CAR_Public/140306.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 6, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 46

                             Headlines


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Brown" Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif.
AMCOL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Illinois
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Funds $12.5MM Settlement in Insurance Suits
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Court Dismissed Wolfe Action II
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.

APPERIENCE CORP: Faces Suit in California Over IObit Software
AVONDALE INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Work-Related Asbestos Exposure
BARCLAYS PLC: Quinn Emanuel Seeks to Be Lead Counsel in Forex Case
BARNES & NOBLE: Issued Misleading Statements, Shareholder Claims
CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Claims

CARMAX INC: Appeals "Fowler" Suit Ruling to Supreme Court
CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Securities Lawsuit in Florida Dismissed
CC-PALO ALTO: Funneled $190-Mil. to Parent, Vi Residents Claim
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Cross-Appeals Won't Delay Notice to Veterans
CLARK COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Claims

CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Dismissal of Medical Groups' Suit Upheld
CONTRA COSTA, CA: Court Finds Hiring Diversification Up to Par
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Opt-in Notices Sent in "Alequin" Labor Suit
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Opt-in Notices Sent in "ChHab" Labor Suit
EAT GOOD: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

EBAY INC: Class Counsel Deserves $27K in Fees, Costs, Court Ruled
ELECTRONIC DATABASES: May 9 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
FREESCORE LLC: 9th Circuit Reversed Dismissal of "Stout" Suit
GALILEE MEMORIAL: Faces New Suit Over Mishandling of Corpses
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

GOOGLE INC: Challenges Gmail Privacy Class Action Status
HALLIBURTON CO: SC Ruling May Alter Securities Fraud Class Actions
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Defective Garden Hoses
HSBC BANK: Court Dismissed "de Sausa" OT Suit With Prejudice
INNERWORKINGS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Ill.

INTELIQUENT INC: Plaintiff in Ill. Securities Suit Abandons Case
JUST FABULOUS: Sued for Deceiving People Into Paying $39.95/Month
LIFT VAPOR: Accused of Defrauding Customers Over Monthly Charges
LCA-VISION: Being Sold to Photomedex for Too Little, Class Says
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Extreme Fine for Expired Parking Meter

MCNEIL-PPC INC: Faces 120 Cases Over Tylenol Health Risks
MONSANTO COMPANY: Supreme Court Appeal Taken in "Allen" Accord
NATIONAL TENANT: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Background Check
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Trampled on Homeowners, Nevada Class Claims
NEWO CORP: Falsely Sells Wi-Fi "Range Extenders," Suit Claims

NJOY INC: Misleads Consumers That E-cigs Are Harmless, Suit Says
ONTARIO: Class Action v. MOL Over Negligent Inspection Can Proceed
PEPSICO INC: Pepsi One Product Contains Carcinogen, Suit Claims
PFIZER INC: Faces "Cawlfield" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor
RALPHS GROCERY: Decaf Classic Coffee Has Caffeine, Suit Claims

RITE AID: Pursues Bid to Decertify N.Y. Labor Suit
RITE AID: Continues to Face Labor Lawsuits in Calif. State Courts
SCHELL & KAMPETER: Obtains Initial Approval of Marciano Suit Deal
SEMINOLE, FL: Judge Blocks Bid to Appeal in "Davis" Suit
SONY GAMING: Court Dismissed Claims in PlayStation Users' Suit

ST. CHARLES SD: Suit Over School Reorganization Dismissed
STARWOOD HOTELS: Makes Employees Work Off the Clock, Suit Says
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "NECA-IBEW" Suit Over Aggrenox Drug
TEXAS GRILL: Fails to Pay Spread of Hours Premium, Suit Claims
TGI FRIDAY'S: Sued by Waitresses and Waiters in Massachusetts

TOSHIBA CORP: Misrepresents LCD TVs as LED TVs, Suit Claims
TOTAL WASTE: Faces Suit in Texas Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Allows Fraud Class Action to Proceed
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sued Over Recording of Customer Calls
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over High Speed DSL Package Charges

WAL-MART STORES: Gets Favorable Ruling in "Hayes" Class Action
WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
YELP INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Reviewers' Class Action


                             *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Brown" Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers transferred venue of the
case ALEXANDER BROWN and ARIK SILVA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH
CO. AND ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13-CV-
05205 YGR, (N.D. Cal.) to the Central District of California.

Abercrombie allegedly operates at least four brands of retail
clothing store in California: Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister,
Abercrombie Kids, and Gilly Hicks. The Plaintiffs hope to
represent a class of employees at all these stores. The Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages and injunctive relief for Abercrombie's
alleged failure (i) to provide rest periods, (ii) to indemnify
business expenses, (iii) to furnish accurate wage statements, (iv)
to pay timely wages due upon termination of employment, and for
its alleged compelled patronization of Abercrombie-owned stores.

Abercrombie filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Central
District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404.  The
Court granted the motion saying while a plaintiff's choice of
forum is generally given great deference, here Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class, do not reside in the Northern District, and the
majority of the actions giving rise to this case occurred in the
Central District.

"Thus, Plaintiffs' choice of this forum is given considerably less
deference. In light of this reduced deference, transfer is
justified for the convenience of the witnesses, most of whom may
be expected to reside in the Central District," concluded Judge
Rogers.

A copy of the District Court's February 14, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/PdNsppfrom Leagle.com.


AMCOL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Directors are selling AMCOL International to Imerys Minerals too
cheaply through an unfair process, for $41 per share or $1.6
billion, a class action claims in Cook County Chancery Court in
Illinois, according to Courthouse News Service.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Funds $12.5MM Settlement in Insurance Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation has fully deposited the $12.5
million that would settle lawsuits filed against it over
corporate-owned life insurance policies, according to the
company's Jan. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 29, 2013.

American Greetings Corporation is a defendant in two putative
class action lawsuits involving corporate-owned life insurance
policies (the "Insurance Policies"): one filed in the Northern
District of Ohio on January 11, 2012 by Theresa Baker as the
personal representative of the estate of Richard Charles Wolfe
(the "Baker Litigation"); and the other filed in the Northern
District of Oklahoma on October 1, 2010 by Keith Collier as the
personal representative of the estate of Ruthie Collier (the
"Collier Litigation").

In the Baker Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American
Greetings Corporation (1) misappropriated its employees' names and
identities to benefit itself; (2) breached its fiduciary duty by
using its employees' identities and personal information to
benefit itself; (3) unjustly enriched itself through the receipt
of corporate-owned life insurance policy benefits, interest and
investment returns; and (4) improperly received insurance policy
benefits for the insurable interest in Mr. Wolfe's life. The
plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of all pecuniary benefits
associated with the subject Insurance Policies, including
investment returns, interest and life insurance policy benefits
that American Greetings Corporation received from the deaths of
the former employees whose estates form the putative class.

In the Collier Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American
Greetings Corporation did not have an insurable interest when it
obtained the subject Insurance Policies and wrongfully received
the benefits from those policies. The plaintiff seeks damages in
the amount of policy benefits received by American Greetings
Corporation from the subject Insurance Policies, as well as
attorney's fees, costs and interest. On April 2, 2012, the
plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding
misappropriation of employee information and breach of fiduciary
duty claims as well as seeking punitive damages. On April 20,
2012, American Greetings Corporation moved to transfer the Collier
Litigation to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker
Litigation is pending. On July 6, 2012, the Court granted American
Greetings Corporation's Motion to Transfer and transferred the
case to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation
is pending.

On May 22, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved a full and final
settlement of all the claims of the Wolfe and Collier estates, as
well as the classes they seek to represent. As a result of the
preliminary approval, the Court consolidated the two cases and
certified a single class that consists of the heirs or estates of
the estates and heirs of all former American Greetings Corporation
employees (i) who are deceased; (ii) who were not officers or
directors of American Greetings Corporation; (iii) who were
insured under one of the following corporate-owned life insurance
plans: Provident Life & Accident 61153, Provident Life & Accident
61159, Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company 111, Connecticut
General ENX219, and Hartford Life Insurance Company 361; and (iv)
for whom American Greetings Corporation has received a death
benefit on or before the date on which the Court enters the Order
of Preliminary Approval. Required notices to potential class
members and to state attorney generals as required under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 were mailed on May 30, 2013.

On September 20, 2013, the Court entered a final order approving
the settlement in the amount of $12.5 million. This amount was
accrued prior to the first quarter of 2014. One half of the
settlement amount was deposited by American Greetings Corporation
into a settlement fund account on September 27, 2013, and the
remaining half of the settlement amount was deposited by American
Greetings Corporation into the same settlement fund account on
November 12, 2013. The settlement fund will be distributed in its
entirety to those members of the class who present valid claims,
their counsel, and a settlement administration vendor.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Court Dismissed Wolfe Action II
---------------------------------------------------
A U.S. federal court entered a dismissal order in Wolfe Action II
in view of the entry of a Final Approval of the settlement of In
re American Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No.
CV 12 792421, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 29, 2013.

On September 26, 2012, the company announced that its Board of
Directors received a non-binding proposal from Zev Weiss, the
Corporation's Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey Weiss, the
Corporation's President and Chief Operating Officer, on behalf of
themselves and certain other members of the Weiss family and
related parties to acquire all of the outstanding Class A common
shares and Class B common shares of the Corporation not currently
owned by them (the "Going Private Proposal"). On September 27,
2012, Dolores Carter, a purported shareholder, filed a putative
shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit (the "Carter
Action") in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio
(the "Cuyahoga County Court"), against American Greetings
Corporation and all of the members of the Board of Directors. The
Carter Action alleges, among other things, that the directors of
the Corporation breached their fiduciary duties owed to
shareholders in evaluating and pursuing the proposal. The Carter
Action further alleges claims for aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty. Among other things, the Carter Action seeks
declaratory relief. Subsequently, six more lawsuits were filed in
the Cuyahoga County Court purporting to advance substantially
similar claims on behalf of American Greetings Corporation against
the members of the Board of Directors and, in certain cases,
additional direct claims against American Greetings Corporation.

One lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. The other lawsuits were
consolidated by Judge Richard J. McMonagle on December 6, 2012
(amended order dated December 18, 2012) as In re American
Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 12 792421
(the "State Court Action"). Lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs'
counsel also were appointed.

On April 30, 2013, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint brings a single
class claim against the members of the Corporation's Board of
Directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting. The plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy
statement on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on April 17, 2013 omits information necessary
to permit the Corporation's shareholders to determine if the
Merger is in their best interest, that the controlling
shareholders have abused their control of the Corporation, that
the special committee appointed to oversee the transaction is not
independent, and that the other members of the Board of Directors
are also not independent.

On June 13, 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint based on plaintiffs' failure
to properly plead their claims as derivative actions, to exercise
their statutory appraisal rights as the sole remedy for
dissatisfaction with the proposed share price, and to overcome the
business judgment rule with respect to their breach of fiduciary
duty claims. The motions remain pending.

On July 16, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") agreeing in principle to settle the State
Court Action on behalf of themselves and the putative settlement
class, which includes all persons who owned any interest in the
common stock of American Greetings Corporation (either of record
or beneficially) at any time between and including September 26,
2012 and the effective date of the Merger. A Stipulation of
Settlement subsequently was filed with the Cuyahoga County Court
on August 8, 2013, and the Cuyahoga County Court preliminarily
approved the settlement on August 15, 2013 (amended order dated
September 4, 2013). The settlement provides for dismissal with
prejudice of the State Court Action and a release of claims
against defendants and released parties.

As consideration to class members, the Corporation agreed to and
did disclose additional information via a Form 8-K relating to the
Merger, which was filed with the SEC on July 18, 2013. In
addition, defendants acknowledge that the State Court Action
contributed to the Weiss family shareholders' decision to increase
the Merger consideration from $18.20 per share to $19.00 per
share. The settlement also contemplates the payment of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses to class counsel, which the
Corporation expects will be fully paid by the Corporation's
insurer.

The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, final
certification of the settlement class and final approval of the
proposed settlement by the Cuyahoga County Court. On December 12,
2013, the Cuyahoga County Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement.

On November 6, 2012, R. David Wolfe, a purported shareholder,
filed a putative class action (the "Wolfe Action") in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the
"Federal Court") against certain members of the Weiss Family and
the Irving I. Stone Oversight Trust, the Irving Stone Limited
Liability Company, the Irving I. Stone Support Foundation, and the
Irving I. Stone Foundation ("Stone Entities") alleging breach of
fiduciary duties in proposing and pursuing the proposal, as well
as against American Greetings, seeking, among other things,
declaratory relief. Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2012, the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System also filed
a purported class action in the Federal Court (the "LMPERS
Action") asserting substantially similar claims against the same
defendants and seeking substantially similar relief.

On November 30, 2012, plaintiffs in the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions
filed motions (1) to consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions, (2)
for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, (3) for appointment of co-
lead counsel, and, in the Wolfe Action only, (4) for partial
summary judgment. On December 14, 2012, the Corporation filed its
oppositions to the motions (a) to consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS
Actions, (b) for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, and (c) for
appointment of co-lead counsel. On the same day, the Corporation
also moved to dismiss both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions. The
Corporation answered both complaints on January 8, 2013, and on
January 11, 2013, it filed its opposition to the motion for
partial summary judgment. On February 14, 2013, the Federal Court
dismissed both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. On March 15, 2013, plaintiffs in both the
Wolfe and LMPERS Actions filed notices of appeal with the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 18, 2013, plaintiff Wolfe moved
to dismiss his appeal, which motion was granted on April 19, 2013.
On May 8, 2013, plaintiff LMPERS's moved to dismiss its appeal as
well, which motion was granted.

Plaintiffs in the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions alleged, in part, that
Article Seventh of the Corporation's articles of incorporation
prohibited the special committee from, among other things,
evaluating the Merger. The Corporation considered these
allegations and concluded that the Article is co-extensive with
Ohio law and thus allows the Corporation to engage in any activity
authorized by Ohio law. The Corporation also has consistently
construed Article Seventh as permitting directors to approve a
transaction so long as they are both disinterested and
independent.

