CAR_Public/140219.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 35

                             Headlines


A.M. JENSEN: Recalls Certain Old Cheddar Cheese Products
ALTRA LAWN: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Class Says
AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Solberg's Matrix Benefits Claim Upheld
AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Elliot's Matrix Benefit Claim Affirmed
ARAMARK CORP: Faces Suit in Florida for Failing to Pay Back Wages

BARCLAYS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Forex Manipulation
BOSTON REED: Falsely Advertises Training Programs, Suit Says
CITIGROUP INC: April 28 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Illegally Contacted Class Via Texts, Suit Says
COGENT COMMS: Attempts to Use Misclassification to Avoid OT Suit

CONSOLIDATED EDISON: "Prignoli" Suit May Proceed, But Not as Class
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Accused of Violating TILA and RESPA in Cal.
DELI CROSS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
E&J WELL SERVICE: Sued for Misclassifying Worker as Contractor
ETHICON INC: Canadian Plaintiffs Dropped From Class Suit

FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: 25+ Suits Filed Over Chemical Leak
GALILEE MEMORIAL: Faces $100-Mil. Class Action Over Burial Plots
GARY R. HERBERT: Bid to Appoint Counsel in "Anderson" Case Tossed
GEORGE'S INC: Recalls 1.25MM Lbs. of Frozen Par-Fried Chicken
GREEN4U PRODUCTS: Recalls E-Touch Food Pineapple Short Cake

GULF RESOURCES: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
HUMANA INC: Sued for Jacking Up Premiums
INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Violating Racketeering Act in California
JCORP INC: Recalls Grande Fille Faux-Fur Vest With Neck Drawstring
JCORP INC: Recalls Children's Clothing With Neck Drawstring

JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Attorneys to Appeal Class Action Verdict
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial in Pelvic Mesh Litigation Begins
JPMORGAN CHASE: Places Calls Without Prior Consent, Suit Claims
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Scott" Suit Parties to Proceed to Arbitration
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Bids in Antitrust Suit Denied

M-QUBE INC: Bid for Initial OK of "Cullan" Suit Settlement Denied
MAT INDUSTRIES: Recalls Air Compressors Due to Shock Hazard
MEAT PIES: Recalls The Pie Guy Pies Due to Undeclared Milk, Wheat
MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Florida
NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Removed "Spencer" Class Suit to Maryland
PFIZER INC: Faces "Bellon" Suit in N.D. Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
PRIME SNAX: Recalls 90,000 Lbs. of Beef Jerky Products
QIAGEN INC: Deprived Service Specialists of OT Pay, Suit Claims

R C CONSTRUCTION: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 41,683 Lbs. of Various Meat Products
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Judge Trims Timeshare Program Class Action
SANTA MARIA FOODs: Recalls Whole Boneless Ham Prosciutto
SINCLAIR BROADCASTING: Former Reporter Files Overtime Class Action

SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Faces Class Over Water Supply Contamination
STARBUCKS CORP: Shareholders Seek $2.8-Bil. Over Kraft Dispute
STOCKPOT INC: Recalls 1,864 Cases of Chicken Noodle Soup
SYDNEY, CANADA: Lawyer Files Leave to Appeal Tar Pond Suit Ruling
TOPPITS FOODS: Recalls Swordfish Due to Mercury

TT&C LANDSCAPING: Did Not Properly Pay Worker's OT, Suit Says
TYSON FOODS: Recalls 33,840 Lbs. of Mechanically Separated Chicken
UNFI CANADA: Recalls Schmerling's of Switzerland Chocolate
UNITIL CORP: Class Action Appeal Hearing Scheduled for March 4
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violation

VISONIC LTD: Recalls Amber SelectX Personal Emergency Alarms
WOODFOREST NATIONAL: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $7.75M
YAUK'S SPECIALTY: Recalls 90,000 Lbs. of Various Meat and Poultry


                             *********


A.M. JENSEN: Recalls Certain Old Cheddar Cheese Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           A.M. Jensen Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8601

Affected products:

  Brand Name      Common Name   Size     Code(s) on Product   UPC
  ----------      -----------   ----     ------------------   ---
  Jensen Cheese   Old Cheddar    40 lb      2313.197         None
                   Cheese
  Jensen Cheese   Old Cheddar    Variable   2313.197 and     None
                   Cheese         weight    2313.297
  Jensen Cheese   Old Cheddar    Variable   2313.197
                   Cheese         weight            0 204952908487


ALTRA LAWN: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Class Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Hernandez, 430 Tartan Drive, Middletown, DE 19709, and
Raymundo Correa-Fernandez, 75 Cole Boulevard, Middletown, DE
19709, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and all who have filed or will file consent to suit
forms in this case v. Altra Lawn Care & Landscape Service, Inc.,
2002 North Bancroft Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19806 and Jeff Ritter,
126 Greenbank Road, Perryville, MD 21903, Case No. 1:14-cv-00130-
RDB (D. Md., January 16, 2014) arises out of the Defendants'
deliberate, intentional and willful failure to pay the Plaintiffs
minimum wages and time-and-a-half for overtime wages.

Altra Lawn Care & Landscape Service, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation that regularly performs work and engages in industry
in the state of Maryland.  Jeff Ritter is the president and owner
of Altra.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J. Collins, Esq.
          Christopher Joseph Greaney, Esq.
          KAHN SMITH AND COLLINS, P.A.
          201 North Charles St., 10th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-1010
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8001
          E-mail: fjcollins@kahnsmith.com
                  greaney@kahnsmith.com


AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Solberg's Matrix Benefits Claim Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, NO. 2:16 MD 1203, District Judge
Harvey Bartle, III, affirmed the denial of Courtney J. Solberg's
claim for Matrix Compensation Benefits.

Ms. Solberg, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from the
AHP Settlement Trust. Based on the record developed in the show
cause process, the Court must determine whether claimant has
demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support her claim for
Matrix Compensation Benefits.

Judge Bartle concluded that claimant has not met her burden of
proving that there is a reasonable medical basis for her claim for
Matrix A-1, Level V benefits.  Therefore, the T rust's denial of
Ms. Solberg's claim for Level V Matrix Benefits as well as her
claim for benefits on Matrix A is affirmed.

The ruling relates to SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-20593, (E.D. Penn.)

A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/XamjWtfrom Leagle.com.


AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Elliot's Matrix Benefit Claim Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, NO. 2:16 MD 1203, District Judge
Harvey Bartle, III, affirmed denial of Cynthia L. Elliott's claim
for Matrix Compensation Benefits.

Ms. Elliott, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from the
AHP Settlement Trust. Based on the record developed in the show
cause process, the Court must determine whether claimant has
demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support her claim for
Matrix Compensation Benefits.

Judge Bartle concluded that claimant has not met her burden of
proving that there is a reasonable medical basis for finding that
she had at least mild mitral regurgitation between the
commencement of Diet Drug use and the end of the Screening Period.
Therefore, the Trust's denial of Ms. Elliott's claim for Matrix
B-1, Level III benefits was affirmed.

The ruling relates to SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-20593, (E.D. Penn.)

A copy of the District Court's January 30, 2014 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/JIFAQmfrom Leagle.com.


ARAMARK CORP: Faces Suit in Florida for Failing to Pay Back Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Althea Fayson, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Aramark Corporation, a foreign Profit Corporation, Case No.
6:14-cv-00077-GKS-GJK (M.D. Fla., January 16, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid back
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Aramark Corporation is a foreign profit corporation headquartered
in Orange County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 243-4295
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


BARCLAYS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Forex Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Marriage, writing for The Financial Times, reports that
Barclays, JPMorgan and five other major banks face a growing
number of class action proceedings from US pension funds over
potential losses from alleged foreign exchange manipulation.

The Newport News Employees Retirement Fund filed a class action
complaint against the seven banks, which also include Citigroup,
Deutsche Bank, RBS, HSBC and UBS, claiming that it was "injured as
a result of the [banks'] anti-competitive conduct".

"[The banks] used their knowledge of their clients' forthcoming
transactions to reap enormous profits at their clients' expense,"
the pension fund said.

The banks could be liable for up to $10 billion of damages to the
asset management industry, according to an analyst specializing in
complex financial losses, who asked to remain anonymous.  All
seven banks declined to comment.

The Newport scheme is the sixth pension fund to have filed for
damages over forex fixing since November.

Large investors are increasingly seeking damages from financial
institutions as a global investigation into the alleged rigging of
the $5.3 trillion a day spot market gathers pace.

At least 15 banks are co-operating with regulators in the US,
Asia, Europe and the UK in the investigation, which has so far led
to the suspension or dismissal of more than 20 traders.

PGGM, the large Dutch pension fund, also confirmed that it is
considering taking legal action over forex manipulation.


BOSTON REED: Falsely Advertises Training Programs, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Boston Reed, a profit-seeking chain college advertising the
"most advanced health care training at the lowest available price"
does not teach students basic skills required to be a clinical
medical assistant, a class claims in court.

Angela Clark sued Boston Reed Co. on charges of false advertising,
unfair competition and negligent misrepresentation.

Boston Reed offers 10 classroom programs and six online programs,
including pharmacy technician, clinical medical assistant, dental
assistant and massage therapist.  The private school, which has
more than 60 outlets in California, advertises its programs as
costing $2,750 to $3,045 -- as little as one-tenth the cost of
competitors' tuition, according to the lawsuit.

"In addition, Boston Reed highlights the brevity of its course
work, telling students they can '[g]et trained in as little as 5
months,' allegedly with sufficient 'hands-on training to get you
working fast,'" according to the complaint.

Clark claims she paid $2,845 to enroll in the Boston Reed Clinical
Medical Assistant program, which the school promised would give
her the skills to pass certification exams and get a job.  But she
claims she "was not taught, nor did she learn, the skill of
venipuncture for the purposes of drawing blood, in addition to
other core competencies.  Angela Clark completed the CMA program,
found an externship for herself, and started to work as a clinical
medical assistant extern.  Within a few days of her externship,
Angela Clark was told she did not have the skill set to work as a
clinical medical assistant because she did not know how to draw
blood," according to the complaint.

When Clark called Boston Reed to ask why it did not teach her
venipuncture, the school told her it was not a skill set for
medical assistants, but that she could take a separate class --
for $525 -- to learn the skill, Clark says.

The California Certifying Board for Medical Assistants requires
that applicants who wish to be certified as a medical assistant
with a clinical specialty provide proof of training in
venipuncture, which should be provided by the medical assisting
program from which they graduated, according to the complaint.

But Boston Reed program "does not train students at all, much less
to the required minimum training standards, to draw blood through
venipuncture," Clark says in the lawsuit.

Yet Boston Reed advertises itself as a "comprehensive program"
that provides "certification, competency and preparation,"
according to the complaint.

