CAR_Public/140701.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 1, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 129

                             Headlines


3M CANADA: Recalls Screen & Keyboard Cleaner Due to Contamination
888 DINING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
A-R PEROGIES: Recalls Perogies & Tortellini Due to Wheat
ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Products with Sprouted Chia Seed Powder
ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Various Products Containing Chia Seeds

AMERICAN DEBT: Deal Approved Extending Discovery Deadlines
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: $10MM Securities Suit Accord Approved
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Court Certifies Privacy Class Action
BEST BUY: Settles TCPA Class Action for $4.55 Million
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Court Ruling in "Johnmohammadi" Suit Upheld

BLUE BIRD: Recalls 13 AARE Non-School Bus
BP PLC: NY Court Dismisses "Glenn" Clas Action
BUILDING MATERIALS: Falsely Marketed Timber Decking, Suit Claims
CAPITAL SCRAP: "Spradley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CARMAX AUTO: Violates Minimum Wage and Overtime Laws, Suit Claims

CHOBANI LLC: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, "Stoltz" Suit Says
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Common Wealth Equity Offering
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Approves Settlement of "Rae" Ellis Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Invokes "Most Favored Nation" Provision
COUNTRY COUSINS: Recalls Aunt Mae's Home Style Jams and Jellies

CULVER CAPITAL: Sued in N.D. Ill. for Sending Unsolicited Faxes
DEUTSCHE BANK: Violates Trust Indenture Act, Class Action Claims
DI NICO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Soto Suit Says
DIRECTORY PUBLISHING: Court Tosses Bid to Approve "Ritz" Suit Deal
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Hardy" Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval

DOLLAR TREE: Recalls Clingy Darts Due to Excess Phthalate
DSI FOOD: Recalls Veggie Citrus Spare Ribs Due to Undeclared Egg
EL AGUILA LEX: Faces "Calleja" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Oxymorphone HCl
ENERGIZER PERSONAL CARE: Sue in S.D. Ohio Over ERISA Violation

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Ceritified in "Dreher" Suit
FAGE DAIRY: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, "Stoltz" Suit Says
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: First-Year Litigation Update
GARDEN FRESH: Sued in Cal. for Failing to Provide Pay Check Stubs
GCI CONSOLIDATED: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

GEICO: Fourth Circuit Dismisses Appeal in Overtime Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Concealed Car Defects, "Andrews" Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defects
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sonic Model Due to Defective Transmission
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Raise Concerns Over Compensation Fund

GUSTO ITALIANO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
GUY SCOPELLITI: Faces "Torres" Suit for Failing to Pay Workers OT
HALLIBURTON CO: May Rebut Class Suit's Presumptions, SC Rules
HAPPY VEGGIE: Recalls Imitation Meat Products to Undeclared Egg
HITACHI KOKI: Recalls Pneumatic Nailers

INFOBLOX INC: Shareholders File Lawsuits in California Court
JOHNNY UTAH: Ex-Female Staffers File Sexual Harassment Suit
KARNAFULI INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Coxol" Suit Claims
KAZ USA: Sued in Fla. for Non-Disclosure of Heating Pads Defects
KING CANADA: Recalls Performance Plus Air Compressor

LES MINI PARALLELES: Recalls Kids' Fleece Jacket with Drawstring
LES MINI PARALLELES: Recalls Sleepers for Babies
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Judge Tosses Tax Shelter Class Action Claims
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff Sued Over Undocumented Workers
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Responsive Pleading in "Voss" Suit Due July

MONSTER BEVERAGE: Sued in San Diego for "100% Natural" Label
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Concussion Problems Spread to Basketball
NAVISTAR INT'L: July 23 Hearing on Motions to Dismiss Stock Suit
NEWPARK DRILLING: "Davida" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
OJITO WASTE: Faces "Collado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ORANGE LAKE: Faces "Artt" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
P&B CAPITAL: Faces "Safdieh" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Breach
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Aug. 27 Certification Hearing in Labor Suit
PADBURY MINING: Shareholders Unveil Losses Amid Class Action
PAYTIME: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach

PETROLOGISTICS LP: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
PNC BANK: Bid to Stay Discovery in "Montoya" Class Action Denied
PREMERA: McCarthy Finance Suit Remanded for Further Proceedings
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Protection Added to Spare Radioactive Waste
RMCN CREDIT SERVICES: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Leamer" Suit Claims

ROKA AKOR: Does Not Pay Tipped Employees Minimum Wages, Suit Says
RONAN, MT: Faces Class Action Over Civil Rights Violations
SOIL SOLUTIONS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Amends Final Judgment in Voucher Case
SOUTHWESTERN BELL: Class Action Seeks to Nullify Commission Order

SPOKANE, WA: Faces Class Action Over Red-Light Camera Tickets
SUNSOF INC: "Kotorri" Action Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Wages
SUTTER HEALTH: Appeals Court Rejects Wage-and-Hour Class Action
TONY THE PIZZA: "Kotorri" Action Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Wages
TRIBUNE COMPANY: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit Over ERISA Violations

TWITTER INC: Faces "Nunes" Suit Over Automated SMS Text Messages
UNITED STATES: DOH Head Sued Over Denial of Medicare Coverage
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Appeal v. Securities Suit Approval Dismissed
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Jurisdiction for Israeli Stock Suit at Issue

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Seeks to Junk Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Motion to Junk "Zoumboulakis" Under Submission
VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Lawsuit by VSL Employees
VINEYARD FOOD: Campos Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Damages
WESTFIELD RENTAL: Local Baking Suit Remanded to Trial Court


                            *********


3M CANADA: Recalls Screen & Keyboard Cleaner Due to Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 11, 2014
Posting date:             June 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Contamination
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-39945

Affected products: 3MTM Screen and Keyboard Cleaner CL680

The voluntary recall involves 3MTM Screen and Keyboard Cleaner
CL680; identified by UPC number 00021200529580.  The cleaner is
sold as part of a kit intended for external use on computer
keyboards and screens.  The kit contains cleaning fluid in a 35 mL
pump spray container, six cleaning wipes, and an applicator.

Through testing of product samples, 3M recently discovered
possible bacterial contamination of 3MTM Screen and Keyboard
Cleaner CL680.

Neither 3M nor Health Canada has received any reports of consumer
incidents or injuries related to the use of the cleaner and the
potential risk for healthy individuals is considered very low.
However, there are susceptible populations such as people with
compromised immune systems or individuals with structural lung
issues where contact with the bacteria may cause infection.  The
bacteria discovered, Burkholderia cepacia, is widespread and
commonly found in environments such as soil, vegetables and roots
from different plants, and surfaces.

Approximately 25,170 units of the recalled product were
distributed by 3M Canada Company to distributors and retailers
across Canada.

The recalled product was manufactured in Taiwan and sold from 2003
through May 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     3M Canada Company
                   London
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cleaner and
contact 3M Canada by telephone at 1-800-364-3577 for return and
reimbursement instructions.   Consumers who do not wish to return
the product should dispose of it according to Municipal Hazardous
Waste Guidelines due to the chemical nature of the product.


888 DINING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apolinar Munoz-Alonso, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. 888 Dining Corp. d/b/a Strokos Deli
Restaurant and Luis Huapaya, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-
cv-04429 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid or
underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and such other
relief under Fair Labor Standards Act.

888 Dining Corp., is a limited-service restaurant doing business
as Strokos Deli Restaurant and located at 888 10th Avenue, New
York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408,
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


A-R PEROGIES: Recalls Perogies & Tortellini Due to Wheat
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           A-R Perogies
Distribution:             Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8923


ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Products with Sprouted Chia Seed Powder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Advantage Health Matters Inc., Back 2
                          the Garden, BioEssential Botanicals,
                          Finally Gluten Free Foods Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8903

The food recall warning issued on June 6, 2014 has been updated to
include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

BioEssential Botanicals is voluntarily recalling sprouted chia
powder sold in bulk due to possible Salmonella contamination.  The
bulk product has been used to manufacture various products under
several brand names.  Consumers should not consume the recalled
products described below.

Please note that the affected products listed in the table may
have been sold without a code marked on the package.  These
products without a code would also be included in the recall.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick.  Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections.  Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea.  Long-term complications
may include severe arthritis.

The recall has been issued as part of a foodborne illness outbreak
investigation.  There have been reported illnesses associated with
the consumption of some of these products.

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

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


ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Various Products Containing Chia Seeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Advantage Health Matters, Noorish Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8948

The food recall warning issued on June 7, 2014 has been updated to
include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Advantage Health Matters and Noorish Inc. are recalling various
products containing chia seeds or sprouted chia seed powder from
the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

The recall has been issued as part of a foodborne illness outbreak
investigation.  There have been reported illnesses associated with
the consumption of some of these products.

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

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


AMERICAN DEBT: Deal Approved Extending Discovery Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------
In HEATHER NEWTON, individually and behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DEBT SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation; QUALITY SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, a California limited
liability company; GLOBAL CLIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC; ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BANK AND TRUST; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, CASE NO: 3:11-CV-
03228-EMC, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Edward M. Chen signed a
stipulation extending the deadlines pertaining to 1) discovery
requests, 2) summary judgment motion, and 3) class certification
motion and to continue case management conference.

Specifically, the stipulation provides that these deadlines,
hearing dates, and Case Management Conference date replace the
deadlines and dates in the Court's May 29, 2014 Order:

   a. Defendants have up through and including August 1, 2014 in
      order to complete the production of documents referenced in
      the Court's May 13, 2014 Discovery Order;

   b. Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment will
      be due on September 19, 2014;

   c. Defendant's Reply on Motion for Summary Judgment will be due
      on October 3, 2014;

   d. Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will
      occur on October 21, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.;

   e. Case Management Conference will occur on October 21, 2014,
      at 1:30 p.m.;

   f. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will be due on
      December 8, 2014;

   g. Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Class Certification
      will be due on January 9, 2015;

   h. Plaintiff's Reply on Motion for Class Certification will be
      due on January 29, 2015;

   i. Hearing on Motion for Class Certification will occur on
      February 12, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

A copy of the June 20, 2014 Sitpulation and Order is available at
http://is.gd/sRjH25from Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Defendants Global Client Solutions, LLC and Rocky
Mountain Bank and Trust, RICHARD W. EPSTEIN --
richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- (Pro Hac Vice Admission) REBECCA F.
BRATTER -- rebecca.bratter@gmlaw.com -- (Pro Hac Vice Admission)
MEREDITH H. LEONARD -- meredith.leonard@gmlaw.com -- (Pro Hac Vice
Admission) GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A., Lauderdale, FL, and:

   ROBERT S. BOULTER, Esq.
   Law Offices of Robert S. Boulter
   1101 5th Ave #235
   San Rafael, CA 94901
   Telephone: (415) 233-7100


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: $10MM Securities Suit Accord Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
approved the terms of a $10.0 million settlement reached in
Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No.
1:11-cv-10582-WGY, according to the company's June 5, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

Between April 6, 2011 and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts (the "Court"); one complaint additionally
asserted claims against the underwriters who participated in its
November 12, 2010 securities offering. On June 7, 2011, Court
consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American
Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.
On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint
against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities
offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, as well as under sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act").

The complaint alleged that during the relevant class period, the
Company and its officers omitted to state material facts and made
materially false and misleading statements relating to, among
other things, its projected and recognized revenues and earnings,
as well as its relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd.
("Sinovel") that artificially inflated the value of the Company's
stock price. The complaint further alleged that the Company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering contained untrue statements
of material facts and omitted to state material facts required to
be stated therein. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
rescindment of the Company's November 12, 2010 securities
offering, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees. All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On December 16, 2011, the Court issued a summary order
declining to dismiss the Securities Act claims against the Company
and its officers, and taking under advisement the motion to
dismiss the Exchange Act claims against the Company and its
officers and the motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims made
against the underwriters.  On July 26, 2012, the Court dismissed
the Exchange Act claims against the Company and its officers and
denied the motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims made
against the underwriters.

On November 19, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which resolved the
claims asserted against them, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the underwriters.  The terms of the
Stipulation provide, among other things, a settlement payment by
the Company of $10.0 million, $8.2 million of which will be funded
by its insurers and $1.8 million of which is expected to be paid
through the issuance of 944,882 shares of its common stock (the
"Settlement Shares").  The terms of the Stipulation were subject
to approval by the Court following notice to all class members.
By order entered May 5, 2014, the Court approved the terms of the
Stipulation and issued a final judgment dismissing this class
action litigation.  The effective date of the settlement is
expected to be June 5, 2014.  In the event that the value of the
Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) decreases
as of the effective date of the settlement, the Company will be
required to make a cash payment for the difference in value.  As
of March 31, 2013, the Company had established a reserve for the
anticipated cost to settle this class action litigation.  The
issuance of the Settlement Shares is expected to be exempt from
registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of
1933.  Based on the Company's assessment of the probable losses on
this claim, the Company has recorded a loss contingency of $1.8
million as of March 31, 2014.


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Court Certifies Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Yamri Taddese, writing for Law Times, reports that more than 600
clients of the Bank of Nova Scotia will pursue a class action
against it after a Superior Court judge gave the green light to a
lawsuit under the new privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

On June 6, Justice Robert Smith certified the class action brought
under the new tort established in 2012 in Jones v. Tsige, a case
in which a bank employee had repeatedly peered into her
colleague's bank account.

In Evans v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Justice Smith found he
couldn't rule out the possibility the bank is vicariously liable
for breach of privacy after one of its employees, Richard Wilson,
admitted to stealing clients' personal information for fraudulent
purposes.

"In this case, the bank created the opportunity for Wilson to
abuse his power by allowing him to have unsupervised access to
customers' private information without installing any monitoring
system," wrote Justice Smith.

He added that Mr. Wilson "was given complete power in relation to
the victims' (customers) confidential information, because of his
unsupervised access to their confidential information."

Justice Smith certified the class action despite the bank's
protest that it had already compensated clients for pecuniary
losses they suffered as a result of the breach.  "The bank's
admission of responsibility to pay for the pecuniary damages
suffered is a different situation from the absence of a claim for
compensatory damages," he wrote.

The ruling is good news for privacy lawyers, says Rochon Genova
LLP associate Suzanne Chiodo -- schiodo@rochongenova.com
Justice Smith's finding "combines the law that was laid down in
Jones v. Tsige with the low bar for certification" in class
actions, she says.

"It's a very generous interpretation of privacy law in Canada, so
I think it's good news for privacy lawyers," she says.

The fact that there were damages in this case made it easier for
the plaintiffs to get their class action certified by claiming
negligence, she adds.  "I don't know if negligence just on the
simple breach of privacy would always be certified; in fact, I
would say it probably wouldn't be certified," she says.

"For a cause of action in negligence, you have to show some
damages, so a breach of privacy without actual proof of harm is
going to be difficult."

Class action lawyer Daniel Bach -- daniel.bach@siskinds.com -- of
Siskinds LLP says Justice Smith's decision affirms the low bar for
certifying class actions despite the defendant's argument in Evans
that a class proceeding isn't the right forum to address the
dispute.

"The bottom line is that class proceedings law was created
specifically for the purpose of allowing lots of people with
similar claims to come together and litigate, and that's exactly
what this case is about," he says.

"There are a lot of arguments advanced by the bank here, but I
don't think the fact that this case is certified should surprise
anybody."

The bank had attempted to preclude the class action by arguing the
class includes 35 individuals from British Columbia and New
Brunswick, provinces that haven't recognized the tort of intrusion
upon seclusion.

"The tort of intrusion upon seclusion has only recently been
recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal and is settled in
Ontario.  However, until the matter is ultimately decided at the
Supreme Court of Canada, I find that the law in Canada is not
settled on this issue," wrote Justice Smith.

"While the courts in British Columbia and New Brunswick have not
as of yet recognized the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, I was
not given case law to suggest that they have definitively shut the
door on this cause of action."

While Justice Smith's decision relied on a liberal analysis of
privacy laws, Ms. Chiodo cautions against expecting the same
results in other privacy breach cases as the facts in Evans were
particularly favorable for the plaintiffs. She also says the
certification doesn't mean the court weighed the allegations on
their merit.

"There was no finding of vicarious liability but a finding that
there could be vicarious liability," she says.

The ruling, she adds, "doesn't really make substantial decisions
in privacy law because it kind of kicks the can . . . further down
the road and says, 'This is a certification hearing. It's not on
the merits.'"

Still, Ms. Chiodo notes the decision is a slight expansion of the
tort of intrusion upon seclusion established in Tsige.

In Tsige, the Ontario Court of Appeal capped the damages a judge
can award under the tort of intrusion upon seclusion at $20,000.
In that case, the plaintiff recovered $10,000. The lawyer for the
plaintiff later sued her for not paying her legal tab.

Mr. Bach says it doesn't follow that damages awarded in a class
action under the new tort must be under $20,000.  If the action in
Evans succeeds, each class member may well collect the same amount
of damages as the plaintiff in Tsige, he says.

The incentives for pursuing a claim under this tort are low given
the cap on damages, according to Ms. Chiodo, but those who launch
class actions are often looking for access to justice as well as
"behavior modification" by the defendants.


BEST BUY: Settles TCPA Class Action for $4.55 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a $4.55
million settlement has been reached and finalized in a class
action lawsuit against Best Buy after consumers claimed it
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
unsolicited telephone calls.

The settlement requires Best Buy to pay $4.55 million into a
settlement fund out of which claimants will receive their pro rata
share, according to the order filed June 9 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.

After deducting the requested court-awarded fees, litigation
expenses, settlement administration costs and the class
representative incentive award, the net proceeds to the settlement
class are estimated to be $3.2 million.

The Washington class consists of 439,000 class members and the
national class consists of 42,000 class members, according to the
settlement document.  It is estimated that class members will
receive between $50 and $100 per call.