On April 17, 2013, R. David Wolfe filed a new derivative and
putative class action ("Wolfe Action II") in the Federal Court
against the Corporation's directors, certain members of the Weiss
Family, and the Stone Entities, as well as the Corporation as a
nominal defendant, challenging the Merger as financially and
procedurally unfair to the Corporation and its minority
shareholders. Mr. Wolfe subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on
April 29, 2013. The Wolfe Action II sought a declaratory judgment
that Article Seventh precludes the Board of Directors and special
committee from approving the Merger. In addition, the Wolfe Action
II included a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Corporation's directors for allegedly violating
Article Seventh. Finally, the Wolfe Action II included both a
derivative and class action claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Weiss Family defendants and the Stone Entities for
allegedly seeking to acquire the minority shareholders' interests
at an unfair price. Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss the
Wolfe Action II amended Complaint on July 8, 2013.

On August 1, 2013, the Federal Court granted the parties' joint
motion to defer briefings on defendants' motions to dismiss and to
stay the action pending resolution of the settlement of the State
Court Action. Given the entry of Final Approval of the settlement
of the State Court Action, the parties filed a Stipulation and
Dismissal of the Wolfe Action II on December 23, 2013. The Federal
Court entered the Dismissal of the Wolfe Action II on the same
date.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-736 is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of AmTrust
between February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013, both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased AmTrust securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 7, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

AmTrust, through its subsidiaries, underwrites and provides
property and casualty insurance in the United States and
internationally.  The company operates in four segments: Small
Commercial Business, Specialty Risk and Extended Warranty,
Specialty Program, and Personal Lines Reinsurance.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that the Company: 1) manipulated its
loan loss reserves in order to inflate reported earnings; 2)
manipulated its deferred tax liabilities; 3) underestimated the
discount rates for its life settlement contracts in an effort to
inflate the Company's reported assets and total stockholder's
equity; 4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and 5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On December 12, 2013, a report by analyst firm Geoinvesting
exposed certain alleged accounting improprieties at AmTrust.  Such
improprieties included:  1) manipulation of the Company's loan
loss reserves; 2) manipulation of the Company's deferred tax
liabilities; and 3) underestimating the Company's discount rates
for its life settlement contracts.

On this news, shares of AmTrust fell $4.63 per share, more than
12%, on intraday trading, to a price of $33.67 on December 12,
2013.

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


APPERIENCE CORP: Faces Suit in California Over IObit Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apperience and Bluesprig, both dba IObit, claim their software can
identify and fix errors, but it says that every time, a class
action claims in California Federal Court, according to Courthouse
News Service.


AVONDALE INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Work-Related Asbestos Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Galia Binder, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
Belle Chasse man is suing multiple corporations for their alleged
failure to protect him from work-related asbestos exposure he
claims resulted in his contraction of lung cancer.

Frank G. DeSalvo filed suit against Huntington Ingalls Inc. also
known as Avondale Industries, Inc. (f/k/a Avondale Shipyards,
inc), Avondale executive officers Albert Bossier, Jr., J. Melton
Garrett, Onebeacon America Insurance Company (as successor to
Commercial Union Insurance Company), American Employers Insurance
Company, American Motorists Insurance Company, Bayer Cropscience,
inc. (As successor of liability to Rhone Poulenc AG company),
Amchem Products Inc., Benjamin Foster Company, Eagle Inc.
(formerly Eagle Asbetos & Packing Company, Inc.), Foster-Wheeler,
LLC (formerly Foster-Wheeler Corporation), General Electric
Company, Hopeman Brothers Inc., The McCarty Corporation (successor
to McCarty Branton Inc. and predecessor and successor to McCarty
Insulation sales, inc.), Reilly-Benton Company Inc., Riley Power
Inc. (Babcock Borsig Power Inc., DB Riely Inc.,  Riley Stoker
Corporation), Taylor-Seidenbach Inc., CBS Corporation
(Westinghouse Electric Corporation), Maryland Casualty Company,
Shell Oil Company, Shell Chemical LP, Entergy Louisiana LLC,
Chevron Oronite Company LLC, Wyeth Holdings Corporation (American
Cynamid Company), Lou-Con Inc. and its executive officer Bernard
Lyons and Union Carbide Corporation in the Orleans Parish Civil
District Court.

Mr. DeSalvo, a welder employed by Avondale from 1962-1966, alleges
during this four year period with the company he was exposed to
dangerous levels of toxic substances containing asbestos.  He
claims that he contracted asbestos-related lung cancer first
diagnosed around Dec. 30, 2012.

Avondale and the other defendants are accused of failing to reveal
and knowingly concealing inherent dangers in the use of asbestos,
including the ability to expose family members through clothing.
Additionally, Avondale is accused of reckless storage, handling
and transport of asbestos, and failing to provide safe equipment,
proper ventilation and medical monitoring.

Mr. DeSalvo is seeking unspecified damages for past, present, and
future hospital, medical, pharmaceutical and nursing expenses due
to his lung-cancer and other asbestos-related conditions he could
likely incur, such as mesothelioma.

Cook is seeking unspecified damages for the above counts plus
compensatory damages.  Mr. DeSalvo seeks compensation for his loss
of earning capacity and permanent partial disability which will
progress to full disability.

Mr. DeSalvo is represented by Baron & Budd PC of Baton Rouge.

The case has been assigned to Division J Judge Paula A. Brown.

Case no. 2013-10729.


BARCLAYS PLC: Quinn Emanuel Seeks to Be Lead Counsel in Forex Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Hatzakis, writing for Forex Magnates, reports the battle of
the trial lawyers has begun in the world's largest case seeking
class-action status against major forex dealers.  A law firm with
over 650 attorneys representing Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP seeks to become the lead counsel in the case, according to a
court filing last week.

The case will likely take a long time to move ahead, as regulators
such as the UK's FCA said that their related investigation into
the Forex probe was unlikely to be finished during 2014 due to the
wide scope of the probe and that it's at an early stage of the
investigation.  Indeed, the potentially massive forex litigation
may unfold with plaintiffs looking to best position themselves for
the battle that might soon begin.

Earlier in February, Forex Magnates reported when the law firm
Scott+Scott LLP was chosen by U.S. federal judge, Lorna Schofield
of Manhattan, to be the lead interim counsel in the case which is
seeking class-action status against 7 of major forex dealers
(across 10 entities) over alleged rate manipulation, and represent
a number of complaints that are being joined into the class-
action.

    Discovery Process Could Reveal Evidence to Help Build Case

While the case overall appears to be based on nothing more than
the disclosures that each named plaintiff has revealed with
regards to being under investigation, in their respective periodic
filings, as well as the attention drawn into the ongoing
investigation by various regulatory authorities around the world,
this process could help to discover further evidence that could
help the case go one way or another.

However, the potentially affected defendants did collectively have
respective exposure to foreign exchange related investments,
apparently, hence the seeking of potential damages against
potentially responsible parties.

Earlier last week, Forex Magnates had just reported when Bank of
America Corporation, in its latest filing for its annual report
for 2013, revealed that it was under review or investigation from
various regulatory authorities in the growing forex probe of major
dealers, and said it was cooperating.

                         Antitrust Hurdle

However, the overall case, in terms of the class, would still need
to find its grounding on the basis of Antitrust law, under the
Sherman Act, which unless a back-up plan is in mind (in case that
basis isn't found), this could serve as a hurdle for the class to
have grounds to litigate the case.

In other words, the method of fixing foreign exchange rates (as
described in this specific case -and not generally speaking), must
be first deemed a competitive process, so that an antitrust
allegation can be based upon such a process.

Last time Forex Magnates reported about the case's development,
Daniel Brockett of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, had been
quoted with respect to the antitrust part of the case, "It's going
to be a much more difficult argument for the banks to make that
there is no antitrust standing here, because you had actual buying
and selling in the market that went on to arrive at this fixed
number."

In addition, 3rd parties had been hired to investigate foreign
exchange rates and research the details surrounding the
allegations, to help build the case by the defendants.

City of Philadelphia Challenges Court to Reconsider Lead Counsel
in Class

The City of Philadelphia, the latest to join the class-action, was
not happy with the court's previous decision to appoint
Scott+Scott LLP as sole interim lead class counsel on the basis
that since the City of Philadelphia had the largest financial
interest in the case (representative of the amounts its members
had invested) the court should appoint their counsel, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, as the lead counsel for the
entire class, alongside Scott+Scott LLP who could serve as co-
lead.

An analysis described in the filing said that the City of
Philadelphia, through its fund managers, engaged in $33 billion in
foreign exchange transactions, with nearly $768 million tied to
the 4:00 p.m. close (fixing time).

The challenge was filed as a motion for reconsideration of the
court's February 19th order, in case 1:13-cv-07789- LGS Document
110 filed on February 26, 2014, and included the argument that the
court had overlooked the City of Philadelphia's interest in the
case (as the plaintiff with the greatest economic interest), and
the facts in the record showing that Quinn Emanuel would best
represent the class, as described in the official court document.

           Potential Scope for Foreign Exchange Case

The basis of the legal request was compared to a LIBOR antitrust
litigation case cited from 2011 in the motion, an excerpt of which
read, "greatest economic interest" to be a "highly relevant"
factor in selecting interim lead class counsel.

In addition, the ambitious efforts sought in the case were
described in the filing which stated the following allegations,
"This case involves the collusive manipulation of one of the
world's largest financial markets by the world's largest financial
institutions, with wrongdoing on multiple continents and possibly
hundreds of the defendants' employees implicated.  The damages
resulting from this conspiracy may be billions of dollars, and the
City alone may have millions of dollars in injuries."

There has been a stream of firings and suspensions of senior FX
traders across various major Forex dealers, that paralleled the
developments.

Considering that Quinn Emanuel has achieved no less than nine
10-figure (+$billion) settlements, this indicates that it could
indeed be a serious challenger to the bank's respective lawyers if
this case moves forward.  Although seen below, the named
defendants in the case are also well represented.

Defendants Barclays, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank,
JPMorgan Chase, Royal Bank of Scotland Group and UBS AG are
represented by Sullivan and Cromwell LLP,Covington & Burling LLP,
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Davis Polk & Wardwell and Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, respectively.


BARNES & NOBLE: Issued Misleading Statements, Shareholder Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Maitland-Lewis, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Michael P.
Huseby, William J. Lynch, Jr., and Allen W. Lindstrom, Case No.
1:14-cv-00406-KMW (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2014) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than the Defendants, who purchased Barnes & Noble
securities between June 27, 2012, and November 5, 2013, inclusive.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, the Plaintiff alleges.

Barnes & Noble is one of the nation's largest booksellers,
providing customers easy and convenient access to books,
magazines, newspapers and other content across its multi channel
distribution platform.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  lfpornoy@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Cadence
Pharmaceuticals too cheaply through an unfair process to
Mallinckrodt, for $14 per share or $1.3 billion, a class action
claims in Delaware Chancery Court.


CARMAX INC: Appeals "Fowler" Suit Ruling to Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------
CarMax Inc. companies filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
seeking review in the United States Supreme Court of a decision by
an appeals court reversing an order to compel arbitration in a
labor suit, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v.  CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.

The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; and (5) unfair competition/California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.  The putative class consisted of
sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who
worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the
present.  On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class
claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June
16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to
comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.  The
court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with
regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales
consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's
ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim.  On May 20,
2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's ruling
in favor of CarMax.  The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review
with the California Supreme Court, which was denied.  As a result,
the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer part of the case.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; and (3) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act.

On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending
the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated
third parties but related legal issues.  Subsequently, CarMax
moved to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims
into arbitration on an individualized basis, which the court
granted on November 21, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the
California Court of Appeal.  On March 26, 2013, the California
Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting CarMax's
motion to compel arbitration.

On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court.  The
Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.  The company is unable
to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters.


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Securities Lawsuit in Florida Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (Catalyst) (Nasdaq: CPRX),
a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing safe and
effective, approved medicines targeting orphan neuromuscular and
neurological diseases, announced on its Jan. 8, 2014 Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on
January 3 the previously reported stockholder class action lawsuit
that had been filed against Catalyst and certain of its officers
and directors was dismissed without prejudice. In the Court's
order, the plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended
complaint within 20 days. Catalyst has no information as to
whether any such amended complaint is planned by the plaintiffs.
If an amended complaint is filed in the case, Catalyst intends to
vigorously defend the amended lawsuit.

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


CC-PALO ALTO: Funneled $190-Mil. to Parent, Vi Residents Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that a
retirement community that charged new residents refundable
entrance fees funneled $190 million to its corporate parent,
putting the senior citizens' savings at risk, six residents claim
in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Burton Richter, speaking for residents of the Vi at
Palo Alto, claims that CC-Palo Alto Inc., which operates the 388-
apartment independent living facility, failed to obtain assurances
from Chicago-based CC-Development Group Inc. that the "upstreamed"
money would be paid back.

"Defendants have taken hundreds of millions of dollars from a
group of vulnerable senior citizens, deprived them of their
security, and placed much of their lifetime savings at risk," the
38-page lawsuit states.  Also sued is Classic Residence Management
Limited Partnership, of Illinois.

The Vi at Palo Alto charges incoming residents entrance fees
ranging from $745,500 to $4.6 million, depending on the number of
rooms in the apartment, in addition to monthly fees of $4,320 to
$9,320.

The entrance fees allegedly are loans that residents are promised
will be paid back at 75 to 90 percent when they move out, or will
be returned to their loved ones when they die.  Over time, the
refundable percentage of the fee decreases.

According to the complaint, entrance fees are part of residency
contracts that are provided "on a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis that
does not permit negotiation.  This adhesive quality coupled with
the emphasis on the extensive waiting list for the Vi at Palo
Alto, the limited-time availability of apartments, and the risk
that the elderly prospective resident may unexpectedly become
disqualified by illness, all create substantial pressure on
prospective residents to sign the Residency Contract quickly or
lose the opportunity."