Clark seeks damages and punitive damages for false advertising,
unfair competition, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and wants Boston Reed enjoined from advertising its clinical
medical assistant program as comprehensive.

Her lead counsel is Abbas Kazerounian, of Costa Mesa.

On its home web page, Boston Reed claims to have 124 outlets
nationwide, "all programs $3,995 or less."

Also on its home page, Boston Reed claims it is "certified,
approved or accredited" by the Better Business Bureau.


CITIGROUP INC: April 28 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Feb. 10 issued the
following statement regarding the Citigroup FA CAP Litigation.

If You Participated in Citigroup's Voluntary FA Capital
Accumulation Program (the "FA CAP") between November 1, 2006
through June 30, 2009, and Received an FA CAP award on January 2,
2007, July 1, 2007, January 2, 2008, July 1, 2008 and/or
January 1, 2009 Then Your Rights May Be Affected and You May Be
Entitled To A Benefit

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the pendency and
settlement of a class action entitled Brecher v. Citigroup Inc.,
No. 09 Civ. 7359 (S.D.N.Y.) (SHS), pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Court has
scheduled a public Settlement Hearing on April 28, 2014, 10 a.m.
at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New
York, Courtroom 23A.

In the action, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 from November 1, 2006
through June 30, 2009 by virtue of certain misstatements and
omissions concerning Citigroup's exposure to various mortgage-
related investments.  Defendants have denied and continue to deny
the claims against them.

In order to resolve the claims against them, Defendants have
agreed to pay the sum of $8,500,000 into a Settlement Fund.  The
Settlement Fund will be distributed to eligible Citigroup FA CAP
participants.

If you are a Member of the Class, you may seek to share in the Net
Settlement Fund by filing a Proof of Claim on or before May 3,
2014.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the settlement website
referenced below.  If you are a Member of the Class but do not
file a Proof of Claim, you will still be bound by the releases set
forth in the settlement agreements if the Court enters an order
approving the settlement agreements.  All objections to the
settlements must be made in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the formal Settlement Notice and must be filed with the
Court and served on the Parties' counsel by March 28, 2014.  The
Court will exclude you from the Class and thereby the settlements
only if you make a written request for exclusion that is received
by the Settlement Administrator (The Garden City Group, Inc.) at
the address below on or before March 28, 2014.

Citigroup FA CAP Litigation c/o GCG P.O. Box 9349 Dublin, OH
43017-4249

A copy of the settlement agreement, the formal Settlement Notice,
Proof of Claim, information on how to object or be excluded from
the Class, and other important documents and information are
available on the settlement website at
http://www.gcginc.com/cases-info/CFA

For additional information, you may also contact the Settlement
Administrator at 1-800-231-1815.


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Illegally Contacted Class Via Texts, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Groves, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00113-JLS-WVG
(S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) arises from the alleged illegal
actions of the Company, in negligently, and willfully contacting
the Plaintiff through "text" messages on his cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Coca-Cola Company is a Delaware corporation with offices in
Atlanta, Georgia, and is registered to do business in California

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          The Palm Canyon Building
          2870 Fourth Avenue, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


COGENT COMMS: Attempts to Use Misclassification to Avoid OT Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
class-action lawsuit was filed against Cogent Communications in
January for failing to pay overtime wages.  The lawsuit, Valverde
v. Cogent Communications, Inc., Case No. 113CV239322, claims that
current and former account managers were in fact managers in name
only -- they were misclassified and therefore didn't meet any of
the exemptions to California overtime pay.  Valverde's lawsuit
claims that so-called account managers are owed overtime wages for
all time  worked in excess of eight hours a day and in excess of
40 hours in any workweek.

Attorney Norman Blumenthal, who filed the class action on behalf
of Christopher Valverde and Account Managers said that "a common
example of misclassification involves an employee who is a
salaried manager with few management duties.  Employers do this in
order to avoid payment of overtime.  Another example is a worker
classified as an independent contractor, but most aspects of their
employment is controlled by the employer in some way."

A similar proposed collective and California overtime class-action
lawsuit was filed in California federal court by a former inside
sales representative against Indeed Inc., a job posting website.
The lawsuit, Rosh v. Indeed, Inc., Court File No. 5:13-cv-03751-
PSG (Northern District of California), claims that "Indeed"
violated both federal and state overtime laws for not paying its
employees overtime pay.  The inside sales reps claim they were
misclassified as exempt salaried employees so that they wouldn't
qualify for California's overtime pay requirements.

Misclassification also happens to hourly employees.  Last December
Solarcity Corporation was slapped with a class-action lawsuit
claiming it failed to pay its non-exempt hourly employees overtime
pay and failed to give uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks, which
is another violation of California labor laws.  The lawsuit,
Irving vs. Solarcity Corporation, Case No. CIV 525975, is
currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court for the
State of California.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: "Prignoli" Suit May Proceed, But Not as Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Donnelly, writing for Staten Island Advance, reports that a
Staten Island lawyer whose Huguenot home lost power for more than
two weeks after Hurricane Sandy can proceed with his half-billion-
dollar lawsuit against Consolidated Edison, but a justice has
zapped his bid for class-action status.

Robert Prignoli alleges Con Edison was woefully unprepared for the
devastating October 2012 superstorm, misled customers about
service restoration and has been "chronically deficient" over the
years.  His suit, filed in state Supreme Court, St. George, two
weeks after Sandy struck, seeks at least $500 million in damages.
It also asked for class-action certification so other beleaguered
customers can join.

In nixing the class-action request, Justice Philip G. Minardo,
said the damages and negligence issues Mr. Prignoli alleges don't
necessarily represent those of other Con Edison customers.  Each
potential claim must be addressed "on a case-by-case basis,"
particularly on the issue of whether Con Edison employees misled
customers regarding the restoration of power, opined the judge.

"While this court does not dispute the claim that nearly 1 million
customers may have lost power as a result of the effects of the
storm in question, it would appear that the delay in restoring
power to an individual customer will depend, at least in part, on
the cause of that particular outage, and may vary greatly among
the members of the purported class," wrote Justice Minardo.

Other issues also come into play, including each customer's
proximity to a flood zone, damages to the substation and power
lines supplying the customer's power, and the length of their
service disruption, said the judge.

"The necessity for this type of inquiry would completely undermine
the purpose of certifying the action," said the judge.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Prignoli vowed to appeal.  He said
the appellate division of state Supreme Court has never ruled on
the issue of bringing a class-action lawsuit against a utility for
gross negligence.

Mr. Prignoli resides on Nicolosi Loop near Raritan Bay.  He
alleges that extended power outages are an annual problem even
though his neighborhood has no overhead power lines.  He has lived
there since 2004.

In 2012, Con Edison workers told him the electric infrastructure
was "old and decrepit," and the utility refuses to spend the cash
to update and replace it, allege his court filings.

According to those documents, Mr. Prignoli lost power for five
days during Hurricane Irene in the summer of 2011.  That turned
out to be a drop in the bucket.

Mr. Prignoli's home was powerless for 17 days after Sandy, despite
sustaining no damage or flooding, said court documents.  Yet most
of his neighbors regained their electricity on Oct. 31, two days
after the storm first stuck, court filings state.

The lawyer alleges Con Edison's ineptitude is destroying the value
of his home and neighborhood.

In seeking class-action status, Mr. Prignoli's court papers said
his goal was to deprive Con Edison of any ill-gotten gains and to
deter irresponsible and illegal conduct on the utility's part.  He
contended a class-action format allows plaintiffs to press their
individual claims as a mass grievance, thereby exerting
psychological pressure on Con Edison and likely achieving a better
outcome.

Mr. Prignoli's papers said a website was being designed to
facilitate claims filing, and he planned to advertise on TV to
educate potential claimants.

Justice Minardo said Mr. Prignoli's long-standing grievances with
Con Edison raised some concern about his ability to best represent
the interests of other potential plaintiffs in a class action.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Accused of Violating TILA and RESPA in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lac T. Hoilien, individual, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc; Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae); Bank of America, N.A.,
and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right,
title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the
complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on
Plaintiffs' title thereto and, does, 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00107-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) is
brought for declaratory judgment, injunctive and equitable relief
in relation to the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Commercial Code, the Truth in Lending Act and the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The Plaintiff, a homeowner, disputes the title and ownership of
the real property in question (the "Home"), in that the
originating mortgage lender, and others alleged to have ownership,
have unlawfully sold, assigned and transferred their ownership and
security interest in a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust related
to the Property, and, thus, do not have lawful ownership or a
security interest in the Plaintiff's Home.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda Z. Voss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS
          100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14,
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (888) 999-4313
          Facsimile: (818) 813-4489
          E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net


DELI CROSS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virgilio Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Deli Cross Enterprises, Inc., Double Tree Cafe Inc. d/b/a Cafe
Olympia, Yeon-Wan Chun, Hye Yung Chu and John Does #1-10, jointly
and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-00324-PKC (S.D.N.Y., January 16,
2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-
of-hours premiums and statutory penalties for notice-and-
recordkeeping violations.

Deli Cross Enterprises, Inc., is a New York domestic business
corporation headquartered in New York City.  Cafe Olympia is a
busy and popular restaurant located in Midtown Manhattan and is
opened 24 hours per day, seven days per week.  Cafe Olympia
regularly conducts foreign credit card transactions and many of
its suppliers are out-of-state vendors making regular shipments to
the restaurant.  Yeon-Wan Chu, Hye Yung Chu and John Does #1-10
are "shareholders" of Double Tree Cafe, Inc. and Deli Cross
Enterprises, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


E&J WELL SERVICE: Sued for Misclassifying Worker as Contractor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan May, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. E & J Well Service, Inc., and Eldon Martin, Case No.
1:14-cv-00121-RBJ (D. Colo., January 16, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff as an independent
contractor and paid him straight time for overtime hours worked.

The Plaintiff is an hourly paid employee, who monitors oil and gas
wells.

E & J Well Service, Inc. is a foreign corporation doing business
throughout the United States, including Colorado.  Eldon Martin is
a resident of Wyoming.  The Defendants are a commercial support
service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


ETHICON INC: Canadian Plaintiffs Dropped From Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: ETHICON, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MASTER FILE NO. 2:12-MD-02327 involves the use of
transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP)
and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).  Out of 40,000 plus cases,
at least three were filed by Canadian plaintiffs. On August 20,
2013, Ethicon Inc. moved to dismiss the Canadian actions based on
forum non conveniens.  Two of the Canadian plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their cases.

