CAR_Public/140624.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 124

                             Headlines


A F HAUSER: Motion to Certify Class in "Sturdy" Suit Denied
ABIOMED INC: Dismissal of Mass. Securities Suit Under Appeal
ACXIOM CORP: Reaches Settlement Agreement in "Henderson" Lawsuit
ALABAMA: Prisoners Sue Over Inadequate Medical & Mental Care
ALAMEDA WATER: Faces Class Suit Alleging Breach of Contract

ANGLO AMERICAN: Seeks Dismissal of Silicosis Class Action
BALTIMORE, MD: Baltimore Teachers Union Files Class Action
BLUCORA INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in W.D. Washington
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Gray" Class Suit
CATERPILLAR INC: Engine-Failure Suits to Be Heard in N.J. Court

CENTRON SERVICES: Removed "Giuffre-Johnson" Suit to Montana
CIRRUS LOGIC: "Koplyay" Securities Suit in New York Now Closed
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of Discrimination Class Suit Okayed
CRACKER BARREL: Faces "Proper" FLSA Litigation in New York Court
DFC GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Suit in Delaware Over LSF8 Merger

EATON CORP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for July 23
FOCUS MEDIA: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 4
FORD MOTOR: Plaintiff's Expert Can Testify in F250 Switch Suit
FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Ashikenazi" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
GC SERVICE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says

GENERAL MOTORS: "Andrews" Suit Seeks $10 Billion in Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: "Heuler" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Ratzlaff" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: No Ignition Claims Filed vs Trust Thru May 19
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls About 510,000 Camaros Over Faulty Keys

GENERAL MOTORS: Lawmakers to Scrutinize Recall Probe Findings
GEORGIA: "R. A." Class Suit Filed Over Prison Condition
GLADE KNIGHT: Faces Securities Suit by Apple REIT Shareholder
GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Accused of Violating Telecommunications Act
GRAIN PROCESSING: Iowa Supreme Court Reinstates Pollution Suit

HALAL CHINA: Faces "Alejandro" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
HULU: Court Refused to Certify Users Class in Privacy Litigation
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Suit by Ohio Counties Over MERS
IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
INNOVATIVE DINING: Calif. Court Approves Class Action Settlement

IRENEW BIO: "Litwin" Suit Remanded for Further Proceedings
JPMORGAN CHASE: Has Initial OK of Mortgage Modification Suit Deal
JUDGES' RETIREMENT: "Staniforth" Suit Ruling Partially Vacated
KAMERYCAH INC: Removed "Lee" Suit to C.D. Calif.
KINDER STUFF: Teaching Staff Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

LA CONDESA CAFE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
LIFE PARTNERS: Expects Discovery to Commence in Securities Suit
LIFE PARTNERS: Suit by Life Settlement Interest Buyers Closed
LIFE PARTNERS: Certification of Life Settlement Suit Under Appeal
LIFE PARTNERS: Appeals Decision in "Arnold" Securities Suit

LIFE PARTNERS: Bellwether Trial in Overpayment Suit Set for Sept.
LIFE PARTNERS: "Steuben" Suit Awaits Resolution of "Willingham"
LINKEDIN CORP: Judge Allows Suit Over Marketing Emails to Proceed
MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Novarel Slimming Claims
MANSFIELD BANK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

MICHIGAN: "Rivera" Suit v. Correction Dept. May Proceed
MONTANA: Farmers Lose Class Action Over Tax Increases
MONTREAL MAINE: Train Derailment Class Action Hearings Begin
MORGAN STANLEY: Dismissal of Claims in "Coultier" Suit Affirmed
MORGAN STANLEY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Pass-Thru Cert. Suit

NAP NANNY: CPSC Announces 6th Baby Death Due to Infant Recliner
NEW EXPRESS MOBIL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NORTH CAROLINA: "Alston" Suit v. Public Safety Dept Dismissed
NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: Sued by Terminated Workers and Their Union
PARTNERSHIP HEALTH: Settles Wrongful Discharge Suits for $189,000

PNEUMO ABEX: Has No Duty to Warn Employee's Nephew, Court Says
POM WONDERFUL: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Juice Labeling
PRIMARY FINANCIAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SCHNUCKS BAKERY: Issues Voluntary Recall of Devil's Food Cakes
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: "Smith" Suit Moved From Wyoming to Texas

SHRED-IT USA: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Suit Challenges Use of Automatic Dialing System
SOURCE REFRIGERATION: Refused to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
SWT ARIZONA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
TARSADIA HOTELS: Ruling in "Royalty Alliance" Suit Upheld

TRIANGLE AUTO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Car Salesman Claims
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Sued for Denying Mental Health Claims
US BANK: Homeowner Class Certified in Force-Placed Insurance Suit
VERIZON WIRELESS: Sanctions Denial in Text Messaging MDL Appealed
ZUMIEZ INC: Calif. Court Approves Deal in "Steele" Labor Suit

* Firms Can No Longer Claim Safe Harbor in False Labeling Suits
* Defendants Must Step Up Fight in Data Breach Class Actions
* Discovery Rules in Lead Paint & Toxic Tort Suits Clarified


                            *********


A F HAUSER: Motion to Certify Class in "Sturdy" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark W. Sturdy filed his complaint against A. F. Hauser Inc.
and John Does 1-10 on November 11, 2013. On that same date, the
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify Class.

District Judge Colin S. Bruce concludes that the Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify Class should be denied because the Plaintiff's
estimate of group membership is speculative and is not properly
supported.  Neither the Plaintiff nor the record establish that
there is an objective, reasonable way to ascertain potential class
members, he adds. For this reason, the court concludes that the
Plaintiff has not met the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The case is DR. MARK W. STURDY d/b/a ROCHESTER VETERINARY CLINIC
on behalf of itself and a class, Plaintiff, v. A. F. HAUSER INC.
and JOHN DOES 1-10 Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-3379, (C.D. Ill.)

A copy of Judge Bruce's May 28, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/B1ac8V from Leagle.com.

Dr Mark W Sturdy, Plaintiff, represented by Dulijaza Julie Clark
-- jclark@edcombs.com -- EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC &
Michelle R Teggelaar -- mteggelaar@edcombs.com -- EDELMAN COMBS
LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC.

Dr Mark W Sturdy, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A Edelman --
dedelman@edcombs.com -- EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC.


ABIOMED INC: Dismissal of Mass. Securities Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities suit against ABIOMED, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts filed a notice of
appeal against the dismissal of the case, according to the
company's May 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2014.

On November 16 and 19, 2012, two purported class action complaints
were filed against the company and certain of the company's
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts by alleged purchasers of the company's common stock,
on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired the company's securities between August 5, 2011 and
October 31, 2012. The complaints alleged that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws in connection with
disclosures related to the FDA and the marketing and labeling of
the company's Impella 2.5 product and seek damages in an
unspecified amount. The Court has consolidated these complaints
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs
on May 20, 2013. On July 8, 2013, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action. Oral arguments on the
company's motion to dismiss were conducted before the presiding
district court judge on September 18, 2013. On April 10, 2014, the
U.S. District Court entered an order granting the company's motion
and dismissed the consolidated and amended complaint. On May 9,
2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.


ACXIOM CORP: Reaches Settlement Agreement in "Henderson" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit Henderson, et al. v. Acxiom Risk
Mitigation, Inc. have reached a tentative settlement agreement,
according to the company's May 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March
31, 2014.

On August 16, 2012, a putative class action styled Henderson, et
al. v. Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against the Company, Acxiom Information Security Systems, a former
subsidiary of the Company that was sold to another company in
fiscal 2012, and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc. (now known as Acxiom
Identity Solutions, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company), a
subsidiary of the Company.  The action seeks to certify nationwide
classes of persons who requested a consumer file from any Acxiom
entity from 2007 forward; who were the subject of an Acxiom report
sold to a third party that contained information not obtained
directly from a governmental entity and who did not receive a
timely copy of the report; who were the subject of an Acxiom
report and about whom Acxiom adjudicated the hire/no hire decision
on behalf of the employer; who, from 2010 forward, disputed an
Acxiom report and Acxiom did not complete the investigation within
30 days; or who, from 2007 forward,  were the subject of an Acxiom
report for which no permissible purpose existed. The complaint
alleges various violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and
seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  The
parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement and the
Company has accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of the probable
loss associated with this matter.


ALABAMA: Prisoners Sue Over Inadequate Medical & Mental Care
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Dunn, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v.
Commissioner Kim Thomas, in his official capacity as Commissioner
of the Alabama Department of Corrections; Ruth Naglich, in her
official capacity as Associate Commissioner of Health Services for
the Alabama Department of Corrections; and Alabama Department of
Corrections, Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-WKW-TFM (M.D. Ala.,
June 17, 2014), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated persons, who are incarcerated in Alabama
Department of Corrections prisons.

The Plaintiffs seek to remedy, among other things, the Defendants'
alleged failure to provide to persons in the custody of the ADOC
constitutionally adequate medical care and mental health care.

The Plaintiffs are Joshua Dunn; Alex Ball; Edward Braggs; Tedrick
Brooks; Gary Lee Broyles; Richard Businelle; Bobby Copeland;
Howard Carter; Chandler Clements; Robert Dillard; Christopher
Gilbert; Dwight Hagood; Daletrick Hardy; Sylvester Hartley;
Christopher Jackson; Brandon Johnson; John Maner; Rick Martin;
Willie McClendon; Roger McCoy; Jermaine Mitchell; Kenneth
Moncrief; Tommie Moore; Matthew Mork; Zerrick Naylor; Bradley
Pearson; Leviticus Pruitt; Turner Rogers; Jonathan Sanford;
Timothy Sears; Brian Sellers; Augustus Smith; Richard Terrell;
Hubert Tollar; Daniel Tooley; Joseph Torres; Donald Ray Turner;
William Villar; Jamie Wallace; Robert "Myniasha" Williams; and
Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Defendant Kim Thomas is the Commissioner of the ADOC, while Ruth
Naglich is the Associate Commissioner of Health Services for the
ADOC.  The ADOC is the administrative department of the state of
Alabama responsible for administering and exercising the direct
and effective control over penal and corrections institutions
throughout Alabama.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maria V. Morris, Esq.
          Ebony Howard, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8200
          Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
          E-mail: maria.morris@splcenter.org
                  ebony.howard@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Miriam Haskell, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          P O Box 370037
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (786) 347-2056
          Facsimile: (786) 237-2949
          E-mail: miriam.haskell@splcenter.org

               - and -

          William Van Der Pol, Jr., Esq.
          James Patrick Hackney, Esq.
          ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM
          University of Alabama
          500 Martha Parham West
          P. O. Box 870395
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
          Telephone: (205) 348-4928
          Facsimile: (205) 348-3909
          E-mail: jphackney@adap.ua.edu
                  wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu


ALAMEDA WATER: Faces Class Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stanley P. McBride and Marilyn Wright, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Alameda County Water District,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02789-EDL (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2014), arises from
alleged breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald Scott Kravitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. KRAVITZ
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 291-2421
          E-mail: rkravitz@kravitzesq.com


ANGLO AMERICAN: Seeks Dismissal of Silicosis Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Dewald van Rensburg, writing for City Press, reports that big
mining companies ask a court not to allow a class action lawsuit
-- not because there's no case, but because it may be too
"gargantuan" to handle.

Gold mining companies, past and present, have filed thousands of
pages of court papers in their bid to stop the historic class
action by former mine workers suffering from silicosis.  The mines
are not only arguing against the class action on legal principles,
but allege it would be virtually impossible for the South Gauteng
High Court to manage a case this "gargantuan".

Some of the companies have squarely taken aim at the lawyers who
are trying to represent the mine workers, alleging questionable
motives and legal tactics designed to maximize fees, even if it
complicates the case.  At this point, mines are only arguing
against the certification of a class action, not the actual
questions of liability and damages.

The class action aims to cover practically all gold miners since
the 1950s, potentially resulting in billions of rands in claims
against dozens of mining companies.  Most notable among the
respondents are Anglo American SA, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields
and Harmony.  The different companies are taking very different
approaches, owing in part to their very different liabilities.

AngloGold Ashanti, for instance, has only existed in its own right
since being divested by Anglo American in 1998 and faces far fewer
claims than Anglo itself or Gold Fields, which ran the country's
largest mines near Carletonville for half a century.  Anglo says
the scale of the class action envisaged "boggles the imagination".
In its papers, it estimates the "gargantuan litigation" would
require more than 50 lawyers representing mines and mine workers
in a case "no viable legal proceeding could ever accommodate".

Gold Fields and others are arguing that the kinds of evidence they
will argue would be on an individual basis, interrogating the
minutiae of possible dust exposures and alleged instances of
negligence for thousands of people spanning a 60-year period.

The mines are fundamentally fighting for the idea that there could
be a collective case for collective damages.

The mine workers' lawyers are ultimately aiming at a resolution
similar to the settlement with asbestos mines more than a decade
ago.  Then the former Gencor paid millions into a fund that still
exists and which sick ex-miners can approach for compensation.

                          Counterattack

One thrust of the gold mines' defense is to attack the motives of
the well-known human rights lawyers representing mine workers and
their US backers.  Three separate class action cases were combined
last year after most of the lawyers buried their differences.

These are Richard Spoor, Charles Abrahams from Abrahams Kiewitz
Attorneys and the Legal Resource Centre (LRC).  Mr. Spoor is
backed by US firm Motley Rice, while Abrahams has another American
celebrity lawyer, Charles Hausmann, in his corner.

The team of Leigh Day, a UK law firm, comprising Richard Meeran
and his local partner Zanele Mbuyisa used to work with the LRC,
but have gone their own way by filing thousands of separate cases,
not as a class action.

Gold Fields in particular has questioned the fee contracts of the
various legal teams, especially after the consolidation of the
three class actions.  The company has filed copies of the legal
teams' fee agreements as part of the papers and claims these
contain clauses that are "highly questionable".

Gold Fields has also said it will ensure the US firms backing the
miners' lawyers join the case -- to argue for them to carry the
formidable costs if the case fails.

                           Other cases

It emerged that another team of lawyers have separately filed
thousands of individual silicosis cases against Anglo and
AngloGold, mostly in March this year.

Leigh Day, working with local firm Garratt Mbuyisa Neale, have
filed 4,335 claims for a total of R7.6 billion against Anglo in
Gauteng.  They also filed 1,204 claims against AngloGold for R2.1
billion.

These cases were mostly filed after Leigh Day parted ways with the
LRC late last year when the LRC opted to join up with Spoor and
Abrahams in a single class action.

Earlier, Mr. Meeran had also lodged 4,202 claims against Anglo in
the UK.

The past and present divisions between the lawyers have given the
mines ammunition.  Anglo accused Mr. Meeran of "unashamedly
cherry-picking" jurisdictions "in order to maximize the damages
claim and the amount of success fees".

Mr. Spoor has also lodged one case separately from the class
action, involving only one individual mine worker claiming R25
million from Harmony and Gold Fields.

Anglo has used this to argue that even the most vocal supporter of
the class action route clearly thinks there are other ways to
handle silicosis claims.


BALTIMORE, MD: Baltimore Teachers Union Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Erica L. Green, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that the
Baltimore Teachers Union has filed a class action grievance
against the city school system after the district made last-minute
changes to its evaluation system, which knocked teachers down in
ratings that are also tied to their ability to earn pay raises.

In an email to members, Marietta English, president of the BTU,
said the union filed the grievance because of changes the district
made to the "cut scores," which affect whether a teacher is rated
"highly effective" "effective," "developing" or "ineffective."

For example, a teacher who scored an 80 or above out of 100 under
the previous system would be considered "highly effective," but
this year would need to earn an 86 to receive the highest rating.
For some teachers, those six points mean not receiving an
automatic pay raise under the union contract, which began tying
evaluations to compensation in 2010.

"There have been a lot of concerns regarding the teacher
evaluation," English wrote in the email.  "The BTU never agreed to
change the percentages within the evaluation."

When teachers began receiving their year-end evaluations, they
were notified that the cut scores had changed.

The ratings also changed to rely heavily on classroom
observations, which accounted for 85 percent of this year's
evaluation in the absence of measuring student growth through test
scores.

City school officials said on June 6 that they received a letter
from the union stating concern about the new cut-score system and
that they are willing to go back to the bargaining table to
negotiate.

The issue stemmed from legislation that wasn't signed until May,
prohibiting the use of test scores in teacher or principal
evaluations until 2016-2017.  The district decided that if it
couldn't measure student growth by using scores from the state
test, that it would raise the cut scores.

Interim CEO Tisha Edwards said the district thought that it had
agreed upon that compromise with the union.

"This was not in bad faith," Ms. Edwards said.  "I think teachers
have a valid concern about the option that we chose and the
notification, but the spirit of what we chose was in the best
interest of teachers and students.  Our partnership with the union
is important, so we're open to revisiting it."

For Bobbi O'Brien, a ninth-grade teacher at Patterson High School,
her score of 69 this year meant that she was no longer considered
an "effective" teacher, but a "developing" one.  The changes also
meant that if she hadn't taken a graduate course this year, which
earned her credits called "achievement units" that teachers can
use to move up a pay ladder, she would not receive a raise.

Ms. O'Brien, who has been teaching in the city for four years and
has a record of proficient evaluations in the system, said the
"developing" label she received was based largely on a classroom
observation that she felt was subjective.  She said she didn't
explain her class objectives in a way that her principal this year
thought was exemplary, even though it was the same way that had
earned her the highest marks on evaluations before.

"The city would have the public believe that the difference
between a highly effective and developing teacher is that one
doesn't have what it takes," Ms. O'Brien said.  "When really it's
whether or not I can showcase all of the skills I have as a
teacher in two 90-minute periods of the school year."

She said the fact that this year's score, though disappointing,
would have rated her as effective last year added "insult to
injury."

Many teachers also questioned whether the cut-score changes were
aimed at limiting the pay raises that would be required with a
high number of "highly effective" teachers.

Iris Kirsch, of the Educators for Democratic Schools, a group that
has challenged the pay-for-performance contract, said she believed
system officials used evaluation data provided by principals last
month to put a last-minute cap on "highly effective" ratings.

"Even the people who focused on all the things you could do to get
a higher evaluation, who put all their eggs in one basket, are
being robbed," she said.  "It's just so demoralizing."


BLUCORA INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2014, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class
action complaint against Blucora, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  The complaint was filed
on behalf of those persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Blucora securities between November 5, 2013 and
February 20, 2014 and seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Investors who purchased Blucora securites during the Class Period
and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class action must
move the Court no later than July 14, 2014.  Members of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain absent class members in the lawsuit.

The securities class action charges that, throughout the Class
Period, Blucora made false and/or misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Blucora's
business, operations, and prospects.  The complaint alleges that
when this adverse information became known, the Company's share
prices declined significantly.

If you wish to view the complaint, discuss the Blucora litigation,
or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact Michael Burnett of Scott+Scott at
mburnett@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, or (860) 537-5537, or
visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Gray" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GRAY and MARKUM GEORGE, individually and on behalf of a
class similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH
AMERICA, LLC and BMW AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Defendants, NO. 13-CV-
3417-WJM-MF, (D. N.J.) is a putative class action based on
allegations of consumer fraud.  Plaintiffs Robert Gray and Markum
George filed the Complaint individually and on behalf of a
putative class of people who purchased or leased any 2004-2010
model year BMW E64 (6 Series Convertible). Plaintiffs principally
allege that Defendants fraudulently failed to disclose that these
cars had a known defect that interferes with the proper opening
and closing of their convertible tops.  Defendant BMW of North
America filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, to strike the
class allegations. Plaintiffs opposed.

District Judge William J. Martini granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. These counts of the
Complaint are dismissed:

1) Count 1: New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
2) Count 3: Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
3) Count 4: Unjust Enrichment
4) Count 7: Song-Beverly Act

A copy of Judge Martini's May 28, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/RoK7fFfrom Leagle.com.

ROBERT GRAY, Plaintiff, represented by MATTHEW ROSS MENDELSOHN --
mmendelsohn@mskf.net -- MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC.

Markum George, Plaintiff, represented by MATTHEW ROSS MENDELSOHN,
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
J. DALTON -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL &
ROONEY, PC & ROSEMARY JOAN BRUNO -- rosemary.bruno@bipc.com --
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC.


CATERPILLAR INC: Engine-Failure Suits to Be Heard in N.J. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
lawsuits from around the country claiming Caterpillar Inc.'s
engines for trucks, buses and recreation vehicles frequently break
down have been centralized in federal court in New Jersey.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, in consolidating
five cases from California, Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey on June 11, said similar suits that are brewing in
Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin may be
transferred at a later date.

Caterpillar wanted the venue to be Miami.  The plaintiffs
supported that choice but also suggested New Jersey, which the
JPML said it chose because the case already here, BK Trucking Co.
v. Caterpillar, is relatively advanced, with discovery underway.
The case is assigned to Chief Judge Jerome Simandle, who will also
take on the others.