Since opening in 2005, the Vi at Palo Alto has collected more than
$450 million in entrance fees, the complaint states.  California
law requires continuing care retirement communities such as the Vi
to maintain reserves as security for the entrance fees.  But CC-
Palo Alto transferred more than $190 million to CC-Chicago, as of
December 2012, according to the complaint.

Residents, who typically join the community in their 80s, were not
told that their entrance fees would be upstreamed to CC-Chicago,
and now CC-Palo Alto has a deficit of more than $300 million and
owes the residents $450 million, the class claims.

"As a result of this illegal upstreaming, CC-Palo Alto is
financially incapable of honoring its debts to the plaintiffs and
the class when the loans become due," the residents say in the
lawsuit.

CC-Chicago claims that it bears no responsibility to repay the
refundable portion of the entrance fees, which is solely up to CC-
Palo Alto, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit claims that the approximately 500 residents at the Vi
at Palo Alto must continue to pay ever-increasing monthly fees
that have been inflated through increased tax assessments,
earthquake insurance charges and marketing costs.

In the event of an earthquake, residents would be responsible for
the deductibles, even though the residency contract makes
residents responsible only for insurance premiums and deductibles
related to furniture, fixtures and equipment, according to the
complaint.

Residents have also been charged fees for marketing the Vi at Palo
Alto, though that money actually helps fund CC-Chicago's national
marketing program, according to the complaint.

Of the current 500 residents at the Vi at Palo Alto, 460 have
demanded mediation under the terms of their residency contracts.
The residents and CC-Palo Alto participated in a mediation
session, but no agreement was reached, according to the complaint.

The residents seek compensatory and punitive damages for
concealment, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
negligent misrepresentation, financial abuse of elders, and
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California
Business and Professions Code.

CC-Palo Alto did not immediately return a request for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Ctr.
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com


CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Cross-Appeals Won't Delay Notice to Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross-appeals will not sideline the Army's duty to warn veterans
subjected to Cold War-era drug experiments about potential health
concerns, the 9th Circuit ruled, according to Barbara Leonard at
Courthouse News Service.

The February 20, 2014 ruling comes in Vietnam Veterans of America
et al. v Central Intelligence Agency et al., a 2009 class action
that claimed at least 7,800 soldiers had been used as guinea pigs
in Project Paperclip.

Soldiers were administered at least 250 and perhaps as many as 400
types of drugs, among them Sarin, one of the most deadly drugs
known, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene gas and
LSD.

Using tactics it often attributed to the Soviet enemy, Uncle Sam
sought drugs to control human behavior, cause confusion, promote
weakness or temporary loss of hearing and vision, induce hypnosis,
and enhance a person's ability to withstand torture, according to
the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken certified the class in 2012,
which could make thousands of veterans eligible for relief.

Though the defendants succeeded in tossing claims against Attorney
General Eric Holder and the CIA, the Department of Defense and
Department of the Army are still on the hook.

In November 2103, Judge Wilken gave both sides some relief,
granting the Defense Department, Army and CIA summary judgment on
certain claims, and giving the plaintiffs summary judgment only on
one claim against the Army.

"The court concludes that defendants' duty to warn test subjects
of possible health effects is not limited to the time that these
individuals provide consent to participate in the experiments,"
Wilken wrote then.

"Instead, defendants have an ongoing duty to warn about newly
acquired information that may affect the well-being of test
subjects after they completed their participation in research."

In an injunction accompanying the summary judgment order, Wilken
directed the Army to provide such test subjects with newly
acquired information that may affect their well-being that it has
learned since its original notification, now and in the future as
it becomes available."

The Army complained that it would cost $8.8 million over five
years to provide possible test subjects with the kind of notice
the court ordered, but Wilken found the defendants did not show
that those costs will cause them irreparable harm -- an element
needed to stay the injunction.

Though the 9th Circuit briefly stayed the injunction pending
cross-appeals, it lifted the stay February 20, 2014.

"Here the only irreparable injury claimed is the expenditure of
money and the time and energy of Army personnel," the unsigned
order states.  "Even this showing is vague and general, but
putting those problems aside, it has long been 'well established
that such monetary injury is not normally considered
irreparable.'"

The Army has 14 days from the date of the order to produce a
court-ordered report.

The appellate case is Vietnam Veterans of America; et al.
(Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-appellees) v. Central Intelligence
Agency; et al. (Defendants-Appellees-Cross-appellants), Case Nos.
13-17430 and 14-15108, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Vietnam Veterans of
America; et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency; et al., Case No.
4:09-cv-00037-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.


CLARK COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angelina Olender, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. The Clark Companies, N.A., and C. & J.
Clark Retail, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00085-AVC (D. Conn.,
January 23, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime pay for
hours above 40 in a workweek in violation of state and federal
laws.

The Clarks Companies, N.A., and C. & J. Clark Retail, Inc. are
Massachusetts corporations headquartered in Newton Upper Falls,
Massachusetts.  The Defendants operate over 200 retail stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          Erick Ignacio Diaz-Vazquez, Esq.
          Margaret B. Ferron, Esq., Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
                  ediaz@hayberlawfirm.com
                  mferron@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Esq.
          QUINN LAW FIRM, LLC
          204 S. Broad St.
          Milford, CT 06460
          Telephone: (203) 877-5400
          Facsimile: (203) 877-5416
          E-mail: apantuso@quinn-lawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David R. Golder, Esq.
          David C. Salazar-Austin, Esq.
          William Joseph Anthony, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS - P.C. HARTFORD, CT
          90 State House Sq., 8th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103-3708
          Telephone: (860) 522-0404
          Facsimile: (860) 274-1330
          E-mail: golderd@jacksonlewis.com
                  salazard@jacksonlewis.com
                  anthonyw@jacksonlewis.com


CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Dismissal of Medical Groups' Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed a
district court ruling dismissing the complaint captioned THE
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA,
TENNESSEE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, NORTH
CAROLINA MEDICAL SOCIETY, MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY, MEDICAL
SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT STATE MEDICAL
SOCIETY, TEXAS MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, EL PASO COUNTY
MEDICAL SOCIETY, DR. CARMEN KAVALI, M.D., BRIAN MULLINS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, CIGNA CORPORATION, CIGNA HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 13-10916, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR.

"It was within the district court's discretion to dismiss a
complaint filed in violation of a sister court's injunction and
order," ruled the Eleventh Circuit.

A copy of the Appeals Court's February 20, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/S29WQPfrom Leagle.com.


CONTRA COSTA, CA: Court Finds Hiring Diversification Up to Par
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, has
reported that that Contra Costa, Calif., no longer faces a 1975
court mandate to hire more women and minorities after a federal
judge found that the county has sufficiently diversified its
workforce over the years.

The 1973 class action that brought about the consent decree had
alleged a pattern of employment discrimination against women and
racial and ethnic minorities.

"Females and person of racial and ethnic minorities are
concentrated in lowing paying dead end jobs from which there are
few if any opportunities for advancement," it stated.

The plaintiffs in the case claimed that the "systematic denial to
females and persons of racial and ethnic minorities of equal
employment opportunity in county employment is due directly and
proximately to the defendants' use of unlawful, discriminatory,
and non-ability related hiring and promotion practices."

In settling the dispute, Contra Costa agreed to ensure that the
percentage of minorities and women employed in each job
classification and department for the county would reflect the
supply of qualified women and members of minorities in the
county's work force.

The decree noted that it would be imbalanced for the number of
women or minorities employed to stand at "less than 80 percent of
the number of representative of the percentage available in the
work force of Contra Costa County for a given job classification."

Contra Costa would not have to make hiring decisions solely based
on race or gender, however, nor did it have to create unnecessary
positions to hire more females and minorities.

Instead, the decree called for the correction of any imbalances
through changes to the county's hiring, recruitment and separation
practices.  The county was to look at the minimum qualifications
for certain job classifications and determine whether certain
factors that were not job related led to the disproportionate
rejection of females and minorities.

The county, through an affirmative action officer, also had to
work at ensuring that women and minorities applied for county
employment.

After nearly 38 years of enforcement of the consent decree, the
county asked the Northern District of California this past July to
vacate it, arguing that the purpose of the decree had been
fulfilled as the county's workforce is substantially more diverse
today than it was in 1975.

Between 1975 and 2012, the percentage of women in the workforce
jumped from 57 percent to 66 percent, and the number of minorities
from 14 percent to 51 percent.  The percentage of women employed
by the fire districts increased from 3 percent to 15 percent, and
the number of minorities increased from 3.4 percent to 28 percent.

Contra Costa also submitted evidence that the county's total labor
force is 47 percent women, 51 percent Caucasian, 9 percent black,
22 percent Hispanic and 16 percent Asian.

"Defendants further contend that women and minorities are not only
employed in low level jobs with few opportunities for advancement,
but rather are employed in all occupational categories," the
ruling states.  "They note that three of the five members of the
board of supervisors are female, and another member is an African
American male."

Opponents argued that the county used overbroad data and failed to
consider whether women and minorities were concentrated in the
low-paying job classifications with fewer opportunities for
advancement.  They claim that 86 percent of the county's job
classifications are not in balance.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Spero determined on January 22, 2014,
that the consent decree did not require the county to attain the
80 percent numerical balance for each job classification and for
each minority group and gender.

"Rather, the 80 percent 'balance' measurement is a tool for
achieving a county workforce that 'reflects the available
qualified population," he wrote.

The 86 percent figure cited in objections is faulty in that it
ignores the minority groups whose numbers are in balance within
each job category, and instead looks only at if there are any
minority groups whose representation in the job is not in balance.

"While the county's diversity statistics may not be sufficient to
show that it employs minorities and women at or above the 80
percent rate in all categories under the consent decree, they are
certainly relevant to show that women and minorities are employed
at substantially higher rates than they were in 1975," Spero
wrote.

The court also found that, in addition to having made great
strides in diversity, the county also developed and implemented
policies and laws that promote diversity and prevent
discrimination in a broader range than encompassed by the decree.

Contra Costa passed a Merit System Ordinance broadly prohibiting
discrimination in county employment, hired an affirmative action
officer, developed an affirmative action plan and established a
hiring outreach oversight committee that reviews the statistical
data of female and minority hiring and then makes recommendations
regarding recruitment.

"Under all of these circumstances, the court finds that the county
has substantially complied with the consent decree, and that the
ongoing day to day supervision of county activities under the
consent decree is no longer necessary," Spero wrote.  "The task of
preventing and remedying discrimination is not yet finished.  It
may never be.  Today, however, 38 years after the court imposed
the consent decree, the county has taken substantial steps on the
path to equal employment opportunity."


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Opt-in Notices Sent in "Alequin" Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,600 additional opt-in notices were distributed in
a collective action Alequin v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., which
alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act before the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.
24, 2013.

In September 2012, a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Alequin v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc., in which named plaintiffs claim that the Company required or
allowed certain employees at Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn
Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze and Seasons 52  to work off the clock
and required them to perform tasks unrelated to their tipped
duties while taking a tip credit against their hourly rate of pay.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.  In July 2013, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
conditionally certified a nationwide class of servers and
bartenders who worked in the aforementioned restaurants at any
point from September 6, 2009 through September 6, 2012.

Unlike a class action, a collective action requires potential
class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out" following the
issuance of a notice.  As of December 17, 2013, out of the
approximately 215,000 original opt-in notices distributed,
approximately 20,000 have been returned. On November 22, 2013,
approximately 1,600 additional opt-in notices were distributed,
for which the opt-in period ends February 20, 2014. The Company
will have an opportunity to seek to have the class de-certified
and/or seek to have the case dismissed on its merits.  The company
believes that the company's wage and hour policies comply with the
law and that the company has meritorious defenses to the
substantive claims and strong defenses supporting de-
certification.  An estimate of the possible loss, if any, or the
range of loss cannot be made at this stage of the proceeding.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Opt-in Notices Sent in "ChHab" Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Opt-in notices were distributed in ChHab v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc. pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 24, 2013.

In November, 2011, a lawsuit entitled ChHab v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action under the
applicable New York state wage and hour statutes. The named
plaintiffs claim that the Company required or allowed certain
employees at The Capital Grille to work off the clock, share tips
with individuals who polished silverware to assist the plaintiffs,
and required the plaintiffs to perform tasks unrelated to their
tipped duties while taking a tip credit against their hourly rate
of pay. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back
wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees. In September 2013,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York conditionally certified a nationwide class for the Fair Labor
Standards Act claims only of tipped employees who worked in the
aforementioned restaurants at any point from November 17, 2008
through September 19, 2013. Potential class members are required
to "opt in" rather than "opt out" following the issuance of a
notice. As of December 16, 2013, out of the approximately 3,100
original opt-in notices distributed, approximately 500 have been
returned. On December 3, 2013, an additional 65 opt-in notices
were distributed, for which the opt-in period ends February 3,
2014. As with the Alequin matter, the Company will have an
opportunity to seek to have the class de-certified and/or seek to
have the case dismissed on its merits. The company believes that
the company's wage and hour policies comply with the law and that
the company has meritorious defenses to the substantive claims in
this matter. An estimate of the possible loss, if any, or the
range of loss cannot be made at this stage of the proceeding.


EAT GOOD: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Sanchez, Ramiro Tobon, and Jesus Rodriguez, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Eat Good Feel Good
Inc. d/b/a City Sandwich, Anna Maria Guerriere, and Michael
Guerriere, Case No. 1:14-cv-00418-LAK-MHD (S.D.N.Y., January 23,
2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants (1) unpaid
minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime compensation; (3) liquidated
damages; (4) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (5)
attorneys' fees and costs.

City Sandwich, is a domestic business corporation with a principal
place of business in New York.  Anna Maria Guerriere and Michael
Guerriere are joint owners, officers, shareholders, directors,
managing agents, and proprietors of City Sandwich.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


EBAY INC: Class Counsel Deserves $27K in Fees, Costs, Court Ruled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reaching a small settlement with users of its mobile app who
faced unwelcome charges, eBay owes the class counsel about
$23,000, reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

Tasha Kiersey had sued the online auction site in March 2012,
bringing claims for breach of contract, bad faith and unjust
enrichment after she was allegedly charged improper fees while
trying to sell items using eBay's mobile application.

