CAR_Public/140630.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 30, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 128

                             Headlines


ABC CORP: Does Not Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, "Ji" Suit Says
ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeals Rulings in Suit v. American Commercial
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Bucio" Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Certification
AGILYSYS INC: Calif. Court Approves Settlement of Labor Lawsuit
ARUBA NETWORKS: Still Faces "Mazzafero" Shareholder Suit in Cal.

ALTENDORF HARVESTING: Sept. 22 Trial in Wage Class Action
BALCON QUITENO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
BELLISIO FOODS: Misbranding Leads to Chicken Pad Thai Items Recall
BRIDGEVIEW CUSTOM: "Muniz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CHINA CERAMICS: Sued Over Securities Exchange Act Violations

CHINA CERAMICS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in New York
CLEVELAND, OH: Settles Municipal Workers' Class Action for $2.2MM
CLS TRANS: Calif. High Court Supports Use of Arbitration Pact
COVISINT CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
DEARBORN SAUSAGE: Recalls Bacon Product Due to Misbranding

DELIAN 6 INC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
DILEO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Garcia-Gomez" Suit Says
DOCTOR'S BEST: Recalls Red Yeast Rice due to Undeclared Lovastatin
DOMEGA NY: Recalls Gong Xifacai Gift Chocolates Due to Peanuts
E G EMILS: Recalls Deli Ham Product Due to Foreign Matter

FINANCIAL WISDOM: Sued Over Inappropriate Investment Advice
FOREST OIL: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
FRUITLAND AMERICAN: Recalls Ribeye and Carcass Products
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Suits to Be Heard in N.Y. Court
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Testosterone Class Action in California

GENZYME CORP: Faces "Reich" Suit Over Cerezyme Drug
GLOW NETWORKS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Evins" Suit Says
GRAY RITTER: Riceland Foods' Case Remanded to Arkansas Court
HALLIBURTON CO: Can Rebut Presumptions Based on Misstatements
HEALTH MATTERS: Recalls Additional Sprouted Chia Seed

HERTZ GLOBAL: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Class Action
HOULIHAN SMITH: Obtains Final Approval of Accord in "Kaplan" Suit
ICM PARTNERS: Brings One of Ex-Interns to Arbitration
INTELLIGENT SPACES: Fails to Pay OT Pursuant to FLSA, Suit Says
INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE: Sued in S.D.N.Y. for FLSA Violations

J CREW GROUP: "Miller" Suit Over ZIP Codes Survives Dismissal Bid
JASEM RESTAURANT: Sued for Not Paying Minimum & Overtime Wages
JBI INC: Shareholder Suit Settlement Denied Prelim. Approval
JBI INC: Motion by Former Execs to Junk Shareholder Suit Pending
JMMT CAFE: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Damages

JOHNY UTAH: Faces "Sanz" Action Over Pervasive Sexual Harassment
K & W SAUSAGE: Recalls Sausage Products Containing Soy and Wheat
KEYSTONE FINANCIAL: Sued for Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
KMG GROUP: Faces "Perez" Suit for Failing to Pay Workers Overtime
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Velveeta Cheese Products

LA GROTTA: "Molina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs in Data Privacy Suit Down to Two
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Dismissal of SAIC Securities Suit Challenged
LIBERTY GLOBAL: Claimant in 2013 Suit v. OneLink Files New Suit
LOS ARCOS: Faces "Pliego" Suit Over Failure to Pay Employees OT

MAIDBRITE LLC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAMACITAS ON THE BAY: "Huerta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Does Not Pay Servers OT, Fla. Suit Says
MR WOK FOODS: Recalls Raw Pork Nugget Products Due to Misbranding
MV TRANSPORTATION: "Jordan" Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid OT Wages

NESTLE USA: Recalls Limited Amounts of Haagen-Dazs(R) Chocolate
NEW DIAMOND CAFE: "Cayetano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
NILES INDUSTRIAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Ind. Suit Says
NISI FOOD: "Zayas" Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid OT & Damages
NORDSTROM INC: 9th Cir. Remands "Davis" Suit to District Court

OREGON: Bid to Intervene in "Lane" Class Suit Denied
PEPSICO INC: Court Approves Stipulation Consolidating Cases
PETCO ANIMAL: Sued for Getting Customers' Zip Codes
PHEBUS PAINT: "Garcia" Suit in Ill. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
RICHARD'S RUBS: Recalls Sauces Because of Possible Health Risk

RNC INDUSTRIES: Faces "Valerio" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
RUDOLPH FOODS: Recalls 34 Lbs of Pork Products Due to Misbranding
SAFEWAY INC: Enters Into MoU to Settle Consolidated Class Action
SHIRE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Adderall XR Class Action
SPARK ENERGY: "Bank" Plaintiff Wins OK to File Class Cert. Bid

SRISUK INC: Faces "Bautista" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
SUTTER HEALTH: Court Dismisses Antitrust Suit in Calif.
UNITED STATES: EEOC Affirms Disabled People's Class Certification
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE: Accused of Gender Discrimination
VANEE FOODS: Recalls Turkey Base Product Due to Misbranding

VITA FOOD: Recalls Classic Premium Sliced Smoked Atlantic Salmon
WASHINGTON: State Appeals Court Upholds Dimissal of "Blick" Suit
WEI-CHUAN USA: Recalls Pork Mini Buns Products Due to Misbranding
WESTERN STONE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Penalties
WPX ENERGY: Emergency Motions to Vacate Class Cert Hearing Denied


                            *********


ABC CORP: Does Not Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, "Ji" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhonghua Ji, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Happy Family Chinese
Restaurant, John Yu, John Doe and Jane Doe #1-10, Case No. 1:14-
cv-04317 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay their employees, including Plaintiff,
compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

ABC Corp. d/b/a Happy Family Chinese Restaurant, is a restaurant
located at 500 W. 43rd St., New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003,
      Flushing, NY 11354,
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeals Rulings in Suit v. American Commercial
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated is appealing the decisions of a
California superior court with respect to the consolidated cases
of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security
Services, according to ABM's June 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2014.

The suit was filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.  The Augustus case is a certified
class action involving allegations that the company violated
certain state laws relating to rest breaks. On February 8, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest
break claim, which sought damages in the amount of $103.1 million,
and the company filed a motion for decertification of the class.

On July 6, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, heard plaintiffs' motion for damages on the rest break
claim and the company's motion to decertify the class. On July 31,
2012, the Superior Court denied the company's motion and entered
judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of approximately
$89.7 million. This $89.7 million is included in the range of loss
for all reasonably possible losses. The $89.7 million amount did
not include plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The company filed a
notice of appeal on August 29, 2012. The plaintiffs filed three
separate motions for attorneys' fees. One motion sought attorneys'
fees from the common fund. (The common fund refers to the
approximately $89.7 million judgment entered in favor of the
plaintiffs.) The other two motions sought attorneys' fees from the
company in an aggregate amount of approximately $12.4 million. On
October 12, 2012, the company filed oppositions to the two fee
motions seeking attorneys' fees from the company. On January 14,
2013, the Superior Court heard all three fee motions and it
granted plaintiffs' fee motion with respect to the common fund in
full. The Superior Court denied one fee motion in its entirety and
reduced the other fee motion to approximately $4.5 million. This
$4.5 million is included in the range of loss for all reasonably
possible losses. The company appealed the Superior Court's
rulings, and on April 30, 2013, the Court agreed to consolidate
the appeals. The company strongly disagrees with the decisions of
the Superior Court both with respect to the underlying case and
with respect to the award of attorneys' fees and costs. The
company firmly believes that it has complied with the applicable
law.


ABM INDUSTRIES: "Bucio" Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the denial of class certification to the
Consolidated Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial
Services, according to ABM Industries Incorporated's June 4, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

The suit was filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco.

The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations
that the company failed to track work time and provide breaks. On
April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing,
the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On
May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which
was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification
issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the
decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed
their appellate brief on the class certification issues. The
company filed its responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral
argument relating to the appeal has not been scheduled.


AGILYSYS INC: Calif. Court Approves Settlement of Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved a $1.5 million settlement of a labor lawsuit
against Agilysys, Inc., according to the company's June 4, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

On July 9, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging violations of federal and state
wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to
pay for missed meals and rest periods and failure to reimburse
business expenses.  On May 19 2014, the court approved a
settlement of the lawsuit pursuant to which the company paid a
gross settlement in the amount of approximately $1.5 million, and
the lawsuit was dismissed.


ARUBA NETWORKS: Still Faces "Mazzafero" Shareholder Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aruba Networks, Inc. continues to face a shareholder lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's June 4, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2014.

On May 23, 2013, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Mazzafero v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers. The
purported class action alleges claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.


ALTENDORF HARVESTING: Sept. 22 Trial in Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has certified
class action status for a lawsuit against a North Dakota-based
custom-harvesting operation.

The complaint was filed in 2010 against Altendorf Harvesting in
Minto by two brothers from South Africa, Peter and Andrew Murray.
The Murrays say the company owes unpaid wages to them and dozens
of other employees from other countries.

The class includes all nonsupervisory workers employed by the
company under temporary work visas since Oct. 28, 2004. Trial is
set for Sept. 22 in Fargo.


BALCON QUITENO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deciderio Animas, Gloria Juarez Perez, Sergio Vasquez on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Balcon Quiteno Inc.
d/b/a El Balcon Quiteno, Fausto Tenezaca, Lilia Tenezaca, Marco
Tenezaca, Vinicio Tenezaca, John Does 1-10 jointly and severally,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03763 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours
premiums and statutory penalties for notice and record-keeping
violations pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Balcon Quiteno Inc. d/b/a El Balcon Quiteno, is a restaurant
located at 334 Manahan Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11237.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene G. Eisner, Esq,
      EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      113 University Place, 8th Floor,
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 473-8700
      Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
      E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com


BELLISIO FOODS: Misbranding Leads to Chicken Pad Thai Items Recall
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bellisio Foods, Inc., a Jackson, Ohio, establishment, is recalling
approximately 12,180 pounds of a Thai Kitchen Chicken Pad Thai
frozen entree product due to misbranding and an undeclared
allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The product contains soy
protein isolate, a known allergen, which is not declared on the
product label.

The following product is subject to recall:

    10-oz. packages, 8 per case of "Thai Kitchen Chicken Pad Thai
frozen entree with "SELL BY SEP 30 15" date and case code
"xxxx09841078" or with "SELL BY OCT 17 15" date and case code
"xxxx11541078"

The product was produced on April 8 and April 25, 2014. The
product bears the establishment number "P-18297" inside the USDA
mark of inspection.  The product was distributed to retail stores
nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the company when they conducted a
label review and found that all the sub-ingredients of the Chicken
Pad Thai were not listed on the packaging labels.

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

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact 1-800-
967-8424.  Media with questions should contact Tom Lindell at
(612) 305-6149 or via e-mail at tom.lindell@exponentpr.com

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


BRIDGEVIEW CUSTOM: "Muniz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Muniz, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Bridgeview Custom Kitchen
Cabinets, Inc., and Brenda Sandidge, Individually, Case No. 1:14-
cv-04507 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Bridgeview Custom Kitchen Cabinets, Inc., provides design and
fabrication services of cabinetry units in the Chicago land area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400,
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


CHINA CERAMICS: Sued Over Securities Exchange Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Artinoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. China Ceramics Co., Ltd., Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi,
Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis,
William L. Stulginsky and Su Wei Feng, Case No. 1:14-cv-04312
(S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2014), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act.

China Ceramics Co., Ltd., is a Chinese manufacturer of ceramic
tiles used for exterior siding and for interior flooring and
design in residential and commercial buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian P. Murray, Esq.
      Gregory Linkh, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920,
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

            - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)201-9150
      Facsimile: (310)201-9160
      Email: info@glancylaw.com

           - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


CHINA CERAMICS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of China
Ceramics Co., Ltd., on June 16 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of China Ceramics common stock between March 30, 2012
and May 1, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888)
773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

China Ceramics is based in the People's Republic of China and is a
leading Chinese manufacturer of ceramic tiles used for exterior
siding and for interior flooring and design in residential and
commercial buildings.  The Complaint alleges that the Company
misrepresented or failed to disclose material weakness in the
Company's internal control over financial reporting and the risk
of writedowns of its assets.

On November 13, 2013, the Company announced its financial results
for third quarter 2013, and disclosed a substantial asset
writedown of property, plant and equipment.  Then, on May 1, 2014,
NASDAQ announced a halt in trading of the common shares of China
Ceramics pending "additional information requested."  Also on
May 1, 2014, the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission a notification of the Company's inability to timely
file its annual report with the SEC for the year ended
December 31, 2013.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than August 5, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff, if
you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll
Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920,
New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


CLEVELAND, OH: Settles Municipal Workers' Class Action for $2.2MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
municipal workers won their fight with the city of Cleveland.
Yes, in this Ohio Labor Laws altercation between employee and
employer, it was the city of Cleveland that turned out to be the
bad guy.

Now, $2.2 million later, it's all settled.  Fist pumps all around
from some 4,000 municipal workers.

According to court documents, the Ohio Employment class-action
lawsuit was led by named plaintiff Cheryl Armbruster, who took
exception on behalf of her class members to the City rounding up
the clock-in-and-out times for hourly, non-exempt employees.
According to allegations brought forward in the suit, the city of
Cleveland failed to record actual start and stop times, but rather
rounded up or down those times.

The assumption on the part of the employer was that the practice
would average everything out.  However, class members alleged that
the practice went beyond the sloppy keeping of records, and
actually cost employees in unpaid wages.  Plaintiffs alleged that
workers who clocked in early, worked late or returned late from
unpaid lunch breaks were never properly compensated for all the
time they worked.

Ms. Armbruster, who brought the lawsuit on behalf of her class
members this past November, alleged the practice was in violation
of Ohio Labor and Employment Law, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Ms. Armbruster works for the Department of Public Safety for the
city of Cleveland.

The decision to settle avoided a potentially long, costly and
protracted Ohio State Employment trial.  "If forced to litigate
this case further, the parties would certainly engage in complex,
costly, and protracted wrangling," the settlement motion, released
June 3, said.  "The settlement, on the other hand, provides
substantial relief to [the class members] promptly and
efficiently, and amplifies the benefits of that relief through the
economies of class resolution."

The $2.2 million settlement will compensate roughly 3,746 former
and current employees who may have been affected by the city's
timekeeping policy and may have lost wages -- including Ohio
overtime -- due to the rounding protocol.  The settlement affects
all current and former employees from January 1, 2011 through to
March 4 of this year, the date at which the city of Cleveland
modified its timekeeping policy to eliminate the rounding
practice.

It should be noted that the city of Cleveland had observed the
rounding protocol dating back to 1991.

The class-action lawsuit and subsequent settlement, in support of
Ohio Employee rights, will also cover Ohio Employment attorney's
fees and all costs.  As the characters in the former Drew Carey
Show might say, "Ohio!"

The settlement must still be approved by a federal judge.  The
case is Cheryl Armbruster et al. v. City of Cleveland, Case No.
1:13-cv-2626, in the US District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio.


CLS TRANS: Calif. High Court Supports Use of Arbitration Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
In ARSHAVIR ISKANIAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CLS
TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES, LLC, Defendant and Respondent, NO.
S204032, the Supreme Court of California addressed whether the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a state law rule that
restricts enforcement of terms in arbitration agreements.