The suits charge that Caterpillar's C13 and C15 Advanced
Combustion Emission Reduction Technology (ACERT) engines have
defective emissions systems that cause them to stall suddenly,
placing drivers and passengers at risk.  The company knew of the
defects but concealed them from buyers, the plaintiffs say,
raising claims of breach of warranty and violation of various
state consumer protection laws.

The ACERT six-cylinder engines were made from 2007 to 2009 in
response to stricter federal limits on emissions from diesel
engines.  Caterpillar stopped making truck and bus engines after
2010, says the complaint in BK Trucking.

The plaintiff in that suit claims vehicles with ACERT engines
incorporate a diesel particulate filter in the muffler to reduce
soot buildup, but the filter becomes extremely hot, putting
harmful pressure on other engine components, causing them to fail.

In an answer filed on May 14, Caterpillar denied that the engines
are defective and predisposed to failure or that it made
misrepresentations to buyers about the reliability of its engines.

The company also denied the plaintiff's claims that it suffered an
ascertainable loss as a result of deceptive business practices and
denied that vehicles the plaintiff bought with the ACERT engines
have a lower resale value.  Further denied was the plaintiffs'
claim that Caterpillar dealers saw sharp increases in the volume
of repair work they did after the ACERT engines were introduced.

BK Trucking of Newfield, the plaintiff in the New Jersey case, is
represented by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah in Collingswood,
N.J., and Trimble & Armano in Turnersville, N.J.

Plaintiffs in the other four cases are represented by the Complex
Litigation Group in Highland Park, Ill., with Seeger Weiss also on
the plaintiff side in the California, Florida and Pennsylvania
cases, and Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll in Washington, D.C.,
also representing plaintiffs in the Florida case.

Caterpillar is represented by Sedgwick in the California, New
Jersey and Florida cases.  In the Pennsylvania case it is
represented by Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy of Wayne, Pa.,
and in the Louisiana case by McGlinchey Stafford of New Orleans.
Caterpillar spokeswoman Barbara Cox said its ACERT engines offer
operating cost savings and have successfully performed "across
millions of miles in North America."  She said the company "looks
forward to addressing these allegations now that they have been
consolidated in one forum."


CENTRON SERVICES: Removed "Giuffre-Johnson" Suit to Montana
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Giuffre-Johnson v. Centron
Services, Case No. BDV-2014-403, was removed from the Montana
First Judicial District Court, L & C County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Montana (Helena).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-00041-SEH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Farris-Olsen, Esq.
          David K.W. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Scott L. Peterson, Esq.
          MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP
          401 N Last Chance Gulch
          PO Box 557
          Helena, MT 59601
          Telephone: (406) 442-3261
          Facsimile: (406) 443-7294
          E-mail: rfolsen@mmslawgroup.com
                  kwilson@mswdlaw.com
                  speterson@mswdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bruce M. Spencer, Esq.
          SMITH LAW FIRM
          PO Box 1691
          Helena, MT 59624
          Telephone: (406) 442-2980
          Facsimile: (406) 449-3817
          E-mail: bruce.spencer@smithlawmt.com


CIRRUS LOGIC: "Koplyay" Securities Suit in New York Now Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities suit Koplyay v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., et al. Civil
Action No. 13-CV-0790 was concluded after plaintiffs did not file
an appeal against the dismissal of the case, according to the
company's May 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 29, 2014.

On February 4, 2013, a purported shareholder filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York against the Company and two of the Company's executives (the
"Securities Case"). Koplyay v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., et al. Civil
Action No. 13-CV-0790. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business results
between July 31, 2012, and October 31, 2012, and seeks unspecified
damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees. A second complaint was filed on April 13, 2013,
by a different purported shareholder, in the same court, setting
forth substantially the same allegations. On April 19, 2013, the
court appointed the plaintiff and counsel in the first class
action complaint as the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2013, including
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. On
May 24, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim. On December 2, 2013, the
court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the case with
prejudice. The plaintiff did not appeal the court's order and the
case has concluded.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of Discrimination Class Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg BNA reports that an $8 million settlement of sex
discrimination claims by a class of 1,300 female Costco Wholesale
Corp. employees who claimed the retailer discriminated in
selecting general managers and assistant general managers
throughout the U.S. received final approval May 27 from a federal
judge in California.

The order by Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California in a case brought under Title
VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act comes after a May 22 fairness
hearing and largely adopts the terms set forth in a proposed
agreement submitted to the court last December.

The $8 million fund will be used to pay claims made by class
members who prevail under the process established by the
agreement, as well as $10,000 service awards to three class
representatives.

The settlement also includes a new promotions process, creation of
a posting process for AGM promotions, and a new "registration of
interest" system for GM promotions.

Any portion of the settlement fund remaining after the class
claims and service award payments, and payment of up to $100,000
to an independent consultant retained by the parties as part of
the programmatic relief, is to be donated to the Network of
Executive Women, Consumer Products/Retail, after Judge Chen found
a "driving nexus" between that organization and the class.

The class originally sued the retail chain in August 2004.

The lawsuit alleged that Costco discriminates against female
employees by using a uniform, corporate-directed system that fails
to promote equally or better qualified women into GM and AGM
openings, including the use of subjective decision-making and
unwritten, unvalidated job criteria and the use of "ready now"
ratings and "promotable lists."

The three named plaintiffs also asserted individual claims under
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, and two of them
claimed retaliation under Title VII.

The district court initially granted class certification in
January 2007, but Costco appealed.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark class action decision
in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 112 FEP Cases
769 (2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
remanded the case for the "rigorous analysis" of the requirements
of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and found
that monetary relief to the female Costco employees under Rule
23(b)(2) was mostly foreclosed.

On remand, Judge Chen certified the case as a hybrid class action,
with one class certified for monetary relief and another for
injunctive relief.


CRACKER BARREL: Faces "Proper" FLSA Litigation in New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Proper v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., which
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York, according to the company's May, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 2, 2014.

On April 11, 2014, a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York, Proper v. Cracker
Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., in which the named plaintiffs are
challenging the Company's classification of associate managers as
being exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements. The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees. Unlike a class action, a
collective action requires potential class members to "opt in"
rather than "opt out".  If an FLSA action is conditionally
certified, the Company would have an opportunity to seek to have
the class de-certified and/or seek to have the case dismissed on
its merits.


DFC GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Suit in Delaware Over LSF8 Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
DFC Global Corp. faces consolidated suit in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware over a merger agreement with LSF8
Sterling, according to DFC's May 28, 2014, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Six purported class action lawsuits challenging [a] proposed
merger (the "Merger") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated April 1, 2014, among LSF8 Sterling Merger Parent,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (as successor in
interest to LSF8 Sterling Parent, LLC), LSF8 Sterling Merger Sub,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent (as successor in interest to LSF8 Sterling
Merger Company, LLC), and the Company were filed with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware between April 8 and May 2, 2014
(collectively, the "Stockholder Litigation"). On May 13, 2014, the
Court consolidated the six actions and appointed plaintiffs
Michael Marcus and KC Gamma Opportunity Fund, LP as lead
plaintiffs and their respective counsel as lead counsel. Also, on
May 13, 2014, the Court granted the lead plaintiffs' motion for
expedited proceedings. On May 24, 2014, the lead plaintiffs moved
to preliminarily enjoin the special meeting for stockholders to
vote on the Merger pending the disclosure of additional
information, on the grounds that the defendants allegedly failed
to disclose material information in the Definitive Proxy
Statement.  A hearing on the lead plaintiffs' motion was scheduled
for May 30, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. before the Court of Chancery.


EATON CORP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for July 23
-------------------------------------------------------------

            SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
          SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION

                   IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                      CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

                      Case No.: CV 11 748467
                     Judge: John P. O'Donnell

ALFRED STRAUS, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
Defendant Eaton Corporation, plc, and on Behalf of
Nominal Defendant Eaton Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. CRITELLI, ALEXANDER M. CUTLER,
NET C. LAUTENBACH, DEBORAH L. McCOY,
GREGORY R. PAGE, CHARLES E. GOLDEN,
ARTHUR E. JOHNSON, TODD M. BLUEDORN,
GEORGE S. BARRETT, LINDA A HILL, GERALD B.
SMITH, VICTOR LEO, MARK MCGUIRE, TARAS
SZMAGALA, ERNIE GREENE, JOHN R. MILLER,
VICTOR A. PELSON, and GARY L. TOOKER,

Defendants,

and

EATON CORPORATION, plc, and EATON
CORPORATION

Nominal Defendants.

TO: ALL FORMER AND CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF
COMMON STOCK OF EATON CORPORATION ("COMPANY") OR EATON CORPORATION
PLC ("PLC") AS OF JUNE 6, 2014 ("STOCKHOLDERS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Cuyahoga
County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas that a proposed settlement has
been reached in this putative shareholder derivative action.

A hearing will be held on July 23, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., before the
Honorable John P. O'Donnell in Courtroom 18-D at the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas, 1200 Ontario Street, Cleveland, Ohio
44113?1678, for the purpose of considering, among other things:
(i) whether the proposed settlement will be approved by the Court
pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement ("Stipulation"); (ii) whether the Court should enter a
judgment dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice and on
the merits, including and all claims which arise out of or are
related to the facts and/or circumstances set forth in Complaint;
and (iii) whether the Court should approve the award to be made to
Plaintiff's Counsel for Plaintiff's attorney fees, expenses,
costs, and an incentive payment to Plaintiff, up to a total of six
million dollars ($6,000,000). The Court has reserved the right to
reschedule the hearing without further notice.

Your rights as a Stockholder may be affected by this action and
the proposed settlement. Additional details regarding this action,
including the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Shareholder Derivative Action ("Notice"), are available at
http://www.weismanlaw.com

You may also contact a representative of Plaintiff's Counsel,
Weisman, Kennedy & Berris Co., L.P.A., 1600 Midland Building, 101
Prospect Avenue, W., Cleveland, Ohio 44115, telephone 800-475-1189
or 216-781-1111, or Strauss Troy Co., LPA, 150 East Fourth Street,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4018, telephone 513?621-2120, for further
information.

If you are a current Stockholder, you may have the right to object
to any aspect of the Settlement and may appear in person or
through counsel at the hearing.  Stockholders who have no
objection to the proposed settlement need not take any further
action.  Any objections to the settlement, including Plaintiff's
Counsel's request for attorney fees, expenses, costs, and an
incentive payment to Plaintiff, must be filed and served, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than July 14, 2014.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO OBJECT, YOU MUST FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH
IN THE NOTICE OR YOU WILL NOT BE HEARD, AND NO PAPERS, BRIEFS, OR
OTHER DOCUMENTS BY YOU WILL BE RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED BY THE
COURT.

Any Person who fails to object or otherwise request to be heard in
the manner prescribed in the Notice will be deemed to have waived
the right to object to any aspect of the settlement (including the
right to appeal) or to request to be heard at the hearing, and
will be forever barred from raising such objection or request in
this or any other related action or proceeding.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS
NOTICE.

Dated: June 6, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE CUYAHOGA
COUNTY, OHIO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS


FOCUS MEDIA: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
                        SUMMARY NOTICE

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

XUECHEN YANG, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

FOCUS MEDIA HOLDING LIMITED,
JASON NANCHUN JIANG, CHARLES
GUOWEI CAO, KIT LEONG LOW, DANIEL
MINGDONG WU, ALEX DEYI YANG,
NEIL NANPENG SHEN, FUMIN ZHUO,
DAQING QI, DAVID ZHANG, AND YING
WU,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-09051-CM

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AMERICAN
DEPOSITORY SHARES ("ADSs") OF FOCUS MEDIA HOLDING LIMITED ("FOCUS
MEDIA" OR "THE COMPANY") BETWEEN NOVEMBER 20, 2007 THROUGH
NOVEMBER 21, 2011, INCLUSIVE (COLLECTIVELY, THE "SETTLEMENT
CLASS").

If you meet the above Class definition, you could get a payment
from a class action settlement.

A federal court authorized this Notice.  This is not a
solicitation from a lawyer.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on September 4, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., before
The Honorable Colleen McMahon, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York
(the "Court"), for the purpose of determining (1) whether the
proposed settlement of claims in the above-captioned Action for
consideration, including the sum of $3,700,000.00 (three million
seven hundred thousand dollars) in cash, should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether this Action
should be dismissed with prejudice as to the Defendants pursuant
to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation dated as
of May 13, 2014; (3) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
settlement proceeds (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable
and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether the
application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of attorneys'
fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Action and
reimbursement of the Lead Plaintiff's reasonable costs and
expenses (including lost wages) directly related to their
representation of the Settlement Class should be approved.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Focus Media ADSs between
November 20, 2007 and November 21, 2011, inclusive, your rights
may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in the ADSs.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release form that is received no later than
August 1, 2014, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion to Focus Media Holding Limited
Securities Action, Exclusions, 3410 West Hopkins Street, PO Box
170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217-8091, so that it is received by
July 17, 2014.  Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must
be filed with the Court, Plaintiffs' Counsel Designee and the
Company's Counsel Designee, no later than July 17, 2014.

If you wish to receive a detailed Notice concerning the terms of
the Settlement or the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may
obtain copies by writing to Focus Media Holding Limited
Securities, Claims Administrator, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., PO Box
170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217-8091, or by visiting
www.FocusMediaSettlement.com

DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR ANY OF THE
DEFENDANTS OR COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED:  MAY 19, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiff's Expert Can Testify in F250 Switch Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a plaintiffs' expert is qualified to testify about
whether the deactivation switch in a Ford F250 truck was
negligently designed, the South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled.

The high court's ruling reverses a finding by the intermediate
appellate court that a $41,000 products liability verdict should
be overturned and the trial court should have granted a directed
verdict.

Plaintiffs 5 Star Inc., is a lawn maintenance and pressure washing
company owned by Stan Shelby.  Nine years ago, 5 Star purchased a
used 1996 Ford F-250 pickup up truck, which Mr. Shelby parked one
weekend in his company's warehouse.  During the weekend, a fire
destroyed the truck and severely damaged the warehouse.  A fire
investigator determined that the engine compartment of the truck
was the likely origin of the conflagration.

According to Justice John Kittredge's opinion, the plaintiffs'
expert testified that the deactivation switch was designed to be
constantly on even when the ignition was off; the two-ampere fuse
switch was protected by a 15-ampere fuse, allowing the switch to
overheat and start a fire long before the fuse would ever blow;
and the switch was separated only by a thin membrane from the
flammable hydraulic brake fluid.

Plaintiffs' expert Leonard Greene is a licensed electrical
engineer who has testified about the origin of fires, electrical
engineering and defective products between 50 and 100 times for
both plaintiffs and defendants.  Mr. Greene was qualified as an
expert because he has "worked for companies that designed
component parts -- such as integrated circuits and timers -- for
use in vehicles.  Additional manufacturers have hired Mr. Greene
to determine the cause and origin of fires in boats, buses and
other large commercial vehicles.  Moreover, Mr. Greene has
investigated a number of fires caused by the deactivation switch
in Ford vehicles, including reviewing the relevant scientific
literature," Justice Kittredge wrote.

Ford Motor Co. argued that 5 Star offered no direct evidence that
Ford admitted its design for the activation switch was negligent.

"To require an admission of a design defect by a manufacturer as a
prerequisite for a negligence claim is not only contrary to law,
but also is at odds with the policy of encouraging manufacturers
to design products safely based on well-understood principles of
safety and science," Justice Kittredge wrote.  "The design defect
involving the deactivation switch is grounded in basic science,
which, according to Ford's expert, is known to high school science
students and, we think, should have been known to Ford engineers.

A manufacturer may to avoid negligence liability by turning a
blind-eye to the obvious."


FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Ashikenazi" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Ashikenazi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-03851-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., June 16, 2014), alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


GC SERVICE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Roth, a/k/a Yonah Roth, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers v. GC Service Limited Partnership,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03752 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2014), alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Andrews" Suit Seeks $10 Billion in Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action filed on June 18, 2014, claims General
Motors owes car- and truck-owners $10 billion for defects it hid
for years, which will reduce the vehicles' resale value, according
to Courthouse News Service.

GM has recalled more than 20 million vehicles for safety defects
this year, many of them for an ignition switch defect that has
been linked to at least a dozen deaths.  This defect is not part
of the class action, which mentions more than a dozen other
alleged defects for vehicles purchased from July 10, 2009, through
April 1 this year.

The lawsuit claims that the hidden defects have reduced as many as
15 million vehicles' resale values by $500 to $2,600 each.

Lead plaintiff Anna Andrews is represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Heuler" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nicole Heuler v. General Motors
LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00492, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The New
York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04345-JMF to
the proceeding.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
lawsuit for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in
the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          Scot D. Wilson, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@rcrlaw.net
                  swilson@rcrlaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ratzlaff" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Daniel Ratzlaff, et al. v.
General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02424, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-04346-JMF to the proceeding.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
lawsuit for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in
the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Frank Calcagnie, Esq.
          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          Scot D. Wilson, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: kcalcagnie@rcrlaw.net
                  mrobinson@rcrlaw.net
                  swilson@rcrlaw.net

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: No Ignition Claims Filed vs Trust Thru May 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
Through May 19, 2014, no Plaintiff has asserted a claim against
Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust in connection with the Class
Actions related to its ignition-switch-related recalls, according
to the GUC Trust's May 19, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Court") issued a scheduling order with respect to a
number of issues relating to a motion filed by General Motors
Company (together with its consolidated subsidiaries, "New GM") in
which the GUC Trust has appeared as a party in interest.

In its quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed April 24, 2014 (the
"New GM Form 10-Q"), New GM disclosed that since the beginning of
2014, New GM had recalled approximately 2.6 million vehicles to
repair ignition switches or to fix ignition lock cylinders and an
additional 4.4 million vehicles to address certain electrical and
other safety concerns. In addition, as disclosed in its current
report on Form 8-K filed May 15, 2014, New GM subsequently
announced five new safety recalls relating to additional defects,
affecting approximately 2.7 million vehicles. Many of the vehicles
affected by the foregoing recalls were manufactured or sold prior
to July 10, 2009, the date that Motors Liquidation Company
(formerly General Motors Corporation) sold substantially all of
its assets to New GM pursuant to the provisions of Section 363(b)
of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Closing
Date").

In the New GM Form 10-Q, New GM also disclosed that 55 putative
class actions had been filed by various plaintiffs (the
"Plaintiffs") against New GM seeking compensatory damages for
economic losses allegedly resulting from the ignition-switch-
related recalls or the underlying condition of the vehicles
covered by those recalls (the "Ignition Switch Issue"). Since the
date of that quarterly report, additional putative class actions
have been filed against New GM relating to the Ignition Switch
Issue (together, with the above-described lawsuits, the "Class
Actions"). The claims of many of the putative Class Actions may be
overlapping, and to date, such actions have not been consolidated.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation scheduled a May 29,
2014 hearing to determine whether to consolidate and transfer the
Class Actions filed in federal courts for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On April 21, 2014, New GM filed a motion with the Court seeking to
enforce the Sale Order and Injunction, entered on July 5, 2009
(the "Sale Order"), approving the sale of substantially all of the
assets of General Motors Corporation ("Old GM," and subsequently
known as Motors Liquidation Company) to New GM pursuant to Section
363(b) of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which
incorporates the terms of the Master Sale and Purchase Agreement,
dated July 10, 2009 (the "MSPA"), by and among Old GM, certain of
its debtor subsidiaries, and New GM. Under the terms of the Sale
Order and the MSPA, all product liability and property damage
claims arising from accidents or incidents prior to the Closing
Date are to remain with Old GM as general unsecured claims. The
GUC Trust has appeared in the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court
as an interested party.

On May 16, 2014, the Court entered the Scheduling Order
identifying a number of "threshold issues" for its resolution,
including whether a fraud on the Court was committed in connection
with the Sale Order in respect of the Ignition Switch Issue and
whether any or all of the claims asserted in the Class Actions are
claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust. The GUC Trust intends
to vigorously defend its position that none of the claims of the
Plaintiffs may be properly asserted against Old GM or the GUC
Trust.

As disclosed on September 16, 2009, the Court entered the bar
order (the "Bar Order"), setting November 30, 2009, as the bar
date for filing proofs of claims related to all general unsecured
claims against Old GM and, following the passage of the effective
date of Old GM's Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan dated March
18, 2011 (the "Plan"), the GUC Trust.  To date, no Plaintiff has
asserted a claim against the GUC Trust in connection with the
Class Actions. In any event, however, the Scheduling Order
provides that the threshold issues do not include whether any
claims in the Class Actions are timely or meritorious as against
the bankruptcy estate of Old GM or the GUC Trust (notwithstanding
the Bar Order).


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls About 510,000 Camaros Over Faulty Keys
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Ivory and Benjamin Preston, writing for The New York
Times, report that General Motors is recalling more than half a
million Chevrolet Camaros because of the danger that a bump to the
keys could suddenly turn off the ignition -- a problem similar to
the defect that led the automaker to recall millions of small cars
this year.

