CAR_Public/140225.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 39

                             Headlines


23ANDME INC: Health Kit Not Scientifically Tested, Suit Claims
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Declaratory Judgment Suit May Proceed as Class
ANGEL DEL TORRO: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act
BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Tosses Remaining Appeals to Medical Pact

BRAVE BUILDERS: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages
BSH HOME: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling
BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act
CATHAY PACIFIC: Settles Freight Shipping Price-Fixing Class Action
DEX MEDIA: Accord in Shareholder Suit v. Officers Approved

DEX MEDIA: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in Retirees Suit
DEX MEDIA: 5th Cir. Won't Revisit Dismissal of ERISA Suit
DEX MEDIA: Faces Class Suit Over FLSA Violations in Dallas
DEX MEDIA: Own Class Suit to Amend Retiree Benefits Still Pending
ETHAN ALLEN: Client Services Specialist Seeks to Recover Overtime

EXPRESS CATERING: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
FERRELL ELECTRIC: Refuses to Pay Straight Time and OT, Suit Claims
FITBIT INC: Recalls Fitness-Tracking Bracelet Due to Allergies
FOODFEST INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bittersweet Chocolate
FTD COMPANIES: Motion to Junk Kelm, Miller Suits Pending

FTD COMPANIES: "Frank" Plaintiff Seeks to Consolidate Lawsuit
GEICO INDEMNITY: Suit Seeks Payment of Vehicle's Value Diminution
GENERAL CASUALTY: Faces "Cowart" Class Suit Over Insurance Claims
GEO CARE: Fails to Pay Required Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
GORAJSKI ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says

GULFSTREAM PARK: Sued by Poker Dealer Over FLSA Violations
HCC-HIGH CAPACITY: Coil Tubing Operators Seek to Recover Wages
HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Sued by Nurses for Failing to Pay Overtime
HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York
HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 1,760 Motorcycles Due to Crash Risk

INFANTINO LLC: Recalls Teething Toys Due to Choking Hazard
JACK RABBIT: Reduced Wages Through Unlawful Deductions, Suit Says
KERYX BIOPHARMA: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Perifosine Drug
KIRKENDOLL MGMT: Misclassified Dancers as Contractors, Suit Says
KROGER CO: POS Devices Not Fully Accessible by Blind, Suit Claims

LA TANS: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime Compensation, Suit Says
MAGID BROTHERS: Recalls Club Supreme Snack Foods
MICHAELS INT'L: Sued by Dancer Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
MICHAELS STORES: Faces "Moyer" Data Breach Class Action in Ill.
NEW WORLD: Recalls Master Kong Noodles Due to Undeclared Egg

NEIMAN MARCUS: Files Motion to Dismiss Malware Class Action
OH GREEN: Recalls Almond Powder Due to Undeclared Milk
OH GREEN: Recalls Ferme Sunshine Drink Mix Due to Undeclared Milk
OH GREEN: Recalls Black Cereal Beverage Powder
OH GREEN: Recalls Almond Powder Due to Undeclared Milk

PAA NATURAL: Faces Suits Over Merger With Plains All American
PFIZER INC: Faces "Delseno" Class Suit in Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Faces "Saddler" Suit Over Design and Label of Lipitor
POLARIS: Recalls UTV's Due to Damaged Throttle Cable Routing
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Attorney Bound by Terms of $14MM Settlement

RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8MM Lbs. of Processed Diseased Animals
RAWSON-NEAL: Judge Dismisses "Patient Dumping" Class Action
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Suits Over Municipal Bonds in Early Stages
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suit by Select Fund Investors
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Alabama Stock Suit Stayed Pending Review

SAMSUNG C&T: Recalls Girl's Jacket Due to Strangulation Hazard
SANTA MARIA FOODS: Recalls 8,895 Lbs. of Various Meat Products
SEARS ROEBUCK: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Over Merger Settled, Dismissed
STERLING ROPE: Recalls Sewn Cords Due to Fall Hazard

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $11.8M
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Overdraft Fees Suit in Discovery Phase
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Court Jurisdiction at Issue in "Griner" Suit
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Dismissal of "Wilder" Action Sought
UNITED STATES: Bruce Fein Debunks Class Action Plagiarism Issue

VONAGE HOLDINGS: "Merkin et al" Suit Sent to Negotiating Table
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling
XTREME DRILLING: Tubing Operator Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages
ZILLOW INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Wash. Securities Lawsuit


                             *********


23ANDME INC: Health Kit Not Scientifically Tested, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vernon Stanton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 23andMe, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00294-LHK (N.D. Cal.,
January 20, 2014) is a consumer class action brought on behalf of
all persons and entities in the United States, who have purchased
23's Personal Genome Service to find out about their genetics-
related health problems.

23andMe, Inc. is a privately held Delaware Corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Mountain View,
Santa Clara County, California.  23 sells the Health Kit through
its Web site, http://www.23andme.com/and third party vendors,
such as Amazon.com.  When one of 23's customers purchase any PGS,
including the Health Kit, 23 sends the customer a DNA Collection
Kit, which includes a saliva swab.  The customer uses the swab to
collect a saliva sample, places the swab back in the DNA Kit, and
mails the Kit to 23.  23 then purportedly runs a series of
scientific analyses on the DNA contained in the saliva sample.
23 asserts that this analysis can provide its customers with
accurate information about their genetic predisposition to a range
of health factors such as coronary artery disease and arthritis.

Though 23's claims are designed to sound scientific, they are not
in fact based on any scientific testing, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Company provides no clinical data
to establish that its Health Kit is accurate, reliable, or safe
for its advertised use.  The Plaintiff adds that 23 failed to
obtain the necessary authorization from the Food and Drug
Administration to market, promote, and advertise the Health Kit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
          Dana M. Isaac, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  jmann@audetlaw.com
                  disaac@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Shane Rowley, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Matthew Rand, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: srowley@zlk.com
                  nkulesa@zlk.com
                  mrand@zlk.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Declaratory Judgment Suit May Proceed as Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that an Eleventh
Circuit panel on Feb. 14 ruled that the federal Class Action
Fairness Act's $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement could
be satisfied even if plaintiffs only seek declaratory judgment,
granting federal jurisdiction to a putative class action claiming
Allstate Insurance Co. underpaid a Florida health center.

Circuit Judge Ed Carnes, writing for a unanimous panel, reversed a
district court's decision and held that South Florida Wellness
Center Inc.'s request for declaratory judgment was enough because
if granted, the judgment could allow members of the proposed class
to recover far more than $5 million.

Wellness argued that even if its suit succeeded, and a court ruled
that Allstate underpaid millions of bills, patients would still
have several steps to take before they could recover money and
that Allstate's damages estimate was too speculative.  But the
panel ruled that if there was money to be gained, patients would
likely seek claims against Allstate.

"Wellness' speculation argument is itself too speculative," the
opinion said.  "Although the putative class members might have to
take an extra step or two after obtaining declaratory relief to
get money from Allstate, that does not mean that determining that
the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million is too speculative of
a task."

Wellness' suit asked for a ruling that Allstate's personal injury
protection plans did not clearly indicate Allstate was opting out
of a Florida requirement that insurance companies pay 80 percent
of reasonable medical expenses.  Wellness, which sought recovery
after treating a car crash victim insured by Allstate, claims the
insurance company only agreed to pay 80 percent of some expenses
because its personal injury protection plans paid based on a
statutory fee schedule.

Allstate removed the suit to federal court after claiming that it
would have paid an additional $70 million, had it not limited its
plans, and that the proposed class would be eligible to recover
those benefits if they received declaratory judgment.  Wellness
countered that the calculation was speculative because it assumed
the members would seek recovery of the benefits and that their
claims would not be rejected.

But the panel ruled that Wellness' assumption that the class
members would turn down the chance to recover benefits was
"contrary to human nature and the issue of lawyers."

The court also found that given the large sum of money at stake,
even if many of Wellness' contingency theories were realized, it
was likely that there would still be more than $5 million at
stake.

An attorney for Wellness told Law360 the opinion was "completely
wrong" and that a potential declaratory judgment would only create
the possibility that Allstate would be sued.

"Allstate could still take the position that the amounts paid were
reasonable and that determination would have to be made in every
individual case," Lawrence M. Kopelman of Kopelman & Blankman PA
said.  "If a declaratory judgment would establish an insufficiency
of payment, this action would certainly have included a claim for
classwide damages."

Circuit Judges Ed Carnes, Stanley Marcus and William H. Pryor Jr.
sat on the panel that reached Friday's decision.

Wellness is represented by Lawrence M. Kopelman of Kopelman &
Blankman PA and Harvey D. Ginsberg.

Allstate is represented by Douglas G. Brehm -- dbrehm@shutts.com
-- and Suzanne Youmans Labrit -- slabrit@shutts.com -- of Shutts &
Bowen LLP and Peter J. Valeta -- peter.valeta@mbtlaw.com -- of
Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick & Pearson LLP.

The case is South Florida Wellness Center Inc. v. Allstate
Insurance Co., case number 14-10001, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.


ANGEL DEL TORRO: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Linares Rodriguez, and others similarly- situated v. Angel
Del Torro, individually, and Elena Del Torro individually, Case
No. 1:14-cv-20227-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2014) seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of
the United States and the state of Florida.

Angel and Elena Del Torro are residents of Miami Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher F. Zacarias, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
          2921 S.W. 27th Avenue
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone: (786) 518-3930
          Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
          E-Mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Russo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America Corp., a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00382 (N.D. Ill., January 20, 2014) alleges violations
of the Truth in Lending Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq.
          Gregory Wood Jones, Esq.
          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 470-6588
          E-mail: gbarbakoff@siprut.com
                  gjones@siprut.com
                  jsiprut@siprut.com


BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Tosses Remaining Appeals to Medical Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Garretson Resolution Group, the Claims Administrator of the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement, on
Feb. 14 disclosed that the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit entered an order granting the unopposed motion to
dismiss the last remaining appeals to the settlement.  The Fifth
Circuit's order clears the way for the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement to go effective and allows the
qualifying class members to begin to receive the valuable benefits
provided by the Medical Benefits Settlement.

"We will work diligently, accurately and fairly for the parties,
class members and the Court involved in this settlement process,"
said GRG Founder and CEO Matt Garretson.

GRG will now be able to immediately begin the process of notifying
class members of the status of their claims, to begin processing
payments to class members with complete and qualifying claims for
compensation, and to begin scheduling appointments for class
members with qualifying claims for participation in a periodic
medical consultation program.

Importantly, class members have one year from the effective
Date -- or until February 12, 2015 -- to submit a claim.  A copy
of the proof of claim form is available on the Medical Benefits
Settlement at http://www.deepwaterhorizonmedicalsettlement.com

The Medical Benefits Settlement is a settlement between BP
Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company
and Class Counsel in the action captioned In Re: "Oil Spill by the
Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010," Case Number 2:10-md-2179, pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and settles
numerous lawsuits arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
The Medical Benefits Settlement provides benefits to qualifying
individuals who were clean-up workers or who resided in specific
geographic areas in coastal and wetland areas along the Gulf Coast
during specific periods in 2010.  The Medical Benefits Settlement
is separate and distinct from the Deepwater Horizon Economic and
Property Damages Settlement, which is designed to provide
compensation to individuals who suffered economic loss or property
damage as a result of the spill and is administered by a different
entity.

