CAR_Public/140205.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 25

                             Headlines


6PM.COM LLC: "Rivero" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
AL'S RESTAURANT: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Compensation
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Judge Tosses Baggage Fee Class Action
AMERICAN INT'L: Court Stays Status Conference in "Franco" Suit
BLANDON ORNAMENTAL: Class Seeks Payment for OT and Minimum Wages

BMW: Sun Roof Defect Claims Sufficient to Represent Class Action
CAMCO FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Advantage Bank Sale
CREIG NORTHROP: Class Action Over Kickback Scheme Can Proceed
DELTA AIR LINES: "Kwok" Suit Over Frequent Flyer Program Dismissed
DIAMOND FOODS: Accused of Deceiving Tortilla Chips Consumers

EJ STERLING: "Miller" Suit Aims to Recover Unpaid & OT Wages
EQUAL ENERGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Oklahoma
EUROPEAN MEAT: Recalls 130,000 lbs. of Fresh & Ready-To-Eat Meat
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "DiTirro" Suit Over Users' Likenesses
FBCS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Class Claims

FINISAR CORP: Securities Lawsuit in California Now Dismissed
FLOW INTERNATIONAL: AIP Entities Dismissed From Suit Over Merger
GALLUP INC: "Fox" Suit Accuses Invasion of Customers' Privacy
GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued Over OxyElite Pro Adverse Health Effects
GEORGE'S INC: Recalls 1.25MM Lbs. of Frozen Par-Fried Chicken

GOLDMAN SACHS: "Kohlenberg" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GRANITE MAX: Absolute Ordered to Bring Up Default Judgment Matter
GUSTO PACKING: Recalls 67,113 Lbs. of Sliced, Spiral Ham Products
HEEL INC: Settles Class Action Over Homeopathic Products for $1MM
HOUSE OF SMOKE: Recalls 144,000 lbs. of Meat and Poultry Products

INFINITY FLOORS: Class Seeks Payment for Unpaid Overtime Wages
ISLE OF CAPRI: Settlement of Lawsuit Over Fax Ad Now Final
JC PENNEY: Parties Want Texas Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
JOS A BANK: Accord in Calif. Labor Lawsuit Wins Final Approval
JOS A BANK: Plaintiff in "Camasta" Appeals Dismissal of Complaint

JOS A BANK: Faces Lawsuit Over "Deceptive" Sales Practices
JP MORGAN: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Maes" Suit
KENISHA WIGGINS: "Leftridge" Suit Removed to Conn. District Court
LIFE PARTNERS: "Turnbow" Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Lawsuit
LIMAN TRADING: Sued by Server Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages

LOUIS VUITTON: Settlement in "Morey" Suit Gets Final Court Okay
MAZDA MOTOR: Court Dismisses "Gordon" TCCWNA Class Action
MEDICENTRES CANADA: Faces $11-Mil. Privacy Breach Class Action
MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Underway in Defibrillation Leads Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit Over Statements Regarding INFUSE

MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Denies Class Certification in Text-Spam Suit
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Suit in Pa. Over Personal Injury Claims
NEW JERSEY, USA: Faces "Galicki" Suit Over Fort Lee Traffic Jam
NEW YORK: Bid to Stay Suit vs. OTDA and HRA Denied
NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Consumer Privacy Laws, "Kelly" Suit Says

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Suit in Calif.
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Labor Suit in Calif. Court in Discovery Phase
PILOT FLYING J: Court Narrows Claims in Wright Trans Suit
PROCOLLECT INC: Sued for Contacting Customers Without Consent
PURE ENCAPSULATIONS: Sued Over Betaine HCl Pepsin Advertising

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Court Dismisses GTA Online Class Action
TRUITT BROTHERS: Recalls 1.77MM lbs. of Pasta & Ground Beef
WALKER'S FOOD: Recalls 2,446 Lbs. of Chicken Salad Products
WEATHERFORD INT'L: Settles Investor Class Action for $52.5MM

WET SEAL: Settles Suit Filed in Cal. Court by Former Employees
WET SEAL: Appeals Denial of Arbitration in Cal. Labor Lawsuit
WET SEAL: Settlement of Discrimination Suit Up for Approval


                             *********


6PM.COM LLC: "Rivero" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Desiree Rivero v. 6PM.COM, LLC, et
al., Case No. BC529764, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
00186-FMO-JEM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: dreid@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alonzo B. Wickers, IV, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Telephone: (213) 633-6800
          Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
          E-mail: alonzowickers@dwt.com


AL'S RESTAURANT: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Al's Restaurant & Pizzeria, LLC, and Lisa Sullivan,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00159 (N.D. Ill., January 9, 2014)
arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class he seeks to represent overtime wages.

Al's Restaurant & Pizzeria, LLC is an Illinois limited liability.
The Company operates an Italian restaurant in Cicero, Illinois.
Lisa Sullivan is a member of Al's Restaurant & Pizzeria, LLC, and
is involved in the day-to-day business operation of Al's
Restaurant & Pizzeria, LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
          Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq.
          BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
          332 South Michigan, Suite 1020
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 957-9005
          Facsimile: (773) 890-7780
          E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com
                  pgonzalez@law-rb.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Judge Tosses Baggage Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge in
Washington state on Jan. 28 threw out a proposed class action
against American Airlines Inc. over its alleged failure to
reimburse baggage fees for lost luggage, finding that the
plaintiff had neglected to file a claim in the company's recently
concluded bankruptcy case.

U.S. District Judge James L. Robart issued a brief order
dismissing the suit brought by Danielle Covarrubias, which had
been put on hold for almost two years while American's parent, AMR
Corp., reorganized in Chapter 11.

"Plaintiff failed to timely file a claim in the bankruptcy case of
American Airlines," he said.  "As a result of this failure, any
claims she may have had against American Airlines are now barred."

In 2008, American became the first U.S. carrier to demand a fee
for checked luggage -- $25 for the first bag, and increasingly
more for each additional bag.  Ms. Covarrubias sued American in
July 2010, alleging the airline failed to reimburse those baggage
fees when it lost passengers' luggage.

The plaintiff claimed that, in charging the fee, American had
explicitly agreed not to lose, damage or delay delivery of the
bag, making reimbursement warranted when such mistakes occurred.

After the complaint was amended to add an American affiliate,
American Eagle Airlines Inc., and an additional plaintiff, the
case survived a motion to dismiss from the airline in April 2011.
However, AMR Corp. filed for Chapter 11 in November of that year,
putting the case on hold under the bankruptcy's automatic stay.

After nearly two years under court protection, AMR completed its
reorganization in December by way of an $11 billion merger with US
Airways Group Inc., exiting bankruptcy as American Airlines Group
Inc.

On Dec. 30, American moved to dismiss the instant action, saying
neither of the plaintiffs had met the July 16, 2012, deadline for
filing proofs of claim in the bankruptcy.  Due to this failure,
the suit was discharged when American's Chapter 11 plan took
effect on Dec. 9.

Ms. Covarrubias is represented by Donald W. Heyrich of Heyrich
Kalish McGuigan PLLC.

American is represented by Michael V. Powell --
mpowell@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord LLP and Dianna Caley --
dcaley@wongfleming.com -- of Wong Fleming.

The case is Danielle Covarrubias v. American Airlines Inc., case
number 2:10-cv-01158, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.


AMERICAN INT'L: Court Stays Status Conference in "Franco" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Saundra B. Armstrong signed a stipulation and order
staying the initial status conference in FRANJO, INC., and DMS
FACILITY SERVICES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP,
INC.; AIU INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN FUJI FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY; CHARTIS
PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY f/k/a AIG CASUALTY COMPANY f/k/a
BIRMINGHAM FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA; COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY;
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; NATIONAL UNION
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY; AIG RISK MANAGEMENT INC., MAURICE R. GREENBERG; and DOES
1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, NO. CV-13-4685-SBA,(N.D.
Cal.).

Franjo, Inc., and DMS Facility Services initiated this action on
October 24, 2013, designated Case No. 13-cv-4685, in the United
States District Court for the North District of California.  In
civil actions now pending in multiple other jurisdictions, other
plaintiffs have asserted related or similar claims to those made
in Case No. 13-cv-4685.

On December 19, 2013, the AIG Defendants filed with United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) a motion,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, to transfer all related
actions to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, thereby opening MDL No. 2519. According to
AIG's memorandum in support of its Section 1407 motion to
transfer, counsel for Defendant Greenberg, "while reserving all
his rights and objections . . . does not oppose the relief sought
on [AIG's motion to transfer]." The JPML has entered a briefing
schedule for the motion pending in MDL no. 2519, but there has
been no judicial MDL determination and there has been no judicial
determination of the relatedness of the aforementioned actions.

Pending the JPML's ruling on the AIG Defendants' motion to
transfer, the ordered that:

1. The Initial Status Conference that was set for January 22,
   2014, is stayed.

2. The deadlines to submit the parties' Rule 26(f) Plan and
   Initial Disclosures are further stayed.

3. Once there has been a ruling on the AIG Defendants' motion to
   transfer, the parties will promptly inform the Court, so the
   Court may take the appropriate action to either transfer the
  case or reschedule the various matters which have been stayed.

A copy of the District Court's January 10, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/zsWWh9from Leagle.com.

Deborah R. Rosenthal -- drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com -- (#184241)
SIMNIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC San Francisco,
California, Drew E. Pomerance -- dep@rpnalaw.com -- (#101239)
Nicholas P. Roxborough -- npr@rpnalaw.com -- (#113540) ROXBOROUGH
POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI LLP Woodland Hills, California, Derek Y.
Brandt -- dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS
ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC Alton, Illinois, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Franjo, Inc., DMS Facility Services, Inc., and all others Deborah
R. Rosenthal (#184241) Derek Y. Brandt similarly situated.

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Attorneys for Defendant
Maurice R. Greenberg.