G.M. said that a driver's knee could jostle the key fob, causing
the ignition to turn off and cutting the engine.  The automaker
said it was aware of three crashes and four injuries related to
the defect, which is in about 510,000 Camaros worldwide from the
2010 to 2014 model years.

The announcement struck a familiar note at G.M., which has been
reeling from its decade-long failure to fix a different faulty
ignition system that it has linked to at least 13 deaths and 54
crashes.  In February, the automaker started recalling 2.6 million
Chevrolet Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other small cars, citing a
similar problem: If their keys were bumped or jostled, their
engines could turn off, disabling critical systems like steering,
brakes and air bags.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received at
least 210 complaints about the Camaros, and at least 21 of them
mentioned unexpected stalling or power loss, according to a New
York Times review of the agency's database.

But G.M. was careful to distinguish between the two cases.

"The Camaro ignition system meets all G.M. engineering
specifications and is unrelated to the ignition system used in
Chevrolet Cobalts and other small cars included in the ignition
switch recall," G.M. said in a statement.

In the Cobalt ignition, a spring inside the switch was too weak,
making the key prone to turn to the "accessory" or "off" position.
In the Camaro's case, the problem is with the key fob, according
to G.M. The key works like a switchblade, popping out of the fob
with the push of a button.  If a driver bumps the fob while the
car is running, the key can be turned, switching off the engine
and disabling the air bags.

But a G.M. spokesman, Alan Adler, said the company was not sure if
the injuries in the Camaros were tied to the air bags.  Air bags
did not deploy in crashes that caused each of the 13 deaths from
the previous ignition problem.

Chris Caruso, an engineer for G.M. and its parts supplier Delphi
from 1979 to 2006, who now works as a safety consultant in
litigation involving air bag issues, said that because the volume
of Camaros sold is low, accidents from the ignition defect are
less likely to occur.  But, he added, when they do, they are
"usually catastrophic."

Drivers began lodging complaints about stalling with the safety
agency as early as May 2010, when a driver of a 2010 model
described several instances when his moving car went dead,
including once while he was driving on the freeway at about 70
miles per hour.

"This car is dangerous to drive," he said.  "Will I have a head-on
collision while trying to pass another car?"

Another complaint came from the owner of a 2012 Camaro.

"When the ignition switch key is slightly bumped with knee, the
car shuts off," the owner wrote to regulators in May.  "Three
times now.  Dealership is not responsive.  Taught my teen drivers
what to do if this happens, and this saved my daughter's life when
it happened to her."

Another driver of the 2010 model complained to safety regulators
in August 2013 that the car "completely shut off on me on a major
highway."  After the car had stalled multiple times, the driver
took it to a dealer, who could find no problems with it.

"I am very upset but very thankful that my two children were not
with me when it happened," the driver said, adding that he was
worried that the car could stall at night and other drivers would
not be able to see him on the road.  "The thought of that
completely scares me," he said.

Drivers also filed complaints about basic issues with the Camaro's
ignition that were eerily reminiscent of similar problems in the
Cobalt.  In November 2010, one driver told regulators that his car
not only stalled but often failed to start.  He also said that one
time, he was "unable to remove the key from the ignition."

G.M. said that it had found the problem during internal testing it
conducted after the recall of 2.6 million vehicles this year and
that it would fix the problem by replacing the key with a type
that had a separate fob, changing its shape to keep it out of the
way.

The automaker has made broad changes to its safety practices as
the recall crisis has grown.  It has hired a team of product
investigators to examine consumer complaints and warranty claims
for potential problems in vehicles.  It has also appointed a new
vice president for global product safety, Jeff Boyer.

"Discovering and acting on this issue quickly is an example of the
new norm for product safety at G.M.," Mr. Boyer said in a
statement on Friday.

G.M. has paid a high price for its inaction on the original switch
defect.

Last month, safety regulators levied a $35 million penalty, the
maximum allowed, in addition to imposing oversight on its safety
practices for failing to report the original switch defect in a
timely manner.  G.M. recently released the results of an internal
investigation by a former United States attorney, Anton R.
Valukas, that revealed what its chief executive, Mary T. Barra,
called "a pattern of incompetence and neglect" at G.M.

On June 11, Ms. Barra is scheduled to appear for the second time
before a House subcommittee investigating G.M.'s inaction over the
original ignition problem.

Over the past decade, the issue of stalling was seen by G.M.'s
engineers as an inconvenience rather than a safety risk, according
to the company's recent internal probe.

By 2004, the company's engineers had already received numerous
reports of moving stalls caused by the ignition switch defect, the
internal report said, but concluded that this kind of stalling was
not a safety issue because drivers could still maneuver the cars.

"G.M. personnel viewed the switch problem as a 'customer
convenience' issue -- something annoying but not particularly
problematic -- as opposed to the safety defect it was," the report
said.

In recent months, G.M. has issued recalls of more than 14 million
vehicles in the United States, a single-year record for the
company.

"It's as if they are clearing out a backlog of old safety
problems," said Allan Kam, who served as a senior enforcement
lawyer for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for
more than 25 years before he retired in 2000.  "Because the
problem is so similar to that of the Cobalt, you can't help but
think that it might have gotten some increased attention at G.M.
in recent weeks."


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawmakers to Scrutinize Recall Probe Findings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
lawmakers were likely to express skepticism about some findings of
a General Motors' investigation into its mishandled recall of 2.6
million small cars.  CEO Mary Barra was set to appear before
Congress on June 18.

According to a congressional aide, members were expected have more
questions about how much Ms. Barra knew about a problem with the
ignition switches in the cars when she was GM product development
chief.  Ms. Barra said in previous testimony in April that she
first learned of the problem late last year.  The GM report
exonerated Ms. Barra and other top executives.

The aide requested anonymity because the questions haven't been
made public.

Former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas, who was hired by GM to do the
investigation, will also testify.  Panel members were set to
question Mr. Valukas on his conclusions that a lone engineer,
Ray DeGiorgio, was able to approve the use of a switch that didn't
meet company specifications, and years later, to order a change to
that switch without anyone else at GM being aware, the
congressional aide said.

The panel's own investigation turned up evidence that at least
five other GM employees were aware that Mr. DeGiorgio ordered the
company that made the part to change the switch, the aide said.

Ms. Barra was expected to tell lawmakers that she's taken steps to
fix GM in the wake of the small car recall.  She authorized a
companywide safety review that has led to more than 40 recalls
this year that cover almost 18 million cars in the U.S.  GM has
said that more are possible.

Here are some other questions lawmakers were likely to ask
Ms. Barra and Mr. Valukas:

BARRA

Q: How does GM plan to change the cumbersome corporate culture
laid bare by Valukas's report?

Mr. Valukas' investigation found that a pattern of incompetence
and neglect within GM kept the ignition switch problem concealed
for 11 years.  Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado, the senior Democrat
on the Energy and Commerce investigative subcommittee, said this
week she wants to know "what are they going to do to break this
culture."  Ms. Barra has acknowledged that the report drew a
"deeply troubling" portrait of GM as an organization.  According
to her prepared remarks, Ms. Barra was set tell the hearing that
GM has restructured its process for making safety decisions "to
raise it to the highest levels of the company," among a number of
changes.

Q: How will GM compensate victims of crashes linked to the faulty
switches?

Ms. Barra says the company expects to begin processing victims'
claims for compensation by Aug. 1.  Lawmakers want details.  GM
has hired attorney Kenneth Feinberg to put a plan in place; he'll
rule on who is eligible to receive compensation and will set the
amounts.  More than 300 claims have been filed.  Mr. Feinberg has
presided over compensation plans for the victims of the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks, the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and
other disasters.

Q: Could the seeds of an even wider problem be lurking within GM's
corporate structure?

Ms. Barra has said that the safety review is nearly complete and
hasn't turned up any other serious problems. She called the
ignition-switch debacle a "unique series of mistakes" made by the
company over many years.  The news on June 16 of another huge
recall for a problem similar to the ignition-switch defect has
fueled lawmakers' skepticism.  "This latest recall raises even
more questions about just how pervasive safety problems are at
GM," Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, said.

VALUKAS

Q: How bad were the problems at GM.

He and his team know GM thoroughly after interviewing 230
employees and reviewing 41 million documents.  Mr. Valukas will
tell the hearing that his team found an alarming "lack of urgency"
among GM employees to fix the switches, magnified by a
dysfunctional corporate structure.  He acknowledges that his
report leaves open some questions, notably: whether there was
civil and criminal culpability; whether GM will make the right
decisions to stop this from happening again; and what specific
crashes were caused by the ignition switch problem.

Q: Do the actions that GM has taken so far appear sufficient?

In addition to making organizational changes, the company forced
out 15 employees and disciplined five others for their roles in
the ignition-switch debacle.  More than half the 15 were senior
legal and engineering executives who failed to disclose the defect
and were part of a "pattern of incompetence," according to
Ms. Barra.  The Justice Department likely will use Mr. Valukas'
findings as a "road map" for questions and employees to pursue in
its criminal investigation.

                           *     *     *

Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports General
Motors is the subject of multiple government investigations and
civil lawsuits for taking more than a decade to recall 2.6 million
cars with a deadly ignition switch defect.  On June 18, GM CEO
Mary Barra was set to appear for the second time before a U.S.
House subcommittee to discuss the company's internal investigation
into the recall.

Here are 10 key events in the recall saga:

February 2002: GM switch engineer Ray DeGiorgio approves the
design of a new small-car ignition switch, even though the
supplier says the switch doesn't meet GM's specifications.  The
switch goes into the Saturn Ion in late 2002. Later, it's used for
the Chevrolet Cobalt, Pontiac G5, Chevrolet HHR, Pontiac Solstice
and Saturn Sky.

July 29, 2005: Amber Marie Rose, 16, dies in a frontal crash in
her 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt, the first of 13 deaths GM says were
caused by the defective switches.  A contractor hired by NHTSA
found that the Cobalt's ignition had moved out of the "run"
position and into the "accessory" position, which cut off power to
the steering, brakes and air bags.

April 2006: Mr. DeGiorgio signs off on a redesign of the ignition
switch, but doesn't change the part number, which will make the
change difficult to track later.  The new switch goes into cars
from the 2007 model year and later.

November 2007: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
declines to open a formal investigation into why air bags didn't
deploy in some Cobalt and Ion crashes, saying the incidence rate
doesn't appear to be higher than peer vehicles.

April 2013: During depositions in a wrongful death case in
Georgia, GM is shown evidence that Mr. DeGiorgio changed the
switch design.  In November, GM engineers finally confirm that the
design was changed.

December 2013: Incoming CEO Mary Barra learns about the defective
ignition switches.

February 2013: In two separate actions, GM recalls 1.6 million
small cars to repair defective ignition switches. The recall later
grows to 2.6 million cars. The company says it expects to repair
all of the vehicles by October.

April 1-2 - Ms. Barra and NHTSA acting chief David Friedman
testify before Congressional committees.  Ms. Barra says GM has
hired compensation expert Kenneth Feinberg, but defers many
questions until after the company has completed its internal
report.

May 16 - The U.S. government fines GM a record $35 million for
failing to disclose the problems more quickly.  GM agrees to
report safety problems faster and consents to government oversight
of its safety operations.

June 6 - Ms. Barra releases a 315-page investigation into the
recalls by former U.S. attorney Anton Valukas, who was hired by
the company.  Ms. Barra says 15 employees have been dismissed and
another five have been disciplined.  She says GM will have a
compensation fund for victims that will begin taking claims on
Aug. 1.


GEORGIA: "R. A." Class Suit Filed Over Prison Condition
-------------------------------------------------------
R. A., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. Commissioner Avery Niles; Commissioner L. Gale Buckner;
Commissioner Amy Howell; Sarah Draper, Deputy Commissioner; Clay
Seabolt, Deputy Commissioner; Michael McNeely, Deputy
Commissioner; Miguel Fernandez, Deputy Commissioner; Director
Martha Dalesio; Lieutenant Brown; Officer Gabriel Lasiter; Officer
Kasey Brightmon; Officer Larry Floyd; Lieutenant Sherill Swanson;
Officer Demetrius Monts; Officer Larry Bennett; Director Shawn
Banks; Director Corey Butler; Jane Doe 1; and Jane Doe 2, Case No.
1:14-cv-01870-TWT-LTW (N.D. Ga., June 15, 2014), arises from
claims over prison condition.  The Plaintiff asserts prisoner
civil rights.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Demetra Duan Ford, Esq.
          FORD LAW, LLC
          931 Monroe Drive, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 392-5500
          E-mail: fordesq@yahoo.com

               - and -

          James Darren Summerville, Esq.
          S. Leighton Moore, Esq.
          SUMMERVILLE MOORE, P.C.
          400 Colony Square, Suite 2000
          1201 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (770) 635-0030
          Facsimile: (770) 635-0029
          E-mail: darren@summervillemoore.com
                  leighton@summervillemoore.com

               - and -

          Sherida Nicole Jones, Esq.
          Thomas G. Sampson, Esq.
          Thomas Gatewood Sampson, II, Esq.
          THOMAS KENNEDY SAMPSON & TOMPKINS, LLP
          3355 Main Street
          Atlanta, GA 30337
          Telephone: (404) 688-4503
          E-mail: s.jones@tkstlaw.com
                  t.sampson@tkstlaw.com
                  w.sampson@tkstlaw.com


GLADE KNIGHT: Faces Securities Suit by Apple REIT Shareholder
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Wenzel on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Glade M. Knight, Michael S. Waters, Robert M. Wily,
James C. Barden, Justin Knight, David McKenney, Kristian
Gathright, Bryan Peery, Kent Colton, Glenn W. Bunting, Lisa B.
Kern, Apple Seven Advisors, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc. and
Apple Fund Management, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00432-REP (E.D. Va.,
June 16, 2014), is a shareholder class action asserting claims on
behalf of the pre-merger public common shareholders of Apple REIT
Eight., Inc., and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., arising out of A-7 and
A-8 dividend reinvestment plans.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Apple
REITs.  Apple Seven Advisors, Inc., a Virginia corporation wholly
owned by Glade M. Knight, is the adviser to A-7.  Apple Eight
Advisors, Inc., a Virginia corporation wholly owned by Glade M.
Knight, is the adviser to A-8.  Apple Fund Management, LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Apple REIT Six, Inc., was an entity
utilized by the advisers, which have no employees, to provide the
management services, including the executive officers, required by
the advisory contracts to, inter alia, A-6, A-7, A-8, and Apple
REIT Nine, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, Esq.
          SANDS ANDERSON PC
          1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400
          P.O. Box 1998
          Richmond, VA 23218-1998
          Telephone: (804) 783-7248
          Facsimile: (804) 783-7291
          E-mail: jgeiger@sandsanderson.com

               - and -

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          Raymond Barto, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel: (212) 421-6492
          Fax: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
                  raymond@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Lapihski, Esq.
          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 855-6066
          Facsimile: (732) 726-4735
          E-mail: dlapinski@wilentz.com
                  kroddy@wilentz.com


GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Accused of Violating Telecommunications Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandy Brink, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Global Tel-Link, Case No. 0:14-cv-01952-ADM-FLN (D.
Minn., June 17, 2014), is brought under the Telecommunications Act
of 1996.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com


GRAIN PROCESSING: Iowa Supreme Court Reinstates Pollution Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that in a
major environmental case, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on June 13
that residents can bring a nuisance lawsuit against a Muscatine
manufacturer accused of routinely blanketing their properties with
soot and chemicals.

The court reinstated the class-action lawsuit against Grain
Processing Corp., which operates a plant that turns corn kernels
into products ranging from corn syrup to ethyl alcohol.  The
plaintiffs' claims of nuisance, negligence and trespass are not
barred by the federal Clean Air Act or state rules governing air
emissions, Justice Brent Appel wrote in a 6-0 decision that was
applauded by environmentalists but criticized by business
interests.

A regional economic force, the company buys $400 million in corn
from farmers annually and is one of the area's largest employers.

But Muscatine residents have complained for years that it spews
harmful chemicals into the environment that get blown onto their
homes, yards and cars.  The lawsuit, filed on behalf of up to
17,000 residents who live within a 3-mile radius of the plant,
contends the pollution undermines their ability to enjoy their
property and causes metals in everything from swing sets to air
conditioning systems to corrode.

The company and a coalition of business groups had urged the court
to dismiss the case, saying the regulation of air pollution should
be left to state and federal agencies and not judges on a case-by-
case basis.  But the plaintiffs, environmental groups and
advocates for private property rights had asked the court to allow
the lawsuit to proceed.

"The important thing is that it protects regular folks' remedies
when they are impacted by environmental pollution," Joshua
Mandelbaum, an attorney with the Environmental Law & Policy Center
in Des Moines, said of the June 13 ruling.

But Richard Faulk, a Washington D.C. attorney who represented the
National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups,
said the decision means that corporations can be sued for
pollution even when they are operating in compliance with state
and federal air permits.  "It's a very troubling problem for
companies," he said.

Judge Mark Smith dismissed the case before trial last year.  He
said that even if half of the plaintiffs' claims about the
company's practices were true, "there has been blatant disregard
for the environment and the community of Muscatine."  But he said
that enforcement of the Clean Air Act and state regulations was
the proper way to remedy such problems.

"When an individual's rights to seek damages for economic or
physical harm conflict with the economic well-being of a local
employer, those rights must be carefully weighed and reconciled
through political compromises achieved by the legislative and
rule-making processes," he wrote.

The business groups argued that courts don't have the expertise to
decide complicated scientific questions, and those should be left
to regulators and lawmakers.  Having clear state and federal rules
allows businesses to make plans and investments without worrying
about the "uncertain, unpredictable and potentially unbearable
liabilities" that may arise from private lawsuits, they wrote in a
friend-of-the-court brief.

But in the June 13 ruling, Justice Appel said the regulations
serve a different purpose than a private lawsuit for an
individual's injury.

"The nuisance and common law actions in this case are based on
specific harms to the use and enjoyment of real property that are
different from the public interest generally in controlling air
pollution," he wrote.

Company spokeswoman Janet Sichterman said it was disappointed in
the decision but confident it would prevail on the merits of the
case.

The company paid a $1.5 million fine in March to settle a lawsuit
brought by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller over alleged air
pollution violations.  The company will convert its coal-fired
boilers to run on natural gas by next year, and is spending $100
million to build a new dryer house to reduce emissions.  The
company says those changes should eliminate the smoke, odor and
haze coming from the plant.


HALAL CHINA: Faces "Alejandro" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bazan Alejandro, On Behalf of Himself and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Halal China King and Taisun Tsaou, Case No.
4:14-cv-01686 (S.D. Tex., June 17, 2014), is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Todd Slobin, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net


HULU: Court Refused to Certify Users Class in Privacy Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Hulu users who claim the website illegally shared their
data with third parties cannot sue as a class for Hulu's
disclosure of information via Facebook "likes," reports Nick
McCann at Courthouse News Service, citing a ruling by a federal
magistrate judge.

Joseph Garvey is lead plaintiff in "Hulu Privacy Litigation" which
claims Hulu "repurposed" its browser cache to let marketing-
analysis services store users' private data.

Hulu disputes the claims that it used the analytics service
comScore and Facebook "like" buttons to store user data.

Much of the litigation has focused on alleged violations of the
federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1988 after
a Washington D.C. newspaper published the video-rental history of
Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

In December 2013, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler found the
VPPA "requires only injury in the form of a wrongful disclosure."

"Hulu's main argument -- that the word 'aggrieved' in the statute
requires an additional injury -- does not change the outcome,"
Beeler wrote.

In April, Beeler partly granted and partly denied Hulu's request
for summary judgment, saying the issue at hand depends on whether
Hulu's disclosure was "knowing."

"Throwing Judge Bork's video watch list in the recycle bin is not
a disclosure.  Throwing it in the bin knowing that the Washington
Post searches your bin every evening for intelligence about local
luminaries might be," Beeler wrote in the order.

"Considering the statute's reach, the conclusion is that Hulu's
transmission of the Facebook user cookies needs to be the
equivalent of knowingly identifying a specific person as 'having
requested or obtained specific video materials or services.'

"If Hulu did not know that it was transmitting both an identifier
and the person's video watching information, then there is no
violation of the VPPA.  By contrast, if it did know what it was
transmitting, then (depending on the facts) there might be a VPPA
violation."

Regarding the metrics company comScore, Beeler found the
plaintiffs could not prove the company did anything with their
information, and found for Hulu on that issue.

"The evidence shows comScore's role in measuring whether users
watched the advertisements.  It also demonstrates comScore's
interest in recognizing users and tracking their visits to other
websites where comScore collects data," Beeler wrote.

"That information is likely relevant to an advertiser's desire to
target ads to them.  It does not suggest any linking of a
specific, identified person and his video habits."

The plaintiffs moved to certify the class of users, claiming Hulu
illegally used their Facebook "likes," and a hearing was held in
May.

In a new order on June 17, 2014, Beeler found the plaintiffs could
not properly define a class because, among other things, "the
claims apparently are not amenable to ready verification."

"The court cannot tell how potential class members reliably could
establish by affidavit the answers to the potential questions: do
you log into Facebook and Hulu from the same browser; do you log
out of Facebook; do you set browser settings to clear cookies; and
do you use software to block cookies?" Beeler wrote.