As the Claims Administrator, it is GRG's responsibility to
implement and administer the Medical Benefits Settlement
Agreement, including: (1) payments to qualifying class members for
certain acute (short-term) and chronic (ongoing) medical
conditions from exposure to the oil or chemical dispersants; (2)
provision of periodic medical consultations to qualifying class
members; and (3) a Gulf Region Health Outreach Program, consisting
of projects to strengthen the healthcare system in certain Gulf
Coast areas.

For more information about GRG, please visit
http://www.garretsongroup.com


BRAVE BUILDERS: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Alfredo Cambar Espinal, Alvaro Javier Sanchez Consuegra,
Roberto Santiago Reymundo, Pedro Garcia Jacinto, Williams Ulises
Gonzalez Picado a/k/a Nestor Herrera, German Cambar Espinal and
all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Brave
Builders Corp., Siltek Group Inc., Victor Lavastida and Sandra Del
Carmen Morales, Case No. 1:14-cv-20229-CMA (S.D. Fla., January 20,
2014) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants violated overtime and minimum wage
provisions of the FLSA.

Brave Builders Corp. is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Miami-Dade County, in Florida.  Siltek Group Inc.
is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Broward
County, in Florida.  Victor Lavastida runs the day-to-day
operations of Brave Builders during the relevant time period and
controlled the Plaintiffs' work and schedule.  Sandra Del Carmen
Morales is a corporate officer, owner or manager of Brave Builders
and was responsible for paying the Plaintiff's wages for the
relevant time period.

The Plaintiffs are 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


BSH HOME: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Selbin, chair of the defective products practice group
at the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, announced Feb. 24 that the U.S. Supreme Court
Monday morning denied a petition for writ of certiorari against
BSH Home Appliances Corporation, the manufacturer of Bosch washing
machines in Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp.  In this case, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the trial
court's grant of certification to four statewide consumer classes
in California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York.

The Bosch consumers allege that their machines are defective
causing mold, mildew, and horrible smells.

Learn more about the defective front-load washer litigation at
http://is.gd/zOCa0k

                       About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a 60-plus attorney law firm
with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.  We are
among the largest law firms in the United States that represent
only plaintiffs.

We are committed to achieving justice for consumers, employees,
patients, investors, and business owners; promoting safer products
and fair competition; protecting our environment; assisting
individuals blow the whistle on fraud; safeguarding the rights of
patent and copyright holders; and remedying violations of the
civil rights of citizens worldwide.

The firm may be reached through:

     Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     Tel: 212-355-9500
     E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com


BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00083-
LPL (W.D. Pa., January 20, 2014) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations.

The Plaintiff, a blind individual, accuses the Defendant of
failing to design, construct, own or operate Point of Sale Devices
that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind
people.

Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. is headquartered at St. Louis,
Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          David W. Gearhart, Esq.
          Philip J. Mackey, Esq.
          LEWIS, RICE & FINGERSH, L.C.
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-1394
          Facsimile: (314) 612-1394
          E-mail: dgearhart@lewisrice.com
                  pmackey@lewisrice.com


CATHAY PACIFIC: Settles Freight Shipping Price-Fixing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Morley, Esq., at McDermott Will & Emery, reports that on
February 12, 2014, Cathay Pacific Airlines Ltd. settled a freight
shipping price-fixing multidistrict class action litigation in the
Eastern District of New York.  In re Air Cargo Shipping Services
Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation, case number 1:06-md-01775.  The
Hong Kong-based airline agreed to pay consumers of air-freight
shipping services $65 million in the settlement.  After the U.S.
Department of Justice and European Commission initiated
investigations of the air freight industry, purchasers of shipping
services brought price-fixing actions against air cargo companies
from two dozen countries in 2006.  The Department of Justice
claimed that these air cargo companies conspired to set the rate
at which they charged for certain routes.  These airlines then
held subsequent meetings to ensure that these rates were enforced.
To date, 20 defendant groups have paid $758 million in settlements
with eight defendant groups still remaining in the class action.
Cathay Pacific previously paid $1.44 million to the Canadian
Competition Bureau and $60 million to the Department of Justice
for pleading guilty to violations of Canadian and United States
competition and antitrust laws, respectively.


DEX MEDIA: Accord in Shareholder Suit v. Officers Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, preliminarily approved a settlement reached in a
shareholder suit filed against the officers of Dex Media, Inc.,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate
putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, against certain officers of SuperMedia Inc., formerly
Idearc Inc. (but not against the Company or its subsidiaries). The
suits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan Goldberg
as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009,
inclusive. On May 22, 2009, a putative class action securities
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas against two of the Company's current officers
(but not against the Company or its subsidiaries). The suit was
filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
bonds between March 27, 2008 and March 30, 2009, inclusive. On
August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones case from Arkansas federal
district court was transferred to be consolidated with the cases
filed in Texas. The complaints are virtually identical and
generally allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and condition. Specifically, the
complaints allege violations by the defendants of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"),
Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and Section 20 of the Exchange
Act. The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified compensatory damages
and reimbursement for litigation expenses. Since the filing of the
complaints, all four cases have been consolidated into one court
in the Northern District of Texas and a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiffs' attorney have been selected ("Buettgen" case). On
April 12, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire
Buettgen complaint. On August 11, 2010, in a one line order
without an opinion, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. On May 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion
certifying a class. Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied the Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal
of the class certification order. On September 24, 2012, the
Company defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a
complete dismissal which was denied on February 20, 2013. The
parties entered into a tentative settlement of the matter on April
1, 2013. The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and
set a fairness hearing for November 12, 2013. The Company's
insurance carriers have fully funded the settlement pursuant to
the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement.


DEX MEDIA: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in Retirees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, granted the defendants' summary judgments, and denied
the plaintiffs' summary judgment in a suit filed by former Bell
retirees, according to Dex Media, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On November 25, 2009, three former Bell retirees brought a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the
employee benefits committee and pension plans of Verizon
Communications and the employee benefits committee ("EBC") and
pension plans of SuperMedia Inc., formerly Idearc Inc.  All three
named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly annuity
pension benefits. All complain that Verizon transferred them
against their will from the Verizon pension plans to the Company
pension plans at or near the Company's spin-off from Verizon.

The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and Company defendants
failed to provide requested plan documents, which would entitle
the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under the Employee
Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA"); that both the Verizon
and Company defendants breached their fiduciary duty for refusal
to disclose pension plan information; and other class action
counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants. The plaintiffs seek
class action status, statutory penalties, damages and a reversal
of the employee transfers.  The Company defendants filed their
motion to dismiss the entire complaint on March 10, 2010. On
October 18, 2010, the court ruled on the pending motion dismissing
all the claims against the Company pension plans and all of the
claims against the Company's EBC relating to the production of
documents and statutory penalties for failure to produce same. The
only claims that remained against the Company were procedural
ERISA claims against the Company's EBC. On November 1, 2010, the
Company's EBC filed its answer to the complaint. On November 4,
2010, the Company's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one of the two
remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC.

Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs have obtained class
certification against the Verizon defendants and discovery has
commenced. After obtaining permission from the court, the
plaintiffs filed another amendment to the complaint, alleging a
new count against the Company's EBC. The Company's EBC filed
another motion to dismiss the amended complaint and have filed a
summary judgment motion before the deadline set by the scheduling
order.

On March 26, 2012, the court denied the Company's EBC's motion to
dismiss. On September 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
summary judgments, denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment, and
entered a take nothing judgment in favor of the Company EBC. The
time for plaintiffs to file an appeal has not yet run. The Company
plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously
defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.


DEX MEDIA: 5th Cir. Won't Revisit Dismissal of ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a
rehearing, en banc, of a trial court dismissal of a suit alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by
former employees of Dex Media, Inc.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against SuperMedia Inc., formerly Idearc Inc. filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of
the Company's current and former officers, directors and members
of the Company's EBC. The complaint attempts to recover alleged
losses to the various savings plans that were allegedly caused by
the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by the
defendants in administrating the plans from November 17, 2006 to
March 31, 2009. The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants
wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock,
(ii) the defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the
Company's financial performance and condition, (iii) the
defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged
the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to
monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures. The plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for
litigation expenses. At this time, a class has not been certified.

The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint on June 22, 2010.
On March 16, 2011, the court granted the Company defendants'
motion to dismiss the entire complaint; however, the plaintiffs
have repleaded their complaint. The Company defendants have filed
another motion to dismiss the new complaint.

On March 15, 2012, the court granted the Company defendants'
second motion dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs
have appealed the dismissal and briefing in the 5th Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals has been completed.

On July 9, 2013, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
decision affirming the dismissal of the trial court. On July 23,
2013, plaintiffs filed a Petition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for a rehearing en banc which has been denied.

The Company said the time for filing further appeals has not yet
run. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations
and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.


DEX MEDIA: Faces Class Suit Over FLSA Violations in Dallas
----------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. faces a certified class action filed by former
employees alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 1, 2011, several former employees filed a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action against SuperMedia Inc.,
formerly Idearc Inc., all its subsidiaries, the current chief
executive officer and the former chief executive officer in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
The complaint alleges that the Company improperly calculated the
rate of pay when it paid overtime to its hourly sales employees.

On July 29, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. In response, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
allege that the individual defendants had "off-the-clock" claims
for unpaid overtime. Subsequently, the Company amended its motion
to dismiss in light of the new allegations. On October 25, 2011,
the Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a
collective action and to issue notice. On March 29, 2012, the
court denied the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the
plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the class. The
Company's motion seeking permission to file an interlocutory
appeal of the order was denied and a notice has been sent to the
Company's former and current employees. The time for opting into
the class has expired. The plaintiffs that failed to file their
opt-ins on time have filed a companion case with the same
allegations.


DEX MEDIA: Own Class Suit to Amend Retiree Benefits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. was preparing a scheduling order to be filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, in a lawsuit over amendments to the company's retiree
health and welfare benefit plans, according to the company's Nov.
6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On June 26, 2012, SuperMedia filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, where the Company seeks a declaratory judgment
concerning the Company's right to enact several amendments that
were recently made to its retiree health and welfare benefit
plans, and more generally the Company's right to modify, amend or
terminate these plans. Several of the defendants have filed
motions to dismiss as well as a counterclaim. The Company has
filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim. On August 8, 2013, the
court granted several of the defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the defendants' counterclaim. The Company and the
remaining defendants were preparing a scheduling order to file
with the court.


ETHAN ALLEN: Client Services Specialist Seeks to Recover Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Simone Miller v. Ethan Allen Retail, Inc., a Connecticut
corporation, and Deborah Griffith, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-
80079-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff, employed by the
Defendants as Client Services Specialist, seeks unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorney's fee and costs from the Defendants.