An employee seeks to bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and similarly situated employees for his employer's
alleged failure to compensate its employees for, among other
things, overtime and meal and rest periods. The employee had
entered into an arbitration agreement that waived the right to
class proceedings. The question is whether a state's refusal to
enforce such a waiver on grounds of public policy or
unconscionability is preempted by the FAA.

The Calif. Supreme Court concludes that it is, and that the
Court's holding to the contrary in Gentry v. Superior Court (2007)
42 Cal.4th 443 (Gentry) has been abrogated by recent United States
Supreme Court precedent.  The Supreme Court further rejects the
arguments that the class action waiver at issue in the case is
unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act and that the
employer in this case waived its right to arbitrate by withdrawing
its motion to compel arbitration after Gentry.

The employee also sought to bring a representative action under
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab.
Code, Section 2698 et seq.). This statute authorizes an employee
to bring an action for civil penalties on behalf of the state
against his or her employer for Labor Code violations committed
against the employee and fellow employees, with most of the
proceeds of that litigation going to the state.  The Calif.
Supreme Court concludes that an arbitration agreement requiring an
employee as a condition of employment to give up the right to
bring representative PAGA actions in any forum is contrary to
public policy. In addition, says the Supreme Court, the FAA's goal
of promoting arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution
does not preclude its Legislature from deputizing employees to
prosecute Labor Code violations on the state's behalf. Therefore,
the FAA does not preempt a state law that prohibits waiver of PAGA
representative actions in an employment contract, the Supreme
Court conlcudes.

The Calif. Supreme Court further holds that the PAGA does not
violate the principle of separation of powers under the California
Constitution.

A copy of the Calif. Supreme Court's June 23, 2014 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/idi72dfrom Leagle.com.

Initiative Legal Group, Raul Perez, Katherine W. Kehr; Capstone
Law, Glenn A. Danas, Ryan H. Wu; Pubic Citizen Litigation Group
and Scott L. Nelson for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Julie L. Montgomery and Cynthia L. Rice for California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Altshuler Berzon, Michael Rubin; McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky and
Cliff Palefsky for Service Employees International Union and
California Employment Lawyers Association as Amici Curiae on
behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Rosen Law Firm and Glenn Rosen for California Association of
Public Insurance Adjusters as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff
and Appellant.

Amy Bach; The Bernheim Law Firm, Steven Jay Bernheim and Nazo S.
Semerjian for United Policyholders as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sanford Heisler, Janette Wipper, Felicia Medina, Chioma Chukwu;
Barbara A. Jones; Melvin Radowitz; Della Barnet; and Jennifer
Reisch for Timothy Sandquist, AARP, Equal Rights Advocates and The
Impact Fund as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Arbogast Bowen, David M. Arbogast and Chumahan B. Bowen for
Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Plaintiff and Appellant.

Fox Rothschild, David F. Faustman, Yesenia M. Gallegos, Cristina
Armstrong, Namal Tantula; Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard
and Leo V. Leyva for Defendant and Respondent.

Jones Day, George S. Howard, Jr., and Mhairi L. Whitton for Retail
Litigation Center, Inc., and California Retailers Association as
Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Deborah J. La Fetra for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae
on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Richard J. Simmons, Karin
Dougan Vogel and Matthew M. Sonne for Employers Group as Amicus
Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Amar D. Sarwal, Evan P. Schultz and Allen C. Peters for
Association of Corporate Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Defendant and Respondent.

Littler Mendelson, Henry D. Lederman, Alexa L. Woerner, Robert
Friedman and Edward Berbarie for The National Retail Federation
and Rent-A-Center, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant
and Respondent.

Erika C. Frank; and Fred J. Hiestand for The California Chamber of
Commerce and The Civil Justice Association of California as Amici
Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, John F. Querio and Felix Shafir
for California New Car Dealers Association as Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Mayer Brown, Andrew J. Pincus, Archis A. Parasharami, Scott M.
Noveck and Donald M. Falk for The Chamber of Commerce of the
United State of America as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant
and Respondent.

                           *     *     *

Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the
California Supreme Court came down in support of employer
arbitration agreements as expected on June 23, but it left open a
door for plaintiffs attorneys looking to keep their claims in
court.

The opinion largely favored defendants seeking to use arbitration
agreements to keep disputes with their employees from turning into
class proceedings.  There was a silver lining for plaintiffs
attorneys, however, as the court ruled that the right to initiate
state Labor Code actions under the Private Attorney Generals Act
(PAGA) can't be waived.

Ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, the justices
said federal law favoring arbitration supersedes the California
court's right to decide whether to enforce an arbitration
agreement.  In so doing, the court overturned its 2007 decision in
Gentry v. Superior Court, which held that a state court could toss
an arbitration agreement that banned a class action if arbitration
could not approximate the advantages of that class proceeding.

Many in the employment bar not only expected the June 23 outcome,
but felt the justices had no alternative following the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

"I would have been very surprised if they had said, 'No, in
California we're going to do it our own way,'" said
Wendy Lazerson, a partner with Sidley Austin's employment group.

Writing for the court, Justice Goodwin Liu devoted a large chunk
of his 48-page opinion to the exemption of PAGA claims from
federal arbitration law.  Enacted in 2004, the PAGA allows
employees to act as private attorneys general and recover civil
penalties from their employers for Labor Code violations.
Justice Liu protected an employee's right to file a PAGA claim,
and found any attempt to litigate it in court as unwaivable.  He
specified employees must be allowed to bring collective,
representative claims, similar to class claims.

"It is against public policy for an employment agreement to
deprive employees of this option altogether, before any dispute
arises," Justice Liu wrote.

That's because a PAGA claim is a dispute between an employer and
the state, he wrote.  The Federal Arbitration Act, which only
covers private disputes, cannot force a public dispute into
arbitration.

Plaintiffs attorneys view the PAGA exemption as a major win.
"There's still a way for employees to keep their rights on a
collective basis, which is extremely important," said Glenn Danas
-- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- senior counsel with
employment firm Capstone Law in Los Angeles.  His firm filed a
brief on behalf of plaintiffs in Iskanian.

Plaintiffs attorneys often file a PAGA claim along with a class
action claim, Mr. Danas said, and the June 23 ruling could make
them even more common.  But a PAGA claim typically doesn't result
in a large payout for plaintiffs, as they can't claim damages.
Plaintiffs instead can claim 25 percent of the civil penalties
imposed on their employer -- the rest goes to the state.

The court was clear that PAGA claims must survive arbitration
agreements, but it was less specific about how that is to happen.
Justice Liu left open a number of questions to be decided on
remand: Should the class action and the PAGA claim be separated
into two suits, with one headed to arbitration and the other to
court? And if so, which one will be stayed while the other
proceeds?

"Certainly it makes it a little more challenging, because you need
to litigate on two fronts, either concurrently or subsequently,"
said Aaron Agenbroad -- alagenbroad@jonesday.com -- a Jones Day
partner.

Justice Liu's opinion also left intact prior Supreme Court rulings
stating an unconscionable arbitration agreement can be voided.
"I think they made clear that they're still holding out and
they're not saying that every arbitration agreement . . . isn't
necessarily going to be valid," Mr. Lazerson said.  "It still has
to be fair."

But the threshold of what is fair may have tightened following the
June 23 decision, she said.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar voiced her objection to mandatory
employment arbitration generally in a colorful opinion in which
she concurred in part and dissented in part while providing a
lengthy history lesson on employee rights.

"Eight decades ago, Congress made clear that employees have a
right to engage in collective action and that contractual clauses
purporting to strip them of those rights as a condition of
employment are illegal," she wrote.  "What was true then is true
today."


COVISINT CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 16 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Covisint Corporation and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Covisint securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Covisint's September 26, 2013 initial public offering.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Covisint securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 29, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Covisint provides a cloud engagement platform in the United States
and internationally.  Its platform enables organizations to
connect, engage, and collaborate with distributed communities of
customers, business partners, and suppliers; and allows
organizations with external business relationships to create,
streamline, and automate external business processes that involve
the secure exchange of and access to critical information from
various sources.

The Complaint alleges that Covisint's Registration Statement, and
the documents referenced and incorporated therein, negligently
failed to disclose the following material facts which existed at
the time of the IPO: (i) that the Company was experiencing a
greater than expected decline in its subscription revenue due to
poor sales execution and late-stage pipeline conversion issues;
(ii) that the Company was facing increased competition in its
services segment as customers were not adding services at a rate
consistent with expectations; (iii) that the Company was
experiencing a decline in General Motors-related service revenue;
(iv) that the Company was losing healthcare customers at an
increasing rate and its pipeline of healthcare-related deals was
steadily declining and included numerous deals that were not
likely to be consummated; and (v) as a result of the foregoing,
there was no reasonable basis to "expect" revenues for 2014 to
increase by 20% from 2013.  These known, but undisclosed, facts
had a material adverse effect on Covisint's operating results
during its fourth quarter and fiscal 2014 full-year.

Shares of Covisint have declined $4.72 per share from the IPO
price of $10.00 per share, or more than 47%, to close at $5.28 on
June 13, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


DEARBORN SAUSAGE: Recalls Bacon Product Due to Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------
Dearborn Sausage Co., a Dearborn, Mich., establishment, is
recalling approximately 3,660 pounds of slab bacon due to
misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The product was formulated with hydrolyzed soy protein, a known
allergen, which is not declared on the product label.

The following product is subject to recall:

    Cases of "Randy's Slab Bacon" with package codes "114070,
114094, and 114122"

The product was produced on March 11, April 4, and May 2, 2014.
The product bears the establishment number "Est. 10002" inside the
USDA mark of inspection. The product was distributed to a single
retail store where it was sold as both slab bacon and sliced
bacon. Sliced bacon will not bear the original packaging
information.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS inspector while conducting a
routine food safety assessment. The problem was occurred due
misprinting of the labels.

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

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Terry
Amerson at (313) 842-2375. Media with questions should contact
Todd Meier at (313) 842-2375 or via e-mail at
tmeier@dearbornbrand.com

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


DELIAN 6 INC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Garcia-Figueroa, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Delian 6, Inc., d/b/a Round the
Clock Restaurant and Minas Litos, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
04352 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages on work more than 40 hours per
week.

Delian 6, Inc., is a food service company known as Round the Clock
Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200,
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: 312-800-1017
      Facsimile: 888-270-8983
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


DILEO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Garcia-Gomez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Garcia-Gomez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Dileo's Pizza & Catering, Inc. and Frank
Dileo, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04481 (N.D. Ill., June 16,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per week.

Dileo's Pizza & Catering, Inc., is a business engaged in food
service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (877) 509-6422
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


DOCTOR'S BEST: Recalls Red Yeast Rice due to Undeclared Lovastatin
------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor's Best is voluntarily recalling lot 3121005 (7379 bottles)
of Red Yeast Rice dietary supplement, 600 mg Capsules, 120-count
bottles to the retail level. Red Yeast Rice has been found to
contain undeclared lovastatin, a previously approved drug
indicated for the treatment of high cholesterol, making this an
unapproved new drug.

Consumers who use supplements found to contain lovastatin in rare
cases could result in serious muscle injury; particularly if
taking with prescription "statins" such as lovastatin,
simvastatin, or atorvastatin. Pregnant women could theoretically
put their unborn child at risk by using this product with
undeclared lovastatin. Patients with pre-existing liver disease
may be at an increase risk for liver injury following chronic use
of statins.

Doctor's Best has not received any reports of adverse events
related to this recall. Red Yeast Rice is used as a dietary
supplement for lowering cholesterol and is packaged in white
plastic bottle with orange flip-top lid, and clear tamper evident
outer seal number of units, UPC code 753950001183. Red Yeast Rice
product includes the following lot 3121005 and expires February
2017.

Red Yeast Rice was distributed nationwide through retail and
internet outlets. Doctor's Best is notifying its distributors and
customers by mail and is arranging for return of all recalled
products. Consumers/distributors/retailers that have Red Yeast
Rice which is being recalled should discontinue usage and return
the unused portion to their place of purchase.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Doctor's Best at 1-844-717-0190 Monday through Friday 9am to 5pm
PDT and contact their physician or healthcare provider if they
have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or
using this drug product. Adverse reactions or quality problems
experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the
FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by
regular mail or by fax.

    Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

    Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is voluntary and is being conducted with the knowledge
of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.


DOMEGA NY: Recalls Gong Xifacai Gift Chocolates Due to Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOMEGA NY INTERNATIONAL CO LTD, 47-57 BRIDGEWATER STREET BROOKLYN
NY 11222 is recalling Gong xiFacai gift chocolates because it
contains undeclared peanuts and milk. Consumers who have allergies
to peanuts and milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Gong xiFacai gift chocolates comes in an un-coded,
238 gram plastic tray with a plastic overwrap package. It was sold
in New York City. It is a product of China. The UPC code is 6
934169 900335.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered through routine
sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food
Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of peanuts and milk in
packages of Gong xiFacai gift chocolates which did not declare
peanuts and milk as ingredients on the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
product.

Consumers who have purchased Gong xiFacai gift chocolates should
not consume it, but should return it to the place of purchase.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 646-388-3032


E G EMILS: Recalls Deli Ham Product Due to Foreign Matter
---------------------------------------------------------
E. G. Emils & Sons, Inc., a Philadelphia, Pa. establishment, is
recalling approximately 5,896 pounds of deli ham product that may
be contaminated with extraneous materials, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following product is subject to USDA recall:

    "Wegman's Food You Feel Good About Organic Ham," Wegman's
Private Label with pack lot numbers 14941309, 14941310 and
14941311.

This product bears "EST 9935" inside the USDA mark of inspection
on the labels and was produced May 29, 2014. The product was
shipped to Wegman's locations in Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia to be sliced at deli
counters. The organic ham was sold between June 12 and June 25.

The problem was discovered by a Wegman's employee upon slicing the
ham at the deli counter. The problem was traced to a piece of
plastic that broke off from an interlocker belt.

Neither the company nor FSIS has received any reports of injury
associated with consumption of this product. Anyone concerned
about an injury or illness from consumption of this product should
contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact E.G.
Emils & Sons, Inc. at 215-763-9824. Media with questions about the
recall should contact customerservice@emils.com

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


FINANCIAL WISDOM: Sued Over Inappropriate Investment Advice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Millan, writing for Financial Standard, reports that
Commonwealth Bank-owned Financial Wisdom will face a class action
started by Shine Lawyers for inappropriate investment advice to
more than 3,000 clients.

Shine Lawyers confirmed to Financial Standard that the law firm is
now collecting evidence to build cases against the bank-owned
financial planning group.  The action will allege that
inappropriate investment advice was given to more than 3,000
clients of the companies' subsidiary Meridien Wealth and could see
them facing a claim of more than $200 million.

"We have been contacted by a group of Australians who suffered
loss at the hands of rogue financial planners employed by
Financial Wisdom and its subsidiary Meridien Wealth," Shine
Lawyers solicitor Sasha Ivantsoff said.

The firm will meet next month with Meridien Wealth clients who
suffered financial losses next month in Cairns.

Meridien Wealth was an authorized representative of CBA-owned
Financial Wisdom and a series of wrong behavior by one of its
financial advisers, Rollo Sherriff, were exposed by a recent joint
Fairfax and ABC investigation.

Shine Lawyers is inviting people who engaged the services of
Meridien Wealth before June 22, 2012, to attend the meeting in
Cairns and join the class action.