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LL Attorneys for Defendants
American International Group, Inc. AIU Insurance Company, American
Fuji Fire and Marine Insurance Company, American Home Assurance
Company, Chartis Property Casualty Company f/k/a AIG Casualty
Company f/k/a Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania,
Commerce and Industry Insurance Company, Inc., Granite State
Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania,
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
New Hampshire Insurance Company, and AIG Risk Management, Inc.


BLANDON ORNAMENTAL: Class Seeks Payment for OT and Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Sergio Pereya, Jose Victor Paz Castejon and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B), v. Blandon Ornamental
Iron, Inc. and Raul Blandon, Case No. 1:14-cv-20103-KMW (S.D.
Fla., January 9, 2014) is brought as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have employed several
other similarly situated employees like them, who have not been
paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

Blandon Ornamental Iron, Inc. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.  The Company was
the FLSA employer of the Plaintiffs during the relevant time
period.  Raul Blandon is a corporate officer, owner or manager of
the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


BMW: Sun Roof Defect Claims Sufficient to Represent Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that responding to
two motions from BMW, Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. Northern
District Court of California ruled that plaintiffs Monita Sharma
and Eric Anderson have made allegations "sufficient" to represent
a class action at the pleading stage of their case against the
automaker over an alleged sunroof defect.  However, the judge
directed the plaintiffs to show cause as to why their motion for
injunctive relief should not be dismissed for lack of standing.

Sharma and Anderson, BMW owners and California residents, allege
their vehicles suffered water damage after the drainage tubes
installed to pull water away from the sunroofs did not properly
work.  They claim the class should include California residents
who have "owned or leased any BMW X5 series vehicles, X3 series
vehicles and 5 series vehicles."

"Where a class action complaint encompasses both a product the
plaintiff purchased and a product he did not, the plaintiff
sufficiently has standing to proceed with claims on behalf of
class members who purchased the latter if 'there is sufficient
similarity between the products purchased and not purchased.'
. . .  In that regard, plaintiffs allege that 'all' of the makes
and models identified by plaintiffs as the class vehicles have the
same 'design defect.' . . . The court finds such allegations
sufficient to allege requisite similarity, and, consequently,
suffice at the pleading stage to establish plaintiffs' standing to
assert claims on behalf of owners of vehicles other than those
purchased by plaintiffs.

Addressing plaintiffs request for injunctive relief, the judge
writes, "'To seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he
is under threat of suffering injury in fact that is concrete and
particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a
favorable judicial will prevent or redress the injury. . . . Here,
plaintiffs fail to allege facts to meet the applicable standard.
Specifically, plaintiffs fail to allege any facts to support a
finding that the requested injunctive relief, if ordered by the
court, would redress an 'actual and imminent' threat plaintiffs
themselves face from BMW. . . . Indeed, plaintiffs' allege their
vehicles already have been repaired.

"Accordingly, plaintiffs are hereby directed to show cause, in
writing and no later than February 7, 2014, why their claim for
injunctive relief should not be dismissed for lack of standing,"
according to court documents.

Furthermore, if the plaintiffs can add additional facts to their
case in support of seeking injunctive relief, the judge asked them
to file a second amended complaint by February 7 as well.


CAMCO FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Advantage Bank Sale
------------------------------------------------------------
The Marietta Times reports that a class action complaint has been
filed in Guernsey County by a shareholder of Advantage Bank, on
behalf of itself and other shareholders, against Camco Financial,
members of its board of directors and Huntington Bancshares Inc.
Advantage Bank, which has two offices in Marietta, is currently
under the parent company of Camco, with Huntington expected to
acquire Camco in February or March.

The complaint, filed on Jan. 22, challenges the actions of Camco
Financial, detailing the fact that defendants highly favored
Huntington Bank to purchase Camco shares, failing to reach out to
any other buyers after Huntington expressed interest in purchasing
the company.  Under the sale agreement between Camco and
Huntington, Camco shareholders could elect to receive 0.7264
shares of Huntington stock or $6 in cash for each share of Camco
stock.  It is alleged that this will protect and advance the
interests of Camco's board and hurt the public shareholders.

The fiduciary duties of the defendants include: managing Camco in
a fair manner, maximizing shareholder value in connection with any
change in ownership, refraining from abusing positions of control
and not favoring their own interests at the expense of Camco and
its shareholders, according to the paperwork filed.  It is alleged
that the sale agreement between Camco and Huntington personally
benefited only those in a position of power with Camco, not the
shareholders, and that statements filed with the SEC didn't
contain information that should have been disclosed to
shareholders, including information that might have affected their
agreement for the sale agreement between Camco and Huntington.

James Huston, president and CEO of Camco, is alleged to have taken
over negotiations between Camco and Huntington, not allowing the
formation of an independent committee to evaluate the potential
sale of the company.

Huston stands to gain more than $3.6 million from the sale
agreement between Camco and Huntington, according to the suit.

The class action suit alleges that fiduciary duties were breached
so that shareholders could not make an informed decision on the
sale agreement and claims that the plaintiff and other
shareholders have been and will be damaged. The suit seeks to get
shareholders compensatory and/or rescsissory damages; award
interest, attorney fees, expert fees and other costs; and granting
other relief as the court finds proper.


CREIG NORTHROP: Class Action Over Kickback Scheme Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Duncan, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a federal
judge authorized a class-action suit on Jan. 29 against The Creig
Northrop Team, one of Maryland's largest real estate groups, after
a Howard County couple accused it of running a half-million dollar
kickback scheme with a title insurance company.

A suit filed in Baltimore by home buyers Christine and Patrick
Baehr alleges The Creig Northrop Team, which has offices across
central Maryland, of illegally accepting payments from Lakeview
Title in exchange for sending the firm business.

The couple is represented by Gregory T. Lawrence of Baltimore law
firm Conti Fenn & Lawrence.

In court papers, the defendants asked for the case to be thrown
out because it was filed too late.

U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles rejected the plaintiff's
argument that the class should include anyone who bought a home
with the Northrop Team and Lakeview back to 2000.  Instead, he
limited the case to the agent's clients since 2008.  The judge
dismissed claims against Long & Foster, the broker for the
Northrop Team and a claim against the wife of Creig Northrop.


DELTA AIR LINES: "Kwok" Suit Over Frequent Flyer Program Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., dismissed the case captioned
WYNETTE KWOK, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES INC., Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION FILE. NO. 1:13-CV-1713-TWT, (N.D. Ga.).

This is a putative class action against Delta Air Lines regarding
its frequent flyer program. It presents the question of whether
Delta is contractually required to award frequent flyer miles
based upon (1) the direct geographic distance between the origin
and destination of a flight, or (2) the distance actually flown.

Delta Air Lines filed the motion to dismiss the case.

"Contrary to the assertions of both parties, they do not disagree
on the meaning of "distance,"" held Judge Thrash.  "It is, at
bottom, a measurement. The dispute goes to the particular length
whose distance is being calculated; the distance of what? The
Plaintiff claims that the contract refers to the distance of the
actual route traveled. The Defendant claims that it refers to the
geographic distance between the origin and the destination."

"[T]he plain text supports the Defendant's interpretation," Judge
Thrash continued.  "The relevant segment reads: "the distance from
origin to final destination." This does not refer to the distance
flown or the distance of the route taken. It refers to the
distance between two points," he said.

A copy of the District Court's January 9, 2014 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/Wz9gMnfrom Leagle.com.


DIAMOND FOODS: Accused of Deceiving Tortilla Chips Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominika Surzyn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Diamond Foods, Inc., a Delaware limited
liability company, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:14-cv-00136-EDL (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) alleges that the
Company has unlawfully, fraudulently, unfairly, misleadingly and
deceptively represented that five varieties of its Kettle Brand
TIAS Tortilla Chips are "All Natural," while they contain
unnatural, synthetic and artificial ingredients, including
maltodextrin or dextrose.

The Products are not "natural," and certainly not "All Natural,"
because they contain unnatural, synthetic ingredients, the
Plaintiff alleges.

Diamond Foods, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
San Francisco, California.  Diamond Foods manufactures, markets,
advertises and sells the Products.  The true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com


EJ STERLING: "Miller" Suit Aims to Recover Unpaid & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Miller, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by E.J. Sterling Inc. and/or
any other entities affiliated with or controlled by E.J. Sterling
Inc. v. E.J. Sterling Inc., and/or any other entities affiliated
with or controlled by E.J. Sterling Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00141-
JGK (S.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages owed to
the Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons, who are
presently or were formerly employed by E.J.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have wrongfully withheld
wages from the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals,
who worked for the Defendants in the business of selling
securities or training to be in the business of selling securities
and providing wealth management and investment advice.

E.J. Sterling, Inc. is a foreign limited liability company
organized in Indiana and headquartered in New York.  The Company
is engaged in the financial business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          111 Broadway, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@bivas.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516)873-9550
          Facsimile: (516)747-5024


EQUAL ENERGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 30 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of holders of Equal
Energy Ltd. common shares on December 9, 2013, against Equal, its
Board of Directors and Petroflow Energy Corporation and Petroflow
Canada Acquisition Corp., in connection with the proposed sale of
Equal to Petroflow.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 30, 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,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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 alleges violations of 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Schedule
14A preliminary information circular and proxy statement filed by
Equal with the SEC on December 31, 2013 and disseminated to
shareholders in connection with the Proposed Acquisition.  In
addition, the complaint charges Equal, its Board and/or Petroflow
with breaches of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Proposed
Acquisition.  Equal is an oil and gas exploration and production
company incorporated in Alberta Canada and based in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.

On December 9, 2013, Equal announced it had entered into a
definitive arrangement agreement with Petroflow under which
Petroflow will acquire the Company for $5.43 per share in cash.
On December 31, 2013, defendants caused the Company to file the
Preliminary Proxy with the SEC advising shareholders to approve
the Arrangement Agreement and vote in favor of the Proposed
Acquisition.  The complaint alleges that the Preliminary Proxy
contains false and misleading statements about: (i) the Company's
current and future value; (ii) benefits that will flow to Company
insiders only as a result of the Proposed Acquisition; (iii)
details about the sales process and the conflicts of interests
faced by the persons involved; and (iv) the financial analysis
conducted by the Company's financial advisor.  Unless defendants
provide full and fair disclosure of information regarding the
Proposed Acquisition in the Preliminary Proxy, the Company's
public shareholders will not be able to make an informed decision
on the Proposed Acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of
holders of Equal common shares on December 9, 2013.  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.