"The possibility of substantial pecuniary gain affects this
analysis too.  That incentive and the vagaries of subjective
recollection makes this case different than the small-ticket
consumer protection class actions that this district certifies
routinely."

Beeler denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification for
that reason.

The judge addressed the plaintiffs' other arguments, finding that
while they satisfied some elements needed for class certification,
the evidence did not show that "common issues predominate over the
individual ones."

"Perhaps subclasses could address the use (or lack of use) of ad-
blockers or browser technologies, or whether users stayed logged
into Facebook. Plaintiffs have not proposed that subclassing,"
Beeler wrote.

"Given that even the court's best guess at subclassing would not
address the issues about ascertainability and identify the class
members, the court finds on this record that common issues do not
predominate."

The consolidated case is In Re: Hulu Privacy Litigation, Case No.
C 11-03764 LB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Suit by Ohio Counties Over MERS
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated continues to face a putative
class action filed on behalf of counties in Ohio against MERSCORP,
Inc. and numerous other financial institutions that participate in
the mortgage electronic registration system (MERS), according to
an Exhibit attached to Huntington's May 28, 2014, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 17, 2012, the Company was named a defendant in a
putative class action filed on behalf of all 88 counties in Ohio
against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other financial institutions
that participate in the mortgage electronic registration system
(MERS). The complaint alleges that recording of mortgages and
assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law and seeks a
declaratory judgment that the defendants are required to record
every mortgage and assignment on real property located in Ohio and
pay the attendant statutory recording fees. The complaint also
seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Although Huntington has
not been named as a defendant in the other cases, similar
litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and other
financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country.


IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Idenix
Pharmaceuticals too cheaply through an unfair process to Merck,
for $24.50 a share or $3.7 billion, shareholders claim in Delaware
Chancery Court.


INNOVATIVE DINING: Calif. Court Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Anstoetter, Esq., and Madeleine McDonough, Esq., at Shook
Hardy & Bacon LLP, report that a California state trial court has
approved the settlement agreement in a class action against
Innovative Dining Group LLC (IDG), owner of the Boa Steakhouse and
Sushi Roku chains, alleging that the restaurants falsely
advertised their menu as containing Kobe beef. Hall v. Innovative
Dining Grp. LLC, No. BC493144 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty.,
motion granted May 30, 2014).  Plaintiffs claimed that using the
term "Kobe beef" implies that the beef came from Wagyu cattle
raised and slaughtered in the Kobe region of Japan, but IDG's
restaurants advertised Kobe beef on their menus even while the
U.S. Department of Agriculture banned beef imports from that
region from May 2010 to August 2012.  While admitting no
wrongdoing, IDG has agreed to issue $20 gift certificates to
customers who can prove that they purchased a Kobe beef menu item,
$10 gift certificates to any class member who submits a claim, and
a $12,500 cy pres award to the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank.
The settlement follows similar lawsuits against Marriott
International Inc., Barney's Beanery Worldwide Inc. and McCormick
& Schmick's Seafood Restaurants Inc.


IRENEW BIO: "Litwin" Suit Remanded for Further Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against iRenew Bio Energy
Solutions, LLC, Harvest Trading Group, Inc., and Harvest Direct,
LLC (collectively defendants) for advertising a bracelet made by
iRenew as a revolutionary bracelet that uses the body's "biofield"
to improve strength and wellness. Alleging the advertising claims
were false, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages on
behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased an iRenew
bracelet. Defendants agreed to settle the lawsuit, and the trial
court approved a settlement agreement in which defendants would
create a fund to reimburse class members for the purchase cost of
the bracelet. Pursuant to the agreement, the trial court awarded
$215,000 in attorney fees. Appellant Burt Chapa, a class member,
objected to the settlement, alleging the trial court abused its
discretion in awarding attorney fees and the notice afforded class
members violated due process.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One,
in an opinion dated May 28, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/T9QNTJfrom Leagle.com, disagreed with the first
contention but agreed with the second. The order granting final
approval of the settlement was reversed, and the case was remanded
for further proceedings.

On May 29, 2014, the Calif. Appeals Court issued a modified
opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/R5N55nfrom
Leagle.com, saying there is no change in judgment but on page 1,
the asterisk footnote should be changed to read:

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110,
this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of
parts 1 and 3 of the Discussion.

The case is SERYL LITWIN, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
IRENEW BIO ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant and Respondent; BERT
CHAPA, Objector and Appellant, NO. B248759.

For Objector and Appellant:

   Timothy R. Hanigan, Esq.
   Lang, Hanigan & Carvalho
   21550 Oxnard St
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Telephone: (818) 348-9711

Kirtland & Packard, Michael Louis Kelly -- mlk@KirtlandPackard.com
-- Behram V. Parekh -- bvp@KirtlandPackard.com -- Heather M. Baker
-- hmp@KirtlandPackard.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Weintraub Tobin Law Corporation, David R. Gabor --
dgabor@weintraub.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Has Initial OK of Mortgage Modification Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard G. Stearns granted preliminary approval of
a settlement agreement resolving IN RE JPMORGAN CHASE MORTGAGE
MODIFICATION LITIGATION, NO. 1:11-MD-02290-RGS, (D. Mass.).
A copy of the May 28, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/u91dNcfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Stearns preliminarily approved the Agreement as being fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and preliminarily certified the
"Settlement Class" defined as: "All mortgage loan borrowers whose
loans are serviced by Chase (1) who participated in a Stated-
Income Trial Period Plan ("TPP") extended by Chase under the Home
Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP") and/or under other non-
HAMP modification program, (2) who made the trial payments
required by the TPP in accordance with then-governing Program
Guidelines on timeliness and sufficiency, (3) whose subject
property was not subject to a Completed Foreclosure after the
borrower participated in a Stated-Income TPP, (4) for whom Chase
either has not made a permanent loan modification eligibility
decision since the start of the trial period described in the
borrower's Stated-Income TPP, or made an eligibility decision
denying the loan for permanent modification during or after the
trial period described in the borrower's Stated-Income TPP, and
(5) who, based on Declarations furnished to Plaintiffs on April 4,
2014 and April 7, 2014, did not receive the Primary Class Notice
pursuant to the Primary Settlement Agreement in the Action, and
therefore whose claims are not released as part of the Primary
Settlement Agreement in the Action."

The Court preliminarily and conditionally designated as Settlement
Class Counsel the law firms of Klein Kavanagh Costello, LLP,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, and Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman.

The Court approved Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC as the
Settlement Administrator.

The Final Fairness Hearing will take place before the Honorable
Richard G. Stearns at 2:00 p.m. on October 8, 2014, at the United
States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Courtroom No.
21, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, in
Boston, Massachusetts.

In Re: JPMORGAN CHASE MORTGAGE MODIFICATION LITIGATION, In Re,
represented by Leah M. Houghton, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Michael J. Agoglia, Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Consolidated Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Gary E. Klein,
Klein Kavanagh Costello, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Gretchen S. Obrist, Keller Rohrback LLP, Jennifer E.
Kelly, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
Ryan P. McDevitt, Keller Rehrback LLP, Sharon T Hritz, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
Charles M. Delbaum, National Consumer Law Center, Charles E.
Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Corinne Reed, Klein
Kavanagh Costello, LLP, Eric D Holland, Holland Groves Schneller &
Stolze LLC, Kevin Costello, Klein Kavanagh Costello, LLP, Leonard
A. Bennett, Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., Michael J.
Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Randall Seth Crompton,
Holland Groves Schneller and Stolze LLC & Shennan Alexandra
Kavanagh, Klein Kavanagh Costello, LLP.

AMY E. KELLER, Plaintiff, represented by Katrina Carroll, Lite
DePalma Greenberg LLC.

Christopher & Renee Jerram, Plaintiff, represented by Christine M.
Craig, Shaheen & Gordon, P.A..

JPMorgan Chase Morgage Modification Litigation, Defendant,
represented by Jami Wintz McKeon, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Michael
J. Agoglia, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Donn A. Randall, Bulkley,
Richardson & Gelinas, LLP, Leah M. Houghton, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Matthew A. Kane, Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas, LLP.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Jami Wintz
McKeon, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Michael J. Agoglia, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Wendy M. Garbers, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Donn A.
Randall, Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas, LLP, Leah M. Houghton,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Matthew A. Kane, Bulkley, Richardson
& Gelinas, LLP.

The Bear Stearns Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Jami
Wintz McKeon, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Donn A. Randall, Bulkley,
Richardson & Gelinas, LLP, Leah M. Houghton, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Matthew A. Kane, Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas, LLP.

EMC Mortgage LLC, formerly known as EMC Mortgage Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jami Wintz McKeon, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Donn A. Randall, Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas, LLP, Leah
M. Houghton, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Matthew A. Kane,
Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas, LLP.

Delano Cureton, Third Party Witness, represented by Jami Wintz
McKeon, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Scott Keller, Third Party Witness, represented by Katrina Carroll,
Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC.


JUDGES' RETIREMENT: "Staniforth" Suit Ruling Partially Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faye Staniforth filed an action, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated persons (collectively pensioners), alleging
numerous claims against the Judges' Retirement System (JRS). The
principal claim raised by pensioners' action was that JRS had not
adhered to its obligations to pensioners under Olson v. Cory
(1980) 27 Cal.3d 532 (Olson I) and, as a result, pension payments
stretching back over three decades had been underpaid to
pensioners (Olson I claims). This action sought a declaratory
judgment that, under Olson I, jurists who served on California's
trial court or appellate court bench during the time Government
Code section 68203 provided for unlimited cost of living
adjustments (COLA's) were entitled to have their (or their
surviving beneficiaries') pensions adjusted upward based on the
applicable COLA for each year, and that the cap on the amount of
COLA's (enacted by legislation that amended Section 68203 and took
effect on January 1, 1977) could not constitutionally be applied
to pensions earned by jurists who served on California's trial
court or appellate court bench during the time that Section 68203
provided for unlimited COLA's. The petition also sought a writ of
mandate compelling JRS to adhere to Olson I and to recalculate the
amount of judicial pensions owed to pensioners using uncapped
COLA's, and to pay arrearages and interest for the decades of
underpaid pension payments.

JRS demurred to pensioners' Olson I claims. JRS argued pensioners'
Olson I claims were in direct conflict with a correct reading of
Olson I and that, contrary to pensioners' claims, JRS had
correctly applied the teaching of Olson I to these pensioners and
had correctly calculated judicial pensions since Olson I. The
trial court agreed and sustained JRS's demurrer to pensioners'
Olson I claims without leave to amend. The court also denied
pensioners' subsequent motion to vacate in part the order
sustaining the demurrer to pensioner's Olson I claims without
leave to amend and, after dismissing pensioners' remaining claims
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, entered judgment
in favor of JRS. Pensioners appealed.

On appeal, pensioners limit the claims of error to (1) the order
sustaining JRS's demurrer to pensioner's Olson I claims without
leave to amend, and (2) the court's denial of pensioners'
subsequent motion, which in effect sought leave to amend to
separately state (and thereby preserve) certain claims by certain
pensioners. The propriety of the first order turns on an
interpretation of the impact of Olson I, as amplified in both
Olson v. Cory (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 85 (Olson II) and Olson v.
Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390 (Olson III), on judicial pensions. The
propriety of the second order involves distinct issues requiring a
separate but interdependent analysis.

In an opinion dated May 29, 2014, copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/wm5gCwfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division One, directed the trial
court to vacate its order denying pensioners' motion to partially
vacate the order sustaining respondent's demurrer without leave to
amend, and to enter a new and different order permitting
pensioners leave to amend the complaint to separately state claims
for alleged underpayment of pensions. In all other respects, the
judgment was affirmed.

The case is FAY STANIFORTH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
THE JUDGES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent; JOHN
CHIANG, as State Controller, etc., Real Party in Interest and
Respondent, NO. D064111.

Jorn S. Rossi and Paul G. Mast for all Plaintiffs and Appellants
except William Reppy, Jr.

William Reppy, Jr., in pro. per.

Reed Smith, Harvey L. Leiderman -- hleiderman@reedsmith.com -- and
Jeffrey R. Rieger -- jrieger@reedsmith.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.


KAMERYCAH INC: Removed "Lee" Suit to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Hye Seon Lee v. Kamerycah, Inc.,
et al., Case No. BC538866, was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-
cv-04612-DMG-FFM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG W. RYU
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (213) 260-0082
          Facsimile: (800) 576-1170
          E-mail: young.ryu@youngryulaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy J. O'Connor, Esq.
          O'CONNOR & SCHMELTZER
          8001 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1550
          Irvine, CA 92618-2936
          Telephone: (949) 753-0700
          Facsimile: (949) 753-8069
          E-mail: tim.oconnor@osolawcorp.com

               - and -

          Robert H. Cherry, Esq.
          ROBERT H. CHERRY LAW OFFICES
          8001 Irvine Ctr Dr, Suite 1575
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 753-1991
          E-mail: rcherrylaw@aol.com


KINDER STUFF: Teaching Staff Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Houaria Bensabeur, Sandra Gonzalez, Rose Heavens, Maria Herman,
Sabine Jules, Yesenia Martinez, and Mercedes Montalvo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Kinder Stuff 2010 LLC d/b/a Kinderstuff Daycare & Learning Centers
and Mark Tress, Case No. 1:14-cv-03789 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 17, 2014), lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages owed to the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, who were not
properly paid for their work, in violation of federal and state
wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiffs and the proposed class members worked as teaching
staff at various Kinder Stuff locations in Brooklyn, New York.

Kinder Stuff 2010 LLC is a New York limited liability corporation
headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.  Kinder Stuff does business
as Kinderstuff Daycare & Learning Centers operating six daycare
centers in Brooklyn.  Mark Tress is the controlling
owner/shareholder of Kinder Stuff.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven M. Warshawsky, Esq.
          THE WARSHAWSKY LAW FIRM
          Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 601-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 601-2610
          E-mail: smw@warshawskylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sheila Y. Samuels, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHEILA SAMUELS
          11 West Prospect Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Mount Vernon, NY 10550
          Telephone: (914) 368-7680
          Facsimile: (888) 421-7635
          E-mail: infoaskesq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Tomasz J. Piotrowski, Esq.
          T.J. PIOTROWSKI LAW FIRM
          176 Kent Street, Suite 2L
          Brooklyn, NY 11222
          Telephone: (917) 612-0788
          E-mail: tomjerzy@msn.com


LA CONDESA CAFE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Hall v. La Condesa Cafe, Inc., a Arizona Corporation;
Felipe and Christina Guzman, husband and wife; Case No. 2:14-cv-
01334-DGC (D. Ariz., June 16, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for their alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime
wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

La Condesa Cafe, Inc. is incorporated in the state of Arizona with
its principle place of business in Phoenix, Arizona.  The
Individual Defendants are owners of La Condesa Cafe, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 258-8900
          Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


LIFE PARTNERS: Expects Discovery to Commence in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc. anticipates that parties in a
consolidated securities suit against it will now commence
discovery after a denial by the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Waco Division to dismiss the case,
according to the company's May 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Feb. 28, 2014.

In February and March of 2011, six putative securities class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Waco Division. On July 5, 2011, these
actions were consolidated into the case styled Selma Stone, et al.
v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, R. Scott Peden,
and David M. Martin , Civil Action No. DR-11-CV-16-AM in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio
Division. On February 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed their first
amended complaint alleging the same claims that were asserted in
the prior complaint. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert
substantially similar, and at times identical, facts and
allegations to those asserted by the SEC in its complaint.
Plaintiffs seek damages and an award of costs on behalf of a class
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock between May 26, 2006, and June 17, 2011. On March 26,
2012, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss on March
15, 2014. With the ruling on the motion to dismiss, the company
anticipates that the parties will now commence discovery. No trial
date has been set.


LIFE PARTNERS: Suit by Life Settlement Interest Buyers Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc. said a consolidated lawsuit filed on
behalf of purchasers of life settlement interests through Life
Partners, Inc. is now considered closed, according to the
company's May 28, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Six putative class action complaints were filed during 2011 on
behalf of purchasers of life settlement interests through Life
Partners, Inc. All of these suits were consolidated on June 23,
2011, under the case styled Turnbow et al. v. Life Partners, Inc.,
Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, and R. Scott Peden,
Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-1030-M. On August 25, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint,
alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty against LPI, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the company, Pardo
and Peden, breach of contract against LPI, and violation of
California Unfair Competition Law by LPI, Pardo, and Peden. All of
the plaintiffs' claims arose out of the alleged provision of
underestimated life expectancies by Dr. Cassidy to LPI and LPI's
use thereof in the facilitation of life settlement transactions in
which the plaintiffs acquired interests in life insurance
policies. On July 9, 2013, the Federal court issued an order
denying class certification. On December 2, 2013, plaintiffs filed
a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice and a general
release by the plaintiffs releasing all defendants from all claims
brought in the action. On the same day, the Court issued an order
dismissing the action. Copies of the dismissing documents can be
found at: http://www.lphi.com/doc/Release_20131203.pdf Because
this action was dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiffs, the
company considers this matter to be concluded.


LIFE PARTNERS: Certification of Life Settlement Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellate briefing has been completed by the parties in the suit
filed by Helen Z. McDermott against Life Partners, Inc. over life
settlement and the Court has heard oral arguments, but no ruling
has been issued yet, according to Life Partners Holdings, Inc.'s
May 28, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 11, 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, styled
Helen Z. McDermott, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No. 11-02966. The
original petition asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative
class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased
any portion of a life settlement that matured earlier than the
estimated maximum life expectancy. Pursuant to three amendments to
the Petition, the plaintiff revised the putative class of persons
on whose behalf the plaintiff seeks to represent to be limited to
all persons residing in the United States who purchased any
portion of one particular life settlement. The plaintiff seeks as
purported damages the amount of funds placed in escrow for policy
maintenance that was allegedly not needed or used for policy
maintenance and was not returned or paid to the plaintiff or the
putative class members as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The
plaintiff also seeks certain equitable relief, including
injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement. Following
briefing by the parties and a hearing before the court, the court
certified a class consisting of 38 persons residing in the United
States that purchased any portion of a life settlement interest in
the designated policy. On December 4, 2012, LPI filed a notice of
appeal of the district court's order certifying class with the
Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas, which
automatically stayed the underlying case until resolution of the
appeal. Appellate briefing has been completed by the parties and
the Court has heard oral arguments. The Court has not issued a
ruling.


LIFE PARTNERS: Appeals Decision in "Arnold" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc. appealed to the Texas Supreme Court a
decision of the Court of Appeal declaring in a suit by Michael
Arnold and Janet Arnold that Life Partners, Inc.'s life
settlements are securities, according to the company's May 28,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 14, 2011, a putative class action suit was filed in the
14th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, styled
Michael Arnold and Janet Arnold v. Life Partners, Inc., Life
Partners Holdings, Inc., and Abundant Income, Cause No. 11-02995.
The plaintiffs ultimately amended their petition several times,
adding additional named plaintiffs, and dismissing the company
(but not LPI) with prejudice. The plaintiffs asserted two causes
of action. The first claim asserted that defendants violated the
registration provisions of the Texas Securities Act because the
life settlements facilitated by LPI were securities and were not
registered. The second claim asserted that defendants committed
fraud under the Texas Securities Act because they represented that
the life settlements were not securities. LPI answered and filed
counterclaims against the plaintiffs for the filing of a frivolous
lawsuit. On September 26, 2011, the Court entered an order
granting LPI's motion for partial summary judgment. The motion was
based on, among other arguments, the arguments that the life
settlements had previously been held not to be securities under
Federal and state law. As a result of the court order, the
plaintiffs' claims against LPI were dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision dismissing their claims
to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas. On August
28, 2013, the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas, in
Arnold v. Life Partners, Inc., 5th Dist. Texas Ct. of App., No.
05-12-00092-CV reversing the trial court's order granting the
company's motion for summary judgment and held that LPI's life
settlements are securities under the Texas Securities Act. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting
defendants' motion for summary judgment on some, but not all, of
the individual plaintiffs' claims that were barred by the statute
of limitations under the Texas Securities Act. The ruling that the
life settlements are securities conflicts with the decision by the
Federal Circuit Court for the District of Columbia which ruled in
SEC v. Life Partners, Inc. that the company's transactions are not
securities under Federal law, and conflicts with the 2004 Waco
Court of Appeals decision in Griffitts v. Life Partners, Inc.,
that the settlements were not securities under Texas law. The
company strongly disagrees with the court's analysis and
conclusions and note that the decision conflicts with the cases as
well as a Travis County, Texas District Court case, in each of
which LPI had prevailed and in which the courts had held that the
life settlements were not securities. On March 24, 2014, the
company appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court seeking a
review and reversal of the Court of Appeal's decision that LPI's
life settlements are securities. The company asked that, if the
prior decision is allowed to stand, the Court of Appeal's decision
be given prospective effect only, rather than retroactive effect,
which could allow plaintiffs, as well as other purchasers of life
settlements through LPI, to seek rescission of their purchases.
Briefing for review before the Texas Supreme Court is ongoing. If
the prior decision is upheld, it could result in a material
adverse effect on the company's operations and require substantial
changes in the company's business model.


