said
it would post its first annual loss in 12 years for the year to
December 31 due to provisions and writedowns in its troubled US
business.

The severity of the downgrade -- an expected $US250 million loss
instead of a profit of more than $US1 billion -- claimed the scalp
of chairwoman and long-time director Belinda Hutchinson, who will
stand down in March.

"We investigated a potential class action against QBE following
its recent profit downgrade," Slater & Gordon class action lawyer
Ben Phi on Jan. 8 told The Australian.

"However, on the information currently available, we do not
believe that the company breached its disclosure obligations."


RAPID CASH: Plaintiffs Lawyer Wants Class Action Ruling Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Whaley, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that
the Nevada Supreme Court was asked on Jan. 7 to uphold a lower
court ruling establishing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of as
many as 16,000 people subjected to default judgments by Rapid
Cash, a payday loan company.

Attorney J. Randall Jones, representing the potential class on
behalf of the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, told the court
that the class-action status was proper and is the only way that
thousands of Rapid Cash borrowers will see the merits of their
claims resolved.

The case is the result of claims by four lead plaintiffs who said
Rapid Cash obtained default judgments against them without proper
legal notice.

A company used by Rapid Cash to enter default judgments against
them, On Scene Mediations, lied in Las Vegas Justice Court
affidavits claiming to have served them with copies of court
papers, according to court filings on behalf of the borrowers.
There were criminal convictions resulting from the conduct of the
firm's process servers, which has expanded to at least 460
borrowers.

But attorney Dan Polsenberg, representing the loan company, argued
that the individuals who allegedly were not properly served by On
Scene Mediations have a legal remedy.  They can go to Justice
Court and ask to have the default judgments set aside, he said.
Mr. Polsenberg said Rapid Cash was also concerned with On Scene's
misconduct and has been willing to work with borrowers who claimed
nonservice.

The class created by Clark County District Judge Elizabeth
Gonzalez in her October 2010 ruling is also far too broad, he
said.  It includes not only the 460 borrowers who claim to have
received no notice, but 7,000 others who did not respond to
letters and another 8,000 who had contact letters returned as
undeliverable.

The court heard a separate but related case over whether other
claims raised by the borrowers should be subjected to arbitration
as required in the loan contracts.

Mr. Polsenberg argued that the company has not waived its ability
to require arbitration.

Mr. Jones said the district court should have authority over the
other claims brought by the borrowers and that the company waived
its right to arbitration.

The court will rule later in the two cases.

Mr. Jones said only a minute fraction of the borrowers would get
any relief if the class action process is denied.


RBD STAFFING: Removes "Gongora" Class Suit to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gongora v. RBD Staffing, Inc., et
al., Case No. ECU07969, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for Imperial County to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:13-cv-03193-L-WMC to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 980
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
          E-mail: alex@gaineslawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          10620 Treena Street, Suite 230
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 935-6043
          Facsimile: (877) 509-9090
          E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Hartford Says It Has No Duty to Defend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Insurance claims in Federal Court that it has no duty to
defend Redbox in a class action accusing it of failing to make its
rental boxes accessible to the deaf, according to Courthouse News
Service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael John Duffy, Esq.
          TRESSLER LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606-6308
          Telephone: (312) 627-4000
          E-mail: mduffy@tresslerllp.com

The case is Hartford Fire Insurance Company, et al. v. Redbox
Automated Retail, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00063, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


SABA SOFTWARE: Court Remands "Stoll" Suit to San Mateo Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken granted a motion to remand the case
captioned JONATHAN STOLL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ABBOTT, NORA DENZEL,
MICHAEL FAWKES, WILLIAM M. KLEIN, WILLIAM N. MACGOWAN, WILLIAM F.
RUSSELL, DOW R. WILSON, and SABA SOFTWARE, Defendants, NO. C 13-
4149 CW, (N.D. Cal.) to San Mateo County Superior Court.

Mr. Stoll brought this shareholder class action in state court
against Defendants Saba Software and several of its directors. The
case was subsequently removed, and Stoll moved to remand to state
court.