The news of a class action against Financial Wisdom comes days
before the Senate Economics Committee reports its conclusions of
an inquiry into the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission's (ASIC) failure to address cases of bad advice within
CBA's financial planning groups.

The inquiry found out that CBA had been inconsistent in the
process to compensate clients affected by bank's advisers.

In a document gathering CBA's responses to the questions of notice
during an inquiry hearing, the bank said that the offer of $5,000
per client for an independent review "was made in relation to
Project Hartnett, which dealt with remediating the advice given to
customers by Don Nguyen and Anthony Awkar."

"There was no obligation under the [CBA Financial Planning
enforceable undertaking] CFP EU to remediate advice given by
Financial Wisdom Limited advisers because the CFP EU applied to
CFP only."

CBA informed that cases where customers were not offered
compensation were assessed in accordance with Project Hartnett's
remediation methodology and that the process was validated by the
independent expert Ernst & Young, which in turn reported to ASIC.


FOREST OIL: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP on June 16
disclosed that the firm filed a class action lawsuit on June 13,
2014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, on
behalf of the shareholders of Forest Oil Corporation against
Forest Oil, its Board of Directors, and Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, for,
among other things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint arises out of a May 6, 2014 press release announcing
that Forest Oil had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with Sabine, pursuant to which Forest Oil shareholders would
receive 0.1 shares of Sabine, a privately held company, for each
share of Forest Oil owned.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief
on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all other similarly situated
shareholders of Forest Oil as of May 6, 2014.  The named
plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP.

The named plaintiffs allege that certain of the defendants, in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their duties and
obligations owed to Forest Oil shareholders.  The complaint
further alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder approval
of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a materially
false and misleading registration statement on Form S-4 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of the
Exchange Act and their duties of candor and full disclosure.  The
omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be
material to Forest Oil shareholders' ability to make an informed
decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from June 16, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of
Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- concentrates
its practice in the area of shareholder rights litigation.  The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
securities class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative
actions.

Contact:

Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
Robbins Arroyo LLP
E-mail: ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
Telephone: (619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003
Web site: www.robbinsarroyo.com


FRUITLAND AMERICAN: Recalls Ribeye and Carcass Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Fruitland American Meat, a Jackson, Mo. establishment is recalling
approximately 4,012 pounds of fresh beef products because the
dorsal root ganglia may not have been completely removed, which is
not compliant with agency regulations that require their removal
in cattle 30 months of age and older, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

    40-lb. cases containing two, roughly 20-lb. cryovac packages
of bone-in "Rain Crow Ranch Ribeye" bearing the establishment
number "EST. 2316" inside the USDA mark of inspection with the
following production dates: 9/5/13, 9/10/13, 9/11/13, 9/26/13,
10/2/13, 10/3/2013, 11/8/13, 11/22/13, 12/17/13, 12/26/13,
12/27/13,1/16/14, 1/17/14, 1/23/14, 1/31/14, 2/13/14, 2/14/14,
2/21/14, 2/28/14, 3/8/14, 3/20/14, 4/4/14 or 4/25/14 printed on
the box.

    Quartered beef carcasses stamped with the USDA mark of
inspection and establishment number "EST. 2316."

The products were produced and packaged on various dates between
September 2013 and April 2014. The bone-in ribeye roasts were the
source material of concern.

Fruitland American Meat advises that the bone-in ribeye roasts
were distributed to a restaurant in New York, NY, and a Whole
Foods distribution center in Connecticut which services its stores
in New England. The quartered carcasses were distributed to an
FSIS-inspected establishment in Missouri for further processing
and distribution, and to a restaurant in Kansas City, Mo. All
products would have been processed into smaller cuts with no
identifying consumer packaging.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a review of company
slaughter logs. The problem may have occurred as a result of the
way some company employees were recording information and
determining the age of various cattle. Dorsal root ganglia,
branches of the nervous system located in the vertebral column are
considered specified risk materials (SRMs) and must be removed
from cattle 30 months of age and older in accordance with FSIS
regulations. SRMs are tissues that may contain the infective agent
in cattle infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), as
well as materials that are closely associated with these
potentially infective tissues. Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs from
use as human food to minimize potential human exposure to the BSE
agent.

Every animal received ante-mortem inspection by an FSIS Public
Health Veterinarian. This involves observing each animal at rest
and in motion and there is no indication that any of the cattle
slaughtered displayed any signs of BSE.

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

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
company sales manager James Fortner at 573-243-3107.

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Suits to Be Heard in N.Y. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Silverstein, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that the class
action cases filed against General Motors are set to be combined
and heard in New York City.

Recently, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
decided to send the GM cases to U.S. District Court Judge Jesse
Furman, who is assigned to the Southern District of New York.

Appointed by President Barack Obama, Furman is a graduate of
Harvard and Yale Law School, and also studied at Oxford.  He was a
law clerk for then-U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey, who later
became Attorney General.  He also clerked for Second Circuit Court
of Appeals Judge Jose Cabranes, a former lawyer for Yale
University, and then clerked for Associate Justice David Souter of
the U.S. Supreme Court.  Judge Furman has also worked at Wiggin &
Dana, a law firm based in New Haven, CT, and was an Assistant
United States Attorney, and later was counselor to the U.S.
Attorney General.

In response to the news, Attorney Adam Levitt, a director at Grant
& Eisenhofer in Chicago and head of that firm's Consumer Practice
Group, who is among the attorneys representing plaintiffs in the
cases, said that the JPML made an "excellent transferee judge
choice in Judge Furman" and that he looks forward to "prosecuting
this important case before Judge Furman in the Southern District
of New York."

"At the JPML hearing, I advocated for the panel to transfer all of
the GM Ignition Switch defect cases to the judge who the panel
believed was best-suited to oversee these cases and move them
forward," Mr. Levitt said in a statement to InsideCounsel.  "In
selecting Judge Furman as the transferee judge, the panel ensured
that the cases will be in front of an insightful and thorough
judge who we are confident will be able to get down to the
critical issues in this litigation quickly, comprehensively, and
efficiently.  We look forward to the opportunity to litigate these
cases before him."

The panel concluded the Southern District of New York was "the
most appropriate choice" for the cases, because "the court is the
site of the bankruptcies of both General Motors and Delphi."

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs originally wanted the cases
heard in California, but that proposal was later rejected.

In consolidating the cases, it stands to combine more than 80
defective ignition-switch lawsuits, most of which claim economic
losses.  Some 2.6 million cars were recalled as a result of the
defect.  The defect was also tied to at least 13 deaths.

"The decision by the seven-judge panel to send the cases to
Manhattan doesn't impact the lawsuits over personal injuries or
deaths allegedly caused by the ignition default," The Wall Street
Journal pointed out in a story.

Meanwhile, there is increasing focus on the legal department at GM
as investigations continue on the company's controversial response
to the ignition switch defect, InsideCounsel reported.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Testosterone Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Snyder, writing for Injury Lawyer News, reports that on
May 15, 2014, three men who live in California and Delaware filed
a testosterone class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  The lawsuit names as
defendants the nutritional supplement chain GNC [General Nutrition
Corporation], as well as a number of manufacturers and marketers
of herbal supplements containing Testofen, an extract of
fenugreek.

The premise of the plaintiffs' complaint is that the defendants
marketed and sold the supplements claiming that they would boost
testosterone when studies show that the herbs have no effect on
the male hormone levels.

Testosterone plaintiffs seek class action certification

The plaintiffs have requested certification as a class action
lawsuit.  Many defective drug cases are consolidated into one or
several courts during the fact-finding stages but then tried
individually because they allege drug-induced injuries that are
unique to each plaintiff.  But in a class action lawsuit, the
plaintiffs must all face a similar injury and the named plaintiffs
represent every other member of the class who is in the same
situation.

Testofen products have been marketed as a way to increase free
testosterone levels.  They have been reported to increase muscle
mass and libido and treat erectile dysfunction. But reports on its
effectiveness have been mixed.

Some of the brands involved in the testosterone supplement lawsuit
include:

Nugenix
Troxyphen
Troxyphen Elite
Ageless Male containing Troxyphen
Text X180
High T
Mdrive
Test Freak
PMD Flex Stack
NO2 Red Test
Ultra T Gold
Vitali-T Aid
Testoril

Testosterone class action lawsuit alleges fraud

The common damage alleged by the testosterone class action
plaintiffs is harm from intentional and fraudulent marketing.
The plaintiffs argue that the testosterone lawsuit defendants have
purposefully misstated studies to make it appear that Testofen is
more effective than it really is.  The allegations go beyond
mistaken or negligent misstatements -- the complaint alleges
fraud, racketeering, violations of consumer product laws, and
breaches of warranties.

The plaintiffs have requested an order preventing the defendants
from fraudulently advertising the Testofen products.  They also
seek reimbursement, to themselves and the class they seek to
represent, of the purchase price of the supplements, as well as
punitive damages and attorney fees.

What is fenugreek?

Fenugreek, the herb from which Testofan is derived, is a plant
also known as Trigonella foenum-graecum or Greek hay seed.  It has
been used for centuries as a flavor additive and herbal
supplement.  When used as an herbal supplement, its effects are
more pronounced because the herb is more concentrated.

Traditionally, Fenugreek has been taken orally to treat stomach
upset and used topically to treat boils, eczema, and other skin
conditions.  Fenugreek should not be taken by diabetics or people
with blood clotting disorders.

The herbal testosterone supplements are not the first testosterone
supplements under legal attack; lawsuits have been filed across
the country against manufacturers of topical testosterone
supplements like AdroDerm, Axiron, and AndroGel.  The lawsuits
against the manufacturers of the topical so-called "low t
supplements" have been accused of misleading the public into
believing that normal signs of aging are a clinical condition that
require treatment.  They are also facing scrutiny from the FDA and
consumer groups over the link between the hormone supplements and
an increased risk of heart attack and strokes.


GENZYME CORP: Faces "Reich" Suit Over Cerezyme Drug
---------------------------------------------------
Gregory Reich and Lynn Reich, his wife, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Genzyme Corporation,
The Cerezyme Stakeholders Working Group and Express Scripts, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01684 (D. Colo., June 17, 2014), arises from the
alleged substitution of pure, effective Food and Drug
Administration approved doses of Cerezyme with ineffective,
experimental, untested, diluted, adulterated medication
contaminated by an infectious pathogen which causes the
Plaintiff's Gaucher disease to progress causing multiple injuries
including development of bone cancer.

Genzyme Corporation is a French Corporation, with its headquarters
and principal place of business at 500 Kendall Street, Cambridge,
MA 02142.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel J. Goldfarb, Esq.
      BELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
      1745 Shea Center Drive,
      Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
      Telephone: (720) 344-4899
      Facsimile: (720) 302-1282
      E-mail: rjgoldfarb@belllaw.com


GLOW NETWORKS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Evins" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Evins, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Glow Networks, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-
00544 (W.D. Mo., June 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay its employees all of their earned wages and
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Glow Networks, Inc., is a Delaware telecommunications company,
with its principal place of business in Richmond, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600,
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com


GRAY RITTER: Riceland Foods' Case Remanded to Arkansas Court
------------------------------------------------------------
RICELAND FOODS, INC., Plaintiff, v. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14 CV 81 CDP, (E.D. Mo.) is before the
Missouri court on a motion by plaintiff Riceland Foods, Inc. to
remand the action to state court. Defendants Gray, Ritter &
Graham, P.C. and other law firm and attorney defendants removed
the case under the Class Action Fairness Act after they filed a
class-action counterclaim. Their counterclaim asserts claims
against plaintiff Riceland on behalf of themselves and others who
had contributed to a common benefit fund in related litigation.
Defendants assert that CAFA removal jurisdiction is appropriate
based on their counterclaim, because it is brought on behalf of a
putative class and they are defendants in the original suit.

District Judge Catherine D. Perry concludes that CAFA's removal
statute does not allow these defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs to
remove based on their own counterclaim.  Therefore, the Court
remanded the case to the Arkansas state court from which it was
removed.

A copy of the District Court's June 20, 2014 memorandum opinion is
available at http://is.gd/wG1rLsfrom Leagle.com.

Riceland Foods, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew H. Dallas,
DEACON LAW FIRM, P.A., Barry Deacon, DEACON LAW FIRM, P.A.,
Christopher M. Hohn, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jason Mark Milne,
DEACON LAW FIRM, P.A. & Kimberly M. Bousquet, THOMPSON COBURN,
LLP.

Gray Ritter & Graham PC, Defendant, represented by Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J.
Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND
WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Don M. Downing, Defendant, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd
E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Adam J. Levitt, Defendant, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd
E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Defendant, represented
by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Defendant, represented
by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Neblett Beard & Arsenault LLP, Defendant, represented by Bradley
T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J.
Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND
WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Richard J Arsenault, Defendant, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd
E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C., Defendant, represented by Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J.
Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND
WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

William Chaney, Defendant, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd
E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Davis Bethune & Jones LLC, Defendant, represented by Abagail L.
Pierpoint, Morrow Willnauer Klosterman Church, LLC, Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, James C. Morrow,
MORROW AND WILLNAUER, L.L.C., Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND
SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd E.
Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Grant L Davis, Defendant, represented by Abagail L. Pierpoint,
Morrow Willnauer Klosterman Church, LLC, Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, James C. Morrow, MORROW
AND WILLNAUER, L.L.C., Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Emerson Poynter LLP, Defendant, represented by Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP.

Scott E Poynter, Defendant, represented by Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP.

Seeger Weiss LLP, Defendant, represented by Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP.

Stephen A Weiss, Defendant, represented by Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP.

Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian G.
Brooks, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Shawn Bradley
Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP.

Joe R Whatley, Jr, Defendant, represented by Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP.

Chapman Lewis & Swan PLLC, Defendant, represented by Brian G.
Brooks, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Shawn Bradley
Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP.

Ralph E Chapman, Defendant, represented by Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP.

Hare Wynn Newell & Newton LLP, Defendant, represented by Bradley
T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J.
Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND
WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Scott A Powell, Defendant, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd
E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Neblett Beard & Arsenault LLP, Cross Claimant, represented by
Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Counter Claimant,
represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian
G. Brooks, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn
Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND
SIEGEL, LLP.

Gray Ritter & Graham PC, Counter Claimant, represented by Bradley
T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J.
Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND
WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Davis Bethune & Jones LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by
Abagail L. Pierpoint, Morrow Willnauer Klosterman Church, LLC,
Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, James
C. Morrow, MORROW AND WILLNAUER, L.L.C., Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd
E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Grant L Davis, Counter Claimant, represented by Abagail L.
Pierpoint, Morrow Willnauer Klosterman Church, LLC, Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, James C. Morrow,
MORROW AND WILLNAUER, L.L.C., Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND
SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd E.
Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

William Chaney, Counter Claimant, represented by Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J.
Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND
WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Hare Wynn Newell & Newton LLP, Counter Claimant, represented by
Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Scott A Powell, Counter Claimant, represented by Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J.
Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND
WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Counter Claimant,
represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian
G. Brooks, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn
Bradley Daniels, HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND
SIEGEL, LLP.

Richard J Arsenault, Counter Claimant, represented by Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J.
Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND
WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C., Counter Claimant, represented by
Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks,
Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels,
HARE AND WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Don M. Downing, Counter Claimant, represented by Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J.
Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND
WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Adam J. Levitt, Counter Claimant, represented by Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Brian G. Brooks, Patrick J.
Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Shawn Bradley Daniels, HARE AND
WYNN, LLP & Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

Riceland Foods, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Andrew H.
Dallas, DEACON LAW FIRM, P.A., Barry Deacon, DEACON LAW FIRM,
P.A., Christopher M. Hohn, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jason Mark Milne,
DEACON LAW FIRM, P.A. & Kimberly M. Bousquet, THOMPSON COBURN,
LLP.