Over a year later, U.S. District judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco
approved a final settlement of $95,000, to be distributed via eBay
credit instead of cash.

"In this case, given the small amount that any individual class
member would be likely to receive weighed against the cost of
mailing individual checks, the court concludes that an account
credit is an appropriate way to distribute the settlement," Tigar
wrote at the time.

Class counsel, Keith Verges of Figari & Davenport, said the amount
of the settlement was small and that it was important for both
sides not to prolong the lawsuit.

"We will seek $30,000 in our fee application, but have actually
spent about four times that," Verges said Oct. 28.  "We are
upside-down in this, but that's our duty as counsel for the
class."

Tigar denied the request for $30,000, however, and instead granted
$23,750 in fees.

"Sometimes the recovery turns out to be lower than expected, or
even non-existent; sometimes the recovery turns out to be
substantial or even enormous," he wrote.  "Just as the court would
not deprive class counsel of all their potential profit in cases
in the latter category, it cannot insulate class counsel from the
risk of pursuing an unprofitable case."

Though counsel for the class showed "skill and expertise," it was
not "to a degree deserving of unusual consideration," the ruling
states.

Sticking with a case when you know you are going to lose money is
part of the job, Tigar added.

"Continuing to represent a client and advance her interests is a
basic responsibility of counsel, not a special circumstance
deserving of enhanced compensation," he wrote.  "A class counsel
award in the amount of $23,750 is reasonable."

Tigar also awarded Figari & Davenport more than $3,000 in
expenses, and Kiersey will take home a $500 incentive compensation
award.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Parker D. Young, Esq.
          FIGARI & DAVENPORT, L.L.P.
          901 Main Street, Suite 3400
          Dallas, TX 75202-3796
          Telephone: (214) 939-2000
          Facsimile: (214) 939-2090
          E-mail: parker.young@figdav.com

The case is Tasha Keirsey v. Ebay, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01200-JST,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.


ELECTRONIC DATABASES: May 9 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation

To: Freelance authors of English language literary works

This is a summary notice of a revised class action settlement.
Please read this notice.  It may affect your legal rights.

What is this proposed settlement about?

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging
that commercial electronic databases and newspapers and magazines
infringed the copyrights of freelance authors.  The lawsuit
alleges that newspapers and magazines, after publishing the works
with the authors' permission, then sold them to the electronic
databases without the authors' permission.  The current settlement
is a revision of a previous proposed settlement that was reached
in 2005.

The settlement applies to English language literary works that
were reproduced on a commercial electronic database without the
authors' permission.  Works may still be eligible even if not
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and even if they were
originally published outside the U.S. Excluded are works for hire
and works for which the author granted electronic rights to the
original publisher.

Freelance authors were notified of the previous settlement, and
the deadline for submitting compensation claims under that
settlement was September 30, 2005.  Additional details about
eligible works and your options are contained in the full Notice
of Revised Class Action Settlement, available at
www.copyrightclassaction.com

What do I need to do?

Class members have three options: (i) do nothing; (ii) exclude
yourself from the settlement; (iii) object to the settlement.

To remain a class member, you do not need to do anything.  To be
eligible for a settlement payment, you must have already submitted
a timely, valid claim under the previous settlement in 2005.  If
you did so, then you need to do nothing further to participate in
the settlement.  (You will eventually hear from the Claims
Administrator about the validity of your claim.)

You may still exclude yourself from the settlement.  You must (1)
mail a written request for exclusion, postmarked by May 9, 2014,
Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation, EXCLUSION REQUEST, c/o
GCG, PO Box 10033, Dublin, OH 43017-6633, or (2) submit an
exclusion request online at www.copyrightclassaction.com by that
date.

To object to the settlement, you must file a written objection by
May 9, 2014.

Further information on each option is available at
www.copyrightclassaction.com

Final Fairness Hearing

A hearing on the proposed settlement will be held June 10, 2014 at
10:00 a.m. by U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels, U.S. District
Court, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine whether
the settlement should be approved.  Class members or their counsel
may appear in Court.

I have new contact information, whom should I contact?

If you have changed your mailing or e-mail address since the
original settlement in 2005, you should notify the Claims
Administrator, whose contact information is in the full Notice of
Revised Class Action Settlement.  If the Claims Administrator does
not have your correct contact information, you may not receive
your settlement payment (assuming you already submitted a valid
claim in 2005) or notice of important developments in this class
action.

Please do not contact the Court.

Dated: January 22, 2014

By Order of the Court
The Honorable George B. Daniels


FREESCORE LLC: 9th Circuit Reversed Dismissal of "Stout" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th Circuit
resurrected class action claims against FreeScore.com, finding
February 21, 2014, that the Web site is a "credit repair
organization" as defined by federal law.

California resident Kevin Stout sued FreeScore in 2010, alleging
that the company, whose ads feature actor and political
commentator Ben Stein, violated the Credit Repair Organizations
Act (CROA) with its television and online marketing.

FreeScore moved to dismiss the potential class action on the basis
that it was not a credit repair organization and that it had "only
made representations that it could provide information regarding a
consumer's credit, and not that it could 'improve' a consumer's
credit."

Finding that the company had indeed made no promises to improve
credit and thus was not liable under the CROA, U.S. District Judge
Manuel Real tossed Stout's claims out of court in Los Angeles.

A three-judge appellate panel reversed on February 21, 2014, with
a contrary conclusion.

"FreeScore falls squarely within the CROA's definition of a
'credit repair organization,'" U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan
wrote for the panel, sitting by designation from Brooklyn.

"From the plain language of the statute, it is clear that under
the CROA, a person need not actually provide credit repair
services to fall within the statutory definition of a credit
repair organization," Cogan added.  "Instead, the person need only
represent that it can or will sell, provide, or perform a service
for the purpose of providing advice or assistance to a consumer
with regard to improving a consumer's credit record, credit
history, or credit rating."

Remanding the case for the lower court to determine if FreeScore
actually violated the act, Cogan noted that "yhe fact that
FreeScore has a self-serving disclaimer that it is not a credit
repair organization does not cure the representations it made that
it offers services that could improve a consumer's credit."

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          WEISBERG & MEYERS LLC
          10400 Griffin Road, Suite 302
          Cooper City, FL 33328
          E-mail: aweisberg@AttorneysForConsumers.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Darrel J. Hieber, Esq.
          Jason D. Russell, Esq.
          Jennifer E. LaGrange, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 687-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
          E-mail: darrel.hieber@skadden.com
                  jason.russell@skadden.com

The case is Kevin Stout v. Freescore, LLC, dba FreeScore.com, Case
No. 10-56887, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The original case is Kevin Stout v. Freescore, LLC, dba
FreeScore.com, Case No. 2:10-cv-04395-R-OP, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.


GALILEE MEMORIAL: Faces New Suit Over Mishandling of Corpses
------------------------------------------------------------
WMC-TV reports that a new multimillion dollar, class-action
lawsuit has been filed regarding the mishandling of corpses at
Galilee Memorial Gardens Cemetery.

The largest Tennessee-based personal injury firm -- Nahon,
Saharovich and Trotz -- filed the $225 million lawsuit in Shelby
County Circuit Court.  The complaint alleges that bodies of
potentially hundreds of decedents had been desecrated, stacked in
mass graves, crushed, misplaced, and abused.

A separate class action lawsuit was filed against the cemetery in
early February for $100 million.

Owner Jemar Lambert faces two criminal charges in connection with
Galilee.


GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Rina Clemente, an individual, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Goodwill Industries of Southern
California, Inc. a California Corporation; Goodwill Retail
Services, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC536738 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 18, 2014) alleges that the Defendants had a consistent
policy or practice of failing to pay employees for all hours
worked.

The Plaintiff adds that the Defendants have consistently failed to
provide their employees with paid rest breaks of not less than 10
minutes per four hours of work or major fraction thereof; nor did
the Defendants pay the Employees premium pay for each day on which
requisite rest breaks were not provided or were deficiently
provided.

The Corporate Defendants are doing business in the state of
California, County of Los Angeles, operating thrift stores and
selling a variety of consumer products and clothing.  The
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Hugo Gamez, Esq.
          Garen Nadir, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Giendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  hugo@yeremianlaw.com
                  garen@yeremianlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Challenges Gmail Privacy Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Google Inc., which is fighting claims that it illegally scanned
private e-mail messages, argued it shouldn't have to face a single
lawsuit that lumps together hundreds of millions of Internet
users.  The company contends that a nationwide grouping of people
who sent or received messages through its Gmail service over five
years would "amalgamate an unprecedented collection of
individuals," according to a filing in federal court in San Jose.
If, as the plaintiffs argue, each person is eligible for damages
accruing at $100 a day for violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the amount at stake could reach into
the trillions of dollars.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who heard arguments on Feb. 27 over
whether to certify the case as a class action, is also handling
e-mail privacy complaints that were filed last year against
Yahoo Inc. and LinkedIn Corp., which also have hundreds of
millions of users.  Similarly cases have been brought against
Facebook Inc. and Hulu as Web users challenge the ways that
companies use their data for online advertising that generated
more than $40 billion in the U.S. last year.

Google faces another privacy case in San Francisco federal court
brought on behalf of everyone whose wireless Internet connections
were intercepted by vehicles gathering information for the Street
View mapping service.

The lawyers suing Google over e-mail scanning face "a very steep
hurdle" to proceed with a group case, and the judge will need to
do a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether it's appropriate,
Stanford Law School Professor Deborah Hensler said, adding that
only 10 to 20 percent of all cases filed as class-actions are
allowed to go forward.

Google called it "a herculean task beyond the resources of the
court and parties," according to a court filing.

The case was brought in 2013 by users of Gmail and other e-mail
services claiming that Google intercepted, read and mined the
content of e-mail messages to create tailored advertising and to
build user profiles.

Judge Koh turned down Google's bid to dismiss the case in
September, rejecting Google's argument that when Gmail users
accepted the service terms and privacy policies, they agreed to
let their messages be scanned.

The plaintiffs say the case is "perfectly suited for class
treatment" because everyone affected by the e-mail scanning has so
much in common, from the "uniform nature" of Google's extraction
of data in e-mails to the company's "uniform disclosures" about
its privacy practices.

Google contends that if the e-mail case gets group status, it
would "indiscriminately amass together virtually everyone in the
United States with a non-Gmail e-mail account, along with large
groups of the over 400 million people who use Gmail and Google
Apps," the filing said.

The common ground needed for class-action status is missing
because the "many billions" of e-mails at issue raise "an immense
array of individualized evidence" over whether the senders and
recipients were aware of the automatic scanning, Google said.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected class certification for a
lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 1.5 million female workers
alleging discrimination in pay and promotions at Walmart stores.
The court told the women they didn't have enough in common to sue
the company as a monolithic class.

Google's 31-page argument to Judge Koh in the e-mail case cited
the high court's Walmart ruling three times.

If the Google case is given class status, it will be the largest
ever, said Rick Wiebe, a San Francisco lawyer who does privacy and
class-action cases.

             Media Outlets' Bid to Access Sealed Info

A challenge to sealed filings in the massive class action over
Gmail privacy will get priority treatment of sorts, reported
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling dated February 21, 2014.

News outlets -- including Courthouse News, Gannett, McClatchy and
the New York Times -- lobbied U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh earlier
to deny Google's requests to file under seal, citing public
interest in the case involving millions of Gmail users.  The
sprawling class action dubbed In re Google Inc. - Gmail Litigation
claims that the tech giant's new privacy policies violate federal
computer fraud, eavesdropping and wiretap laws.

But while the media organizations had asked Koh to hear their
motion to intervene on Feb. 27 -- the next scheduled hearing in
the case -- Google said in a reply filed February 20, 2014, that
there is "no pressing urgency" to resolve the sealing issue so
quickly.

"There is no basis for the media intervenors to force their issues
at such a late date without any prior notice," Google's reply
states.  "Had they contacted Google's counsel, they would have
learned that the parties have been actively meeting and conferring
on how best to allow the Feb. 27 hearing to proceed with no
sealing formality.

As the parties have agreed, the hearing will be entirely public --
even if plaintiffs' counsel need to refer to the contents of
confidential material during argument -- with the only agreed
restriction being the general guideline that plaintiffs will not
publish to the gallery materials that were previously sealed or
designated as confidential under the court's protective order.
This agreement was reached specifically to avoid having to deal
with sealing matters during the hearing itself, thereby allowing
the court and counsel to have a fully public airing of the
arguments unburdened by concerns about sealing and
confidentiality.

"Media intervenors should not be allowed to jump the line and
present argument at the Feb. 27 hearing," the company added,
suggesting that a June 19 hearing would satisfy the interests of
the public.

But Koh answered back quickly, finding that the news outlets'
request could be decided without having a hearing at all.

"The court recognizes the importance of putative intervenors'
concerns regarding public access to judicial proceedings," Koh
wrote.  "The court therefore expedites briefing on the motion to
intervene.  The parties shall file any response to the motion by
March 3, 2014, and putative intervenors shall file any reply by
March 7, 2014.  Once briefing is complete, the motion will be
deemed submitted without oral argument."

The case is In Re: Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, Case No.: 5:13-
MD-2430-LHK, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


HALLIBURTON CO: SC Ruling May Alter Securities Fraud Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that in
each term of the U.S. Supreme Court, there are a few cases that
have the potential to bring sweeping change to the established
legal landscape.  One of the marquee cases of the current term --
at least for those interested in securities litigation -- is
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., which has the
potential to alter the lucrative world of securities fraud class
actions in major ways.

The case, also known as Halliburton II (the first Halliburton case
from 2011 involved loss causation in class actions) and slated for
oral arguments March 5, may endanger the Supreme Court's earlier
ruling in the 1988 Basic v. Levinson, which legitimized the "fraud
on the market" presumption.  This rule states that an efficient
market reflects all of the information shareholders need about a
publicly traded company in order to make decisions -- meaning that
plaintiffs do not have to prove their reliance on misstatements by
the company to bring the class action.  The Basic decision allowed
plaintiffs in securities fraud cases to establish classwide
reliance far more easily than in the past.