A copy of the District Court's November 20, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/6IA73Rfrom Leagle.com.


SAN JOSE, CA: Summary Judgment Ruling Entered in "Valdez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore issued an amended order
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned FRANCISCO VALDEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
4:09-CV-0176 KAW, (N.D. Cal.).

Francisco Valdez, Ricardo Vasquez, Daniel Martinez, and Jamil
Stubbs commenced this putative class action against the City of
San Jose, San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis, and San Jose Police
Department (SJPD) Officers Agamau, Martin, Rickert, Wallace, and
Orlando. The Plaintiffs assert various federal constitutional
claims and related state law causes of action. Defendants moved
for summary judgment on the related state law claims.

The court granted summary judgment to these claims:

(1) The tenth cause of action for battery in its entirety.

(2) The eleventh cause of action for a violation of Section 51.7
    in its entirety.

(3) The twelfth cause of action for violations of Section 52.1 in
    its entirety.

(4) The fifteenth cause of action for negligence against the City
    and Chief Davis.

Summary judgment is denied as to these claims:

(1) The eighth cause of action for false arrest, asserted by
    Plaintiffs Vasquez, Martinez, and Stubbs, against the
    individual officers.

(2) The ninth cause of action for false imprisonment, asserted by
    Plaintiffs Vasquez, Martinez, and Stubbs, against the
    individual officers.

(3) The fifteenth cause of action for negligence, asserted by
    Plaintiffs Vasquez, Martinez, and Stubbs, against the
    individual officers.

A copy of the District Court's November 18, 2013 Amended Order
is available at http://is.gd/wq9R4jfrom Leagle.com.


SHINE 1023 INC: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lamberto Guzman, Rey Alberto Guzman, Viva Habal and Javier
Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v.
Shine 1023 Inc., d/b/a Sunac Natural Food Market, Albert Hyun Moon
Shin, John Doe 1 a/k/a "Mr. Charlie" and John Does #2-10, jointly
and severally, Case No. 1:13-cv-09240-LTS (S.D.N.Y., December 31,
2013) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime,
spread-of-hours premiums, and statutory penalties for notice-and-
recordkeeping violations and unlawful retaliation for the
Plaintiffs.

Shine 1023 Inc., is a New York domestic corporation, which is
based and does business in New York as Sunac Natural Food Market.
Albert Hyun Moon Shin, Mr. Charlie and the Doe Defendants are
shareholders of Sunac.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene Gerald Eisner, Esq.
          EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          113 University Place
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 473-8700
          Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
          E-mail: gene@eisnermirer.com


SIRIUS XM: Being Sold for Too Little to Liberty Media, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Freedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., Liberty Media Corporation,
James E. Meyer, Joan L. Amble, Anthony J. Bates, George W.
Bodenheimer, David J.A. Flowers, Eddy W. Hartenstein, James P.
Holden, Gregory B. Maffei, Evan D. Malone, James F. Mooney, Carl
E. Vogel, Vanessa A. Wittman and David Zaslav, Case No.
650038/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., January 7, 2014)
challenges the proposed acquisition of the Company by its majority
stockholder, Liberty Media Corp.

In formulating the terms of the Proposed Transaction, LMCA,
through its representation on, and effective control and
domination of Sirius' Board of Directors, improperly used
confidential, non-public information provided to the Board by
Sirius management, the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff adds that
in pursuing the Proposed Transaction, each of the Company's
directors and LMCA are required pursuant to their fiduciary duties
to pursue an acquisition that is fair in both process and price to
Sirius shareholders, and not breach their duties of loyalty, due
care, independence, good faith and fair dealing.

Sirius is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
Sirius broadcasts music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk,
news, traffic and weather channels in the United States on a
subscription fee basis through two proprietary satellite radio
systems.  Subscribers can also receive certain of the Company's
music and other channels over the Internet, including through
applications for mobile devices.