LIFE PARTNERS: Bellwether Trial in Overpayment Suit Set for Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The bellwether trial in In re Life Partners, Inc. Litigation is
set for September 29, 2014, according to Life Partners Holdings,
Inc.'s May 28, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On April 8, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the 40th Judicial District Court of Ellis County, Texas, styled
John Willingham, individually and on behalf of all other Texas
citizens similarly situated, v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No.
82640 (MR). On July 27, 2011, by agreement of the parties, the
Willingham case was transferred to the 101st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County under Cause No. DC-11-10639. All of the
plaintiff's claims are based upon the alleged overpayment of
premiums to the insurance company, that is, the alleged failure to
engage in "premium optimization" on behalf of all Texas residents
that purchased an interest in a life settlement facilitated by
LPI. On March 15, 2013, the plaintiff filed his fourth amended
petition in which eight new named-plaintiffs were added to the
suit, and the company, Brian D. Pardo, and R. Scott Peden were
added as defendants. In addition to the putative class claims
concerning the alleged overpayment of premiums, the amended
petition asserts individual claims of breach of fiduciary duty
against LPI arising from the alleged overpayment of premiums and
the alleged use of underestimated life expectancies provided by
Dr. Donald Cassidy, as well as aiding and abetting claims against
the company, Pardo and Peden. On January 22, 2013, a petition was
filed in the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas,
styled Stephen Eccles, et al vs. Life Partners, Inc., Life
Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo and R. Scott Peden on
behalf of 23 individuals, all of whom were represented by the same
counsel for the plaintiff in the Willingham case. On March 20,
2013, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the Eccles
case with the Willingham case, which was granted on March 25,
2013. On April 15, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their fifth amended
petition dropping all putative class claims and asserting
individual claims of breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud,
civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and
common law fraud, and negligence against the company, LPI, Pardo
and Peden. The plaintiff seeks economic and exemplary damages,
disgorgement and/or fee forfeiture, attorneys' fees and costs, and
post and pre-judgment interest. On April 9, 2013, an original
petition was filed in the 352nd Judicial District Court, Tarrant
County, Texas, styled Todd McClain, et al v. Life Partners, Inc.,
Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, and R. Scott Peden.
This suit is virtually identical to the Willingham case. On May
15, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the McClain
and Willingham cases to a Multi-District Litigation Panel for the
purposes of transferring and consolidating the Willingham case and
the McClain case to a single forum for pretrial purposes. On
August 16, 2013, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued an
opinion granting the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2013,
the Panel issued an Order transferring the McClain case to Judge
Slaughter of the 191st District Court of Dallas County and
consolidating the McClain case (and any tag along cases
subsequently filed) with the Willingham case. The consolidated MDL
case is styled In re Life Partners, Inc. Litigation (the "MDL
Proceedings"). In the MDL Proceedings, all of plaintiffs' claims
are based upon the alleged failure to engage in "premium
optimization," as well as the alleged provision of underestimated
life expectancies by Dr. Donald Cassidy to LPI and LPI's use in
the facilitation of life settlement transactions in which
plaintiffs acquired interests in life insurance policies.
Plaintiffs seek economic and exemplary damages, disgorgement
and/or fee forfeiture, attorneys' fees and costs, and post and
pre-judgment interest. On August 9, 2013, the Court entered a
scheduling order setting a bellwether trial consisting of ten
plaintiffs, five selected by plaintiffs and five selected by
defendants, with the remaining plaintiffs trying their claims in
groups of 16 approximately 90 days after the conclusion of each
trial. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and the
bellwether trial is set for September 29, 2014.


LIFE PARTNERS: "Steuben" Suit Awaits Resolution of "Willingham"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles Court stayed an unfair competition case filed by
Marilyn Steuben pending resolution of the suit John Willingham,
individually and on behalf of all other Texas citizens similarly
situated, v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No. 82640 (MR), according
to Life Partners Holdings, Inc.'s May 28, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On November 8, 2011, a putative class action suit was filed,
styled Marilyn Steuben, on behalf of herself and all other
California citizens similarly situated v. Life Partners, Inc.,
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles Court, Case No. BC472953. This suit asserts claims of
fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and violations of California's
Unfair Competition law based upon the alleged overpayment of
premiums to the insurance company, that is, the alleged failure to
engage in "premium optimization. On December 3, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed their motion to intervene in the Turnbow case
whereby the plaintiffs sought to join the putative Turnbow class
and subclass and to create a new subclass asserting claims for
damages related to the defendants' alleged overpayment of
premiums. The Federal District Judge in the Turnbow case denied
the plaintiffs' motion to intervene on February 5, 2013 and the
Turnbow case was voluntarily dismissed in December 2013. On
January 29, 2014, the parties filed a joint status report with the
court, and on February 5, 2014, the court stayed the case pending
resolution of the Willingham suit, which is now set for trial in
September 29, 2014.  Another joint status update was due June 5,
2014.


LINKEDIN CORP: Judge Allows Suit Over Marketing Emails to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
has refused to let LinkedIn off the hook for pestering its
members' acquaintances to join the professional networking site.

Ruling in a privacy class action filed last year against LinkedIn
Corp., U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California found that the social networking site might have
damaged its users' reputations by sending repeated emails to
addresses harvested from their contact lists.

Judge Koh dismissed some claims, reasoning that plaintiffs gave
consent for the company to invite contacts to join their
professional networks.  However, she faulted the company for
persisting with its email campaign even after recipients declined
to join the site.  Because the messages appear to come from users,
they could be "professionally or personally harmful," Judge Koh
wrote.

"The second and third endorsement emails could injure users'
reputations by making the users' contacts believe that the users
are the types of people who spam their contacts or are unable to
take the hint that their contacts do not want to join their
LinkedIn network," she wrote in a 39-page order issued on June 12.

The decision allowed plaintiffs in Perkins v. LinkedIn, 13-4303,
to move forward with common-law right-of-publicity claims, as well
as a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law.  Plaintiffs
are represented by Larry Russ -- lruss@raklaw.com -- and Dorian
Berger -- dberger@raklaw.com -- of Russ August & Kabat in Los
Angeles.  Munger, Tolles & Olson partners Jerome Roth --
Jerome.Roth@mto.com -- and Rosemarie Ring -- Rose.Ring@mto.com --
are defending LinkedIn.

The suit accuses LinkedIn of harvesting users' email addresses
without their consent to send invitations that are virtually spam.
On message boards, one user accused LinkedIn of "hacking," while
another complained that the site was "hurting my reputation rather
than helping it," according to the complaint.

Judge Koh noted that none of the plaintiffs had opted out of the
invitation service, though they had the option to do so.  She
added that LinkedIn was more forthright about its harvesting of
user information than many technology companies.

"Importantly, this disclosure is presented immediately prior to
the moment at which LinkedIn is alleged to have engaged in
wrongful conduct," she wrote.  "It was not, as is often the case,
a disclosure buried in a Terms of Service or Privacy Policy."

Judge Koh dismissed plaintiffs' claims filed under the Stored
Communications Act and the Wiretap Act with leave to amend.  She
also ordered plaintiffs to rework their misrepresentation claims
under the UCL, finding that plaintiffs had not shown they had
relied on LinkedIn's allegedly misleading statements to the
public.

"The fact that some of the alleged misrepresentations appeared on
screens that all users had to click through to register do not by
themselves establish that any of the plaintiffs actually read or
relied on the misrepresentations," she wrote.


MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Novarel Slimming Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
makers of undergarments infused with minerals and nutrients that
are promised to improve the wearer's physique and skin tone are
feeling the squeeze of litigation.

Maidenform Brands and Wacoal America face three class-action suits
over claims about shapewear made of Novarel Slim, a
"cosmetotextile" embedded with microcapsules of caffeine to
promote fat destruction, ceramides to restore and maintain the
skin's smoothness and retinol to make the skin firmer.

The Federal Trade Commission has called the claims "about as
credible as a note from the Tooth Fairy," according to federal
court complaints in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Florida.  The
suits seek to recover, on behalf of a class of users who bought
Novarel Slim products from Wacoal or Maidenform, under state
consumer fraud laws and on theories of breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment.

Maidenform claimed its Instant Slimmer line made from Novarel Slim
could "reduce the appearance of cellulite" and was promoted as
"embedded with microcapsules containing caffeine to promote fat
destruction."

Wacoal allegedly sold a line called iPant which it called "hope on
a hanger," claiming it "works with your body to visually reduce
the appearance of cellulite from your waist, hips and thighs."
The company said iPant, if worn eight hours a day for 28 days,
would result in a reduction in thigh measurement.  It also claimed
the active ingredients in the iPant are still present after the
garment is washed 100 times.

"Defendants make these misrepresentations in order to prey upon
women's insecurities about their body images," according to the
complaint in Caramore v. Maidenform Brands.

The Caramore case was filed on March 28, initially in Brooklyn,
N.Y., and has been transferred to Newark.  A second complaint,
Bellot v. Maidenform Brands, was filed on April 14 in Boston, and
a third, Bellot v. Maidenform Brands, was filed on May 21 in
Tallahassee.

The three complaints contain nearly identical wording, including
the claim that the defendants' products "do not reduce thigh
measurement or promote fat destruction."

The plaintiffs say the companies charged as much as 50 percent
more for Novarel Slim shapewear than for comparable items not
infused with nutrients, but buyers have been bilked because the
nutrients cannot cure cellulite, destroy fat or cause weight loss.

On May 21, counsel for the defendants petitioned the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to have the cases venued in
Newark for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  The lawyers said
they had received notice that a second suit would be filed in
Tallahassee.

Newark, they said, is convenient to transportation and is close to
Lyndhurst, N.J., the U.S. headquarters of Wacoal, a Japanese
company, and Iselin, N.J., Maidenform's headquarters until its
recent acquisition by Hanes.

On June 5, counsel for both sides in the Caramore case asked U.S.
District Judge Faith Hochberg to stay the proceedings pending the
outcome of the JPML motion.

The Novarel Slim fabric is made by Nurel of Zaragosa, Spain, which
is not party to the suits.

Rebekah Kaufman -- rkaufman@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster in
San Francisco, representing Wacoal, and Michael Mallow --
mmallow@loeb.com -- of Loeb & Loeb in Los Angeles, representing
Maidenform, did not return calls.

David Krangle of Alonso Krangle in Melville, N.Y., and Elizabeth
Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Oak
Park, Ill., representing the plaintiff in Caramore, also did not
return calls.


MANSFIELD BANK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryann Fenn v. Mansfield Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv-12554 (D. Mass.,
June 17, 2014), seeks judgment awarding the Plaintiff and all
similarly situated employees all unpaid overtime compensation,
damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, liquidated
damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs as mandated
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mansfield Bank has a principal place of business in Mansfield,
Bristol County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel W. Rice, Esq.
          GLYNN, LANDRY, & RICE, LLP
          25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 408
          Braintree, MA 02184
          Telephone: (781) 849-8479
          Facsimile: (781) 356-3393
          E-mail: daniel.rice@glhrlaw.com


MICHIGAN: "Rivera" Suit v. Correction Dept. May Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
WILSON RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-214, (W.D. Mich.) is a civil
rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc-1 et seq., and state law.  The
Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

District Judge Robert J. Jonker, in an opinion dated May 28, 2014,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/5fFK0Hfrom
Leagle.com, dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to
state a claim against Defendant Jones Bey. The Court will allow
the action to proceed against Defendants Michigan Department of
Corrections, Heyns, Finco, Martin, White, Stephens, Wolfe, the
Chaplaincy Advisory Council (CAC), and the unidentified members of
the CAC, he added.

Wilson Rivera #239567, Named as Wison Rivera Bey. Ako Gilmore Bey,
James Goodman Bey and Members of the Moorish Science Temple of
America-1928 Grand Body/Moorish Divine National Movement (A Class
of Moorish Moslems) named on initiating document but did not sign
complaint, plaintiff, Pro Se.


MONTANA: Farmers Lose Class Action Over Tax Increases
------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lutey, writing for Billings Gazette, reports that Montana
farmers have lost their class action lawsuit accusing the state of
jumping the gun on tax increases.

District Court Judge Randal Spaulding ruled that Montana's
Department of Revenue was in the right in 2009 when it imposed the
maximum tax allowed on some Montana farms, while choosing to
phase-in taxes on other farms over six years.  Roughly 2,000
farmers who have paid their taxes in protest since 2009 will be
affected by the ruling, though several thousand more had hoped to
benefit from the class action.

At issue was the 2009 reappraisal cycle, which brought dramatic
changes to the way Department of Revenue officials were
determining taxable value of farm property.  For the first time,
the Department of Revenue using satellite Global Positioning
System technology, soil sampling, and other methods to get a more
precise assessment.  What the department found was that in some
cases previous assessments were inaccurate.  Acres had gone
unaccounted, or had been put to a different use, which had not
been noted on previous tax rolls.

Those acres, unearthed by new assessment, changed the nature of a
farm's property so much that the entire farm no longer qualified
for the standard six-year phase in of property taxes.  In essence,
farm plaintiff's said, the Revenue Department treated the land
change like it might treat an addition onto a house.  The addition
reset the entire property's taxable assessment and made the
property ineligible for a tax phase in.

"We are obviously disappointed by the decision," said Mike Green,
Montana Farm Bureau Federation attorney.  "The Court appears to
have accepted the Department's arguments that ag land changes must
be treated the same as new construction of a home."

The plaintiffs argued that homes and farm property were in
different tax classifications and should be treated differently.
At the least, they argued, land that hadn't been altered should
get the phase in.  The court disagreed.

Dan Whyte, deputy chief legal council for the Department of
Revenue, said the reason so many farmers were affected was because
it had been years, in some cases decades, since changes had been
made to what property information was being submitted to DOR.
Farmers simply resubmitted the same information year after year,
even though some of their acres had changed, either because they
had been put into production, or they had been put to a different,
more profitable use.

"I think it happened in many, many cases because there are tens of
thousands of farms across the state and no one had done an
assessment for anyone probably in 40 years," Mr. Whyte said.

Spaulding concluded that Department of Revenue had correctly
carried out the tax law prescribed by the state Legislature,
Mr. Whyte said.

But Bob Story, of the Montana Taxpayer's Association, was a member
of the Legislature when the Department of Revenue presented its
interpretation of the law to legislators.  It wasn't clear how the
phase-in issue would be handled, Story said.  He said he doubts
many lawmakers shared DOR's interpretation.

Plaintiffs in the case now have 60 days to decide whether to
appeal to the state Supreme Court.


MONTREAL MAINE: Train Derailment Class Action Hearings Begin
------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Bruemmer, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that with a
small army of lawyers and legal aides at the ready, arguments on
whether to authorize one of the largest class-action suits in
Canadian history, on behalf of citizens of Lac-Megantic, began in
a crowded Sherbrooke courtroom on June 9.

The hearings could not be heard in Lac-Megantic because it does
not have a courtroom large enough to accommodate the legal teams
of the 53 oil and rail companies and their subsidiaries as well as
the government departments and employees named in the proposed
class-action suit, as well as lawyers for the victims.  More than
3,500 people have signed to join the suit to date.

"As everyone knows, this action arises from a series of closely
related events that culminated in the train derailment and the
explosion of July 6, 2013," said lawyer Joel Rochon --
jrochon@rochongenova.com -- of Toronto firm Rochon Genova LLP, one
of the three firms working on the suit.  "Forty-seven residents of
Lac-Megantic died.  Two thousand were forced to leave their homes.
. . . What was once a vibrant lakeside central business district
is now a disfigured environmental disaster area which can never be
truly fully repaired.  The financial and psychological impact on
this close-knit community of close to 6,000 residents have changed
the face of Lac-Megantic forever.  All residents have suffered
losses in different respects."

Lawyers for the class-action suit allege the train derailment and
resulting injuries and damages were caused by the respondents, who
they say knowingly used unsafe DOT-111 train cars to transport
highly volatile oil that was not labelled as such.

Included among the defendants are Montreal, Maine & Atlantic
Railway and its Canadian operations, former MMA owner
Ed Burkhardt, the engineer who parked the train before the fatal
explosion, as well as oil companies that supplied the contents and
other transportation affiliates involved.  The proposed class-
action suit, which if approved could result in a settlement in the
hundreds of millions of dollars, lawyers estimated, is just one of
many legal actions involving disaster victims.  In April, judges
in Quebec and Maine approved a cross-border process for victims to
file claims against the MMA railway companies.  Because MMA had
only $25 million in insurance, lawyers are hoping implicated firms
can be sued to compensate victims and secured creditors, cover
cleanup costs and pay damages to companies that have lost business
because of the tragedy.

The class-action suit presented in Quebec Superior Court on June 9
also accused MMA of cutting costs at the expense of safety.

Some firms have already said they will defend themselves on the
basis they were not directly involved, or responsible for the
actions of subcontractors handling the Lac-Megantic trains and the
oil therein.

In his opening arguments on June 9, lawyer Rochon said all
implicated companies shared guilt.

"Had the respondents focused on acting reasonably, the outcome
would have been much different. . . ." he said.  "We have in this
courtroom through the counsel that represents these corporations,
some of the most sophisticated, knowledgeable and experienced
players in the oil industry.  So when you hear (them say during
the trial): 'How were we to know about the DOT-111 cars or the
volatility of oil?' just pause and think, 'Does this really
measure up to the level of credibility required for plausible
deniability.'"

No victims of the disaster were in court on June 9.  A plan to
teleconference to Lac-Megantic so victims living more than an
hour's drive from Sherbrooke could watch the proceedings was
scrapped because of technical reasons.


MORGAN STANLEY: Dismissal of Claims in "Coultier" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal is pending before the United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit from two March 28, 2013 orders in related cases by
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Deborah A. Batts, Judge).  In these related cases,
Plaintiffs-Appellants allege violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et
seq.  The district court granted Defendants-Appellees' Rule
12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.  In their appeal, the Plaintiffs
contended that the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing their claims with prejudice.

The Second Circuit disagreed with this and held that the
Plaintiffs have identified no facts that, if alleged, would
establish a valid claim. The district court, therefore, did not
abuse its discretion because any amendment to the allegations
concerning Defendants' fiduciary status would be futile, ruled the
Second Circuit.

"We have considered all of Plaintiffs' arguments and find them to
be without merit. We hereby affirm the district court's orders of
March 28, 2013, which granted Defendants' motions to dismiss in
the two related cases consolidated for this appeal," concluded in
the Second Circuit in its Opinion dated May 29, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/e8VyyU from Leagle.com.

The case is G. KENNETH COULTER, JOHN SIEFKEN, GREGORY MAJOR,
MICHAEL CHIEKO, ELI MOND, JOHN SUDOLSKY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, CAROLYN EGAN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, CELESTE MARTINEZ, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, ELENA RAMOS, ALVIN SAINI, Plaintiffs, v. MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED, MORGAN STANLEY, THE INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE MORGAN STANLEY 401(K) PLAN, THE MORGAN STANLEY
GLOBAL DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, JOHN J. MACK, KAREN JAMESLEY,
WALID A. CHAMMAH, CHARLES CHASIN, JAMES P. GORMAN, ELLYN A.
McCOLGAN, MICHAEL J. PETRICK, MICHAEL RANKOWITZ, MICHAEL T.
CUNNINGHAM, R. BRADFORD EVANS, KIRSTEN FELDMAN, EDMUND C.
PUCKHABER, WILLIAM B. SMITH, JOHN DOES DEFENDANTS 1-10, THOMAS C.
SCHNEIDER, RICHARD PORTOGALLO, NEIL A. SHEAR, CORDELL G. SPENCER,
CAITLIN LONG, ZOE CRUZ, JOHN DOE, 1-30, JOHN DOES 1-10, UNKNOWN
MEMBERS OF THE MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, JOHN DOES 11-20, UNKNOWN
MEMBERS OF THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, JOHN DOES 21-30, UNKNOWN
MEMBERS OF THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR DEFENDANTS, Defendants-
Appellees, ROY J. BOSTOCK, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, ROBERT C. KIDDER,
DONALD T. NICOLAISEN, CHARLES H. NOSKI, HUTHAM S. OLAYAN, CHARLES
E. PHILLIPS, JR., LAURA D. TYSON, KLAUS ZUMWINKEL, O. GRIFFITH
SEXTON, Defendants, DOCKET NOS. 13-2504-CV(L), 13-2509-CV(CON).