"Halliburton II is part of a continuing stream of cases that
reflect the court's interest in class action issues, both within
securities and outside," Nicholas Even, a partner at Haynes and
Boone and the chair of the firm's Securities and Shareholder
Litigation Practice and coauthor of the firm's annual review of
securities litigation, told CorpCounsel.com.

The rise of the fraud on the market presumption has certainly
spurred a high number of securities fraud class actions.  An
amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court on Halliburton II by a
group of law professors and former Securities and Exchange
Commission officials -- one of more than 20 amicus briefs offered
in relation to the case -- noted that between 1997 and 2012 more
than 3,050 private class action securities fraud lawsuits were
filed in the United States.  The settlements yielded from that
cohort added up to more than $73.1 billion, and included six of
the 10 largest settlements in class action history.

With both companies and shareholders aware of what's at stake,
Halliburton II is attracting a lot of attention.  The case itself
is more than a decade old, and pits the energy company against the
Erica P. John Fund, which provides financial support to the
Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee.  The John Fund claims to have
been defrauded by Halliburton when the company misrepresented its
finances to inflate its stock price.

Mr. Even said that the high court completely gutting the fraud on
the market theory would be "one of the most extreme outcomes
imaginable" and is unlikely.  However, he explained that there's a
chance the court will issue a significant ruling on a related
question: When in the litigation process should defendants be
given the chance to refute the allegations against them based on
the fraud on the market presumption?

For defendants, it's a case of the earlier the better, said
Mr. Even, explaining that defendants often lose leverage to settle
cases for a lower sum total after the class certification stage is
over.

If the market presumption goes down in flames, though, Mr. Even
doesn't think it's smart for in-house counsel to let their guard
down, simply because "the securities plaintiffs bar is nothing if
not creative."

"I would not advise in-house counsel and public companies to get
overly optimistic that even a reversal or an abolishment of the
fraud on market presumption would end potential securities class
action risk," he said.

There are still avenues that plaintiffs attorneys can take to push
their securities fraud claims through the courts without the fraud
on the market presumption, according to Mr. Even.  For example, he
pointed out, there is the "Affiliated Ute presumption," named
after a 1972 Supreme Court case, which allows plaintiffs to bypass
normal rules for proving reliance, if the suit involves
allegations that the defendant fraudulently withheld information
from shareholders.  "The presumption of reliance in the case of
omissions doesn't rely on the fraud on the market theory,"
Mr. Even said.

A ruling from the Supreme Court on Halliburton II is expected
before the end of June 2014.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Defective Garden Hoses
----------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that a New York consumer
on Feb. 25 launched a class action in New Jersey federal court
accusing Home Depot USA Inc. and an infomercial marketing firm of
hawking a line of defective expandable garden hoses that tend to
rupture soon after purchase.

The "Pocket Hose" and "Mini Max Hose" products -- sold at Home
Depot stores and marketed by Telebrands Corp. -- aren't durable,
nor are they made of "heavy-duty fire hose construction," as the
companies advertise, plaintiff Michael Klemballa alleged in his
complaint.

"In fact, the design of the Pocket Hose product is fundamentally
defective and thus not suitable to be used as a garden hose as
advertised," Mr. Klemballa said.  "When used as instructed, the
Pocket Hose will leak and/or burst, rendering the product
useless."

Mr. Klemballa claims that the Pocket Hose he purchased in June
ruptured after he used it just a few times, and that thousands of
similar complaints are scattered across product review websites
and message boards.

Fairfield, N.J.-based Telebrands -- which markets an array of
products through infomercials, and also in retail stores using its
"As Seen On TV" logo -- launched a nationwide campaign for Pocket
Hose in August 2012, lauding the product as a "revolutionary
lightweight mini-hose" that expands to a full-size garden hose
under water pressure, according to the complaint.

In its infomercials and online advertisements, Telebrands falsely
touts the Pocket Hose as "strong enough for any tough job,"
backing the claim with a purported demonstration of the hose
pulling a 5,000-pound sport utility vehicle, Mr. Klemballa
alleges.

In reality, however, the hose -- which sells for between $12.99
and $42.99, depending on length -- is not even strong enough to
withstand normal residential use, according to the complaint.

For its part, Home Depot adopted many of Telebrands' false and
misleading claims about the product for in-store displays and ads
on its website, and reviewed and approved advertising materials
that included the retailer's own logos and trademarks, the suit
said.

"Defendants' false and misleading claims are in willful and wanton
disregard of the interests of the consuming public, and constitute
a knowing attempt by defendants to deceive consumers," the
complaint said.

Mr. Klemballa seeks to represent a class of all consumers who have
purchased the Pocket Hose in the U.S., along with a subclass of
New York purchasers.  He alleges various breach of warranty claims
against the defendants, along with claims for unjust enrichment
and violations of New York General Business Law.

The suit seeks unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive
damages, as well as restitution and injunctive relief.

The plaintiff is represented by James E. Cecchi and Lindsey H.
Taylor of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC and by
Antonio Vozzolo -- avozzolo@faruqilaw.com -- and Courtney E.
Maccarone -- cmaccarone@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

The case is Klemballa v. Telebrands Corp. et al., case number
2:14-cv-01245, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


HSBC BANK: Court Dismissed "de Sausa" OT Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Successful mediation led a would-be class to withdraw its claims
that HSBC did not pay overtime to certain managers or provide them
with accurate wage statements, according to Courthouse News
Service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
          JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP
          84 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 790
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 317-1100
          Facsimile: (408) 351-0105
          E-mail: margainlaw@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Richard C. J. Wahng , Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD WAHNG
          152 Anza Street, Suite 201
          Fremont, CA 94539
          Telephone: (510) 490-4447
          Facsimile: (510) 344-5755
          E-mail: rwahng@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Enzo Der Boghossian, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 284-4592
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: ederboghossian@proskauer.com

The case is de Sausa, et al. v. HSBC Bank U.S.A., N.A., et al.,
Case No. 3:12-cv-05081-TEH, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.


INNERWORKINGS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against InnerWorkings, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, and docketed under 1:14-cv-
01416, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired InnerWorkings
securities between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2013, both
dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

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

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

InnerWorkings provides print procurement solutions to corporate
clients in the United States.  The Company utilizes its
proprietary software applications and database to create solutions
that store, analyze, and track the production capabilities of
supplier networks, as well as quote and price data for bids and
print jobs.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company inflated its revenues in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles; (2) the Company artificially
inflated its cash flows and adjusted EBITDA; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 16, 2013, after the market closed, the Company revised
its full year 2013 guidance due to a reduction of work orders by a
large retail client.  On this news, InnerWorkings securities
declined $3.55 per share or more than 25%, to close at $10.48 per
share on April 17, 2013.

On April 30, 2013, Prescience Point Research Group published an
analyst report with a "Strong Sell" recommendation, alleging among
other things, that the Company was inflating its revenues by
misapplying gross revenue and net accounting.  On this news,
InnerWorkings securities declined an additional $0.33 per share or
more than 3%, to close at $10.07 per share on April 30, 2013.

On November 6, 2013, the Company announced lower than expected
earnings per share, primarily due to issues with its Production
Graphics division.  On this news, the Company's shares fell $3.85
per share to $5.64, or over 40%, on November 6, 2013.

On February 18, 2014, the Company announced that it would need to
restate its financial statements for all periods extending to the
fourth quarter of 2011 through the third quarter of 2013.

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


INTELIQUENT INC: Plaintiff in Ill. Securities Suit Abandons Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities lawsuit filed against Inteliquent,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois voluntarily dismissed the case, according to the
company's Jan. 8, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On August 9, 2013, a federal securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Tanara Holding Ltd.,
individually and on behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated
v. Inteliquent, Inc., f/k/a Neutral Tandem Inc., G. Edward Evans,
Robert Junkroski, and David Zwick, 13-CV-5701). The plaintiff
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. On January 6, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.


JUST FABULOUS: Sued for Deceiving People Into Paying $39.95/Month
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Just Fabulous deceptively
enrolls people in a $39.95 per month "membership program" after
advertising "free memberships" to its Web site, justfab.com, a
class action claims in California Superior Court.


LIFT VAPOR: Accused of Defrauding Customers Over Monthly Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loren Ronzheimer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lift Vapor LLC, a Connecticut limited
liability company, Case No. 0:14-cv-00200-SRN-LIB (D. Minn.,
January 21, 2014) asserts claims based on the Company's alleged
deceptive marketing and sale of its electronic cigarette products.

Dionne Cordell-Whitney at Courthouse News Service reports the
lawsuit claims Hartford, Conn.-based Lift Vapor defrauds people by
swiping $99 to $149 per month from their credit cards after a
"free" offer.  It's not the first such lawsuit. Vapor Corp. and
Global Vapor Partners, of South Florida, were accused of a similar
scam in a November class action in Chicago.

In both cases, the defendants are accused of offering "starter
kits" for free or cheap, plus shipping and handling.  The shipping
and handling, billed through a credit or debit card, gives the
scammers access to suckers' bank accounts, from which they proceed
to take money every month, without proper notice, according to the
lawsuits.

Ronzheimer claims he was promised hundreds of dollars worth of e-
cigarette accessories for "no cost" -- except shipping and
handling.  He claims he authorized Lift Vapor to charge his debit
card $7.90 for shipping and handling, in October 2013.  In
December, he found he had been charged an additional $99.16.

"Lift Vapor fails to clearly and conspicuously disclose to
consumers -- who are eager to receive their free trial of e-
cigarettes -- that 10 days following the transaction it will
charge consumers' credit and debit cards between $99 and $149,"
the complaint states.

Ronzheimer claims Lift Vapor enrolled him into a monthly program
that tacks on recurring charges for refill cartridges, without his
authorization.

"Lift Vapor is careful to bury mention of the initial trial charge
or the monthly charges in the Terms and Conditions, which never
appear on the same page as the free trial offer," the complaint
states.  "Lift Vapor also obscures mention of these fees through
the use of flashy graphics and misleading statements that tell
consumers that they only pay shipping and handling and that the
'Total' price for the starter kit is "'$0.00.'"

He seeks compensatory and statutory damages for unjust enrichment,
breach of contract, consumer fraud and violation of the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com


LCA-VISION: Being Sold to Photomedex for Too Little, Class Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LCA-Vision, a Lasik surgery chain, is selling itself too cheaply
through an unfair process to Photomedex and Gatorade Acquisition
Corp., for $5.37 a share, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery
Court.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Extreme Fine for Expired Parking Meter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A $63 fine Los Angeles imposes for an expired parking meter, and
its doubling if not paid in two weeks -- not to mention the $28
"delinquent" fee and the $21 "collection fee" -- are so excessive
they are unconstitutional, a federal class action claims, reports
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Jesus Pimentel claims that the $175 he had to pay
was an unconstitutional "excessive fine," and that the DMV's
threat to withhold registration of his car and/or boot or seize it
if he didn't pay the $175 -- accompanied by the threat of civil
litigation, reporting him to a credit bureau and garnishing of his
state tax refund -- violated the Due Process clause.  He got the
ticket at 3:10 p.m. on May 29, 2013, on Eighth Street downtown.
He says he had fed the meter enough money to cover the time he
expected to park there.

But apparently not.

He paid the entire $175 on July 30, because he wanted to register
his car.

The 19-page lawsuit compares the parking fines and additional
penalties assessed by Pasadena and Glendale, which are not as bad,
($73.90 for the violation and late fee in Pasadena and $88 for the
expired meter and late fee in Glendale.)

Hauling out his calculator, Pimentel's learned counsel Donald G.
Norris, with Norris & Galanter, points out that Pimentel's
ultimate fine was nearly 175 percent the daily median per capita
income of an Angeleno (using 2009 figures from City-Data.com).

The median per capita income in L.A. that year as $26,096; given
160 work days a year, the daily wage comes to $100.37. Pimentel's
$175 fine, then, constitutes 174.4 percent of an Angeleno's median
daily wage.

And with the median per capita income for Latino Angelenos in 2009
$13,542 -- or $52.08 a day for 260 work days -- Pimentel's fines
come to 336 percent of the daily median income for a Latino
Angeleno.

With the minimum hourly wage in California set at $8, a $63
parking ticket for an expired meter consumes an entire day's
wages, and then some, once taxes are deducted.  Pimentel, in other
words, would have to put in three 8-hour days at minimum wage just
to pay the lousy parking ticket and late fees.

The lawsuit does not state how long Pimentel overparked, or where
he was going, or how much he fed the meter in the first place.

Pimentel seeks class certification, declaratory relief, an
injunction, and damages, with interest, for violations of the 8th
and 14th Amendments; 42 U.S.C. Section1983; Article I Section 17
of the California Constitution, which prohibits excessive fines;
Article I Section 7(a) of the California Constitution -- its Due
Process Clause; costs of lawsuit, attorney's fees, and "such other
and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald G. Norris, Esq.
          NORRIS & GALANTER LLP
          523 West 6th Street, Suite 716
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 232-0855
          Facsimile: (213) 286-9499
          E-mail: dnorris@norgallaw.com


MCNEIL-PPC INC: Faces 120 Cases Over Tylenol Health Risks
---------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Dribben, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports
that this April, the first of two dozen pending cases involving
plaintiffs who fell seriously ill or died from the same medication
will be heard in a New Jersey court.  And 120 more cases are
headed for federal court in Philadelphia.  They claim that
McNeil-PPC Inc., the company that makes Tylenol, and others
repeatedly concealed the serious health risks of the painkiller,
also known as acetaminophen.

On April 24, 1995, Marcus Trunk, a 23-year-old construction worker
from Upper Dublin, Pa., died from treating a sprained wrist with
Tylenol, a drug he thought was completely safe.