Ethan Allen is a Connecticut corporation.  Deborah Griffith owns
or operates Ethan Allen, where the Plaintiff is employed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
          MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
          The Yankee Clipper Law Center
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
          E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


EXPRESS CATERING: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kwame A. Agyei, Etchien Kouaho, Ladjebe R. Lare and Henry Sumah,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Express Catering, Inc. and Frank Fumich, Case No. 3:14-cv-00024-
GCM (W.D.N.C., January 20, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing
to pay their non-exempt, hourly employees overtime compensation,
at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Express Catering, Inc., is a domestic for-profit corporation
organized in Virginia, and is registered as a foreign corporation
in North Carolina.  The Company operates in interstate commerce
by, among other things, delivering and serving food and beverages
to aircraft at several different airports.  Frank Fumich is the
president, owner and shareholder of the Company and is personally
involved in the daily operation and management of all of the
Express Catering locations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Ventura, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS
          1051 E. Morehead St., Suite 100
          Charlotte, NC 28204
          Telephone: (704) 567-4529
          Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
          E-mail: djventura@crumleyroberts.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


FERRELL ELECTRIC: Refuses to Pay Straight Time and OT, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Brantley, Gary Edward Fletcher, Robert M. Pou, and Brannon
Stuart, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Ferrell Electric, Inc., James N. Ferrell, and Christie C. Ferrell,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00022-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., January 20, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants willfully failed and refused to pay
straight time and overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees, who were, or are, employed by
the Defendants, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ferrell Electric, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that maintains an
office in Columbia County, Georgia, from which it regularly
conducts business.  The Individual Defendants are officers and
owners of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John P. Batson, Esq.
          P.O. Box 3248
          Augusta, GA 30904-4459
          Telephone: (706) 737-4040
          Facsimile: (706) 736-3391
          E-mail: jpbatson@aol.com


FITBIT INC: Recalls Fitness-Tracking Bracelet Due to Allergies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Rosman of Wall Street Journal reported that Fitbit said
it is halting sales of its newest fitness-tracking bracelet and
recalling the product after months of complaints from consumers
who say the band has caused rashes on their wrists.

The voluntary recall of the Fitbit Force is a serious setback for
a startup that markets its products as a way to "help people lead
healthier, more active lives."  It is also a public relations
headache, coming days before Fitbit shows off its products in
Barcelona at next week's Mobile World Congress, an annual confab
for the mobile industry with tens of thousands of attendees.

The San Francisco company said in a statement that it was
conducting the recall of its newest bracelet "out of an abundance
of caution" and repeated an offer to refund consumers who
purchased the $129 Force.

Fitbit Chief Executive James Park wrote in a blog post --
http://is.gd/j4ytdL-- that only 1.7% of Force users had reported
an irritation. In the company statement, Fitbit said "affected
users are likely experiencing an allergic reaction" to materials
in the bracelet.

Mr. Park wrote that "some users may be reacting to the nickel," a
component of the stainless steel used in the device.  Others, he
wrote, "are likely experiencing an allergic reaction to the
materials used in the strap or the adhesives used to assemble the
product."

Mr. Park repeated a statement he made in January that an
independent lab had ruled out problems with the battery or
electrical system.

A Fitibit spokeswoman said the company is working with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission regarding the recall.

The Force is Fitbit's newest product, designed to track people's
activity, such as steps taken, distance traveled and calories
burned. At night, it tracks users' sleep patterns. Data can be
seen on the wristband's display or on a smartphone or computer.

Soon after its release in October, wearers began complaining about
blisters, rashes and itchy dry patches on their wrists. The Wall
Street Journal reported last week that some of the skin problems
required medical attention and prescription medication. At least
one person said that she had been offered a financial settlement
from Fitbit.

Since that report, the Journal has received emails from others who
say they developed similar rashes from Fitbit's earlier products.

Vera Shanley, a 59-year-old medical doctor and health coach, says
she developed a rash from the Fitbit One, a clip-on device that
tracks fitness, sleep and nutritional patterns.  Ms. Shanley
bought the device when it launched in August 2012.  She clipped it
inside her waistband and within about a week noticed an itchy red
rash developing on her right hip.

She moved the One to her left side where she also developed a
rash. Now, she clips the device to her bra so that the product
doesn't touch her skin.  "I've had no problem with it since,
whatsoever," she says.

Yvonne Beckley, 72, began wearing the Fitbit Flex bracelet in
2012.  Late last year, she ordered from Fitbit different colored
bands that can be used with the Flex device.  When she wore the
black version of the Flex band, she said she developed a rash.

Ms. Beckley saw a doctor who told her to treat the rash with an
over-the-counter cortisone cream.  The rash got worse, she said.
Ms. Beckley returned to the doctor who then prescribed
Triamcinalone, a topical steroid.  The rash subsided and
Ms. Beckley turned to a blue band for her Flex, which she has worn
since without reaction.

A Fitbit spokeswoman said users may experience skin sensitivity
with any type of wearable product, and that any issues consumers
have reported with the Flex and One are unrelated to the reasons
associated with the Force recall.  "We take all of our consumer
complaints seriously, and if any user experiences skin irritation
while wearing a Fitbit device, he or she should either discontinue
wearing the device or wear it attached to an article of clothing,"
she wrote in an email.

Fitbit is scheduled to be an exhibitor at Mobile World Congress.
The conference has promoted on its website a contest called the
Fitbit Challenge, in which attendees can buy a discounted Fitbit
Flex from the Fitbit booth and win prizes based on the wearer's
activity.  One of the prizes was supposed to be a Force, but the
company is replacing that with Flex products.

Fitbit was founded in 2007 and is backed by a number of venture-
capital firms, including Foundry Group and True Ventures, which
last year invested $43 million.  The venture-capital firms didn't
respond to requests for comment.


FOODFEST INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bittersweet Chocolate
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Foodfest International 2000 Inc.
Distribution:             Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8653

Affected products: 85 g. Elite Bittersweet Chocolate with UPC
0 77245 10721 4

Foodfest International 2000 Inc. is recalling Elite brand
Bittersweet Chocolate from the marketplace because it contains
milk which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy
to milk should not consume the recalled product described below.

The product has been distributed in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

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

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
test results.  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 product
from the marketplace.


FTD COMPANIES: Motion to Junk Kelm, Miller Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, and no trial
date has been set in In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., where the
Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action have been
consolidated, according to FTD Companies, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank,
N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii) 1-
800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-
Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo
Global Management, LLC ("Apollo").

The complaint alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company
Defendants; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail
fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card
Company Defendants; (3) violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") by Trilegiant, Affinion and
the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (4) violations of
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by Trilegiant,
Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company
Defendants; (5) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-
Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded.

In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the
following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue,
Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC
(collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates
International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Peoplefinderspro,
Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc.,
Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
(collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of
America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA,
N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card
Companies").

The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants,
and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card
Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail
fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card
Companies; (3) violations of the ECPA by the Membership Companies
and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Credit Card Companies; (4) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Membership Companies
and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Credit Card Companies; (5) violation of California
Business and Professions Code section 17602 by the Membership
Companies and the Marketing Companies; and (6) unjust enrichment
by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class certification,
restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to
and received from the plaintiffs, damages, treble damages,
punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment
interest on any amounts awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants. The defendants have responded to the
consolidated amended complaint by joining in motions to dismiss
filed by other defendants on December 7, 2012. Those motions were
argued before the district court on September 25, 2013, and taken
under submission.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion to
dismiss, and no trial date has been set.


FTD COMPANIES: "Frank" Plaintiff Seeks to Consolidate Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Connecticut has not
yet ruled on the request of David Frank that the suit he filed
against FTD Group, Inc. be consolidated with the In re Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc. action, according to FTD Companies, Inc.'s Nov.
6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank
Membership Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media
LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn
Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide,
LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com,
Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United Online, Inc., and Wyndham
Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Frank Marketing
Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial
Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech Solutions,
LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies").

The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants;
(2) aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit
Card Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud,
wire fraud and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4)
violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the
Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership
Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank
Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiff, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded.

On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank
Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action.
In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to
why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded named
plaintiff status. The plaintiff filed his response to the order to
show cause on February 15, 2013. The court has not yet ruled upon
the request for consolidation or the order to show cause.


GEICO INDEMNITY: Suit Seeks Payment of Vehicle's Value Diminution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara E. Jenkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GEICO Indemnity Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00164-WBH
(N.D. Ga., January 20, 2014) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all others, who submitted a first-party insurance claim to
GEICO for vehicle property damage, but who were not offered
payment or paid for the diminution in value resulting from that
damage.  Diminution of value is a specified covered loss under
GEICO's automobile insurance contract.

GEICO Indemnity Company is a foreign corporation with its
principal place of business in Chevy Chase, Maryland.  GEICO is
licensed to do business in Georgia, where it sells automobile
insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Coomes, Esq.
          MCCONNELL & SNEED, LLC
          990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (404) 220-9994
          Facsimile: (404) 665-3090
          E-mail: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          Building C-101
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Blvd.
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com

               - and -

          John Edwards, Esq.
          EDWARDS KIRBY
          3201 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 780-5400
          E-mail: jre@edwardskirby.com

               - and -

          David Eichholz, Esq.
          THE EICHHOLZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          530 Stephenson Ave., Suite 200
          Savannah, GA 31405
          Telephone: (912) 232-2791
          E-mail: David@thejusticelawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Hilliard Schroder, Esq.
          SWIFT CURRIE MCGHEE & HIERS
          1355 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          The Peachtree, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3238
          Telephone: (404) 888-6126
          Facsimile: (404) 888-6299
          E-mail: mike.schroder@swiftcurrie.com


GENERAL CASUALTY: Faces "Cowart" Class Suit Over Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley J. Cowart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00165-WBH (N.D. Ga., January 20, 2014) asserts insurance-
related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Coomes, Esq.
          MCCONNELL & SNEED, LLC
          990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (404) 220-9994
          Facsimile: (404) 665-3476
          E-mail: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          Building C-101
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Blvd.
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100

               - and -

          David S. Eichholz, Esq.
          THE EICHHOLZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          530 Stephenson Avenue, Suite 200
          Savannah, GA 31405
          Telephone: (912) 232-2791
          E-mail: david@thejusticelawyer.com

               - and -

          John Edwards, Esq.
          EDWARDS KIRBY, LLP
          3201 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 780-5400

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas Joshua Archer, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM LLP-ATL
          30 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, NW, Suite 700
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 261-6020
          E-mail: jarcher@balch.com


GEO CARE: Fails to Pay Required Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald P. Small, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. Geo Care, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-14023-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
January 20, 2014) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff the mandatory wages as required under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant is a Florida corporation doing business in Boca
Raton, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cathleen Scott, Esq.
          CATHLEEN SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          Jupiter Gardens
          250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 653-0008
          Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
          E-mail: CScott@floridalaborlawyer.com


GORAJSKI ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Jasso, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Gorajski Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a El Molino Panaderia
Mexicana a/k/a Molino Baking Company a/k/a Molino Bakery, Marco
Gorajski, individually and Johnathan Gorajski, individually, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00372 (N.D. Ill., January 20, 2014) is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with the Defendants'
alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and the putative collective
members for time worked off the clock and overtime compensation at
a rate of time and a half of their regular rates of pay for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Gorajski Enterprises, Inc. is an Illinois business corporation
running and operating a bakery that is open to the general public.
El Molino Panaderia Mexicana a/k/a Molino Baking Company a/k/a
Molino Bakery is a fictional business name associated with
Gorajski, which is commonly used and applied to their location in
Blue Island, Illinois.  Jonathan Gorajski and Marco Gorajski, are
the owners and the operator of Gorajski and Molino Bakery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Billhorn, Esq.
          Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 445-9137
          Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
                  mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


GULFSTREAM PARK: Sued by Poker Dealer Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Rosenbrier v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc.
d/b/a Gulfstream Park Racing and Casino, a Florida Profit
Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-60139-WJZ (S.D. Fla., January 20,
2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated poker dealers at
the Defendant's casino.