HALLIBURTON CO: Can Rebut Presumptions Based on Misstatements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for Legal Times, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on June 23 stopped short of ringing a death knell for
securities fraud class actions, tinkering with but not reversing a
precedent that business advocates wanted the court to overturn.

By a unanimous vote, the court increased the ability of defendants
to rebut the presumptions that have allowed plaintiffs to mount
class actions based on company misstatements.

But, acting in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, the justices
rejected industry arguments that the 1988 precedent Basic v.
Levinson -- anathema to class action defendants -- should be
scrapped altogether.

"According to Halliburton, the Basic presumption contravenes
congressional intent and has been undermined by subsequent
developments in economic theory," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.
wrote for the court.  "Neither argument, however, so discredits
Basic as to constitute 'special justification' for overruling the
decision."

The ruling does, however, give defendants significant relief in
litigating class actions, allowing them to rebut -- before a class
is certified -- the presumption under Basic that misstatements had
an impact on stock prices.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed her
view that this aspect of the ruling "should impose no heavy toll
on securities-fraud plaintiffs with tenable claims."

Halliburton's lawyer before the court, Aaron Streett --
aaron.streett@bakerbotts.com -- of Baker Botts, issued this
statement on the ruling: "We are pleased that the Supreme Court
restored a measure of rationality and balance to securities class
actions in the . . . decision issued today by holding that
defendants may defeat class certification with evidence that the
alleged misstatements did not distort the stock's market price."

Investors in Halliburton stock claimed they were harmed by
misleading statements from Halliburton that underestimated the
company's exposure to asbestos liability claims and other business
setbacks.  Halliburton sought dismissal, and after a lengthy
appeals process -- including a previous decision by the Supreme
Court -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed
certification of the class, with the help of the 1988 Basic
decision.

That ruling endorsed a "fraud on the market" theory holding that
investors rely on an efficient market, and that share prices
reflect information or misinformation that is available to the
public.  The theory has allowed plaintiffs to sue for securities
fraud without the costly burden of having to prove specifically
that individual investors read company statements and were misled
and harmed by them.

Basic breathed life into securities fraud class actions and, in
the view of its critics, also pushed defendants into costly
settlements to end frivolous lawsuits.  Business advocacy groups
saw the Halliburton case as a vehicle to ask the Supreme Court to
overturn Basic in favor of a process that makes securities class
actions more difficult to bring.

In a recent report on the case, the New York City Bar
Association's committee on securities litigation said, "The
Supreme Court's decision . . . whatever that decision may be, will
be a landmark event in the world of class action securities
litigation."

At oral argument in March, David Boies -- dboies@bsfllp.com -- of
Boies, Schiller & Flexner represented the plaintiffs.  The Obama
administration sided with the plaintiffs.


HEALTH MATTERS: Recalls Additional Sprouted Chia Seed
-----------------------------------------------------
Health Matters America Inc. of Cheektowaga, New York is expanding
the voluntary recall of Organic Traditions Sprouted Chia Seed
Powder and Sprouted Chia& Flax Seed Powder due to possible
Salmonella contamination, an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses.

The recall is being expanded to include more lot numbers and other
products that contain Chia Seeds. Health Matters America is
committed to the safety of its customers.

These products have been distributed nationwide.

The products and lot numbers included in this voluntary recall
have been expanded to include:

ORGANIC TRADITIONS SPROUTED CHIA SEED POWDER Lot numbers: All
codes starting with BIO13 and ending with 269 up to and including
365; All codes starting with BIO14 and ending with 001 up to and
including 156; NET WT. 8 oz. UPC 854260006162, and NET WT. 16 oz.
UPC 854260005462; and all bulk sizes;

ORGANIC TRADITIONS SPROUTED CHIA & FLAX SEED POWDER Lot numbers:
All codes starting with BIO13 and ending with 269 up to and
including 365; All codes starting with BIO14 and ending with 001
up to and including 156; NET WT. 8 oz. UPC 854260006216, and NET
WT. 16 oz. UPC 854260005479; and all bulk sizes.

ORGANIC TRADITIONS CHIA SEEDS Lot numbers: All codes starting with
ASCBO13; NET WT. 8oz. UPC 854260006131, and NET WT. 16oz. UPC
854260006148; and all bulk sizes.

ORGANIC TRADITIONS ULTIMATE SUPERFOOD TRAILMIX Lot numbers: ALL
LOTS ending in 003-13 to 005-14; NET WT. 3.5oz. UPC 854260010701.

No other Organic Traditions products are affected by this recall.

The recall was expanded as the result of positive test results
received by our company on the sample of Sprouted Chia/Flax that
contained the bacteria.

Consumers that have purchased any of these products with the above
stated lot numbers are asked not to consume the product, and
discard it or return the product to the original point of
purchase.

Health Matters America is working closely with the FDA on this
matter. Health Matters America is committed to the highest quality
food products with a mandate to provide nutrient-dense, organic
foods for the optimal well-being of its customers.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-888-343-
3278, ext. 730, Monday -- Friday, 9am -- 5pm ET.

For media inquiries, please contact us at 1-888-343-3278, ext.
722, Monday -- Friday, 9am -- 5pm ET.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Gardy & Notis, LLP on June 16 disclosed that it has
filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. securities stock during
a class period of February 22, 2012 to June 6, 2014.  The lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, and names Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., The Hertz
Corporation, Mark P. Frissora (Chief Executive Officer), Thomas C.
Kennedy (Chief Financial Officer), and Elyse Douglas (former Chief
Financial Officer) as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the class period, Hertz
issued financial statements that were not accurate, did not comply
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and served
to artificially inflate the market price of Hertz's publicly
traded securities.  Hertz announced on June 6 that its Audit
Committee concluded that the financial statements for 2011 would
need to be restated, and that the financial statements for 21012
and 2013 would have to be corrected.

If you purchased Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:HTZ) securities
between February 22, 2012 and June 6, 2014, you may, no later than
August 15, 2014, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation, and
you must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead
plaintiff.

To learn more about the lawsuit or to obtain a copy of the
complaint, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mark C. Gardy at
Gardy & Notis, LLP, Tower 56, 126 East 56th Street, New York, NY
10022, Telephone: 212-905-0509, Fax: 212-905-0508, email:
mgardy@gardylaw.com.


HOULIHAN SMITH: Obtains Final Approval of Accord in "Kaplan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George M. Marovich grants final approval of the
settlement in DONALD D. KAPLAN and IAN DOLBY, Plaintiffs, v.
HOULIHAN SMITH & CO., INC. a/k/a HOULIHAN SMITH & COMPANY, INC.,
RICHARD HOULIHAN, ANDREW D. SMITH, CHARLES BOTCHWAY, ANTHONY J.
MARSALA, DAVID L. HEALD, and CONSULTING FIDUCIARIES, INC.,
Defendants, NO. 12 C 5134, (N.D. Ill.).

The Court approves an incentive award of $1,000.00 each to named
plaintiffs Kaplan and Dolby. The Court approves payment of
$15,000.00 from the settlement fund to the independent fiduciary
Nicholas L. Saakvitne.

A copy of the June 20, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/k7Q6epfrom Leagle.com.

The Court grants plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The Court
approves an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $382,500.00
from the settlement fund. The Court approves an award of
$52,078.70 from the settlement fund to Lewis, Feinberg, Lee,
Renaker & Jackson, P.C. as reimbursement for expenses. The Court
approves an award of $2,183.75 from the settlement fund to Outten
& Golden, LLP for reimbursement of expenses.

Donald D. Kaplan, Plaintiff, represented by Nina Wasow --
nwasow@lewisfeinberg.com -- Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker &
Jackson, P.C., Daniel M. Feinberg -- dfeinberg@lewisfeinberg.com
-- Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, PC, Julie Wilensky --
jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com -- Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker &
Jackson, Paul William Mollica -- pwmollica@outtengolden.com --
Outten & Golden & Todd F Jackson -- tjackson@lewisfeinberg.com --
Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker and Jackson PC.

Ian Dolby, Plaintiff, represented by Nina Wasow, Lewis, Feinberg,
Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Daniel M. Feinberg, Lewis, Feinberg,
Lee, Renaker & Jackson, PC, Julie Wilensky, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee,
Renaker & Jackson, Paul William Mollica, Outten & Golden & Todd F
Jackson, Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker and Jackson PC.

Houlihan Smith & Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by James D.
Harbert -- jharbert@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson,
Clifford E. Yuknis -- cyuknis@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson, Leigh Christina Bonsall -- lbonsall@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson Llp & Renee O'Neill Kelly --
roneill@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Richard Houlihan, Defendant, represented by Marc S. Schechter --
mschechter@bsllp.com -- Butterfield Schechter & Van Clief LLP,
Corey Francis Schechter -- cschechter@bsllp.com -- Butterfield
Schechter & Van Clief LLP & Daniel C. Meenan, Jr. -- dcmjd@aol.com
-- Kralovec Meenan LLP.

Andrew D. Smith, Defendant, represented by James D. Harbert,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Leigh Christina Bonsall, Hinshaw &
Culbertson Llp & Renee O'Neill Kelly, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Charles Botchway, Defendant, represented by Theodore Michaelson
Becker -- Theodore.Becker@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP &
Julie Ann Govreau -- Julie.Govreau@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP.

Anthony J. Marsala, Defendant, represented by Theodore Michaelson
Becker, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & Julie Ann Govreau, Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP.

Consulting Fiduciaries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J
Polatsek -- daniel.polatsek@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, Andrea Carin Halverson -- ahalverson@SDRlegal.com --
Stetler, Duffy & Rotert, Ltd., Brian J. Poronsky --
brian.poronsky@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP &
Katherine Shannon Paulson -- katherine.paulson@kattenlaw.com --
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.


ICM PARTNERS: Brings One of Ex-Interns to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner and Matthew Belloni, writing for The Hollywood
Reporter, report that the flood of litigation over unpaid
internship programs hasn't hit the inner sanctum of Hollywood
talent agencies, but that doesn't mean there aren't efforts
underway to recruit potential plaintiffs.  Now ICM Partners is
looking to stay ahead of the curve by bringing one of its ex-
interns to arbitration.

A demand for arbitration was filed against a former intern on
June 13, The Hollywood Reporter has learned, adding a new wrinkle
to the ongoing internship legal controversy.  To date, Fox
Entertainment, NBCUniversal, Warner Music and Sony are just a few
of the companies that have been hit with lawsuits from former
interns alleging violations of wage and overtime laws.

The Fox dispute covering internships on the Oscar-nominated film
Black Swan has been particularly influential after a federal judge
determined that the company was the "employer" of two former
interns as that term is defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Last June, that same judge also certified a class action over
internships throughout Fox's corporate departments.  The ruling is
on appeal.

Success breeds imitation, especially among class-action lawyers.
This is especially true in regards to the issue of unpaid
internships, which for some lawyers, is a social justice one.
Hollywood talent agencies, which often have robust internship
programs, could make for a juicy target.

According to sources, one former female intern in ICM's New York
office has been making litigation threats and has brought lawyers
on board to represent her.

Now, ICM wants to cut her off at the courthouse gate.  The agency,
represented by the Proskauer law firm, believes its internship
program is purely educational and that interns are not tasked with
replacing the duties performed by employees.  So it's being
proactive against the former intern.

The arbitrability of a dispute where an intern claims to be an
employee isn't something that has been adjudicated, as far as
we're aware.  In fact, in response to the Black Swan case, some
employment lawyers have been advising companies to get interns to
explicitly agree to arbitration as a condition of bringing them
on.

Although the major Hollywood agencies like ICM have thus far
escaped the wrath of former interns, there has been one case
against an agency.  In May, Elite Model Management announced a
settlement -- the largest to date over the issue of internships.
According to the terms, 150 of its ex-interns were guaranteed a
minimum payment of $700 up to $1750 for their time worked at
Elite.  In total, the modeling agency paid $450,000 to settle
claims.


INTELLIGENT SPACES: Fails to Pay OT Pursuant to FLSA, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ortega-Pineda, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Intelligent Spaces by
Design, LLC and Tinu Theccanat, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:14-cv-04452 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Intelligent Spaces by Design, LLC, designs and manufactures custom
cabinetry and furniture.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200,
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (877) 509-6422
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE: Sued in S.D.N.Y. for FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Behzadi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. International Creative Management Partners, LLC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-04382 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the wage-and hour provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act that have deprived the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated of their lawfully earned wages.

International Creative Management Partners, LLC, is one of the
world's largest talent and literary agencies with offices in New
York, Los Angeles, and London.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Rachel Bien, Es.
      Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212)245-1000


J CREW GROUP: "Miller" Suit Over ZIP Codes Survives Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Miller v. J.Crew Group, Inc., 13-cv-11487, which claims
unlawful collection of ZIP codes in connection with a retail
purchases, will continue after a court refused to dismiss the
case, according to the company's June 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2014.

On June 20, 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by an individual claiming that the Company collected her ZIP code
unlawfully in connection with a retail purchase she made at a
Massachusetts store. That action, captioned Miller v. J.Crew
Group, Inc., 13-cv-11487 (the "Miller Action"), purports to be
brought on behalf of a class of customers whose ZIP codes were
collected and recorded at Company stores in Massachusetts in
connection with credit card purchases, and claims that the Company
used the collected ZIP code data to obtain customers' addresses
for purposes of mailing them unwanted advertising material. The
Miller Action seeks money damages pursuant to a claim under
Chapter 93A of the General Laws of Massachusetts and a claim for
unjust enrichment. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
unjust enrichment claim, and on April 22, 2014, the Court denied
that motion without prejudice to the Company's ability to re-file
it later in the litigation. On May 15, 2014, the Company answered
the plaintiff's complaint. A court conference has been scheduled
for June 12, 2014, at which time the Court will order a schedule
to govern discovery and further motion practice in the Miller
Action.


JASEM RESTAURANT: Sued for Not Paying Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salomon Medina-Mejia, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Jasem Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a
Sutton Cafe Restaurant; and John J. Manolidis; jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-04357 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid or underpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation, and such other relief available by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Jasem Restaurant, Inc., is a limited-service restaurant doing
business as Sutton Cafe Restaurant, located at 1026 First Avenue,
New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
      Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408,
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


JBI INC: Shareholder Suit Settlement Denied Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The federal court in Nevada denied a motion seeking preliminary
approval of a settlement reached in a shareholder suit against
JBI, Inc., according to the company's June 4, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 28, 2011, certain of the Company's stockholders filed a
class action lawsuit against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and
Baldwin on behalf of purchasers of its securities.  In an amended
complaint filed on July 10, 2012, these stockholders sought to
represent such purchasers during the period from August 28, 2009
through January 4, 2012. The original and amended complaints in
that case, filed in federal court in Nevada, allege that the
defendants made false or misleading statements, or both, and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations and prospects in press releases and filings
made with the SEC. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the
defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose material information, or a combination thereof regarding:
(1) that certain media credits ("Media Credits") were
substantially overvalued; (2) that the Company improperly
accounted for acquisitions; (3) that, as such, the Company's
financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles; and (4) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls.  During the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case
and an amended complaint was filed. The defendants' answer to the
amended complaint was filed during the fourth quarter of 2012.