Tylenol is the best-known brand name for acetaminophen, but the
drug is an ingredient in more than 600 products such as Sudafed,
Robitussin, NyQuil, Cepacol and Coricidin.  It is so ubiquitous
that consumers can -- and regularly do -- unwittingly take much
more than they should.  It's those multiple doses that can be
lethal.

For decades, experts urged the Food and Drug Administration to
take a few simple steps to protect the public from acetaminophen
poisoning.  And for decades, they watched in frustration as other
countries took those steps, while little progress was made here.

Acetaminophen is the No. 1 cause of acute liver failure in the
United States.  Overdoses send more than 78,000 people to the
emergency room and result in about 33,000 hospitalizations a year.
Studies suggest that several hundred people die from accidental
acetaminophen toxicity each year, like Marcus Trunk.

"In some ways, it's not a huge number," said William Lee, a liver
disease expert at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center in Dallas.  "But most of them are young, healthy people.
. . . These are preventable deaths."

The pain reliever, developed by McNeil at its Fort Washington,
Pa., headquarters in the 1950s, is safe and effective when taken
correctly.  But it has a narrow margin of safety and can quickly
become toxic when taken in doses not much greater than the
recommended limits, or when combined with alcohol.

Because acetaminophen is in so many drugs, people often have no
idea how much they have taken. (The FDA has ruled only recently
that narcotic combination painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin
no longer list the cryptic abbreviation "APAP," and instead spell
out "acetaminophen" on the label.)  Even hospitals lose track,
giving patients more than the maximum.

While the FDA has gradually required stronger health warnings on
labels, critics say that the agency has acted too slowly and
meekly.

For 19 years, one of the most compelling voices among them has
been Kate Trunk's.  After graduating from Upper Dublin High
School, Marcus, the older of her two sons, went to work for his
uncles, restoring brick buildings in Philadelphia, she said.  When
he hurt himself on the job, his doctor prescribed Tylenol 3, a
painkiller containing codeine and 300 milligrams of acetaminophen
in each pill.  Still in pain, but eager to get back to work, Trunk
also took some regular Tylenol, which had been marketed for
decades as the analgesic that "hospitals recommend most."  Each of
those pills contained 325 milligrams of acetaminophen.  Soon, he
grew achy and feverish.  Thinking he had a cold, he treated
himself with Thera-flu, which also contains acetaminophen -- 650
milligrams in each dose.  His symptoms grew worse, Kate Trunk
said, until he ended up in Abington Memorial Hospital, where the
doctors suspected he had hepatitis.

"They gave him more Tylenol," she said.

His parents, Carmen, a helicopter pilot, and Kate, a preschool
teacher, had just moved to Florida.  On Easter Sunday, they got a
call from the hospital.  Kate flew to Philadelphia immediately.

As she stood by his bedside, she remembers him telling her, "Oh,
Ma, I think I'm going to die."

"I would never let that happen," she said, certain that he was
overreacting.  He was young and strong and, until a few days
before, in perfect health.

The next day he was transferred to Thomas Jefferson University
Hospital.

"He was hooked up to every machine possible," she said.  She
called her husband and told him, "You need to be here."

A week later, Marcus was removed from life support.  "When the
autopsy report came back, we said, 'acetaminophen toxicity? What's
that?' . . . Is it incredibly rare? It turned out it wasn't
incredibly rare."

That summer, Kate and Carmen Trunk began fighting for more
explicit warnings on the labels of all medications containing
acetaminophen, warnings that they believe might have saved their
son's life.

"I would have loved for it to happen bam, bam, bam," she said.
"But that's not how it works."

Since the late 1960s, evidence had been mounting that the drug can
be lethal in doses exceeding 4,000 milligrams a day, and less when
combined with alcohol.  Anyone who has been fasting or eating very
little, as those who are ill tend to do, is also at greater risk
for liver damage from the drug.

In 1977, after four years of study, an advisory committee
appointed by the FDA asked the agency to set a "standard dose" of
no more than 325 milligrams of acetaminophen in any one pill.  The
group also said a warning about liver damage should be
"obligatory" on labels.  But it was not until 2001, when another
FDA panel reached the same conclusions, that the agency began to
take action.

Kate Trunk testified at one of those hearings.

"All the other experts had charts and PowerPoints," she recalled.
"I held up posters with pictures of Marcus . . . I asked for
specific warnings and larger font sizes on the boxes to let the
public know what can happen."

By 2003, labels had improved, experts said, but not enough to
adequately protect the public.

"While we acknowledge that there has been some delay," said Andrea
Fischer, an FDA spokeswoman, "the FDA has strengthened warnings on
the acetaminophen label . . . as science has evolved."

It is important to note, health experts warn, that the primary
over-the-counter alternatives to acetaminophen -- aspirin and
other non-steroidal anti-inflammatories -- have their own
dangerous side effects.  They can cause ulcers and gastric
bleeding. (Unlike non-steroidal anti-inflammatories and aspirin,
Tylenol does not reduce inflammation.  Rather, it reduces fever
and mitigates pain.) And in children, aspirin can cause Reye's
syndrome, a potentially fatal condition.

Acetaminophen dosing for children is even more confusing than for
adults.  Currently, labels do not offer any recommended dose for
children under 2 years old.  Instead, parents and caretakers are
told to ask a doctor.

Three years ago, the FDA asked manufacturers of prescription drugs
with acetaminophen to voluntarily limit the amount to 325
milligrams in each pill by Jan. 14, 2014.  As of the deadline,
about half the manufacturers had complied, the FDA reported.

"We hepatologists have been asking for a long time that the FDA
follow the lead of the United Kingdom, which limited amounts years
ago," said Santiago Munoz, director of the Center for Liver
Disease at Capital Health Medical Center in Pennington, N.J.  The
United Kingdom also requires drugs with acetaminophen to be
packaged in blister packs, forcing the consumer to be more
deliberate.

The 325-milligram limit for prescription tablets "is a first
step," Mr. Munoz said.

Similar limits do not yet exist for over-the-counter drugs.

In 2013, McNeil Consumer Health, the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary
that makes Tylenol, added red-letter warnings on bottle caps
saying "Contains acetaminophen always read the label."

"We have led the way in educating patients and consumers about the
benefits and risks of acetaminophen," said Jodie Wertheim, a
McNeil spokeswoman.

Most companies now highlight acetaminophen in yellow on labels,
but calculating the maximum dose can be confusing, said
Daniel Hussar, professor of pharmacy at the University of the
Sciences.

In the Tylenol brand alone, he notes, extra-strength tablets
contain 500 milligrams with a recommended limit of six a day.  The
eight-hour arthritis tablets contain 650 milligrams with a
recommended limit of six a day.  And regular tablets contain 325
milligrams with a recommended limit of 10 a day.

"I don't fault consumers for this," Mr. Hussar said.  "I don't
expect most will have the patience or understanding to sort out a
tongue-twisting name like acetaminophen" and figure out the math.

Even doctors, who have long known about the danger, lose track of
how much they are giving their patients.  A study, in the January
edition of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, found that over a two-
year period, 1,100 patients at Jefferson received more than the 4-
gram daily maximum.

The study's co-author, Jesse Civan, director of the liver tumor
program at Jefferson, said the problem is that so many drugs
contain acetaminophen.

Acetaminophen does not directly damage the liver.  But in the
chain of chemical changes as it is processed, a toxic compound is
produced.  Normally, the liver clears that compound quickly before
any harm is done.  Large doses and alcohol, however, increase the
amount of the compound and the length of time it lingers.

Some lawyers, scientists, and families of people who were sickened
or died from overdoses blame McNeil, accusing the company of
deliberate obstruction.  Others blame the FDA, saying that even
understanding bureaucratic delays and the need to give all parties
a say, three decades was too long to wait.

"It doesn't make any sense," said Sidney Wolfe, senior adviser of
the Public Citizen's Health Research Group, who served on an FDA
drug safety group that urged for stronger warnings and lower
doses.  "Why bother having advisory committees who spend hundreds
of hours researching these issues and then not do one of the most
important things we recommend?"

Ninfa Redmond, a toxicologist who served on the FDA advisory panel
in the 1970s, said "we were fully aware of our capacity as
advisors.  We were not there to make laws.  But we felt so
strongly about the liver damage from acetaminophen that we said
the warning should be obligatory."

It was the only time in the massive report reviewing scores of
drugs, she said, that the group used such strong language.

"In a democracy, when we present a report, it will take several
months.  The FDA has to send the 220-plus pages to companies, get
replies, answer the comments and the comments of the comments.
But that doesn't explain 32 years," she said.  "I think the
industry must have put up a big fight."

Ten years ago, the FDA did launch a public education campaign
about how to use the medicine safely.  In its own assessment,
however, the agency said, "by most standards, the campaign would
be considered small, due to budgetary constraints."

Kate Trunk was heartened to learn about the FDA's new limits on
prescription drugs. And she is pleased to see clearer health
warnings.  Twelve years after their son died, the lawsuit she and
her husband filed against McNeil was ready for trial.  The
objective, she said, was not to win money, but to hold the company
accountable.

"I'm still ticked off that we settled -- but Carmen was tired,"
she said.  "I was up for the fight."

As part of the terms, she was forbidden to discuss details of the
agreement. She noted, however, that the payment was a small
fraction of the $8.5 million a federal jury awarded Anthony Benedi
in 1994.

Mr. Benedi, a former special assistant to President George H.W.
Bush, needed a liver transplant after taking Tylenol Extra
Strength to treat the flu.  He sued McNeil for not warning about
the dangers of mixing alcohol and acetaminophen.  Mr. Benedi
regularly drank two or three glasses of wine with dinner.  He had
no way of knowing, he said, that alcohol hampers the liver's
ability to process the toxic enzymes produced when acetaminophen
is broken down.

It took another five years before alcohol warnings were added.

And the fight continues.

In April 2013, a raft of Tylenol cases filed through federal
courts were sent to be heard in Philadelphia, where pretrial
proceedings are underway.

"What we're trying to accomplish is to get justice for our clients
who have been severely injured as a result of a product that has
been marketed for 40 years as the 'safest, most recommended'
drug," said Michael Weinkowitz, one of the attorneys.

Attorneys for McNeil referred questions to the company's
spokeswoman, Jodie Wertheim.

Kate Trunk, whose husband died in October, said she sympathizes
with the families involved in the lawsuits.  But she warned that
they should be prepared.  No matter how fat the compensation
checks or sweet the psychological victories, nothing can
compensate for the loss of a son.

"Time," she said, "does not heal all wounds.  It kind of gives you
a little bit of scar tissue, but the pain never leaves you."


MONSANTO COMPANY: Supreme Court Appeal Taken in "Allen" Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The objector to the settlement of the lawsuit Virdie Allen, et al.
v. Monsanto, et al. moved for a stay pending a petition for writ
of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the
company's Jan. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013.

On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the
Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto,
Pharmacia and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named as the
successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged
class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and
students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed
to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro,
West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the
contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and
operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture
between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo Nobel). Akzo
Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia
was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit
seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate
value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to
test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The
complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination
and punitive damages.

Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the
Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed
both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case. The class action
certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007. On Jan. 8, 2008,
the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen (now Zina G.
Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced Allen as
class representative) case as a class action for property damage
and for medical monitoring.

On Nov. 2, 2011, the court, in response to defense motions,
entered an order decertifying the property class. After the trial
for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began on Jan. 3,
2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle as to both the
medical monitoring and the property class claims. The proposed
settlement provides for a 30 year medical monitoring program
consisting of a primary fund of up to $21 million and an
additional fund of up to $63 million over the life of the program,
and a three year property remediation plan with funding up to $9
million. On Feb. 24, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the
parties' proposed settlement. A fairness hearing was held June 18,
2012, resulting in the trial court's final approval of the
settlement.

Certain plaintiffs objected to the approval of the settlement and
appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On Nov.
22, 2013, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed the
appeal and upheld the fairness of the class action settlements. On
Dec. 20, 2013, the objector moved for a stay, pending his petition
for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.


NATIONAL TENANT: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Background Check
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A company that provides background checks must face claims from a
man whom it allegedly incorrectly described as a sex offender,
costing him work, Megan Gallegos at Courthouse News Service
reported, citing a federal court ruling in January.

Harold Charles Meyer claims that National Tenant Network sent an
inaccurate consumer report to Meyer's prospective employer and
landlord, Shorewood RV Park, claiming he had "three criminal sex
offense record, which were listed as 'violent sex offender, fail
to register,' 'sexual battery' and 'aggravated oral sexual
battery.'"

Both Harold and Phyllis Meyer, who had applied with him for the
assistant resident manager position, were then denied employment
and residence at Shorewood.

The couple contacted the National Tenant Network for copies of
Harold's file but the defendant allegedly never responded to their
requests.  They blamed the inaccurate sex-offender designation on
National Tenant Network having mistakenly relied on a consumer
report for Charles Otis Meyer and several other individuals with
similar names.

The Meyers filed suit in San Francisco, hoping to represent a
class, but National Tenant moved to dismiss their three claims
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley largely favored the
plaintiffs on January 17.  One surviving count alleges that
National Tenant improperly bars those whom it provides with
consumer reports, like Shorewood, from disclosing the contents of
those reports to the subjects, like the Meyers.  Another surviving
count alleges that National Tenant willfully fails to provide the
subjects of consumer reports with all the information in their
files.

For these causes of action, Corley also refused to dismiss the
class-action element.  She did find problems, however, the claim
alleging that National Tenant "negligently and willfully failing
to provide Mr. Meyer with notice at the time that it was selling
adverse public records about him, and the source of such
information and by failing to maintain strict procedures to insure
that adverse public records information it reports is complete and
up to date."

The Meyers failed to allege that "NTN either knew or should have
known that the report it furnished to Shorewood was for employment
purposes," according to the ruling.

"Plaintiffs assert that they adequately allege that the report
defendant sold to Shorewood was for employment purposes, citing
Paragraphs 11 and 26 through 30," Corley wrote.  "However, those
paragraphs include no allegations regarding defendant's knowledge
that the report would be used to evaluate plaintiffs' employment
application in addition to their tenancy application; rather,
those paragraphs simply allege that Shorewood used plaintiffs'
reports for employment purposes."