During the employment of the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated, the Defendant illegally claimed a 'tip-credit' for them,
and paid those employees below the statutorily required minimum
wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ms. Rosenbrier contends.
She asserts that the Defendant, however, failed to comply with the
'tip-credit' requirements pursuant to the FLSA by, inter alia,
floor supervisors and cashiers as 'tipped' employees that received
portions of the tips of those employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
          WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL
          Telephone: (954) 463-2001
          Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
          E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com

               - and -

          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
          33316 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-5722
          Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com


HCC-HIGH CAPACITY: Coil Tubing Operators Seek to Recover Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Thomas, Juan Ramon, and Jose Quintanilla, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCC-High Capacity
Coil, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00017 (S.D. Tex., January 20, 2014) is
brought on behalf of all current and former employees HCC-High to
recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiffs and the Potential Class Members are current and
former non-exempt employees of HCC-High, who worked as coil tubing
operators within the last three years.

HCC-High Capacity Coil is a Delaware limited liability company
based in Shreveport, Louisiana.  The Company provides coil tubing,
nitrogen services and equipment to the oil and gas and pipeline
industries in Louisiana and Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig M. Sico, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH L.L.P.
          802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 653-3300
          Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
          E-mail: csico@swhhb.com
                  calexander@swhhb.com


HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Sued by Nurses for Failing to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Roebuck, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Healthsource Global Staffing, and Does 1
through 100, Case No. 3:14-cv-00295-RS (N.D. Cal., January 20,
2014) is brought on behalf of all HealthSource nursing employees,
who worked in the United States, who (a) were not fully
compensated for all time worked, or (b) were not fully compensated
for time worked over 40 hours per week at the proper overtime
rates.

Healthsource is a California corporation with its principal places
of business located in Fremont, California.  The Plaintiff does
not presently know the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P. C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883-4900
          Facsimile: (818) 883-4902
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

               - and -

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Holmes, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (213) 599-8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com


HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No.
12-Civ-8557 (CM) continues in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Nov.
6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Following the Partnership's November 2012 announcement that Hi-
Crush Operating LLC had formally terminated its supply agreement
with Baker Hughes in response to the repudiation of the agreement
by Baker Hughes, the Partnership, the General Partner, certain of
its officers and directors and its underwriters were named as
defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits brought
by the Partnership's unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 11, 2013,
the lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit, styled In re: Hi-
Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-8557 (CM). A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 15, 2013.
That complaint asserts claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act, and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
in connection with the Partnership's Registration Statement and a
subsequent presentation. Among other things, the consolidated
amended complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to
the market certain alleged information relating to Baker Hughes'
repudiation of the supply agreement.


HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 1,760 Motorcycles Due to Crash Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Engine
Units affected:           1760
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014044
TC ID number:             2014044

On certain motorcycles, the rocker arm shaft retaining bolt could
loosen, causing an oil leak.  If the bolt was to separate
completely, the engine could stall or lose power.  This could
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will replace the rocker arm shaft retaining bolt.

Affected products:

  Maker     Model        Model year(s) affected
  -----     -----        ----------------------
  HONDA     CBR500RA      2013
  HONDA     CBR500R       2013
  HONDA     CB500FA       2013
  HONDA     CB500XA       2013


INFANTINO LLC: Recalls Teething Toys Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Infantino LLC, of San Diego, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 191,000 Go Gaga Squeeze & Teethe Coco the Monkey.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The tail of the monkey can pose a choking hazard to young
children.

The firm has received seven reports of infants choking or gagging
on the monkey's tail.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the Go Gaga Squeeze & Teethe Coco the Monkey
teething toys.  This squeaking toy is made of soft orange rubber
and is shaped like a monkey.  The toy measures 4.5 inches tall by
5 inches long and is intended for ages newborn and up.
"Infantino" is marked on the back toward the rear and model number
206-647 is marked on the inside of the rear left leg

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide and online from December
2012 through January 2014 for about $13.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled products away from
infants and contact Infantino to receive a free replacement toy.


JACK RABBIT: Reduced Wages Through Unlawful Deductions, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jack Rabbit Services, LLC, a Kentucky limited
liability company; Jack Rabbit USA, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company; jointly and severally, Case No. 3:14-cv-00044-
TBR (W.D. Ky., January 20, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly
situated roadside assistance technicians currently or formerly
employed by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants intentionally
misclassify him and the putative Class as independent contractors.
He adds that the Defendants willfully refuse to pay a minimum
wage; willfully refuse to pay overtime; and reduce employee wages
through unlawful deductions.

Jack Rabbit Services, LLC, is a Kentucky limited liability company
headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.  Jack Rabbit USA, LLC, is a
Florida limited liability company headquartered in Pensacola,
Florida.  The Defendants provide roadside assistance to customers,
including tire changing, jump starts, fuel delivery, and lockout
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence L. Jones II, Esq.
          Alex C. Davis, Esq.
          JONES WARD, PLC
          Marion E. Taylor Building
          312 South Fourth St., Sixth Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          E-mail: larry@jonesward.com
                  alex@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


KERYX BIOPHARMA: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Perifosine Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on Feb. 14 threw out a putative class action brought against
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals Inc. and the company's CEO by investors
who said they were misled about the efficacy of perifosine, a
potential cancer treatment.

Two groups of plaintiff investors filed similar lawsuits against
Keryx and CEO Ronald Bentsur last February, alleging Mr. Bentsur
knew or recklessly disregarded that adverse facts about the drug
were not disclosed to, or were being concealed from, the investing
public.  The plaintiffs in the now-consolidated action said
Mr. Bentsur and Keryx omitted serious flaws in the phase two trial
of perifosine, which the company reported to show a significant
positive result, and that the misstatements came to light after a
third trial failed.

U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest dismissed the suit on
Feb. 14, saying the plaintiffs didn't adequately allege specifics
about the false statements and the malice behind them.  The judge
cited a similar suit launched against Keryx's co-developer,
Aeterna Zentaris Inc., which was dismissed by Judge P. Kevin
Castel in the same district last year.

The plaintiffs asserted in that suit that the defendants "were
misleading about the prospects for the Phase 3 trial success,
since they knew or should have known of the inherent flaws in
Phase 2," Judge Forrest wrote in the 31-page order.  "Judge Castel
disagreed, finding that plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead
falsity or scienter.  The allegations in the instant complaint are
similarly deficient."

The Feb. 14 order grants the defendants' bid to toss the
consolidated complaint, the most recent action in the clash over
the allegedly misleading statements that led up to the ultimate
failure of the cancer drug.

Lead plaintiff and Keryx shareholder David A. Wilkinson filed suit
in February 2013 on behalf of all purchasers of Keryx common stock
between June 1, 2009 and April 1, 2012.  A related case containing
substantially similar allegations was filed later that month,
after which the court consolidated the actions, according to court
documents.

Judge Forrest granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding
that the plaintiffs failed to state with particularity when and
where the false statements were made and why they were fraudulent.
The plaintiffs further failed to definitively show the mental
state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud,
according to the order.

Judge Forrest also ruled that the plaintiffs could submit a
memorandum to cure their complaint's deficiencies within 14 days
of the order.

The lead plaintiff is represented by Curtis V. Trinko --
ctrinko@trinko.com -- Jennifer E. Traytsman --
jtraystman@trinko.com -- and C. William Margrabe --
wmargrabe@trinko.com -- of The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP
and Michael K. Yarnoff -- myarnoff@ktmc.com -- Joshua E. D'Ancona
-- jdancona@ktmc.com -- and Meredith L. Lambert --
mlambert@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Keryx is represented by John A. Jordak Jr. --
john.jordak@alston.com -- and Joseph G. Tully --
joe.tully@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird LLP.

The case is In re: Keryx Biopharmaceuticals Inc. Securities
Litigation, case number 1:13-cv-00755, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


KIRKENDOLL MGMT: Misclassified Dancers as Contractors, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Vera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kirkendoll Management, LLC d/b/a The Penthouse Club,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00147-MLCF-SS (E.D. La., January 20, 2014) is
brought as a collective action seeking to recover for the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Vera alleges that the Defendant improperly classified her and
other exotic entertainers as "independent contractors."  As a
result of this improper classification, she contends, the
Defendant avoided paying them the applicable minimum wage and
overtime premium.

Kirkendoll Management, LLC, doing business as The Penthouse Club,
is a Colorado Limited Liability Company with a principal business
in New Orleans, Louisiana.  The Defendant employed Ms. Vera as a
Dancer.  Kirkendoll owns and operates The Penthouse Club, which
offers adult entertainment services, including adult exotic
dancing in the nature of live performances in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandra E. Mora, Esq.
          Walter Wolf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA MORA
          322 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 566 0233
          Facsimile: (504) 566 8997
          E-mail: amora@alexmora.com
                  wwolf@alexmora.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com


KROGER CO: POS Devices Not Fully Accessible by Blind, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Kroger Co. d/b/a Littman Jewelers, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00080-LPL (W.D. Pa., January 20, 2014) alleges violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing
regulations.

Mr. Jahoda alleges that the Defendant does not provide any
auxiliary aids or services calculated to make its Point of Sale
Devices fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind
people like him.

The Kroger Co., doing business as Littman Jewelers, is
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LA TANS: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime Compensation, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elsa Hutchinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LA Tans, Spa & Medical Aesthetics Inc, a
Florida corporation, and Andrea G. Spader, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-20221-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2014) is brought for
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff
seeks unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorney's fee and costs from the Defendants.

LA Tans is a Florida corporation.  Andrea G. Spader is a resident
of Florida, who owned or operated LA Tans, where the Plaintiff was
employed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
          MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
          E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


MAGID BROTHERS: Recalls Club Supreme Snack Foods
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Magid Brothers Distribution Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8633

Magid Brothers Distribution Inc. is recalling Club Supreme brand
snack foods from the marketplace because they contain milk which
is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk
should not consume the recalled products described below.

The following products have been sold nationally.

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

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by a consumer complaint.  The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (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:

   -- 140 g. Club Supreme Corn Puffs where all codes where milk is
      not declared on the label and with 0 63517 53809 1 UPC;

   -- 130 g. Club Supreme Sour Cream and Onion Rings where all
      codes where milk is not declared on the label and with 0
      63517 53815 2 UPC


MICHAELS INT'L: Sued by Dancer Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Vera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Michael's International, Inc. d/b/a Michael's Men's
Club, Case No. 6:14-cv-00087-RFD-CMH (W.D. La., January 20, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff and the class members should have been
paid fair wages, given overtime compensation, and allowed to
retain all tips/gratuities provided by customers.

Ms. Vera was employed by the Company as a Dancer.  To avoid
complying with federal law designed to protect employees from
employer abuse, the Defendant improperly classified her and other
exotic entertainers as "independent contractors," she contends.