In one case, Belanger v. Ethicon, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-
12036, ((S.D. W. Va.), Frances Belanger, a resident of Canada, was
implanted with Ethicon's Gynemesh on June 16, 2005. The
implantation surgery took place at Foothills Medical Centre in
Calgary, Alberta. After the implantation surgery, Ms. Belanger
claims that she "experienced infection, erosion, organ
perforation, pain and extrusion."  On March 20, 2007, Ms. Belanger
underwent revision surgery, "which included a partial vaginectomy,
rectal resection, removal of mesh, laporatomy, anterior resection
and loop ileostomy." On May 22, 2013, Ms. Belanger and her husband
directly filed suit into MDL 2327.

In a January 30, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/3AsbLhfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Joseph R.
Goodwin granted the motion to dismiss the Canadian plaintiffs on
forum non conveniens grounds, provided that:

     A. Ethicon submits to service of process and jurisdiction in
        Canada with respect to this action.

     B. Ethicon will not, in raising any statute of limitations or
        similar defense in Canada, include the period that a suit,
        not barred by a statute of limitations in this country,
        was pending against it in a court of the United States.

Judge Goodwin ordered that Ethicon advise the court of its consent
to these conditions within 14 days of the date of the Order.

The court will dismiss this action only upon timely receipt of
Ethicon's written stipulation, Judge Goodwin added.


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: 25+ Suits Filed Over Chemical Leak
------------------------------------------------------
More than 25 lawsuits, many of them class actions, have been filed
against Freedom Industries, et al. for the chemical leak into the
Elk River in Charleston, in Kanawha County Court, reported
Courthouse News Service.

One of the lawsuits, Vantap, LLC, d/b/a Vandalia Grill, a West
Virginia Limited Liability Company; Georgia Hamra, a West Virginia
Resident; John Sarver, d/b/a Mousie's Car Wash, a West Virginia
Resident; Nitro Car Care Center, LLC., a West Virginia Limited
Liability Company; Carolyn Burdette, a West Virginia Resident;
Colors Salon and Boutique, LLC, a West Virginia Limited Liability
Company; Crystal Goode, a West Virginia Resident; Michael
Manypenny, a West Virginia Resident, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Eastman Chemical Company, a
Delaware corporation; Freedom Industries, LLC, a West Virginia
corporation; West Virginia American Water Corporation, a West
Virginia corporation; and, Gary Southern, a West Virginia
resident, Case No. 2:14-cv-01374 (S.D. W. Va., January 13, 2014),
alleges that on January 9, 2014, about 300,000 West Virginians
lost their water supply after the discovery of a spill of a coal
processing chemical from a facility owned and operated by Freedom
Industries, LLC upstream from the West Virginia-American Water
Corp. water treatment plant. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 11,
2014).

Had Freedom Industries LLC not breached its duties under statutory
and common law, the leak would have never occurred, the Vantap
Plaintiffs allege.  They add that West Virginia American Water
Corp. should have recognized the risk presented by this facility's
presence just upstream from their intake, and should have
determined what chemicals were being used and assessed the risk
they presented to the water supply.

The Vantap Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25661
          Telephone: (304) 235-4006
          Facsimile: (304) 235-4009
          E-mail: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com
                  drbarneywv@gmail.com

               - and -

          Van Bunch, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: vbunch@bffb.com

               - and -

          P. Rodney Jackson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROD JACKSON
          401 5th/3rd Center
          700 Virginia Street East
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (843) 780-6879
          E-mail: prodjackson27@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Michael G. Stag, Esq.
          Sean Cassidy, Esq.
          Stephen H. Wussow, Esq.
          Stuart H. Smith, Esq.
          SMITH STAG
          365 Canal Street, Suite 2850
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 593-9600
          Facsimile: (504) 593-9601
          E-mail: mstag@smithstag.com
                  scassidy@smithstag.com
                  ssmith@smithstag.com

Freedom Industries, LLC is represented in the lawsuit by:

          Stephen L. Thompson, Esq.
          BARTH & THOMPSON
          P. O. Box 129
          Charleston, WV 25321-0129
          Telephone: (304) 342-7111
          Facsimile: (304) 342-6215
          E-mail: sthompson@barth-thompson.com


GALILEE MEMORIAL: Faces $100-Mil. Class Action Over Burial Plots
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accused of losing bodies and stacking bodies on top of one another
in burial plots, Galilee Memorial Gardens cemetery and its owners
now face a $100 million class-action lawsuit, a source told Action
News 5.

The families behind the lawsuit are not only seeking damages from
the cemetery, but also two well-known Memphis funeral homes.  The
complaint filed in chancery court on Feb. 9 says anyone with a
loved one buried at Galilee Memorial Gardens in the past three
years deserves a piece of the $100 million pie.

"What was going on out here was just tragic," said Howard Manis,
who represents the two families who filed the complaint, which
seeks class-action status in a $100 million lawsuit against the
cemetery owners and M.J. Edwards, N.J. Ford, and any other funeral
home that contracted business with Galilee Memorial Gardens after
December 31, 2010.  That is when its business license became
invalid.

"Anyone who buried a body out there after that date was doing it
in violation of state law," said Mr. Manis, who estimates at least
1,000 bodies were buried there in the past three years.

The cost of getting them all proper burials, plus making their
families whole, Mr. Manis says, justifies class-action status and
the damages sought.

"Everyone deserves to be treated in a manner that realizes that
these are family members that are there and that they need
answers," he said.

M.J. Edwards funeral home says the person Action News 5 need to
talk to there is out of town.  N.J. Ford and Sons Funeral Home
says it is just learning about the lawsuit and has no comment at
this time.


GARY R. HERBERT: Bid to Appoint Counsel in "Anderson" Case Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL T. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. GARY R. HERBERT,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-211-RJS-BCW, (D. Utah),
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(B), ruled on these motions:

     -- Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel;
     -- Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery; and
     -- two Motions for Extension of Time filed by Plaintiff.

In a January 30, 2014 Memorandum Decision and Order available at
http://is.gd/ljym6Nfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wells denied
Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel; denied Plaintiff's Motion
for Limited Expedited Discovery; and granted, in part, and denied,
in part, Plaintiff's Motions for Extensions of Time.

"If this case progresses beyond the pending Motions to Dismiss and
it appears that counsel may be needed to assist Plaintiff, the
Court will again consider appointing an attorney to appear pro
bono on Plaintiff's behalf. Accordingly, no further motions for
appointed counsel shall be accepted by the Court," Judge Wells
said.

"The Court finds that a Reply Memorandum for the Motion to Appoint
Counsel and Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery are
unnecessary. However, Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the
issuance of this Order in which to respond to the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss. However, Plaintiff will not be allowed to
amend his Complaint without bringing a formal Motion to Amend.
Lastly, Plaintiff is directed to follow both the local and federal
rules of Civil Procedure for all future motions brought before the
Court," Judge Wells ruled.

This case arose from the Plaintiff's housing situation. The
Plaintiff, a single homeless male who is pro se and proceeding in
forma pauperis, filed his Complaint against various state and
local officials and a local non-profit homeless service provider
alleging discrimination in the disbursement of federal housing
funds for the homeless. To date, Plaintiff has been granted leave
to amend his Complaint twice as his legal theories for relief have
evolved.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants discriminated against
him in their use and disbursement of certain federal funds,
specifically Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) due to his status as
a non-married, non-mentally ill person.  The Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint alleged that the Defendants are discriminating
against single individuals who are homeless and instead giving
homeless families and individuals with mental illness priority for
federal housing funds in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The
Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants' act of disbursing federal
ESG funds to Defendant The Road Home violates the equal protection
and due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution; and that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution has been violated by Defendant's enforcement of Utah
Code Ann. Section 35A-8-602 and sought an injunction precluding
its enforcement.  The Plaintiff requested that counsel be
appointed for himself as well as for a proposed class action.

District Judge Robert J. Shelby referred the case to Judge Wells.


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.


GREEN4U PRODUCTS: Recalls E-Touch Food Pineapple Short Cake
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Green4U Products Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8607

Affected products: 144 g. E-Touch Food Pineapple Short Cake with
all codes where sulphites are not declared in the ingredient list


GULF RESOURCES: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Resources, Inc., a manufacturer of bromine, crude salt and
specialty chemical products in China, on Feb. 10 reported that the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California Western Division entered an Order and Final Judgment
approving the settlement and dismissing the class-action lawsuit
against Gulf Resources and a number of its current directors and
officers.

Under the terms of the settlement, the class-action lawsuit will
be dismissed in return for the payment of a total settlement
amount of $2.125 million, which did not have any effect on the
company's operation due to its purchased D&O insurance.

Mr. Xiaobin Liu, CEO of the Company, commented: "We are pleased to
have reached final approval of the settlement by the Court, which
we believe is in the best interests of the Company and its
shareholders, even there is no admission of any wrongdoing or
admission of any liability on the part of the Company or any of
its current officers or directors.  We look forward to closing
this chapter and focusing on achieving our business goals for year
2014."


HUMANA INC: Sued for Jacking Up Premiums
----------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action claims Humana jacked up its health insurance
premiums to coincide with Obamacare, while failing to give policy
holders a reasonable way to cancel policies.

Lead plaintiff Daniel L. Doyle sued Kentucky-based Humana on
January 21, 2014.  Doyle says he received a letter from Humana in
August stating that his policy would be canceled on Dec. 31, 2013
and replaced with a new one, to coincide with the Affordable
Health Care Act.

The premium for the new policy would be $395.97 a month,
significantly (73%) higher than the $229.30 a month Doyle had been
paying.  Doyle says he received another letter on Oct. 24, 2013
with clarification to the August letter.  He then found a better
policy with another provider and wanted to cancel his policy with
Humana.

"On or about November 20, 2013, Mr. Doyle was notified that he had
new insurance coverage with Blue Cross Blue Shield beginning
December 1, 2013," the complaint states.

"Plaintiff then immediately attempted to contact Humana to cancel
his policy but was unable to reach anyone who could assist him to
cancel.

"Plaintiff again tried to cancel two to three days later.  He
again was unable to reach anyone at Humana who could assist him in
cancelling his policy.

"On numerous occasions, Mr. Doyle unsuccessfully attempted to
cancel his policy by calling the toll-free number listed in the
October 24, 2013 letter.  Whenever Mr. Doyle called the toll-free
number, he encountered an automated call system that would not
enable him to speak to a person.

"Frustrated with the significant hold times and inability to speak
with a human being, Mr. Doyle contacted his Blue Cross
representative, who provided a fax number for Humana which he was
unable to locate on Humana's website.

"On or about November 25, 2013, Mr. Doyle sent a facsimile to
Humana providing Human with written cancellation of his policy.

"Humana refused to respond to Mr. Doyle's written cancellation
request.

"On or about January 7, 2014, Mr. Doyle sent a letter to Humana
enclosing his November 25, 2013 cancellation request.  The letter
also demanded that Humana stop deducting the premium from Mr.
Doyle's checking account and return money taken by Humana after
Mr. Doyle's cancellation request.