LMCA is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.  LMCA holds 53.4% of Sirius' outstanding common stock
and is a majority shareholder of Sirius.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Karin E. Fisch, Esq.
          Jeremy Nash, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 684-5191
          E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com
                  kfisch@abbeyspanier.com
                  jnash@abbeyspanier.com

               - and -

          Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
          Ross A. Appel, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW, P.A.
          2131 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 408
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 842-2021
          Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
          E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
                  raa@komlossylaw.com


SOUTHGOBI RESOURCES: Siskinds LLP Files Class Action in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------------
SouthGobi Resources Ltd. disclosed that on or around January 6,
2014, Canadian law firm Siskinds LLP filed a proposed securities
class action against the Company, certain of its current and
former senior officers and directors, and its former auditors in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in relation to the Company's
restatement of financial statements, as disclosed on November 8,
2013, November 11, 2013, November 14, 2013 and December 12, 2013.
The Company has not been formally served with a copy of the
Proposed Claim.

The Company has engaged independent legal counsel in Canada to
advise it on this matter and intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit if and when it is served with the Proposed Claim.

                          About SouthGobi

SouthGobi is listed on the Toronto and Hong Kong stock exchanges,
in which Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd., also publicly listed in
Toronto and New York, has a 56% shareholding.  Turquoise Hill took
management control of SouthGobi in September 2012 and made changes
to the board and senior management.  Rio Tinto has a majority
shareholding in Turquoise Hill.

SouthGobi is focused on exploration and development of its
metallurgical and thermal coal deposits in Mongolia's South Gobi
Region.  It has a 100% shareholding in SouthGobi Sands LLC,
Mongolian registered company that holds the mining and exploration
licences in Mongolia and operates the flagship Ovoot Tolgoi coal
mine.  Ovoot Tolgoi produces and sells coal to customers in China.


STURM FOODS: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "Suchanek" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge G. Patrick Murphy entered summary judgment in favor
of defendants in the case captioned LINDA SUCHANEK, RICHARD
MCMANUS, CAROL CARR, PAULA GLADSTONE, EDNA AVAKIAN, CHARLES
CARDILLO, BEN CAPPS, DEBORAH DIBENEDETTO, and CAROL J. RITCHIE,
Plaintiffs, v. STURM FOODS, INC. and TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC.,
Defendants, CIVIL NO. 11-565-GPM, CONSOLIDATED NO. 11-889-GPM, NO.
11-1035-GPM., 11-1068-GPM, 12-224-GPM, (S.D. Ill.).

In its motion for summary judgment, the Defendants asked the Court
to find that the Grove Square coffee packaging was not deceptive
and did not injure Plaintiffs. Defendants also argued that
Plaintiffs cannot prove successful claims under the state fraud
laws.

"Judgment will enter for Defendants and this case closed on the
Court's docket," ruled Judge Murphy.

The Court also denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of
the Court's order denying class certification.  According to Judge
Murphy, all the facts as between individual class members needn't
be identical in order to satisfy Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  However, legal inquiries required to determine
liability must predominate. They do not here, he said.

"The Court has considered all of Plaintiffs' grounds for
reconsideration of the Order denying class certification and holds
with the reasoning and outcome of the Order," Judge Murphy
concluded.

A copy of the District Court's November 20, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/i0E8Ckfrom Leagle.com.


TARGET CORP: Faces "Casey" Suit Over Computer and Network Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Casey, Rick Hauss and Sandy Hauss on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No.
1:13-cv-13296-FDS (D. Mass., Dec 31, 2013) arises from the
nationwide breach in Target's point-of-sale retail credit/debit
card processing network and computer system, and "cardholder data
environment" compromised personal and financial data connected to
millions of Target customers' credit and debit card accounts
between November 27, 2013, and December 15, 2013.

Target Corporation is organized under the laws of Minnesota, with
a principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
          LEONARD LAW OFFICE, LLP
          139 Charles St., Suite A121
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 595-3640
          E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack
          Stacey Kelly Breen
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: Pollack@whafh.com
                  Breen@whafh.com
                  Reynolds@whafh.com


TARGET CORP: Two Utah Law Firms File Class Action Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Janelle Stecklein, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that
two Utah law firms have filed class action lawsuits against
Target, alleging the discount retailer owes millions in damages
for its recent data breach.