"The plaintiffs reached this estimate by first subtracting the
estimated settlement costs from the gross settlement fund to
determine the estimated 'net settlement fund,'" the order states.

Michael Chesbro is to receive a $5,000 service award for services
he has rendered to the classes by stepping forward to bring this
case, according to the document.

Class counsel is seeking 25 percent of the fund, inclusive of
costs they advanced in furtherance of the case, which is
approximately $1.14 million.

The lawsuit was first filed in April 2010, when Mr. Chesbro
claimed Best Buy automatically signed customers up for its Rewards
Zone program without their knowledge when they purchased
electronics under a payment plan.  Best Buy then called them with
information about that program.

The lawsuit was removed to federal court in May 2010.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kim Williams of Williamson &
Williams; and Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- of
Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie.

Best Buy is represented by K. Michael Fandel --
mfandel@grahamdunn.com -- David C. Lundsgaard --
dlundsgaard@grahamdunn.com -- and Aimee K. Decker --
adecker@grahamdunn.com -- of Graham & Dunn; and Anne M. Lockner
-- amlockner@rkmc.com -- Michael D. Reif -- mdreif@rkmc.com --
Denise Rahne -- dsrahne@rkmc.com -- and David Leichtman --
dleichtman@rkmc.com -- of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi.

The case was assigned to District Judge Richard A. Jones.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case
number: 2:10-cv-00774


BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Court Ruling in "Johnmohammadi" Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
FATEMEH JOHNMOHAMMADI, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLOOMINGDALE'S, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12-55578 is a class action brought by
Fatemeh Johnmohammadi to recover unpaid overtime wages from
Bloomingdale's, Inc., her former employer. All of Johnmohammadi's
claims arise under state law and are asserted on behalf of
similarly situated current and former California employees.
Johnmohammadi initially filed the action in state court, but
Bloomingdale's removed the action to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Once in federal court, Bloomingdale's moved to compel arbitration
under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et
seq., and asked the district court to stay the action pending
completion of arbitration. The court granted the motion to compel.
It determined that shortly after being hired by Bloomingdale's,
Johnmohammadi entered into a valid, written arbitration agreement
and that all of her claims fall within the scope of that
agreement.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the district court ruling saying the district court correctly held
that the arbitration agreement is valid -- and under the FAA, it
must be enforced according to its terms.

Having freely elected to arbitrate employment-related disputes on
an individual basis, without interference from Bloomingdale's, she
cannot claim that enforcement of the agreement violates either the
Norris-LaGuardia Act or the NLRA, ruled the Ninth Circuit.

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

Dennis F. Moss -- dennisfmoss@yahoo.com -- (argued), Sherman Oaks,
California; Ira Spiro -- ira@spiromoore.com -- Spiro Moore, LLP,
Los Angeles, California; Sahag Majarian II -- sahagii@aol.com --
Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II, Tarzana, California, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

David E. Martin (argued) and Catherine E. Sison --
catherine.sison@macys.com -- Macy's Inc., St. Louis, Missouri;
John S. Curtis, Law Offices of Julia Azrael,
North Hollywood, California, for Defendant-Appellee.

Andrew J. Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- (argued), Evan M.
Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- Archis A. Parasharami --
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- and Richard B. Katskee --
rkatskee@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.;
Robin S. Conrad -- rconrad@uschamber.com -- and Shane B. Kawka,
National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C., for
Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.

For Amicus Curiae California Employment Lawyers Association:

   Cliff Palefsky, Esq.
   Scott Stillman, Esq.
   MCGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY
   535 Pacific Avenue
   San Francisco, CA 94133
   Telephone: (415) 421-9292
   Facsimile: (415) 403-0202

Jeffrey A. Berman -- jberman@seyfarth.com -- and James M. Harris
-- jmharris@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Los Angeles,
California, for Amicus Curiae California Employment Law Council.


BLUE BIRD: Recalls 13 AARE Non-School Bus
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Heater and Defroster
Units affected:           13
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014226
TC ID number:             2014226
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R14XF-C

On certain rear engine buses, heater hoses in the passenger
compartment could rupture and allow hot coolant to enter the
passenger compartment, increasing the risk of injury.

Dealers will install a revised hose and thermostat, as well as
additional shielding.

Affected products:

   Maker       Model                  Model Year(s) Affected
   -----       -----                  ----------------------
   BLUE BIRD   AARE NON-SCHOOL BUS    2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
                                      2012, 2013, 2014


BP PLC: NY Court Dismisses "Glenn" Clas Action
----------------------------------------------
Robert R. Glenn, a resident of the state of Oregon, brought a
putative class action lawsuit against Defendant BP p.l.c.,
alleging that it wrongfully cancelled a previously declared
dividend following the Deepwater Horizon disaster. This is the
second such lawsuit brought by Mr. Glenn; the Court twice
dismissed his first lawsuit, filed in Oregon, for lack of personal
jurisdiction over BP.  Mr. Glenn has filed this lawsuit in New
York, where personal jurisdiction is not contested.

Nonetheless, District Judge Keith P. Ellison, in a memorandum and
order dated June 18, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/YsG1wofrom Leagle.com, held that the Court must
again dismiss Mr. Glenn's claims, this time pursuant to the
doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Court, therefore, grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
Class Action Complaint.

"To the extent that Mr. Glenn and his fellow shareholders have
rights to vindicate, they must look to English courts for relief,"
ruled Judge Ellison.  "[T]he balance of public interest factors
weighs strongly in favor of England as an available, adequate, and
more convenient forum for Mr. Glenn's claims."

"This Court may reassert jurisdiction upon timely notification
that the courts of England refuse to accept jurisdiction for
reasons other than Mr. Glenn's failure to comply with the
procedural requirements of English courts. The Court retains
jurisdiction to supervise the terms of this dismissal," added
Judge Ellison.

The case is IN RE: BP p.l.c. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Robert R.
Glenn, Plaintiff, v. BP p.l.c. Defendant, MDL NO. 10-MD-2185,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-3660, (S.D. Tex.)


BUILDING MATERIALS: Falsely Marketed Timber Decking, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Burger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a
GAF Materials Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00513 (S.D. Ohio, June
19, 2014), arises from false advertisements and marketing of Cross
Timbers Decking as requiring low maintenance and easy for
installation with superior engineering that does not require
staining or sealing.

Building Materials Corporation of America is a manufacturer of
residential exterior building products in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER-GRIECO-MERRIMAN, LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com


CAPITAL SCRAP: "Spradley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Spradley, on her own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Capital Scrap Metal, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
and Steven Heller, individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61405 (S.D.
Fla., June 19, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Capital Scrap Metal, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company
with a principal place of business in Deerfield Beach, Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq.
      THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404,
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


CARMAX AUTO: Violates Minimum Wage and Overtime Laws, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Carmax Auto Superstores
violate minimum wage and overtime laws, a class action claims in
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside.


CHOBANI LLC: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, "Stoltz" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Stoltz and Allan Chang on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Chobani LLC, Chobani Holdings LLC, Chobani
Global Holdings LLC, Chobani International LLC, Chobani Idaho LLC,
formerly known as: Chobani, Inc., formerly known as: Agro-Farma,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03827 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2014), arises
from the Defendant's false and materially misleading
representation of Chobani Greek Yogurt products.

Chobani LLC, manufactures, distributes, markets and sells yogurt
with a principal office located at 147 State Highway 320, Norwich,
New York, 13815.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Common Wealth Equity Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
A. Bruce Chashin, individually and on behalf of a similarly
situated class v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Merrill
Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co.,
LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, UBS Securities, LLC, and Jefferies
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04419 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2014), arises from
the alleged illegal measures to disenfranchise Common Wealth's
shareholders through a dilutive equity offering.

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., is an investment bank or broker
dealer who participated as "Lead Managers" or "Book Running
Mgrs." of the dilutive Equity Offering of Common Wealth's common
shares.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Gerard Flynn, Esq.
      Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
      HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 935-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
      E-mail: jflynn@hfesq.com
              rharwood@hfesq.com

             - and -

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


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Approves Settlement of "Rae" Ellis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court (San Francisco) granted final
approval to a settlement reached in the gender discrimination suit
Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., according to the
company's June 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 11, 2014.

A case brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and
former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law. Shirley "Rae" Ellis
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., United States District Court (San
Francisco), Case No. C-04-3341-EMC. Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, interest and
attorneys' fees. Class certification was granted by the district
court on January 11, 2007. On September 16, 2011, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
of class certification and remanded to the district court for
further proceedings. On September 25, 2012, the district court
certified a class of women in the United States denied promotion
to warehouse general manager or assistant general manager since
January 3, 2002. The class is less than 1,300 people. In February
2014 the court granted preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement. Any payments to class members under the proposed
settlement would be contingent upon proof of liability in
individual adjudications. The court granted final approval on May
27, 2014. Payments under the settlement will be immaterial to the
Company's operations and financial position.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Invokes "Most Favored Nation" Provision
---------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. filed a notice invoking a "most favored
nation" provision under the settlement of the suit In re Motor
Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840,
according to the company's June 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May
11, 2014.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the
following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D.
Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);
Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v.
Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James
Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v.
BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D.
Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast
Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);
Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J.
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins,
et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D.
Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.). On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the action, entitled In re
Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No
1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas. On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed
to settle the actions in which it is named as a defendant. Under
the settlement, which was subject to final approval by the court,
the Company agreed, to the extent allowed by law and subject to
other terms and conditions in the agreement, to install over five
years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-
correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does
not provide for cash payments to class members. On September 22,
2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised settlement, which
did not materially alter the terms. On April 24, 2012, the court
granted final approval of the revised settlement. A class member
who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the order approving
the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award of $10 million
in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and payments to
class representatives. The Company has opposed the motion. On
March 20, 2014, the Company filed a notice invoking a "most
favored nation" provision under the settlement, under which it
seeks to adopt provisions in later settlements with certain other
defendants, an invocation that class counsel has opposed.


COUNTRY COUSINS: Recalls Aunt Mae's Home Style Jams and Jellies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Country Cousins
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8941


CULVER CAPITAL: Sued in N.D. Ill. for Sending Unsolicited Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
AL and PO Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Culver Capital Group, Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04646 (N.D. Ill., June 19, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for sending unsolicited junk faxes
in bulk to unwilling recipients with deficient opt-out notices.

Culver Capital Group, Inc., offers financial products and services
to businesses, including clinics operated by healthcare
professionals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq.
      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State St., Suite 1600,
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              gbarbakoff@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Violates Trust Indenture Act, Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Park Investments SA/NV, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,
as Trustee, Case No. 1:14-cv-04394 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violating the Trust Indenture
Act, and for breach of contract and breach of trust, in connection
with the Covered Trusts.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is one of the market leaders
in the RMBS trustee business, as it serves as trustee for
hundreds, if not thousands, of RMBS trusts, including the Covered
Trusts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800,
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com


DI NICO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Soto Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Soto, individually, on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Di Nico's Pizza Berwyn, Inc., Mr. X known as
JOHN, individually, and Mr. Y known as Mario, individually, Case
No. 1:14-cv-04596 (N.D. Ill., June 18, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime at time and one half the
regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a week.

Di Nico's Pizza Berwyn, Inc., is an Illinois corporation that owns
and operates a restaurant in Berwyn, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq.
      JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES
      431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606,
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 939-2100
      E-mail: jac@wageandhour.com


DIRECTORY PUBLISHING: Court Tosses Bid to Approve "Ritz" Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig denied a motion for approval of
a settlement agreement in the case captioned ANGELA RITZ,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTORY PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS and PAUL
DUFOUR, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13CV01236 AGF, (E.D. Mo.).

Judge Fleissig held that the parties in this action for unpaid
overtime wages have not made a sufficient record upon which the
Court can determine whether the settlement, and more specifically,
the attorney's fees agreed upon, is fair and reasonable. The
parties have not submitted any billing records or any indication
of how many hours counsel expended on the case, he added. Nor have
the parties explained the basis for the apportionment of the
payments among the ten Plaintiffs.  Without that information, he
said, the Court cannot at this point approve the Settlement
Agreement.

Therefore, the parties' joint motion for approval of the Fair
Labor Standards Act collective action settlement reached in this
case is denied without prejudice to refiling such a motion upon
supplementation of the record, Judge Fleissig concluded.

A copy of the District Court's June 19, 2014 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/uv4gIVfrom Leagle.com.

Angela Ritz, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel W. Moore --
smoore@rigganlawfirm.com -- RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC, Andrew W.
Kuhlmann -- andrew@kuhlmannfirm.com -- KUHLMANN, LLC & Russell C.
Riggan -- russ@rigganlawfirm.com -- RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC.

Directory Publishing Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
James M. Paul --- jim.paul@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE AND
DEAKINS & Sarah J. Kuehnel -- sarah.kuehnel@ogletreedeakins.com --
OGLETREE AND DEAKINS.

Paul Dufour, Defendant, represented by James M. Paul, OGLETREE AND
DEAKINS & Sarah J. Kuehnel, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Hardy" Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christopher R. Cooper granted final approval of a
class action settlement in the case captioned ANTHONY HARDY, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, CASE NO.
1:09-CV-01062 (CRC), (D.D.C.).

A copy of the June 20, 2014 memorandum opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/Rwtg3Nfrom Leagle.com.

The Court approves, on a final basis, these Settlement Class
Definitions:

Failed Notice Class. All individuals meeting the following
criteria:

(1) The person was arrested by an officer of the District of
    Columbia Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD").

(2) The MPD took cash from the person.

(3) The District kept (or keeps) the person's cash (whether by
    storing, using, or depositing).

(4) On or after June 8, 2006, and on or before May 24, 2012, the
    District mailed an administrative forfeiture notice to the
    person, but the District did not receive back a signed mail
    receipt.

(5) The District did not re-send a notice regarding the cash upon
    failure to receive a signed mail receipt.

(6) The District did not within one year of the conclusion of the
    person's criminal case (or release without charge) file a
    civil forfeiture action.

Jailed Notice Class. All individuals meeting the following
criteria:

(1) The person was arrested by an officer of the District of
    Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.

(2) The MPD took cash from the person.

(3) The District kept (or keeps) the person's cash (whether by
    storing, using, or depositing).

(4) The District mailed an administrative forfeiture notice to the
    person on or after June 8, 2006 (or before that date, but the
    person was in the custody of the District at the time and
    released from custody on or after June 8, 2006), and on or
    before May 24, 2012.

(5) At the time of mailing, the person was held by or in the
    custody of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections.

(6) The District did not mail or deliver an administrative
    forfeiture notice to the person at the place of incarceration,
    and did not re-send notice to the person after their release
    from custody.

(7) The District did not within one year of the conclusion of the
    person's criminal case (or release without charge) file a
    civil forfeiture action.

The Court approves payments to be disbursed as follows, in the
timing and manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement ($855,000
total):

a. $2,500.00 to each of the class representatives;

b. $14,001.85 for attorney's expenses

c. $52,665.15 to Class Action Administration, Inc. ("CAA");

d. $283,333.00 for attorney's fees; and

e. $500,000.00 on approved claims.

ANTHONY HARDY, Plaintiff, represented by Henry A. Escoto --
enry@escotolaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF HENRY A. ESCOTO & Sean Robert
Day -- sean@dayincourt.net -- LAW OFFICES OF SEAN ROBERT DAY.

DONNELL MONTS, Plaintiff, represented by Henry A. Escoto, LAW
OFFICES OF HENRY A. ESCOTO & Sean Robert Day, LAW OFFICES OF SEAN
ROBERT DAY.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by
Douglas Stuart Rosenbloom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Robert C. Utiger, DC OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL & Grace Graham, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.


DOLLAR TREE: Recalls Clingy Darts Due to Excess Phthalate
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 9, 2014
Posting date:             June 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Chemical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-39897

Affected products: Clingy Darts

The recall involves Clingy Darts.  These foam darts come in
packages of 4.  They are predominantly yellow with a sticky blue
tip.  There is a red film wrapped around the center of the yellow
foam. Each dart has three orange colored fins.  The foam darts can
be identified by the UPC code 639277210197 and date code 1207,
located on the back of the packaging.

The darts contain a phthalate, di(2-ethylhexyl) (DEHP), which
exceeds the allowable limit.  Studies suggest that certain
phthalates, including DEHP, may cause reproductive and
developmental abnormalities in young children when soft vinyl
products containing phthalates are sucked or chewed for extended
periods.

Neither Health Canada nor Dollar Tree has received reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of these Clingy Darts.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see Health Canada's
General Toy Safety tips.

Approximately 2560 of the recalled toy were sold at Dollar Tree
locations in Canada.

The recalled toys were manufactured in China and sold from Oct.
2012 to April 2014 at Dollar Tree Canada and Dollar Giant
retailers across Canada.

Companies:

   Distributor     DTSC Imports
                   Burnaby
                   British Columbia
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled toys and
return them to a Dollar Tree location for a full refund or credit.


DSI FOOD: Recalls Veggie Citrus Spare Ribs Due to Undeclared Egg
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           DSI Food Corporation
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8946

Affected products: 200 g. DSI Veggie Citrus Spare Ribs with all
codes where egg is not declared on the label.


EL AGUILA LEX: Faces "Calleja" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Calleja, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. El Aguila Lex, LLC, El Aguila III, LLC, Pedro Matar,
and Fernando Matar, Case No. 1:14-cv-04453 (S.D.N.Y., June 19,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

El Aguila Lex, LLC is a New York domestic business corporation
that owns and operates the El Aguila locations at 1634 Lexington
Avenue, New York, New York 10035 (El Aguila I) and 1215 Lexington
Avenue, New York, New York 10028 (El Aguila II).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
      E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com


ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Oxymorphone HCl
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax
Laboratories Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04651 (N.D. Ill., June 19,
2014), arises from the Defendant's overarching anticompetitive
scheme to allocate and unreasonably delay competition in the
market for extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride.