"Humana refused to respond to Mr. Doyle's January 7, 2014 letter.

"Plaintiff continued his attempts to call Humana several more
times.  On or about January 10, 2014, plaintiff was, for the first
time, able to speak with an individual after waiting for
approximately 20 minutes.  But after getting through to a
representative, the representative informed plaintiff that the
representative did not have the authority to cancel plaintiff's
policy."

The class consists of all Humana policyholders in the United
States who have been billed for insurance premiums on policies
which were canceled by Humana on or before Dec. 31, 2013 and/or
after the class member tried to cancel the policy.

Doyle seeks class certification, wants Humana enjoined from
continuing its practices, disgorgement of profits from the scheme
and actual and punitive damages for violations of the Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act.

Humana is one of the largest health insurers in the country, with
more than $13 billion in revenue in 2013, according to the
lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS LLC
          1100 Main, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 533-4462


INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Violating Racketeering Act in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lac T. Hoilien, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Indymac Bank, FSB, as the Original
Lender; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Trustee of Indymac
Indx Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR7; Indymac Bank, FSB, as the
Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or
equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property
described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff' title, or any
cloud on Plaintiff' title thereto; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-00108-L-JMA (S.D. Cal., January 16,
2014) alleges violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda Z. Voss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS
          100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14,
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (888) 999-4313
          Facsimile: (818) 813-4489
          E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net


JCORP INC: Recalls Grande Fille Faux-Fur Vest With Neck Drawstring
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 11, 2014
Posting date:             February 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37939

Affected products: Grande Fille brand girl's faux-fur vest with a
neck drawstring sold at L'Aubainerie

The recall involves a girl's black, sleeveless, faux-fur vest,
with a black ribbon at the neck.  The product can be identified by
the model number 3XAA089-22GF.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that drawstrings on children's outerwear can become caught on
playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of vehicles, in the child being
dragged.

No reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this
product have been received by JCorp Inc., L'Aubainerie or Health
Canada.

Approximately 980 units of the recalled product were sold in
Canada.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold from
October 2013 to January 2014 at L'Aubainerie stores.

Companies:

  Importer     JCorp Inc., Division Frenchies
               Montreal
               Quebec
               Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the ribbon from the garment to
eliminate the hazard.  For more information, consumers may contact
Elisabeth Bouchard, JCorp Inc., at 1-514-384-3872.


JCORP INC: Recalls Children's Clothing With Neck Drawstring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 11, 2014
Posting date:             February 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37941

Affected products:
Children's clothing with neck drawstrings sold exclusively at
L'Aubainerie stores under the brand names Best Friends Forever,
Billy Arcade, Fiston, Il 'tait une fois, Moonwalk, Surin and
Voltige

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that drawstrings on children's outerwear can become caught on
playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of vehicles, in the child being
dragged.

No reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this
product have been received by JCorp Inc., L'Aubainerie or Health
Canada.

Approximately 47,400 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
July 2011 to January 2014 at L'Aubainerie stores.

Companies:

  Importer     JCorp Inc., Division Frenchies
               Montreal
               Quebec
               Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
garments to eliminate the hazard.  For more information, consumers
may contact Elisabeth Bouchard, JCorp Inc., at 1-514-384-3872.


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Attorneys to Appeal Class Action Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Calder, writing for The New Orleans Advocate, reports that
attorneys who brought a class-action lawsuit against Jefferson
Parish say they will appeal a 9-3 jury verdict that found the
parish was negligent in its emergency response planning but that
the negligence didn't cause the flooding suffered by tens of
thousands of Jefferson property owners during Hurricane Katrina.

Attorney Richard Martin said the plaintiffs' legal team is still
working out the details and may even go back to Judge John
Peytavin's court with a post-trial motion first, but that an
appeal is a virtual certainty given the mixed verdict returned by
the jury late on Feb. 12.

With an estimated 40,000 flooded homes and businesses and a
verdict the plaintiffs consider contradictory and confusing,
Mr. Martin said, "It's not over."

The suit sought to find the parish, its drainage district, an
insurer and former Parish President Aaron Broussard liable for the
flooding because pump-station operators were evacuated 110 miles
away to Mount Hermon as part of the parish's so-called "doomsday
plan" for dealing with an approaching hurricane.

When the jury left the courtroom to deliberate on Feb. 12, it was
given instructions on the applicable law and a three-page form --
agreed to by both sides -- consisting of 11 yes-or-no questions to
be answered in order.

Certain questions were to be skipped depending on the answer to
the preceding question.  For example, the first question asked
jurors if the flooding "was due directly and exclusively to
natural causes and that no negligent behavior by the defendants
contributed to the harm."

Had the jury answered yes, deliberations would have ended and the
parish would have been completely off the hook.

The fourth question asked whether employees of the parish and its
drainage district acted negligently in "drafting, implementing,
distributing and/or reviewing" the plan, to which the jury
answered "yes."

But the next question asked whether the flooding was caused by
that negligence, and the jury answered "no."

Mr. Martin said the plaintiffs contend that because the jury
decided the flooding wasn't exclusively an act of God, that means
"the hand of man" was at play, and that by finding the parish was
negligent in making Mount Hermon the evacuation point without
proper public review and approval by the Parish Council, the
jury's verdict means the parish has lost the discretionary
immunity that normally covers the actions of public officials.

Public officials enjoy blanket immunity in emergency situations
under state law, which is why Mr. Broussard's actions had to be
found to have amounted to "willful misconduct."  The jury, in
question 10, found his actions during the storm did not meet that
test.

But the parish administration's decision to send pump operators so
far away was made long before Katrina struck, meaning it enjoyed
only discretionary immunity, which the plaintiffs claim was lost
when the parish was found to be negligent in the way it created
the evacuation plan.

As for the jury's decision that the negligence didn't cause the
flooding, Mr. Martin said the plaintiffs read the answer to the
first question as ruling out an act of God as the cause, leaving
only the actions of the parish.

Whatever happens, nothing goes forward until the judge issues a
ruling based on the jury's verdict.  Once that happens, the
plaintiffs have seven business days to file any post-trial motions
in 24th Judicial District Court.

If the plaintiffs don't go that route, or if they do and are
unsuccessful, they have 67 calendar days from the date of the
ruling to file an appeal to the state 5th Circuit Court of Appeal.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial in Pelvic Mesh Litigation Begins
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Lannom, writing for Charleston Daily Mail, reports that one
case in the massive string of litigation against the manufacturers
of pelvic mesh is now underway in Charleston.

Trial began on Feb. 10 in the case brought by women who say the
mesh used to treat stress urinary incontinence led to pain and
permanent injury because of its defective design.

However, attorneys for the companies said the plaintiffs never
complained about problems from the mesh until after they filed the
lawsuit and said the product was not defective.

Carolyn Lewis, Kenneth Lewis, Augistina Brown-Singletary,
Andre Singletary-Smith, Karin Harrison, Robert Harrison, Patricia
Headrick, Darrell Headrick, Katie Uszler, Nick Uszler, Kelly Young
and Kenneth Young originally filed the lawsuit in July 2012 in the
Northern District of Texas.

Ms. Lewis received surgery in 2009, where doctors implanted the
TVT, or transvaginal tape.  The suit alleges because of the
defective design of the product, Ms. Lewis experienced pain when
she emptied her bladder and during sex.

Defendants in the case are Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon Inc.,
Ethicon Women's Health and Urology, Gynecare and American Medical
Systems Inc.  This is the first case against Ethicon.

This case and others later were transferred to the Southern
District of West Virginia as part of larger federal multidistrict
litigation.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin is overseeing the consolidation
of nearly 26,000 similar cases alleging injury from plastic mesh
devices used to treat bladder and other organ weaknesses.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Places Calls Without Prior Consent, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Boutte, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-00300
(N.D. Ill., January 16, 2014) accuses the Defendant of routinely
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing non-
emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers
using an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or
prerecorded voice, without the prior express consent of the
consumers.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., is a national bank based in Chicago,
Illinois.  The Company is the consumer and commercial banking
subsidiary of the multinational banking corporation JPMorgan Chase
& Co.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com
                  mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com
                  jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Scott" Suit Parties to Proceed to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 2013, Laurie Scott filed a class action a captioned
LAURIE SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., and CHASE BANK, USA, N.A., Defendants, NO. 13 CIV. 646
(KPF), (S.D. N.Y.), alleging that the Defendants breached certain
agreements with Plaintiff and other customers by unilaterally
enrolling these customers in an overdraft protection service, and
by assessing unauthorized and unconscionable fees and charges in
connection with this overdraft protection service.

Defendants have moved to stay this litigation in favor of
arbitration.

"Defendants' Motion to Stay This Litigation in Favor of
Arbitration, as modified by the parties' request for dismissal, is
granted," ruled District Judge Katherine Polk Failla in a January
30, 2014 Opinion and Order available at http://is.gd/ZYVUihfrom
Leagle.com.

According to Judge Failla, "[a]lthough the trend in this District
is to stay, rather than dismiss an action, Plaintiff has requested
dismissal for any of Plaintiff's claims that the Court determines
should be arbitrated. . . . Plaintiff asserts that the "the proper
procedural course is to dismiss those claims against the
defendant(s) who successfully argue in favor of arbitration, and
allow the case against the remaining defendants to proceed in this
Court.""

"Because Plaintiff must arbitrate all of her claims against all
Defendants, no claims remain before the Court, and all of
Plaintiff's claims may be dismissed," he added.

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


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Bids in Antitrust Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In In re: Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:12-MD-2343, (E.D. Tenn.), two motions for class certification
were filed:

     -- Plaintiffs Johnson's Village Pharmacy, Inc.; Russell's
        Mr. Discount Drugs, Inc.; Knight Pharmacy, Inc.; and
        Bidwell Pharmacy & Medical Supply, Inc. seek certification
        of an Indirect Purchaser Class (Indirect Purchasers).

     -- Plaintiffs United Food and Commercial Workers Union and
        Midwest Health Benefits Fund; Pirelli Armstrong Retiree
        Medical Benefits Trust; Allied Services Division Welfare
        Fund; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 Health and
        Welfare Fund; Laborers Trust Fund for Northern California;
        and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company seek
        certification of an End Payor Class (End Payors).

Defendants King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Mutual Pharmaceutical
Company, Inc. filed memoranda opposing certification of both
classes, to which both classes replied.

In a January 30, 2014 Memorandum available at http://is.gd/yGKzrM
from Leagle.com, District Judge Curtis L. Collier denied both
motions for class certification.