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Trampled on Homeowners, Nevada Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Megan Gallegos reported that
Nationstar Mortgage trampled on homeowners after buying from Bank
of America servicing rights to 1.3 million home loans, for $7.1
billion, a class action claims in Federal Court.

In January, lead plaintiffs Brian and Lanilee Johnston sued
Nationstar Mortgage LLC in Clark County Court, alleging breach of
contract, breach of third party beneficiary contract, breach of
faith and unjust enrichment.  It all started, the Johnstons say,
when Bank of America put together a program to help people
affected by the mortgage foreclosure crisis.

Bank of America is not a party to the lawsuit.

"As a servicer of residential mortgage loans, Bank of American . .
. entered into permanent loan modification agreements with
distraught homeowners through the county whose residential
mortgage loans it serviced prior to January 2013," the complaint
states.

"On January 6, 2013, BOA entered into a Mortgage Servicing Rights
Purchase and Sale Agreement (hereinafter 'MSRP') with Nationstar.
Pursuant to the MSRP, Nationstar 2 assumed the servicing rights to
approximately 1.3 million residential mortgage loans, with a total
unpaid principal balance of approximately $215 billion, and
servicing-related advanced receivables of approximately $5.8
billion.  The aggregate purchase price was approximately $7.1
billion.

"Within the MSRP, Nationstar contractually obligated itself to
honor all Modification Agreements that BOA previously entered with
Homeowners. Despite its contractual obligation to do so,
Nationstar has uniformly failed to honor the terms of the
Modification Agreements to the detriment of Homeowners, thereby
compelling the initiation of this action."

The Johnstons claim that "Nationstar has refused to honor the
terms of the Modification Agreements.  Rather than fulfill its
contractual obligation, Nationstar has made numerous homeowners
reapply for loan modifications featuring lesser terms than those
within their valid Modification Agreements with BOA, held payments
in suspension, improperly assessed unwarranted fees, and in some
circumstances, initiated foreclosure proceedings.

"In those instances where homeowners refused to reapply for
inferior loan modifications, or where Nationstar chose not to
offer any loan modification whatsoever, Nationstar has deemed the
original mortgage loans to be 'non-performing' or 'delinquent' and
assessed unwarranted penalties and costs against homeowners."

The Johnstons claim they worked with Bank of America to reduce
their monthly mortgage payment to $1,527.60.  But after sending
their first payment to Nationstar, "Nationstar sent a notice to
plaintiffs stating that their December mortgage payment of
$1,527.60 was insufficient and would be held in a suspense
account.  Nationstar also indicated that plaintiffs' principal
balance was $212,433.27 (approximately $4,000 more than the
principal balance with BOA) with monthly payments totaling
$1,709.11 at an interest rate of 5.875 percent.  Nationstar
further stated that a total of $10,779 was currently due,
including an unexplained property inspection fee of $315.00,"
according to the complaint.

The Johnstons say they asked Nationstar to honor their original
loan modification agreement, but it refused.

The family seeks class certification, actual and compensatory
damages, specific performance and attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George Haines, Esq.
          HAINES & KRIEGER
          Beltway Corporate Center
          8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite #130
          Henderson, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 880-5554
          Facsimile: (702) 880-5554


NEWO CORP: Falsely Sells Wi-Fi "Range Extenders," Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Newo Corp. and Amped Wireless
sell Wi-Fi "range extenders" with false promises, a class action
claims in California Federal Court.


NJOY INC: Misleads Consumers That E-cigs Are Harmless, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that an
electronic cigarette maker uses deceptive advertising to persuade
people that its products are harmless, though they include similar
carcinogenic chemicals as traditional cigarettes, a Californian
claims in a class action lawsuit.

Eric McGovern claims that Njoy of Scottsdale, Arizona, avoids
federal regulation of its cancer-causing products by stating on
cartons that it is not a smoking cessation product.  Yet it
implies in its marketing that Njoy cigarettes help smokers quit,
McGovern says in the lawsuit.

Also named as a defendant is Sottera, a parent company that merged
into Njoy in July in 2012, according to the complaint.

E-cigarettes, sold in California as "Vapes" (for vapor) have
become a popular alternative to tobacco cigarettes and are
marketed as a less harmful alternative.  The product looks and
sometimes feels like a cigarette. Battery operated e-cigarettes
release a nearly odorless vapor when exhaled and come in various
flavors.

Advertisements claim that Njoy cigarettes, which enjoy a 40
percent share of the U.S. market, have "everything you like about
smoking without the things you don't."  But the Food and Drug
Administration has found that the cigarettes contain harmful
ingredients.  The agency testing revealed that one brand of
cigarettes used a toxic chemical found in antifreeze.

McGovern claims that Njoy cigarettes also contain the "same
impurities and the same cancer-causing agents as traditional
cigarettes."  Njoy touts e-cigarettes as a safe alternative by
implying that its product is as safe as vegetables and plants that
contain nicotine, McGovern says.

"In reality, a typical consumer would need to ingest, as an
example, 244 grams of tomatoes to equal the amount of nicotine a
passive smoker would absorb in about three hours in a room with a
minimal amount of tobacco smoke," the 25-page lawsuit states.

Two hundred and forth-four grams is about 8 1/2 ounces.

Furthermore, McGovern claims, the Njoy website suggests the
e-cigarette helps people quit smoking.  But a look at the small
print on the e-cigarette container states that Njoy cigarettes are
not designed for that purpose, McGovern says.

"Undoubtedly the reason defendants state elsewhere that it is not
a smoking cessation product is to avoid regulation under the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act, which has been found, in a lawsuit to which
Njoy was a party, to grant the FDA the power to regulate smoking
cessation devices," the complaint states.

Estimating that tens of thousands of people have purchased Njoy
cigarettes, McGovern's complaint seeks unspecified actual,
compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages.

McGovern alleges violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
unfair competition or deceptive business practices, deceptive,
false and misleading advertising, consumer fraud, unjust
enrichment, and conversion.

Njoy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE
          1301 Dove St. #120,
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 203-3814
          E-mail: bchase@bisnar-chase.com


ONTARIO: Class Action v. MOL Over Negligent Inspection Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Miedema, Esq., at Dentons LLP, reports that in a case that
will be closely watched, an Ontario judge has permitted a class
action lawsuit against the Ministry of Labour for "negligent
inspection" of a workplace.

The case arises from the collapse of the roof-top parking deck at
the Algo Centre Mall in Elliot Lake, Ontario, in which two people
were killed and many more injured.

The class action was brought by owners of one of the restaurants
in the mall, which was one of the businesses affected by the
collapse.  The "class" of claimants included people in the mall at
the time of the collapse, business tenants and employees working
at the mall.

The plaintiffs argued that Ministry of Labour inspectors had
performed more than 130 inspections at the Mall over approximately
30 years, and had received numerous complaints about the condition
of the mall and the dangers of water leakage problems.  The
plaintiffs claimed that Ministry of Labour inspectors should have
followed up with reasonable investigations and in failing to do
so, they were negligent.

The court stated:

"A government body such as the Ministry of Labour that exercises
statutory power to conduct safety inspections owes a duty of care
to all who may be injured as a result of a negligent inspection.
Thus, for example, once the decision to inspect has been made, the
court may review the scheme of inspection to ensure it is
reasonable and has been reasonably carried out in light of all the
circumstances, including the availability of funds, to determine
whether the government agency has met the requisite standard of
care."

Although the Occupational Health and Safety Act provides limited
liability-protection to Ministry of Labour employees, including
inspectors, it expressly provides in section 65(2) that the
Ministry of Labour itself may be held liable for acts of
inspectors.

The judge therefore decided that the class action for "negligent
inspection" could proceed against the Ministry of Labour.  It
should be noted that the court has not yet found the Ministry of
Labour liable, but simply said that the class action may proceed.

There are numerous other defendants in the class action, a group
described by the court as "everyone involved in the planning,
construction, inspection, ownership and maintenance of the
shopping centre over the years". That group includes the mall, the
owners of the mall, the City of Elliot Lake, and a number of
architects and engineers,

Quinte v. Eastwood Mall, 2014 ONSC 249


PEPSICO INC: Pepsi One Product Contains Carcinogen, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pepsico fails to disclose
that Pepsi One contains 4-methylimidazole, which California
considers a carcinogen, a class action claims in California
Federal Court.


PFIZER INC: Faces "Cawlfield" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor
------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah G. Cawlfield, 210 Hollywood Park Road, Montz, LA 70068 v.
Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00194-EEF-ALC (E.D. La., January 23, 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.  Lipitor has been implicated in a national epidemic of
type 2 diabetes in women taking Lipitor.

Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: Sherman@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr., Esq.
          Jonathan D. Phelps, Esq.
          Kelly G. Juneau, Esq.
          IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE, LLC (NEW ORLEANS)
          400 Poydras St., Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 310-2107
          Facsimile: (504) 310-2101
          E-mail: qurquhart@irwinllc.com
                  jphelps@irwinllc.com
                  kjuneau@irwinllc.com


RALPHS GROCERY: Decaf Classic Coffee Has Caffeine, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ralphs Grocery's "decaf classic" coffee contains caffeine,
according to a class action filed in January 2014 in Superior
Court of California, Courthouse News Service reports.


RITE AID: Pursues Bid to Decertify N.Y. Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of
an order denying its motion for decertification of a labor suit
filed against it 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 Nov. 30, 2013.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action
lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to
pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and
under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks
other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state
and federal claims for overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice
of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.
Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. On
September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification
of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but
denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion for
decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. The
Company has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's
September 26, 2013 decision and briefing on that motion is
complete and awaiting a ruling. Once approved by the Court, notice
of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only will be
sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in
the state of New York.


RITE AID: Continues to Face Labor Lawsuits in Calif. State Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation faces lawsuits in state courts in California
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, according to
the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2013.

The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class
action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations
pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed
meals and rest periods and failure to provide employee seating.
These suits purport to be class actions and seek substantial
damages.


SCHELL & KAMPETER: Obtains Initial Approval of Marciano Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein issued an order preliminarily
approving a settlement in the case captioned BARBARA MARCIANO,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 2: L2-CV-02708-SJF-AKT, (E.D.N.Y.).

The Court certifies, for purposes of settlement only, three
Sub-Classes defined as:

(I) Individuals who: (i) purchased but never used a recalled pet
product, never fed his/her pet or animal the recalled product, and
the class member discarded or retained the product, did not return
the product to the dealer or otherwise exchanged the product; or
(ii) purchased and used a recalled pet product that caused
economic damages detailed in Sub-Class H.

(II) Individuals who, in addition to having purchased or used a
recalled pet food product, sustained economic damages as a result
of injury or death to animals from their consumption of a recalled
product.

(III) Individuals who purchased pet food products subject to the
recalls and fully utilized the products with no resultant ill
effects.

The Court appoints the firm Gilardi & Co., LLC to supervise and
administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of
claims.

Class Members who wish to participate in the Settlement must
complete and submit the Proof of Claim and Release form in
accordance with the instructions. Unless the Court orders
otherwise, all Proofs of Claim and Release must be postmarked no
later than July 11, 2014.

A hearing will be held on September 15, 2014, at 11:15 a.m., at
the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York,
Courtroom 1010, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York, to
determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on
the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and should be
approved by the Court.

A copy of the District Court's February 19, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/RfLpyefrom Leagle.com.


SEMINOLE, FL: Judge Blocks Bid to Appeal in "Davis" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In ANTHONY LEROY DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SEMINOLE, FLORIDA,
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, CECIL SMITH and JOHN AND JANE DOE, Defendants,
CASE NO. 6:13-CV-1736-ORL-28TBS, (M.D. Fla.), pending before the
Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In
Forma Pauperis.

The Plaintiff filed this suit on October 15, 2013, in the Tampa
Division of this Court against Seminole County, Seminole County
Police Chief Cecil Smith, and George Zimmerman, alleging that the
Defendants violated the United States Constitution and federal
civil rights laws by their actions in connection with the shooting
of Trayvon Martin.

Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith recommends that the motion be
denied, saying the Court found that the Plaintiff's claims are
frivolous and dismissed the case two months ago. The Court is
therefore, unable to certify that those same frivolous arguments
form an adequate basis for appeal.

"Accordingly, I find that the appeal is not taken in good faith
and respectfully recommend that the motion be denied," concluded
Magistrate Judge Smith.

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's February 4, 2014 Report and
Recommendation is available at http://is.gd/LZrwmNfrom
Leagle.com.


SONY GAMING: Court Dismissed Claims in PlayStation Users' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reported that
PlayStation users have limited berth to sue Sony over the 2011
data breach that exposed the personal information of nearly 70
million customers, a federal judge ruled in January.

As part of the registration process for establishing accounts on
PlayStation Network (PSN), Qriocity and Sony Online Entertainment,
customers were required to provide their personal information,
including their names, billing addresses, birth dates, and credit
and debit card information.

The users claim that hackers were able to access Sony's network on
April 16 or 17 in 2011 and steal the personal information of
millions of Sony's customers.  Although Sony knew about the breach
as early as April 17, it opted to take the systems down for a
month, rather than notify the affected customers immediately,
according to the putative class action.

During this time, users were allegedly unable to access services
that they had pre-purchased.

"Sony did not inform the public of the breach until April 26,
2011, when Sony made a public statement that user Personal
Information had been compromised, and encouraged those affected to
'remain vigilant, to review [their] account statements[,] and to
monitor [their] credit reports,'" according to a summary of the
claims on January 21, 2014, from U.S. District Judge Anthony
Battaglia.

Acknowledging that the system failure had a financial impact on
its customers, Sony announced in May 2011 that it would compensate
users by providing free identity-theft protection services, as
well as free downloads and online services.

The class action at hand -- which was consolidated from several
civil actions filed across the country -- was originally filed in
January 2012 and alleged that Sony knew its system was vulnerable
to an attack but did nothing to beef up its safeguards and failed
to timely disclose the breach.