Endo Health Solutions Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business at 1400 Atwater Drive, Malvern,
Pennsylvania 19355.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Nicholas Boley, Esq.
      Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3300,
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      E-mail: jnb@wexlerwallace.com
              kaw@wexlerwallace.com


ENERGIZER PERSONAL CARE: Sue in S.D. Ohio Over ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Dull, Thomas Lawson, Jeffrey Taylor, Magdalene Wheeler,
Richard Fields, Donald Kearns, Sr., Irene Dunne  and Donald
Steely, on their own  behalf and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, and IUE-CWA, AFL-CIO, and LOCAL 82173, IUE-CWA,
AFL-CIO v. Energizer Personal Care, LLC, as Successor to American
Safety Razor Company, INC. and Hewitt Soap Company, Inc.; Playtex
Products, LLC, f/k/a Playtex Products, Inc. Energizer Holdings,
INC. as the Parent Corporation, Plan Sponsor and Administrator of
American Safety Razor Company Group Insurance Plan For Hourly
Employees, the Hewitt Soap Retiree Medical Insurance Plan and the
Energizer Holdings, Inc. Group Life Insurance For Disabled and
Retired Employees, Case No. 3:14-cv-00195 (S.D. Ohio, June 18,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for the alleged breach of
collective bargaining agreements of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and to recover medical and life insurance benefits
due and to clarify and enforce rights under employee welfare
benefit plans.

Energizer Personal Care, LLC, is a manufacturing company of
personal care and household products located at 533 Maryville
University, St. Louis, Missouri 63141.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julie C. Ford, Esq.
      DOLL, JANSEN & FORD
      111 West First Street, Suite 1100
      Dayton, OH 45402-1156
      Telephone: (937) 461-5310
      Facsimile: (937) 461-7219
      E-mail: jford@djflawfirm.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Ceritified in "Dreher" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Gibney granted a motion to certify the
class in the case captioned MICHAEL T. DREHER, Plaintiff, v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
3:11-CV-00624-JAG, (E.D. Va.).

The Court certified the class defined as: All natural persons who:
(1) requested a copy of their consumer disclosure from Experian on
or after August 1, 2010; (2) received a document in response that
identified "Advanta Bank" or "Advanta Credit Cards" as the only
source of the information for the tradeline; (3) and whose "date
of status" or "last reported" field reflected a date of August
2010 or later.

A copy of the District Court's June 19, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/0PYiuCfrom Leagle.com.

Michael T. Dreher, Plaintiff, represented by Ian Bryce Lyngklip --
IanLyngklip@att.net -- Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law Center,
PLC, Kristi Cahoon Kelly -- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly &
Crandall PLC, Andrew Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
-- Kelly & Crandall PLC, Casey Shannon Nash -- casey@clalegal.com
-- Consumer Litgation Associates PC, Justin Michael Baxter, Baxter
& Baxter LLP, Leonard Anthony Bennett -- lenbennett@clalegal.com
-- Consumer Litigation Associates, Matthew James Erausquin --
matt@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litgation Associates PC & Susan Mary
Rotkis -- srotkis@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation Associates.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David Neal Anthony -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP, Joseph William Clark -- jwclark@jonesday.com
-- Jones Day, Daniel J. McLoon -- djmcloon@jonesday.com -- Jones
Day & Patricia Simone Cruz, Jones Day.


FAGE DAIRY: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, "Stoltz" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Stoltz and Allan Chang on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Fage Dairy Processing, S.A., Fage USA Dairy
Industry, Inc., Fage USA Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03826
(E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2014), arises from the Defendant's false and
materially misleading representation of Fadge Greek Yogurt
products.

Fage Dairy Processing, S.A., manufactures, markets and sells
yogurt with principal office located at 35 Hermous Street
Metamorfossi, Athens, Greece 144452.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: First-Year Litigation Update
------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-two lawsuits filed in the past year accuse (a) Federal
National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae; (b)
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly called Freddie
Mac; (c) the Federal Housing Finance Administration, in its role
as Fannie and Freddie's Conservator; and (d) the United States
Department of the Treasury, in its role as Fannie and Freddie's
rescue financier; of entering into an illegal Net Worth Sweep
Agreement in 2012 that requires Fannie and Freddie to delivery
virtually all of their earnings to the U.S. Treasury until the end
of time.

As the first of those twenty-two lawsuits approaches its one-year
anniversary in the Federal court system, editors for the Troubled
Company Reporter and Class Action Reporter have compiled this
summary to help their subscribers identify the cases, summarize
the Plaintiffs' causes of action, relate what the Plaintiffs' say
they want, share the current status of each case over the past
year, and mark their calendars with the dates of upcoming events
before Judges Sweeney, Lamberth, Pratt and Cooke.

A handy chart in Portable Document Format displaying the
litigation summary presented below is available for free at
http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201407.pdf

The five important upcoming events in these cases are:

     07/10/2014 -- Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
production of Administrative Record in Continental Western v.
FHFA, Case No. 14-cv-00042 (S.D. Iowa)

     07/11/2014 -- Proposed protective order due in Fairholme v.
USA, Case No. 13-465 (Ct. Fed. Cl.)

     07/15/2014 -- Joint Status Report due in Fairholme v. USA,
Case No. 13-465 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), re 07/16/2014 Status Conference

     07/28/2014 -- Government's Answer due in Reid v. USA, Case
No. 14-152 (Ct. Fed. Cl.)

     08/29/2014 -- Deadline for Government to answer, move or
otherwise plead in Arrowood v. USA, Case No. 13-698 (Ct. Fed. Cl.)


   ________________________________________________________

             Significant Lawsuits Pending Against
                   Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
                      Updated June 29, 2014
   (Cases listed in alphabetical order by Plaintiff's name)
   ________________________________________________________


   Lawsuit No. 1
   -------------
American European Insurance Company v. Federal National Mortgage
Association, et al., Case No. 13-cv-01169 (D.C. filed July 30,
2013)

Plaintiff's Lawyers: Michael G. McLellan
                     L. Kendall Satterfield
                     Elizabeth R. Makris
                     FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP

                          - and -

                     Jeremy A. Lieberman
                     Lesley F. Portnoy
                     Patrick V. Dahlstrom
                     POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD
                        DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP

Plaintiff's Causes of Action:

     1-1: Breach of contract

     1-1: Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing Class action certification and appointment as Class
Representative

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     1-A: Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class the amount of damages
they sustained as a result of defendants' breaches of contract and
breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

     1-B: Granting appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to
remedy defendants' breaches of contract and breaches of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

What's happened in court in the past year: [Consolidated into
Misc. Action No. 13-mc-1288 (D.C.)]

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 2
   -------------
American European Insurance Company v. USA, Case No.
13-496 (Ct. Fed. Cl. filed July 19, 2013)

Plaintiff's Lawyers: Jeremy A. Lieberman
                     Lesley F. Portnoy
                     Patrick V. Dahlstrom
                     POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD
                        DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP

                          - and -

                     Charles J. Piven
                     BROWER PIVEN

Plaintiff's Causes of Action:

     2-1: Just compensation under the Fifth Amendment

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     2-A: Class certification and appointment as Class
Representative

     2-B: Awarding Plaintiff and the Class just compensation for
the Government's taking of their property

What's happened in court in the past year: [Consolidated with
Cacciapalle, et al. v. USA, Case No. 13-466 (Ct. Fed. Cl. filed
July 10, 2013) (Sweeney, J.)]

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 3
   -------------
Arrowood Indemnity Co., et al. v. Federal National Mortgage
Association, et al., Case No. 13-cv-1439 (D.C. filed Sept. 12,
2013) (Lamberth, J.)

Plaintiff's Lawyers:  Drew W. Marrocco
                      Michael H. Barr
                      Richard M. Zuckerman
                      Sandra D. Hauser
                      DENTONS US LLP

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     3-1: Against Treasury and Secretary Lew for violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act: (i) Treasury's conduct exceeds its
statutory authority under HERA and (ii) Treasury's conduct was
arbitrary and capricious

     3-2: Against FHFA and Acting Director DeMarco for violation
of the Administrative Procedure Act: (i) The FHFA's conduct
exceeds its statutory authority under HERA and (ii) the FHFA's
conduct was arbitrary and capricious

     3-3: Against Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHFA, as
Conservator, for breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing
Declaring that the Third Amendment, and its adoption, are not in
accordance with HERA

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     3-A: Vacating and setting aside the Third Amendment
. . . and providing that all payments made by Fannie and Freddie
under the Third Amendment, in excess of the amounts which would
have been due as dividends absent the Third Amendment, be treated
as a redemption of Senior Preferred Stock

     3-B: Enjoining Defendants from implementing, applying, or
taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Third Amendment

     3-C: If injunctive relief is not granted, awarding Arrowood
damages [for the] par value of their Junior Preferred Stock

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * Treasury's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 35)

     * Fannie Mae's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 36)

     * Plaintiffs' Objection and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Filed (Docs. 44 and 45)

     * Treasury's Reply Filed (Docs. 48 and 49)

     * Fannie Mae's Reply Filed (Docs. 50 and 51)

     * Plaintiff's Further Reply (Doc. 54)

     * Ready for hearing on pre-trial summary judgment motions,
with a written decision by Judge Lamberth to follow

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 4
   -------------
Arrowood Indemnity Co., et al. v. USA, Case No. 13-698 (Ct. Fed.
Cl. filed Sept. 18, 2013) (Sweeney, J.)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Drew W. Marrocco
                     Michael H. Barr
                     Richard M. Zuckerman
                     Sandra Hauser
                     DENTONS US LLP

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     4-1: Against the United States of America for just
compensation under the Fifth Amendment

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     4-A: Awarding Arrowood Parties just compensation for the
Government's taking of their property

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * Requests by the Government for more time to answer or
respond.  See Docs. 19, 16, 15, 12, 11, 10, 9 and 8.

     * Awaiting Government's answer or response to Arrowood's
Complaint

The next scheduled event in this case: 08/29/2014 for Government
to answer, move or otherwise plead.  See Doc. 21.


   Lawsuit No. 5
   -------------
Borodkin, et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al.,
Case No. 13-cv-01443 (D.C. filed Sept. 20, 2013)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Craig L. Briskin
                     MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC

                          - and -

                     Barbara J. Hart
                     Thomas A. Skelton
                     LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     5-1: Breach of contract

     5-2: Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     5-A: Class action certification and appointment as Class
Representative

     5-B: Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class the amount of damages
they sustained as a result of defendants' breaches of contract and
breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

     5-C: Granting appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to
remedy defendants' breaches of contract and breaches of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

What's happened in court in the past year: [Consolidated into
Misc. Action No. 13-mc-1288 (D.C.)]

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 6
   -------------
Cacciapelle, et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et
al., Case No. 13-cv-01149 (D.C. filed July 29, 2013) (Lamberth,
J.)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Hamish P.M. Hume
                     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

                          - and -
                     Lee D. Rudy
                     Eric L. Zagar
                     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     6-1: Breach of contract

     6-2: Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     6-A: Class action certification and appointment as Class
Representative

     6-B: Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class the amount of damages
they sustained as a result of defendants' breaches of contract and
breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

     6-C: Granting appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to
remedy defendants' breaches of contract and breaches of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

What's happened in court in the past year: [Consolidated into
Misc. Action No. 13-mc-1288 (D.C.)]

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 7
   -------------
Cacciapalle, et al. v. USA, Case No. 13-466 (Ct. Fed. Cl. filed
July 10, 2013) (Sweeney, J.)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Hamish P.M. Hume
                     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

                          - and -
                     Lee D. Rudy
                     Eric L. Zagar
                     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     7-1: Against the United States of America for just
compensation under the Fifth Amendment

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     7-A: Class action certification and appointment as Class
Representative

     7-B: Awarding just compensation for the Government's taking
of their property

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * Government's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 42)

     * Briefing regarding the motion to dismiss is stayed pending
the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme.  Once the
parties in Fairholme file a postdiscovery joint status report, the
court will issue an order in this case regarding further
proceedings.  See Doc. 46.

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 8
   -------------
Cane v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al., Case No. 13-cv-
01184 (D.C. filed Aug. 1, 2013)

Plaintiff's Lawyers: David L. Wales
                     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
                        GROSSMANN, LLP

Plaintiff's Causes of Action:

     8-1: Breach of contract against FHFA for (i) modification of
the certificates and series of stock without shareholders' consent
and (ii) elimination of dividends

     8-2: Anticipatory breach of contract against FHFA for
repudiation of shareholders' right to any eventual liquidation
surplus

     8-3 Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing against FHFA

     8-4: Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because
Treasury and FHFA's conduct (i) exceeded their statutory authority
and (ii) was arbitrary and capricious

     8-5: No just compensation under the Fifth Amendment

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     8-A: Class action certification and appointment as Class
Representative

     8-B: Compensatory damages to be determined at trial

     8-C: Just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for Treasury
and FHFA's taking of Plaintiffs' property

     8-D: Declaring that the Third Amendment, and its adoption,
violate HERA

     8-E: Vacating and setting aside the Third Amendment

     8-F: Enjoining Defendants from implementing, applying, or
taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Third Amendment, and
from any further violations of HERA

What's happened in court in the past year: [Consolidated into
Misc. Action No. 13-mc-1288 (D.C.)]

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 9
   -------------
Continental Western Insurance Company v. The Federal Housing
Finance Agency, et al., Case No. 14-cv-00042 (S.D. Iowa filed Feb.
5, 2014) (Pratt, J.)

Plaintiff's Lawyers: Charles J. Cooper
                     Vincent J. Colatriano
                     David H. Thompson
                     Peter A. Patterson
                     COOPER & KIRK, PLLC

                          - and -

                     Matthew G. Whitaker
                     Matt M. Dummermuth
                     Kendra L. Mills Arnold
                     WHITAKER HAGENOW & GUSTOFF, LLP

Plaintiff's Causes of Action:

     9-1: FHFA's conduct exceeds its statutory authority as
conservator

     9-2: Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act: FHFA's
conduct was arbitrary and capricious

     9-3: Treasury's conduct exceeded its statutory authority

     9-4: Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act:
Treasury's conduct was arbitrary and capricious

     9-5: Breach of contract

     9-6: Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing

     9-7: Breach of fiduciary duty

What the Plaintiff says it wants the Court to do:

     9-A: Declaring that the Net Worth Sweep and its adoption are
[illegal]

     9-B: Declaring that the . . . dividends to Treasury
. . . violated HERA

     9-C: Declaring that Treasury's post-2009 payments to Fannie
and Freddie . . . violate HERA

     9-D: Vacating and setting aside the Net Worth Sweep, the
dividends, and Treasury's post-2009 payments

     9-E: Reducing the liquidation preference of the Government
Stock

     9-F: Enjoining further dividend payments or tinkering with
the accounting

     9-G: Awarding Plaintiff damages resulting from FHFA's
breaches

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * FHFA's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 23)

     * Treasury's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 24)

     * Briefing suspended pending resolution of discovery dispute

     * Ready for hearing and decision on Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Production of Administrative Record (Doc. 31), Treasury's
Response (Doc. 32), FHFA's Response (Doc. 33), and Plaintiffs'
Reply (Doc. 36).

The next scheduled event in this case: 07/10/2014 -- Hearing on
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.  See Doc. 38


   Lawsuit No. 10
   --------------
Dennis v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al., Case No. 13-cv-
01208 (D.C. filed Aug 5, 2013) (Lamberth, J.)

Plaintiff's Lawyers: Reuben A. Guttman
                     Geoffrey C. Jarvis
                     GRANT & EISENHOFER

Plaintiff's Causes of Action:

     10-1: Breach of contract

     10-2: Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing

     10-3: Breach of fiduciary duty

What the Plaintiff says it wants the Court to do:

     10-A: Class action certification, appointment as Class
Representative, and confirmation that this a proper derivative
action

     10-B: Declaring that defendants breached the certificates of
designation of the Series S & T Preferred Stock. . . .

     10-C: Awarding compensatory damages

     10-D: Declaring that the Net Worth Sweep was unfair to Fannie
Mae, did not further any valid business purpose, did not reflect a
good faith business judgment as to what was in the best interests
of Fannie Mae or its shareholders, and constituted waste and a
gross abuse of discretion

     10-E: Declaring that, through the Net Worth Sweep, defendants
breached their respective fiduciary duties to Fannie Mae

     10-F: Awarding compensatory damages and disgorgement in favor
of Fannie Mae against defendants as a result
of their breach of their fiduciary duties. . . .

     10-G: Granting equitable relief, including rescission of the
Net Worth Sweep

What's happened in court in the past year: [Consolidated into
Misc. Action No. 13-mc-1288 (D.C.)]

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 11
   --------------
Dennis v. USA, Case No. 13-542 (Ct. Fed. Cl. filed Aug. 5, 2013)
(Sweeney, J.)

Plaintiff's Lawyers: Jay W. Eisenhofer
                     Geoffrey C. Jarvis
                     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.

Plaintiff's Causes of Action:

     11-1: Violation of the Takings Clause

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     11-A: Class action certification

     11-B: Awarding Plaintiff and the other Class members just
compensation for the unconstitutional taking of their property, in
an amount to be proven at trial. . . .

What's happened in court in the past year: [Consolidated with
Cacciapelle v. United States, Case No. 13-672 (Ct. Fed. Cl.)]