Christensen Young and Associates filed the lawsuit in Utah's U.S.
District Court on Dec. 31 on behalf of Nellie Christensen,
Stephanie Wright, Jennifer Christensen and Zachary Christensen,
alleging the four were among more than 40 million Target customers
whose data was stolen between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15.

A second Utah firm, Parsons Behle and Latimer, has filed a nearly
identical class action lawsuit in federal court.

Christensen Young said it has also requested a class action
certification to cover additional Target customers whose data
might have been stolen or compromised.

The lawsuit's allegations include that Target failed to disclose
information concerning the breach promptly to affected customers,
which violates the Utah Unfair Competition Laws, and that
plaintiffs have suffered injury, and lost property and money as a
result.

The attorneys allege Target has offered to provide credit-
monitoring services to affected individuals but has not identified
those they believe was affected by the breach.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit by Cafeteria Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
School Cafeteria Employees Local No. 634 Health and Welfare Fund,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited,
Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., Barr Laboratories Inc., Duramed
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (n/k/a Teva Women's Health Inc.), Duramed
Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH &
Co. KG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, and Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 0:13-cv-03650-MJD-SER
(D. Minn., December 31, 2013) alleges violation of civil antitrust
laws on behalf of a Class of indirect purchasers of the drug
Aggrenox since August 14, 2009.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates
developed Aggrenox, combining extended-release dipyridamole with
acetylsalicylic acid, aspirin, to lower the risk of stroke in
patients whose blood clots have caused a transient ischemic attack
or stroke.  The Plaintiff and members of the Class indirectly
purchased, reimbursed or otherwise paid for Aggrenox at a time
when Boehringer orchestrated a scheme to prevent Plaintiff and the
Class from purchasing a less expensive, generic equivalent of
Aggrenox, the Plaintiff contends.

School Cafeteria Employees Local No. 634 Health and Welfare Fund
is a trust/fund headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The
Fund is a trust established and administered under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and is a "governmental plan" as
defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Fund is a "voluntary employees' beneficiary association"
providing for the payment of sick benefits (prescription, vision,
dental, and related benefits) to the Fund Participants and their
eligible dependents.

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

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:

          David Woodward, Esq.
          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: dwoodward@heinmills.com
                  rsteiner@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Krishna Narine, Esq.
          Joel Meredith, Esq.
          MEREDITH & NARINE
          100 S. Broad St., Suite 905
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (267) 800-2639
          Facsimile: (267) 687-1628
          E-mail: knarine@m-npartners.com
                  jmeredith@m-npartners.com


TRANSNET: Pensioners to File Class Action Over Owed Money
---------------------------------------------------------
Donwald Pressly, writing for IOL.co.za, reports that about 70,000
pensioners belonging to two Transnet pension funds are lodging an
application for a class action against the state-owned logistics
firm to pay about R80 billion into the funds, which they argue is
owed to them by the state.

However, Freedom Front Plus MP Anton Alberts, who has been acting
as a facilitator of the legal action for the pensioners, said he
was hopeful that there would be a court hearing within weeks
before the North Gauteng High Court.

Mayihlome Tshwete, the spokesman for Public Enterprises Minister
Malusi Gigaba, said the matter of changing the rules of the
Transnet Second Defined Benefit Pension Fund and the Transport
Pension Fund to allow for inflation-linked pension increases in
future "has still not been signed".

Although the rule changes had been agreed to in principle more
than two years ago, Mr. Tshwete said the minister did not wish to
land in a situation where the pension funds were unsustainable.

Jaco Neale, the secretary of the two funds, confirmed that any
rule changes "will affect the financial position of the funds.
They need to be approved by the minister of public enterprises
with the concurrence of the finance minister."  He said annual
increases for pensioners had been pegged at 2 percent, while a
bonus of one month's pension was routinely paid out in the month
that the pensioner originally retired.