MICHAEL JAFFE -- jaffe@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP, New York, NY (Mark C. Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com --
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY; Sanford
P. Dumain -- sdumain@milberg.com -- Lori G. Feldman --
lfeldman@milberg.com -- Arvind Khurana -- akhurana@milberg.com --
Milberg LLP, New York, NY; Robert I. Harwood -- rharwood@hfesq.com
-- James G. Flynn -- jflynn@hfesq.com -- Tanya Korkhov --
tkorkhov@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP, New York, NY; Thomas J.
McKenna -- tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com -- Gainey & McKenna, New
York, NY; Jeffrey Abraham -- jabraham@aftlaw.com -- Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, New York, NY; Milo Silberstein --
msilberstein@dsblawny.com -- Dealy Silberstein & Braverman, LLP,
New York, NY, on the brief) for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

ROBERT F. WISE, JR. -- robert.wise@davispolk.com -- (Charles S.
Duggan -- charles.duggan@@davispolk.com -- Elyse Jones Cowgill --
elyse.cowgill@davispolk.com -- Andrew Ditchfield --
andrew.ditchfield@davispolk.com -- on the brief), Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.


MORGAN STANLEY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Pass-Thru Cert. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Court in In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Litigation, NO. 09 CIV. 2137 (LTS)(SN), (S.D. N.Y.)
is the motion of defendants Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., Morgan
Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated, Morgan Stanley, David R. Warren, Anthony B.
Tufariello, William J. Forsell, and Steven S. Stern for
reconsideration, in light of the Second Circuit's decision in In
re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, 721 F.3d 95, 109
(2d Cir. 2013), of the Court's September 15, 2011 opinion and
order holding that named plaintiffs' claims are timely. Morgan
Stanley, 810 F.Supp.2d 650, 670 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

District Judge Laura Taylor Swain, in a memorandum opinion and
order dated May 27, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/qBnIsPfrom Leagle.com, granted the Defendants'
motion for reconsideration and vacated the September Order.

"New Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in their entirety as time-
barred by the Section 13 statute of repose, insofar as they are
asserted directly by New Plaintiffs as named parties," ruled Judge
Swain.  "The dismissal of New Plaintiffs' claims is without
prejudice to the litigation of those claims by one or more class
representatives if MissPERS's pending motion for class
certification is granted."

The Court directed the parties to file any supplemental papers in
connection with their class certification motion submissions.

West Virginia Investment Management Board, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Arthur C. Leahy, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark W.
Carbone, Carbone & Blaydes, PLLC, Matthew I. Alpert, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nathan R. Lindell, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Ryan A. Llorens, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Scott H. Saham, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Susan G. Taylor,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Thomas Edward Egler, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Brett M. Middleton, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, David R. Stickney, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, David Lloyd Wales, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, Timothy Alan DeLange, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, Arthur C. Leahy, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Carolina Cecilia Torres, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel
S. Drosman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David A. Thorpe, Dietrich Siben
Thorpe, Ivy T. Ngo, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jarrett
Scott Charo, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jeroen Van
Kwawegen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Jonah H.
Goldstein, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Katherine Anastasia
Stefanou, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Luke Orion
Brooks, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Matthew P. Jubenville,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Richard David Gluck,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Pompano Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement System,
Plaintiff, represented by Angel P. Lau, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Ashley M Robinson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Carolina Cecilia Torres, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Caroline M Robert, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel S.
Drosman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darryl J. Alvarado,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David J. Harris, Jr, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Hillary B. Stakem, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Ivy T. Ngo, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jarrett Scott
Charo, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, L. Dana Martindale, Robbins,
Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP, Luke Orion Brooks, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ryan A. Llorens, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia, Plaintiff, represented
by Angel P. Lau, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ashley M
Robinson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Carolina Cecilia
Torres, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Caroline M Robert,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel S. Drosman, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darryl J. Alvarado, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, David J. Harris, Jr, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Hillary B. Stakem, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ivy T. Ngo,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jarrett Scott Charo, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, L. Dana Martindale, Robbins, Geller, Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Luke Orion Brooks, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Ryan A. Llorens, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

NECA-IBEW Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Angel
P. Lau, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ashley M Robinson,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Carolina Cecilia Torres, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Caroline M Robert, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Daniel S. Drosman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Darryl J. Alvarado, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David J.
Harris, Jr, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Hillary B. Stakem, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ivy T. Ngo, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Jarrett Scott Charo, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonah
H. Goldstein, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, L. Dana
Martindale, Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP, Luke Orion Brooks,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ryan A. Llorens, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff,
represented by Carolina Cecilia Torres, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Ivy T. Ngo, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jarrett Scott Charo,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ryan A. Llorens, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Morgan Stanley, Defendant, represented by Christopher Burch
Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, James P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk &
Wardwell L.L.P., Hayward Homes Smith, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P.
& William Joseph Fenrich, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Burch Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Heather Brae
Hoesterey, Reed Smith, LLP, Hayward Homes Smith, Davis Polk &
Wardwell L.L.P., James P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P.
& William Joseph Fenrich, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital I Inc, formerly known as Morgan
Stanley Capital I Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher Burch
Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Heather Brae Hoesterey, Reed
Smith, LLP, James P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. &
William Joseph Fenrich, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Morgan Stanley & Co Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Burch Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Heather Brae
Hoesterey, Reed Smith, LLP, James P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk &
Wardwell L.L.P., Carissa Marie Pilotti, Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P., Dana Meredith Seshens, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P.,
Hayward Homes Smith, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. & William Joseph
Fenrich, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

MCGraw-Hill Companies Inc, Defendant, represented by Adam N.
Zurofsky, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, David T. Biderman, Perkins,
Coie, L.L.P., Floyd Abrams, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Judith B.
Gitterman, Perkins Coie LLP, Christopher Anthony Gorman, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP, Floyd Abrams, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP,
Sarah Penny Windle, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Tammy Lynn Roy,
Cahill Gordon et ano..

Moody's Corp., Defendant, represented by David Andrew McCarthy,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, James J. Coster, Satterlee
Stephens Burke & Burke LLP, Keith E. Eggleton, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Joshua M. Rubins, Satterlee Stephens
Burke & Burke LLP & Justin Evan Klein, Satterlee Stephens Burke &
Burke LLP.

Anthony B. Tufariello, Defendant, represented by Christopher Burch
Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Carissa Marie Pilotti, Davis Polk
& Wardwell L.L.P., Dana Meredith Seshens, Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P., Hayward Homes Smith, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., James
P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. & William Joseph
Fenrich, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

William J. Forsell, Defendant, represented by Christopher Burch
Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Carissa Marie Pilotti, Davis Polk
& Wardwell L.L.P., Dana Meredith Seshens, Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P., Hayward Homes Smith, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., James
P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. & William Joseph
Fenrich, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Valerie H. Kay, Defendant, represented by Christopher Burch
Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, James P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk &
Wardwell L.L.P. & William Joseph Fenrich, Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P..

Steven S. Stern, Defendant, represented by Christopher Burch
Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Carissa Marie Pilotti, Davis Polk
& Wardwell L.L.P., Dana Meredith Seshens, Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P., Hayward Homes Smith, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., James
P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. & William Joseph
Fenrich, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, Defendant,
represented by Carissa Marie Pilotti, Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P., Dana Meredith Seshens, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. &
James P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Morgan Stanley, Defendant, represented by Carissa Marie Pilotti,
Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Dana Meredith Seshens, Davis Polk &
Wardwell L.L.P. & James P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P..

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc, Consolidated Defendant, represented
by Carissa Marie Pilotti, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Dana
Meredith Seshens, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Hayward Homes
Smith, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., James P. Rouhandeh, Davis
Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. & William Joseph Fenrich, Davis Polk &
Wardwell L.L.P..

Fitch, Inc., Consolidated Defendant, represented by Andrew James
Ehrlich, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Martin
Flumenbaum, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Roberta
Ann Kaplan, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Tobias
James Stern, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

David R. Warren, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Carissa
Marie Pilotti, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Dana Meredith
Seshens, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Hayward Homes Smith, Davis
Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., James P. Rouhandeh, Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P. & William Joseph Fenrich, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit,
Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Robin F. Zwerling, Zwerling,
Schachter & Zwerling.


NAP NANNY: CPSC Announces 6th Baby Death Due to Infant Recliner
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a sixth baby has died while using a recalled
"Nap Nanny" infant recliner, with safety experts again urging
parents to stop using the product.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC, the
latest tragedy involved an 8-month-old girl from New Jersey.  The
baby suffocated while secured by a belt, trapped between the
product and a crib bumper.  CPSC officials said the infant was
found stuck over the side of a Nap Nanny.

CPSC Communications Director Scott Wolfson said parents should
avoid the recliners at yard sales, as hand-me-downs or in online
auctions.

"Our message to parents is clear: Stop using it.  It's dangerous,"
Mr. Wolfson said.  "There's been six deaths already, and we don't
want another child to die unnecessarily."

About 165,000 Nap Nanny and Nap Nanny Chill recliners were sold
between 2009 and 2012.  Nap Nannies -- which are no longer sold in
stores -- were recalled last year, but for months the company that
made the portable recliner refused to pull it from shelves or
offer refunds, instead insisting on the product's safety when used
properly.

In a statement, an official with the company, now out of business
for two years, told ABC News it was heartbroken for the families
who have lost a child, but said the Nap Nanny was never intended
for use in a crib.

Brian Thiel's 4-month-old daughter died in 2010 while using the
Nap Nanny.  His settlement agreement with the maker of Nap Nanny
limited what he could say.

"There was a death almost a year prior to my daughter dying,"
Mr. Thiel said.  "Had we known that, we never would have purchased
this product."

It is illegal to sell the Nap Nanny in the United States,
Mr. Wolfson said.


NEW EXPRESS MOBIL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hashim Mustafa, And All Others Similarly Situated v. New Express
Mobil Mart, Inc.; Punjabi Group, Inc.; Quicky Mart; SR Bukhari,
Inc.; Victoria Hospitality, Inc.; Syed Babar Bukhari; Syed Rashid
Bukhari; and, Usman Rashid Bukhari, Case No. 4:14-cv-01668 (S.D.
Tex., June 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

New Express Mobil Mart, Inc., Punjabi Group, Inc., Quicky Mart, SR
Bukhari, Inc., and Victoria Hospitality, Inc., are Texas
corporations.  The Individual Defendants are corporate officers,
managers or owners of the Corporate Defendants.  The Defendants
own one or more business establishments engaged in interstate
commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce in
the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Freeway, Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


NORTH CAROLINA: "Alston" Suit v. Public Safety Dept Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Alston is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina and he
is presently confined in the Lanesboro Correctional Institution.
In his complaint, the Ms. Alston contends that his constitutional
rights have been violated through unreasonable searches and
seizures following his transfer to Lanesboro Correctional in
December 2013.  The Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to
several searches and seizures and placed in restraints for 48
hours and was not permitted to use the restroom and was deprived
of his property for a couple of weeks.  The Plaintiff asserts that
he filed a grievance against Unit Manager Marshall for harassment,
discrimination and the use of excessive force. The Plaintiff also
alleges that Officer Chapmen and other officers confronted him
while he was in the shower and retaliated against him for filing
the complaint against Marshall by removing property from his cell
and assaulting him. In his claim for relief, Plaintiff is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages.

A copy of Judge Martini's May 28, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/CuG19Ufrom Leagle.com.

In an order dated May 28, 2014, District Judge Frank D. Whitney
found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied.
3. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is denied.

The Clerk of Court was directed to close the civil case.

The case is MARCUS ALSTON, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE T. SOLOMON, DAVID
MITCHELL, NORTH CAROLINA DEP'T OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants, NO.
3:14-CV-250-FDW, (W.D. N.C.).

Marcus Alston, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: Sued by Terminated Workers and Their Union
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Thruway Employees Local 72; Joseph E. Colombo,
George E. Savoie, David M. Mazzeo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v. New York State Thruway Authority,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-04356 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2014), is
brought for monetary damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the
Civil Rights Act of 1871.

The New York State Thruway Employees Local 72 brought the lawsuit
on behalf of itself and on behalf of approximately 2,600 of its
members.  The Individual Plaintiffs -- union members whose
employment was terminated as a result of the Defendants' alleged
illegal conduct -- bring the action on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly-situated.  The Plaintiffs seek to redress the
Defendants' alleged intentional violation of their constitutional
rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process
and equal protection of the law under the First, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, along
with violations of the New York State Constitution.

The Defendants are New York State Thruway Authority; Howard P.
Milstein, individually and in his official capacity as Chairman of
the New York State Thruway Authority; Thomas J. Madison, Jr.,
individually and in his official capacity as Executive Director of
the New York State Thruway Authority; Thomas Ryan, individually
and in his official capacity; Joseph Bress, individually and in
his official capacity as Chief Negotiator of the New York State
Thruway Authority; Howard Glaser, individually and in his official
capacity as Director of State Operations and Senior Policy Advisor
to the Governor of New York; Donna J. Luh, individually and in her
official capacity as Vice-Chair of the New York State Thruway
Authority Board of Directors; E. Virgil Conway, individually and
in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State
Thruway Authority; Richard N. Simberg, individually and in his
official capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway
Authority; Brandon R. Sall, individually and in his official
capacity as Board Member of the New York State Thruway Authority;
J. Donald Rice Jr., individually and in his official capacity as
Board Member of the New York State Thruway Authority; Jose
Holguin-Veras, individually and in his official capacity as Board
Member of the New York State Thruway Authority; John F. Barr,
individually and in his official capacity as Director of
Administrative Services of the New York State Thruway Authority;
John M. Bryan, individually and in his official capacity as Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the New York State Thruway
Authority; and Donald R. Bell, individually and in his official
capacity as Director of Maintenance and Operations of the New York
State Thruway Authority.

Defendant New York State Thruway Authority is an independent
public corporation created in 1950 by the New York State
Legislature and was the employer of the Individual Plaintiffs.
The Authority has a Division Headquarters located in Suffern, New
York, and has various facilities in Orange, Westchester, and
Rockland Counties.

The Individual Defendants are officers or directors of the
Authority.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg D. Adler, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, P.C.
          557 Prospect Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06105-2922
          Telephone: (860) 233-9821
          E-mail: gdadler@lapm.org


PARTNERSHIP HEALTH: Settles Wrongful Discharge Suits for $189,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Erickson, writing for Missoulian, reports that earlier this
spring, Missoula County agreed to pay four former employees of
Partnership Health Center a total of $189,000 to settle lawsuits
alleging the workers were wrongfully discharged and that the
clinic's management created hostile working conditions, emotional
distress and humiliation.

Combined, it is the largest settlement the county has paid in at
least the past three years.

Former Partnership dental practice manager Patricia Morgan
received $80,000, former medical director Alison Forney-Gorman
received $62,500, former medical records coordinator Lisa Nelson
received $22,500 and former medical receptionist Shawnel Trenary
received $24,000.

Ms. Morgan, Ms. Nelson and Ms. Trenary sued the county on May 3,
2013, in Missoula County District Court, and Ms. Forney-Gorman
filed suit on Nov. 18, 2013.  The settlement was reached March 25.

All four women were represented by attorney Elizabeth Best of
Great Falls, while the county was represented by law firm
Garlington, Lohn and Robinson.

The county was responsible for $141,716.48 in legal fees as well,
but the settlement stipulated that the county was not admitting
liability.  The settlement money was paid from a risk fund
specifically allocated for such purposes.

Forney-Gorman's lawsuit alleged that Partnership executive
director Kim Mansch "had established a hostile work environment
through a culture of fear and intimidation through her management
actions, refusing to sign off on time off requests, using abusive
and threatening language to employees of PHC, etc., in violation
of Missoula County's workplace harassment policy."

Ms. Mansch and the county denied the allegations.  Ms. Mansch
declined to comment on the settlement.

Forney-Gorman's settlement with the county stipulates that
Partnershp's management and leadership teams must attend training
on the Government Code of Fair Practices and training on human
resource management issues, including "effective communication,
training and supervision of employees, as well as interaction with
union representatives."

Partnership also must undergo a structural and management analysis
and consider any subsequent recommendations.  Its board of
directors also must undergo training on human resource management
issues, including "their duty to protect employees, and to
effectively manage and supervise the executive director."

Partnership is a nonprofit medical and dental clinic administered
through the Missoula City-County Health Department and governed by
the board of directors.  The clinic employs about 120 staffers at
the old Creamery Building in downtown Missoula and serves the
under- or uninsured.


PNEUMO ABEX: Has No Duty to Warn Employee's Nephew, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports
that a California appeals court has held that a company's duty to
warn of asbestos dangers extended to an employee's nephew who
developed mesothelioma -- despite all other defendants in the case
being the nephew's own employers, where he was exposed to asbestos
occupationally.

The trial court ruled that defendant Pneumo Abex owed no duty to
the nephew, who alleges he was exposed to asbestos through contact
with his uncle's work clothing.

Abex argued that "no duty is owed [by an employer] to family
members of workers for take-home exposures."

However, the First Appellate District Court of Appeals disagreed,
saying plaintiff Johnny Blaine Kesner, Jr., was a frequent visitor
of his uncle's household, spending several nights a week in the
home for several years.

Using factors from the Rowland decision, the appeals court
reversed the trial court's ruling.

Judge Stuart Pollak delivered the opinion. Judges Peter Siggins
and Martin Jenkins concurred.

At the onset of trial, Abex moved for a nonsuit, arguing it had no
duty to prevent Mr. Kesner's asbestos exposure.  The Superior
court agreed, granting Abex's motion for nonsuit.

Mr. Kesner responded by filing an appeal.  The appeals court
expedited consideration of the issue due to Mr. Kesner's declining
health.

According to the May 15 opinion, Mr. Kesner was diagnosed with
perotineal mesothelioma in February 2011.  He filed an asbestos
lawsuit against several defendants.  However, every defendant
except Abex consisted of companies Mr. Kesner worked for and was
occupationally exposed to asbestos on their premises.  All of
those claims have been resolved. Only Abex remains.

Mr. Kesner claims his uncle was an Abex employee from 1973 to 2007
and was exposed to asbestos while on the job.  Between 1973 and
1979, Mr. Kesner was a frequent guest in his uncle's home, staying
the night there several days a week.  Mr. Kesner claims his uncle
would come home and, while still in his dusty work clothes, play
with Mr. Kesner or sleep near him, which contributed to his
development of mesothelioma.

Judge Pollak wrote that this case involves the "asserted liability
of a negligence manufacturer to a plaintiff for injuries arising
as a result of the plaintiff's exposure to a harmful substance
through contact with the manufacturer's employee away from the
manufacturer's premises."  He added that individuals still have a
duty to use ordinary care for their own safety and must use
reasonable care in certain circumstances.

The appeals court used the Rowland decision to analyze this take-
home asbestos case, saying a number of factors must be considered:

- The foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff;

- A degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury;

- The closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct
   and the injury suffered;

- The moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct;

- The policy of preventing future harm;

- The extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to
   the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with
   resulting liability for breach; and

- The availability, cost and the prevalence of insurance for the
   risk involved.

Judge Pollak noted that considering the Rowland factors as they
relate to negligence claims does not lead to the conclusion that
employers responsible for asbestos-exposures, failing to warn of
asbestos dangers or failure to provide protective measures are not
responsible to any nonemployee foreseeably affected by the
asbestos exposure.

The appeals court made it clear that finding a duty to warn is not
the same thing as a finding of negligence.

However, he added that contrary to its stance on negligence
claims, the Rowland decision applies differently on duty-to-warn
claims.  The court found that the first three Rowland factors
relate to and support extension of an employer's duty to warn
beyond its employees.

"As a general matter, harm to others resulting from secondary
exposure to asbestos dust is not unpredictable," Judge Pollak
wrote.  "The harm to third parties that can arise from a lack of
precautions to control friable asbestos that may accumulate on
employees' work clothing is generally foreseeable."

The fourth Rowland factor, relating to moral blame, also typically
supports extension of an employer's duty to warn, he added.

"Assuming, as we must, the truth of Kesner's allegation that Abex
was aware of the risks to those exposed directly or indirectly to
the asbestos dust generated in its facility and took no steps to
avoid those risks, certainly such indifference would be morally
blameworthy," he wrote.

The Rowland decision also addresses prevention of future harm for
other potential asbestos victims.

The appeals court notes that holding an employer responsible for
avoiding injuries to employees' families who may foreseeably be
harmed by take-home asbestos exposures can help prevent harm to
others in the future.

The next Rowland factor -- the extent of the burden to the
defendant and the consequences to the community if the court
imposes too broad a duty -- has led the court to limit the reach
of liability in the past.  The appeals court recognizes that
stretching liability too far can become unreasonable and
burdensome.

"It would be an entirely unreasonably burden on all human activity
if the defendant who has endangered one man were to be compelled
to pay for the lacerated feelings of every other person disturbed
by reason of it, including every bystander shocked at an accident,
and every distant relative of the person injured, as well as his
friends," the opinion states.

As a result, the courts determined a limit was needed on whom the
duty of reasonably care extends.  Because Mr. Kesner spent so much
time near his uncle, the court held that it was reasonable to
extend duty to the plaintiff.

As for the last Rowland factor, previous courts held that the
threat of unlimited liability "could restrict the ability of
employees to obtain insurance, while individuals may obtain
insurance covering medical expenses incurred as a result of
illness arising from toxic exposure."

However, the appeals court made it clear that there is no reason
to believe that manufacturers cannot obtain insurance coverage to
protect against their duty to warn liability.  Analyzing each of
the Rowland factors, the appeals court concluded that Abex still
held duty-to-warn liability, noting that foreseeability of harm is
the most significant factor to consider.