EUROPEAN MEAT: Recalls 130,000 lbs. of Fresh & Ready-To-Eat Meat
----------------------------------------------------------------
European Meat Products Inc., a Lakewood, Colo., establishment, is
recalling approximately 130,000 pounds of fresh and ready-to-eat
beef and pork products because of misbranding and an undeclared
allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The products contain wheat,
a known allergen which is not declared on the labels.

The products subject to recall includes:

   -- 16 oz. - vacuum pack plastic bags of "Bo Vien, Huong Duyen -
      Cooked Beef Meat Balls"

   -- 100 oz. - vacuum pack plastic bags of "Bo Vien, Huong Duyen
      - Cooked Beef Meat Balls"

   -- 16 oz. - vacuum pack plastic bags of "Cha Chien, Huong Duyen
      - Pork Meat Roll Browned in Soy Bean Oil"

   -- 16 oz. - plastic tubs of "Moc TUOi, Huong Duyen- Fresh Pork
      Paste"

   -- 16 oz. - vacuum pack plastic bags of "Gio-Lua, Huong Duyen -
      Pork Meat Roll"

   -- 32 oz. - vacuum pack plastic bags of "Gio-Lua, Huong Duyen -
      Pork Meat Roll"

The products bear the establishment number "EST. 7725" inside the
USDA Mark of Inspection.  The recalled products were produced
prior to Jan. 17, 2014.  The products were shipped to
distributors, restaurants and retail establishments in California,
Colorado, and Illinois.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine food safety
assessment label review.  The problem occurred due to a change in
ingredient formulation without a corresponding change in the
finished product label.  FSIS and the company have received no
reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare
provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Phong Tong, a company executive, at (303) 233-3111.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at askkaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces "DiTirro" Suit Over Users' Likenesses
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony DiTirro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00132-PSG (N.D. Cal.,
January 9, 2014) is brought for damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies.

The lawsuit results from Facebook's illegal actions in unlawfully
using its customers' likenesses and Facebook profiles to create a
false impression that its customers are promoting a particular
company or product without said customer's knowledge or consent,
Mr. DiTirro asserts.

Founded in 2004, Facebook, Inc., is the world's largest social
media networking web site with over a billion active users as of
September 2012.  The Company is headquartered in Menlo Park,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
          Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
          COUNSELONE, P.C.
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277-9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
          E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
                  justin@counselonegroup.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Drive, Suite 415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

Facebook, Inc. is represented by:

          Jeffrey Gutkin, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: gutkinjm@cooley.com


FBCS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Tasha Strong, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
906 Marcella Street, Philadelphia, PA 19124 v. FBCS Inc., 2200
Byberry Road #120, Hatboro, PA 19040; Joseph Neary, Sr.; Joseph
Neary, Jr.; Henry Stoughton; and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00123-NIQA (E.D. Pa., January 9, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff and the members of the Class proper
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

FBCS Inc. is an entity based in Hatboro, Pennsylvania.  The
Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.  The Doe
Defendants are presently unknown persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com


FINISAR CORP: Securities Lawsuit in California Now Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A securities action filed against Finisar Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has been dismissed, according to the company's Dec. 5,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 27, 2013.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8,
2011. The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the
Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. To
date, no specific amount of damages have been alleged. The cases
were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed and a
consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs
leave to amend the consolidated complaint. An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on February 6, 2013. Thereafter, the Company
filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2013,
the District Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the
case with prejudice. On October 25, 2013, the lead plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's dismissal ruling.
In addition, two purported shareholder derivative lawsuits related
to the Company's March 8, 2011 earnings announcement have been
filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa
Clara, and a third derivative lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaints assert claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and waste on behalf of the Company. Named as
defendants are the members of the Company's board of directors,
including the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer.

No specific amount of damages has been alleged and, by the
derivative nature of the lawsuits, no damages will be alleged,
against the Company.

The state court cases have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff
has been appointed to file a consolidated complaint. To date, the
cases have been stayed pending a ruling in the class action case.
Following the September 30 ruling dismissing the class action
case, the parties in both the federal and state derivative cases
are assessing whether and how to proceed.


FLOW INTERNATIONAL: AIP Entities Dismissed From Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Washington for King County entered a
stipulated order dismissing without prejudice American Industrial
Partners and its affiliates from a consolidated action filed
against Flow International Corporation over a merger with Waterjet
Holdings, Inc. and AIP/FIC Merger Sub, Inc., according to Flow
International's Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2013.

On September 27, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
on behalf of the Company's stockholders in the Superior Court of
Washington for King County, docketed as Englehart v. Brown, et al,
Case No. 13-2-33726-6 KNT. A second purported class action lawsuit
on behalf of the Company's stockholders was filed five days later,
on October 2, 2013, in the Superior Court of Washington for King
County, docketed as Wulfken v. Brown, et al., Case No. 13-2-34375-
4 KNT. On October 4, 2013, two more purported class action
lawsuits on behalf of the Company's stockholders were filed in the
Superior Court of Washington for King County, docketed as Papazian
v. Brown, et al., Case No. 13-2-34980-9 KNT, and Chu v. Flow
International Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-2-34967-1 KNT. On
October 8, 2013, another purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the Superior Court of Washington for King County, docketed as
Bruno v. Flow International Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-2-
35209-5 KNT. A sixth and final purported class action lawsuit on
behalf of the Company's stockholders was filed in the Superior
Court of Washington for King County, on October 16, 2013, docketed
as Shaev v. Flow International Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-2-
35865-4 KNT.

On October 9, 2013, the plaintiff in Englehart filed a Motion for
Consolidation of Related Actions and Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
and Co-Lead Counsel. Some of the other plaintiffs filed competing
motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On
October 23, 2013, the Court consolidated all six actions,
appointed Englehart as lead plaintiff and approved Englehart's
selection of lead counsel in the consolidated action.

On November 19, 2013, an amended consolidated complaint was filed.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to
stockholders by failing to take steps to maximize stockholder
value or to engage in a fair sale process before approving the
proposed acquisition of the Company by American Industrial
Partners ("AIP") through its affiliates, AIP Waterjet Holdings,
Inc. and AIP/FIC Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively with AIP, "the AIP
Entities"). Specifically, the consolidated complaint alleges that
the consideration paid by the AIP Entities is grossly inadequate
in light of Flow's recent performance and prospects, that the
process was designed to ensure that the AIP Entities had the only
opportunity to acquire the Company because certain deal protection
mechanisms precluded the Company from seeking out or listening to
competing offers, and that Flow's Schedule 14A Proxy filed by the
Company with the SEC on November 15, 2013 omits certain
purportedly material information. The lawsuit alleges that the
Board was aided and abetted in its breaches of fiduciary duty by
Flow and the AIP Entities. The consolidated complaint names the
Company, the members ofthe company's Board of Directors, and the
AIP Entities as defendants. The plaintiffs in the consolidated
action seek relief that includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the proposed merger,
rescission to the extent the merger terms have already been
implemented, unspecified damages, and the payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 26, 2013, the Court entered a stipulated order
dismissing without prejudice the AIP Entities from the
consolidated action. That same day, the Court entered a stipulated
scheduling order setting a hearing date of December 13, 2013 for
any motion for preliminary injunction.

On November 22, 2103, a Flow shareholder filed a lawsuit solely on
behalf of himself (not on behalf of a purported class) in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. The complaint asserts allegations similar to those
alleged in the consolidated class action pending in King County
Superior Court. The complaint also alleges that Flow's Board of
Directors violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78n(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, because
Flow's Schedule 14A Proxy purportedly contains materially false or
misleading statements, or omits materials facts necessary to make
statements therein not false or misleading. The complaint seeks
relief that includes an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the proposed merger and payment of attorneys' fees and costs.


GALLUP INC: "Fox" Suit Accuses Invasion of Customers' Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Fox, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Gallup, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00185-CAS-PJW (C.D.
Cal., January 9, 2014) accuses the Defendant of invading the
Plaintiff's privacy.

Ms. Fox alleges that the Defendant unlawfully contacted her in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  She contends
that she did not provide express consent to the Defendant to
receive calls on her cellular telephone.

Gallup, Inc., is a corporation whose primary corporate address is
in Washington, DC.  The Company conducted business in the state of
California and in the county of Santa Barbara.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDM AN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D 1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued Over OxyElite Pro Adverse Health Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Sandeep
Barot has filed a class action lawsuit against General Nutrition
Center Holdings Inc. after he claims diet pills lead to liver
damage.  He claims OxyElite Pro is intended to safely provide
weight loss, energy and mental focus, however, it instead causes
severe adverse health effects.

USPLabs LLC was also named as a defendant in the suit.  USPLabs
sells a variety of energy and weight loss dietary supplements
under the brand name of OxyElite Pro through GNC, which are
dangerous, sold pursuant to deceptive and unfair practices and are
not fit for their intended purpose, according to a complaint filed
Jan. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiff and all others similarly situated "did not bargain
for a product that causes adverse health effects in exchange for
their payment of purchase price," according to the suit.  Mr.
Barot claims several adverse reactions have been reported from
consumers who have purchased and ingested the product, including
serious liver injury and wrongful death.  USPLabs and GNC had
actual knowledge of the product's shortcomings, but both failed to
timely act to adequately warn consumers of the unfitness of the
product, the extreme adverse side effects associated with the
product or provide adequate relief to the class of consumers who
purchased the product, according to the suit.

Mr. Barot claims on Oct. 11, the FDA issued a warning letter to
USPLabs regarding OxyElite Pro for its inclusion of aegeline or
dimethylamylamine, known as DMAA.  Neither aegeline or DMAA has
been demonstrated as an ingredient in the food supply as an
article used for food in a form in which food has not been
chemically altered, according to the suit.  Mr. Barot claims
neither aegeline nor DMAA is reasonably expected to be safe when
used under the conditions recommended on the product's labeling.