With respect to End Payors, the Court concluded that they have
failed to demonstrate the proposed class is ascertainable.  "Given
the discrepancy between End Payors' expert's testimony and the
class definition, the Court cannot determine which entities or
individuals are members of the class and which are not. It appears
this determination may require a transaction-by-transaction
inquiry, which would be inconsistent with a class action.
Moreover, even were the Court to consider End Payors' class
definition at face value, recent Supreme Court precedent could
preclude certification. The class definition also poses problems
of typicality and adequacy of representation that counsel against
class treatment," ruled Judge Collier.

With respect to the Indirect Purchasers, the Court concluded they
have failed to make an adequate choice-of-law showing.  "Tennessee
law does not apply to a nationwide class regardless of the fact
that the statute at issue may be available to nonresidents in
certain situations. Moreover, Indirect Purchasers have failed to
contend with Defendants' argument against certification of their
alternative state subclasses. Having failed to meet their burden,
the Court will not grant Indirect Purchasers' class certification
motion," Judge Collier added.

The End Payors have also filed a motion for partial summary
judgment and a motion to strike expert testimony regarding
Defendants's "pass on" defense. Because the Court declined to
certify the class, the Court denied without prejudice these
motions. Individual end-payor plaintiffs may raise these issues in
subsequent dispositive motions particular to the facts and state
law relevant to their respective cases, Judge Collier said.


M-QUBE INC: Bid for Initial OK of "Cullan" Suit Settlement Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CULLAN AND CULLAN LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. M-QUBE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; MOBILE MESSENGER AMERICAS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; CF ENTERPRISES PTY., LTD., an Australian Company; and
JOHN DOES 1-200, Defendants, NO. 8:13CV172, (D. Neb.) is a
putative class action involving an alleged practice known as
"cramming," that is, placing unauthorized, misleading, or
deceptive charges on a consumer's cellphone bill.

The plaintiff law firm is a consumer who is an alleged victim of
this practice. Defendants M-Qube, Inc. and Mobile Messenger
Americas, Inc. are affiliated companies under common ownership and
control. Defendant Mobile Messenger and M-Qube are identified in
the plaintiff's complaint as mobile aggregators and application
providers who act as intermediaries between third-party mobile
content providers (who purportedly "market and sell subscriptions
to a variety of mobile text message services") and wireless
carriers -- they facilitate payment transactions between third-
party companies, consumers, and wireless carriers. Defendant CF
Enterprises, Ltd., owns and operates one such mobile content
provider, CellSafari.com; and John Does 1-200 are "unknown third
party Mobile Content providers" that contract with M-Qube and/or
Mobile Messenger for billing of the products allegedly sold by
John Does 1-200 to the plaintiff and purported class members.

The case is before the court on Richard Geier's motion to
intervene, and on plaintiff Cullan and Cullan, LLC's unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action
settlement. Mr. Geier seeks to intervene for the limited purpose
of objecting to the proposed settlement.

"In light of its timing, the pendency of other actions, the size
of the class, the amount of the settlement and some "red flags"
that could be signs of potential abuse or collusion, the court
finds that the parties' motion for preliminary approval should be
denied at this time," ruled District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon.

Accordingly, Richard Geier's motion to intervene is granted. The
Court further ruled that:

* David Hanson and Kristian Kunder's motion to intervene is denied
  as moot.

* Mr. Geier's objections to the proposed settlement agreement are
  sustained.

* Plaintiff Cullan and Cullan's motion for preliminary approval of
  class action settlement is denied without prejudice.

* The stay of briefing on the pending motions to dismiss or compel
  arbitration is lifted.

* The plaintiff is directed to respond to pending motions within
  two weeks of the date of the order.

* The parties are to brief the issue of whether the action should
  be transferred to the District of Washington under the first-
  filed rule within two weeks of the date of the order; Intervenor
  Geier may respond thereto within one week thereafter.

A copy of the District Court's January 30, 2014 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/2wlL7gfrom Leagle.com.


MAT INDUSTRIES: Recalls Air Compressors Due to Shock Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MAT Industries LLC, of Long Grove, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 100,000 in the United States and 7,000 in Canada
HDX and Powermate two-gallon air compressors.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The terminals of the pressure switch can come into contact with
the motor housing and electrify the air compressors, posing a
shock hazard to consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves HDX and Powermate brand two-gallon electric
air compressors.  Each air compressor has a pair of one-gallon
tanks that are stacked upon each other. The air compressors are
120-volts, have an operating pressure maximum of 100 PSI and air
delivery of .4 SCFM at 90 psi.  The HDX air compressors are gray
with HDX printed in white on the top cylinder.  HDX model
number/sku numbers include VSP0000201. HDX, VSP0000201.HDX1 and
947282, with numeric serial numbers.  The model and serial numbers
are printed on a sticker on the back of the top air compressor
cylinder.  The Powermate air compressors are red with Powermate
printed in white on the top cylinder.  HDX or Powermate
compressors with a letter in the serial numbers are not included.
Powermate model numbers include VSP0000201, VSP0000201.01,
VSP0000201.KIT and VSP0000201.NS with numeric serial numbers.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
Home Depot and online at homedepot.com (HDX air compressors only),
Menards and other stores (Powermate air compressors) nationwide
from June 2010 through October 2013 for between $80 and $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled air
compressors and contact MAT Industries for a free repair.


MEAT PIES: Recalls The Pie Guy Pies Due to Undeclared Milk, Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall
Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Milk,
                          Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Meat Pies Plus
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8610

The food recall warning issued on February 5, 2014 has been
updated to include additional products.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Meat Pies Plus is recalling various pie products from the
marketplace because they contain milk, wheat, and gluten.  People
with an allergy to milk, wheat, or gluten should not consume the
recalled products described.

The products, sold fresh and frozen, have been sold in Ontario.

If you have an allergy to milk, wheat, or gluten, do not consume
the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by CFIA inspection activities.  The CFIA
is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.

Affected products:

  Brand Name    Common Name     Code(s) on Product
  ----------    -----------     ------------------
  The Pie Guy   Turkey Pie       All products where the ingredient
                                 list does not declare milk,
                                 wheat, or gluten
  The Pie Guy   Vegetarian Pie   All products where the ingredient
                                 list does not declare milk,
                                 wheat, or gluten


MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Phillips, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mediacom Communications Corp., Case No.
1:14-cv-01023-JES-JAG (C.D. Ill., January 16, 2014) arises under
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated persons all their earned
overtime wages, and failure to compensate them for all time
worked.

Mediacom Communications Corp. operates a customer service call
center in Chillicothe, Illinois.  The Plaintiff worked for the
Defendant's call center as a customer service representative
between June 2011 and May 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          David E. Stevens, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  dstevens@flsalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          Ashley Choren Workman, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 S Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
                  aworkman@seyfarth.com
                  jriley@seyfarth.com
                  lreasons@seyfarth.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Oberther, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding,
LLC and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-30014-KPN
(D. Mass., January 16, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES
          1100 Summer Street, Fl. 3
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Feb. 10 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, on behalf of all shareholders of
Nicholas Financial, Inc. who held common stock on or before
December 18, 2013, the day the Company agreed to be acquired, in
connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by
Prospect Capital, Inc.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
visit http://www.faruqilaw.com/nick

On December 18, 2013, Nicholas Financial announced that it had
entered into an arrangement agreement under which Prospect Capital
will acquire all outstanding shares of stock of Nicholas
Financial.  Pursuant to the Proposed Transaction, for each share
of Nicholas Financial common stock they currently own Nicholas
Financial's stockholders will receive the number of common shares
of Prospect Capital determined by dividing (i) $16.00 by the (ii)
volume-weighted average price ("VWAP") of Prospect Capital common
stock for the twenty (20) trading days prior to and ending on the
trading day immediately preceding the effective time.  The total
value of the Proposed Transaction is approximately $326 million.

The complaint charges Nicholas Financial, its board of directors,
and Prospect Capital with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and breaches of fiduciary duties for failing to
conduct an adequate and fair sales process prior to agreeing to
the Proposed Transaction.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a national law firm which represents
investors and individuals in class action litigation.  The firm is
focused on providing exemplary legal services in complex
litigation in the areas of securities, shareholder, antitrust and
consumer litigation, throughout all phases of litigation.  The
firm has an experienced trial team which has achieved significant
victories on behalf of the firm's clients.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 11, 2014.  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.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                     (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Removed "Spencer" Class Suit to Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Spencer, et al. v.
Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-21289, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
(Baltimore).  The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-00125-JFM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants engaged in a pervasive
marketing scheme to not only tout the purported benefits of
Cosamin, but the existence of scientific proof backing their
claims.

The Defendants are Maryland corporations headquartered in
Edgewood, Maryland.  The Defendants have advertised, marketed,
provided, offered, distributed, and sold Cosamin DS and Cosamin
ASU throughout the United States, including to individuals in
Florida like the Plaintiffs and the Class.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian T. Ku, Esq.
          Louis Mussman, Esq.
          M. Ryan Casey, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN, PA
          12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite # 406
          Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 891-1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
          E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
                  louis@kumussman.com
                  ryan@kumussman.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Bellon" Suit in N.D. Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Bellon v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00107-JGC (N.D.
Ohio, January 16, 2014) is an action for damages allegedly
suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and
medical practitioners.  Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount
of cholesterol and other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor
is an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class
known as statins.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Knabe, Esq.
          BROWN & SZALLER
          14222 Madison Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 228-7200
          E-mail: knabe@lawandhelp.com

               - and -

          Brad Seidel, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Vic Feazell, Esq.
          Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
          Building C-101
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
                  vic@feazell-tighe.com
                  eleeza@feazell-tighe.com


PRIME SNAX: Recalls 90,000 Lbs. of Beef Jerky Products
------------------------------------------------------
Prime Snax Incorporated, a Salt Lake City, Utah establishment, is
recalling approximately 90,000 pounds of beef jerky products
because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, 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.

The products subject to recall were produced prior to Feb. 2,
2014, and were shipped to retail locations nationwide.  The Beef
Jerky products include:

Arizona Jacks Brand:

   -- 8 oz./24 count packages of "Original"
   -- 3.5 oz./24 count packages of "Peppered Rippled Cut" and
       "Original Rippled Cut"
   -- 6 oz./80 count packages of "Frontier Cuts - Hot," "Frontier
       Cuts - Pepper," and "Frontier Cuts- Original"
   -- 3.25 oz./12 count packages of "Super Giga Hot," "Super Giga
       Original," and "Super Giga Peppered"
   -- 6 oz./30 count packages of "Premium Peppered," "Premium
       Original Strip," and "Premium Teriyaki"
   -- 3.5 oz./30 count packages of "Peppered Thin Cut" and
       "Original Thin Cut"
   -- 7 oz./24 count packages of "Peppered Thin Cut," "Thin Cut,"
       "Original Chunky," and "Peppered Chunky"

Desert Star Brand:

   -- 12 oz./18 count packages of "Desert Star Peppered" and
       "Desert Star Original"
   -- 3 oz. - 3 packages/case with 8 pieces/package of "Desert
       Star Original" and "Desert Star Peppered"

Southwest Trail Brand:

   -- 1 oz. - 6 packages/case with 12 pieces/package of "Southwest
       Trail Original," "Southwest Trail Peppered," "Southwest
       Trail Red Chile," and "Southwest Trail Green Chile"

   -- 3 oz. - 4 packages/case with 12 pieces/package of "Southwest
       Trail Original," "Southwest Trail Peppered," "Southwest
       Trail Red Chile," and "Southwest Trail Green Chile"
       Terrell Brand:

   -- 3.5 oz. "Terrell's Original," "Terrell's Honey BBQ," and
       "Terrell's Pepper" Kettle Creek Brand:

   -- 3.5 oz./12 count packages of "Kettle Creek Original" and
       "Kettle Creek Peppered"

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
18951" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection and a date on the
packages prior to Aug. 11, 2015, in the format of "mm dd yy."