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 12
   --------------
Fairholme Funds, Inc., et al. v. The United States, Case No. 13-
465 (Ct. Fed. Cl. filed July 9, 2013) (Sweeney, J.)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Charles C. Cooper
                     Vincent J. Colatriano
                     David H. Thompson
                     Peter A. Patterson
                     COOPER & KIRK, PLLC

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     12-1: Just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the
taking of private property for public use


What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     12-A: Awarding compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the
Government's taking of their property

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * Government's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 20)

     * [Briefing suspended pending resolution of discovery
dispute]

     * Dispute over terms of Government's request for a protective
order (Doc. 49) arising from Court granting (Doc. 32) Plaintiffs'
Discovery Motion (Doc. 22) and overruling Government's Objection
(Doc. 30).  Hearing on Protective Order Held 06/19/2014 (Doc. 62).
Document production to occur in waves.

The next scheduled events in this case:

     * 07/11/2014 -- Proposed protective order due

     * 07/15/2014 -- Joint Status Report due re 07/16/2014 Status
Conference


   Lawsuit No. 13
   --------------
Fairholme Funds, Inc., et al. v. Federal Housing Finance Agency,
et al., Case No. 13-cv-1053 (D.C. filed July 10, 2013) (Lamberth,
J.)
Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Charles C. Cooper
                     Vincent J. Colatriano
                     David H. Thompson
                     Peter A. Patterson
                     COOPER & KIRK, PLLC

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     13-1: FHFA's and Treasury's conduct exceeds their statutory
authority

     13-2: Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act: FHFA's
and Treasury's conduct was arbitrary and capricious

     13-3: Breach of contract against FHFA as Conservator of
Fannie and Freddie

     13-4: Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing against FHFA as Conservator of Fannie and Freddie

     13-5: Breach of fiduciary duty against FHFA as Conservator of
Fannie and Freddie: Claim for equitable and declaratory relief

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     13-A: Declaring that the Net Worth Sweep, and its adoption,
violate HERA

     13-B: Declaring that, by entering the Net Worth Sweep, FHFA
breached Fannie's and Freddie's contracts with Plaintiffs and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit in those
contracts

     13-C: Declaring that . . . FHFA violated its fiduciary duty
to Plaintiffs

     13-D: Vacating and setting aside the Net Worth Sweep

     13-E: [Directing] Treasury to return to FHFA all dividend
payments made pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep or, alternatively,
recharacterizing a portion of the payments as partial redemption
of Government Stock rather than dividends

     *   *   *

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * Treasury's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 27) and
FHFA's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 28)

     * Response Opposing Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 38 and 39)

     * Treasury's Reply (Doc. 43) and FHFA's Reply (Doc. 45)

          -------

     * Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40)

     * Treasury's Objection to Cross-Motion (Doc. 44) and FHFA's
Objection to Cross-Motion (Doc. 46)

     * Reply (Doc. 51)

     * Ready for hearing and decision on Pre-Trial Summary
Judgment proceedings

     * As of June 5, 2014, hearing postponed until further order
of the Court.

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 14
   --------------
Fisher, et al. v. USA, Case No. 13-608 (Ct. Fed. Cl. filed Aug.
26, 2013) (Sweeney, J.)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Noah M. Schubert
                     Robert C. Schubert
                     Miranda P. Kolbe
                     SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP

                          - and -

                     Edward F. Haber
                     SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     14-1: Derivatively, on behalf of FNMA, unlawful taking
without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     14-A: Derivatively, on behalf of FNMA, finding that the
United States has unlawfully taken the private property of Fannie
Mae for public use without just compensation in violation of the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

     14-B: Derivatively, on behalf of FNMA, determining and
awarding Fannie Mae just compensation for the Government's taking
of its property

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 20)

     * Briefing regarding the motion to dismiss is stayed pending
the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme.  Once the
parties in Fairholme file a post-discovery joint status report,
the court will issue an order in this case regarding further
proceedings.  See Doc. 25.

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 15
   --------------
In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations, Misc. Action No. 13-mc-1288
(D.C. filed Nov. 18, 2013) (Lamberth, J.)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: David R. Kaplan
                     Blair A. Nicholas
                     John Rizio-Hamilton
                     David L. Wales
                     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
                        GROSSMANN LLP

                          - and -

                     Reuben A. Guttman
                     Geoffrey C. Jarvis
                     GRANT & EISENHOFER

                          - and -

                     Hamish P.M. Hume
                     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

                          - and -

                     Lee D. Rudy
                     Eric L. Zagar
                     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     15-1: Breach of contract

     15-2: Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing

     15-3: Breach of fiduciary duty

     15-4: No just compensation under the Fifth Amendment

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     15-A: Class action status and certification

     15-B: Declaring that this action is a proper derivative
action and that pre-suit demand is excused

     15-C: Declaring that the Third Amendment [is both] entirely
[and] intrinsically [un]fair to Fannie Mae, did not further any
valid business purpose of Fannie Mae, did not reflect a good faith
business judgment as to what was in the best interests of Fannie
Mae or its shareholders, and constituted waste and a gross abuse
of discretion

          *   *   *

     15-D: Awarding compensatory damages and disgorgement in favor
of Fannie Mae and just compensation for property taken

          *   *   *

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * Treasury's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 19) and Fannie Mae
& FHFA's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 20)

     * Plaintiffs' Objection to Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 33)

     * Fannie Mae & FHFA's Reply (Doc. 36)

     * Treasury's Reply (Doc. 38)

     * Ready for hearing and decision on Pre-Trial Summary
Judgment proceedings

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 16
   --------------
Liao v. Lew, et al., Case No. 13-cv-01094 (D.C. filed July 16,
2013)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Michael G. McLellan
                     L. Kendall Satterfield
                     Elizabeth R. Makris
                     FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP

                          - and -

                     Lionel Z. Glancy
                     Michael M. Goldberg
                     Ex Kano S. Sams II
                     GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     16-1: Illegal taking and/or extraction in violation of the
U.S. Constitution

     16-2: Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act: the
Treasury's conduct exceeds its statutory authority under HERA

     16-3: Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act: the
Treasury's conduct was arbitrary and capricious

     16-4: Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act: the
FHFA's conduct exceeds its statutory authority under HERA

     16-5: Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act: the
FHFA's conduct was arbitrary and capricious

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     16-A: Determining that this is a proper class action and
certifying Plaintiff as a Class Representative. . . .

     16-B: Finding that Defendants have taken and/or illegally
exacted the private property of Plaintiff and the Class in
violation of the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the United
States Constitution

     16-C: Declaring that the Third Amendment, and its adoption,
[violate] HERA . . . ; and that the Treasury and the FHFA acted
arbitrarily and capriciously . . . by executing the Third
Amendment

     16-D: Vacating and setting aside the Third Amendment
including its provisions that sweep the full amount of the
Companies' net worth to the Treasury, that prevent redemption of
the Government Preferred Stock, and that accelerate the Companies'
dissolution

     16-E: Enjoining the Treasury [and the FHFA] . . . from
implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant
to the Third Amendment

What's happened in court in the past year: [Consolidated into
Misc. Action No. 13-mc-1288 (D.C.)]

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 17
   --------------
Marneu Holdings Co., et al. v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et
al., Case No. 13-cv-01421 (D.C. filed Sept. 18, 2013)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Geoffrey C. Jarvis
                     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.

                          - and -

                     Jeremy A. Lieberman
                     Lesley F. Portnoy
                     Patrick V. Dahlstrom
                     POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD
                        DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     17-1: Breach of Contract

     17-2: Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing

     17-3: Violation of the APA -- Treasury's and FHFA's conduct
exceeds its statutory authority

     17-4: Violation of the APA -- Treasury's and FHFA's conduct
was arbitrary and capricious

     17-5: Breach of fiduciary duty

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     17-A: Class certification

     17-B: [D]amages [for] defendants' breaches of contract and
breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

     17-C: [R]escission of the Third Amendment

     17-D: Declaring that the Third Amendment was [un]fair to
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, [and ha]d no[] valid business purpose
. . . , and constituted waste and a gross abuse of discretion.

     17-E: Declaring that the Third Amendment [violates] HERA; and
that Treasury and FHFA acted arbitrarily and capriciously . . . by
executing the Third Amendment;

     17-F: Declaring that . . . the FHFA and the Treasury breached
their . . . fiduciary duties to Fannie . . . and Freddie. . . .

     17-G: Compensatory damages and disgorgement in favor of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac against . . . FHFA and the Treasury,
jointly and severally . . . in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest thereon

What's happened in court in the past year: [Consolidated into
Misc. Action No. 13-mc-1288 (D.C.)]

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 18
   --------------
Perry Capital LLC v. [Treasury Sec'y] Jacob J. Lew, [Acting FHFA
Director] Edward DeMarco, The Department of the Treasury, and The
Federal Housing Finance Agency, Case No. 13-cv-1025 (D.C. filed
July 7, 2013) (Lamberth, J.)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Theodore B. Olson
                     Douglas R. Cox
                     Matthew D. McGill
                     Mikesh Jindal
                     Derek S. Lyons
                     Janet Weiss
                     GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     18-1: Violations of the Administrative Procedure Act:

           (a) Treasury's conduct exceeds its statutory
               authority under HERA,

           (b) Treasury's conduct was arbitrary and
               capricious,

           (c) the FHFA's conduct exceeds its statutory
               authority under HERA, and

           (d) the FHFA's conduct was arbitrary and
               capricious

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     18-A: Declaring that the Third Amendment [is illegal]

     18-B: Vacating and setting aside the Third Amendment,
including [the terms] that prevent redemption of the Government
Preferred Stock, and that accelerate the Companies' dissolution

     18-C: Enjoining Treasury . . . from implementing . . . the
Third Amendment

     18-D: Enjoining the FHFA . . . from implementing . . . the
Third Amendment

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * Treasury's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 31) and FHFA and
Fannie's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 32)

     * Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Administrative
Procedure Act Claims (Doc. 37)

     * Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 38)

     * Treasury's Omnibus Reply (Doc. 40) and FHFA and Fannie's
Omnibus Replies (Doc. 42, 43 and 44 )

     * Perry's Reply (Doc. 47)

     * Ready for hearing and decision on Pre-Trial Summary
Judgment proceedings

     * As of June 5, 2014, hearing postponed until further order
of the Court.

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 19
   --------------
Reid v. USA, Case No. 14-152 (Ct. Fed. Cl. filed Feb. 26, 2014)
(Sweeney, J.)

Plaintiff's Lawyers: Robert C. Schubert
                     Noah M. Schubert
                     Miranda P. Kolbe
                     SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP

                          - and -

                     Edward F. Haber
                     SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP

Plaintiff's Causes of Action:

     19-1: Derivatively on behalf of FNMA, unlawful taking without
just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution

What the Plaintiff says it wants the Court to do:

     19-A: Derivatively on behalf of FNMA, finding that the United
States has unlawfully taken the private property of Fannie Mae for
public use without just compensation in violation of the Takings
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

     19-B: Derivatively on behalf of FNMA, determining and
awarding Fannie Mae just compensation for the Government's taking
of its property

What's happened in court in the past year: Awaiting answer

The next scheduled event in this case: 07/28/2014 -- Answer due


   Lawsuit No. 20
   --------------
Samuels, et al. v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al., Case
No. 13-cv-22399 (S.D. Fla. filed July 9, 2013) (Cooke, J.)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Charles Elsesser, Jr.
                     Meena Jagannath
                     Betsy Havens
                     COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
                        FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     20-1: Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     20-A: Vacate and set aside as null and void FHFA's decision
to indefinitely suspend payments by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to
the Housing Trust Fund

     20-B: Declare that Federal Defendants have violated the
Administrative Procedure Act by acting in an arbitrary and
capricious manner. . . .

     20-C: Order the FHFA to instruct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
that Federal Defendants' challenged decisions to withhold payments
from the Housing Trust Fund were null and void and that Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac must proceed as if those decisions had never taken
place

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * Amended Complaint Filed (Doc. 30)

     * Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 41)

     * Response Filed (Doc. 52)

     * Reply Filed (Doc. 61)

     * Discovery battle underway

     * Mediation, pending discovery resolution, extended to Aug.
31, 2104. See Doc. 79.

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 21
   --------------
Shipmon v. USA, Case No. 13-672 (Ct. Fed. Cl. filed Sept. 12,
2013)

Plaintiff's Lawyers: Noah M. Schubert
                     Robert C. Schubert
                     Miranda P. Kolbe
                     SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP

                          - and -

                     Edward F. Haber
                     SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP

Plaintiff's Causes of Action:

     21-1: Derivatively on behalf of FNMA, unlawful taking without
just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution

What the Plaintiff says it wants the Court to do:

     21-A: Derivatively on behalf of FNMA, finding that the United
States has unlawfully taken the private property of Fannie Mae for
public use without just compensation in violation of the Takings
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

     21-B: Determining and awarding Fannie Mae just compensation
for the Government's taking of its property

What's happened in court in the past year: [Consolidated with
Fisher v. United States, Case No. 13-608 (Ct. Fed. Cl.)]

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


   Lawsuit No. 22
   --------------
Washington Federal, et al. v. USA, Case No. 13-385 (Ct. Fed. Cl.
filed June 10, 2013) (Sweeney, J.)

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Steve W. Berman
                     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Plaintiffs' Causes of Action:

     22-1: Illegal taking and/or exaction without just
compensation in violation of the U.S. Constitution
Class action status and certification

What the Plaintiffs say they want the Court to do:

     22-A: Finding that the Defendant has taken and/or illegally
exacted Plaintiffs' and the Classes' private property in violation
of the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Constitution

     22-B: Determining and awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes
damages suffered by them by virtue of the Defendant's taking
and/or illegal exaction in the amount of $41 billion, or some
other amount to be determined at trial

What's happened in court in the past year:

     * Government's Motion to Dismiss Filed (Doc. 31)

     * Briefing regarding the motion to dismiss is stayed pending
the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme. Once the
parties in Fairholme file a postdiscovery joint status report, the
court will issue an order in this case regarding further
proceedings.  See Doc. 44.

The next scheduled event in this case: [None at press time]


GARDEN FRESH: Sued in Cal. for Failing to Provide Pay Check Stubs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Carvajal, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp., a
Delaware corporation dba Souplantation and Sweet Tomatoes, Case
No. 8:14-cv-00943 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to provide proper pay check stubs.

Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp., is a restaurant business located in
County of Orange, State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9171
      Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
      E-mail: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com


GCI CONSOLIDATED: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everardo Rojas, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. GCI Consolidated, LLC d/b/a
Golf Club of Illinois, Jury Demanded on all claims, Case No. 3:14-
cv-50137 (N.D. Ill., June 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage and overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

GCI Consolidated, LLC, is an Illinois company doing business at
1575 Edgewood Drive, Algonquin, IL 60102.

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


GEICO: Fourth Circuit Dismisses Appeal in Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued a decision in a
class action lawsuit against GEICO, stating it lacked jurisdiction
and dismissing the appeals.

Samuel Calderon, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, and GEICO both appealed the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland's final judgment in the class
action lawsuit.

Circuit judges William Byrd Traxzler Jr., Robert Bruce King and
Andre M. Davis decided the case, with Traxler authoring the
opinion.

Government Employees Insurance Company and GEICO General Insurance
Company appealed a district court order granting partial summary
judgment against them on the issue of liability in an action
asserting denial of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, according to the June 6 opinion.

The plaintiffs' cross-appealed an order granting partial summary
judgment against them on several issues relating to the remedy to
be awarded.

"Concluding that these appeals are interlocutory and we lack
jurisdiction to consider them, we dismiss the appeals," the
decision states.

The plaintiffs in the matter are security investigators who
currently work or previously worked in GEICO's Claims Department
primarily investigating claims that are suspected of being
fraudulent.

GEICO classifies its investigators as exempt from FLSA's overtime
pay protections.

In 2010, the plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of a class seeking
recovery of overtime pay they claimed GEICO wrongfully withheld in
violation of the FLSA and New York state law.

The complaint alleged GEICO improperly classified the Investigator
position as exempt from overtime under the FLSA and the law of New
York and requested compensatory and liquidated damages

After the district court certified the class, the plaintiffs moved
for partial summary judgment, and GEICO moved for summary
judgment, on the issue of liability.  The district court granted
the plaintiffs' motion and denied GEICO's, rejecting as a matter
of law GEICO's contention that the Investigators fell within the
FLSA's "administrative function" exemption.

The parties later filed cross-motions for summary judgment on
several disputed remedy issues.

Considering these motions, the court ruled that because GEICO
acted in good faith, GEICO did not act willfully and thus the
statute of limitations for plaintiffs' claims extended only for
two years.

For similar reasons, the court also ruled that the plaintiffs were
not entitled to liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest.  The
court also determined that because the plaintiffs were paid fixed
salaries regardless of the varying number of hours they worked,
the method of overtime described in Overnight Motor Transportation
v. Missel applied to this case.

The district court then entered a "Stipulated Order Relating to
Remedy" that it described as a "final judgment" that contained a
complete formula for the computation of backpay based on the
rulings the court had made and the parties' stipulations.

The order noted that both parties reserved the right to appeal the
rulings of the district court underlying the order and that the
order would "have no effect unless a judgment of liability is
entered and sustained after all judicial review has been
exhausted."

The backpay formula that the order adopted would produce an amount
of backpay to which each plaintiff was entitled depending upon the
total pay received and the total time worked for each two-week pay
period within the applicable limitations period.

"The district court's work was not completed and the judgment thus
was not final," the decision states.  "With no final decision to
review, we have no choice but to dismiss the appeals before us."

U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit case number: 13-2149


GENERAL MOTORS: Concealed Car Defects, "Andrews" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Andrews, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No.  5:14-cv-01239 (C.D.
Cal., June 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
misrepresentations, concealment, and non-disclosure of the
numerous defects plaguing over 17 million GM-branded vehicles.