Mr. Barot purchased the product based on the affirmative
representation that it would safely produce energy, increase
weight loss and increase mental focus so long as the consumer used
the product as directed, according to the suit.  Mr. Barot claims
he suffered economic damages as a result of purchasing the
product.  The plaintiff, and no other reasonable consumer, would
have purchased the product had they known about the severe adverse
effects the product can cause to humans, according to the suit.

GNC and USPLabs engaged in unlawful conduct and caused Mr. Barot
and the class members to suffer economic damages, physical damage
and emotional distress damages.  Mr. Barot claims the defendants
violated the New Jersey Consume Fraud Act and was unjustly
enriched at the class members' expense.  Mr. Barot is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment
interest.

Mr. Barot is being represented by William Riback of the Law
Offices of William Riback.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Noel L. Hillman.

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey at Camden case
number: 1:14-cv-000562


GEORGE'S INC: Recalls 1.25MM Lbs. of Frozen Par-Fried Chicken
-------------------------------------------------------------
George's Inc., a Springdale, Ark. establishment, is recalling
approximately 1.25 million pounds of frozen par-fried chicken
tender products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.  The products are formulated with wheat,
a known allergen, which was not properly declared on the labels.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 10-lb. cases of "George's Uncooked Breaded Chicken Breast
      Tenderloins" with Case Code 4831 and packaging dates between
      Feb. 21, 2013 and Dec. 19, 2013.

   -- 10-lb. cases of "George's Uncooked Chicken Tenderloin
      Fritters" with Case Code 4861 and packaging dates between
      Feb. 21, 2013 and Jan. 4, 2014.

   -- 10-lb. cases of "George's Uncooked Chicken Tenderloin
      Fritters" with Case Code 4880 and packaging dates between
      Feb. 21, 2013 and Jul. 19, 2013.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"P-13584" under the USDA Mark of Inspection and were sold to
wholesale locations for distribution to institutional users
nationwide.

The problem was discovered during a routine label review conducted
by the company, which then contacted FSIS.  The problem occurred
due to isolated printer issues that caused some labels to print
without selected ingredients.  The issue has been corrected.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Ali Perry
at (479) 927-7256. Media with questions about the recall should
contact Glen Balch at (479) 927-7105.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Kohlenberg" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Kohlenberg v. Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-13701, was transferred
from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00138-KBF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants and unnamed co-
conspirators, which have, from at least February 1, 2010, to the
present, monopolized and attempted to monopolize domestic aluminum
supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Hilborn, Esq.
          HILBORN & HILBORN P.C.
          999 Haynes Street, Suite 205
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 642-8350
          Facsimile: (248) 642-3016
          E-mail: craig@hilbornlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian R. Strange, Esq.
          Keith L. Butler, Esq.
          John T. Ceglia, Esq.
          STRANGE &CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-5055
          Facsimile: (310) 826-3210
          E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net
                  kbutler@strangeandcarpenter.com
                  jceglia@strangeandcarpenter.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com


GRANITE MAX: Absolute Ordered to Bring Up Default Judgment Matter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In ABSOLUTE ARCHITECTURE, P.C., an Illinois corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GRANITE MAX, INC., an Illinois corporation, and VITO
GUARINO, individually Defendants, NO. 13 C 7840, (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff submitted on December 26, 2013, its First Amended Motion
for Class Certification. The original motion (Dkt. 12) and
Absolute's First Amended Class Action Complaint (Dkt. 11) had been
filed on December 23.  Because the Dkt. 11 class certification
motion supplanted the original of such motion (Dkt. 4), the latter
motion is denied as moot, ruled Senior District Judge Milton I.
Shadur.

"Neither this Court's notes on the December 26th hearing nor the
docket, both of which reflect that newly-filed Dkt. 12 was entered
and continued to February 12, 2014 at 9 a.m., reflects any action
as having been taken on Absolute's motion for a default judgment
as to defendant Granite Max, Inc. (Dkt. 8), which had been filed
on December 2," held Judge Shadur.  Accordingly, the Court ordered
Absolute's counsel to bring the matter for consideration, failing
which Dkt. 8 will be treated as having been withdrawn without
prejudice, ruled Judge Shadur in a January 9, 2014 Memorandum
Order available at http://is.gd/jVFS3Dfrom Leagle.com.


GUSTO PACKING: Recalls 67,113 Lbs. of Sliced, Spiral Ham Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gusto Packing, a Montgomery, Ill. establishment, is recalling
approximately 67,113 pounds of sliced, spiral ham products due to
concerns about possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The hams were shipped to wholesalers for further distribution in
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, while some were exported to
Canada.  These products are subject to recall:

   -- 45.5-lb. cases, with six individual sized hams each labeled
      "Centrella Signature, Hardwood Hickory Smoked, Spiral Sliced
      Ham with Natural Juices" with the case code "71292603304,"
      packaged on Nov. 29, 2013, having a Use or Freeze by date of
      "02/06/14."

   -- 45.8-lb. cases, with six individual sized hams each labeled
      "AMISH VALLEY, Fully Cooked, Hickory Smoked Spiral Sliced
      Ham" with the case code "71292645104," packaged on Nov. 29,
      2013, having a Use or Freeze by date of "02/06/14."

   -- 45.8-lb. cases, with six individual sized hams each labeled
      "AMISH VALLEY, Fully Cooked, Hickory Smoked Spiral Sliced
      Ham" with the case code "71292645104," packaged on Nov. 30,
      2013, having a Use or Freeze by date of "02/06/14."

   -- 31.6-lb. cases, with four individual sized hams each labeled
      "Ripple Creek Farms, Fully Cooked, Ready To Eat, Hickory
      Smoked, Spiral Sliced Ham" with the case code "71292603312,"
      packaged on Nov. 30, 2013, having a Best Before date of
      "2014 FE 13."

Packaging labels bear the establishment number "EST. 2516" inside
the USDA mark of inspection.

The problem was discovered when Gusto Packing's internal sampling
program found some of its products tested positive for Listeria
monocytogenes.  Those products were frozen and held for
reconditioning.  Later, Gusto Packing found that some of those ham
products inadvertently shipped into commerce.  The company then
informed FSIS.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned
about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns.  Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms.  An invasive
infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract.  In pregnant
women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths,
premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn.
In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections can occur in
older adults and persons with weakened immune systems.
Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-
risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months
after eating contaminated food should seek medical care and tell
the health care provider about eating the contaminated food.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact the
Gusto Packing customer service hotline toll free at 877-984-8786.
Media with questions regarding the recall can contact the
company's public relations office at 919-255-7944.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


HEEL INC: Settles Class Action Over Homeopathic Products for $1MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Classaura on Jan. 30 disclosed that a proposed settlement has been
reached in a class action lawsuit involving Heel, Inc. a
manufacturer of homeopathic products.  The settlement establishes
a fund of $1 million and entitles some purchasers of Heel products
to claim a refund of up to $150 for past purchases of Heel
products.

On October 30, 2013, Federal Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel preliminarily
approved a settlement resolving a lawsuit between Heel and a class
representing consumers of Heel products.  The lawsuit claimed that
labeling and marketing on homeopathic products manufactured or
distributed by defendants Heel, Inc. was false or deceptive.  Heel
stands by its advertising and denies it did anything wrong.  The
Court has not decided which side was right.  Instead, the parties
have decided to settle the case.

A settlement fund of $1 million has been set up to pay claims to
eligible class members, attorneys' fees and costs, incentive award
to the named plaintiff, and the notice and claims administration
costs.  Heel is also agreeing to make certain changes to the
manner in which it labels and advertises the Products.

Class members, those who purchased any homeopathic product
manufactured or distributed by Heel labeled as "homeopathic"
between December 21, 2008 and the Opt-Out Date, as designated by
the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order, may be eligible for
payments under the terms of the settlement and are advised to
carefully read the Class Notice as their legal rights may be
affected whether they act or not.

Class members with proof of purchase may claim up to $150.  Class
members without a proof of purchase may claim up to $100.  The
amount class members actually receive may be higher or lower than
the amount they claim depending on the number of claims received.
To receive money from the settlement, class members must submit a
claim form within ninety calendar days of the date the court
enters the final judgment approving the settlement.  The deadline
is forecast to be no earlier than June 5, 2014.  Claims can be
filed online at the class website,

     http://www.HeelClassActionSettlement.com/

Class members wishing to exclude themselves from the settlement,
comment or object to the settlement, must do so by February 5,
2014.  Class members who do nothing, do not receive a share of the
settlement and are bound by the Court's decision.

This press release is only a summary of the full class action
settlement.  Detailed information on the terms of the settlement,
how to file a claim, object, or exclude yourself and other
important information can be obtained by visiting
www.HeelClassActionSettlement.com, calling toll-free 1-877-283-
2947, or writing to:  Heel Claims Administrator, c/o Classaura,
780 Morosgo Dr. #14103, Atlanta, GA 30324.


HOUSE OF SMOKE: Recalls 144,000 lbs. of Meat and Poultry Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
House of Smoke, Inc., a Fort Lupton, Colo. establishment, is
recalling approximately 144,000 pounds of meat and poultry
products (including bratwurst / brotwurst, fully cooked sausage-
type products, and raw fresh products) because of an undeclared
allergen and misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The products
were processed with a releasing agent containing soy lecithin, a
known allergen that is not declared on the label.