Michael's International, Inc., is a Louisiana corporation with a
principal business in New Iberia, Louisiana.  Michael's
International owns and operates Michael's Men's Club, which offers
adult entertainment services, including adult exotic dancing in
the nature of live performances in Broussard, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandra E. Mora, Esq.
          Walter Wolf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA MORA
          322 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 566 0233
          Facsimile: (504) 566 8997
          E-mail: amora@alexmora.com
                  wwolf@alexmora.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com


MICHAELS STORES: Faces "Moyer" Data Breach Class Action in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that Michaels Arts and Crafts suppliers
are facing a federal data breach class action lawsuit following
the release of its statement announcing customers' personal
information may have been stolen.

Filed by customer and plaintiff Christina Moyer, the lawsuit,
entitled Moyer v. Michaels Stores Inc., Case No. 1:140cv-00561, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleges the Texas-based retailer was negligent in protecting
customer information.  Specifically, Ms. Moyer, who shopped at
Michaels recently, alleges she is now paying for credit monitoring
and identity theft protection because of the possible compromise,
and that Michaels breached an implied contract with her and others
by failing to adequately protect their private information.

Further, the lawsuit claims Michaels "did not adequately monitor
their information technology system for the presence of intruders
in a manner that would enable them to detect this intrusion, so
that they breach of security and diversion of customer information
was able to continue unnoticed for a period of time."

Ms. Moyer is seeking a declaratory judgment that Michaels pay for
credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and be ordered to
indemnify Moyer and the class for future harm.

Mark Lavery of Hyslip & Taylor in Chicago filed the suit on behalf
of Moyer and a proposed class.


NEW WORLD: Recalls Master Kong Noodles Due to Undeclared Egg
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           New World Imports Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Consumer
CFIA reference number:    8632

The food recall warning issued on Feb. 13, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

New World Imports Ltd. is recalling Master Kong brand noodle
products from the marketplace because they contain egg and/or
sesame which are not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to egg or sesame should not consume the recalled products.

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

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

This recall was triggered by a complaint.  The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (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:

   -- 100 g x 5 Master Kong Roasted Beef Noodle - Instant Noodles
   -- 101 g x 5 Master Kong Hot Beef Noodle - Instant Noodles


NEIMAN MARCUS: Files Motion to Dismiss Malware Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Greenberg, writing for SC Magazine, reports that on Feb. 12,
Neiman Marcus -- one of several major retailers that recently
announced having customer payment cards, among other information,
stolen in a malware attack against its point-of-sale systems --
filed a motion to dismiss a class-action complaint filed in
January by an impacted customer.

The January complaint -- filed in the Eastern District of New York
-- seeks equitable relief for all impacted individuals.  Melissa
Frank is named as lead plaintiff; she alleges that fraudulent
charges made on her debit card are the result of the Neiman Marcus
breach.

"The complaint nowhere alleges either that the data incursion at
Neiman Marcus caused the fraudulent charges on her debit card or
that those charges resulted in any financial or other concrete
injury to her," according to the motion for dismissal.

"Because the complaint describes no specific harm she has
suffered, monetary or otherwise, there is no way that a judgment
in her favor would make her whole," according to the motion, which
adds Ms. Frank's payment card has zero fraud liability and she
will not be held accountable for fraudulent charges.  "Rather, she
is whole already."

The motion also rejects any claims that Ms. Frank may suffer
future consequences, such as identity theft.

"In sum, plaintiff fails to allege what damage, what concrete and
compensable harm she is suffering in the here and now," according
to the motion.  "She alleges no unpaid bill to pay, no demand from
her bank that it be reimbursed for charges incurred on her
account, and no other presently realized (or certainly impending)
harm."


OH GREEN: Recalls Almond Powder Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Oh Green Biotech Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8636

The food recall warning issued on Feb. 18, 2014 has been updated
to include additional lot codes.  The additional information was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
Food Safety Investigation.

Oh Green Biotech Ltd. is recalling Ferme Sunshine brand Almond
Powder from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should not
consume the recalled product described below.

The product has been distributed in British Columbia.

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
test results.  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.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
test results.  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.


OH GREEN: Recalls Ferme Sunshine Drink Mix Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Oh Green Biotech Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8639

The food recall warning issued on Feb. 19, 2014 has been updated
to include additional products.  This additional information was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
Food Safety Investigation.

Oh Green Biotech Ltd. is recalling Ferme Sunshine brand drink mix
powders from the marketplace because they contain milk which is
not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should
not consume the recalled products described below.

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

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

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results.  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 of Ferme Sunshine:

   -- 500 g. The Black Treasure - Black Bean & Black Sesame Powder
      with 4 710415 050335 UPC;

   -- 500 g. Golden Buckwheat Powder with 4 710415 050618 UPC;

   -- 500 g Fresh Yam Powder with 4 710415 050069 UPC;

   -- 500 g. Gingko Powder with 4 710415 050311 UPC;

   -- 500 g. Cashew Nut & Walnut Powder with 4 710415 050632 UPC;

   -- 500 g. Black Fungus Powder with 4 710415 050670 UPC;

   -- 500 g. Red Rice Yeast & Natto Powder with 4 710415 050304
      UPC; and

   -- 500 g. Pumpkin Seed Powder with 4 710415 050625 UPC


OH GREEN: Recalls Black Cereal Beverage Powder
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Oh Green Biotech Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on February 20, 2014 has been
updated to include an additional product.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Oh Green Biotech Ltd. is recalling Oh Green brand Black Cereal
beverage powder from the marketplace because it contains milk
which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
milk should not consume the recalled product described below.

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

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results.  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: 600 g Oh Green Black Cereal with 4 715409
892021 UPC


OH GREEN: Recalls Almond Powder Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Oh Green Biotech Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8630

Oh Green Biotech Ltd. is recalling Ferme Sunshine brand Almond
Powder from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should not
consume the recalled product described below.

The following product has been distributed in British Columbia.

If you have an allergy to milk, 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 the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
test results.  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: 500 g. Ferme Sunshine Almond Powder with 4
710415 050373 UPC


PAA NATURAL: Faces Suits Over Merger With Plains All American
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAA Natural Gas Storage, L.P. faces lawsuits over its proposed
merger with Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., according to PAA
Natural's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, Robert and Teresa Vicars, purported
unitholders of PAA Natural Gas Storage, L.P. (the Partnership),
filed a class action petition on behalf of the Partnership's
unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of the Partnership
against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (PAA), the General
Partner and the directors of the General Partner in the 152nd
Judicial District of Harris County, Texas ("Vicars").  A similar
class action complaint was filed against the same defendants,
together with the Partnership, PAA GP LLC, Plains All American GP
LLC and Plains AAP, L.P., on September 17, 2013, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported unitholder Stephen
Ellman ("Ellman"). A third class action complaint for breach of
fiduciary duties was filed against the same defendants as in the
Ellman Suit, together with Merger Co., on October 2, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas --
Houston Division by purported unitholder The Duckpond CRT UTD
2/14/03, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
("Duckpond").

The Vicars and Ellman complaints allege, among other things, that
the consideration offered by PAA is unfair and inadequate and
that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly
conflicted and unfair process, the defendants have breached their
duties under the Partnership's partnership agreement as well as
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are
engaging in self-dealing. These two lawsuits generally allege
that: (i) the defendants are engaging in self-dealing, are not
acting in good faith toward the Partnership, and have breached and
are breaching their duties owed to the Partnership; (ii) the
defendants are failing to properly value the Partnership and its
various assets and operations and are ignoring or are not
protecting against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out
of the proposed transaction; and (iii) PAA, the General Partner,
the Partnership and other PAA affiliates have aided and abetted
the defendant directors the purpose of advancing their own
interests and/or assisting such directors in connection with their
breaches of their respective duties. In addition, Ellman further
includes (i) purported derivative claims on behalf of the
Partnership based on the alleged breaches of duties by the
defendants and (ii) a claim that the defendants breached the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in a
flawed merger process.  In Duckpond, the complaint alleges, among
other things, that the implied price per unit materially
undervalues the Partnership and is unfair to its unitholders.  The
Duckpond plaintiff further alleges that the defendants who are
directors and officers of the General Partner have breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty and care and the other defendants have
aided and abetted in these alleged breaches. Based on these
allegations, the plaintiffs generally seek to enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger. To the
extent that the merger is implemented before relief is granted,
plaintiffs seek to have the merger rescinded. The plaintiffs also
seek money damages and attorneys' fees.  In Duckpond, that
plaintiff also seeks a constructive trust in favor of the
purported class of PNG unitholders upon any benefits improperly
received by the defendants.


PFIZER INC: Faces "Delseno" Class Suit in Ohio Over Lipitor Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Delseno, 3937 Grove Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45212 v.
Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00063-TSB (S.D. Ohio, January 20, 2014) is an action
for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling of Lipitor, also known
chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium.

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.

Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
Pfizer produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes,
supplies, and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for
resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical
practitioners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny Unkraut Hendy, Esq.
          SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON P.S.C.
          909 Wright Summit Parkway, Suite 210
          Ft. Wright, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 578-4444
          Facsimile: (859) 578-4440
          E-mail: phendy@pschachter.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  LCraig@myadvocates.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Saddler" Suit Over Design and Label of Lipitor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Saddler, G3100 Miller Road, Apt. 348, Flint, Michigan 48507
v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00066-TSB (S.D. Ohio, January 20, 2014) is an
action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result
of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor
(also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.

Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
Pfizer produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes,
supplies, and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for
resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical
practitioners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny Unkraut Hendy, Esq.
          SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON P.S.C.
          909 Wright Summit Parkway, Suite 210
          Ft. Wright, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 578-4444
          Facsimile: (859) 578-4440
          E-mail: phendy@pschachter.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  LCraig@myadvocates.com


POLARIS: Recalls UTV's Due to Damaged Throttle Cable Routing
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              A.T.V.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           879
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014040
TC ID number:             2014040

On certain side-by-side UTV's, the throttle cable could come into
contact with the exhaust pipe, melting the cable's plastic lining.
This could cause the throttle cable to stick once it has cooled,
potentially affecting throttle control and increasing the risk of
injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will inspect the throttle cable routing and replace the
cable if necessary.

Affected products:

  Maker       Model              Model year(s) affected
  -----       -----              ----------------------
  POLARIS    RANGER 500 EFI          2013
  POLARIS    RANGER CREW 500         2013
  POLARIS    RANGER CREW 500 EFI     2013


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Attorney Bound by Terms of $14MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on Feb. 14 that a lawyer
representing landowners in class action suit over
telecommunication companies' installation of fiber-optic cable on
the landowners' property was bound by the terms of a $14 million
settlement even though he didn't sign a final written agreement.

The appeals court found no factual or legal error in an Illinois
federal judge's decision that Arthur Susman's failure to promptly
object to the deal implied his consent and that his eventual
refusal to sign was a case of "buyer's remorse" -- not an
objection to the deal's enforcement terms.

Under the terms of the Illinois settlement -- which resolved the
landowners' class action against Sprint Communications Co. LP,
Qwest Communications Co. LLC, Level 3 Communications LLC and
others -- attorneys were to be awarded $3.54 million in fees and
expenses, and there was to be an enforcement mechanism preventing
additional litigation.