The problem was discovered by an FSIS in-plant inspector during a
label review.  The firm 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 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 Jackie
Pappas at (801) 977-0742. Media with questions about the recall
should contact Zaira Pesantes at (801) 977-0742, ext. 142.

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.


QIAGEN INC: Deprived Service Specialists of OT Pay, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Maag, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. QIAGEN, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00380-CAS-
AGR (C.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) alleges that prior to
January 16, 2014, the date which the Defendant's reclassification
from overtime exempt to non-exempt becomes effective, the
Defendant operated a willful scheme to deprive its field service
specialists, instrument service specialists, and other titles
performing similar duties, of overtime compensation.

QIAGEN, Inc. is a California corporation with a corporate office
in Valencia, California.  The Company is a provider of sample and
assay technologies for molecular diagnostics, applied testing, and
academic and pharmaceutical research.  The Company sells its
products to molecular diagnostics laboratories, academic research
markets, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and customers
in applied testing markets located all over the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: srey@nka.com

               - and -

          Adam William Hansen, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER LLP
          One Embarcadero Center Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 277-7236
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: ahansen@nka.com

               - and -

          Jesse S. Brar, Esq.
          PRESTON & BRAR LLC
          670 E3900 South, Suite 101
          Salt Lake City, UT 84107
          Telephone: (801) 269-9541
          E-mail: jesse@prestonbrar.com

               - and -

          Jason Christopher Marsili, Esq.
          POSNER AND ROSEN LLP
          3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 389-6050
          Facsimile: (213) 389-0663
          E-mail: jmarsili@posner-rosen.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nada I. Shamonki, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO PC
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1370
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-3200
          Facsimile: (310) 586-3202
          E-mail: nshamonki@mintz.com


R C CONSTRUCTION: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Ceballos Camejo and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. R C Construction & Investments, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-20182-UU (S.D. Fla., January 16, 2014) alleges that the
Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

R C Construction & Investments, Inc., is part of joint enterprise
with a company known as Twin City Glass.  The Defendant would
maintain the permits for construction jobs and issue checks for
employees to Twin City Glass for distribution while controlling
Twin City Glass, who in turn controlled the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie 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


RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 41,683 Lbs. of Various Meat Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Rancho Feeding Corporation, a Petaluma, Calif., establishment, is
recalling approximately 41,683 pounds of various meat products
because they were produced without the benefit of full federal
inspection, making them unfit for human food, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

These Rancho Feeding Corporation products are subject to recall:

   "Beef Carcasses"

   -- 50-lb. boxes of "Beef Feet"
   -- 20-lb. boxes of "Beef Oxtail"
   -- 50-lb. boxes of "Beef Hearts"
   -- 60 and 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Liver"
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Cheeks"
   -- 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripe"
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Tongue"

Beef carcasses and boxes bear the establishment number "EST. 527"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  Each box bears the case code
number "ON9O4."  The products were produced Jan. 8, 2014, and
shipped to distribution centers and retail establishments in
California.

The problem was discovered as a result of an ongoing
investigation.  FSIS believes the company produced product without
full ante-mortem inspection as per federal regulations.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness 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 recalled product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the
recall can contact the plant's Quality Control manager, Scott
Parks, at (707) 762-6651.

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.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System
can be accessed 24 hours a day at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Judge Trims Timeshare Program Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge in
Minnesota on Feb. 7 trimmed a putative class action in which
owners of fractional interests in Colorado condominiums accused
the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. LLC of making its resorts less
exclusive, ruling that some of the allegations failed to state a
claim.

Partially granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, U.S.
District Court Judge David S. Doty decided that Ritz-Carlton and
its affiliates were allowed to expand their resort program to
include members in an affiliated Marriott Vacations Worldwide
Corp. plan.

Alleging breach of contract, Steven B. Hoyt and Bradley Hoyt said
that after they bought fractional interests in two condos, Ritz-
Carlton changed its membership terms to allow individuals who
didn't make such purchases to stay at its resorts, thus changing
it into a traditional timeshare program.

The defendants replied that the brothers couldn't state a claim
because the purchase agreements allowed individuals other than
fractional owners to participate, and Judge Doty agreed on Feb. 7.

"The affiliation agreements include provisions relating to
associate members -- those 'having privileges within the
membership program through a separate category of membership' --
[and] provide that such members may, at the discretion of the
defendants, be added in the future."

The Hoyts claimed their 2003 membership agreements obligated them
to buy fractional interests that were marketed as an alternative
to both a second home as well as a traditional timeshare, court
papers said.  They also had to pay condo association fees.

But a portfolio member option introduced in April 2009 allowed
individuals to stay at resorts in exchange for points-based
interests instead, the plaintiffs alleged.  The points could be
used to reserve accommodations at the same properties where the
Hoyts were allowed to stay, and the portfolio members didn't have
to pay condo association dues or fees, either.

The brothers argued that the portfolio option lowered the
secondary market for fractional interests, made the resorts less
exclusive, and limited their ability to reserve time at other
Ritz-Carlton properties.

In July 2012, Ritz-Carlton allegedly announced that it had removed
two resorts from the properties available to membership program
participants and started letting individuals enrolled in a
Marriott vacation club use their points for access to Ritz-Carlton
hotels.

On Feb. 7, Judge Doty dismissed plaintiffs' allegation of breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for failure
to state a claim, ruling that they hadn't alleged that the parties
deferred decisions on the terms of the contract.

Additionally, the judge tossed plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim
after finding that it concerned contractual, not extra-
contractual, matters.

As for the plaintiffs' claims that the defendants committed
consumer fraud under various state laws, the judge said the
plaintiffs hadn't specifically identified who made the allegedly
fraudulent statements or what the supposedly false marketing
statements were.

However, the judge found that a provision allowing the defendants
to add or delete resorts from the membership program was limited
in scope, and that they hadn't sufficiently explained why they
removed the two resorts in question. He thus preserved that breach
of contract claim.

Charles S. Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- of
Zimmerman Reed PLLP, which is representing the Hoyts, told Law360
on Feb. 10 that they were very pleased with the court's Feb. 7
decision, despite the judge nixing some of the putative class
action's claims.

"We look forward to discovery and class certification, and intend
to obtain the full scope of remedies allowed by Judge Doty's order
for our clients and the putative class," he said.

Plaintiffs are represented by Anne T. Regan --
anne.regan@zimmreed.com -- Charles S. Zimmerman and Bradley C.
Buhrow -- Brad.Buhrow@zimmreed.com -- of Zimmerman Reed PLLP.

Defendants are represented by Philip R. Sellinger --
sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP and by Courtney
E. Ward-Reichard -- cward@nilanjohnson.com -- of Nilan Johnson
Lewis PA.

The case is Steven B. Hoyt et al. v. Marriott Vacations Worldwide
Corp. et al., case number 0:12-cv-03093, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.


SANTA MARIA FOODs: Recalls Whole Boneless Ham Prosciutto
--------------------------------------------------------
Santa Maria Foods, a Brampton, Ontario, establishment, is
recalling approximately 2,600 pounds of whole boneless ham
prosciutto product due to possible contamination with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The ham product was shipped to California and Michigan for further
distribution.  Case labels bear the Canadian establishment number
"473A" within the Canadian mark of inspection.  The product
subject to recall includes:

   -- Approximately 50-lb. boxes labeled "PROSCIUTTO x 4 GOLD"
      with the case codes BR031356 or BR031374, produced on
      Nov. 14 and Nov. 15, 2013.  Each box contains 4 individually
      packaged hams with the case codes BR031341 or BR031354.

The problem was discovered by FSIS sampling collected during
routine reinspection.  The sampled product was held, but further
investigation by Santa Maria Foods revealed that additional
potentially implicated product had been released into commerce.
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 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.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Stephanie
Gillis-Paulgaard at 780-863-7754.  Consumers with questions
regarding the recall can contact the company's consumer hotline at
888-886-4428.

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.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System
can be accessed 24 hours a day at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


SINCLAIR BROADCASTING: Former Reporter Files Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Bolt, writing for The Register-Guard, reports that a former
Portland television news reporter is seeking class action status
for a federal lawsuit that accuses the Sinclair Broadcasting Group
of failing to pay overtime to news reporters at its Oregon
television stations, including two in Eugene.

Attorneys for Thom Jensen, who worked at KATU in Portland from
October 2006 to December 2012, filed the suit in U.S. District
Court in Portland.  The suit seeks unspecified damages and asks
the court to certify it as a class action, allowing all employees
or former employees in similar positions to take part.

It is believed that 30 or more individuals could qualify as part
of the class, the suit says.

The stations formerly were owned by Fisher Communications but were
acquired by Sinclair in a $373 million deal announced in April.
The suit also names Fisher as a defendant.

Aaron Baker, the Portland attorney representing Mr. Jensen, said
the class would include people who work for KMTR and KVAL, the two
Eugene television stations acquired by Sinclair from Fisher.
Along with KATU in Portland, they are among the more than 20
stations in six states purchased in the deal.

The suit alleges that reporters such as Mr. Jensen regularly
worked overtime without being paid for it.  Mr. Jensen said he
regularly worked between five and 10 hours of overtime each week.

Also, the lawsuit claims Mr. Jensen has post-traumatic stress
disorder and that the Portland station refused to accommodate his
disability.  The suit alleges Mr. Jensen was fired because of that
disability and in retaliation for complaining about not receiving
overtime pay.

The company also claimed that news reporters fall into a job
classification that is exempt from receiving overtime pay, even
though Mr. Jensen provided documentation to the contrary, the suit
alleges.

The suit charges that Fisher violated state and federal labor
rules, the Americans With Disabilities Act and whistleblower laws.
No trial date has been set.


SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Faces Class Over Water Supply Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Fichera, writing for Philly.com, reports that
Shirley Johnston and Paulsboro's 6,100 other residents are
navigating the latest public health scare -- elevated levels of
perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), used to make plastics and other
materials -- in the borough water supply.

A January advisory from the state Department of Environmental
Protection cautioned residents to use bottled water to feed
children a year old and younger.  But for Ms. Johnston's family,
the notice came a year and 12 days too late.

Her great-grandson Dayvon was born Jan. 5, 2013, and the family
used tap water in his formula, unknowingly giving him a chemical
with uncertain health impacts.  They have since limited his
consumption to bottled water.

News of the contamination spread in 2013, after the Delaware
Riverkeeper Network obtained data from 2009 through open-records
requests.  The DEP sent data to the borough, but officials say
they were not told of any immediate concerns.

Ms. Johnston and her daughter Michelle Morian are among more than
a dozen residents who have filed a lawsuit in Gloucester County
Superior Court against the West Deptford plastics company Solvay
Specialty Polymers, accused of discharging the chemicals.  The
lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, seeks household
filtration systems and medical monitoring for residents.

Solvay said it stopped using PFCs in 2010 and denied any
liability.  It has offered bottled water to families with children
younger than a year old, and maintains it is working with the
borough.

With science still emerging on PFCs, including the specific one in
Paulsboro -- perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) -- residents are
worried about its possible effects: dry skin, sickly pets, even
cancer.  The contamination is the latest blow to this industrial
borough on the Delaware River where 29 percent of the population
lives below the poverty line.  It follows numerous oil-release
concerns and the high-profile train derailment that leaked toxic
vinyl chloride in 2012.

The borough uses the water because the filtration system of
another well is being upgraded to account for naturally occurring
radium, a regulated contaminant.

In its advisory to Paulsboro, the DEP said it was not aware of any
studies "that have directly linked consumption of water with PFNAs
with human health effects."

There are no regulations covering PFC levels in water, but the
level for PFNA is about four times the state's "guidance level"
for PFOA.

The panel charged with recommending appropriate maximum
contaminant levels to the DEP, the Drinking Water Quality
Institute, has been dormant for four years since its last
chairman, Mark Robson, stepped down.

At its last meeting in 2010, the health effects subcommittee had
reported making progress in determining a maximum number for PFOA.

Perry Cohn, a retired state Department of Health researcher who
was an ex-officio panel member, said that in the panel's final
months, chemical company representatives had sought more influence
on the board, attending meetings frequently.  He said the board
had considered the companies' input during public comment.

But at some point, DEP officials were told they were not "allowed
to work with institute activities any further," Mr. Cohn said.  He
did not know who gave the order.

Environmental advocates have blamed the Christie administration
for the institute's silence, but the DEP has cited the members'
departures.

A recent bill sponsored by Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli, a
former Paulsboro mayor, would add three industry members to the
institute.

Environmentalists argue it would bring conflicts of interest and
say the bill would weaken the panel's procedure for determining
contaminant levels.

Even without PFNA water standards, treatment may be on the
horizon: The DEP is working toward establishing groundwater
cleanup criteria for PFNA that would create a remediation
standard, a spokesman said on Feb. 7.

In the meantime, Paulsboro residents hope the lawsuit will bring
respite, namely for their children.


STARBUCKS CORP: Shareholders Seek $2.8-Bil. Over Kraft Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reported that Starbucks
mishandled a coffee distribution dispute with Kraft, costing the
company billions of dollars when an arbitrator dealt a "crushing
blow" awarding Kraft $2.8 billion in damages, shareholders claims
in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Mary Davis claims Starbucks' board of directors and
executive officers breached their fiduciary duties and "grossly
understated the impact of the contract breach in the company's
financial filings with the SEC."  Starbucks expanded its
distribution agreement with Kraft in 2004, but "caused or
permitted the company to blatantly breach the agreement" in 2010,
according to the complaint in King County Court.

Kraft subsequently sued Starbucks in Federal Court and pursuant to
arbitration.  The federal lawsuit was quickly resolved, but the
arbitration proceedings "dragged on for years," according to the
complaint.

"On November 12, 2013, in a crushing blow which severely harmed
the company, the arbitrator found in favor of Kraft and against
Starbucks, awarding Kraft damages of nearly $2.8 billion ($2.23
billion in damages for terminating the Agreement, plus $527
million in prejudgment interest and attorneys ' fees).
Significantly, this award represented more than the $2.6 billion
in cash and cash equivalents defendants had reported on Starbucks'
balance sheet on September 29, 2013."  (Parentheses in complaint.)

The award "eviscerated" stellar financial results that had been
announced less than two weeks earlier and dropped the 2013 profit
to "a dismal" penny a share, according to the complaint.

Starbucks Chief Financial Officer Troy Alstead said in a
statement: "We are pleased the arbitration has ended; however, we
strongly disagree with the arbitrator's conclusion and that Kraft
is entitled to $2.23 billion in damages plus $527 million in
prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees.  We believe Kraft did
not deliver on its responsibilities to our brand under the
agreement, the performance of the business suffered as a result,
and that we had a right to terminate the agreement without payment
to Kraft."

Alstead said Starbucks had "adequate liquidity" to pay the $2.8
billion, which would be booked as a charge to 2013 operating
expenses.

Director defendants, in addition to Alstead, include former
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Facebook COO Sheryl
Sandberg.

For the class, Davis seeks $2.8 billion in damages from the
officers and directors, and Starbucks bylaws amended to strengthen
oversight of operations and greater shareholder input.  She also
seeks disgorgement of all the defendants' compensation, profits
and other benefits for the period at issue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR
          627 208th Ave SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074
          Telephone: (425) 868-7813
          Facsimile: (425) 868-7870


STOCKPOT INC: Recalls 1,864 Cases of Chicken Noodle Soup
--------------------------------------------------------
StockPot, Inc., an Everett, Wash. establishment, is recalling
1,864 cases (approximately 22,368 pounds) of chicken noodle soup
due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen.  The Classic
Chicken Noodle Soup product is formulated with wheat, a known
allergen.  However, the product was released with a Loaded Baked
Potato Style Soup side label, which does not declare this
allergen.

The product subject to recall includes:

   -- 24-oz. plastic tub of Wholesome@Home "Classic Chicken Noodle
      Soup."  The establishment number "P-18235" is located on the
      label on the lid.

The products were produced on Oct. 25 and 26, 2013, with a use-by
date of Feb. 17 and 18, 2014.  The product was shipped to
distribution centers in the following states: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Indiana, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington.  The
product was sold at retail only.

The problem was reported by a supermarket employee who noticed the
labeling error while stocking shelves.  The problem occurred when
a subset of the labels provided by the label printing company were
assembled incorrectly.  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 ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Susan
Baranowsky at 1-866-270-9303.  Media with questions about the
recall should contact Carla Burigatto, a company media contact, at
856-342-3737.

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.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System
can be accessed 24 hours a day at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


SYDNEY, CANADA: Lawyer Files Leave to Appeal Tar Pond Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy King, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that the lawyer
behind a class-action lawsuit against the provincial and federal
governments related to contamination spewed into the environment
by a century of steelmaking in Sydney is not giving up the fight.

While in December the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal threw out the
certification of the class-action lawsuit, Ray Wagner said he is
working on two measures that could keep the action before the
courts.  They have applied for an extension of the 60-day period
to file leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"We haven't heard back yet whether they're going to grant that or
not, although it's not being opposed," Mr. Wagner said.

They are also asking the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal for a
reconsideration of its decision, in light of a subsequent Supreme
Court of Canada decision that dealt with the question of preferred
procedure.

The court found that, in that instance, it would lead to
certifying the case.  Another recent Supreme Court of Canada
decision dealt with common issues, Mr. Wagner said, noting that
was one of the concerns raised by the Court of Appeal.  The
country's highest court leaned heavily toward access to justice
and allowing claims to proceed to answer a common issue in a class
proceeding, he said.

The court found that, even if issues are different, if they are
not in conflict, the action should proceed.

As far as the extension for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
of Canada goes, Mr. Wagner said he expects that should be granted.

About 400 people to date have signed on to the lawsuit.

The appeals court overturned the certification by a Nova Scotia
Supreme Court justice in 2011, ruling that there are too few
common issues uniting the plaintiffs.

"There are too many differences among the class members to make
the certified common issues common to all of the class members,"
the appeals court panel wrote.  "There is no reason to believe any
contaminants emitted by the appellants were distributed evenly
across the geographical area, or during the time period specified
in the action."

Mr. Wagner has said he believes it is a case of national
significance, important for people across the country as far as
environmental class actions are concerned.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation and a medical monitoring
fund for contamination resulting from the operation of the steel
plant between 1967 and 2000.  There is no demand for personal
injury compensation.

None of the plaintiffs' claims have yet been proven in court.


TOPPITS FOODS: Recalls Swordfish Due to Mercury
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Toppits Foods Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8604

Affected products: Swordfish in variable weight


TT&C LANDSCAPING: Did Not Properly Pay Worker's OT, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Armstrong, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. TT&C Landscaping, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
Case No. 6:14-cv-00075-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla., January 16, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week
but was not properly paid by the Defendant at the statutory rate
of one and one-half times his regular rate for those hours worked
above 40.

TT&C Landscaping, Inc., is a Florida profit corporation
headquartered in Orange County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 243-4295
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


TYSON FOODS: Recalls 33,840 Lbs. of Mechanically Separated Chicken
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. a Sedalia, Mo., establishment, is recalling
approximately 33,840 pounds of mechanically separated chicken
products that may be contaminated with a Salmonella Heidelberg
strain, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The mechanically separated chicken products were produced on
Oct. 11, 2013.  These products are subject to recall:

   -- 40-lb. cases, containing four, 10-lb. chubs of "TYSON
      MECHANICALLY SEPARATED CHICKEN."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"P-13556" inside the USDA mark of inspection with case code
2843SDL1412 - 18.  These products were shipped for institutional
use only, nationwide.  The product is not available for consumer
purchase in retail stores.

FSIS was notified of a Salmonella Heidelberg cluster of illnesses
on Dec. 12, 2013.  Working in conjunction with the Tennessee
Department of Health (TDH), FSIS determined that there is a link
between the mechanically separated chicken products from Tyson
Foods and the illness cluster in a Tennessee correctional
facility.  Based on epidemiological and traceback investigations,
seven case-patients at the facility have been identified with
illnesses, with two resulting in hospitalization.  Illness onset
dates range from Nov. 29, 2013 to Dec. 5, 2013.  FSIS continues to
work with TDH on this investigation and will provide updated
information as it becomes available.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses.  The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are
diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after
eating the contaminated product.  The illness usually lasts 4 to 7
days.  Most people recover without treatment.  In some persons,
however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to
be hospitalized.  Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened
immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.
Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health
care provider.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume poultry
products that has been cooked to a temperature of 165 Fahrenheit.
The only way to confirm that poultry products are cooked to a
temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food
thermometer that measures internal temperature,
http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Tyson
Foods' consumer relations department at 866-886-8456.  Media with
questions should contact Worth Sparkman, Tyson Foods' public
relations manager, at 479-290-6358.