He added that there is a high level of foreseeability of harm from
take-home asbestos exposure, especially when Mr. Kesner's contact
with his uncle's dusty work clothing was not incidental.

The weight of the foreseeability factor is strengthened, Judge
Pollak explained, when the moral blame factor is also attributable
to Abex allegedly disregarding a known risk to others and the need
to prevent future harm.

"In weighing these competing considerations, the balance falls far
short of terminating liability at the door of the employer's
premises," Judge Pollak wrote.

Judge Pollak explained that extending Abex's duty of care to
Mr. Kesner does not threaten employers with potential liability
for "intangible injuries" that could be alleged by an unlimited
number of claimants, because mesothelioma claims cannot be claimed
by everyone.

Judge Pollak stated that the court reached its conclusion that
Abex's duty of care extended to Mr. Kesner on the assumption that
Kesner was a long-term guest in his uncle's home and had extensive
contact with his uncle's dusty work clothing.

However, the appeals court said it makes no opinion for cases
other than the one on hand, as there are factual questions needed
for future determination

"As to such persons, the foreseeability of harm is substantial.
As to persons whose contact with an employer's worker is only
casual or incidental, the foreseeability of harm and the closeness
of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the
plaintiff's injury may be so minimal as to produce a different
balance of the Rowland factors," he wrote.  "We hold that there is
a duty under the circumstances alleged in the present case, but we
do not address other circumstances that are not before us."


POM WONDERFUL: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Juice Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Legal Times, reports that another juice
maker is under fire for making misleading claims on its product
labels, a well-timed attack that coincides with the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision on June 12 giving POM Wonderful LLC the go-ahead
to sue competitor Coca-Cola Co. over deceptive juice labels.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest on June 12 sent a
letter to Campbell Soup Co. threatening to sue the company for
making misleading claims about the juice content, nutritional
value and overall healthfulness its V8 Splash and V8 V-Fusion
Refreshers beverages.

The juice labels prominently depict fruits and vegetables, but the
products "contain mostly water along with artificial food dyes,
high fructose corn syrup (or potentially harmful artificial
sweeteners sucralose and acesulfame potassium in the diet variety)
and only 5 percent to 10 percent juice," the center's litigation
director, Stephen Gardner, wrote in the letter to Campbell chief
executive officer Denise Morrison.

The center faulted Campbell for packaging the drinks to look
"almost graphically identical" to Original V8 juice, which is 100
percent vegetable juice, as well as its V-Fusion juice, which also
contains 100 percent vegetable and fruit juices.

"Campbell's motivation is that water, high-fructose corn syrup,
and artificial sweeteners are cheaper to bottle than 100 percent
juice made from tomatoes, carrots, strawberries, kiwis, and so
on," Mr. Gardner said in a news release.  The products are
"designed to be convincing simulations of the real thing.  It's an
elaborate con designed to extract money from consumers who will
likely think they're getting something else."

Campbell spokesman Tom Hushen in an email said the company is
still reviewing the letter.  "We label all of our products in
compliance with all laws and government regulations," he wrote.
"All of the information that consumers need about the nutrition
provided in a bottle of V8 V-Fusion Refreshers and V8 Splash is
clearly provided on the label."

The center also said Campbell falsely claims that that its V-
Fusion line has "no added sugar," alleging that the V8 V-Fusion
Refreshers do in fact contain sugar.  Further, the center
criticized Campbell for adding vitamins to the Splash products,
alleging that doing so violates the FDA's fortification rule,
which bars the addition of nutrients to nutritionally void or
harmful beverages.  "Absent improper fortification of V8 Splash
products, Campbell could not represent the sugary juice drinks as
nutritious, vitamin-rich products," Mr. Gardner wrote.

He invited the company to "resolve these instances of illegal and
deceptive marketing in order to avoid further legal action."

The threat was issued as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 8-0, that
POM Wonderful could sue Coca-Cola over the use of the words
"Pomegranate Blueberry" on a Minute Maid label. POM argued this
misleads consumers into believing that the product consists
primarily of pomegranate and blueberry juices. In fact, the juice
consists mainly of apple and grape juice (99.4 percent) blended
with 0.3 percent pomegranate juice and 0.2 percent blueberry
juice.


PRIMARY FINANCIAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pearl Ehrnfeld, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Primary Financial Services, LLC, as assignee
of Pentagroup Financial, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03749 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 15, 2014), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


SCHNUCKS BAKERY: Issues Voluntary Recall of Devil's Food Cakes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bryant, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
Schnucks Bakery issued a voluntary recall of its devil's food
cakes decorated with pecans.

The recall involves the pecans.  Schnucks says that anyone with a
pecan allergy who ate the affected product may be at risk of a
serious reaction.

A company review of the ingredient label showed that even though
the pecans are visible on top of the cake -- and not baked inside
-- the known allergen was not disclosed on the label, Schnucks
says.  The cakes were sold at all Schnucks supermarkets in
Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Iowa.

Here is some product information:

-- Schnucks Bakery 8" Devil's Food Cake

UPC: 04131831186

-- Schnucks Bakery 1/2 Devil's Food Cake

UPC: 04131831078

Schnucks says it has no reports of illnesses associated with this
recall.  Customers concerned about a possible allergic reaction
should contact their physicians.

Customers may return the specified product to their nearest
Schnucks store for a refund.  Consumers with questions may call
the Schnucks Consumer Affairs department at 314-994-4400 or
800-264-4400.


SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: "Smith" Suit Moved From Wyoming to Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Smith v. Scientific
Drilling International Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00017, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Wyoming to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Houston).  The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:14-cv-01685 to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Gurney D. Smith alleges that the Company has a policy or
practice of failing to properly compensate him and other similarly
situated employees for all overtime hours worked.

Scientific Drilling International Inc. is incorporated in Texas
and headquartered in Houston, Texas.  The Company is an
independent service provider of drilling and navigation services
to the oil and gas, mining and geothermal industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen L. Simonton, Esq.
          STEPHEN L. SIMONTON, P.C.
          1222 - 11th Street
          Cody, WY 82414
          Telephone: (307) 587-7010
          Facsimile: (307) 587-2746
          E-mail: office@simontonlaw.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
          BERGER AND MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  akoropey@bm.net

               - and -

          David A. Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 344-6690
          Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
          E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com

               - and -

          James A. Jones, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          E-mail: jjones@brucknerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bradley T. Cave, Esq.
          Brynn A. Hvidston, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 450
          PO Box 1347
          Cheyenne, WY 82003-1347
          Telephone: (307) 778-4203
          Facsimile: (307) 778-8175
          E-mail: bcave@hollandhart.com
                  bahvidston@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          Marlene C. Williams, Esq.
          Michael J. Woodson, Esq.
          Scott Robert McLaughlin, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
          1401 McKinney, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-4571
          Facsimile: (713) 308-4171
          E-mail: mcwilliams@jw.com
                  mwoodson@jw.com
                  smclaughlin@jw.com


SHRED-IT USA: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kirchner, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Shred-It USA, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01437-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal., June 16, 2014), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Suit Challenges Use of Automatic Dialing System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Grugnale, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-12534-LTS (D. Mass., June 16, 2014), challenges the
Company's alleged standardized practice of calling cellular
telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system or a
prerecorded voice without obtaining the subscriber's prior express
consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company.  SLS is wholly-owned by Specialized Loan Servicing
Holdings, LLC, a company whose ultimate parent is Computershare
Limited, a publicly traded company on the Australian stock
exchange.  A third party residential mortgage servicer, SLS has
offices in Colorado, Georgia, and Arizona, and is licensed in all
50 states and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
          John Roddy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          125 Summer Street, Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
          E-mail: Eryan@baileyglasser.com
                  Jroddy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
          LEONARD LAW OFFICE, PC
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 329-1295
          E-mail: Pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com


SOURCE REFRIGERATION: Refused to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Hamer, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Source Refrigeration & HVAC, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00570 (W.D. Tex., June 17, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
required or permitted the Plaintiff to work more than 40 hours in
a workweek, but refused to compensate him for those hours at the
overtime rate required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Source Refrigeration & HVAC, Inc. is a foreign for-profit
corporation.  The Defendant is a service provider of refrigeration
and HVAC systems for various customers throughout the United
States.  The Defendant contracts with companies, like grocery
stores, to provide repair and maintenance to their refrigeration
units used to store food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com


SWT ARIZONA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Newton v. SWT Arizona Investments, LLC; Tanweer Ahmed and
Jane Doe Ahmed, husband and wife; David Wehrman and Jane Doe
Wehrman, husband and wife; ADS Foods, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01330-
GMS (D. Ariz., June 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for their alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in direct
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SWT Arizona Investments, LLC, is Texas entity, doing business in
Maricopa County, Arizona.  The Individual Defendants are owners or
officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          John L. Collins, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  johnc@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


TARSADIA HOTELS: Ruling in "Royalty Alliance" Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
Royalty Alliance, Inc., Jane and Mike Bannister, Robert LeBorne
and Louie and Rosemarie Linzaga (collectively plaintiffs) appealed
the judgment entered after the court granted three summary
adjudication motions of defendants and respondents Tarsadia Hotels
(Tarsadia), 5th Rock, LLC (5th Rock), MKP One, LLC, Tushar Patel,
B.U. Patel, and Gregory Casserly (collectively defendants).
Plaintiffs separately appeal the order of the court awarding
defendants attorney fees and costs.

Plaintiffs were purchasers of condominiums in the Hard Rock Hotel
San Diego, a condominium/hotel project (hotel). Defendant 5th Rock
was the developer and seller of the condominium units (units), and
Tarsadia was the hotel operator. Under the governing Purchase
Contract and Escrow Instructions for Hard Rock Hotel &
Condominiums (purchase contract), 5th Rock retained plaintiffs'
purchase deposits after none of the plaintiffs closed escrow on
the purchase of their units. Plaintiffs in response brought a
class action lawsuit against defendants. The operative complaint
asserted securities and fraud claims, a claim pursuant to Business
and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and claims for money
had and received and invalid forfeiture based on defendants'
retention of plaintiffs' purchase deposits.

After several continuances, the court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion for summary adjudication based on
statute of limitation grounds, finding the first, second, third,
fourth and sixth claims were time-barred; as to the fifth cause of
action for violation of the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. &
Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.; hereafter the UCL claim), the
court found plaintiffs presented no evidence of alleged predicate
bad acts; and finally as to the seventh claim for invalid
forfeiture, it found the liquidated damages clause in the purchase
contract was valid and enforceable.

In an opinion dated May 29, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/QTdyTMfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division One independently concluded
that the court properly granted the motions for summary
adjudication in favor of defendants and that the court properly
exercised its discretion in awarding defendants their reasonable
attorney fees and costs.

Accordingly, the Calif. Appeals Court affirmed the judgment in
favor of defendants based on the trial court's grant of their
summary adjudication motions and the order awarding them attorney
fees and costs. The defendants are awarded their costs of appeal.

The case is ROYALTY ALLIANCE, INC. et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. TARSADIA HOTELS et al., Defendants and Respondents,
NOS. D062537 & D063402.

Aguirre, Morris & Severson, Michael J. Aguirre --
maguirre@amslawyers.com -- Christopher S. Morris --
cmorris@amslawyers.com -- and Maria C. Severson --
mseverson@amslawyers.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Frederick H. Kranz --
rkranz@coxcastle.com -- and Lynn T. Galuppo --
lgaluppo@coxcastle.com -- for Defendants and Respondents.


TRIANGLE AUTO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Car Salesman Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Schultz and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Triangle Auto Center, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Hollywood,
Case No. 0:14-cv-61378-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2014), alleges
that the Plaintiff worked an average of 65 hours a week as a car
salesman for the Defendant but was not paid any overtime wages
whatsoever.

Triangle Auto Center, Inc., doing business as Toyota of Hollywood,
is a business that regularly transacts business within Broward
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Markel, Esq.
          THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
          3191 Grand Avenue #1531
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 458-1282
          Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
          E-mail: David.Markel@markel-law.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Sued for Denying Mental Health Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that United
Healthcare is being sued by customers who allege it denied claims
for mental health and substance abuse-related health benefits and
violated the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of
2008.

United Healthcare and United Behavioral Health "systematically and
improperly" denied mental health and substance abuse-related
insurance benefit claims based on internal policies and practices
that violated health insurance plans and the federal parity act,
it is alleged.

The defendants' "unlawful motives are clear -- to save the often
high costs associated with the treatment of chronic conditions,"
according to a complaint filed May 21 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

David Wit, his daughter Natasha Wit and Brian Muir have insurance
policies with the defendants and claim they have been denied
coverage for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which governs health
plans administered by United Healthcare.

The plaintiffs claim United Healthcare routinely violated plan
terms covering mental health benefits by adjudicating claims
"based on internal practices and policies that are much more
restrictive than those generally accepted by the mental health
community."

United Healthcare also violated the federal parity act by imposing
"disparate and more restrictive internal policies and practices"
to claims for mental health and substance abuse benefits,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim United Healthcare's internal policies
effectively provided that coverage would be denied for residential
treatment if a lower level of treatment would be safe, regardless
of whether it would be similarly effective.

The defendant's guidelines condition coverage for residential
mental health treatment on "acute changes" in claimants'
circumstances and do not provide for any consideration of
chronically severe impairments that similarly warrant residential
care, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants' restrictive guidelines
discriminate against patients with mental illness because they are
not imposed upon patients seeking coverage for medical or surgical
benefits.

"United issues and administers many other fully-insured health
insurance plans that define covered mental health services in the
same way as the Wits' Plan," the complaint states.  "The policies,
practices and decisions that United made with respect to the
claims filed by the Wits are the same as those that have been
applied by United to other similarly situated insureds seeking
mental benefits under their fully-insured health plans."

United also serves as the claims administrator for many other
self-insured health plans that define covered substance abuse
services in the same way as Muir's Plan, according to the suit.

"The policies, practices and decisions that United made with
respect to the claims filed by Muir are the same as those that
have been applied by United to other similarly situated insureds
seeking substance use benefits under their self-insured health
plans," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification and an order for
United to recalculate and issue unpaid benefits to members of
classes whose claims were underpaid or denied as a result of
United's actions.  They are being represented by Meiram Bendat of
Psych-Appeal Inc.; D. Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com --
and Jason S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- of Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP; and Anthony F. Maul -- afmaul@maulfirm.com -- of the
Maul Firm PC.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 3:14-cv-02346


US BANK: Homeowner Class Certified in Force-Placed Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge has certified a broad class of homeowners to
challenge U.S. Bank's practice of force-placing insurance through
its vendor, American Security Insurance Co.

The June 13, 2014 order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler
certifies multistate classes of borrowers spanning 40 different
states to pursue breach of mortgage agreement claims, and classes
of borrowers in California and New Mexico to pursue claims of
unjust enrichment, unfair business, practices, and bad faith.

Stephen Ellsworth is the lead plaintiff in the class action
alleging that U.S. Bank received kickbacks for having clients
purchase force-placed flood insurance from American Security
Insurance Co. (ASIC).

U.S. Bank allegedly purchased flood insurance coverage that was
significantly backdated and then charged borrowers for expired
coverage, even when there was no damage to the borrowers' property
during the backdated coverage period.

Additionally, Ellsworth claims that the coverage predated any
notice that their coverage had lapsed or was deficient.

The collusive scheme allegedly brought U.S. Bank and ASIC extra
income, while borrowers paid grossly inflated amounts for flood
insurance coverage that provided them little to no benefit.

Among the three multistate classes Beeler certified, the lender-
placed class and qualified-expense-reimbursements (QER) class
challenge the alleged kickbacks U.S. Bank received.  The third
class challenges the alleged backdating.

Each class also has two subclasses, one for states with contract
laws similar to California's contract law and one for states with
contract laws similar to New Mexico's contract law.

Separate classes were also certified for the noncontract state-law
claims under California and New Mexico law based on the same three
theories.  These classes have limitations that exclude borrowers
whose force-placed flood insurance charges were refunded or
extinguished through bankruptcy, foreclosure or any other means.

Beeler found that commonality exists in the classes, as the
homeowners allege that they had identical form contracts, the
policies were applied uniformly, and form notices were sent about
the force-placed insurance and the charges.

Furthermore, they "allege a common scheme to force place insurance
on borrowers in a way designed to increase kickbacks to U.S. Bank
from a captive insurance provider (ASIC) in the form of QERs or
discounted tracking services, and to maximize costs collected from
borrowers by force-placing LPFI policies that were backdated more
than 60 days," the 56-page ruling states.

Beeler also pointed out that the "challenged practices are the
same, the insurer ASIC is the same, and the legal issues generally
are the same: were the practices lawful under the standard
mortgage contract or under state laws regarding the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, or
unfair competition."

Purported variations in state laws do not preclude certification
of the multistate classes, as the contract laws of the various
states are capable of being organized into groups with similar
legal regimes, according to the ruling.

The multistate breach-of-contract claim will advance as well,
Beeler said, finding that the named plaintiffs have standing to
assert the claim based on an identical form contract on behalf of
class members in states with similar contract laws.

Though U.S. Bank highlighted a recent amendment to the National
Flood Insurance Act clarifying that borrowers can be charged for
backdated coverage, Beeler refused to grant it judgment on the
pleadings regarding the backdating claims.

The amendment is ambiguous as to whether insurance can be force-
placed back to the beginning of a 45-day notice period, and in
this case, the homeowners limit their backdating claims to
insurance force-placed retroactively 61 days or more after notice,
according to the ruling.

The court cannot rule as a matter of law "that the amendment
manifests Congress's intent to provide blanket permission to
backdate insurance, no matter how far outside the 45-day notice
period," Beeler wrote.

In response to the ruling, class counsel Kai Richter with Nicholas
Kaster, said, "We are pleased with the court's decision, which
allows thousands of U.S. Bank borrowers to have their claims
heard.  We look forward to representing the classes."

The case is Stephen Ellsworth, Marilyn Weaver, and Lawrence and
Donene Skelley, individually and as representatives of the classes
and on behalf of the general public v. U.S. Bank, N.A., and
American Security Insurance Company, Case No. C 12-02506 LB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco Division.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Sanctions Denial in Text Messaging MDL Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation known as In re Text
Messaging Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1997, appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the
memorandum opinion and order entered by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois:

    (i) denying the Plaintiffs' motion for an adverse inference
        jury instruction and sanctions for spoliation of
        evidence; and

   (ii) granting summary judgment to the Defendants (entered on
        May 19, 2014), and the resulting Judgment entered on
        May 19, 2014.

The Plaintiffs filed the underlying litigation on behalf of all
those who purchased text-messaging services on a fee-per-text-
message basis directly from four of the five Defendants: AT&T
Mobility L.L.C., Sprint Nextel Corporation, T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
and Verizon Wireless.  The Plaintiffs allege that these national
wireless communications service providers, along with Defendant
CTIA-The Wireless Association, entered into and implemented a
continuing contract, combination, and conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize prices for Text Messaging Services sold in
the United States in violation of the Sherman Act.

In their motion for sanctions, the Plaintiffs contend that certain
Defendants engaged in spoliation of evidence, and the Plaintiffs
moved for sanctions and an adverse inference.