Mr. Susman said on appeal that he objected to the August 2011's
settlement's hold-harmless clause, as well as provisions
empowering mediators to arbitrate future disputes and "forfeit"
the fees of attorneys who don't cooperate in implementing the
agreement in related state-by-state settlements.  But the appeals
court affirmed the decision, saying it was reasonable for other
lawyers to expect Mr. Susman to quickly raise his objections to
the written agreement after the dispute was settled.

The Illinois class action, which alleged malfeasance over 4,500
parcels of land in the state, was just one chapter in an epic
battle in which property owners accused telecommunications
companies of installing fiber-optic cable and other facilities on
railroad rights-of-way after getting permission from the railroads
but not the landowners.

Following a lengthy dispute, plaintiffs' lawyers agreed that 87
percent of the fees awarded in the nationwide class action
settlements would go to a coalition of 48 law firms -- with
Mr. Susman and his former collaborator William Gotfryd receiving
the remaining 4.5 percent and 8.5 percent, respectively, court
papers said.

A draft written agreement was circulated, and after Mr. Susman
suggested minor clarifications that were made, he didn't raise any
additional suggestions or concerns, according to court filings.
All the lawyers signed the deal save Mr. Susman, who contended
that Mr. Gotfryd shouldn't get a larger slice of the pie and that
obligations in the written agreement weren't part of the original
mediators' proposal.

District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer ruled that Mr. Susman was
bound to the deal because he had approved a meditated fee-
allocation proposal and hadn't voiced significant objections to
the drafts.

The Seventh Circuit said Feb. 14 that, if Mr. Susman's real
complaint was over his size of the share, "his reliance on a tardy
objection to the arbitration and hold-harmless provisions in the
written agreement is hard to explain as anything other than a
sham."

Aside from the Illinois class action, fees have been distributed
in accordance with the agreement in other settlements while
Mr. Susman's appeal has been pending, court filings said.

Kathleen C. Kauffman of Ackerson Kauffman Fex PC, which
represented the plaintiffs on the fee issue, told Law360 on Feb. 8
that it is unfortunate that the courts ever had to deal with the
fee dispute.

An attorney for Sprint declined to comment Saturday. Attorneys for
Qwest, Level 3 and Wiltel didn't immediately respond to requests
for comment Friday.

Circuit Judges William Joseph Bauer, Richard Posner and Diane S.
Sykes sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit.

Plaintiffs Brent Bauer, James Becherer, Judy Boren, Wayne Smith,
Tri-County Feed Mill Inc. and Wilaredt Acres Inc. are represented
by Kathleen C. Kauffman of Ackerson Kauffman Fex PC.

Susman Group is represented by Arthur T. Susman --
asusman@shhllp.com -- of the Law Offices of Arthur Susman.

Qwest is represented by Kevin B. Duff of Rachlis Durham Duff Adler
& Peel LLC, and Christopher J. Koenigs and Michael B. Carroll of
Sherman & Howard LLC. Level 3 and Wiltel Communications LLC are
represented by Joseph E. Jones of Fraser Stryker PC LLO. Sprint
Communications Company LP is represented by Richard M. Waris --
rwaris@pretzel-stouffer.com -- of Pretzel & Stouffer and J. Emmett
Logan -- emmett.logan@stinsonleonard.com -- of Stinson Leonard
Street LLP.

Brent Bauer et al. v. Qwest Communications Co. LLC et al., case
12-3036, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8MM Lbs. of Processed Diseased Animals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rancho Feeding Corporation, a Petaluma, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 8,742,700 pounds, because it processed
diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities
without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection.  Thus,
the products are adulterated, because they are unsound,
unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food and must be
removed from commerce, 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" (wholesale and custom sales only)
   -- 2 per box "Beef (Market) Heads" (retail only)
   -- 4-gallons per box "Beef Blood" (wholesale only)
   -- 20-lb. boxes of "Beef Oxtail"
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Cheeks"
   -- 30-lb. boxes of " Beef Lips"
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Omasum"
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripas"
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Mountain Oysters"
   -- 30-lb. boxes of "Sweet Breads"
   -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Liver"
   -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripe"
   -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Tongue"
   -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Cuts"
   -- 40-lb. boxes of "Veal Bones"
   -- 50-lb. boxes of "Beef Feet"
   -- 50-lb. boxes of "Beef Hearts"
   -- 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Trim"

Beef carcasses and boxes bear the establishment number "EST. 527"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  Each box bears the case code
number ending in "3" or "4."  The products were produced Jan. 1,
2013 through Jan. 7, 2014 and shipped to distribution centers and
retail establishments nationwide.

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


RAWSON-NEAL: Judge Dismisses "Patient Dumping" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Reese and Cynthia Hubert, writing for Sacramento Bee,
report that a federal judge on Feb. 13 dismissed a civil lawsuit
brought on behalf of a patient who was bused to Sacramento from a
Nevada state psychiatric hospital in Las Vegas.

Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital discharged James Flavy Coy Brown
via Greyhound bus last February to Sacramento, where he had no
connections and no arrangements for treatment or housing waiting
for him.

Rawson-Neal lost its accreditation and its treatment protocols
have been the focus of ongoing reviews by state and federal
agencies.  The hospital, Nevada's primary facility for mentally
ill people, remains in danger of losing its federal Medicare
funding, pending demands for improvements.

Sacramento attorney Mark Merin, joined by the American Civil
Liberties Union of Nevada, filed a class-action lawsuit against
Nevada on behalf of Mr. Brown and hundreds of other patients bused
out of state by the hospital, contending the practice was a form
of "patient dumping" and violated their civil rights.  Mr. Merin
said his research had turned up dozens of former patients with
similar stories.

In dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge James C.
Mahan, whose district spans the state of Nevada, ruled that state
officials didn't compel Mr. Brown to get on a bus to Sacramento.
Instead, he wrote, Nevada merely gave him the means to leave: a
bus ticket.

"The coercive power of the state was not imposed on (Brown),"
Judge Mahan wrote in an 11-page decision.  "There was no direct
command from an individual bearing state coercive authority, nor
threat of punishment if (Brown) did not travel to Sacramento."

Nevada has a right to institute a busing policy that "best
allocate(s) scarce financial resources," Judge Mahan added.

Judge Mahan's decision largely affirmed the arguments made by
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto asking that the
lawsuit be dismissed.

Mr. Brown, who suffers from schizophrenia, had been living
homeless in Las Vegas for years when he ended up at Rawson-Neal
with symptoms of psychosis last February.  He spent 72 hours in
the observation unit, he later told The Bee, before a doctor told
him he might enjoy "sunny California" and discharged him to the
Las Vegas Greyhound station.  His discharge orders noted he should
be given a three-day supply of Thorazine, Klonopin and Cymbalta to
treat his schizophrenia, anxiety disorder and depression, plus
"Ensure and snacks for a 15-hour bus ride."

Following a bus trip that spanned multiple stops over three days,
Mr. Brown arrived in Sacramento carrying his bus schedule and
discharge papers from Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health
Services, the hospital's umbrella agency.  Mr. Brown said hospital
staffers had told him to dial 911 when he arrived.

Instead, he wound up at the Loaves & Fishes homeless services
complex on North C Street, confused and talking of suicide,
according to staffers there.  With their help, he made it to UC
Davis Medical Center, where he spent two nights in the emergency
room, while hospital staff searched for more permanent psychiatric
treatment and housing.  He spent time at two boarding homes in the
Sacramento area before his daughter, alerted to his plight when

In the lawsuit, Mr. Merin contends that discharging Mr. Brown to a
bus violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
outlawing "cruel and unusual punishment," saying the hospital was
indifferent to Brown's unstable psychological state.

Judge Mahan, who was appointed to the federal bench by President
George W. Bush, unequivocally rejected that argument.

"This view stretches the Eighth Amendment beyond its previously
recognized limits," he wrote, "and would effectively require
hospitals to indefinitely provide free care to all patients to
avoid 'punishing' them by forcing them out into the harsh
existence of the real world."

Mr. Merin also hoped to convince Judge Mahan that Mr. Brown's
treatment violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and
Active Labor Act, often called the "anti-dumping" law.  Under the
act, a hospital emergency room must screen a patient for an
emergency medical condition and, if one exists, stabilize the
patient before discharge.  A patient who suffers "personal harm"
due to a violation of the law can sue.

But, Judge Mahan wrote, Mr. Brown "fails to articulate that he
suffered any personal harm as a direct result of (Rawson-Neal's)
failure to comply with this section.  Indeed, (Brown's) account
indicates that (Rawson-Neal) gave him enough medication to last
the entire trip to Sacramento, and that shortly after he arrived,
he was treated at the University of California at Davis Medical
Center."

In an interview on Feb. 13, Mr. Merin took issue with Judge
Mahan's reasoning, saying Mr. Brown was confused and heavily
medicated and in no condition to take responsibility for his care
or ignore doctors' orders that he head to Sacramento.  He said he
and Mr. Brown are considering their options, including an appeal
or filing a new lawsuit in state court.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Suits Over Municipal Bonds in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits alleging securities law violations by Morgan Keegan,
including one brought as a class action on behalf of retail
purchasers of certain municipal bonds, are in the early stages,
according to Regions Financial Corporation's Nov. 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

The SEC and states of Missouri and Texas are investigating alleged
securities law violations by Morgan Keegan in the underwriting and
sale of certain municipal bonds. An enforcement action was brought
by the Missouri Secretary of State on April 4, 2013, seeking
monetary penalties and other relief. A civil action was brought by
institutional investors of the bonds on March 19, 2012, seeking a
return of their investment and unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. A class action was brought on behalf of retail
purchasers of the bonds on September 4, 2012, seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages. Several claims by individual
investors and investor groups are also pending. These actions are
in the early stages. These matters are also subject to the
indemnification agreement with Raymond James.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suit by Select Fund Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
Cases brought on behalf of investors who purchased shares of
certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds are in various stages
and no classes have been certified, according to Regions Financial
Corporation's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

Beginning in December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates
have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and
state courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of
certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (the "Funds") and
stockholders of Regions. These cases have been consolidated into
class-actions and stockholder derivative actions for the open-end
and closed-end Funds. The Funds were formerly managed by Regions
Investment Management, Inc. ("Regions Investment Management").
Regions Investment Management no longer manages these Funds, which
were transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management
("Hyperion") in 2008. Certain of the Funds have since been
terminated by Hyperion. The complaints contain various
allegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to
the activities of the Funds. Plaintiffs have requested equitable
relief and unspecified monetary damages. These cases are in
various stages and no classes have been certified. Settlement
discussions are ongoing in certain cases, and the Court has
granted final approval of a settlement in the closed-end Funds
class-action and shareholder derivative case. Certain of the
shareholders in these Funds and other interested parties have
entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims,
in lieu of participating in the class actions. These lawsuits and
proceedings are subject to the indemnification agreement with
Raymond James.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Alabama Stock Suit Stayed Pending Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by stockholders of Regions Financial Corporation
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
is now stayed pending a review of a trial court's grant of class-
action certification, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by
Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama against Regions and certain former officers of
Regions ("the 2010 Claim"). The 2010 Claim alleges violations of
the federal securities laws, including allegations that statements
that were materially false and misleading were included in filings
made with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The
plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified
monetary damages. On June 7, 2011, the trial court denied Regions'
motion to dismiss the 2010 Claim. On June 14, 2012, the trial
court granted class certification. The Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals is reviewing the trial court's grant of class-action
certification. The case is now stayed pending that review.