These products are subject to recall:

Brotwurst and bratwurst, produced between Jan 24, 2013 and January
24, 2014, packaged in 1-pound packages, 12 per case.  These
products are included:

   -- Code 9050   Hickory Smoked Bison Brotwurst little smokies;
   -- Code 9051   Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst little smokies;
   -- Code 9100   Hickory Smoked Buffalo Brotwurst;
   -- Code 9101   Hickory Smoked Buffalo Brotwurst Cheddar &
      Jalapeno;
   -- Code 9116   Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst Pork Added;
   -- Code 9117   Hickory Smoked Elk Brotworst Cheddar & Jalapeno;
   -- Code 9118   Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst With Jalapeno;
   -- Code 9139   Hickory Smoked Brotwurst;
   -- Code 9141   Hickory Smoked Coopersmith Brat Wild Boar;
   -- Code 9144   Hickory Smoked Coopersmith Brat Elk w/ Cheddar;
   -- Code 9156   Hickory Smoked Boulder Sausage Brotwurst;
   -- Code 9171   Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Brotwurst; and
   -- Code 9246   Bison Breakfast Brats 4/1

Fully cooked sausage-type products, produced between Jan. 24, 2013
and Jan. 24, 2014.  The products may be packaged in one the
following manners: 1-ounce packages, 40 per case; 6-ounce
packages, 24 per case; or 1-pound packages, 20 per case.  These
products are included:

   -- Code 9052   Hickory Smoked Wild Boar Sausage Little Smokies
   -- Code 9053   Smoked Rabbit Sausage Rattlesnake & Jalapeno
        Chardonnay Wine "little smokies"
   -- Code 9054   Hickory Smoked Andouille Smokies (Pork, Potato,
        and Onion Product)
   -- Code 9102   Hickory Smoked Bison Frankfurter
   -- Code 9103   Hickory Smoked Andouille Sausage (Pork, Potato,
        and Onion Product)
   -- Code 9115   Hickory Smoked Duck Sausage w/ Cilantro
   -- Code 9130   Hickory Smoked Venison Sausage (Pork Added)
   -- Code 9140   Wild Boar Sausage Hickory Smoked
   -- Code 9142   Smoked Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine
        Blueberries, Merlot Wine;
   -- Code 9145   Hickory Smoked German Style Sausage;
   -- Code 9184   Hickory Smoked Chorizo;
   -- Code 9345   Hickory Smoked Norwegian Sausage;
   -- Hickory Smoked Elk Salami Beef Added;
   -- Hickory Smoked Elk Sticks Beef Added;
   -- Hickory Smoked Norwegian Brand Summer Sausage;
   -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sausage;
   -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sausage (contains monosodium glutamate);
   -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sticks;
   -- Hickory Smoked Buffalo Sausage Beef Added;
   -- Hickory Smoked Buffalo Sticks Beef Added
   -- Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Salami (Made With Buffalo,
        Venison, Elk, Wild Boar, Antelope, and Caribou Added)
   -- Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Salami (Made With Buffalo,
        Venison, Elk, Wild Boar, Antelope, and Bear Added);
   -- Hickory Smoked Venison Sausage Beef Added;
   -- Hickory Smoked Wild Boar* Sausage *Meat from Feral Swine

Raw fresh products, produced between July 24, 2013, and Jan. 24,
2014.  The products may be packaged in one these manners:
patties/three per pound, in 12 pound cases; 6-pound bags, 12-pound
cases; or 12 pound boxes.  The following products are included:

   -- Code 4860   Wild Boar* Meat from Feral Swine Ground Bulk;
   -- Code 6752   Cold Smoked Ground Turkey Thigh Meat;
   -- Code 9016   Elk Breakfast Sausage with Apple Slices
   -- Code 6366   Ground Duck
   -- Code 9202   Swedish Potato Sausage
   -- Code 9203   Bison Maple Breakfast Brats 4/1
   -- Code 9215   Duck Sausage w/ Cilantro
   -- Code 9223   Rabbit Sausage Rattlesnake & Jalapeno
       Chardonnay Wine
   -- Code 9240   Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine
   -- Code 9241   Wild Boar Italian Sausage Made from Feral
       Swine;
   -- Code 9242   Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine
       Blueberries, Merlot Wine;
   -- Code 9245   Wild Boar Maple Breakfast Sausage;
   -- Code 9248   Norwegian Breakfast Sausage;
   -- Code 6751   Ground Turkey Bratwurst;
   -- Code 13820  Mountain Man Sausage Ground 2/6;
   -- Code 13721  Buffalo Patties Beef Added 2/1;
   -- Code 13831  Mountain Man Patties 3/1

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST
6273" or "P-6273" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection.  These
products were sold nationwide to distributors, restaurants, and
over the Internet.

The problem was discovered during a Food Safety Assessment.  The
firm mistakenly believed the releasing agent was a processing aid
that did not need to be declared on the label.  FSIS and the
company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a health care provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Media outlets and consumers with questions regarding the recall
can contact James Barsness, President of House of Smoke, at
303-857-2750.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


INFINITY FLOORS: Class Seeks Payment for Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amancio Mercedes, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Infinity Floors, Inc., Ronald Harris and Marci Miller,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00101-LDW-WDW (E.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) alleges
that the Plaintiff is entitled to, among other things, unpaid
overtime, unpaid wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Infinity Floors, Inc., is a New York domestic business corporation
headquartered in Islandia, New York.  The Company owns and
operates the Infinity Floors store located in Islandia.  The
Individual Defendants are owners, officers, directors or managing
members of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eliot F. Bloom, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELIOT F. BLOOM, PC
          Hillside Professional Center, Bldg. B
          2 Hillside Avenue
          Williston Park, NY 11596
          Telephone: (516) 739-5300
          Facsimile: (516) 739-3202
          E-mail: eb.efbesq@gmail.com


ISLE OF CAPRI: Settlement of Lawsuit Over Fax Ad Now Final
----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a lawsuit filed against Isle of Capri Casinos,
Inc. over its alleged sending of unsolicited fax advertisements is
now final, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 27, 2013.

The company was named as a defendant in a complaint filed in the
Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. The complaint alleged
the company sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), and sought to
certify a class action.  The complaint sought statutory damages
for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunction relief. In April 2013, the
company entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff and
on May 22, 2013, the Court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement and finalized its approval of the
settlement in October 2013. Settlement of this matter was
finalized during the three months ended October 27, 2013 and
payments were within the Company's reserves for this lawsuit.


JC PENNEY: Parties Want Texas Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Various parties filed motions with the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas seeking consolidation of pending
securities cases against J. C. Penney Company, Inc., according to
the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2,
2013.

From October 1, 2013 through October 24, 2013, four purported
class action complaints were filed naming the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah as defendants, by the following
plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division: Marcus (filed October 1, 2013), Erdem (filed
October 7, 2013), Murphy (filed October 21, 2013) and Gilbert
(filed October 24, 2013).  The Marcus, Erdem and Gilbert
complaints are purportedly brought on behalf of persons who
acquiredthe company's common stock during the period from August
20, 2013 through September 26, 2013.  The complaint filed by
Murphy is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquiredthe
company's securities, including common stock, debt securities, and
purchasers of call and sellers of put options, during the period
from May 16, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and also names
William A. Ackman, a former member of the Board of Directors, as a
defendant.  The complaints allege claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs claim that the
defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions
regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects
that causedthe company's common stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices.  The complaints seek class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable
costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.  On December 2, 2013, various parties filed motions
with the court seeking consolidation of the pending cases and
appointment of lead plaintiff.  The company believes these class
action complaints are without merit and the company intends to
vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance can be given
as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, the company currently
believes that the final resolution of these actions will not have
a material adverse effect onthe company's results of operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources.


JOS A BANK: Accord in Calif. Labor Lawsuit Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara granted
final approval to the settlement of a labor suit filed against
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 5,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013.

On March 16, 2012, Neil Holmes, a former employee of the Company,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, filed
a Complaint (the "Holmes Complaint") against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No.
112CV220780, alleging various violations of California wage and
labor laws. The Holmes Complaint seeks, among other relief,
certification of the case as a class action, injunctive relief,
monetary damages, penalties, restitution, other equitable relief,
interest, attorney's fees and costs. As described inthe company's
prior Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement on April 19, 2013. On September 13, 2013, the
Court issued an Order and Judgment granting, among other things,
final approval of a class action settlement.
The settlement amount had been previously recorded by the Company.


JOS A BANK: Plaintiff in "Camasta" Appeals Dismissal of Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Edward Camasta has appealed the dismissal of his First
Amended Class Action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank Clothiers,
Inc. over the company's advertising to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according to the company's Dec.
5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013.

On August 29, 2012, Patrick Edward Camasta, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, filed
a putative class action complaint (the "Original Camasta
Complaint") against the Company in the Circuit Court of the
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois (Case No.
12CH4405). The Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division (Case No. 12 CV 7782). The Original Camasta Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company's pattern and
practice of advertising its normal retail prices as temporary
price reductions violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The Original Camasta Complaint seeks, among other
relief, certification of the case as a class action, actual and
punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and injunctive relief.

On February 7, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S.
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing
the Original Camasta Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice.
On March 1, 2013, Camasta filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint in the said United States District Court making
substantially the same allegations as in the Original Camasta
Complaint. On July 25, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the
said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
dismissing the First Amended Class Action Complaint in its
entirety, with prejudice. Camasta has appealed the dismissal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


JOS A BANK: Faces Lawsuit Over "Deceptive" Sales Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. faces a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District
(Case No. 2:13-cv-756) over its use of the words "free" and
"regular price", according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013.

On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated, filed a
putative class action complaint (the "Johnson Complaint") against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The
Johnson Complaint alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and
marketing practices by the Company relating to its use of the
words "free" and "regular price". The Johnson Complaint seeks,
among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages,
declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements
(including attorneys' fees). The company intends to defend this
lawsuit vigorously. (The law firm which filed the Johnson
Complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs is one of the law firms
which filed the "Schneider Complaint," which is discussed in the
company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended May 4, 2013. On July 24, 2013, the Schneider Complaint was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Approximately
one week later, the substantially similar Johnson Complaint was
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.)


JP MORGAN: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Maes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In DANIEL MAES, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 12CV782-JAH (MDD), (S.D. Cal.), before the
Court is a joint motion for determination of a discovery dispute
filed on December 24, 2013. Through certain Interrogatories and
Requests for Production, the Plaintiff seeks the employment
records of 16 non-parties who are or were employed by Defendants.
Plaintiff claims that these individuals potentially are "aggrieved
employees" under California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA). The plaintiff has chosen not to seek certification of
a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.  The Defendants object on the
grounds that the Plaintiff may not maintain a PAGA representative
action in this Court without compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and
has not made a prima facie showing that the identified employees
are potentially aggrieved. The Defendants assert that many of the
identified individuals cannot be "aggrieved" under the law.

Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin granted in part and denied in
part the motion saying the Plaintiff may have the requested
discovery regarding any of the 16 identified individuals who are
or were employed by Defendants as Business Analysts or Information
Analysts in California from February 3, 2011 to date. The Court
found that to the extent any of these individuals whose employment
records may be discovered executed general releases as part of a
severance agreement or agreed to binding arbitration regarding
their employment claims, those matters are better considered in
the context of whether their claims can be maintained in this
action and should not, in this case, preclude discovery. To the
extent that Plaintiff seeks to broaden the represented aggrieved
employees beyond the 16 he has identified, the Court will require
a showing that such employees are likely to be aggrieved and are
within the group identified by Plaintiff in his First Amended
Complaint, he said.

A copy of the District Court's January 10, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/LAxshDfrom Leagle.com.


KENISHA WIGGINS: "Leftridge" Suit Removed to Conn. District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Leftridge v. Wiggins,
Case No. KNO-FA04-0128, was removed from the Superior Court, New
London, to the U.S. District Court United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00026-RNC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


LIFE PARTNERS: "Turnbow" Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 3, 2013, Life Partners Holdings, Inc. issued a press
release announcing that the plaintiffs in the case styled Turnbow
v. Life Partners, Inc. (Case No. 3:11-CV-1030-M, 2013 U.S.
Dist.Ct., N.D. Tex., Dallas Div.) have voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuit. The dismissal follows the court's denial of a motion for
class certification in the lawsuit, according to the company's
Dec. 4, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.


LIMAN TRADING: Sued by Server Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oner Yilmaz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Liman Trading, Inc. d/b/a Liman Restaurant, Liman
Restaurant, Inc. and Yusuf Basusta, Jointly and Severally, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00163-NGG-RML (E.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) is brought
on behalf of a class of all employees working as servers, bussers,
runners, bartenders and kitchen staff for the Defendants in New
York.

The Plaintiff is a former server at the Defendants' Turkish
Restaurant specializing in seafood located in the Sheepshead Bay
neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York.  The Plaintiff brings the
action to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed to him
pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.  The Plaintiff also brings claims for unpaid spread of
hours premiums and unlawful misappropriation of gratuities
pursuant to the NYLL.

Liman Trading, Inc. d/b/a Liman Restaurant is an active New York
corporation with its principle place of business in Brooklyn, New
York.  Liman Restaurant, Inc. is an active New York corporation
also based in Brooklyn.  Yusuf Basusta is the owner and president
of the Corporate Defendants, who sets their payroll policies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
                  graham@peltonlaw.com


LOUIS VUITTON: Settlement in "Morey" Suit Gets Final Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes granted final approval of a class
action settlement in the case captioned DEANNA MOREY, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, CASE NO. 11CV1517 WQH (BLM),
(S.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff in this case alleged that Louis Vuitton violated
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section
1747.08, by requesting and recording personal identification
information when shoppers used a credit card for purchases at
Louis Vuitton retail stores.

The settlement provides Class members with Merchandise
Certificates valued at approximately $1 million. Divided by the
23,876 Class members, the settlement provides a $41.00 Merchandise
Certificate to each Class member. Given the risk, expense,
complexity, and duration of further litigation, the Court found
that the amount and terms of the proposed monetary benefits to the
Class members are fair and reasonable.

The court defined the certified Class as: All persons who made a
credit card purchase at a LVNA store in California during the
period of time from May 20, 2010 to January 28, 2013 and who were
requested to and did provide personal identification information,
excluding transactions where such personal identification
information was collected for a special purpose incidental but
related to the individual credit card transaction, including
information relating to shipping, delivery, servicing or repairing
of the purchased merchandise or for special orders or paid holds.

The Court found that Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees
and expenses is fair, reasonable, and appropriate and therefore
awarded fees and expenses to Class Counsel in the aggregate amount
of $375,000 and an incentive award to Plaintiff in the amount of
$5,000 to be paid by the Defendant in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.

The Court dismissed with prejudice the action and the claims
alleged therein.

A copy of the District Court's January 9, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/OtPYwbfrom Leagle.com.


MAZDA MOTOR: Court Dismisses "Gordon" TCCWNA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert B. Kugler dismissed the case captioned
THOMAS GORDON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION and MAZDA NORTH
AMERICAN OPERATIONS, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-3142 (RBK/AMD),
(D. N.J.).

This matter comes before the Court on a motion by Defendant Mazda
Motor of America, Inc. d/b/a Mazda North American Operations  to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The complaint is a
putative class action alleging a violation of New Jersey's Truth
in Contract Consumer Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et
seq. (TCCWNA).

The Plaintiff alleged that in October 2008, he purchased a 2008
Mazda CX-9 from a Mazda dealership in Turnersville, New Jersey.
The Defendant, through the dealer, provided Plaintiff with the
following notice at the time of the purchase:

"IMPORTANT: If this vehicle is defective, you may be entitled
under New Jersey law to a refund of the purchase price or your
lease payments. For complete information regarding your rights
and remedies under the relevant law, please contact the New
Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer
Affairs, Lemon Law Unit, at 1100 Raymond Boulevard, Newark, New
Jersey, 07102, telephone number: (973) 504-6226."

In order to seek these remedies, you must first give written
notice to MAZDA, by certified mail, of the nonconforming
condition, at the following address and provide MAZDA with a
final opportunity to repair it.

Judge Kugler held that the notice did not violate the Plaintiff's
clearly established legal rights under the Lemon Law, therefore
his TCCWNA claim fails as a matter of law.

A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/g4nygvfrom Leagle.com.


MEDICENTRES CANADA: Faces $11-Mil. Privacy Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Edmonton Journal reports that an $11-million class action
lawsuit has been filed over a missing laptop containing personal
and health information of 620,000 Albertans.

Charmaine L'Hirondelle is the representative plaintiff of the
statement of claim, filed on Jan. 28, which alleges a breach of
information could result in identity theft, land titles and
mortgage fraud, and break and entry.  None of the allegations have
been proven in court.

In late September, an unencrypted laptop of an IT consultant for
Medicentres Canada went missing.  The laptop held a database of
personal information -- names, dates of birth, health card
numbers, diagnostic and billing codes -- for 620,000 patients who
visited Medicentre clinics in Edmonton and Calgary between
May 2011 and September 2013.  The lawsuit alleges Medicentres
failed to protect private information and was negligent in taking
more than four months to inform the public about the privacy
breach.  Medicentres has not filed a statement of defense.


MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Underway in Defibrillation Leads Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial proceedings are underway in the Sprint Fidelis Product
Liability Claims against Medtronic, Inc., according to the
company's Dec. 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 25, 2013.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The
Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit Over Statements Regarding INFUSE
----------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. faces class action complaints in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota over public statements it made
regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product, according to the
company's Dec. 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 25, 2013.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27 and July 3,
2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against
Medtronic and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone
Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August
3, 2011. The Company has not recorded an expense related to
damages in connection with these matters because any potential
loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S.
GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.


MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Denies Class Certification in Text-Spam Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni and Matt Fair, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on Jan. 28 refused to certify a class of
consumers accusing Microsoft Corp. of sticking them with the bill
for unsolicited text messages advertising its Xbox video game
console, ruling that handling the case as a class action would
likely prove unmanageable.

Plaintiff Neil Smith failed to show that a class action would be
better than other methods for handling his claims, coming up short
on the so-called "superiority" requirement for class
certification, U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino said.  The
judge cited "overwhelming concerns" that the suit would be
unwieldy and that it would be impossible for Mr. Smith to obtain
the necessary evidence to support his claims.

Mr. Smith sued Microsoft in August 2011, alleging the Xbox
manufacturer's texts, which consumers may have had to pay their
carriers for receiving, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.  Starting in at least 2008, according to the suit, Microsoft
sent wireless spam to cellphones around the country owned by
prospective Xbox customers.   Mr. Smith received a transmission
identified only as "88202" with a text message advertising "Free
Xbox Games Content!" the complaint said.

In the Jan. 28 order, Judge Sammartino noted that Come&Stay Inc.,
the advertising company that sent the offending texts on behalf of
Microsoft, had shuttered its U.S. operations in 2009 and dissolved
in 2012.  Without C&S' records, Mr. Smith won't be able to prove
that the 55,000 members of the proposed class didn't provide their
consent to receive the texts -- a basic element of any TCPA claim,
the judge said.

This dearth of records would also prevent Mr. Smith from
identifying and notifying individual class members, according to
the order, as he only has a list of numbers to which the texts
were sent and doesn't know who actually received them.  Since the
texts were sent more than five years ago, class members would
likely not remember having received them, the judge said.

In fact, the only point weighing in favor of class certification
was that no other lawsuits over the Xbox texts had been filed
against Microsoft, according to the judge, who called this factor
"a weak one."

Mr. Smith is represented by Sean Patrick Reis -- sreis@edelson.com
-- of Edelson McGuire LLP.

Microsoft is represented by Charles B. Casper -- ccasper@mmwr.com
-- of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP and Thomas W.
McNamara -- mcnamarat@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr LLP.

The case is Smith v. Microsoft Corp., case number 3:11-cv-01958,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Suit in Pa. Over Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. National Football League and NFL Properties,
LLC, Successor-in-Interest to NFL Properties, Inc., Case No. 2:14-
cv-00029-AB (E.D. Pa., January 6, 2014) asserts personal injury
claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          550 Broad St., Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Scott A. George, Esq.
          Terrianne A. Benedetto, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 553-7982
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
                  TBenedetto@seegerweiss.com


NEW JERSEY, USA: Faces "Galicki" Suit Over Fort Lee Traffic Jam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Galicki, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. State of New Jersey, et al., Case No. 2:14-
cv-00169-KM-MCA (D.N.J., January 9, 2014) seeks redress for the
alleged purposeful, intentional, "callously indifferent" phrase
used by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at his January 9, 2014
press conference when describing the actions of Defendants Bridget
Anne Kelly, David Wildstein and Bill Baroni and other individuals
involved in a political scheme.