After a large chunk of the users' claims, including negligence,
unjust enrichment, bailment and violations of California consumer
protection statutes, unraveled in October 2012, the class filed an
amended complaint in December 2012 naming plaintiffs from nine
states and alleging 51 independent causes of action.

Judge Battaglia dismissed most of the claims in January 21's 97-
page ruling, which finds that the class did not have standing to
bring its negligence, negligent misrepresentation and warranty
claims under individual state laws.

The users also did not allege a plausible claim for relief on
their negligence claims, as no special relationship existed
between the parties and the users' injuries were "not a
foreseeable result of Sony's alleged negligence," according to the
ruling.

Battaglia chided the users as well for not alleging that any
misrepresentations by Sony led them to suffer a pecuniary loss
because their "personal information does not have independent
monetary value, registration and use of Sony Online Services was
provided to consumers free of charge, and none of the plaintiffs
allege that they paid for premium PSN services."

The PSN user agreement, which states that all services and content
are provided "as is" and "as available," meanwhile expressly
disclaims implied warranty claims, the court found.

Users can continue, however, with their claims under California's
Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law based on
omissions regarding reasonable network security and industry-
standard encryption.

"Because plaintiffs have alleged that Sony omitted material
information regarding the security of Sony Online Services, and
that this information should have been disclosed to consumers at
the time consumers purchased their Consoles, the Court finds
plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a loss of money or property
'as a result' of Sony's alleged unfair business practices,"
Battaglia wrote.

Although language in Sony's PSN Privacy Policy disclaimed any
right to so-called "perfect security," the users have sufficiently
pleaded that Sony misrepresented that it would take "reasonable
security" measures, including using industry-standard encryption
to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive financial information,
according to the ruling.

"Plaintiffs have raised an issue of fact as to whether Sony's
representations, when viewed as a whole, were deceptive,"
Battaglia wrote.

Battaglia also found that Sony owed its customers a legal duty to
provide reasonable network security, which was separate from the
PSN User Agreement, so they can pursue contract and tort remedies
to the extent that they are not barred by the economic-loss
doctrine.

The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Act, Michigan Consumer
Protection Act, Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, New
Hampshire Consumer Protection Act and the California Data Breach
Act are also available to the plaintiffs, the court found.


ST. CHARLES SD: Suit Over School Reorganization Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie K. Baer, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports a lawsuit
seeking monetary damages from St. Charles Community Unit School
District 303 in the controversial reorganization of Richmond and
Davis schools was dismissed last week after a county judge found
the alleged grounds for damages failed to meet state requirements.

The decision, however, could face an appeal.

"We disagree with the judge's decision.  We think it's wrong and
we're going to appeal," plaintiffs' attorney Timothy Dwyer said
last week.

The court order, issued by Kane County Circuit Court Judge James
Murphy on Feb. 26, says the state's school code does not allow the
court to grant damages in this case because the "plaintiffs injury
was not one the statute was designed to prevent."

Last fall, two parents filed the lawsuit against District 303,
seeking money for parents who moved their kids out of the district
into private schools, moved out of the Davis school boundary to
get around the merger, or did neither and were forced to have
their kids attend Richmond instead of Davis, according to the
complaint.

"These statutes are designed to improve the school system as a
whole by improving the education of students in lower performing
schools," the order reads.  "Plaintiffs in this case who absented
their children from the affected schools by either sending their
children to private school or moving from the district are not the
ones who have a cognizable injury or the persons the statues are
designed to protect."

In 2011, 17 parents sued the district and demanded it undo the
reorganization of the two schools, one of which had failed for
three consecutive years to meet federal progress standards
mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind law.

A Kane County judge ultimately ruled in favor of parents last year
but did not order the district to change the schools back to their
original grade divisions.  That ruling still faces an appeal.

As of March 4, no appeal had been filed.  Mr. Dwyer said in an
email that he was considering a motion to reconsider before
appealing to the appellate court.


STARWOOD HOTELS: Makes Employees Work Off the Clock, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starwood Hotels and Sheraton cheat workers of overtime and make
them work off the clock, a class action claims in California
Superior Court, according to Courthouse News Service.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "NECA-IBEW" Suit Over Aggrenox Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited; Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Barr
Laboratories Inc.; Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Duramed
Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH &
Co. KG.; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; and Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00329-MSG (E.D.
Pa., January 23, 2014) alleges violations of the federal antitrust
laws, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.

The Defendants have conspired to prevent a less expensive generic
equivalent of the drug Aggrenox from entering the market, the
Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of a
proposed Class of end-payors, who indirectly purchased,
reimbursed, or otherwise paid for Aggrenox, other than for resale.

Aggrenox is a drug containing aspirin and slow-release
dipyridamole used to reduce the risk of stroke in people, who have
had a transient ischemic attack, or "mini-stroke," or stroke due
to a blood clot and are at high risk of having another stroke.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in North Wales, Pennsylvania.  The
Company manufactures and distributes generic drugs for sale
throughout the United States at the direction, under the control,
and for the direct benefit of its parent company.  Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited is an Israeli corporation
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.  Teva Pharmaceuticals
Industries Limited is a global manufacturer of generic drugs, and
is one of the largest sellers of generic drugs in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          431 Montgomery Avenue, Suite B
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 660-8000
          Facsimile: (610) 660-8080
          E-mail: mhenzel@henzellaw.com

               - and -

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  bomara@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick O'Hara, Esq.
          CAVANAGH & O'HARA
          407 East Adams Street
          Springfield, IL 62701
          Telephone: (217) 544-1771
          Facsimile: (217) 544-9894


TEXAS GRILL: Fails to Pay Spread of Hours Premium, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marino Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Texas Grill Inc. d/b/a Hot & Crusty, Gus Pullows, and
John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-00417-AJN (S.D.N.Y., January 23,
2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay non-
exempt employees proper minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
"spread of hours" premium.

Hot & Crusty is a domestic business corporation headquartered in
New York.  Gus Pullows is the President of Hot & Crusty, and is an
owner, officer, shareholder, director, supervisor, managing agent
and proprietor of Hot & Crusty.  The Doe Defendants are individual
officers, directors and managing agents of Hot & Crusty, who may
have personal liability for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law for having acted directly or
indirectly in the interest of the employer and whose true names
and identities are unknown at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


TGI FRIDAY'S: Sued by Waitresses and Waiters in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that TGI Friday's makes
waitresses and waiters work off the clock, according to a class
action filed in Worcester County Court in January.


TOSHIBA CORP: Misrepresents LCD TVs as LED TVs, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toshiba defrauds customers by selling them "LED" (light-emitting
diode) TVs though they are actually "LCD" (liquid crystal display)
sets, a class action claims in California Federal Court, according
to Courthouse News Service.


TOTAL WASTE: Faces Suit in Texas Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Total Waste Management
Alliance stiffs workers for overtime, according to a class action
filed in Texas Federal Court.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Allows Fraud Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Lovett, writing for NYDailyNews.com, reports that a class
action fraud lawsuit filed against Donald Trump and his real
estate "university" was certified to move forward by a US district
judge in California.

But while the judge, Gonzalo Curiel, rejected Mr. Trump's push to
dismiss the lawsuit, his ruling dated Feb. 21 did limit its scope
to those in California, New York and Florida who took expensive
seminars at Trump University, felt deceived, and did not get a
full refund.

Those bringing the case had hoped it would cover clients in all 50
states.  Judge Curiel's decision also narrowed to five, down from
14, the allegations that can be pursued.

The suit claims that Mr. Trump defrauded wannabe real estate
investors through his "Trump University" by offering free seminars
to help them get rich by teaching real estate-investing techniques
used by the billionaire developer-turned-reality TV star.  But,
the suit says, the free seminars were often nothing more than sell
jobs to get people to sign up for a $1,495, three-day seminar and
eventually an "elite" program costing as much as $35,000 per
person.

The class action suit claims that Mr. Trump and his university
defrauded its customers by claiming the institution was an
accredited university and that Mr. Trump personally hand-picked
the instructors.  It also says Mr. Trump's operation lied in its
promise of unlimited mentoring for an entire year.

Trump lawyer Alan Garten called the ruling a victory.

"The court's decision significantly narrows the scope of the
plaintiff's case," Mr. Garten said.  "It's a small fraction of the
claimants they were seeking to represent and we're confident about
the claims being pursued."

The case, while similar, is separate from the $40 million fraud
lawsuit brought last summer against Trump University by New York
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.  That case is also proceeding
even after a judge threw portions out.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sued Over Recording of Customer Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that UnitedHealth recorded
outgoing telephone communications with customers without notifying
customers, a class claims.  The case is Kerry O'Shea v.
UnitedHealth Group Inc., in the California Superior Court for
Orange County.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over High Speed DSL Package Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Sacchi, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Verizon Communications Inc. and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:14-cv-00423-RA (S.D.N.Y.,
January 23, 2014) alleges that the Defendants deliberately,
knowingly and wrongfully charged the Plaintiff additional monthly
charges for its "high" (1.5 MB-3.0 MB) speed package for DSL
Internet access while knowingly failing to provide speed faster
than that the Plaintiff obtained via the "low" speed package for
DSL Internet access on his telephone line.

Verizon Communications Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in New York.  The Company provides telephone services
throughout the United States.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the
true names of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen John Simoni, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN J. SIMONI
          55 Ocean Avenue
          Monmouth Beach, NJ 07750
          Telephone: (917) 621-5795
          Facsimile: (999) 999-9999
          E-mail: stephensimoni@yahoo.com


WAL-MART STORES: Gets Favorable Ruling in "Hayes" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HAYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES INC. d/b/a SAM'S CLUB,
Defendant, CIVIL NO. 10-460 (JBS/KMW), (D. N.J.) is before the
Court upon a motion for summary judgment by Defendant Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.  The Plaintiff's action arose from the Defendant's
sale of allegedly valueless extended warranty plans on certain
clearance items marked "as-is."

The principal issue presented is whether the Plaintiff has
sustained harm sufficient for Article III of the Constitution
standing to assert claims for a violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-2, breach of contract,
and unjust enrichment, where the Defendant asserts that the
Plaintiff cannot show that the as-is item he purchased is excluded
from the extended warranty plan.

Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle grants the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment saying the Plaintiff has failed to
establish injury-in-fact as to his purchase of an extended
warranty plan on the as-is power washer.

A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/obg7gsfrom Leagle.com.

Keven Hal Friedman, Esq. -- kfriedman@wilentz.com -- Victoria
Hwang-Murphy, Esq., Daniel R. Lapinski, Esq. --
dlapinski@wilentz.com -- (Argued), WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER,
Woodbridge, NJ, and James C. Shah, Esq. -- jshah@sfmslaw.com --
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP, Collingswood, NJ,
Attorneys for Plaintiff William Hayes.

Paul H. Zoubek, Esq. -- pzoubek@mmwr.com -- Charles B. Casper,
Esq. -- ccasper@mmwr.com -- Stacy Alison Fols, Esq. --
sfols@mmwr.com -- John Papianou, Esq. (Argued) --
jpapianou@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP,
Cherry Hill, NJ, Attorneys for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Inc.


WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Schleimer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00108-JA-GJK (M.D. Fla., January 23,
2014) is brought for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants conduct business in, among other locations, Orange
County, Florida.  The Defendants are in the business of providing
vacation ownership properties to its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly D. Woods, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
          E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com
                  rmorgan@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ajda Moreland Nguyen, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1285
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 246-8408
          Facsimile: (407) 841-0168
          E-mail: nguyena@jacksonlewis.com


YELP INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Reviewers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit against YELP Inc. by former reviewers has been
dismissed from federal court.  On Feb. 19, an order granting the
defendant's motion to dismiss was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The plaintiffs, represented by counsel, have not opposed the
motion, according to the order.

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing
party to file an opposition to any motion at least 21 days prior
to the date designated for hearing the motion.

The hearing on the defendant's motion was noticed for March 10,
meaning the plaintiffs' opposition was therefore due by Feb. 17.
However, the plaintiffs did not file an opposition or any other
filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance.

The court deems the plaintiffs' failure to oppose as consent to
granting the motion to dismiss, according to the order.

The plaintiffs -- Dr. Allen Panzer, Amy Sayers, Lily Jeung and
Darren Walchesky -- were Yelp reviewers who claimed they were
unlawfully misclassified as non-wage-paid employees, according to
a complaint filed Oct. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The plaintiffs claimed they, and other class members, performed
their duties relating to the creation and promotion of content on
behalf of Yelp, including writing, researching, editing, lodging
review, upgrading prior reviews and generally promoting the site.
The plaintiffs were "an indispensable and integral part of the
success of the defendant's business," the complaint stated.
The plaintiffs claimed Yelp's business model is predicated
entirely on the exploitation of the plaintiffs' work product in
order for the company and its owners to earn approximately $220
million annually.

The plaintiffs claimed Yelp's enormous growth and preeminence as a
publisher are directly attributable to its low operating costs,
made possibly by not paying wages to an entire class of workers,
thereby also sidestepping payment of taxes and other societal
contributions.

Yelp has devised a system of cult-like rewards and disciplines to
motivate its non-wage-paid writers to labor without wages or
expense reimbursement, in violation of equitable principles and
the Fair Labor Standards Act, by offering rewards such as
trinkets, badges, titles, praise, social promotion, free liquor,
free food and free promotional Yelp attire, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs were seeking unpaid wages, reimbursement of
expenditures, liquidated damages and statutory damages with pre-
and post-judgment interest.  They were being represented by Randy
Rosenblatt of the Yelp Class Action Law Firm.

Yelp Inc. was being represented by Angeli C. Aragon --
angeli.aragon@leclairryan.com -- and James C. Potepan --
james.potepan@leclairryan.com -- of LeClairRyan LLP; Mark
Goldowitz of the California Anti-Slapp Project; and Aaron Schur of
Yelp Inc.

The case was assigned to District Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number: 2:13-cv-07805


                             *********

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  * * *