General Motors LLC is a foreign limited liability company formed
under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business
located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth D. Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC, a Foreign Corporation,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00477 (S.D. Miss., June 18, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to disclose ignition switch
defects of General Motor's vehicles.

General Motors, LLC, is a Delaware corporation with headquarters
located in Detroit, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent Hazzard, Esq.
      HAZZARD LAW, LLC
      P. O. BOX 24382
      Jackson, MS 39225
      Telephone: (601) 977-5253
      Facsimile: (601) 977-5236
      E-mail: brenthazzard@yahoo.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sonic Model Due to Defective Transmission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           3337
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014229
TC ID number:             2014229
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14234

On certain vehicles equipped with a 1.8L engine and 6 speed
automatic transmission, the transmission turbine shaft may
fracture, disabling transmission gears 3 through 6.  If this were
to occur while the transmission is in 1st or 2nd gear, the
transmission would fail to up-shift past 2nd gear, limiting
vehicle speed.  If this were to occur while the transmission is in
3rd through 6th gear, motive power would be lost and the vehicle
would coast until vehicle speed was reduced to allow the
transmission to down-shift to 2nd gear.  Limited vehicle speed or
a loss of motive power could increase the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replace the transmission turbine shaft.

Affected products: 2012 Chevrolet Sonic


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Raise Concerns Over Compensation Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that lawyers who represent victims of General Motors Co.'s
ignition switch defects are raising concerns about a planned
compensation fund, pushing for punitive damages and questioning
who would be eligible.

During a June 18 congressional hearing over GM's recalls, chief
executive officer Mary Barra promised that the fund would not be
capped and that people with injuries or deaths predating its 2009
bankruptcy could be eligible.  She said GM would begin processing
claims on Aug. 1.

"If the ignition switch was part of the issue, we want them in the
program," she said.

But she deferred specifics to the fund's administrator, claims
attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who is expected to announce the details
within a few weeks.  He has been meeting with plaintiffs lawyers
to gather their views.  Some of those lawyers, speaking on
condition of anonymity, said they were pleased with some details,
such as the possibility of including cases in which the driver was
at fault, even if he or she was intoxicated.

But they're pushing for additional concessions.

"We know the direction he is leading us into, and we're not sure
we like all of it," said Jere Beasley --
jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com -- founding shareholder of Beasley,
Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Ala.

Mr. Feinberg and GM spokesman Greg Martin declined to comment.

Mr. Feinberg is a seasoned administrator of victim funds,
including those for last year's Boston Marathon bombings, BP PLC's
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.  GM
has recalled 2.6 million vehicles this year over the defect, which
could shut down engines, disabling power steering, airbags and
other functions.

Plaintiffs lawyers, many of whom remain embittered about
Mr. Feinberg's handling of BP's $20 billion fund for oil spill
victims, are pushing for punitive damages, given that GM knew of
the defect for more than a decade.  Unlike the BP fund, which
focused primarily on business losses incurred in the months after
the spill, GM's fund involves injuries and deaths directly caused
by the defect.

In court, juries could award punitive damages.

"In fact, if a jury hears what we know already -- and we don't
know everything yet -- they will punish General Motors severely
without any doubt," Mr. Beasley said.

Several plaintiffs attorneys raised concerns about how the fund
would categorize the causes of accidents.  U.S. Rep. Morgan
Griffith (R-Va.) was among several officials who asked
Ms. Barra during the hearing whether Mr. Feinberg was looking at
"other parameters" than airbag failures.  His concern stemmed, he
said, from the 13 dead whom GM has acknowledged, all of whom were
in accidents in which airbags failed.

"How many deaths are there and accidents are there that aren't on
GM's list where the proximate cause of the accident was the
stalling itself, not just an increase in the injuries because air
bags didn't deploy?" Mr. Griffith said in an interview.  "I don't
think air bags are the only issues they have to deal with."

Then there are the additional recalls -- most recently on June 16
of 3.2 million vehicles -- which GM said involved an unrelated
ignition problem.

"It's clear from the comments from Mr. Feinberg that there's
nothing set in stone yet about even what vehicles will be included
in the scope of the plan," said Lance Cooper, founding partner of
The Cooper Firm in Marietta, Ga.

Also unclear is whether a victim would be forced to give up all
legal claims by participating in the fund.  When pressed on that
question, Ms. Barra told Congress that the program was "in lieu of
going to court."

Still, regardless of the details, the fund might be the best
choice for some victims.  "I don't like to put somebody in a
lawsuit -- in a products case, which is extremely expensive to
litigate -- for a broken leg," Mr. Beasley said.  "In the
compensation fund, a broken leg would be compensated."


GUSTO ITALIANO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Omar Da Cunha and other similarly situated individuals v. Gusto
Italiano, LLC, Italian Food Marketing, Inc. d/b/a Il Gusto
Italian Cafe and Mauro Megna, individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61414
(S.D. Fla., June 19, 2014), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gusto Italiano, LLC, is Florida Limited Liability conducting
business in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com


GUY SCOPELLITI: Faces "Torres" Suit for Failing to Pay Workers OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Luis Torres, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Guy Scopelliti Original
Landscaping Co., Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04613 (N.D. Ill., June 18,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages to employees for all time worked in excess of 40
hours in individual workweeks.

Guy Scopelliti Original Landscaping Co., Inc., is a contractor or
subcontractor that performed construction and landscaping work on
public works projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Jenee Gaskin, Esq.
      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC
      401 S. LaSalle, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121
      Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
      E-mail: cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com
              jgaskin@wagetheftlaw.com
              aayala@wagetheftlaw.com


HALLIBURTON CO: May Rebut Class Suit's Presumptions, SC Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton deserves the chance to rebut certain presumptions in a
class action by investors who say the oil giant lied about
asbestos liability, the Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2014,
reports Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Though the Erica P. John fund's case is still in the class-
certification stage, June 23's decision marks the second time that
the Supreme Court has vacated a finding by the 4th Circuit.

The investors had originally moved in September 2007 to certify
all persons who purchased common stock between June 3, 1999, and
December 7, 2001.  They claim that Halliburton had understated its
projected liability for asbestos claims, overstated revenues by
including billings that were unlikely to be collected, and
exaggerated the cost savings and efficiencies from a merger in
1998 with Dresser Industries.

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded in 2011 that the appeals court
"erred by requiring EPJ Fund to show loss causation as a condition
of obtaining class certification."

It is a prerequisite of class certification for the plaintiffs to
show that a company's untrue statements created a presumption of
reliance.  The fraud-on-the-market presumption involves
misrepresentation publicity, misrepresentation materiality, market
efficiency, and evidence that the plaintiff traded shares between
the time the misrepresentations were made and when the truth was
revealed.

Unlike the other prerequisites, however, a failure to prove
materiality will likewise kill the individual claims of all
plaintiffs, the Supreme Court found.

Halliburton had wanted to show that the lack of price impact
rebuts the presumption of material misstatements, but the 5th
Circuit last year found that showing premature at the class-
certification stage.

The Supreme Court was essentially unanimous in vacating that
decision on June 23, 2014.

Precedent from the 1988 case Basic Inc. v. Levinson is at issue,
according to the ruling.

"Even if plaintiffs need not directly prove price impact to invoke
the Basic presumption, Halliburton contends that defendants should
at least be allowed to defeat the presumption at the class
certification stage through evidence that the misrepresentation
did not in fact affect the stock price," Chief Justice John
Roberts wrote for the court.  "We agree."

The plaintiffs themselves have already presented evidence at this
stage "of the existence of price impact in connection with 'event
studies' -- regression analyses that seek to show that the market
price of the defendant's stock tends to respond to pertinent
publicly reported events," the 23-page ruling states.

"Defendants -- like plaintiffs -- may accordingly submit price
impact evidence prior to class certification," Roberts added.

The chief justice said it "makes no sense, and can readily lead to
bizarre results" to bar the defendants from relying on that same
evidence prior to class certification for the particular purpose
of rebutting the presumption altogether.

Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined a brief
concurring opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, which Justices
Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito joined, stretches for 18 pages.

"Basic took an implied cause of action and grafted on a policy-
driven presumption of reliance based on nascent economic theory
and personal intuitions about investment behavior," Thomas wrote.
"The result was an unrecognizably broad cause of action ready made
for class certification.  Time and experience have pointed up the
error of that decision, making it all too clear that the Court's
attempt to revise securities law to fit the alleged 'new realities
of financial markets' should have been left to Congress."


HAPPY VEGGIE: Recalls Imitation Meat Products to Undeclared Egg
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Happy Veggie World Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8935


HITACHI KOKI: Recalls Pneumatic Nailers
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2014
Posting date:             June 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-39947

Affected products: Hitachi Koki Pneumatic Power Nailers

The recall involves two models of Hitachi Koki 3 1/4 inch strip
pneumatic nailers with depth adjustment.  Affected model numbers
are NR83A2(Y) and NR83A3 and the numbers are located on a label
attached to the side of the nailers and on the outside of the box
containing the product.

The pneumatic nailers can jam and override the safety switch that
permits only one nail to fire at a time, posing an injury risk.

Neither Health Canada nor Hitachi Koki has received any reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of these products in
Canada.

Approximately 300 of the recalled products were sold in Canada and
25,000 in the United States by various home improvement retailers.

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold from
May 2012 to April 2014 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Hitachi Koki Taiwan Co., Ltd.
                    Taiwan, Province of China

   Distributor      Hitachi Koki U.S.A. Ltd.
                    Norcross
                    Georgia
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled nailers and
contact Hitachi Koki U.S.A. for instructions on how to return the
product for a free repair.


INFOBLOX INC: Shareholders File Lawsuits in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Infoblox Inc. faces shareholder lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the company's June 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,
2014.

On May 30, 2014, an alleged class action entitled Paul Ansfield v.
Infoblox Inc., et al., No. 5:14-cv-2500-VC, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against the company and two of the company's officers.
The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding
the company's business and financial results. The suit is
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities between September 6, 2013 and February 10, 2014, and
seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. A similar complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities between September 5, 2013 and May 29, 2014, was filed
in the same court on June 4, 2014, in an action entitled Safedin
Beqaj v. Infoblox Inc., et al., No. 4:14-cv-2564-PJH. The
defendants have not yet responded to these complaints.


JOHNNY UTAH: Ex-Female Staffers File Sexual Harassment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rich Calder, writing for New York Post, reports that eight ex-
staffers of the West 51st St. bar filed a class-action lawsuit in
Manhattan federal court on June 17 claiming, among other things,
that bosses insist female staffers "to take off their shirts" and
kiss each other when they ride the mechanical bull.

The complaint claims Johnny Utah's female servers are "subjected
to pervasive and regular unwelcome sexual comments, propositions,
and physical contact by male customers" -- and that they risk
having hours cut or losing their jobs "if they complain."

"By intentionally using the ramped up sexualization of its female
employees . . . the owners and managers of Johnny Utah's have
knowingly engaged in the discriminatory policies and practices,"
the filing alleges.

The suit -- which seeks unspecified money damages on behalf of the
six female and two male ex-staffers -- also accuses the self-
described "home to New York City's original mechanical bull" of
cheating workers out of overtime pay and other legal wages.

The plaintiffs include ex-servers, bartenders and "Daisy Dukes
girls" who roam Rockefeller Center in short-shorts soliciting hot-
blooded men to check the joint out.

Female staffers are "expected to encourage" male clientele "to buy
them shots of alcohol during their work shifts, to sit on male
customers' laps, ride a mechanical bull with other female
employees and male customers, dance on top of the bar in front of
customers and pour shots of alcohol into customers' mouths," the
suit says.

The suit also claims that Johnny Utah's bosses urge female
staffers "to take off their shirts when they ride the mechanical
bull and kiss other female employees when they ride the bull
together."

"During beach theme parties held during the summer, the female
servers must wear bikini tops and customers watch as the female
servers splash around in plastic baby/toddler pools set up
throughout Johnny Utah's," the suit says.

The suit also names as defendants owner John Sullivan and managers
Thomas Casabona and JR Lozado, all of Manhattan.  It alleges some
of the female staffers Johnny Utah hires are under 21 years old
and that the honchos also "encouraged" these minors "to drink"
booze illegally -- and in some cases, even made sexual advances
towards them.

Mr. Sullivan, the suit says, routinely recruits female staffers
for wild parties he throws for friends.  Workers who refuse to
dance privately or complain about being groped during the parties
risk losing their jobs.


KARNAFULI INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Coxol" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Hidalgo Elias Coxol, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. v. Karnafuli Investment Inc. d/b/a Spice N Rice and
Mohammed Harun, Case No. 3:14-cv-02227 (N.D. Tex., June 18, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Karnafuli Investment Inc., is a restaurant located at 300 E
Terrace Dr, Ste 310, Richardson, TX 75081.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
      URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      5440 Harvest Hill Rd., Suite 145E
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (214) 420-3366
      Facsimile: (214) 206-9802
      E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com


KAZ USA: Sued in Fla. for Non-Disclosure of Heating Pads Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Muchnick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KAZ USA, Inc., and KAZ, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-22282
(S.D. Fla., June 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
unfair and deceptive conduct in selling Heating Pads which lack
disclosure of material information about their limited uses and
high risk and propensity to burn.

KAZ USA, Inc., manufactures distributes, markets, and sells
Heating Pads under the brand names Kaz, Dunlap, and SoftHeat with
its principal place of business located at 250 Turnpike Road,
Southborough, Massachusetts 01772.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Bledsoe Patterson, Esq.
      BALKAN & PATTERSON
      1877 S. Federal Highway, Suite 100
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 750-9191
      Facsimile: 750-1574
      E-mail: john@balkanpatterson.com


KING CANADA: Recalls Performance Plus Air Compressor
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 11, 2014
Posting date:             June 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-39711

Affected products: Performance Plus, 4-gallon air compressor model
number 8488N

The recall involves the Performance Plus, 4-gallon air compressor
identified by model number 8488N.  The product is a 2.5HP, 9 Amp,
110 Volt, 1720 RPM 4-gallon air compressor with two 2-gallon (7.6-
litre) red tanks stacked one on top of the other, with a maximum
operating pressure of 120 PSI and air delivery of 4.1 standard
cubic feet of air per minute at 90 PSI.

The brand name "Performance Plus" can be found on the top tank.
The model number, 8488N, is located on the unit name plate on the
rear of the compressor on the frame.

Please note that a previous model 8488 was CSA approved and
certified through another factory and is not included in this
recall.

The air compressor model is unauthorized to bear the CSA mark for
sale in Canada and may pose a fire hazard.

Health Canada has received one report of an incident involving the
air compressor where burn damage to the shroud cover was observed.
No injuries were reported.

Approximately 5,000 units of the recalled product were sold across
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
Nov. 2010 through May 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     King Canada Tools Inc.
                   Dorval
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using this Performance Plus air
compressor model and contact the original dealer for a
replacement.


LES MINI PARALLELES: Recalls Kids' Fleece Jacket with Drawstring
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 9, 2014
Posting date:             June 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-39895

Affected products: Children's fleece jackets with drawstrings at
the neck and waist

They are sold in different sizes, colours and patterns.

The recall involves children's fleece jackets, with hoods, sold as
a two-piece set with pants (model 331).  These children's jackets
have a fleece lining and drawstrings at the neck and waist.  In
addition, there is a brand label marked "mini paralleles" at the
bottom of the jacket.

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

Neither Les mini paralleles nor Health Canada has received any
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 71 jackets in two-piece sets were sold in Canada at
various shows in Quebec (Plein-Art, the Salon des metiers d'art de
Quebec and the Salon des metiers d'art de Montreal).

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold from
Aug. 1 to 12, 2013, at Plein-Art, the Salon des metiers d'art de
Quebec and from Dec. 4 to 20 at the Salon des metiers d'art de
Montreal.

Companies:

   Manufacturer      Les mini paralleles
                     St-Michel Quebec
                     Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring to eliminate
the hazard.


LES MINI PARALLELES: Recalls Sleepers for Babies
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 9, 2014
Posting date:             June 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-39903

Affected products: Sleepers for babies

The recall involves kimono-style sleepers (model number 218) sold
in 3-month size.  The sleepers come in different colors with
different patterns but all have a kimono-style front opening, with
snap fasteners and a white border.

In addition, this recall involves sleepers (model number 189) in
6-, 12-, and 18-month sizes.  These sleepers also come in
different colours with different patterns.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that these products do not meet the flammability requirements for
children's sleepwear under Canadian law.

Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources
such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than
tight-fitting sleepwear, and once ignited will burn rapidly,
potentially resulting in severe burns to large areas of the
child's body.  For this reason, cotton is not permitted in loose-
fitting sleepwear.

Neither Les mini paralleles nor Health Canada has received any
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 40 sleepers were sold in Canada at various shows in
Quebec (Plein-Art, the Salon des metiers d'art de Quebec and the
Salon des metiers d'art de Montreal).

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold from
Aug. 1 to 12, 2013, at Plein-Art, the Salon des metiers d'art de
Quebec and from Dec. 4 to 20, 2013, at the Salon des metiers d'art
de Montreal.

Companies:

   Manufacturer      Les mini paralleles
                     St-Michel
                     Quebec
                     Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sleepwear and
contact Les mini parallŠles to have the product corrected.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Judge Tosses Tax Shelter Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that a North Carolina
federal judge on June 16 axed class action claims in a lawsuit
alleging The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. disguised abusive
tax shelters as welfare benefit plans, saying the claims will be
better pursued individually.

U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles said the class action
claims, which allege under state law that Lincoln National made
untrue statements of material fact in selling a now-infamous plan
called the Benistar 419 Plan, are barred by the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act, which prohibits class action
suits that are based on state law and allege misrepresentations in
securities sales.