On September 9, 2013, through September 13, 2013, according to the
complaint, Defendants Kelly, Wildstein and Baroni orchestrated,
conspired and implemented a political agenda through acts of
official misconduct that would back up traffic and clog local
roads in and common scheme to close lanes leading to the dedicated
toll booths for the George Washington Bridge, which political
agenda was designed and intended to cause extreme and heavy
traffic delays heading to the Borough of Fort Lee, New Jersey, and
surrounding areas.

The Plaintiffs assert that they were trapped on local roads for a
long period of time and, eventually, arrived to work later than
they would have because of the Defendants' alleged actions.

The state of New Jersey is a duly constituted governmental entity
organized under the Constitution of the United States of America.
The other Defendants include the Port Authority of New York & New
Jersey; New Jersey Governor Christopher James "Chris" Christie;
Bridget Anne Kelly, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Governor's
office; David Wildstein, the Director of Interstate Capital
Projects of the Port Authority, and a childhood and close friend
of Governor Christie; and Bill Baroni, the Deputy Director of the
Port Authority and a close personal friend of Governor Christie.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Bid to Stay Suit vs. OTDA and HRA Denied
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy Billings of the Supreme Court, New York County denied a
motion for a stay of the action captioned QUANISHA SMITH and
ANTHONY COLAVECCHIO, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KRISTIN M. PROUD, as
Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance, and ROBERT DOAR, as Commissioner of the New
York City Human Resources Administration, Defendants, DOCKET NO.
400903/2010, MOTION SEQ. NO. 005, 2013 NY Slip Op 33509(U).

Plaintiffs are public assistance recipients who claim the notices
issued by the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA)
when it charges that they have not complied with work requirements
violate the New York Social Services Law (SSL), its implementing
regulations, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff class
members who receive assistance from the federal Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program further claim that the notices
violate federal regulations.

"The State defendant nonetheless has sought to stay the entire
action, when plaintiffs only have been permitted to amend their
complaint, defendants have not yet even answered that complaint,
no disclosure has yet been conducted, and no dispositive motions
even are pending," Judge Billings held.  "For this reason alone,
when this action is far short of a dispositive determination, the
broad relief State defendant seeks is unwarranted."

According to the Court, a stay would prevent the tens of thousands
of plaintiff class members from proceeding toward a judicial
determination of their rights and defendants' duties on the merits
and any relief to which all these plaintiffs may be entitled:
rights, duties, and relief that affect the assistance on which
plaintiffs rely for their basic subsistence.

A copy of the Supreme Court's January 8, 2014 Decision and Order
is available at http://is.gd/9ONY6Vfrom Leagle.com.

Lester Helfman Esq., Legal Aid Society, 111 Livingston Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11201; and Susan Jacquemot Esq. --
sjacquemot@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel,
LLP, 1177 6th Avenue, New York, NY 10036, for Plaintiffs.

Stephanie A. Feinberg, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, New
York City Human Resources Administration, 180 Water Street, New
York, NY 10038, for Defendant Doar.

Domenic Turziano, Assistant Attorney General, 120 Broadway, New
York, NY 10271, for Defendant Proud.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Consumer Privacy Laws, "Kelly" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00195-DSF-SH
(C.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) results from the Company's alleged
illegal actions in negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; thereby, invading his
privacy.

Northland Group, Inc. is a corporation whose primary corporate
address is in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  The Company conducted
business in the state of California and in the county of Los
Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Drive, Suite 415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Litigation continues in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's Dec. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and three of
its executives, one of whom is a director. All of the complaints
alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making misleading statements or omissions regarding the
Company's business and financial results, in particular regarding
the use of its imaging sensors in Apple Inc.'s iPhone. These
actions have been consolidated as In re OmniVision Technologies,
Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-5235 (RMW) (the "Securities
Case"). On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between August 27, 2010 and November 6,
2011, seeking unspecified damages. On March 29, 2013, the court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. No trial date has been
set. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this action and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss
nor estimate the loss or a range of possible loss.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Labor Suit in Calif. Court in Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------------------
A labor suit filed against Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and
Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation in the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange is in the discovery phase, according
to the company's Dec. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2,
2013.

Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of
California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Superior
Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-
CU-OE-CXC. On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and
rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The
complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the
plaintiff as class representative, and an unspecified amount of
damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all
allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various
defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this
case.


PILOT FLYING J: Court Narrows Claims in Wright Trans Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
WRIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., etc., Plaintiff, v. PILOT
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION 13-0352-WS-N, (S.D.
Ala.) is before the Court on the defendants' motions to dismiss.

The plaintiff is a long-haul trucking company with its principal
place of business in Mobile County.  The defendant Pilot Travel
Centers, LLC owns and operates a network of truck stops, travel
centers and travel plazas throughout the United States.

The complaint sets forth these claims against the designated
defendants:

* Count One RICO All but Pilot Flying J
* Count Two RICO conspiracy All but Pilot Flying J
* Count Three Breach of contract Pilot Flying J
* Count Four Deceptive trade practices All defendants
* Count Five Unjust enrichment All defendants
* Count Six Fraudulent misrepresentation All defendants
* Count Seven Negligent misrepresentation All defendants
* Count Eight Suppression All defendants

The complaint also seeks class certification.

The defendants have sought dismissal of the complaint in its
entirety.

In a January 9, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/gPRG84from
Leagle.com, District Judge William H. Steele granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to Counts One, Two,
Four, Six, Seven and Eight; granted as to Pilot Flying J only with
respect to Count Five; and granted as to all class claims. These
claims, counts and portions of counts are dismissed, he said. As
to Counts One, Two, Six, Seven and Eight, dismissal is with leave
to amend. In all other respects, the motions to dismiss are
denied, Judge Steel concluded.


PROCOLLECT INC: Sued for Contacting Customers Without Consent
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Gusman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ProCollect, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00192-DMG-MRW (C.D.
Cal., January 9, 2014) accuses the Company of negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Gusman contends that he did not provide express consent to the
Defendant to receive calls on his phone.

Procollect, Inc., is a corporation based in Dallas, Texas.  The
Company conducted business in the state of California and in the
county of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.e.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: NBontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


PURE ENCAPSULATIONS: Sued Over Betaine HCl Pepsin Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Kelly, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pure Encapsulations Inc. a/k/a Pure Encapsulations,
Case No. 8:14-cv-00215 (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) arises from
the Company's alleged false promotion of its Betaine HCl Pepsin
product that it is "naturally derived from sugar beets."

The Plaintiff contends that it is a scientific certainty that
betaine hydrochloride can only be created synthetically and is not
naturally derived, unlike betaine anhydrous, which may be derived
from natural food sources such as sugar beets.  The Plaintiff adds
that the nationwide advertising, promotion, marketing, packaging
and selling of Betaine constitutes a violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law and California's False Advertising Law.

Pure Encapsulations Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Massachusetts.  The Company is a formulator,
manufacturer and distributor of a variety of health supplements,
including Betaine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 30 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 14-cv-10225
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Sarepta between
July 24, 2013 and November 12, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sarepta securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 28, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Sarepta is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
discovery and development of RNA-based therapeutics for the
treatment of rare and infectious diseases.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made materially false or misleading
statements concerning, among other things, (1) the prospects of
the FDA's acceptance for consideration of a New Drug Application
("NDA") for eteplirse, Sarepta's pharmaceutical to treat Duchenne
muscular dystrophy, based on its Phase IIb study data set, and (2)
the significance of that data set.

On November 11, 2013, shares of Sarepta declined sharply after the
Company announced that it was told by the Food and Drug
Administration, (FDA) not to file for accelerated approval of
eteplirsen. On this news, shares of Sarepta fell $23.40 per share,
more than 64.00%, on intraday trading, to a price of $13.16 on
November 11, 2013.

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


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Court Dismisses GTA Online Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Fudge, writing for GamePolitics, reports that a U.S.
District Court in California has dismissed a class action lawsuit
that tried to take Take-Two Interactive and its subsidiary
Rockstar Games to task for the delayed launch of the multiplayer
component for Grand Theft Auto V - Grand Theft Auto Online.

The lawsuit (McMahon v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et
al., C.D. Cal. Case No. 5:13-cv-02032-VAP-SP) was filed on October
4 by Bruce McMahon and Christopher Bengtson, but later moved to
the federal court in mid-November.

The plaintiffs claimed in their complaint that GTA V launched on
September 17, 2013 at a "premium" price, dependent on the fact
that it contained an online multiplayer component that was to be
"available immediately."  This, they claimed was a violation by
Take-Two subsidiary Rockstar Games of California law that -- in
general terms -- prohibited "unlawful," "unfair," or "fraudulent"
business practices including false advertising and other statutes
related to consumer protection.

The lawsuit was in relation to the delay of the online multiplayer
component for the game, which didn't launch until Oct. 1.  The
online portion of the game -- made available to anyone who
purchased GTA V-- had its fair share of technical problems at
launch to be sure, but it ultimately went online two weeks after
the game was released on Xbox 360 and PS3.

On Jan. 29 U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips
disagreed with the plaintiff's arguments and granted Take-Two's
motion to dismiss the case.  In her decision Judge Phillips
referred to the packaging for the game, which did not contain
language about multiplayer being available "immediately."

The court also took into account disclaimers on the packaging,
which warned consumers that online play and other special features
in the game "may not be available to all users."  The court found
these disclaimers to be sufficient enough to alert potential
customers purchasing the game that online game play might not be
immediately available.


TRUITT BROTHERS: Recalls 1.77MM lbs. of Pasta & Ground Beef
-----------------------------------------------------------
Truitt Brothers Inc., an East Bernstadt, Ky. establishment is
recalling approximately 1.77 million pounds of shelf-stable pasta
and ground beef products because of misbranding and an undeclared
allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The products are formulated
with hydrolyzed soy protein and dried soy sauce, known allergens,
which are not declared on some labels.