On August 8, 2013, JBI, Inc., (the "Company") entered a
stipulation agreement (the "Stipulation Agreement") in potential
settlement of the previously reported class action lawsuit filed
by certain stockholders of the Company against the Company and
Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin (both former officers of the
Company) on behalf of a settlement class consisting of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from August 28,
2009 through January 4, 2012 (the "Proposed Class Period").  Under
the Stipulation Agreement, the Company would agree to issue shares
of its common stock that will comprise a settlement fund.  The
number of shares to be issued will be dependent on the price per
share of the Company's common stock during a period preceding the
date of the Court's entry of final judgment in the case (the
"Judgment Date").  If the price of the Company's common stock is
less than $0.50 per share based upon the average closing price for
the 90 trading days preceding the Judgment Date, the Company would
issue 3 million shares of its common stock. If the price of the
Company's common stock is between $0.50 and $0.70 per share, based
upon the same 90-day average closing price, the Company would
issue 2.5 million shares of its common stock.  If the price of the
Company's common stock is more than $0.70 per share based upon the
same 90-day average closing price the Company will issue 1.75
million shares of its common stock.  The shares will not be
distributed to class members in kind.  At any time after final
approval by the Court, class counsel would have the option to sell
all or any portion of such shares for the benefit of class
members, subject to certain volume limitations.  Plaintiff's
counsel's attorneys' fees, subject to Court approval, would be
paid out of the settlement fund.  The Company would also pay
settlement-related costs up to a maximum of $200,000.  The
plaintiffs and each of the class members who purchased the
Company's common stock during the Proposed Class Period and
alleged they were damaged would be deemed to have fully released
all claims against the Company and other defendants upon entry of
judgment.  On September 10, 2013, that agreement was submitted to
the Court, and class counsel moved for entry of an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, including the mailing of a
settlement notice that will include, among other things, the
general terms of the settlement, proposed plan of allocation, and
terms of plaintiff's counsel's fee application.  On April 1, 2014,
the Court issued an Order denying that motion.   The Company is
currently reviewing what steps should be taken in light of this
Court Order. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the class
action litigation at this time.


JBI INC: Motion by Former Execs to Junk Shareholder Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of former executives of JBI Inc. to dismiss a second
lawsuit filed by purported shareholder Erwin Grampp, is pending
and the Court has not ruled upon it, according to the company's
June 4, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 9, 2013, a purported shareholder derivative suit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against John Bordynuik, former Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and a former member of the Company's Board
of Directors, and Ronald C. Baldwin, former Chief Financial
Officer of the Company.  The Complaint was filed by Erwin Grampp,
allegedly acting on behalf of the Company, and it names the
Company as a nominal defendant.  This is the second purported
shareholder derivative suit that Mr. Grampp has filed in which the
Company has been named as a nominal defendant.  As previously
reported, the first such suit by Mr. Grampp was dismissed by the
court.  This recent Complaint ("Grampp II") alleges, inter alia,
that defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin breached fiduciary duties
owed to the Company by causing the Company to erroneously book
certain media credits in 2009.  Grampp II alleges that this
conduct resulted in two lawsuits against the Company, one an
action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC
Action") and the other a purported class action by Ellisa Pancoe
and Howard Howell ("Class Action").  Grampp II alleges that the
Company has settled the SEC Action, and that the Company is in the
process of settling the Class Action, but that the Company has
been damaged as a result of these two lawsuits.  Grampp II seeks
to recover damages on behalf of the Company from defendants
Bordynuik and Baldwin in an unspecified amount.  It also seeks
unspecified equitable relief, and costs and attorneys' fees
incurred in the action.  On October 11, 2013, defendants Bordynuik
and Baldwin filed a motion to dismiss this action.  That motion is
pending and the Court has not ruled upon it.  Pursuant to the
Company's By-Laws, the Company has an obligation to indemnify
defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin to the fullest extent permitted
by Nevada law.


JMMT CAFE: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Samuel Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. J.M.M.T. Cafe, Inc., dba The Mad Hatter Saloon,
or any other business entity doing business as The Mad Hatter
Saloon, located at 360 Third Avenue, New York, New York, and
and Michael Traynor, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04334
(S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

J.M.M.T. Cafe, Inc., is a bar/restaurant known as "The Mad Hatter
Saloon", located at 360 Third Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNY UTAH: Faces "Sanz" Action Over Pervasive Sexual Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Sanz, Bryan Harmin, Annya Santana,Nykya Luce, Jessica
Wafer, Katelyn Canning, Stephanie Walsh and Oscar Rojas,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
Johny Utah 51 LLC, d/b/a Johnny Utah's, John Sullivan, Thomas
Casabona, J.R. Lozado, Doe Corporations Ithrough X, inclusive, and
Doe Limited Liability Companies Ithrough X, inclusive, Case No.
1:14-cv-04380 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2014), arises from the alleged
pervasive sexual harassment and discriminatory practices
towards female servers and bartenders specifically by requiring
them to wear sexually provocative clothing, including cut-off
denim shorts, cut-off shirts, cowboy boots, and excessive make-up,
and are instructed by their superiors to look sexy and "available"
to the male patrons.

Johny Utah 51 LLC, restaurant known as Johnny Utah's, located at
25 West 51st Street, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jettnne Christensen, Esq.
      IMBESI CHRISTENSEN
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408,
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 736-5588
      Facsimile: (212) 658-9177


K & W SAUSAGE: Recalls Sausage Products Containing Soy and Wheat
----------------------------------------------------------------
K & W Sausage, an Evansdale, Iowa, establishment, is recalling
approximately 1,761 pounds of sausage products because of
misbranding and undeclared allergens. The products contain soy and
wheat, known allergens, which are not declared on the product
labels.

The products subject to recall include:

    16-oz. vacuum packed "Hot Franks" with a packaging code in the
format "###14"

    Various size packages of "Polish Sausage Hot" with packaging
codes 15314, 15514, 16114, 16214, 16814, 16514, or 16914

    Various size packages of "Beef Polish Sausage Hot" with
packaging codes 15314, 15514, 16114, 16214, 16814, 16514, or 16914

The products subject to recall bear "EST. 15708" inside the USDA
mark of inspection on the labels. The Hot Franks were produced on
various dates from January 16, through June 20, 2014. The other
products were produced on various dates from June 3, through June
18, 2014. All products were distributed to retailers in Iowa.

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a
food safety assessment. After investigation, it was determined
that the "natural hot flavor" used in the products contained wheat
and soy as sub-ingredients of soy sauce. The mislabeling in the
Polish sausage products occurred due to a change to using this
ingredient. FSIS and the company have received no reports of
adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone
concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Mark Knief, Owner, at 319-233-4714.

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


KEYSTONE FINANCIAL: Sued for Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marni Truglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Keystone Financial Services, Case No. 3:14-cv-03867
(D.N.J., June 17, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendants' actions
of using unfair and unconscionable means to collect debt in
violation to the Fair Debt Collections Practices.

Keystone Financial Services is a collection agency located at 1913
Atlantic Avenue, Manasquan, New Jersey 08736.

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


KMG GROUP: Faces "Perez" Suit for Failing to Pay Workers Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adelaido Perez, Gerardo Rivera, Enedino Codallos Escobar, Felipe
Castro Collantes and Santiago Mendoza, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. KMG Group, LLC (d/b/a Molly
Pitcher's Ale House) Michael McCullagh, Terence Kane O'Neill, John
Doe 1 and Peter Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-04352 (S.D.N.Y., June 17,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages on work more than 40 hours per week.

KMG Group, LLC, owns, operates and controls a sports bar or
restaurant located at 1621 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10028
under the name Molly Pitcher's Ale House.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020,
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Velveeta Cheese Products
---------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods Group is voluntarily recalling 260 cases of Velveeta
Original Pasteurized Recipe Cheese Product because it does not
contain appropriate levels of sorbic acid, a preservative
ingredient.  While unlikely, the affected product could spoil
prematurely and/or lead to food borne illness. Therefore, the
company is issuing this recall as a precaution.

This recall affects one batch of product made on one manufacturing
line during a few hours of production. The product was shipped to
three Walmart distribution centers and may have been redistributed
to stores in up to 12 Midwest states. The affected products may
have been shipped to Walmart stores in Colorado, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. These products were not
shipped outside of the U.S.

The following specific batch of product is being recalled:

                                            Consumer
                           Case Code  Case  Package     Consumer
Product  Name of  Units/  Date/Time  UPC   Code Date   Package
Size     Product  Case    Tange      Code  Time/Range  UPC Code
-------  -------  ------  ---------  ----  ----------  --------
32 OZ     Velveeta    12   17 DEC     10021  17 DEC     021000
(2 LB)    Orig             2014       00061  2014       611614
          Pasteurized      10:54 -    1611   09:34
          Recipe           14:35             13:15
          Cheese           ONLY              ONLY
          Product

Consumers can find the case code date on the side of the package.
No other products outside this time period on this case code date
are affected by this recall, nor are any other Kraft or Velveeta
products affected.

The affected product was identified during a review of finished
product samples. The company is taking action to ensure it doesn't
happen again.

Consumers who purchased any of these products should not eat them.
They should return them to the store where they purchased them for
an exchange or full refund. Consumers also can contact Kraft Foods
Consumer Relations at 1-800-310-3704 between 9 am and 6 pm
(Eastern).


LA GROTTA: "Molina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Luis Molina v. La Grotta Restaurant Inc. and Franco Venusio, Case
No. 1:14-cv-04363 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2014), seeks to recover
minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

La Grotta Restaurant Inc., operates the restaurant known as La
Grotta 2 located in Yonkers, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kerry E. Connolly, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF KERRY E. CONNOLLY
      One Battery Park Plaza, 32nd Floor,
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 372-7333
      Facsimile: (917) 591-4858
      E-mail: kconnolly@connollylaw.us.com


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs in Data Privacy Suit Down to Two
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed all
but two plaintiffs from In Re: Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, a
Multidistrict Litigation, according to Leidos, Inc.'s June 4,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2014.

Leidos is a defendant in a putative class action, In Re: Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Backup Tape Data
Theft Litigation, a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The MDL action
consolidates for pretrial proceedings the following seven
individual putative class action lawsuits filed against the
Company from October 2011 through March 2012: (1) Richardson, et
al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications
International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et
al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (2)
Arellano, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas; (3) Biggerman, et al. v. TRICARE
Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (4) Moskowitz, et al.
v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (5) Palmer, et al. v.
TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al., in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (6) Losack, et al. v.
SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California; and (7) Deatrick v. Science Applications International
Corporation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The lawsuits were filed following the theft of
computer backup tapes from a vehicle of a Company employee. The
employee was transporting the backup tapes between federal
facilities under an IT services contract the Company was
performing in support of TRICARE, the health care program for
members of the military, retirees and their families. The tapes
contained personally identifiable and protected health information
of approximately five million military clinic and hospital
patients. There is no evidence that any of the data on the backup
tapes has actually been accessed or viewed by an unauthorized
person. In order for an unauthorized person to access or view the
data on the backup tapes, it would require knowledge of and access
to specific hardware and software and knowledge of the system and
data structure. The Company has notified potentially impacted
persons by letter and has offered one year of credit monitoring
services to those who request these services and in certain
circumstances, one year of identity restoration services.

In October 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the MDL action, which supersedes all previously filed
complaints in the individual lawsuits. The consolidated amended
complaint includes allegations of negligence, breach of contract,
breach of implied-in-fact contract, invasion of privacy by public
disclosure of private facts and statutory violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, California data breach notification
requirements, the California Unfair Competition Law, various state
consumer protection or deceptive practices statutes, state privacy
statutes, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Privacy Act of
1974. The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief,
including unspecified actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages of $1,000 for each class member and attorneys' fees, as
well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims
made in the class action lawsuits. In May 2014, the District Court
dismissed all but two plaintiffs from the MDL action and ordered a
status hearing before taking up the question of whether the two
remaining plaintiffs have stated a legal claim. The Company has
insurance coverage against judgments or settlements relating to
the claims being brought in these lawsuits, with a $10 million
deductible. The insurance coverage also covers the Company's
defense costs, subject to the same deductible. As of May 2, 2014,
the Company has recorded a loss provision of $3 million related to
these lawsuits, representing the low end of the Company's
estimated gross loss. The Company believes that, if any loss is
experienced by the Company in excess of its estimate, such a loss
would not exceed the Company's insurance coverage. If these
lawsuits progress, many factors will affect the amount of the
ultimate loss resulting from these claims being brought against
the Company, including results of any discovery, the outcome of
any pretrial motions and the courts' rulings on certain legal
issues.

The Company has been informed that the Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
investigating matters related to the incident. OCR is the division
of HHS charged with enforcement of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA) and
the privacy, security and data breach rules which implement HIPAA.
OCR may, among other things, require a corrective action plan and
impose civil monetary penalties against the data owner (Department
of Defense) and, in certain situations, against the data owners'
contractors, such as the Company. The Company is cooperating with
TRICARE in responding to the OCR investigation.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Dismissal of SAIC Securities Suit Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation have
moved to vacate the dismissal of the suit by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York or obtain relief from
the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint, according
to Leidos, Inc.'s June 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2,
2014.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions.  One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint names as
defendants the Company, its chief financial officer, two former
chief executive officers, a former group president and the former
program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from
April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The consolidated
securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations
that the Company and individual defendants made misleading
statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating
income and internal controls in connection with disclosures
relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover
from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified
amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying
Leidos' stock at an inflated price. On October 1, 2013, the
District Court dismissed many claims in the complaint with
prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District Court entered an
order dismissing all remaining claims with prejudice and without
leave to replead. The plaintiffs have moved to vacate the District
Court's judgment or obtain relief from the judgment and for leave
to file an amended complaint.


LIBERTY GLOBAL: Claimant in 2013 Suit v. OneLink Files New Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The claimant in the December 2013 claim against OneLink
Communications filed a separate class action claim in Puerto Rico,
according to Liberty Global plc's June 4, 2014, Form 10-Q/A
(Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Liberty Puerto Rico, as the surviving entity in a series of
transactions completed in November 2012 pursuant to which Liberty
Cablevision of Puerto Rico LLC was combined with OneLink
Communications (OneLink), with OneLink as the surviving entity, is
a party to certain claims asserted by the incumbent telephone
operator against OneLink based on alleged conduct of OneLink that
occurred prior to the OneLink acquisition (the PRTC Claim),
including a claim that OneLink acted in an anticompetitive manner
in connection with a series of legal and regulatory proceedings it
initiated against the incumbent telephone operator in Puerto Rico
beginning in 2009. In December 2013, an additional claim was
asserted against OneLink alleging harm to consumers based on the
purported conduct of OneLink that formed the basis for the PRTC
Claim.  The claimant in the December 2013 action sought to join
the PRTC Claim as a representative of the entire class of
consumers who are alleged to have suffered harm as a result of the
purported OneLink conduct. In February 2014, the court ruled that
the December 2013 action could not be joined with the PRTC Claim.
The court ruling did not preclude the claimant from pursuing a
class action claim in a separate action. In March 2014, the
claimant in the December 2013 claim filed a separate class action
claim in Puerto Rico (the "Class Action Claim") substantially
similar to the claims asserted in the December 2013 claim. The
former owners of OneLink have partially indemnified the company
for any losses the company may incur in connection with the PRTC
Claim up to a specified maximum amount. However, the indemnity
does not cover any potential losses resulting from the Class
Action Claim.