"The class claims and the plaintiffs' claims for class action
relief are dismissed with prejudice to the class aspects of these
claims but without prejudice to any individual who was a potential
member of the class bringing his or her own claim against the
defendant," the order says.

David Smyth, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said his clients are
weighing their options.

"We're obviously disappointed, we thought the law suggests a
different result," Mr. Smyth said.  "We will move forward with the
individual claims, but we haven't decided what we will do with the
class claims as far as an appeal."

Named plaintiff Dennis Reittinger is president of a North Carolina
auto body shop and in 2002, he sought tax planning advice for his
business.  Lincoln National contacted Mr. Reittinger to discuss
its tax planning offerings, and encouraged him to purchase a
welfare benefit plan called the Benistar 419 Plan.

Welfare benefit plans are employer-sponsored plans that provide
various benefits to employees like life insurance or health
insurance.  Plans that have multiple contributors, like the
Benistar 419 Plan, receive preferential tax treatment -- in the
case of the Benistar 419 Plan, employers would make contributions
to a Benistar 419 Plan & Trust that Lincoln National allegedly
maintained were tax-deductible as ordinary and necessary business
expenses, according to Mr. Reittinger's amended complaint.

Lincoln National allegedly used its life insurance policies as
funding vehicles for the plans and Mr. Reittinger claims the
Benistar 419 Plans in actuality were illegal tax shelters that
exposed him and others to Internal Revenue Service audits,
penalties, and other tax liabilities.

Mr. Reittinger maintains that Lincoln National marketed the
Benistar 419 Plans against the advice of their general counsel and
assured him that the plan was legitimate, yet also issued several
disclaimers about the program.

"Lincoln National attempted to 'have it both ways' by endorsing
and encouraging plaintiffs' participation in the Benistar 419 Plan
& Trust while at the same time attempting to have plaintiffs deny
that Lincoln National ever did so by signing 'disclosure' and
'acknowledgement' documents that were included in the voluminous
paperwork plaintiffs were required to sign in connection with
their participation in the Plan but never discussed with or
explained to plaintiffs," the lawsuit says.

Mr. Reittinger says the IRS ultimately examined his taxes and
disallowed his company's tax deductions from the Benistar 419 Plan
on the grounds that the plan wasn't a bona fide welfare benefit
plan.  He sought to certify a class of individuals who, from 1998
to the present participated in welfare benefit plans funded by
Lincoln National insurance policies, made tax deductions based on
their contributions and were assessed back-taxes, penalties and
interest by the IRS.

The plaintiffs are represented by David D. Smyth --
dsmyth@brookspierce.com -- Robert James King --
rking@brookspierce.com -- and Julia C. Ambrose --
jambrose@brookspierce.com -- of Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey &
Leonard LLP.

Lincoln National is represented by C. Bailey King Jr. --
bailey.king@smithmoorelaw.com -- and Robert R. Marcus --
rob.marcus@smithmoorelaw.com -- of Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

The case is Dennis J. Reittinger et al v. The Lincoln National
Life Insurance Co., case number 1:13-cv-00954 in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff Sued Over Undocumented Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Puente Arizona and Susan E. Frederick-Gray, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Sara Cervantes
Arreola; and Guadalupe Arredondo v. Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of
Maricopa County, Arizona, in his official capacity; Bill
Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity;
Maricopa County, Arizona; and Robert Halliday, Director of the
Arizona Department of Public Safety, in his official capacity,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01356 (D. Ariz., June 18, 2014), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent further arrests and
prosecutions under the worker identity provisions and an
expungement of records for the Plaintiffs who have been improperly
convicted as undocumented workers.

Joseph M. Arpaio is the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County,
Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Lai, Esq.
      UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE SCHOOL OF LAW
      - IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CLINIC
      401 E Peltrason Dr., Ste. 3500
      Irvine, CA 92697
      Telephone: (949) 824-9894
      Facsimile: (949) 824-0066
      E-mail: alai@law.uci.edu

           - and -

      Daniel Joseph Pochoda, Esq.
      ACLU - FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
      P.O. 17148
      Phoenix, AZ 85011
      Telephone: (602) 650-1854
      Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
      E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org

           - and -

      Jessica Devlin Karp, Esq.
      NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK
      675 S Park View St., Ste. B
      Los Angeles, CA 90057
      Telephone: (213) 380-2214
      Facsimile: (213) 380-2878
      E-mail: jkarp@ndlon.org

          - and -

      Ray Anthony Ybarra Maldonado, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RAY A YBARRA MALDONADO PLC
      2637 N 16th St., Unit 1
      Phoenix, AZ 85006
      Telephone: (602) 910-4040
      E-mail: rybarra@stanfordalumni.org


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Responsive Pleading in "Voss" Suit Due July
---------------------------------------------------------------
The responsive pleading of Marvell Technology Group Ltd. in a suit
filed by Lee Voss asserting putative class action claims on behalf
of shareholders is due July 23, 2014, according to the company's
June 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

On April 7, 2014, Lee Voss ("Voss") filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders and derivative claims ostensibly on behalf of the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division. The complaint alleges
that certain officers and directors of the Company breached their
fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to engage in
the purported willful infringement of certain patents asserted
against it in litigation by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and
by failing to institute adequate internal controls, resulting in
an adverse verdict. Additionally, the complaint alleges unjust
enrichment and a breach of the duty of honest services by three of
the officers. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. Voss
requests damages and restitution in unspecified amounts, equitable
and/or injunctive relief, and the costs and fees of bringing the
action. The action is in the preliminary stages, and discovery has
not commenced. The Company's responsive pleading is due July 23,
2014.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Sued in San Diego for "100% Natural" Label
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Monster and Hansen are
accused of falsely labeling their products as "100% natural" and
"naturally sweetened with Truvia," citing a class action lawsuit
initiated in San Diego Superior Court.

Marcy Krinsk v. Hansen Beverage Company and Monster Beverage
Corporation, Case No. 37-2014-00020192-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Diego Cty., June 19, 2014), asserts business tort claims.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Concussion Problems Spread to Basketball
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
allegations that the NCAA failed to protect college athletes from
long-term effects of concussive head injuries have expanded from
the football field to the basketball court.

James Cunningham, of Denton County, sued the NCAA in Federal Court
on June 20.  Cunningham claims he "sustained repeated concussive
trauma" while a member of the basketball teams at Arizona State
University from 1994 to 1995 and the University of Tulsa from 1996
to 1998.

Cunningham claims the NCAA was aware of "mounting literature and
medical advice" on the long-term effects of such injuries,
including two separate 2003 studies it helped fund.

One of the studies recommended the use of standardized concussion
assessment tools, he says in the complaint.

"Despite having knowledge of the foregoing research studies and
expert recommendations, the NCAA continued to allow players to
play on the days immediately following their receipt of a
concussion, failed to implement any guidelines or rules to prevent
repeated concussions or educate players about their increased
risk, and refused to endorse any of the recommended return to play
procedures," the 17-page complaint states.

"The NCAA further failed to take any action to educate its student
athletes on the risks of repeated head traumas."

Cunningham claims that after his collegiate career he suffered
from "severe headaches, seizures, confusion and cognitive
deterioration."

He sought treatment at the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Baylor
University and underwent neurological testing that included CAT
scans and MRIs.

"As a direct result of the concussive head injuries he suffered
while playing NCAA college basketball, Mr. Cunningham has and
continues to incur significant medical bills and expenses," the
complaint states.  "Mr. Cunningham suffers from constant
headaches, memory loss, dizziness, severe depression, speech
impediments, panic disorder, anxiety, mobility issues,
irritability, chronic traumatic encephalopathy and panic disorder.
Mr. Cunningham did not suffer from these conditions prior to
incurring the concussions while playing NCAA basketball.  In
addition to his severe medical conditions which require constant
treatment and monitoring, Mr. Cunningham is at an increased risk
of developing latent brain injuries or additional
neurodegenerative disorders."

The NCAA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
June 21, 2014.  It faces several other lawsuits from former
college football players who allege similar injuries. Former
players from Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt filed separate federal
class actions in November 2013.

Cunningham seeks actual and punitive damages for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, negligence and fraudulent
concealment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          DOYLE RAIZNER LLP
          2402 Dunlavy St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 571-1146
          Facsimile: (713) 571-1148
          E-mail: Jraizner@doyleraizner.com


NAVISTAR INT'L: July 23 Hearing on Motions to Dismiss Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing date on the Motions to Dismiss a consolidated
shareholder lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation is
set July 23, 2014, according to the company's June 5, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

In March 2013, a putative class action complaint, alleging
securities fraud, was filed against the company by the
Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and
Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
purchasers of the company's common stock between the period of
November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action
complaint was filed in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement
System, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
purchasers of the company's common stock between the period of
June 9, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint
was filed in April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family
Trust, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
purchasers of the company's common stock between the period of
November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. Each complaint named the
company as well as Daniel C. Ustian, the company's former
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J. Cederoth, the
company's former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer as defendants. These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5
Cases") contain similar factual allegations which include, among
other things, that the company violated the federal securities
laws by knowingly issuing materially false and misleading
statements concerning the company's financial condition and future
business prospects and that the company misrepresented and omitted
material facts in filings with the SEC concerning the timing and
likelihood of EPA certification of the company's EGR technology to
meet 2010 EPA emission standards. The plaintiffs in these matters
seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief.
In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating
all cases before one judge and in July 2013, the Court appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint in October 2013.  The
consolidated amended complaint enlarged the proposed class period
to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named fourteen
additional current and former directors and officers as
defendants. The defendants filed Motions to Dismiss on December
17, 2013. The plaintiff filed an Omnibus Opposition to Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss, and a Motion to Strike on January 31, 2014.
The defendants filed their opposition to the Motion to Strike on
February 18, 2014 and filed a reply in support of their Motions to
Dismiss on March 3, 2014. The Court has scheduled a hearing date
on the Motions to Dismiss of July 23, 2014.


NEWPARK DRILLING: "Davida" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Davida, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Newpark Drilling Fluids, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00552
(W.D. Tex., June 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Newpark Drilling Fluids, LLC, provides drilling fluid products and
service to thousands of wells in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OJITO WASTE: Faces "Collado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Collado v. Ojito Waste Systems, Inc., and Henry Ojito,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22279 (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime pay
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ojito Waste Systems, Inc., owns and operates a corporation that
removes debris from construction sites and delivers the same to
local dumps and maintains a corporate office in Hialeah, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
      2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 921-9994
      Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


ORANGE LAKE: Faces "Artt" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Artt, Bradley Hughes, Adam Israel, Stephen Raniero, Sophia
Rogers, Shane Savage, Scott Gayne, an individual on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. Orange Lake Country
Club, Inc. doing business as: Orange Lake Resorts a Florida
corporation, Case No. . 6:14-cv-00956 (M.D. Fla., June 19, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime pay
for overtime work pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Orange Lake Country Club, Inc., sells timeshare properties in its
resorts and properties located in Florida, Nevada, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher A. Pace, Esq.
      Jill Steinberg Schwartz, Esq.
      JILL S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, PA
      Suite 212, 655 W Morse Blvd,
      Winter Park, FL 32789
      Telephone: (407) 647-8911
      Facsimile: (407) 628-4994
      E-mail: cpace@schwartzlawfirm.net
              jschwartz@schwartzlawfirm.net


P&B CAPITAL: Faces "Safdieh" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saul Safdieh, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. P&B Capital Group, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-03947
(D.N.J., June 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the
Defendant's violation if the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

P&B Capital Group, LLC is engaged debt collection business with
its main business address at 369 Washington St, Ste 100, Buffalo,
NY 14203.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC
      1669 East 12th Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Aug. 27 Certification Hearing in Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the plaintiff's motion to certify a class in the suit
Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of
California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation pending in
the Superior Court of California, County of Orange (Case No. 30-
2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC) will be held on August 27, 2014,
according to the company's June 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May
3, 2014.

On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.
On February 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a
class with respect to several claims. The Company's opposition to
such motion must be filed on or before June 30, 2014. A hearing on
the plaintiff's motion will be held on August 27, 2014.


PADBURY MINING: Shareholders Unveil Losses Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a group of shareholders mounting a class
action against Padbury have revealed some of losses they claim are
linked to the company's failed bid to develop a port project at
Oakajee in Western Australia.

The junior minor has attracted criticism -- and the eye of ASIC
-- following a series of announcements in April, in which it
claimed to have secured $6.5 billion to develop the long-delayed
Mid West port.  The Perth-based company later terminated the deal
and revealed it did not have all the money required to execute the
plan.  The move saw Padbury's share price plummet.  That prompted
regulators to investigate Padbury's market announcements and share
trading.

Padbury shareholder Wes Chapman said he lost a "substantial" sum
of money through the ordeal but was not willing to disclose a
figure.  He said other shareholders have come forward claiming
losses of up to $300,000.

Mr. Chapman is working with a number of shareholders to launch a
class action, alleging that Padbury's Oakajee announcements to the
ASX lacked vital details, which misled the market.

"I think the market needs to be accountable for its mistakes and
obviously that announcement should never have been released, never
put on the market," he said.

Mr. Chapman said he had been contacted by up to 80 people who are
interested in being involved.

"At the end of the day it just comes down to an announcement and
someone putting their name on that announcement, which happened to
be Padbury Mining, so they need to be accountable for it," he
said.

The group is pursuing legal action through Sydney-based ACA
Lawyers.

Padbury Mining declined to comment.

ASIC confirmed its investigation into Padbury's disclosure and
share trading was ongoing but was not able to say when an outcome
would be reached.


PAYTIME: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Adam Greenberg, writing for SC Magazine, reports that a class-
action complaint has been filed by Kraemer, Manes & Associates LLC
and Carlson Lynch LTD against Paytime, a Pennsylvania-based
payroll company that experienced a massive data breach in April.

"Paytime failed to safeguard and prevent vulnerabilities from
being taken advantage of in its computer system," according to
documents filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania on June 13.

The complaint seeks relief for all those impacted, which could be
an estimated 216,274 individuals, according to a security breach
notification filed in North Carolina.

Paytime announced in May that hackers had taken advantage of a
vulnerability in its Client Service Center system and gained
unauthorized access to customer information, including Social
Security numbers, direct deposit bank account information, wage
information and other data.


PETROLOGISTICS LP: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Wolfson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Petrologistics LP, Petrologistics GP LLC, Propylene
Holdings LLC, Jaime Buehl-Reichard, Alan E. Goldberg, Lance L.
Hirt, Zalmie Jacobs, Phillip D. Kramer, Robert D. Lindsay, David
Lumpkins, Nathan L. Ticatch, John B. Walker, Andrew S. Weinberg,
Hallie A. Vanderhider, Flint Hills Resources, LLC, and FHR
Propylene, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-01723 (S.D. Tex., June 19, 2014),
arises out of the Defendants' dissemination of a false and
misleading information statement in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
promulgated thereunder, the Board's breaches of their fiduciary
duties owed to the Partnership's unit holders under state law, and
the Board's breaches of the express and implied contractual
duties owed to the Public Unit holder.

Petrologistics LP is a major producer of propylene and is the only
independent dedicated propylene producer in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
       THE BILEK LAW FIRM LLP
       Ste 3950, 700 Louisiana
       Houston, TX 77002
       Telephone: (713) 227-7720
       Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
       E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com


PNC BANK: Bid to Stay Discovery in "Montoya" Class Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman denied a motion to stay
discovery in the case captioned ENRIQUE MONTOYA and NEYSER
COLONIA, Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 14-20474-CIV-MARTINEZ/GOODMAN, (S.D. Fla.).

PNC Bank, N.A., PNC Mortgage, Assurant, Inc., and American
Security Insurance Company have moved to stay all discovery in
this putative class action lawsuit involving force-placed
insurance. In their motion, they say that Plaintiffs have
propounded extensive and burdensome discovery, which they describe
as a "potential waste of resources" pending a ruling on their
dismissal motions. Plaintiffs oppose the motion to stay discovery.

Mag. Judge Goodman denies the motion because: (1) the parties are
currently on a tight and ambitious trial and discovery calendar
and further discovery delays would be problematic; (2) the motions
to dismiss are not even ripe yet and a ruling will require
comprehensive analysis of myriad issues; (3) discovery stays, in
general, can create case management problems and are therefore not
favored; and (4) Defendants have not sufficiently shown the undue
prejudice or burdensomeness necessary to justify a discovery stay.

A copy of Mag. Judge Goodman's June 20, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/dcDyERfrom Leagle.com.

Enrique Montoya, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst --
apodhurst@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Allan Aaron
Joseph -- ajoseph@fuerstlaw.com -- Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph,
PL, John Gravante, III -- jgravante@podhurst.com -- Podhurst
Orseck, P.A., Lance August Harke -- lharke@harkeclasby.com --
Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Margery Ellen Golant --
margerygolant@golantlaw.com -- Margery E. Golant, P.A., Matthew
Weinshall -- mweinshall@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, Peter
Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel
Sullivan -- rs@kttlaw.com -- Robert J Neary -- rn@kttlaw.com --
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Law
Offices Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti --
tr@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Howard Mitchell
Bushman -- hbushman@harkeclasby.com -- Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP,
Jeffrey N. Golant -- jgolant@jeffreygolantlaw.com -- Mary
Kestenbaum Fortson -- mfortson@merlinlawgroup.com -- The Merlin
Law Group, Sean Michael Shaw -- sshaw@merlinlawgroup.com -- Merlin
Law Group, Tal J Lifshitz -- tjl@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak Tropin
Throckmorton, William F. Merlin, Jr. -- cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com
-- Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz -- amm@kttlaw.com --
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

Neyser Colonia, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Margery Ellen Golant, Margery E.
Golant, P.A., Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A., Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Law Offices Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC,
Jeffrey N. Golant & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A..