Pensioners belonging to the defined benefit fund have had their
pension increases pegged at 2 percent a year since the 1990s.  The
consequence is that the average monthly pension for the 66,000
pensioners in the fund is just R2 000.  Some 32,000 pensioners
have died since the fund was formed in 2000.

There are about 4,000 pensioners remaining in the Transnet Pension
Fund.

The poor pensions were a result of raises having trailed the
annual rise in the consumer price index for years.

Mr. Neale noted that the defined benefit fund had been short-
changed in Transnet's sale of the V&A Waterfront asset, as well as
Transnet's decision to dispose of T011 shares guaranteed by the
state. Transnet exchanged these, worth about R10 billion in 1990,
for MCell shares in 2001.  Mr. Alberts noted that the T011 shares
had paid out dividends, unlike the MCell shares.

The pensioners' attorney, Wynanda Coetzee of Geyser & Coetzee
Attorneys, argued that the fund lost about R5.5 billion during
this particular transaction.

Cumulatively, the pensioners say the funds have been short-changed
by R80 billion -- about R35 billion for the Transnet Pension Fund
and R46 billion for the defined benefit fund.

In a reply to Mr. Alberts in Parliament last year, Mr. Gigaba said
if a class action were to be instituted "it will significantly
impact upon Transnet's ability to negotiate loans for the R300
billion expansion program".


WILLIAM QUINN: Accused of Not Paying Time Spent Going to Worksite
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Roman, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. William Quinn and Sons,
Inc., and William Quinn, individually, Case No. 1:13-cv-09320
(N.D. Ill., December 31, 2013) is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not compensate him
for time spent traveling between their company shop and the
worksites where landscaping and maintenance work was performed nor
for travel between a given day's worksites.

William Quinn And Sons, Inc., provides landscaping and snow
removal services.  William Quinn is the owner of William Quinn &
Sons, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Vincent Beckman III, Esq.
          FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784-3541


WOODRIDGE VILLAGE, IL: Anyone Arrested Must Pay $30 Booking Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone arrested in a Chicago suburb must pay a $30 booking fee,
regardless of whether they are later found guilty or not, reports
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a 7th Circuit
ruling.

The village of Woodridge, a wealthy and predominantly white
Chicago suburb of 33,000, charges all arrested suspects a $30
booking fee, whether or not they were arrested with probable
cause.  Even if that person is later released or found not guilty,
there is no way to seek a refund of the money.

Jerry Markadonatos filed a class action against the village,
claiming that the $30 booking fee violates arrestees' due process
rights.  Since police had cause to arrest Markadonatos for theft,
however, and since he pleaded guilty to the charges against him, a
federal judge found that he lacked standing to challenge the
imposition of the fee.

A divided three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit affirmed dismissal
of the case January 8, 2014.

"Mr. Markadonatos' complaint does not implicate a fundamental
right," wrote U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller, sitting by
designation from Milwaukee.  "The $30 fee is extremely modest, and
of an amount that does not rise to the level of a fundamental
right."

As a procedural matter, "Woodridge's booking fee clearly passes
the rational basis test.  In imposing the fee, Woodridge hopes to
offset the cost of booking arrestees, or at the very least to
collect revenue, either of which is a legitimate goal," the
majority opinion continues.  "The collection of $30 from each for-
cause arrestee is clearly rationally related to that goal, seeing
as it takes money to cover the administrative costs of booking
from the individuals whose actions caused the cost to begin with."

Writing in dissent, Judge David Hamilton complained that the
"criminal fee" indiscriminately applied to guilty and not-guilty
suspects.

"American courts have never before even suggested that mere
probable cause is a sufficient basis for imposing a criminal fine
-- even a modest one -- without the further procedural protections
of our criminal justice system.  Yet that is the effect of the
majority's decision," Hamilton wrote (italics in original).