The Company said its accounting for the OneLink acquisition
includes a provision and a related indemnification asset
representing Liberty Puerto Rico's best estimate of the net loss
that it may incur upon the ultimate resolution of the PRTC Claim.


LOS ARCOS: Faces "Pliego" Suit Over Failure to Pay Employees OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Belice Pliego on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Los Arcos Mexican Restaurants, Inc.,
d/b/a Los Arquitos Mexican Restaurant, Los Arquitos, Los Arquitos,
Inc., Los Arcos, Inc. and Los Arcos Mexican Restaurant, AMR-Lone
Tree, Inc., d/b/a Los Arcos Mexican Restaurant, AMR-Westland,
Inc., Juan Luevano, Ignacio Luevano, Ramon Luevano, Sandra
Luevano, and Liz Luevano, Case No. 1:14-cv-01686 (D. Colo., June
17, 2014), alleges that the Defendants refused to pay their hourly
employees overtime wages for hours worked beyond forty each
workweek.

Los Arcos Mexican Restaurant, Inc., is a Colorado corporation,
doing business as Los Arquitos Mexican Restaurant, Los Arquitos,
Los Arquitos, Inc., Los Arcos, Inc. and Los Arcos Mexican
Restaurant with a principal street address of 4991 West 80th
Avenue, Westminster, CO 80030.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Powers Milstein
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      595 Canyon Boulevard,
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 440-8780
      Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
      E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


MAIDBRITE LLC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tikeesha Brown, Sara Saavedra v. Maidbrite, LLC, N90 W17051
Appleton Ave. Menomonee Falls, WI 53051, Ericka Sanchez, Case No.
2:14-cv-00701 (E.D. Wis., June 16, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Maidbrite, LLC, operates a cleaning business at N90 W17051
Appleton Ave., Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Zoeller, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL SC
      222 W. Washington-Ste 450, PO Box 2155
      Madison, WI 53701-2155
      Telephone: (608) 257-0040
      Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
      E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com


MAMACITAS ON THE BAY: "Huerta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Huerta, Claudia Iracheta, Rodolfo Perez, Perla Castro, Noe
Iturbe, and Miguel Ixchop v. Mamacitas On The Bay Three, Inc.,
Jose f. Gonzalez, and Alma Gonzalez, Case No. 4:14-cv-01696 (S.D.
Tex., June 17, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Mamacitas On The Bay Three, Inc., is an enterprise that sells
telephones, computers, and restaurant equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500,
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Does Not Pay Servers OT, Fla. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mickey Paulino, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Marriott International, Inc., a foreign for profit corporation,
Case No. 6:14-cv-00921 (M.D. Fla., June 16, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay correct overtime wages to
all servers/waitpersons pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Marriott International, Inc., is an international corporation
offering lodging, banquet, food and beverage services and many
others to its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N. Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979,
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


MR WOK FOODS: Recalls Raw Pork Nugget Products Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wok Foods, a Las Vegas, Nev. establishment, is recalling
approximately 14,760 pounds of raw pork nugget product because of
misbranding and undeclared allergen. The product contains wheat, a
known allergen, which is not declared on the product labels.

The product subject to recall includes:

     10 lb. cases of "Battered, deep fried pork nugget" with
packaging dates between JAN 25 2014 and JUN 25 2014

The product subject to recall bears "EST. 20783" inside the USDA
mark of inspection on the labels. The raw pork nuggets were
produced on various dates from January 25, 2014 through June 25,
2014. All products were distributed for use in hotels, restaurants
and institutions in Las Vegas, Nev.

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a
food safety assessment. After investigation, it was determined
that the flour used in the products contained wheat. The
mislabeling in the raw pork nugget product occurred due to a
change in flour supplier. FSIS and the company have received no
reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare
provider.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Spencer Chung, Owner, at 702-740-5824.

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


MV TRANSPORTATION: "Jordan" Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Devorn Jordan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MV Transportation, Inc., MV Contract Transportation,
Inc., Mitch Phanor, in his professional and individual capacities,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03759 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,  liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys'
fees and costs.

MV Transportation, Inc., is a business that provides
transportation services for elderly and disabled individuals in
New York City area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      Bradley Lee Wilson, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11201
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              blw@employmentlawyernewyork.com


NESTLE USA: Recalls Limited Amounts of Haagen-Dazs(R) Chocolate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle USA is initiating a recall of limited amounts of ice cream
due to mismatched packaging. The affected products are 14-ounce
cartons labeled as Haagen-Dazs Chocolate Chocolate Chip Ice Cream
with a UPC of 74570-08400, and lid labeled as Haagen-Dazs
Chocolate Peanut Butter.  The best buy date and manufacturing code
appear on the bottom of the carton: Best By date of 13May2015,
Manufacturing code of 24-52 4133580418D.

These mismatched packages contain Chocolate Peanut Butter ice
cream, and the ingredient statement on the carton applies to
Chocolate Chocolate Chip Ice Cream and does not identify peanuts.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts may
run the risk of serious or potentially life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

The ice cream was produced on May 13, 2014 and has been
distributed in District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Maryland,
North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. No other production dates,
sizes or varieties of Haagen-Dazs ice cream are affected by this
recall. Haagen-Dazs product distributed in Canada is also not
affected. Only products with mismatched flavor lids and cartons
totaling 10,000 packages in the Eastern U.S. are being recalled.

A consumer reported the mismatched packaging to Nestle. The
company is investigating this incident and is working with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration in implementing this product
recall. Nestle is also working with Food Allergy Research &
Education to alert consumers in the affected areas.

Consumers with a peanut allergy are advised by Nestle not to
consume it. Consumers who have purchased the product (UPC 74570-
08400 and Manufacturing code 24-52 4133580418D Best By 13May2015)
can call 800-993-8924 or visit the website at
http://www.haagen-dazs.com/


NEW DIAMOND CAFE: "Cayetano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Vincente Cayetano, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. New Diamond Cafe, Danny's Gourmet, and Danny
Choe, Case No. 1:14-cv-04309 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and for other relief.

Diamond Cafe owns and operates a 24 hour cafe located at 224 West
47l Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil H. Greenberg Sr., Esq.
      NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C
      900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 214
      Westbury, NY 11590
      Telephone: (516) 228-5100
      Facsimile: (516) 228-5106
      E-mail: nhglaw@nhglaw.com


NILES INDUSTRIAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Ind. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Le Bron, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Niles Industrial Services, LLC, William Langford,
indiv., and Christopher Kaminski, indiv., Case No. 2:14-cv-00209
(N.D. Ind., June 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
willfully fail and refuse to properly pay overtime compensation
due Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees.

Niles Industrial Services, LLC, is a foreign limited liability
company headquartered out of Fenton, Michigan and doing business
in Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marissa J. McDermott, Esq.
      MCDERMOTT LAW OFFICE
      9013 Indianapolis Blvd,
      Highland, IN 46322
      Telephone: (219) 838-9200
      Facsimile: (219) 972-7110
      E-mail: marissa@mcdermottlegal.net


NISI FOOD: "Zayas" Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid OT & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Zayas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Nisi Food Corp. d/b/a Giovanni's Restaurant, Hardin 73 Inc.
d/b/a Giovanni's Restaurant, Anisa Food Corp. d/b/a Giovanni's
Restaurant, Grand Fia Inc. d/b/a Giovanni's Restaurant & G-Bar &
Lounge, Tosca Coal Burning Oven Inc. d/b/a Tosca Cafe, Tosca
Marquis Corp. d/b/a Tosca Marquee, Rasim "Eddy" Sujak, Amir
"Sammy" Sujak, Aida Sujak, Christine M. Sujak, Avdo Rodoncic, and
Emir Mrkulik, Case No. 1:14-cv-04332 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.

Nisi Food Corp., is a restaurant domestic located at 80 West
Fordham Road, Bronx, New York 10468.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor,
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@icpclaw.com


NORDSTROM INC: 9th Cir. Remands "Davis" Suit to District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), Nordstrom, Inc.
made revisions to the employee arbitration policy contained in its
employee handbook.  These changes precluded employees from
bringing most class action lawsuits. Despite these changes, weeks
later, Nordstrom employee Faine Davis filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees,
alleging that Nordstrom violated various state and federal
employment laws.  In time, Nordstrom, relying on the revised
arbitration policy in its employee handbook sought to compel Ms.
Davis to submit to individual arbitration of her claims.  The
district court held that Ms. Davis and Nordstrom did not enter
into a valid arbitration agreement with respect to the revision,
and therefore denied Nordstrom's motion to compel arbitration.
Nordstrom appealed the district court's decision.

Because the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
found that Nordstrom and Ms. Davis did indeed enter into a valid
agreement to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the District Court ruling and remand the case for
further proceedings.

The case is FAINE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORDSTROM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, NO. 12-17403.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 23, 2014 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/9zdCB1from Leagle.com.

George S. Howard, Jr. (argued) -- gshoward@jonesday.com -- Jones
Day, San Diego, California; Julie A. Dunne -- jdunne@littler.com
-- and Dominic J. Messiha -- dmessiha@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Los Angeles, California; Michael G. Leggieri --
mleggieri@litter.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Sacramento,
California, for Defendant-Appellant.

Courtland W. Creekmore (argued) -- ccreekmore@scalaw.com --
Matthew R. Bainer --  and Hannah R. Salassi -- hsalassi@scalaw.com
-- Scott Cole & Associates, APC, Oakland, California, for
Plaintiff-Appellee.


OREGON: Bid to Intervene in "Lane" Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In PAULA LANE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF OREGON AND
SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON, INC., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN KITZHABER,
Governor of the State of Oregon, et al, Defendants, UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. THE STATE OF OREGON,
Intervenor-Defendant, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-00138-ST, (D. Ore.),
seven individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities
(I/DD) who are being served in sheltered workshops in Oregon have
filed a Motion to Intervene as defendants in this case as of right
under FRCP 24(a) or permissively under FRCP 24(b) for the limited
purposes of decertifying the class, actively participating in any
settlement proceedings, or such further relief as they may seek.
Plaintiffs and the United States oppose the proposed Intervenors
while defendants support them.

In an opinion and order dated June 20, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/4G8Qmjfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge
Janice M. Stewart denied the motion to intervene.

"Given the explicit focus of this lawsuit on expanded choice for
employment services, the participation on both sides of two
governmental entities, the complexity and stage of the litigation,
and the stated goal of the proposed Intervenors to re-litigate
class certification, permissive intervention is not warranted at
this stage," Mag. Judge Stewart held.

Paula Lane, Plaintiff, represented by Bettina Toner --
btoner@cpr-ma.org -- Center for Public Represention, Bruce A.
Rubin -- bruce.rubin@millernash.com -- Miller Nash LLP, Cathy E.
Costanzo -- ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org -- Center for Public
Represention, Jennifer J. Roof -- jennifer.roof@millernash.com --
Miller Nash LLP, Joanna T. Perini -- JPerini@perkinscoie.com --
Perkins Coie, LLP, Julia Terese Greenfield --
jgreenfield@disabilityrightsoregon.org -- Disability Rights
Oregon, Justin C. Sawyer -- justin.sawyer@millernash.com -- Miller
Nash LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde -- kwilde@disabilityrightsoregon.org
-- Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H. Reichman --
LReichman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English
-- SEnglish@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Steven J.
Schwartz -- sschwartz@ssfpc.com -- Center for Public Represention,
Theodore E Wenk -- ted@droregon.org -- Oregon Advocacy Center &
Cody J. Elliott -- cody.elliott@millernash.com -- Miller Nash LLP.

Andres Paniagua, Plaintiff, represented by Bettina Toner, Center
for Public Represention, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash LLP, Cathy E.
Costanzo, Center for Public Represention, Jennifer J. Roof, Miller
Nash LLP, Joanna T. Perini, Perkins Coie, LLP, Julia Terese
Greenfield, Disability Rights Oregon, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller
Nash LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Represention, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center & Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash LLP.

Elizabeth Harrah, Plaintiff, represented by Bettina Toner, Center
for Public Represention, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash LLP, Cathy E.
Costanzo, Center for Public Represention, Jennifer J. Roof, Miller
Nash LLP, Joanna T. Perini, Perkins Coie, LLP, Julia Terese
Greenfield, Disability Rights Oregon, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller
Nash LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Represention, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center & Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash LLP.

Angela Kehler, Plaintiff, represented by Bettina Toner, Center for
Public Represention, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash LLP, Cathy E.
Costanzo, Center for Public Represention, Jennifer J. Roof, Miller
Nash LLP, Joanna T. Perini, Perkins Coie, LLP, Julia Terese
Greenfield, Disability Rights Oregon, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller
Nash LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Represention, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center & Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash LLP.

Gretchen Cason, Plaintiff, represented by Bettina Toner, Center
for Public Represention, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash LLP, Cathy E.
Costanzo, Center for Public Represention, Jennifer J. Roof, Miller
Nash LLP, Joanna T. Perini, Perkins Coie, LLP, Julia Terese
Greenfield, Disability Rights Oregon, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller
Nash LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Represention, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center & Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash LLP.

Lori Robertson, Plaintiff, represented by Bettina Toner, Center
for Public Represention, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash LLP, Cathy E.
Costanzo, Center for Public Represention, Jennifer J. Roof, Miller
Nash LLP, Joanna T. Perini, Perkins Coie, LLP, Julia Terese
Greenfield, Disability Rights Oregon, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller
Nash LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Represention, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center & Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash LLP.

Sparkle Green, Plaintiff, represented by Bettina Toner, Center for
Public Represention, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash LLP, Cathy E.
Costanzo, Center for Public Represention, Jennifer J. Roof, Miller
Nash LLP, Joanna T. Perini, Perkins Coie, LLP, Julia Terese
Greenfield, Disability Rights Oregon, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller
Nash LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Represention, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center & Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash LLP.

Zavier Kinville, Plaintiff, represented by Bettina Toner, Center
for Public Represention, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash LLP, Cathy E.
Costanzo, Center for Public Represention, Jennifer J. Roof, Miller
Nash LLP, Joanna T. Perini, Perkins Coie, LLP, Julia Terese
Greenfield, Disability Rights Oregon, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller
Nash LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Represention, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center & Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash LLP.

United Cerebral Palsy Association of Oregon and Southwest
Washington, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bettina Toner, Center
for Public Represention, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash LLP, Cathy E.
Costanzo, Center for Public Represention, Jennifer J. Roof, Miller
Nash LLP, Joanna T. Perini, Perkins Coie, LLP, Julia Terese
Greenfield, Disability Rights Oregon, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller
Nash LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Represention, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center & Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash LLP.

State of Oregon, John Kitzhaber, Governor, in his official
capacity, Defendant, represented by John J. Dunbar --
johndunbar@mhgm.com -- Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf, PC,
Laura R. Salerno Owens -- LauraSalerno@MHGM.com -- Markowitz,
Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, PC, Christina L. Beatty-Walters, Oregon
Department of Justice & Keith E. McIntire --
KeithMcintire@MHGM.com -- Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf, PC.

Oregon Department of Human Services, Erinn Kelley-Siel, Director,
in her official capacity, Defendant, represented by John J.
Dunbar, Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf, PC, Laura R. Salerno
Owens, Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, PC, Christina L.
Beatty-Walters, Oregon Department of Justice & Keith E. McIntire,
Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf, PC.