On May 19, 2014, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for an adverse inference and sanctions and granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.  A judgment in favor of the
Defendants was subsequently entered.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are Aircraft Check Services Company,
Nicholas Iltsopoulos, David Keefer, Jim Morris, Premiere
Investment Consulting and Melissa Leigh Randolph.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Randi D. Bandman, Esq.
          Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
          Lonnie A. Browne, 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: patc@rgrdlaw.com
                  davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  randib@rgrdlaw.com
                  sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com
                  lbrowne@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Fred Isquith, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com

               - and -

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: MMiller@MillerLawLLC.com
                  LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com

               - and -

          Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARY JANE FAIT
          115 S. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (847) 922-6729
          E-mail: maryjane15@me.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4677

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Becnel, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Drawer H
          106 West Seventh Street
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (985) 536-1186
          Facsimile: (985) 536-6445
          E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW, LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Bryan Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          1717 Arch Street, 36th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          FOOTE, MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
          28 North First Street, Suite 2
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 232-6333
          Facsimile: (630) 845-8982

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Michelle L. Kranz, Esq.
          ZOLL, KRANZ & BORGESS, LLC
          6620 West Central Avenue, Suite 100
          Toledo, OH 43617
          Telephone: (419) 841-9623
          Facsimile: (419) 841-9719

               - and -

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Verizon Wireless is represented by:

          Dan K. Webb, Esq.
          Christopher B. Essig, Esq.
          Dana E. Schaffner, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Maurer, Esq.
          John W. Christopher, Esq.
          Thomas James Frederick, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          E-mail: dwebb@winston.com
                  cessig@winston.com
                  dschaffner@winston.com
                  jmaurer@winston.com
                  JChristopher@winston.com
                  tfrederick@winston.com

               - and -

          Charles Bennett Molster, III, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 282-5988
          Facsimile: (202) 282-5100
          E-mail: cmolster@winston.com

               - and -

          Aaron Martin Panner, Esq.
          KELLOGG HUBER HANSEN TODD EVANS & FIGEL
          1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7921
          Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
          E-mail: apanner@khhte.com

Defendant-Appellee T-Mobile USA, Inc., is represented by:

          Charles H. R. Peters, Esq.
          Lawrence Harris Heftman, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 258-5500
          E-mail: cpeters@schiffhardin.com
                  lheftman@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Christopher B. Hockett, Esq.
          Stephanie E. L. McCleery, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 752-2009
          E-mail: chris.hockett@dpw.com
                  stephanie.lockwood@dpw.com

               - and -

          Micah G. Block, Esq.
          Sandra W. Neukom, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          1600 El Camino Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 752-2023
          E-mail: micah.block@davispolk.com
                  sandra.west@davispolk.com

Defendant-Appellee Sprint Nextel Corporation is represented by:

          Dane H. Butswinkas, Esq.
          Jason T. Wright, Esq.
          John E. Schmidtlein, Esq.
          Megan Anne Siddall, Esq.
          R. Hackney Wiegmann, Esq.
          Sarah F. Teich, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5110
          E-mail: DButswinkas@wc.com
                  JTWright@wc.com
                  JSchmidtlein@wc.com
                  msiddall@wc.com
                  HWiegmann@wc.com
                  steich@wc.com

               - and -

          Frederic R. Klein, Esq.
          GOLDBERG KOHN LTD.
          Mid-Continental Plaza
          55 East Monroe Street #3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-4000
          E-mail: frederic.klein@goldbergkohn.com

Defendant-Appellee AT&T Mobility L.L.C. is represented by:

          Brian A. McAleenan, Esq.
          John W. Treece, Esq.
          Linton Jeffries Childs, Esq.
          Veena K. Gursahani, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: bmcaleenan@sidley.com
                  jtreece@sidley.com
                  lchilds@sidley.com
                  vgursahani@sidley.com

               - and -

          Marc W.F. Galonsky, Esq.
          BELLSOUTH CORPORATION
          1155 Peachtree St., N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3610
          Telephone: (404) 249-2458
          E-mail: marc.galonsky@att.com

Defendant-Appellee CTIA - The Wireless Association is represented
by:

          Julia D. Riedel Emfinger, Esq.
          Lucia Lynn Marker-Moore, Esq.
          Ruth A. Bahe-Jachna, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456-8400
          E-mail: emfingerj@gtlaw.com
                  markermoorel@gtlaw.com
                  baher@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. McNeely, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. MCNEELY
          2748 Stephenson Ln., NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 966-0428
          E-mail: mikemcneely@mac.com

The appellate case is Aircraft Check Services Company, et al. v.
Verizon Wireless, et al., Case No. 14-2301, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


ZUMIEZ INC: Calif. Court Approves Deal in "Steele" Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco granted primary approval to a $1.3 million settlement
reached in the labor suit Steele v. Zumiez Inc., according to the
company's May 28, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

On February 15, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Robert
Steele v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of a class
of all persons who are employed, or who have worked as, assistant
store managers for the Company in the State of California from
February 15, 2009 through the date of certification of the class
in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges causes of action for failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages for work done off-the-
clock, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks (and to pay
meal and rest period premiums), failure to pay terminated
employees all wages due at the time of termination, failure to
provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, failure
to reimburse employees for business expenses and unfair business
practices and declaratory relief. The Court has not set a date for
a hearing on class certification and has not set a trial date. A
second putative class action lawsuit, Ruben Hernandez v. Zumiez
Inc., was filed on September 3, 2013, alleging overlapping causes
of action. On or about October 22, 2013, the class action
allegations for the Hernandez case were dismissed without
prejudice. On November 12, 2013, the parties in the Steele case
agreed to a conditional settlement in the amount of $1.3 million
which is contingent upon the preliminary and final approval of the
Court (the "Conditional Settlement"). The parties have negotiated
and executed a formal settlement agreement that is subject to the
Court's approval. A motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was held on May 22, 2014 and was granted by the Court.
The settlement was recorded in selling, general and administrative
expenses on the condensed consolidated statements of income for
the fiscal year ended February 1, 2014.


* Firms Can No Longer Claim Safe Harbor in False Labeling Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
food and beverage companies and others would be wise to take a
long, hard look at their product labels in light of a U.S. Supreme
Court decision clearing the way for competitors to allege those
labels are false or misleading.

"As a marketing lawyer, it's a really significant decision for the
industry," said Linda Goldstein, chairwoman of the advertising,
marketing & media division at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.  "All
marketers now will have to take a much closer look at the claims
they make and perhaps didn't look at through the same lens [as the
Supreme Court].  It will certainly cause a greater degree of due
diligence of their packaging and labeling claims."

The unanimous ruling on June 12 in POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola is
unlikely to trigger a tidal wave of lawsuits under the Lanham Act,
according to legal experts.  The federal law allows a business
allegedly injured by a competitor's false or misleading
advertising of its products to bring a civil lawsuit.  Litigation
will increase, the experts predicted, because companies can no
longer claim a safe harbor from those suits simply because the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized their labels.

And the same approach used by the high court to resolve the legal
battle between POM Wonderful LLC and The Coca-Cola Co. over Coke's
pomegranate blueberry juice label could apply in other industries
in which a federal agency regulates advertising.

"I think there's a reasonable argument the same logic in this
decision could apply in some other spheres -- pharmaceuticals,
alcoholic beverages," said Paul Llewellyn, co-leader of Kaye
Scholer's trademark, copyright and false-advertising group.  "This
is a template.  This will guide decisions in those areas."
Brett Heavner, partner in Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
Dunner, agreed, adding, "There are a lot of other agencies in the
federal government that have a say in the advertising in
industries they regulate -- the FDIC and how banks advertise
services; the FCC in the telecommunications industry.

"To the extent someone was going to try to make a similar argument
to Coca-Cola's -- that their advertising was insulated from these
claims because of federal regulations -- I think they will have a
harder time," he said.

POM sued Coca-Cola under the Lanham Act in 2008.  POM claimed that
Coke's use of the words "Pomegranate Blueberry" on its label
misleads consumers into believing that the product consists
primarily of pomegranate and blueberry juices.  In fact, the drink
consists mainly of apple and grape juice (99.4 percent) blended
with 0.3 percent pomegranate juice and 0.2 percent blueberry
juice.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with Coke,
holding that Coke's label complied with regulations under the
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as amended by the Nutrition
Labeling and Education Act, and that the agency authorization of
the label preempted the Lanham Act claims.

In April arguments before the justices, Coke's counsel, Kathleen
Sullivan of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, argued that the two
federal laws -- the FDCA and the Lanham Act -- were in conflict
and the food law should prevail.

"Just to be clear, what Congress wanted was national uniformity so
that a manufacturer could print one label and sell in the 50
states and not have its juice legal when you leave on the flight
in California and illegal when you land in D.C.," she argued.

But POM's counsel, Seth Waxman of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr, insisted there was no conflict.  "Here, Congress has never
precluded or conditioned enforcement of the Lanham Act in food-
labeling cases.  And it is entirely possible -- in fact, entirely
easy -- for Coke to comply with both statutory obligations,"
Waxman said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for an 8-0 court (Justice Stephen
Breyer did not participate), rejected all of Coke's arguments as
well as the Obama administration's argument that a Lanham Act
claim was precluded to the extent the FDCA or FDA regulations
specifically require or authorize the challenged aspects of the
label.

"The Lanham Act and the FDCA complement each other in major
respects, for each has its own scope and purpose," Justice Kennedy
wrote. "Although both statutes touch on food and beverage
labeling, the Lanham Act protects commercial interests against
unfair competition, while the FDCA protects public health and
safety."

Justice Kennedy said nothing in the text, history or structure of
the FDCA or the Lanham Act showed that Congress intended to forbid
Lanham Act suits.  In fact, he said, the two laws have co-existed
for 70 years and Congress never acted to bar Lanham Act suits in
this context.  He also rejected the government's "middle ground"
argument that Lanham Act suits are barred when the FCDA or FDA
regulations specifically authorize the challenged aspects of a
label.  The government, he said, wrongly assumed that those FDA
regulations are a ceiling.

That part of the decision is the most important, said Harold
Weinberger, head of the advertising group at Kramer Levin Naftalis
& Frankel.  "Just because the FDA says you can do it doesn't mean
a competitor can't come in and show it's misleading."

David Ter Molen, a partner in the food industry team at Chicago's
Freeborn & Peters, agreed.  "Before, food companies effectively
had a safe harbor.  But the ruling said FDA regulations are not a
ceiling, but effectively a floor.  Now there is a risk a Lanham
Act claim could be brought against that type of label.  The risk
is something greater than zero. What that number is going to be
depends on what the product is."

The justices did not specifically address what happens with such
claims are brought by consumers in state-law consumer fraud class
actions, which "are proliferating like rabbits," Mr. Weinberger
said.

Manatt Phelps' Goldstein said, "Class action litigation has been
heavily targeted at the food and beverage industry.  By the court
leaving that issue open, the industry hasn't achieved the stopgap
to the proliferation of class actions had there been a broad
favorable ruling in favor of Coke."

POM now has the opportunity to prove that Coke's label is
misleading.


* Defendants Must Step Up Fight in Data Breach Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
plaintiffs are increasingly winning in the earlier stages of data
breach litigation and defendants may be helping set unrealistic
settlement figures out of a fear of going through discovery,
attorneys on both sides of the issue said on June 12.

"Instead of thinking of ways to make [the plaintiffs lawyer's]
life more difficult and fight class certification, people are
settling," said Baker & Hostetler data privacy lawyer Theodore J.
Kobus III -- tkobus@bakerlaw.com

Mr. Kobus was speaking on a panel to a Philadelphia ballroom full
of cybersecurity professionals attending NetDiligence's annual
Cyber Risk and Privacy Liability Forum.

"Are we going to stand up and challenge them on class
certification and summary judgment?" asked Ronald I. Raether Jr.
-- rraether@ficlaw.com -- a partner at Dayton, Ohio-based Faruki
Ireland & Cox.

Chandler Givens of Edelson P.C. was the lone plaintiffs lawyer on
the panel -- and the subject of a lot of lighthearted ridicule
from the other panelists.  But he may be getting the last laugh as
courts across the country, regardless of state politics or which
administration appointed the judge, are increasingly demonstrating
what Mr. Raether described as a lack of patience with companies'
handling of data.  Mr. Raether said judges are willing to make
"legally obtuse" arguments to "fit a square peg into a round
hole."

From Mr. Givens' perspective, courts are beginning to realize the
impact that data breaches have on those affected.  So when a
proposed class of plaintiffs say their data was breached, but they
have yet to suffer harm, judges are increasingly finding that
those plaintiffs still have standing to sue.

"Now the standing issue is becoming a hurdle that we're able to
surmount," Mr. Givens said.

And while most defendants look to settle before discovery,
Mr. Givens said some are pressing forward.  And the judges who are
hearing arguments over class certification are starting to approve
the class, he said.  But for plaintiffs lawyers, it's all about
adapting.  Mr. Givens likened plaintiffs data-breach litigation to
Pac-Man -- when the ghost comes, you run the other way.

"There is always going to be a way to plead your case based on
what is happening in other circuits and we're going to find those
and latch onto them," Mr. Givens said.

Mr. Kobus said these cases don't have to be about fear.  He said
plaintiffs are "preying on" defendants' fear by using "outdated"
statutory damages claims.

The damages and settlement processes for data-breach class actions
are just starting to evolve, Mr. Givens said.  He noted one case
he settled involved a $1.2 million settlement for a class of
750,000 people while another case involving 20,000 potential class
members settled for $3.3 million.  Pricing is difficult,
particularly when actual harm hasn't occurred yet, Mr. Givens
said.  But courts have shown skepticism toward settlements that
consist only of credit monitoring, he said.

"You are essentially filing a lawsuit knowing you have a class
that doesn't have damages," said Robert Parisi, managing director
and national cyber-risk practice leader for insurance and risk
management company Marsh.

Mr. Parisi said data privacy laws in the United States focus more
on who to blame for spilling the milk rather than the laws around
the world that focus on stopping the milk from spilling.

Mr. Kobus said the price points for a data breach will be what the
various settlements bear out until defendants start pushing these
cases and doing discovery to uncover the true damages.

"We have to litigate and force them to prove damages," Mr. Raether
said.

Mr. Givens said any business that stores consumer or business data
is a potential target for a breach and a lawsuit.  He said he
included business data because he could see a class of merchants
suing over their data being breached.

Finding clients is "trivial these days," Mr. Givens said.

When a breach occurs, a state attorney general will typically put
a notice on the office's website or the breach will be mentioned
publicly in some fashion.  Plaintiffs lawyers then buy Google
AdWords so that an ad with an intake form to become part of the
class is posted near search results about a certain company's
breach.

Mr. Givens said it is important for companies to have a consistent
message between what it says in its breach notification letter,
what it tells the general public and what its lawyers are saying.
If one message says there were 50,000 people affected by the
breach and another says there were 20,000, Mr. Givens said he
could paint the picture for the court that the company doesn't
have a handle on its data.

The first thing plaintiffs lawyers ask for is the company's
written security policy and vendor management contracts.
"If you live by your policy, it's difficult for us to make a
case," Mr. Givens said.

Mr. Raether noted plaintiffs are arguing in some cases that it is
the company's own privacy policy that should be the standard to
which it is held against, but there are other standards too.  What
the judge will use becomes the question.

Robin Campbell -- rcampbell@crowell.com -- an attorney with
Crowell & Moring and founder of Click 4 Compliance, said the
biggest trend since the highly publicized Target data breach has
been on cleaning up vendor contracts and ensuring vendors are
going to pay if they are the cause of a company's breach.  It's an
area regulators are highly tuned into as well, Ms. Campbell said.

Mr. Kobus noted there is a lot more pushback from vendors now,
however, in an attempt to limit their liability.  Cyberinsurance
policies are also attempting to ensure vendors have the financial
wherewithal to assume that liability, he said.

Mr. Parisi said more people have data breaches than have
cyberinsurance.  He said companies are trying to fit the damages
of a data breach into the coverage of a commercial general
liability policy and insurers are fighting that hard.

Mr. Campbell said it is important not to mess up the breach
notice.  Companies don't want to look weak or like they are
admitting liability.  Mr. Kobus said words should be chosen
carefully.  Mr. Parisi and Ms. Campbell noted it's most important
to have strong standards in place before a breach and follow those
standards.  If companies do the right compliance upfront,
Ms. Campbell said, they can be more confident in negotiations.

Mr. Raether had a simple approach to managing data breaches:
"Don't piss people off."

While Mr. Givens may have made it seem easy to find clients, cases
that go the furthest have strong lead plaintiffs with actual
damages to show, Mr. Raether said.  A company may want to isolate
those affected by the data breach who were most deeply affected
and give them a remedy that makes them not want to pursue
litigation, Mr. Raether said.

While companies are currently battling large-scale class actions,
the trend may be moving toward smaller, state court cases or
individual cases, the attorneys said.

Mr. Raether said plaintiffs want to take on manageable cases and
the smaller, state cases are a good target.

Mr. Givens said he expects to see more cases based on the
representations made by defendants about their data security
policies and their failure to adhere to them.  Mr. Kobus said he
thinks single-plaintiff Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act cases will increase.

Mr. Parisi said he would play the devil's advocate and suggest
there may be less data breach litigation.  He said millennials
have a different take on privacy and what information is
available.  He said they may not want to sue over a data loss.

But Mr. Parisi noted litigation is only the tip of the iceberg for
companies that experienced a data breach.  There are business
interruption and reputational issues, to name a few.


* Discovery Rules in Lead Paint & Toxic Tort Suits Clarified
------------------------------------------------------------
John Caher, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
clarifying the rules of discovery in lead paint and toxic tort
cases, the Court of Appeals on June 12 held that plaintiffs do not
have to establish causation at the earliest litigation stages by
providing detailed medical records supporting each allegation of
harm.

In an opinion by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, the court said a
trial judge in Monroe County erred in requiring plaintiffs to
produce medical reports, prior to defense medical examinations,
establishing a professional diagnosis for each and every alleged
injury.

"To the extent that plaintiffs are arguing that the rule does not
obligate them to hire a medical provider to examine them and
create a report solely for purposes of the litigation, we agree,"
Judge Lippman wrote.  "Requiring a personal injury plaintiff to
hire a medical professional to draft a report purely to satisfy
[the statute] could make it prohibitively expensive for some
plaintiffs to bring legitimate personal injury suits."

The ruling resulted from two appeals out of Monroe County, where
Supreme Court Justice Matthew Rosenbaum had directed lead paint
plaintiffs to produce medical reports connecting their injuries to
lead.  Justice Rosenbaum had held that if the plaintiffs failed to
provide that information before the defense medical examinations,
they could not introduce any proof related to alleged injuries.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, upheld Justice
Rosenbaum in both cases, but the Court of Appeals agreed with a
dissenting justice, Gerald Whalen, saying the lower courts imposed
more of a burden than is required under 22 NYCRR 202.17.

Hamilton v. Miller, 113, and Giles v. Yi, 114, both stemmed from
personal injury actions brought by attorney Mo Athari, whose
practice in Utica concentrates on lead paint cases.

In both cases, Mr. Athari filed what the Court of Appeals
described as "boilerplate" bills of particulars alleging dozens of
injuries but without disclosing medical records substantiating
those injuries.  And in both cases, defense counsel convinced
Justice Rosenbaum to order the plaintiffs to document the alleged
injuries, under threat of preclusion.

The Fourth Department, in a memorandum, affirmed Justice
Rosenbaum, finding that the trial court properly exercised its
discretion and that "defendants should not be put to the time,
expense and effort" of conducing an independent medical
examination without reports linking the plaintiff's symptoms to
the defendants' alleged negligence.  It said the purpose of CPLR
3121(a) was to provide the defendant with a "competing assessment"
of the plaintiff's medical condition.

Justice Whalen, in a signed dissent, said the trial order imposed
"unduly burdensome obligations" on the plaintiff.  He said the
statute only requires disclosure of medical reports from providers
who have previously treated the plaintiff, and does not require
the plaintiff to retain an expert witness on causation prior to
the defense's medical examination.

Judge Lippman said the "dearth of medical evidence" in the
Hamilton and Giles cases suggests that neither of the plaintiffs
were treated for many of the injuries alleged in Mr. Athari's
complaints, raising a question of just what must be disclosed
under Rule 202.17.

"If plaintiff's medical reports do not contain the information
required by the rule, then plaintiffs must have the medical
providers draft reports setting forth that information," Judge
Lippman wrote.  "If that is not possible, plaintiffs must seek
relief from disclosure and explain why they cannot comply with the
rule."

Judges Victoria Graffeo, Susan Phillips Read, Eugene Pigott Jr.,
Jenny Rivera and Sheila Abdus-Salaam joined Judge Lippman.  Judge
Robert Smith dissented, adopting the reasoning in the Fourth
Department majority memorandum.

Mr. Athari argued the appeals for both Hamilton and Giles.
The respondents in Hamilton were represented by Thomas Reidy, a
partner at Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy in Rochester, and Stanley
Sliwa of Sliwa & Lane in Buffalo.

In Giles, the respondents were represented by Gary Abelson, a
partner at Hiscock & Barclay in Rochester, and William
Wingertzahn, formerly a partner at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman
& Dicker in White Plains.

Also on June 12, the court affirmed the Appellate Division, Second
Department, in a Long Island case involving the use of public
parkland for non-park purposes.  It held that the plaintiffs can
challenge the alleged violation of the public trust as long as the
violation endures, with no statute of limitations bar.

Capruso v. Village of Kings Point/ State of New York v. Village of
Kings Point, 102, is rooted in a dispute over parkland on the
Great Neck Peninsula.

Records show that the Village of Kings Point acquired 173 acres of
wooded land in the 1920s to create the Kings Point Park, which was
leased to the Great Neck Park District in 1938 with the
understanding that it would be maintained as a "natural and scenic
park."  In 1946, the lease was amended to exclude the western
corner because the village wanted to use that portion for a police
pistol range and to store highway materials.

The conflict centers on a proposal the village adopted in 2008 to
deforest the western corner and build a 12,000-square-foot public
works facility.

Neighbors objected, arguing that state legislative approval was
necessary before public parkland could be used for non-park
purposes; the state later brought its own action.  The village
argued that the consolidated claims were time-barred, but the
lower courts disagreed in an opinion affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.

"In sum, under the continuing wrong doctrine, plaintiffs are able
to challenge defendants' ongoing violation of the public trust
doctrine at any time while the violation lasts, without being
barred by the statute of limitations," Mr. Pigott wrote for the
unanimous court.

John Brickman, a partner at Ackerman, Levine, Cullen, Brickman &
Limmer in Great Neck, argued for the village.  Assistant Solicitor
General Bethany Davis Noll represented the state.  Reed Super of
the Super Law Group in Manhattan argued for the individual
plaintiffs.


                             *********

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.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, 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  * * *