SAMSUNG C&T: Recalls Girl's Jacket Due to Strangulation Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Samsung C&T America, Inc., New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of 1,400 U.S. Polo Assn. girl's jackets.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

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

There were no incidents that were reported.

Thw recall involves U.S. Polo Assn. girl's jackets.  The jackets
have the name U.S. Polo Assn. with the year 1890 and crossed polo
mallets on the jacket's upper right exterior and a silhouette of
two polo players and the initials USPA on the jacket's upper left
exterior.  The jackets come in the colors fuchsia, green and cream
in girl's sizes 4-16.  The name Q4 Designs LLC and style numbers
can be found on the white tracking label tag sewn into the inside
of the jacket near the waist band.  Recalled style numbers
include: U274-200 for sizes 4-6 and U274-300 for sizes 7-16.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Burlington Coat Factory, Kids Stop and Cookie's Department Stores
from August 2013 to October 2013 for about $15.

Consumers should remove or cut the band to eliminate the hazard,
or contact Q4 Designs to obtain a full refund.


SANTA MARIA FOODS: Recalls 8,895 Lbs. of Various Meat Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Maria Foods Corporation, a Rexdale, Ontario, Canada
establishment, is recalling approximately 8,895 pounds of various
meat products, because they were imported without the benefit of
full USDA inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  Without full
inspection, a remote possibility of adverse health consequences
exists.

These Santa Maria Foods Corporation products are subject to
recall:

   -- 11.1-oz. "Sopressata Salami" bearing package code "2014AL30"

   -- 5.1-lbs. "MASTRO Milano Salami" bearing package code
      "2014JN17"

   -- 5.3-lbs. "MASTRO Calabrese Salami Hot" bearing package code
      "2014JL08" or "2014JN17"

   -- 8.4-lbs. "MASTRO Sopressata Round" bearing package code
      "2014JL22"

   -- 2.6-lbs. "MASTRO Sopressata Salami" bearing package code
      "2014JL09"

   -- 13.3-lbs. "MASTRO Mortadella with Pistachios" bearing
      package code "2014AL09"

   -- 15.0-lbs. "MASTRO Jambon de Paris Cooked Ham Jambon Cuit"
      bearing package code "2014AL05," "2014AL10," "2014AL10,"
      "2014AL10" or "2014AL22"

   -- 16.8-lbs. "MASTRO Mortadella" bearing package code
      "2014MR20"

Packages will bear the Canadian establishment number "340" or
"224."  The products were distributed into commerce in Arizona,
California and Florida.  The products were also exported by the US
distributor to Australia, Tahiti, New Zealand, Fiji and Thailand.

The problem was discovered when FSIS import staff reviewed records
and discovered that the product was not presented by the
independent third party carrier for USDA inspection at the U.S. -
Canadian border.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Santa
Maria Foods at 1-888-886-4428.  Media with questions about the
recall should contact Ron Hyson at (416) 459-9478 or at
rhyson@sofinafoods.com.

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.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Selbin, chair of the defective products practice group
at the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, announced Feb. 24 that the U.S. Supreme Court
Monday morning declined to hear an appeal by Sears Roebuck &
Company (SHLD), made by consumers who purchased Kenmore-branded
washers from Sears identical to the washers in the Whirlpool Corp.
litigation.

In the Sears litigation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
agreed with consumers that they should be permitted to move
forward with their lawsuit in federal court in Illinois.
Consumers' claims in the Sears case -- that the Whirlpool-
manufactured Kenmore washers are defective -- are similar to the
claims in the Whirlpool case.

"One-hundred percent of people who purchased these defective
Whirlpool and Kenmore machines, as alleged in our lawsuit, have
gotten something less than they paid for," Selbin said.
"According to Whirlpool's own records, just a few years after the
Whirlpool front loading washers were introduced in America,
between 35% and 50% of consumers had already experienced foul
odors," Selbin said.  "Whirlpool should stand up and be
accountable for the harm they have caused to hard-working American
families."

Learn more about the defective front-load washer litigation at
http://is.gd/zOCa0k

                       About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a 60-plus attorney law firm
with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.  We are
among the largest law firms in the United States that represent
only plaintiffs.

We are committed to achieving justice for consumers, employees,
patients, investors, and business owners; promoting safer products
and fair competition; protecting our environment; assisting
individuals blow the whistle on fraud; safeguarding the rights of
patent and copyright holders; and remedying violations of the
civil rights of citizens worldwide.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Over Merger Settled, Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery approved a settlement, entered
final judgment, and dismissed the cases over a merger between
Allos Therapeutics, Inc. and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
according to Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Dec. 6, 2013, Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2012.

On April 9, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Radmore, et al. v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-
00948-PAB, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, or the Radmore Complaint. The Radmore
Complaint named as defendants Allos Therapeutics, the members of
the Allos board of directors, as well as Spectrum. The plaintiffs
alleged that Allos directors breached their fiduciary duties to
their stockholders in connection with the proposed merger between
Allos and Spectrum, and were aided and abetted by Allos and
Spectrum. The Radmore Complaint alleged that the merger involves
an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, unreasonable deal
protection devices, and that the defendants entered into the
transaction to benefit themselves personally. The Radmore
Complaint sought injunctive relief, including to enjoin the
merger, attorneys' and other fees and costs, and other relief. On
April 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Keucher
v. Berns, et al., C.A. No. 7419, was filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, alleging similar violations. On April 20, 2012, an
Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery in the matter captioned Keucher v. Berns, et al., C.A.
No. 7419-VCN, adding allegations that the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, or the
Schedule 14D-9, filed by the company with the SEC on April 13,
2012, contains inadequate, incomplete and/or misleading
disclosures.

On May 7, 2012, the parties to all three actions executed a
memorandum of understanding, or MOU, containing the terms for an
agreement-in-principle to resolve all litigation. The MOU provided
that the defendants would agree to make certain supplemental
disclosures in an amended Schedule 14D-9 and that the parties
would use their best efforts to agree upon, enter, and present to
the Delaware Chancery court a formal stipulation of settlement.
The MOU provides for an award to plaintiffs' counsel of $850,000
for their fees and expenses but did not include any payment to
stockholders. The parties completed confirmatory discovery on July
18, 2012 and filed a stipulation and agreement of compromise and
settlement in the Delaware court on November 8, 2012. On February
11, 2013, the Delaware court approved the settlement, including
the payment of $850,000 to counsel for the stockholders, entered
final judgment and dismissed the cases.


STERLING ROPE: Recalls Sewn Cords Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 20, 2014
Posting date:             February 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38011

Affected products: Sewn cord edge restraints, sewn eyes and sewn
loops

The recall involves three models of Sterling Rope's sewn cords
which include the 8 mm Aztek (AZ) Sewn Bound Loop Prusik, Aztek
(AZ) Elite 8 mm Edge Restraint and the 8 mm Accessory Cord Sewn
Eye.

Sewn cords break at a lower weight than published weight values,
posing a fall hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Sterling Rope Company has received any
reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these products.

Approximately 480 of these recalled products were sold in Canada
and approximately 9,200 in the United States at authorized
Sterling Rope dealers.

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold from January 2013 through January 2014 in Canada and the
United States.

Companies:

  Distributor     Sterling Rope Company
                  Biddeford
                  Maine
                  United States

Consumers should discontinue use of the product and contact
Sterling Rope for a free replacement.  The item may also be
returned to an authorized Sterling Rope dealer that will
coordinate the free replacement for you.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $11.8M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. reached a settlement-in-principle to
settle a securities lawsuit filed against it in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia for $11.8 million,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on June 11,
2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund,
filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named
individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in
violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs'
allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending
relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such
alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. Lead Plaintiffs
in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified
amount. On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the amended
complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading requirements of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court also ruled
that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the opportunity to submit a
further amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs served their second
amended complaint on June 27, 2011. Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss that complaint on July 27, 2011. On March 22, 2012, the
Court granted in part and denied in part that Motion to Dismiss.
On April 19, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion requesting that
the Court reconsider its March 22, 2012 order. On September 26,
2012, the Court issued a written order denying the Motion for
Reconsideration. Defendants filed their answer to the second
amended complaint on May 21, 2012. On March 7, 2013, the Court
granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On May 23, 2013, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted
Defendants permission to appeal the District Court's certification
of the class. On October 4, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and the
Defendants reached a settlement-in-principle to settle the
Securities Class Action. Under the settlement-in-principle, the
Defendants shall cause to be paid $11.8 million (the "Settlement
Payment") in exchange for broad releases, dismissal with prejudice
of the Securities Class Action and other material and customary
terms and conditions.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Overdraft Fees Suit in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------
The case In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No.
2036 into which Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al.
was consolidated, is currently in discovery, according to the
company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.
according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and CB&T were named
as defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to
the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to
customers. The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et
al., was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability,
conversion and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered by
plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft
charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller
machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post
payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On October 25, 2010, the
Childs case was transferred to a multi-district proceeding in the
Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation, MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on
October 21, 2011. The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on November 22, 2011. On July 26, 2012, the
court denied the motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but
granted the motion as to CB&T. Synovus and Synovus Bank filed
their answer to the amended complaint on September 24, 2012. The
case is currently in discovery.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Court Jurisdiction at Issue in "Griner" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Court jurisdiction continues to be an issue in the suit Griner et
al. v. Synovus Bank, et al., according to Synovus Financial
Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in a putative state-wide
class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft fees
charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are
usurious under Georgia law. The case, Griner et al. v. Synovus
Bank, et al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (state of
Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury,
conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's
assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit
and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer
accounts.

Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges constitute interest
and are therefore subject to Georgia usury laws. Synovus Bank
contends that such overdraft charges constitute non-interest fees
and charges under both federal and Georgia law and are otherwise
exempt from Georgia usury limits.

On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case
to state court. On July 22, 2011, the federal court entered an
order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the
Gwinnett County State Court. Synovus Bank subsequently filed a
motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2012, the state court entered
an order denying the motion to dismiss.

On March 1, 2012, the state court signed and entered a certificate
of immediate review thereby permitting Synovus Bank to petition
the Georgia Court of Appeals for a discretionary appeal of the
denial of the motion to dismiss. On March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank
filed its application for interlocutory appeal with the Georgia
Court of Appeals. On April 3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals
granted Synovus Bank's application for interlocutory appeal of the
state court's order denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss. On
April 11, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal. Oral
arguments were heard in the case on September 19, 2012. On March
28, 2013, the Georgia Court of Appeals entered an order affirming
the denial of Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss and remanding the
case back to the State Court of Gwinnett County for further
proceedings. On April 8, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a motion
requesting that the Court of Appeals reconsider its March 28, 2013
order. On April 11, 2013, the Court of Appeals entered an order
denying Synovus Bank's motion for reconsideration.  On April 19,
2013, Synovus Bank filed a notice of its intent to petition the
Supreme Court of Georgia for a writ of certiorari.