The products subject to recall includes:

   -- 3.3-pound cases containing six, 9-ounce microwaveable
      containers of "Kraft Velveeta Cheesy Skillets SINGLES -
      ULTIMATE CHEESEBURGER MAC" [a macaroni & cheese product]
      with a Used By/Sell By date code of " March 02, 2014 -
      Oct 23, 2014."  Identifying UPC code is 2100004329, and case
      codes are: 00210000432900, 00210000432910, 00210000432925,
      00210000464000 and 00210000465100.

The products were produced between May 6, 2013 and Jan. 16, 2014
and shipped to Kraft Foods distribution centers and retail
locations nationwide.

No other Velveeta or Kraft products are impacted by this recall.

The problem was discovered during a recent routine quality check
conducted by the company, which then contacted FSIS.  The company
believes the problem occurred when a label supplier inadvertently
mixed labels with incorrect ingredient lines with labels
containing correct ingredient information.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the Kraft
Foods Consumer Relations Center at 1-800-396-5512.  Media with
questions about the recall should contact Joyce Hodel, the
company's corporate affairs director, at 847-646-4538.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


WALKER'S FOOD: Recalls 2,446 Lbs. of Chicken Salad Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walker's Food Products Co., a North Kansas City, Mo.,
establishment, is recalling approximately 2,446 pounds of chicken
salad products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.  The products are formulated with a soy
protein concentrate, a known allergen, which was not properly
declared on the labels.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 5-lb. plastic tubs of "Walker's All White Chunky Chicken
      Salad" with packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and
      Jan. 23, 2014 and use by/sell by dates between July 26, 2013
      and March 14, 2014 and sold to wholesale locations in
      Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

   -- 1-lb. plastic tubs of "Walker's All White Chunky Chicken
      Salad" with packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and
      Jan. 23, 2014 and use by/sell by dates between July 26, 2013
      and March 14, 2014, and sold to retail locations in
      Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

   -- 5-lb. tubs of "Walker's White Chicken Salad Florentine" with
      packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and Jan. 27, 2014 and
      use by/sell by dates between July 14, 2013 and March 6, 2014
      and sold to wholesale locations for distribution in Kansas
      and Missouri.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-
13335" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS in-plant inspector during a
routine label review.  The problem occurred after a change in
product suppliers without a corresponding change in label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  For individuals allergic to
soy, consumption of soy protein concentrate presents a reasonable
probability of serious health consequences or death.  Anyone
concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact James
Daskaleas at (816) 472-8121, ext. 15. Media with questions about
the recall should contact Mike Stinson at (816) 472-8121, ext. 12.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


WEATHERFORD INT'L: Settles Investor Class Action for $52.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report that
Weatherford International Ltd. and several executives have agreed
to pay $52.5 million to settle an investor class action over tax
miscalculations by the energy equipment company that overstated
earnings by about $500 million, plaintiffs' attorneys told a New
York federal judge on Jan. 29.

An attorney for the investors, who argued the company violated the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by concealing faulty
accounting practices that ultimately caused its stock to tank 11
percent, told Law360 late on Jan. 29 that the proposed deal will
resolve all their remaining claims.

The proposed settlement class -- including court-appointed lead
plaintiff American Federation of Musicians and Employers' Pension
Fund, and named plaintiff Georgia Firefighters' Pension Fund --
consists of all investors, believed to be numbered in the
thousands, who bought Weatherford stock between April 25, 2007,
and Mar. 1, 2011.

Darren J. Check -- dcheck@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 that
they look forward to presenting the deal to the court and
finalizing it.

The investors first brought the suit in March 2011 against the
energy equipment company, Weatherford CEO Bernard Duroc-Danner,
former Chief Accounting Officer and Vice President of Accounting
Jessica Abarca, and former Vice President and Principal Accounting
Officer Charles Geer Jr.

The suit also named Ernst & Young as a defendant, although U.S.
District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan tossed the investors' claims
against the accounting firm in November 2012.  He found, among
other things, that the investors' reliance on a series of supposed
red flags to support an inference of scienter regarding Ernst &
Young's opinions about Weatherford's compliance with generally
accepted accounting principles didn't hold up.

In the same ruling, Judge Kaplan also determined that the
plaintiffs didn't adequately plead that Weatherford and the
executives had a motive to commit fraud.  He rejected the
investors' argument that discretionary bonuses tied to performance
targets provided the executives with motive.

The judge also rejected another of the plaintiffs' motive
theories, which stated that the fraud inflated Weatherford's stock
price, allowing it to fund an "aggressive growth strategy," while
not becoming an acquisition target itself.  The investors noted
several acquisitions Weatherford conducted from 2007 to 2009 and
further pointed to the company's 2009 annual report, which stated
that Weatherford funded its 2008 and 2009 acquisitions through the
issuance of $287 million in stock.

However, Judge Kaplan refused to throw out claims brought against
Weatherford and former vice president and chief financial officer
Andrew Becnel regarding statements made about the supposed
effectiveness of Weatherford's internal controls, ruling that the
investors had sufficiently pled a knowledge of wrongdoing.

In light of Mr. Becnel's personal involvement in designing and
implementing internal controls, as well as the "stark realities"
that were later revealed about the inadequacies of the controls,
the judge found the investors adequately alleged scienter against
the executive.

The judge also let stand claims brought under section 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the executives.

The filing also sought certification of the class, saying it met
all the requirements.

The plaintiffs are represented by Eli R. Greenstein --
egreenstein@ktmc.com -- Stacey M. Kaplan -- skaplan@ktmc.com --
Jennifer L. Joost, Stuart L. Berman -- sberman@ktmc.com --David
Kessler -- dkessler@ktmc.com -- and Darren J. Check of Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP and Curtis V. Trinko of the Law Offices
of Curtis V. Trinko LLP.

Weatherford and the executives are represented by Peter A. Wald --
peter.wald@lw.com -- Kevin H. Metz -- kevin.metz@lw.com --
Sarah A. Greenfield -- sarah.greenfield@lw.com -- and Colleen C.
Smith -- colleen.smith@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins.

The case is Mike Dobina et al. v. Weatherford International Ltd.
et al., case number 1:11-cv-01646, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.


WET SEAL: Settles Suit Filed in Cal. Court by Former Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc. entered into confidential settlement agreements
that resolved a labor suit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, according to
the company's Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2,
2013.

On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on
behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees
who were employed and paid by the Company from September 29, 2004
through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The
complaint alleged various violations under the State of California
Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions
Code. Plaintiffs sought reimbursement for alleged uniform and
business expenses, injunctive relief, restitution, civil
penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and costs. On August 16,
2011, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Plaintiffs appealed and, on October 12, 2012, the California Court
of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. On January 23, 2013,
the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for
review. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued an order
to send the case back to the trial court to proceed on behalf of
only the three named plaintiffs and not as a class action. In
October 2013, the Company entered into confidential settlement
agreements that resolved the matter.

On April 24, 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (the "EEOC") requested information and records relevant
to several charges of discrimination by the Company against
employees of the Company. In the course of this investigation, the
EEOC served a subpoena seeking information related to current and
former employees throughout the United States. On November 14,
2012, the Company reached resolution with the EEOC and several of
the individual complainants that concluded the EEOC's
investigation. Between November 2012 and March 2013, the Company
paid approximately $0.8 million to settle with individual
complainants. The Company also agreed to programmatic initiatives
that are consistent with the Company's diversity plan. The Company
will report progress on its initiatives and results periodically
to the EEOC. Claimants with whom the Company did not enter into a
settlement had an opportunity to bring a private lawsuit within
ninety days from the date they received their November 26, 2012
right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, however, that time period is
tolled for those individuals who are putative class members in a
race discrimination class action filed on July 12, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California with respect to any race discrimination claims they
have that are within the scope of the putative class action.  On
December 12, 2012, the EEOC issued a "for cause" finding related
to certain allegations made by one complainant, who is the lead
plaintiff in the class action.


WET SEAL: Appeals Denial of Arbitration in Cal. Labor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc. filed a notice of appeal against an Order
denying a motion to compel arbitration in a labor suit filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles, according to the company's Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013.

On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf
of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were
employed in California during the time period from October 27,
2007 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant.
Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, civil and statutory
penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges various
violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State
of California Business and Professions Code. On March 28, 2012,
the court entered an Order denying the Company's motion to compel
arbitration. On September 21, 2012, the Company filed a notice of
appeal that is currently pending.


WET SEAL: Settlement of Discrimination Suit Up for Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing was held for a settlement reached in a
suit filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of certain current and former
African American retail store employees of The Wet Seal, Inc.,
according to the company's Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.
2, 2013.

On July 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of certain
of the Company's current and former African American retail store
employees. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint
alleged various violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, including
allegations that the Company engaged in disparate treatment
discrimination of those African American current and former
employees in promotion to management positions and against African
American store management employees with respect to compensation
and termination from 2008 through the present. Plaintiffs also
alleged retaliation. Plaintiffs also sought reinstatement or
instatement of Plaintiffs and class members to their alleged
rightful employment positions, lost pay and benefits allegedly
sustained by Plaintiffs and class members, compensatory damages
for emotional distress, front pay, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, and interest. On May 8, 2013, the Company and Class
Representatives filed papers memorializing an amicable resolution
to the case pending final court approval. The Settlement Agreement
provides for a cash payment of $7.5 million and also includes
programmatic relief under which the Company agrees to post open
positions, implement new selection criteria and interview
protocols, revamp its annual performance reviews and compensation
structure, add regional human resource directors, implement more
diversity and inclusion communications and training for field and
corporate office employees, and enhance its investigations
training and processes. The Company has also reflected its
commitment to use diverse models in its marketing and to
partnerships with organizations dedicated to the advancement and
well-being of African Americans and other diverse groups. On June
12, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
and in June 2013 the Company issued payment to the settlement
administrator for $7.5 million. The final approval hearing was
held on November 18, 2013 and a decision is currently pending.


                             *********

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  * * *