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.


UNFI CANADA: Recalls Schmerling's of Switzerland Chocolate
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           UNFI Canada Central Region
Distribution:             British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8594

Affected products: 100 g. Schmerling's of Switzerland 72% Cocoa
Finest Bittersweet Swiss Chocolate with 07-2014 SAD 14:36 code


UNITIL CORP: Class Action Appeal Hearing Scheduled for March 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hartwell, writing for Sentinel Enterprise News, reports
that an effort to move forward with the class-action lawsuit
against Unitil Corp. will be heard in the Supreme Judicial Court
next month, taking the form of an appeal to last year's
certification denial.

The lawsuit alleges gross negligence in the utility company's
response to the December 2008 ice storm and has previously worked
its way through Worcester Superior Court.  It was filed by the
Fitchburg law firm Bonville & Howard and represents more than a
dozen named local residents, including Cathy Clark, a founder of
the Get Rid of Unitil campaign.

The Supreme Judicial Court will begin proceedings at 9:00 a.m. on
March 4 in Boston.

Certification for this lawsuit was denied in Worcester Superior
Court last in January 2013 and Clark and her fellow plaintiffs are
appealing that decision.

Unitil is also appealing a ruling.  The plaintiffs' suit requested
that Unitil be removed as the utility to the communities of Ashby,
Fitchburg, Lunenburg and Townsend, with no recommendation to what
would replace the company.

Unitil lawyers wanted that request removed from the lawsuit, but
were denied.  Unitil's appeal to that decision will also be part
of the Supreme Judicial Court proceedings next month.


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that a patient of the
University of Miami's health care system filed a putative class
action in Florida federal court on Feb. 7 alleging the institution
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and made her susceptible to
identity theft by failing to protect her personally identifiable
information from a data breach.

Lead plaintiff Joan Carsten says in the complaint that
unauthorized access of the school's computer storage systems --
which contained sensitive information including names, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, billing information and
confidential health records -- occurred between six to nine months
ago.

Ms. Carsten says the university discovered that the information,
which was maintained by an offsite storage vendor, had been
breached sometime last summer but did not inform patients until
months later, placing them at "grave risk" of identity theft and
other potential fraud.

"Plaintiff and class members have suffered irreparable damage and
will continue to suffer damages from the misuse of their
[personally identifiable information]," the complaint states.  "As
a proximate result of the unauthorized access, plaintiff and class
members have had their personally identifiable information
compromised, their privacy invaded, have incurred or will incur
out-of-pocket costs and have otherwise suffered economic damages."

According to the complaint, the university sent the confidential
records of the plaintiff and putative class members to a third-
party offsite records vendor without their knowledge or consent
and without securing them to prevent unauthorized access.  The
school sent a letter dated Feb. 3, 2014, to notify Ms. Carsten and
the putative class members of the data breach but did not explain
its delay in notification, the complaint says.

The complaint alleges that employees of the outside vendor and
others gained unrestricted access to the patients' personally
identifiable information, which was misused and intentionally
disclosed to third parties for profit.  Ms. Carsten says
unauthorized purchases from her bank account occurred as a result
of the breach.

The proposed class -- which the complaint estimates to be in the
thousands -- includes all Miami University patients throughout the
United States who had their personal information breached.

The complaint brings counts of negligence, a willful violation and
a negligent violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and
violations of the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

The plaintiffs are represented by John A. Yanchunis of Morgan &
Morgan PA.

The case is Joan Carsten v. University of Miami, case number 1:14-
cv-20497, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


VISONIC LTD: Recalls Amber SelectX Personal Emergency Alarms
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 12, 2014
Posting date:             February 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37955

Affected products: Visonic Amber SelectX Personal Emergency
Response System Kits

The recall involves two models of Amber SelectX Personal Emergency
Alarms manufactured by Visonic Ltd.  Each unit has an external
label on the back of the base station with the "Amber SelectX"
product name and serial number included.  The base station is
white in colour, rectangular and measures about 23 centimetres
wide by 18 centimetres deep by 5 centimetres high with emergency,
call and check buttons.

The models and serial numbers affected are:

  Product            Model Number      Serial Number Range
  -------            ------------      -------------------
  Amber SelectX -     0-100729      1612002383 through 5012060949
   English version
  Amber SelectX -     0-101050      2512063171 through 4012007077
   French version

The first four digits of the serial number represent manufacture
dates April 2012 through December 2012 in WWYY format.  The first
two digits are week of manufacture and the second two numbers are
the year of manufacture.  For example serial number 2312 600299
indicates a manufacturing date of the 23rd week of 2012 or roughly
June 2012.  Each unit has an external label on the back of the
base station, with the product name and serial number.

Amber base stations previously recalled due to a different
problem, also had catalog number 0-100729 and serial numbers
2508047097 through 3013079614.

Following a reboot or system reset, the Amber SelectX Base
Stations can fail to operate and detect an emergency signal from
the personal pendant.

Neither Health Canada nor Visonic Ltd. has received any reports of
incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these
alarms.

Approximately 502 units were sold in Canada and approximately
1,731 units were sold in the United States through Visonic
distributors and professional alarm installation firms nationwide.

The recalled alarms were manufactured in Israel and sold between
April 2012 and April 2013 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Visonic Ltd.
                   Tel Aviv
                   Israel

  Distributor      Aartech Canada
                   Oshawa
                   Ontario
                   Canada

  Distributor      Aatel Communications
                   Hamilton
                   Ontario
                   Canada

  Distributor      ADI Canada
                   Mississauga
                   Ontario
                   Canada

  Distributor      Anixter Inc.
                   Mississauga
                   Ontario
                   Canada

  Distributor      KR Communications Ltd.
                   Plattsville
                   Ontario
                   Canada

  Distributor      Revision Security
                   Montreal
                   Quebec
                   Canada

  Distributor      Tri-Ed Distribution Inc.
                   Mississauga
                   Ontario
                   Canada

  Distributor      Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd.
                   Concord
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should contact their system installer immediately or a
Visonic alarm installation professional to replace the recalled
base station with a new unit.


WOODFOREST NATIONAL: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $7.75M
------------------------------------------------------------------
A $7.75 million Settlement has been reached in a class action
lawsuit claiming that Woodforest National Bank and Woodforest Bank
(collectively, Woodforest) improperly assessed excessive overdraft
fees, including through the posting of debit card transactions to
customer accounts in an order that increased the number of
overdraft fees charged to account holders.  Woodforest maintains
that there was nothing wrong about the posting process used. The
Court has not decided which side is right.

Whos Included?

The Settlement includes anyone who:

- Had a Woodforest deposit account that was accessible with a
Woodforest debit card from January 11, 1997 through the date of
Preliminary Approval for Kentucky and Ohio Class Members, from
January 11, 2002 through the date of Preliminary Approval for
Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, and West Virginia Class Members,
from January 11, 2006 through the date of Preliminary Approval for
Alabama, Georgia, and New York Class Members, from January 11,
2007 through the date of Preliminary Approval for Florida
and Virginia Class Members, from January 11, 2008 through the date
of Preliminary Approval for Pennsylvania and Texas Class Members,
and from January 11, 2009 through the date of Preliminary Approval
for Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina
Class Members, and Was charged one or more overdraft fees as a
result of Woodforests practice of re-sequencing debit card
transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount, which resulted
in the assessment of additional overdraft fees that would not have
been assessed if Woodforest had used other posting, sequencing, or
processing methods.

What are the Settlement Terms?

Woodforest has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of $7.75
million that will provide payments to eligible
Settlement Class Members. The amount any individual
Settlement Class Member will receive cannot be determined at this
time.  Payments will be based on the number of people in the
Settlement Class and the amount of additional overdraft fees each
Settlement Class Member paid as a result of Woodforests practices.
Woodforest has agreed to pay costs associated with administering
the Settlement.

How to Get a Payment?

You will automatically receive a mailed check or electronic
payment to your Woodforest account based on the number of eligible
overdraft fees you paid during the Class Period.

Your Rights May Be Affected.

If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
ask (in writing) to be excluded from the Settlement Class by
April 21, 2014. If you do not exclude yourself, you will release
claims that were or could have been made against Woodforest.  If
you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlement
by April 21, 2014.  The Court has scheduled a hearing on May 19,
2014 at 10:30 a.m. to consider whether to approve the Settlement
and a request for attorneys fees, of up to 33.33 percent of the
$7.75 million Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and
expenses, and service awards to the two Class Representatives. You
can appear at the hearing, but you don't have to.  You can hire
your own attorney, at your own expense, to appear or speak
for you at the hearing. You can call the toll-free number or visit
the website to learn more about how to exclude yourself from or
object to the Settlement.  A complete copy of the Settlement
Agreement can be viewed on the website.

For more information: www.WoodforestOverdraftSettlement.com,
1-866-880-0214, or Woodforest Overdraft Settlement, PO Box 3097,
Faribault MN 55021-2697


YAUK'S SPECIALTY: Recalls 90,000 Lbs. of Various Meat and Poultry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yauk's Specialty Meats, a Windsor, Colo., establishment, is
recalling approximately 90,000 pounds of various meat and poultry
products that were produced under insanitary conditions, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall includes:

   -- "Colorado Best Beef" brand various fresh, smoked and shelf-
       stable meat products.

   -- "James Ranch" brand jerky and summer sausage.

   -- "Rocky Plains Meats" brand hams, bacon, raw and smoked
      sausage, jerky and raw poultry.

   -- "John Long Farms" brand fresh and smoked pork products.

   -- "Horned Beef" brand jerky.

   -- "Mile High Hungarian Sausage" brand fresh and smoked bacon
       and sausage.

All products being recalled are packaged in retail-ready packaging
of various sizes.  Each package bears the establishment number
"Est. 20309" or "P-20309" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection.  The
products were produced between April 1, 2013, and Dec. 5, 2013 and
can be identified by four-digit Julian dates ranging between 3091
and 3339.  The products were sold at the wholesale and retail
level in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

FSIS began a food safety assessment at the plant on Dec. 5, 2013,
and discovered that product was being produced under insanitary
conditions, including rodent activity in the production, storage
and retail areas of the property.  FSIS has suspended the
assignment of inspectors at the establishment, and the
investigation is ongoing.  FSIS and the establishment have
received no reports of illness due to consumption of these
products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a
healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Wayne Yauk at 970-686-9080 .

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.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System
can be accessed 24 hours a day at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


                             *********

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  * * *