On May 1, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia.  On October 7, 2013,
the Supreme Court of Georgia accepted certiorari and vacated the
March 28, 2013 order of the Georgia Court of Appeals instanter
with direction that the Court of Appeals remand the case to the
trial court for further consideration in light of the effect, if
any, of the July 3, 2013 Declaratory Order issued by the Georgia
Department of Banking and Finance, which declares that to provide
parity with national banks, overdraft fees imposed by state-
chartered banks in connection with deposit accounts are not
subject to Georgia's usury laws. The trial court scheduled a
November 21, 2013 hearing for consideration of this issue.


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Dismissal of "Wilder" Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in the securities suit Wilder v. News Corp., et al.
have filed motions to dismiss the complaint which are pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were
issued regarding the NoW Matter. The suit names as defendants the
Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and
seeks compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and
costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the
Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the
court issued an order providing that an amended consolidated
complaint shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended
consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things,
added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK &
Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to
include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. The defendants have
filed motions to dismiss the complaint which are pending.


UNITED STATES: Bruce Fein Debunks Class Action Plagiarism Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Ross, writing for The Daily Caller News Foundation, reports
that a lawyer critical of National Security Agency surveillance is
denying reports that Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul lifted a
class-action lawsuit from him, according to the senator's
political action committee.

"The Washington Post story is completely inaccurate; in fact,
Bruce Fein has come out to dispute the story himself," Sergio Gor,
spokesman for RANDPAC told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Mr. Gor provided TheDCNF with an email from Mr. Fein, a former
Reagan administration official, which read: "Mattie Lolavar was
not speaking for me.  Her quotes were her own and did not
represent my views.  I was working on a legal team, and have been
paid for my work."

On Feb. 12, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published a
story in which Mr. Fein's ex-wife Mattie, quoted using her married
name, accused Mr. Paul and former Virginia Attorney General Ken
Cuccinelli of bilking her ex-husband out of money and proper
attribution for his role in helping craft the class-action suit.

"I am aghast and shocked by Ken Cuccinelli's behavior and his
absolute knowledge that this entire complaint was the work
product, intellectual property and legal genius of Bruce Fein,"
she said, claiming to be her ex-husband's spokeswoman.

"Ken Cuccinelli stole the suit," she added, saying Mr. Paul
"already has one plagiarism issue, now has a lawyer who just takes
another lawyer's work product."

Last year, Mr. Paul was accused of lifting passages for his books
and opinion columns from others without citation.

In his article, Ms. Milbank cited similarities between the
language used by Mr. Fein and that of the final draft of the suit,
which was filed on Feb. 12.

"Except for some cuts and minor wording changes, they are clearly
the same documents," Mr. Milbank wrote.

Members of Mr. Paul's camp say Mr. Fein was a member of the legal
team.

The suit alleges that Obama and the NSA are violating U.S.
citizens' rights by collecting phone users' metadata.  Messrs.
Paul and Cuccinelli, who recently ran an unsuccessful Virginia
gubernatorial campaign, have teamed up in the past to criticize
Obama and the NSA for the surveillance program.

Late on Feb. 13, The Washington Post published an article by Dana
Milbank showing the email exchanges between Mr. Fein, his ex-wife,
Messrs. Cuccinelli and Paul's political team.

The emails show that Mr. Fein was frustrated with the announcement
of the NSA lawsuit, and that his ex-wife thought that the team had
stolen Fein's intellectual property.

"My name was not on the complaint despite the fact that it was
predominantly my work product over several weeks and two hundred
hours of research, meetings, and drafting," wrote Mr. Fein, in a
complaint to Paul's chief political advisor on Feb. 12.

But Mr. Fein indicated in the email that he had no plans to severe
ties with the Paul-Cuccinelli dyad.  He also never accused the
lawsuit team of theft or plagiarism.

"Going forward, I expect complete transparency and inclusion on
all non-trivial decisions," Mr. Fein wrote, in an email obtained
by Ms. Milbank.  "My name will be on all future pleadings.  Ken
and I plan to meet shortly to discuss these matters."


VONAGE HOLDINGS: "Merkin et al" Suit Sent to Negotiating Table
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case filed by Arthur Merkin and James Smith against Vonage
America, Inc. was assigned to a United States District Judge and a
Magistrate Judge, with the parties directed to the Court's
Alternative Dispute Resolution program, according to Vonage
Holdings Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On
October 16, 2013, further pleadings and discovery in the case were
stayed pending an initial status conference scheduled for February
7, 2014. On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the
case to the United States District Court for the Central District
of California. On October 30, 2013 the case was assigned to a
United States District Judge and a Magistrate Judge, with the
parties directed to the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution
program.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Selbin, chair of the defective products practice group
at the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, announced Feb. 24 that the U.S. Supreme Court
Monday morning rejected an effort by Whirlpool Corporation (WHR)
to escape accountability for manufacturing millions of allegedly
defective washers that it sold to American families.

Whirlpool asked the Supreme Court to review the decision by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that allowed consumers
to pursue claims in a class action against Whirlpool for selling
the allegedly defective front-load washers from 2001 to 2008.

The consumers allege that the foreign-manufactured washers are
defective because they accumulate mold and require extraordinary
and expensive actions by consumers to reduce the effects of that
mold, such as running extra cleaning cycles, leaving the door open
between use, and wiping down the washer after every use with
bleach.  They also allege that Whirlpool instructed them -- only
after purchase -- that they needed to routinely buy another
product sold by Whirlpool, Affresh(TM), to reduce the effects of
the mold, at substantial cost to consumers and profit to
Whirlpool.

"Consumers brought this case to make this multi-billion-dollar
corporation stand behind its product," Selbin said.  "The federal
court of appeals, applying long-standing, fundamental legal
principles, twice unanimously sided with plaintiffs, holding that
they can sue Whirlpool for breach of warranty to get what they
paid for.  We are pleased that the Supreme Court declined to
intervene and rejected Whirlpool's baseless challenges to the
rulings in the case. Whirlpool's latest attempt to escape
accountability for its defective products has failed."

Selbin explained that "Whirlpool knew when it sold the very first
one of these washers that everything about their care and use was
different than the top load washers consumers used without problem
for decades -- in Whirlpool's own words, that these were 'not your
mother's washing machine.'"

"Instead of explaining that to consumers prior to purchase so they
could make an informed decision," Selbin said, "Whirlpool chose to
hide that critical information until after the sale, and then
charged consumers for an entirely new and different product to the
tune of a couple hundred dollars each over the life of the
machine."  Selbin also said that when consumers complained to
Whirlpool, their warranty claims were denied:  "Whirlpool refused
to stand behind its washers.  Whirlpool left these families no
choice but to seek to hold Whirlpool accountable through the civil
court system.  Despite years of procedural maneuverings by
Whirlpool to derail this case, the families will now finally get
their day in court."

The lawsuit, Glazer v. Whirlpool Corporation, was originally filed
by a Cleveland, Ohio-area woman, Gina Glazer, who purchased a
defective Whirlpool Duet Sport washer in 2006.  Shortly after her
purchase, Ms. Glazer's washer developed mold and foul odors,
despite her extraordinary attempts to regularly clean her washer.
Ms. Glazer contacted Whirlpool and they refused to provide any
remedy.  "We paid a lot of money for this machine and expected to
get a quality product for our family," Glazer said.  "Instead, we
got a machine that stunk up our home and stunk up my families'
clothes, including my young children's clothes.  Whirlpool should
stand behind their product and should be accountable when their
product fails to function as promised."

In 2010, the federal District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio permitted the case filed by Ms. Glazer, along with the claims
filed by a Columbus, Ohio-area woman, Trina Allison, to go forward
as a class action on behalf of all Ohio purchasers of defective
Whirlpool front loading washers.  Whirlpool appealed that decision
to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio.  That
court has twice agreed with the district court that the case can
proceed as a class action on behalf of all purchasers of the
defective washers in Ohio.  On Feb. 24, the Supreme Court declined
to review that decision.

The Supreme Court also on Feb. 24 declined to hear an appeal by
Sears Roebuck & Company (SHLD), made by consumers who purchased
Kenmore-branded washers from Sears identical to the washers in the
Whirlpool litigation.  In that litigation, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals agreed with consumers that they should be
permitted to move forward with their lawsuit in federal court in
Illinois.  Consumers' claims in the Sears case -- that the
Whirlpool-manufactured Kenmore washers are defective -- are
similar to the claims in the Whirlpool case.

"One-hundred percent of people who purchased these defective
Whirlpool and Kenmore machines, as alleged in our lawsuit, have
gotten something less than they paid for," Selbin said.
"According to Whirlpool's own records, just a few years after the
Whirlpool front loading washers were introduced in America,
between 35% and 50% of consumers had already experienced foul
odors," Selbin said.  "Whirlpool should stand up and be
accountable for the harm they have caused to hard-working American
families."

In addition to the Whirlpool and Sears FLW class action cases, the
Supreme Court also denied a petition for writ of certiorari
against BSH Home Appliances Corporation, the manufacturer of Bosch
washing machines in Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp.  In this
case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the
trial court's grant of certification to four statewide consumer
classes in California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York. The Bosch
consumers, like the Whirlpool and Sears consumers, allege that
their machines are defective causing mold, mildew, and horrible
smells.

Learn more about the defective front-load washer litigation at
http://is.gd/zOCa0k

                       About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a 60-plus attorney law firm
with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.  We are
among the largest law firms in the United States that represent
only plaintiffs.

We are committed to achieving justice for consumers, employees,
patients, investors, and business owners; promoting safer products
and fair competition; protecting our environment; assisting
individuals blow the whistle on fraud; safeguarding the rights of
patent and copyright holders; and remedying violations of the
civil rights of citizens worldwide.

The firm may be reached through:

     Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     Tel: 212-355-9500
     E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com


XTREME DRILLING: Tubing Operator Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Boykin v. Xtreme Drilling & Coil Services, Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-00132 (S.D. Tex., January 20, 2014) alleges that Xtreme
Drilling does not pay its coil tubing operators overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The collective action
seeks unpaid wages and other damages owed to these workers.

Xtreme Drilling & Coil Services, Inc., Case No. is a Texas company
with its headquarters in Houston.  The Company is "an onshore
drilling and coiled tubing services contractor that works with
exploration and production companies in the U.S., Canada and
international markets."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


ZILLOW INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Wash. Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Zillow, Inc. to dismiss a securities suit filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington at Seattle is pending, according to the company's Nov.
6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In November 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of the company's executive
officers seeking unspecified damages in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The complaint
purports to state claims for violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of a class of those who purchased the company's common
stock between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed in June 2013. In general,
the complaint alleges, among other things, that during the period
between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012, the company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business practices and financial results. In August 2013, the
company moved to dismiss the lawsuit. That motion to dismiss is
pending. The company intends to deny the allegations of any
wrongdoing and vigorously defend the claims in the lawsuit. The
company has not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of
September 30, 2013 or December 31, 2012 as the company does not
believe a material loss is probable. It is a reasonable
possibility that a loss may be incurred; however, the possible
loss or range of loss is not estimable.


                             *********

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  * * *