Oregon Office of Developmental Disability Services, Mary Lee Fay,
Administrator, in her official capacity, Defendant, represented by
John J. Dunbar, Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf, PC, Laura R.
Salerno Owens, Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, PC, Christina
L. Beatty-Walters, Oregon Department of Justice & Keith E.
McIntire, Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf, PC.

Oregon Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Stephanie
Parrish Taylor, Administrator, in her official capacity,
Defendant, represented by John J. Dunbar, Markowitz Herbold Glade
& Mehlhaf, PC, Laura R. Salerno Owens, Markowitz, Herbold, Glade &
Mehlhaf, PC, Christina L. Beatty-Walters, Oregon Department of
Justice & Keith E. McIntire, Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf,
PC.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Adrian L.
Brown, U.S. Attorney's Office, Max P. Lapertosa, U.S. Deptartment
of Justice, David W. Knight, U.S. Department of Justice, H. Justin
Park, U.S. Deptartment of Justice & Regina Kline, U.S. Deptartment
of Justice.

State of Oregon, Intervenor Defendant, represented by John J.
Dunbar, Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf, PC, Laura R. Salerno
Owens, Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, PC, Christina L.
Beatty-Walters, Oregon Department of Justice & Keith E. McIntire,
Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf, PC.


PEPSICO INC: Court Approves Stipulation Consolidating Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed a stipulation on June 20,
2014, consolidating cases filed against PepsiCo, Inc.  A copy of
the order is available at http://is.gd/n4cYgOfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs have brought nine consumer class actions on behalf of
themselves and a proposed class of persons who bought certain
products manufactured by Defendant PepsiCo, Inc. containing 4-
methylimidazole (4-MEI).  The plaintiffs in the nine actions all
allege that Pepsi sold products containing 4-MEI in violation of
California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986
(Proposition 65).

Plaintiffs in seven of the actions (the Sciortino, Cortina,
Granados, Ibusuki, Ree, Aourout and Hall actions) and Defendant
(the Stipulating Parties) are in agreement that these cases should
be consolidated for all purposes, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 42(a) because these actions all involve common
issues of law and fact.

The Stipulating Parties are also in agreement that the Riva and
Langley actions should be consolidated, even though counsel for
Riva and Langley have not consented to consolidation and therefore
are not signatories to the stipulation.

The court-approved stipulation provides, among other things, that:

1. The Sciortino, Cortina, Granados, Ibusuki, Ree, Aourout and
   Hall actions are consolidated for all purposes, pursuant to
   Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).

2. Each case that relates to the same subject matter that is
   subsequently filed in the Court or is transferred to the Court
   will be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.

3. Every pleading in the Consolidated Action will have the caption
   of the Sciortino action.

The case is STACY SCIORTINO and ARIELLE WEINSTOCK, Plaintiffs, v.
PEPSICO, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-00478-EMC, (N.D. Cal.),
AND RELATED CASES: Cortina v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-2023-EMC
Granados v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-1316-EMC Ibusuki v. PepsiCo, Case
No. 14-1193-EMC Ree v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-1192-EMC Aourout v.
PepsiCo, Case No. 14-1105-EMC Hall v. PepsiCo, Case, No. 14-1099-
EMC Langley v. PepsiCo.

LIONEL Z. GLANCY -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- MICHAEL GOLDBERG --
mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- MARC L. GODINO -- mgodino@glancylaw.com
-- GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP, Los Angeles, CA, DANIEL L.
WARSHAW -- dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP,
Sherman Oaks, CA, Counsel for Plaintiffs Kelly Ree and Mary Hall
and Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Class.

MARLIN & SALTZMAN, William A. Baird -- tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com
-- Attorneys for Plaintiffs Stacy Sciortino and Arielle Weinstock

LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD PC John J. Fitzgerald --
jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- Attorneys for Plaintiff Thamar
Santisteban Cortina.

TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC, Jon Tostrud -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com --
Attorneys for Plaintiff Williamson Granados.

KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP, Michael Louis Kelly --
mlk@KirtlandPackard.com -- Attorneys for Plaintiff Kent Ibusuki.

SEEGER WEISS LLP, Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com --
Attorneys for Plaintiff Souzan Aourout.

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Christopher Chorba --
cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Attorneys for Defendant PepsiCo, Inc.


PETCO ANIMAL: Sued for Getting Customers' Zip Codes
---------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Scolnick, and Leah Crohn on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Petco Animal Supplies Store, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-12547 (D. Mass., June 17, 2014), arises from the
Defendant's violation of Massachusetts General Laws through its
practice of requiring, as a condition of using a credit card to
make a purchase, the Plaintiffs' personal identification
information, specifically their ZIP codes.

Petco Animal Supplies Store, Inc., is a Delaware corporation,
located at 9120 Rehco Road, San Diego, California 92121.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Ilya Shapoval, Esq.
      1 Winnisimmet Street,
      Chelsea, MA 02150
      Telephone: (617) 889-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 884-3005
      E-mail: ashapoval@siprut.com


PHEBUS PAINT: "Garcia" Suit in Ill. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Garcia, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Phebus Paint Company and William C. Phebus,
Case No. 1:14-cv-04577 (N.D. Ill., June 17, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Phebus Paint Company is a commercial and residential painting
company at 9297 Beaver Valley Lane, Cordova, TN 38018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd., Ste. 200,
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


RICHARD'S RUBS: Recalls Sauces Because of Possible Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard's Rubs & Seasonings LLC is recalling Richard's Too Good
BBQ Sauce, Richard's Too Good Hot Sauce and Richard's Too Good
Teriyaki Sauce because they may have been improperly processed and
because they may have the potential to be contaminated with
Clostridium botulinum, which can cause botulism, a serious and
potentially fatal foodborne illness.

Foodborne botulism is a severe type of food poisoning caused by
the ingestion of foods containing the potent neurotoxin formed
during growth of the organism. Foodborne botulism can cause the
following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and
trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention. Consumers are warned not
to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

The recalled sauces were sold in western Washington grocery stores
and butcher shops in Kitsap, Snohomish and King counties.

Sauces are packaged in 12 oz tall glass bottles with metal screw
caps and black heat resistant tamper seals.

The products being recalled were distributed up to the date of
June 17, 2014. This recall has been initiated because of a
consumer complaint indicating that sauce may have been improperly
processed. Richard's Rubs & Seasonings LLC has not been notified
of any illness associated with their products.

Richard Mullen, owner of Richard's Rubs and Seasonings, believes
that "The health of our customers is a priority for our company,
which is why we are working with the Washington State Department
of Agriculture and a recognized process authoritys, to take the
steps necessary to ensure that our products continue to remain
good tasting and are safe"

Consumers who have purchased recalled sauces are urged to return
it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 206-854-7046 during the hours of 9AM to 5PM PST.
Visit www.richardsrubsandseasonings.com


RNC INDUSTRIES: Faces "Valerio" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Valerio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. RNC Industries, LLC, and Richard Tonyes, in his
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-03761
(E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid minimum wage, overtime compensation, and liquidated damages
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

RNC Industries, LLC, is a New York limited liability company
located at 720 Blue Point Road, Holtsville, New York 11742.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael John Palitz, Esq.
      KLATTER OLSEN AND LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350,
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      E-mail: mpalitz@klafterolsen.com


RUDOLPH FOODS: Recalls 34 Lbs of Pork Products Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rudolph Foods, a Lawrenceville, Ga. establishment, is recalling
approximately 34 pounds of pork products due to misbranding. The
product contains monosodium glutamate (MSG), which is not declared
on the label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The product subject to recall includes:

    1.75-oz.  packages of "Lee's Pig Skins Soft Style Cracklins"
with a Sell By date of only "SEP 5 2014"

The bags, labeled as Lee's Pig Skins Soft Style Cracklins,
actually contain salt and vinegar cracklins that contains MSG as
an ingredient.

The product, packaged June 3, 2014, bears the establishment number
"EST-1425" within the Sell By code. The product was shipped to
retail locations in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland
and Mississippi.

The problem was discovered by a customer who opened a case and
found salt and vinegar cracklins packaged in plain "Soft Style
Cracklins" bags. It should be noted that MSG can cause a brief
reaction in people with sensitivity to MSG. Anyone concerned about
a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses due to
consumption of these products.

Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Sue Reninger
at (614) 204-8086. Consumers with questions regarding the recall
can contact Deanne Rodgers at (800) 241-7675.

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


SAFEWAY INC: Enters Into MoU to Settle Consolidated Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
RTT News reports that Safeway Inc. announced its entry into a
memorandum of understanding to settle the consolidated class
action pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
filed on behalf of alleged Safeway stockholders against the
company in connection with proposed merger with an affiliate of
AB Acquisition LLC.

The memorandum of understanding provides for, among other things:
an amendment to the definitive merger agreement to adjust certain
provisions of the Casa Ley contingent value rights agreement and
the PDC contingent value rights agreement; an agreement to
terminate Safeway's stockholder rights plan, commonly referred to
as a "poison pill," effective June 19, 2014; and certain changes
to the proxy statement filed in connection with the proposed
merger.

The changes to the terms of the PDC CVR Agreement provide that,
among other things, the holders of the contingent value rights
under the PDC CVR Agreement would, instead of not receiving any
value for any assets of Safeway's shopping center portfolio that
remain unsold at the end of the two year sale deadline period
under the PDC CVR Agreement, be entitled to the fair market value
of the unsold assets.  The changes to the terms of the Casa Ley
CVR Agreement, among other things, shorten the sale deadline
period from four years to three years.

Originally scheduled to expire on September 15, 2014, Safeway's
Board has amended the rights plan to accelerate the expiration
date to June 19, 2014, effectively terminating the plan and the
rights issued under the plan as of that date.  Upon termination,
Safeway will voluntarily delist the rights from NYSE.  The company
expects the withdrawal to be effective on July 3, 2014.


SHIRE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Adderall XR Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the
defendants in a class action lawsuit involving Adderall XR did not
violate the Sherman Act when it supplied the plaintiffs'
competitors with an unbranded version of the drug.

The plaintiffs, who are wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical
products including Adderall XR, brought the class action alleging
that the defendants violated the anti-monopolization provision of
the Sherman Act by breaching defendants' contracts to supply two
of their competitors -- who in turn supply the plaintiffs -- with
an unbranded version of the defendants' patented drug for resale
under the competitors' own labels, according to the June 9
opinion.

Circuit judges Dennis G. Jacobs, Robert D. Sack and Raymond Lohier
Jr. voted in the majority, with Sack authoring the opinion.

The plaintiffs claim the contracts themselves gave rise to a "duty
to deal" under antitrust law.

"We disagree and therefore affirm the judgment of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York . . .
dismissing the complaint," the opinion says.

In May 2012, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company filed the class
action lawsuit against Shire.  It was subsequently consolidated
with a nearly identical action brought by Value Drug Company of
Altoona, Pa.

The plaintiffs alleged that by supplying Teva and Impax with less
than their requirements of unbranded Adderall XR, Shire relegated
them to 50 to 60 percent of the market, instead of the 90 percent
share they might have been expected to capture had they received
the quantity of unbranded pills they had demanded.

This allegedly allowed Shire to fix, raise, maintain and/or
stabilize the price of Adderall XR at supra-competitive levels and
overcharge the plaintiffs and other direct purchasers by "hundreds
of millions of dollars" in violation of the Sherman Act.

Shire moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
and the district court dismissed the complaint.

The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that the
complaint failed to state a claim.

"Indeed, the complaint does little more than attach antitrust
'labels and conclusions' to what is, at most, an ordinary contract
dispute to which the plaintiffs are not even parties," the opinion
states.  "In view of the plaintiffs' theory of the case and their
disclaimer of reliance on the patent litigation that gave rise to
Shire's agreements with Teva and Impax, we have not considered
that litigation and those agreements in our analysis."

The plaintiffs failed to allege facts that would place this case
within a narrow exception to the "long recognized right of [a]
trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business,
freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties
with whom he will deal," the opinion says.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case number: 13-1232


SPARK ENERGY: "Bank" Plaintiff Wins OK to File Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In TODD C. BANK, Plaintiff, v. SPARK ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC, SPARK
ENERGY, L.P., and SPARK ENERGY GAS, LP, Defendants, NO. 13-CV-6130
(ARR) (LB), (E.D. N.Y.), Mr. Bank, an attorney proceeding pro se,
asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),
47 U.S.C. Section 227, and New York state law.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's TCPA claims
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6), arguing that plaintiff's TCPA claims were previously
litigated and dismissed in a suit in the Southern District of
Texas, and therefore the principles of res judicata and collateral
estoppel require the dismissal of plaintiff's TCPA claims in this
suit. The Plaintiff opposed the motion and sought leave to move
for class certification.

In an opinion and order dated June 20, 2014, District Judge Allyne
R. Ross denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted the
plaintiff leave to move for class certification.

"[T]he motion for class certification shall be briefed according
to the following schedule: plaintiff's motion and supporting
papers shall be served no later than July 7, 2013; defendants'
opposition papers shall be served no later than July 14, 2013;
plaintiff's reply papers, if any, shall be served and the fully-
briefed motion filed no later than July 18, 2013. This schedule
may be altered only with the permission of the court," ruled Judge
Ross.

Todd C. Bank, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Spark Energy Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin
David Pergament -- bpergament@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler
LLP.

Spark Energy, L.P., Defendant, represented by Benjamin David
Pergament, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Spark Energy Gas, LP, Defendant, represented by Benjamin David
Pergament, Baker & Hostetler LLP.


SRISUK INC: Faces "Bautista" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Bautista, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Srisuk, Inc. d/b/a Beyond Thai Kitchen, Luangpudoo
Corp., d/b/a Beyond Thai Kitchen, Beyond Thai Kitchen, Inc.,
and/or any other corporate entity doing business as Beyond Thai
Kitchen, located at 133 West 3rd Street, New York, New York,
Pantipa Veerapornphimon, and Darun Lamnaotrakoon, individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-04335 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,  liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Srisuk, Inc., operates a Thai restaurant, known as Beyond Thai
Kitchen, located at 133 West 3rd Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212)209-3933
      Facsimile: (212)209-7102


SUTTER HEALTH: Court Dismisses Antitrust Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler dismissed the case captioned
DJENEBA SIDIBE and DIANE DEWEY, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUTTER HEALTH, and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, NO. C 12-04854 LB, (N.D.
Cal.).

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Djeneba Sidibe, Diane
Dewey, and Jerry Jankowski sued Sutter Health, a company that owns
and operates hospitals and other health care service providers,
alleging that Sutter's anticompetitive conduct in the health care
services industry in Northern California violates federal and
state antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law.

Sutter moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

In an order dated June 20, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/7gONpofrom Leagle.com, Mag. Judge Beeler granted
Sutter's motion to dismiss with prejudice and denies as moot its
request for judicial notice.

Djeneba Sidibe, Plaintiff, represented by Azra Z. Mehdi --
azram@themehdifirm.com -- The Mehdi Firm PC, Allan Steyer --
asteyer@steyerlaw.com -- Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP, Arcelia Leticia Hurtado -- ahurtado@themehdifirm.com --
The Mehdi Firm, PC, Axel Bernabe -- abernabe@constantinecannon.com
-- Constantine Cannon LLP, Charles Ralph Jaeger -- cjaeger@fbj-
law.com -- Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, David C. Brownstein --
dbrownstein@fbj-law.com -- Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Donald
Scott Macrae -- smacrae@steyerlaw.com -- Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jean Kim --
jkim@constantinecannon.com -- Constantine Cannon, Matthew L Cantor
-- mcantor@constantinecannon.com -- Constantine Cannon PC &
William S Farmer -- wfarmer@fbj-law.com -- Farmer Brownstein
Jaeger LLP.