Concurring with the majority opinion, Judge Diane Sykes clarified
that the decision hinged on Markadonatos' lack of standing to
substantively challenge the booking fee.

"In his dissent, Judge Hamilton maintains that the booking fee is
in substance a criminal fine and must 'await the outcome of a
criminal prosecution,'" Sykes wrote.  "That's a claim about the
content of the booking-fee ordinance -- a substantive challenge to
the Village's policy decision to apply the fee to every arrested
person rather than just to those who are charged with and found
guilty of a crime.  It may be a good claim, but Markadonatos has
no standing to make it because he was arrested on probable cause,
charged with a crime, and pleaded guilty as charged."  (Italics in
original.)

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James S. Shedden, Esq.
          Tony Kim, Esq.
          Matthew Scott Burns, Esq.
          SCHAD, DIAMOND & SHEDDEN, P.C.
          332 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 939-6280
          E-mail: jshedden@lawsds.com
                  tkim@lawsds.com
                  mburns@lawsds.com

               - and -

          Vincent Louis DiTommaso, Esq.
          Andrew Charles Murphy, Esq.
          Patrick Doyle Austermuehle, Esq.
          Peter Scott Lubin, Esq.
          DITOMMASO - LUBIN, P.C.
          17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com
                  amurphy@ditommasolaw.com
                  paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com
                  psl@ditommasolaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul Alan Rettberg, Esq.
          Brandon K. Lemley, Esq.
          Christopher Paul Keleher, Esq.
          QUERREY & HARROW, LTD.
          175 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60604-2827
          Telephone: (312) 540-7000
          E-mail: prettberg@querrey.com
                  blemley@querrey.com
                  ckeleher@querrey.com

The case is Markadonatos v. Woodridge, Case No. 1:11-cv-07006, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago).


WRIGLEY SALES: Amended "Gustavson" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed with prejudice Phyllis
Gustavson's second amended complaint against Wrigley Sales Company
and Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company.

Ms. Gustavson contends that the Defendants' products are
"misbranded" in violation of federal and California law.  She
asserts that the Products she purchased are misbranded because the
products' labels unlawfully and misleadingly state that the
products are "sugar free."

The Defendants are among the leading producers of gum, mints, and
hard candies.  The Defendants sell their products through grocery
and other retail stores throughout California and promote their
products throughout California through their Web sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Esq.
          Alex Peet, Esq.
          LOVELACE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          12870 U.S. Highway 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
          E-mail: courtdocs@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Ananda N. Chaudhuri, Esq.
          Frank Karam, Esq.
          Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
          FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM
          565 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 880-9567
          E-mail: achaudhuri@fleischmanlawfirm.com
                  keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian K. Herrington, Esq.
          John W. (Don) Barrett, Esq.
          Katherine B. Riley, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Carol Nelkin, Esq.
          Jay P. Nelkin, Esq.
          Stuart M. Nelkin, Esq.
          NELKIN, NELKIN & KROCK, PC
          5417 Chaucer Dr.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 526-4500
          Facsimile: (281) 825-4161
          E-mail: c.nelkin@nelkinpc.com
                  jnelkin@nelkinpc.com
                  snelkin@nelkinpc.com

               - and -

          Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          Facsimile: (615) 515-3395
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 987
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2376
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          David Shelton, Esq.
          DAVID SHELTON PLLC
          P.O. Box 2541
          1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 202
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 281-1212
          E-mail: david@davidsheltonpllc.com

               - and -

          J. Price Coleman, Esq.
          COLEMAN LAW FIRM
          1100 Tyler Avenue, Suite 102
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 236-0047
          Facsimile: (662) 513-0072
          E-mail: colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Richard Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          2086 Old Taylor Rd., Suite 1011
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 380-5018
          Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
          E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen David Raber, Esq.
          David Michael Horniak, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5538
          E-mail: sraber@wc.com
                  dhorniak@wc.com

The case is Gustavson v. Wrigley Sales Company, et al., Case No.
5:12-cv-01861-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose).


                             *********

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 G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. 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  * * *