Diane Dewey, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Steyer, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Arcelia Leticia Hurtado,
The Mehdi Firm, PC, Axel Bernabe, Constantine Cannon LLP, Charles
Ralph Jaeger, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, David C. Brownstein,
Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jean Kim, Constantine
Cannon, Matthew L Cantor, Constantine Cannon PC, William S Farmer,
Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP & Azra Z. Mehdi, The Mehdi Firm PC.

Jerry Jankowski, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Steyer, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Arcelia Leticia Hurtado,
The Mehdi Firm, PC, Axel Bernabe, Constantine Cannon LLP, Charles
Ralph Jaeger, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, David C. Brownstein,
Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jean Kim, Constantine
Cannon, Matthew L Cantor, Constantine Cannon PC, William S Farmer,
Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP & Azra Z. Mehdi, The Mehdi Firm PC.

Sutter Health, Defendant, represented by Lin W. Kahn --
linkahn@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Toby G Singer, Jones Day.


UNITED STATES: EEOC Affirms Disabled People's Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Schwartz Law disclosed that the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on June 12 affirmed a
judge's September 2010 decision certifying a class action brought
on behalf of all disabled Foreign Service applicants against the
U.S. State Department by San Francisco Bay Area attorney Bryan
Schwartz along with Passman & Kaplan of Washington, DC.  The
action challenges the State Department's so-called "worldwide
availability" policy, under which an applicant cannot ordinarily
be hired to America's Foreign Service with any disability that
could require ongoing medical care, since such might make him or
her unavailable to work at any one of the hundreds of Department
posts worldwide.

The EEOC decision found that the Class Agent in the matter,
Doering Meyer, has had multiple sclerosis (MS) in remission for
decades, without need for treatment, but was initially rejected
outright for State Department employment anywhere in the world
because the Department's Office of Medical Services perceived that
her MS might cause her problems in "a tropical environment."  This
was notwithstanding a Board Certified Neurologist's report
approving her to work overseas without limitation.

"The EEOC's decision rejecting the agency's appeal reaffirms that
government agencies are not immune from the laws protecting
disabled workers, and must provide individualized consideration
and reasonable accommodations," explained Mr. Schwartz.  "We are
thrilled that this case can now finally move forward, to obtain
relief for Ms. Meyer and many others subject to the policy, which
has injured or destroyed careers for many years based upon
insidious stereotyping of people with disabilities and records of
disabilities."

The Department challenged the judge's initial certification
decision because, among other reasons, Ms. Meyer eventually
received a rare "waiver" of the worldwide availability
requirement, with her attorney's assistance, and obtained a
Foreign Service post.  She is now a tenured Foreign Service
Officer, most recently in Croatia, and being posted to Lithuania.
Ms. Meyer's attorney argued to the EEOC that she was still delayed
in her career growth by the initial denial in 2006, and missed
several posting opportunities over the course of an extended
period, losing substantial income and seniority.  The EEOC agreed
with Ms. Meyer -- modifying the class definition slightly to
include not only those denied Foreign Service Posts, but those
"whose employment was delayed pending application for and receipt
of a waiver, because the State Department deemed them not
'worldwide available' due to their disability."

Mr. Schwartz indicated that the case may ultimately have major
implications not only for Foreign Service applicants, and not only
in the State Department, but for all employees of the federal
government abroad who have disabilities, records of disabilities,
and perceived disabilities, and who must receive medical clearance
through the Department's Office of Medical Services.  He noted
that he has already filed other alleged class cases, also pending
at the EEOC -- one on behalf of applicants for limited term
appointments (who need "post-specific" clearance, but are also
denied individualized consideration), and another on behalf of
employees associated with people with disabilities, who are denied
the opportunity to be hired because of their family members who
might need reasonable accommodations (or be perceived as
disabled).

"I am sorry that the EEOC took years to finally move the case
forward, but the decision means that justice delayed need not
necessarily be justice denied," Mr. Schwartz said.

For more information about this case, Meyer, et al. v. Kerry
(Department of State), please contact Bryan Schwartz:
Bryan@BryanSchwartzLaw.com.


UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE: Accused of Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Linda K. Myers, M.D., on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. The University Of Tennessee, Case No. 2:14-
cv-02457 (W.D. Tenn., June 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for the alleged gender discrimination under the Equal
Pay Act and seeks to back pay, liquidated damages, compensatory
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The University of Tennessee is a public university, located at
1127 Union Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38163.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Simpson, Esq.
      ALLEN SUMMERS SIMPSON LILLIE & GRESHAM, PLLC
      80 Monroe Ave., Ste. 650,
      Memphis, TN 38103-2466
      Telephone: (901) 763-4200
      Facsimile: (901) 684-1768
      E-mail: jsimpson@allensummers.com


VANEE FOODS: Recalls Turkey Base Product Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vanee Foods, a Broadview, Ill. establishment is recalling
approximately 3,156 pounds of turkey base because of misbranding
and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The turkey
base which contains milk was misbranded as chicken base that does
not include milk.  As the product contains milk, a known allergen
which was not declared on the label, the product is being
recalled.

The product subject to recall is:

    Imperial Sysco Turkey Base in 1-lb. tubs labeled as Chicken
Base with SUPC # 4944450, 6 per case with case codes 01734-6700
ending in 0784-5; the outer cases are labeled as Turkey Base

The product, produced on March 19, 2014, bears the establishment
number "P-19339" inside the USDA mark of inspection both on the
product and on the cases containing the product.  After
production, the products were shipped to food service distribution
centers in Pennsylvania, Florida, Oregon, Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Virginia.

The problem was discovered after one of the company's customers
found tubs labeled as chicken base in cases labeled as containing
turkey base.  Following a quality check by the company, the
company found that turkey base had mistakenly been packaged into
tubs labeled for chicken base.

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Alex Vanee, Vice President of Operations at (708) 236-7021.

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


VITA FOOD: Recalls Classic Premium Sliced Smoked Atlantic Salmon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vita Food Products, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois is notifying the
public that it is recalling 1,878 pounds of Vita Classic Premium
Sliced Smoked Atlantic Salmon due to possible contamination of
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea. Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women. To date, no confirmed illnesses
or complaints have been reported.

The product was sent to Hannaford stores in New York,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire, H-E-B stores in Texas,
and Publix stores in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina
beginning on April 7, 2014.

A single lot of 4oz Vita Classic Premium Sliced Smoked Atlantic
Salmon packages is the subject of this public announcement and
recall as the result of one package of salmon that tested positive
for Listeria monocytogenes by the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services. The packages are vacuum sealed,
black in color and bear the Vita logo centered at the bottom.
Product from this lot can be identified by a SELL BY AUG 17 2014
date and lot number 00764B, which can be found on the right side
on the front of the package. The 4oz size of this product is the
only size subject to this recall.

Any consumer who purchased the product with a sell by date and lot
number above may request a refund by mailing the product label or
a copy of the receipt to Vita Food Products, Inc., Attn: Customer
Service, 2222 West Lake Street. Chicago, Illinois 60612. Consumers
may also call the company at (800) 989-VITA Monday through Friday,
8:00 am -- 5:00 pm (Central) with questions. If you have consumed
the product and are experiencing any unusual or severe symptoms
such as those described above, go to an emergency room immediately
or contact your physician for immediate advice.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


WASHINGTON: State Appeals Court Upholds Dimissal of "Blick" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirms a trial
court summary judgment order dismissing the case captioned RICHARD
BLICK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Appellants, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, ELDON VAIL, BERNIE WARNER, and
DOES 1-20, Respondents, NO. 70403-6-I.

The county jail determines a prisoner's earned early release (good
time) credit for time served in jail. The Department of
Corrections (DOC) must include that credit when computing the date
when an individual becomes eligible for transfer to community
custody in lieu of earned early release. But regardless of that
eligibility date, the DOC may deny a transfer to community custody
in lieu of earned early release if the prisoner fails to satisfy
other statutory prerequisites such as failure to obtain an
approved release plan.

Richard Blick sued DOC for the torts of negligence and unlawful
imprisonment on the theory that DOC wrongfully refused to honor
his 52-day earned early release credit for time he served in jail.

According to the Washington Court of Appeals, because Mr. Blick
failed to provide an approved address, the DOC was entitled to
deny Mr. Blick's transfer to community custody in lieu of earned
early release. Such a denial was neither unlawful imprisonment nor
negligence.   Mr. Blick similarly failed to establish either DOC's
duty to release him early or his right to early release, the
Appeals Court added.

A copy of the Appeals Court's June 23, 2014 Opinio is available at
http://is.gd/1CcTBmfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Charles Kahrs -- mike@kahrslawfirm.com -- Kahrs Law Firm
PS, 5215 Ballard Ave Nw Ste 2, Seattle, WA, 98107-4838, Counsel
for Appellant.

Daniel John Judge, Attorney General's Office, Po Box 40126,
Olympia, WA, 98504-0126; Ronda Denise Larson, Assistant Attorney
General-Corrections D, Po Box 40116, Olympia, WA, 98504-0116,
Counsel for Respondents.


WEI-CHUAN USA: Recalls Pork Mini Buns Products Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wei-Chuan USA, Inc., a Bell Gardens, Calif., establishment, is
recalling approximately 332 pounds of Pork Mini Buns Crab Meat
Added due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.   The products were formulated with fish,
shellfish and egg, known allergens. However, the product was
released with a label for Pork Mini Buns which does not declare
fish, shellfish or egg.

The products subject to recall bear the label:

    20-oz. bags of "Pork Mini Buns"

The products were produced June 3, 2014 and have the product code
"DF03A" printed on the bag.  The products bear the establishment
number "Est. 9034" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The
products were sold to retail establishments in California.

The problem was discovered by the one of the company's own
distribution centers, which notified the company. After
investigation it was determined that the wrong film was put into
the labeling machine for some of the products produced that day.

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
T.Y. Sheu at (562) 372-2020 or via e-mail at: tys@weichuanusa.com.

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


WESTERN STONE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Litt, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Western Stone & Metal Corp., a Colorado
Corporation, dba Shane Co.; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 3:14-
cv-02804 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Western Stone & Metal Corp. operates retail motorcycle apparel
stores within the Northern District of California and the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq.
      Hernaldo Jose Baltodano, Esq.
      BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP
      1411 Marsh Street, Suite 102,
      San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
      Telephone: (805) 322-3412
      E-mail: efb@bbemploymentlaw.com
              hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com

            - and -

      Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Esq.
      Paul Haines, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER AND LUFTMAN, LLP
      5900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 920,
      Los Angeles, CA 90036
      Telephone: (323) 937-9900
      Facsimile: (323) 937-9910
      E-mail: fschmidt@bollaw.com
              phaines@bollaw.com


WPX ENERGY: Emergency Motions to Vacate Class Cert Hearing Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The ANDERSON LIVING TRUST f/k/a THE JAMES H. ANDERSON LIVING
TRUST; THE PRITCHET LIVING TRUST; CYNTHIA W. SADLER; ROBERT
WESTFALL; LEE WILEY MONCRIEF 1998 TRUST; KELLY COX TESTAMENTARY
TRUST 7/1238401, MINNIE PATTON SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION TRUST AND
SWMF PROPERTIES, INC. Plaintiffs, v. WPX ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC
f/k/a WPX ENERGY SAN JUAN, LLC and WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY,
LLC, and WPX ENERGY ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC, F/K/A WILLIAMS PRODUCTION
RMT COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, and STEVEN J. ABRAHAM, and H LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WPX ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC, f/k/a WILLIAMS
PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC WILLIAMS FOUR CORNERS, LLC and WILLIAMS
ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, Defendants, NOS. CIV 12-0040 JB/WPL, CIV
12-0917 JB/CG, (D. N.M.) is before the Court on: (i) the
Defendants' Emergency Motion to Vacate Class Certification
Hearing, filed March 7, 2014 (Case No. CIV 12-0040 Doc.
220)("Opposed Emergency Motion"); and (ii) the Defendants'
Unopposed Emergency Motion to Vacate Class Certification Hearing,
filed March 7, 2014 (Case No. CIV 12-0917 Doc. 165)("Unopposed
Emergency Motion").

On March 7, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the two motions in
the two separate, unconsolidated cases of The Anderson Living
Trust v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC, No. CIV 12-0040 JB/WPL (D.N.M.
filed in state court December 5, 2011, removed to federal court
January 12, 2012)("Anderson"), and Abraham v. WPX Energy Prod.,
LLC, No. CIV 12-0917 JB/CG (D.N.M. filed August 28,
2012)("Abraham").

The primary issue is whether the Court should vacate and
reschedule the class certification hearings presently set on March
10-12, 2010, for the Anderson case and March 13-14, 2014, for the
Abraham case, because one of the Defendants' expert witnesses will
be unavailable for the class certification hearings as a result of
her father's unexpected death on March 7, 2014. Because the
Defendants' expert witness may testify at a later date, because
the expert witness can use the hearing transcript in her attempt
to discredit the Plaintiffs' expert witnesses in the Anderson
case, and because the Anderson Plaintiffs have out-of-state
attorneys, expert witnesses, and Plaintiffs traveling on the eve
of the hearing, District Judge James O. Browning denied the
Opposed Emergency Motion.

"The Abraham Plaintiffs preserved their position that their class
certification hearing should begin on March 13, 2014, if the
Opposed Emergency Motion was denied. The Court, therefore, denies
the Unopposed Emergency Motion," Judge Browning further ruled.

A copy of the District Court's June 20, 2014 memorandum opinion
and order is available at http://is.gd/hluIY9from Leagle.com.

Turner W. Branch -- tbranch@branchlawfirm.com -- Cynthia Zedalis
-- czedalis@branchlawfirm.com -- Branch Law Firm, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, and Karen Aubrey -- karenaubrey@prodigy.net -- Law Office
of Karen Aubrey, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Brian K. Branch, The
Law Office of Brian K. Branch, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and
Stephen R. McNamara -- smcnamara@mcnamlaw.com -- Brian T. Inbody
-- binbody@mcnamlaw.com -- McNamara, Inbody & Parish, PLLC, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, and Bradley D. Brickell -- BBrickell@BradBrickell.com --
Brickell & Associates, P.C., Norman, Oklahoma, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs Anderson Living Trust, Pritchett Living Trust, Cynthia
W. Sadler, Robert Westfall, Lee Wiley Moncrief 1998 Trust, Kelly
Cox, Testamentary Trust 7/1238401, Minne Patton Scholarship
Foundation Trust and, SWMF Properties, Inc., Jake Eugene Gallegos,
Michael J. Condon, Gallegos Law Firm, P.C., Santa Fe, New Mexico,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steven J. Abraham and H Limited
Partnership.

Sarah Jane Gillett -- sgillett@hallestill.com -- Dustin Perry --
dperry@hallestill.com -- Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden &
Nelson, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Christopher A. Chrisman --
cachrisman@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Denver,
Colorado, and Mark F. Sheridan -- msheridan@hollandhart.com --
Bradford C. Berge -- bberge@hollandhart.com -- Robert J. Sutphin
-- rsutphin@hollandhart.com -- John C. Anderson --
jcanderson@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants.


                             *********

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  * * *