PNC Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Daniel I. Booker --
dbooker@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, Jack B. Cobetto
-- jcobetto@reedsmith.com -- Reed, Smith, LLP, Kyle R. Bahr --
kbahr@reedsmith.com -- Reed, Smith, LLP & Peter W. Homer --
phomer@homerbonner.com -- Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A..

PNC Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Daniel I. Booker, Reed
Smith Shaw & McClay, Jack B. Cobetto, Reed, Smith, LLP, Kyle R.
Bahr, Reed, Smith, LLP & Peter W. Homer, Homer Bonner Jacobs,
P.A..

Assurant, Inc., Defendant, represented by Farrokh Jhabvala --
fjhabvala@cfjblaw.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.,
Franklin G. Burt -- fburt@cfjblaw.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt P.A. & Irma T. Reboso-Solares -- isolares@cfjblaw.com --
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A..

American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Farrokh Jhabvala, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Franklin G.
Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A. & Irma T. Reboso-Solares,
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A..


PREMERA: McCarthy Finance Suit Remanded for Further Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Office of the Insurance Commissioner has broad
regulatory authority, the Insurance Code, ch. 48.44 RCW, and the
Consumer Protection Act (CPA), ch. 19.86 RCW, anticipate that
policyholders may litigate CPA claims against insurers and their
agents. Especially where the insurance commissioner declares he is
unable to effectively regulate surplus levels maintained by
nonprofit insurers, the filed rate, primary jurisdiction, and
exhaustion of remedies doctrines do not necessarily bar CPA claims
alleging misrepresentations by insurers or their agents that
resulted in excessive surplus levels.

The Washington Alliance for Healthcare Insurance Trust (WAHIT), a
nonprofit trust, sells insurance issued by nonprofit entities
Premera, Premera Blue Cross, and LifeWise Health Plan of
Washington1 (collectively Premera). Despite its nonprofit status,
Premera holds more than $1 billion in "surplus."  Plaintiffs
purchased Premera policies through WAHIT and seek damages,
including refunds of premiums they have paid, alleging that
Premera and WAHIT violated the CPA and the Insurance Code by
making false claims on a web site, in advertising mailings, and in
other public statements. They contend that Premera accumulated its
large surplus, in part, based upon these misrepresentations.

The trial court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety based on the
filed rate, primary jurisdiction, and exhaustion of remedies
doctrines.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, in an opinion
dated June 23, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/CeOLT4from Leagle.com, concluded that several claims
were erroneously dismissed.

According to the Wash. Appeals Court, "This appeal is limited to
the specific issues briefed -- whether the filed rate, primary
jurisdiction, and exhaustion of remedies doctrines support
dismissal of the claims alleged. Those doctrines do not warrant
dismissal of CPA claims based on alleged misrepresentations of
WAHIT and false statements to the public by Premera. The selective
underwriting claim was properly dismissed. We do not reach any
other questions regarding the alleged claims."

The Wash. Appeals Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case is McCARTHY FINANCE, INC., a Washington corporation;
McCARTHY RETAIL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company; HEMPHILL BROTHERS, INC., a Washington
corporation and its affiliates and subsidiaries, J.A. JACK & SONS,
INC., a Washington corporation, and LANE MT. SILICA CO., a
Washington corporation; PUCKETT & REDFORD, PLLC, a Washington
professional limited liability company; and ANNETTE STEINER, a
single person, Appellants, v. PREMERA, a Washington corporation,
PREMERA BLUE CROSS, a Washington corporation, LIFEWISE HEALTH PLAN
OF WASHINGTON, a Washington corporation; and WASHINGTON ALLIANCE
FOR HEALTHCARE INSURANCE TRUST, and its Trustee, F. BENTLEY
LOVEJOY, Respondents, NO. 69848-6-I.

Joseph Colbert Brown Jr. -- JBrown@JCBrownLawOffice.com -- J.C.
Brown Law Office, PLLC, Po Box 384, Cashmere, WA, 98815-0384;
Frank Raymond Siderius -- franks@sidlon.com -- Siderius Lonergan &
Martin LLP, 500 Union St Ste 847, Seattle, WA, 98101-2394; Randall
W. Redford -- rredford@puckettredford.com -- Puckett & Redford,
PLLC, 901 5th Ave Ste 800, Seattle, WA, 98164-2048, Counsel for
Appellants.

Gwendolyn C. Payton -- paytong@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC,
Po Box 91302, 1420 5th Ave Ste 4200, Seattle, WA, 98111-9402; John
R. Neeleman -- neelemanj@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Po Box
91302, 1420 5th Ave Ste 4200, Seattle, WA, 98111-9402; Kathleen M.
O'sullivan -- KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, 1201
3rd Ave Ste 4900, Seattle, WA, 98101-3099, Counsel for
Respondents.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Protection Added to Spare Radioactive Waste
--------------------------------------------------------------
A landfill that has emitted noxious odors from an underground fire
has agreed to additional safety measures to try to keep the fire
from spreading to a neighboring landfill that contains radioactive
waste, according to Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service.

Republic Services, which owns the Bridgeton Landfill in suburban
St. Louis, reached the agreement with Missouri Attorney General
Chris Koster on June 19, 2014.  The improved measures include:

   * Monthly comprehensive carbon monoxide testing in the neck
     area separating the north and south quarries;

   * Carbon monoxide testing in the north quarry every 60 days,
     decreasing to 30-day intervals if any temperature readings
     exceed 145 degrees Fahrenheit; and

   * Carbon monoxide testing in the south quarry every 60 days.

Under a previous agreement, Republic was providing this data every
60 days.

The new agreement also implements a new odor control plan, which
includes:

   * New technology to detect and log odor nuisance events;

   * A vapor recovery system to capture odors during the transfer
     of leachate to trucks used for offsite disposal.  Eventually
     leachate will be directly piped offsite for disposal;

   * Closure and removal of tanks formerly used to treat leachate
     at the site;
   * A backup flare system to burn off odorous gases onsite, with
     a supplemental natural gas supply installed within 3 weeks
     of the order to reduce flare downtime;

   * Republic will investigate and implement additional odor-
     neutralizing measures;

   * Republic must increase the frequency of landfill gas
     collection and testing for hazardous substances; and

   * Republic will reimburse the state of Missouri for excess
     state costs up to $1.49 million associated with monitoring
     and oversight at the landfill.

The agreement comes after elevated levels of benzene were detected
along the landfill's perimeter this month.  Neighboring residents
voiced concerns about the underground fire reaching the
neighboring West Lake landfill, which contain radioactive
material.

"Protection of public health and the safety of the community
remain our highest priorities as we move ahead to control the fire
and the odor," Koster said in a statement.  "Our goal is to ensure
that Republic keeps the fire from reaching the West Lake Landfill
as we move forward on a final determination on penalties against
Republic."

Neighbors reached a $6.8 million settlement in a class action
against the landfill in April.  The neighbors claimed they
suffered losses in property value to the noxious odors emitted
from the landfill.  On June 13, the deadline to opt in to the
settlement was extended to July 18.


RMCN CREDIT SERVICES: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Leamer" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Leamer, and others similarly situated v. RMCN Credit
Services, Inc., Doug Parker and Julie Parker, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00403 (E.D. Tex., June 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards
Act.

RMCN Credit Services, Inc., is a Texas corporation located at 1611
Wilmeth Road, Suite B, McKinney, Texas 75069.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert James Wood, Jr, Esq.
      BENOLKEN & EVERETT PC
      513 West Oak
      Denton, TX 76201
      Telephone: (214) 382-9789
      Facsimile: (214) 953-0410
      E-mail: robert@rjwlawfirm.com

          - and -

      Timothy Blake Edwards, Esq.
      WOOD EDWARDS LAW GROUP
      1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1810
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 382-9789
      Facsimile: (214) 953-0410
      E-mail: blake@mylawteam.com


ROKA AKOR: Does Not Pay Tipped Employees Minimum Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Roka Akor Chicago LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-04645 (N.D. Ill., June 19, 2014), arises from
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for its
failure to pay minimum wages to the Plaintiff and other current
and former tipped employees.

Roka Akor Chicago LLC operates a restaurant in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


RONAN, MT: Faces Class Action Over Civil Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
KECI reports that the town of Ronan's police department is under
fire for alleged civil rights violations, and lawyers say the
number of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit could be more than
100.

A group of attorneys that include the CSKT Public Defenders Office
filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Lake County resident and
Tribal member Anthony Chaney.  The suit claims a harmful situation
was created by the City of Ronan's Police Department, when they
hired Trevor Wadsworth.

The State of Montana requires all peace officers to be trained and
certified by the State.  The suit claims many of Ronan's full-time
officers and reserve officers did not meet those standards,
leading to mistreatment and unlawful arrests of citizens.

According to the suit, it's likely that Ronan residents, community
members who live near Ronan and even visitors passing through the
area were harmed, mistreated or arrested without cause.  The suit
claims they won't know the extent of the list of plaintiffs until
they review arrest reports.

Lawyers filing the suit are asking people who believe they were
victims to contact the legal team.

CSKT Public Defenders Office
(406) 675-2700, ext 1125
Justin.kalmbachj@cskt.org
anns@cskt.org

or

Tim Bechtold
(406) 721-1435
tim@bechtoldlaw.net


SOIL SOLUTIONS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Callahan, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
operators of a northern Indiana wood-recycling plant sued by
neighbors who alleged its dust and fumes threatened their health
and kept them indoors must clean up and shutter the site within
five years under a class-action settlement given final approval on
June 16 by a federal judge.

U.S. District Court Judge Philip Simon, who had given the
settlement involving Soil Solutions Co. his preliminary approval
in March, declared the agreement "fair, reasonable and adequate"
during the hearing in his Hammond courtroom.

The agreement requires Soil Solutions to remove all wood wastes
from the Elkhart plant, shutter the site by July 2019 and obtain a
restrictive covenant barring similar operations from using the
complex after the closure of the plant, which grinds scrap wood
into animal bedding and mulch.

Environmental attorney Kim Ferraro had sued VIM Recycling on
behalf of local residents in 2009, two years before the plant was
sold to Soil Solutions.  She said the plant's neighbors had
endured respiratory and other health woes and been forced inside
by dust and fumes since it opened 2000.

The case involving 1,800 Elkhart residents obtained class-action
status last year, two years after a federal appeals court
overruled a judge's initial dismissal of the suit.

Ms. Ferraro said she remains troubled that legal action was needed
after she said Elkhart County officials and state environmental
regulators failed to respond promptly to address the concerns of
the plant's neighbors.

"Although it's a victory -- and I know my clients are thrilled --
I think it's a shame that it took so long," she said.  "And we
have to ask ourselves, 'Is this really the way things should be?
Is this is a breakdown of government that a community can't get
relief from such obviously unhealthy conditions?'"

Ed Sullivan, an attorney who represented Fort Wayne-based Soil
Solutions in the lawsuit, said the company has disavowed the
actions of VIM Recycling, which owned the plant between 2000 and
2011.  He said under the settlement Soil Solutions admits no
wrongdoing and will only shutter its Elkhart plant.

Mr. Sullivan said the settlement will end the company's exposure
to any liability stemming from the plant's earlier operations and
sets a process for removing the site's remaining wood wastes.

"It's beneficial to both parties and the community at large," he
said.

Wayne Stutsman, a retired industrial electrician who has lived
with his wife, Barbara, near the plant for 41 years, said they're
thrilled with the settlement's approval even though the plant
won't have to close for five more years following a cleanup of the
site.

"We're just elated that this thing is finally going to be over,
but the five years can't come fast enough," he said.  "This is
what we've been after all these years."

Ms. Ferraro, who's the Hoosier Environmental Council's staff
attorney, said that under the settlement the company must file
quarterly and annual reports on the amount of wood wastes
remaining at the site.  A January site survey found about 300,000
cubic yards of wood wastes remaining, she said.

Ms. Ferraro said the settlement forbids Soil Solutions from moving
some of the smelliest of those wastes during weekends and
holidays.

Although the settlement has been approved, Ms. Ferraro will
continue to seek monetary damages against VIM Recycling, the
plant's former operator.

Judge Simon gave Ferraro 120 days to file a motion detailing the
damages she'll seek from VIM Recycling on behalf of the residents.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Amends Final Judgment in Voucher Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Chicago previously approved a class-wide
settlement in In re: SOUTHWEST AIRLINES VOUCHER LITIGATION, CASE
NO. 11 C 8176, (N.D. Ill.).  After the plaintiffs moved for
attorney's fees, costs, and incentive awards, the Court granted
the motion in part, reducing plaintiffs' requested fee amount and
awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees in the amount of $1,332,206.25
and $18,522.32 in expenses. The Court thereafter entered final
judgment. Plaintiffs' attorneys then filed a motion under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the final
judgment.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated June 20, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/gjwp97from Leagle.com,
District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted the plaintiffs' motion
and increased the fee award, but not to the extent plaintiffs
seek.

Judge Kenelly held that the Court's order of October 3, 2013
awarding plaintiffs' attorney's fees and expenses is amended to
provide that plaintiffs' counsel are awarded attorney's fees in
the amount of $1,649,118 and expenses in the amount of $18,522.32.

Adam J Levitt, Plaintiff, represented by by Joseph J Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Gregg Michael Barbakoff --
gbarbakoff@siprut.com -- Siprut Pc & Gregory Wood Jones --
gjones@siprut.com -- Siprut Pc.

Herbert C. Malone, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg Michael
Barbakoff, Siprut Pc & Gregory Wood Jones, Siprut Pc.

Herbert C. Malone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J Siprut,
Siprut PC.

Southwest Airlines, Co., Defendant, represented by Mitesh Bansilal
Shah -- mshah@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.c.,
H. Thomas Wells, Jr. -- twells@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard,
Cooper & Gale, P.c., Lorrie Lizak Hargrove --
lhargrove@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, Pc & Michael
William Drumke -- mdrumke@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell.


SOUTHWESTERN BELL: Class Action Seeks to Nullify Commission Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Talley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
class-action lawsuit was filed on June 17 seeking to nullify a
1989 Corporation Commission order that set telephone rates for a
predecessor company of telecommunications giant AT&T.

The lawsuit was filed in Oklahoma County District Court by
Sody Clements, mayor of the affluent Oklahoma City suburb of
Nichols Hills, and retired Lt. Gen. Richard Burpee, former
commander of the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center at Tinker Air
Force Base.

The lawsuit alleges Mr. Clements, Mr. Burpee and other telephone
ratepayers in the state were harmed by "the legacy of misconduct"
by AT&T's predecessor, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.

The lawsuit asks that the Corporation Commission order -- which
lowered telephones rates but did not include refunds of what the
lawsuit alleges were "excess revenues" -- be voided.  The lawsuit
alleges that the 2-1 vote that approved the rate change was
tainted by a bribe paid to former Commissioner Bob Hopkins by a
Southwestern Bell attorney.  Mr. Hopkins was convicted in federal
court of accepting money to influence a vote and the attorney,
William Anderson, was convicted on a federal bribery charge.

A spokesman for AT&T, Marty Richter, said the issue raised in the
lawsuit "has been thoroughly reviewed and resolved numerous times
by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and by the Oklahoma Supreme
Court.  This should be a closed issue."

The Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2010 rejected a request by
Corporation Commissioner Bob Anthony to reopen the case.  The
court ruled Mr. Anthony had failed to advance any new argument
that would produce a different result.

The lawsuit states that after the corporate federal income tax
rate was cut in July 1987, Southwestern Bell received an annual
windfall under existing rates and generated "excess revenues,"
which the Corporation Commission could order refunded to
consumers.

"Motivating its wrongdoing, (Southwestern Bell) wished to keep for
itself these 'excess revenues' which later were found to amount to
over $100 million per year," the lawsuit alleges.

Among other things, an order approved by the Corporation
Commission on Sept. 20, 1989, ordered Southwestern Bell to reduce
rates but did not order further reductions and refunds.
Mr. Anthony cast the lone dissent in the 2-1 decision and said the
majority decision "gives only minor or indirect benefit" to most
telephone customers.

"Just on principal, I believe some or all of the overcharge should
be refunded to the broad base of telephone consumers," Mr. Anthony
wrote in his dissent.

The lawsuit asks for a judicial determination that the 1989 order
"is constitutionally invalid and void" because it lacks approval
of a majority of the three-member commission when the bribed vote
of Hopkins is excluded.  The commission regulates public utilities
and the oil and gas industry, among other activities.

The lawsuit also seeks refunds of any "excess revenues" collected
by AT&T and Southwestern Bell since July 1, 1987.  The lawsuit
says the size of the class likely numbers hundreds of thousands of
current and former AT&T customers.


SPOKANE, WA: Faces Class Action Over Red-Light Camera Tickets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Moore, writing for The Spokesman-Review, reports that the
city of Spokane has not refunded traffic ticket money a judge
ruled was wrongfully collected using red-light cameras, and is
still is trying to collect on those who haven't paid, according to
a lawsuit.  A class-action lawsuit involving potentially thousands
of drivers asks the city to repay two-and-a-half years' worth of
tickets, worth $124 each, which could amount to $2.1 million.  The
traffic tickets were written for running red lights or turning
without coming to a complete stop.


SUNSOF INC: "Kotorri" Action Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Baide, Wilmer Caballero, Yoni Cubas, Geiker J. Alvarado
and other similarly situated individuals v. Sunsof, Inc., and
Edgardo D. Armando, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22255 (S.D.
Fla., June 18, 2014), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sunsof, Inc., is a food manufacturing business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com


SUTTER HEALTH: Appeals Court Rejects Wage-and-Hour Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Robertson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports
that an appeals court has nixed efforts by registered nurses to
qualify a big class action against Sutter Health over alleged
failure to provide meal and rest breaks.

The Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District ruled June 3
that lawyers behind three proposed class actions consolidated into
one case failed to prove workers received common treatment.

One of the cases -- which became the dominant case under
consolidation -- is a lawsuit filed in 2008 on behalf of nurses,
surgical technicians and ancillary staff at Sutter General
Hospital and other facilities in Sacramento-based health system.

Ultimately, plaintiffs in Aymer v. Sutter Health sought
certification of a class of up to 21,000 registered nurses, as
well as smaller subclasses.  They alleged that Sutter denied them
meal and rest breaks, failed to provide adequate relief so they
could take breaks and dissuaded them from seeking premium pay for
breaks they missed.

"We are pleased with the Court of Appeals decision and believe
that it is the correct decision," Sutter officials said in a
statement.  "Sutter Health affiliates comply in all aspects with
laws regarding meal and rest periods."

Plaintiffs' attorneys are considering whether to petition for
review of the decision by the California Supreme Court.

"We felt there were a lot of errors at the trial court level that
the Court of Appeal acknowledged," said Michael Singer, a
plaintiffs' attorney with the class action firm Cohelan Khoury &
Singer in San Diego.  "We are very disappointed.  We are
absolutely certain that a lot of nurses didn't get compensated for
missed required meal and rest breaks. The question is: Can you get
redress for all of these nurses in one class action?"


TONY THE PIZZA: "Kotorri" Action Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saimir Kotorri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tony The Pizza Chef, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Astrit Shabani, individually, and, individually, Case
No. 0:14-cv-61403 (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, damages for retaliation,
reasonable attorney's fee and costs under Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Tony The Pizza Chef, Inc., is a Florida corporation who transacts
business in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRIBUNE COMPANY: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit Over ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Rosenberg and Anthony J. Salvi, ECF Case on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tribune
Company Cash Balance Pension Plan, Tribune Company Employee
Benefits Committee, as administrator of the tribune company cash
balance pension plan, and the Tribune Company, as sponsor of the
tribune company cash balance pension plan, Case No. 1:14-cv-04408
(S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
the unlawfully reduction of accrued benefits in violation of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act's minimum accrual rules.

Tribune Company Cash Balance Pension Plan is an employee pension
benefit plan which covers employees of more than a dozen companies
in the publishing business, including Newsday and The Los Angeles
Times.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edgar Pauk, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF EDGAR PAUK
      1066 Union Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11225
      Telephone: (718) 399-2023
      Facsimile: (718) 778-0333
      E-mail: lawoffice@edgarpauk.com

           - and -

      Robert J. Bach, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. BACH
      60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 867-4455
      Facsimile: (212) 697-0877
      E-mail: rjbachesq@hotmail.com


TWITTER INC: Faces "Nunes" Suit Over Automated SMS Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Nunes, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02843
(N.D. Cal., June 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendant sends
automated SMS text messages to mobile telephones without first
obtaining consent.

Twitter, Inc., is a global, public social networking and micro
blogging platform that allows it and its users to create, send and
read text messages of up to 140 text characters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Farley Keller, Esq.
      Carey Gavin Been, Esq.
      Sarah R. Holloway, Esq.
      KELLER GROVER LLP
      1965 Market Street
      San Francisco, CA 94103
      Telephone: (415) 543-1305
      Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
      E-mail: jfkeller@kellergrover.com
              cbeen@kellergrover.com
              sholloway@kellergrover.com

            - and -

      Bryan G. Kolton, Esq.
      John G. Jacobs, Esq.
      JACOBS KOLTON, CHTD.
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 2970
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 427-4000
      Facsimile: (312) 268-2425
      E-mail: bgkolton@thejacobslawfirm.com
             jgjacobs@thejacobslawfirm.com

           - and -

     David Schachman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SCHACHMAN, P.C.
     55 West Monroe Street, Suite 2970
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 427-9500
     Facsimile: (312) 268-2425
     E-mail: ds@schachmanlaw.com

                          *     *     *

Twitter illegally spams users and nonusers with text-message ads
from third parties in an effort to prop up its bottom line, a
class action claims in California Federal Court, reports William
Dotinga at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Beverly Nunes sued Twitter on June 19, claiming
Twitter's practice of texting ads to mobile phones violates the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Nunes claims that because
Twitter does not generate revenue directly from its users, the
company has turned to automated texts to "tweet" ads and make
money.

Twitter makes nearly 90 percent of its revenue from the ads and 70
percent comes from mobile devices, according to the complaint.

The company processes almost 1 billion SMS (short message service)
tweets per month, and bought messaging infrastructure service
Cloudhopper in 2010 to connect directly to mobile carrier networks
worldwide, Nunes says.

Unfortunately for Twitter, however, cellular phone customers in
the United States must consent to receive SMS text ads.  While
some of its users have opted in, Twitter also sends texts to
numbers that have been recycled by mobile carriers -- bombarding
non-Twitter users who get the recycled cellphone number with ads,
according to the complaint.

While Twitter has options to clean up its database and respond to
opt-out requests, Nunes says that doing so would torpedo the
company's efforts to increase its profits.

"Despite industry guidelines, commercially available resources and
the obvious lack of consent associated with recycled numbers,
Twitter fails to take the necessary steps to insure that its
automated text messages are sent only to consenting recipients,
nor does it have incentive to do so.  Twitter is paid based on the
volume of activity of people using its platform," the complaint
states.

"The more SMS text messages Twitter sends (authorized or not), the
more people who may participate in Twitter and engage in its
advertisements, generating more money for Twitter.  Twitter also
benefits from network effects where more activity on Twitter
results in the creation and distribution of more content (i.e.,
Twitter has been one of the most-visited websites on the
internet), which attracts more users, platform partners and
advertisers, resulting in a cycle of value creation.  According to
Twitter, Tweets have appeared on over 8 million third-party
websites, and in the fourth quarter of 2013 there were
approximately 67 billion online impressions of Tweets off of
Twitter's properties."

Twitter transfers the consent of a telephone number's previous
owner to the new one, and frequently disregards reply messages to
stop or unsubscribe, Nunes says.

"Twitter knows, or is reckless in not knowing, that its SMS text
messages are sent to non-consenting, recycled cellular number
subscribers," the class action states.  "Indeed, Twitter has
received numerous consumer complaints alerting it to this very
fact and requesting that the messages stop.  Ultimately, Twitter
is responsible for verifying cellular telephone number ownership
and obtaining consent before sending automated text messages to
cellular telephone subscribers.  Even with prior cellular
subscriber consent, Twitter is liable under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for sending text messages to cellular numbers
reassigned to new subscribers without the new subscriber's
consent."

Nunes also accuses Twitter of ignoring its customers' requests to
opt out of the messages by making it next to impossible to
unsubscribe.

"Twitter makes it notoriously difficult for consumers to opt-out
or unsubscribe to its SMS text messages," Nunes says in the
complaint.  "For instance, according to Twitter, the commands
'Stop,' 'Quit,' 'End,' Cancel,' 'Unsubscribe' and "Arret' (when
replying to SMS messages) will deactivate your account only if you
are an SMS-only user, that is, a user who does not have an online
Twitter account but has previously communicated with Twitter via
SMS text.  If the cellular number is linked to an online Twitter
account, the command 'Off' must be used to stop SMS spam.
Ultimately, consumers (many of whom are unaware that the messages
are from Twitter) must be well-versed in Twitter's SMS commands to
effectively communicate a stop request and, even then, the outcome
is uncertain."

Nunes continues: "Twitter knows, or is reckless in not knowing,
that its SMS text messages to these cellular subscribers are
unauthorized.  Reply message stop requests are, by design, sent to
Twitter's short code, 40404, thereby directly informing Twitter
(as intended) that any subsequent messages are unauthorized.
Again, however, Twitter has little incentive to honor stop
requests.  With nearly all of its revenue coming from advertising
associated with the volume of activity on its system, each stop
request is a loss of potential recurring revenue.  Ultimately,
consumers are forced to bear the costs of receiving these
unsolicited and unauthorized text messages."

Twitter texted Nunes with ads several times a day -- often before
8 a.m. and after 9 p.m. -- even after she demanded that it stop,
according to the complaint.

Nunes seeks class certification, damages for each violation of the
TCPA, and an injunction to stop Twitter's spamming.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey F. Keller, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER, LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: jfkeller@kellergrover.com


UNITED STATES: DOH Head Sued Over Denial of Medicare Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Cruz and I.H. on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Howard Zucker, as Commissioner of the
Department of Health, Case No. 1:14-cv-04456 (S.D.N.Y., June 19,
2014) is brought against the Defendant for denying Medicare
coverage for all gender reassignment surgery based on the
alleged experimental nature of gender reassignment surgery.

Howard Zucker is the interim Commissioner of the DOH.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elana Redfield, Esq.
      Pooja Gehi, Esq.
      SYLVIA RIVERA LAW PROJECT
      147 West 24th Street, 5th Floor
      New York, N.Y. 10001
      Telephone: (212) 337-8550
      Facsimile: (212) 337-1972

           - and -

      Scott Rosenberg, Esq.
      Adriene Holder, Esq.
      Judith Goldiner, Esq.
      Kimberly Forte, Esq.
      Rebecca Novick, Esq.
      Belkys Garcia, Esq.
      THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
      199 Water Street,
      New York, N.Y. 10038
      Telephone: 212-577-3300
      Facsimile: 212-509-8761


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Stokely, III, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated who were employed by Universal Music
Group, Inc. v. Universal Music Group, Inc. subsidiaries or
entities affiliated with Universal Music Group, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-04409 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Universal Music Group, Inc., owns and operates various record
labels, and promotes and markets recordings and merchandise from
various artists across a multitude of music genres.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Harris Markowitz, Esq.
      Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq.
      Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW PC
      1 Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      Facsimile: (516) 747-5024
      E-mail: dmarkowitz@leedsbrownlaw.com
              jbrown@lmblaw.com
              mtompkins@lmblaw.com

            - and -

      LaDonna Marie Lusher, Esq.
      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      Suzanne Brooke Leeds, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AINBINDER, LLP
      111 Broadway, Ste. 1403
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
              lambinder@bivas.net
              sleeds@vandallp.com


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Appeal v. Securities Suit Approval Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order,
dismissing an appeal against the final approval of a settlement
reached in In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation,
according to Verifone Systems, Inc.'s June 5, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2014.

On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and certain of the
company's officers, former officers, and a former director. These
lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and are currently captioned as In
re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140 EMC.
The original actions were: Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc.
et al., C 07-6140 EMC; Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C
07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C
07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this complaint on
March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228
SC; Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-
6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW;
Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW. On August
22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National Elevator Fund
lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel. Lead plaintiff
filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on October
31, 2008, which asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities
fraud and control person liability against the company and certain
of the company's current and former officers and directors, based
on allegations that the company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding the company's
business and operations during the putative class periods, and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The company
filed the company's motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008. The
court granted the company's motion on May 26, 2009 and dismissed
the consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to
amend within 30 days of the ruling. The proceedings were stayed
pending a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties
failed to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Lead plaintiff's
first amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2009 followed by
a second amended complaint filed on January 19, 2010. The company
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and the
hearing on the company's motion was held on May 17, 2010. In July
2010, prior to any court ruling on the company's motion, lead
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on the basis that it had newly obtained evidence.
Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court the company
submitted the company's motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint and lead plaintiff filed its opposition, following which
the court took the matter under submission without further
hearing. On March 8, 2011, the court ruled in the company's favor
and dismissed the consolidated securities class action without
leave to amend. On April 5, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its notice
of appeal of the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 24 and June 27, 2011, lead
plaintiff dismissed its appeal as against defendants Paul
Periolat, William Atkinson, and Craig Bondy. Lead plaintiff filed
its opening brief on appeal on July 28, 2011. The company filed
the company's answering brief on September 28, 2011 and lead
plaintiff filed its reply brief on October 31, 2011. A hearing on
oral arguments for this appeal was held before a judicial panel of
the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012. On December 21, 2012, the Ninth
Circuit issued its opinion reversing the district court's
dismissal of the consolidated shareholder securities class action
against the company and certain of the company's officers and
directors, with the exception of the dismissal of lead plaintiff's
claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, which
the Ninth Circuit affirmed. On January 4, 2013, the company filed
a petition for en banc rehearing with the Ninth Circuit. On
January 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing. On February 8, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate
returning this case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California for further proceeding on lead plaintiff's
claims, except for the dismissed Section 20(a) claim.

On August 9, 2013, the company entered into a stipulation of
settlement in this consolidated shareholder securities class
action with and among the other defendants and the lead plaintiff
therein. The settlement is subject to various customary
conditions, including preliminary approval by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, notice to class
members, class member opt-out thresholds and final approval by the
court. If the settlement becomes final, the total settlement
consideration paid for the benefit of the settlement class would
be $95.0 million, plus a potential contingent adjustment if the
company had been acquired on or before April 15, 2014. The company
has coverage from the company's insurance carriers for this
settlement consideration in the amount of approximately $33.8
million. The net amount of approximately $61.2 million (excluding
the contingent adjustment) would be paid by the company. On
October 15, 2013, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. On November 5, 2013, the company
deposited approximately $61.2 million, and the company's insurance
carriers have deposited the remaining portion, of the $95.0
million settlement consideration into an escrow account for the
settlement. The hearing on final approval of the settlement was
held on February 14, 2014. On February 18, 2014, the court issued
an order granting the parties' motion for settlement, and
indicated that it intended to issue a final approval of the
settlement, subject to the lead plaintiff's submission of a notice
plan regarding Israeli investors that includes (i) a longer time
period for Israeli class members to file their claims and (ii) the
dissemination to Israeli investors of a Hebrew language version of
the notice of the proposed settlement, proof of claim and release
form (the "Hebrew-Language Notice"). On February 20, 2014, in
response to the court's order, the lead plaintiff filed a proposed
notice plan that included (i) an extension of the time period for
Israeli class members to file claims to April 30, 2014, (ii) a
plan to mail the Hebrew-Language Notice to Israeli investors,
(iii) a plan to publish the Hebrew-Language Notice in a leading
newspaper in Israel, and (iv) a revision to the claims website to
post the Hebrew-Language Notice and make clear that the claims
deadline for Israeli class members has been extended to April 30,
2014. On February 25, 2014, the court issued a final order
approving the settlement, dismissing the case with prejudice and
entering judgment in the action. One of the objectors to the
settlement filed a notice of appeal to the court's February 25,
2014 judgment and orders, and subsequently filed a motion for
voluntary dismissal of the appeal with prejudice. On June 2, 2014,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order,
dismissing the appeal with prejudice.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Jurisdiction for Israeli Stock Suit at Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
The inclusion of Israeli plaintiffs in the federal securities
lawsuit pending against VeriFone Holdings, Inc. in the U.S.
remains in question, according to Verifone Systems, Inc.'s June 5,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
the company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on
behalf of purchasers of the company's stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports. The company filed a motion to stay
the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the
United States, on March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held
on May 25, 2008. Further briefing in support of the stay motion,
specifically with regard to the threshold issue of applicable law,
was submitted on June 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli
District Court ruled in the company's favor, holding that U.S. law
would apply in determining the company's liability. On October 7,
2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the Israeli
District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. The
company's response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on
January 18, 2009. The Israeli District Court has stayed its
proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs'
motion for leave to appeal. On January 27, 2010, after a hearing
before the Israeli Supreme Court, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and addressed the case back
to the Israeli District Court. The Israeli Supreme Court
instructed the Israeli District Court to rule whether the Israel
class action should be stayed, under the assumption that the
applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an
application for reconsideration of the Israeli District Court's
ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law. Following a hearing on
plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to
stay the proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities
class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the
Israeli District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to
the Israeli Supreme Court. On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to appeal the decision regarding the applicable
law with the Israeli Supreme Court. In August 2010, plaintiff
filed an application to the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison et al. v. National
Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may
affect the outcome of the appeal currently pending before the
Court and requesting that this authority be added to the Court's
record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an application with the
Israeli District Court asking that court to reverse its decision
regarding the applicability of U.S. law to the Israel class
action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay the Israeli
proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Morrison. On August 25, 2011, the
Israeli District Court issued a decision denying plaintiff's
application and reaffirming its ruling that the law applicable to
the Israel class action is U.S. law. The Israeli District Court
also ordered that further proceedings in the case be stayed
pending the decision on appeal in the U.S. class action.

On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for
leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling.
The company filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On
January 1, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration
of the application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli
Supreme Court ordered the company to file an updated notice on the
status of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by
October 1, 2012. On October 11, 2012, the company filed an updated
status notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in
the U.S. securities class action pending at the time in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On January 9, 2013, the
Israeli Supreme Court held a further hearing on the status of the
appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
recommended that the parties meet and confer regarding the
inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the federal class action
pending in the U.S. On February 10, 2013, the Israeli Supreme
Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to the joint
notice submitted to the court by the parties on February 4, 2013.
The plaintiff and putative class members in this action are
included in the stipulated settlement of the federal securities
class action, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., unless an individual
plaintiff opts out. Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and
orders by the U.S. court, in April 2014, the parties in the
Israeli class action filed a joint motion requesting that the
Israeli Supreme Court renew the proceedings on appeal concerning
the determination of the applicable law. A hearing was scheduled
for June 23, 2014.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Seeks to Junk Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated
securities lawsuit pending against it in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, according to the
company's June 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the company certain of the company's former officers and
one of the company's current officers and alleged claims in
connection with the company's February 20, 2013 announcement of
preliminary financial results for the fiscal quarter ended January
31, 2013. The action, captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc.
et al., Case No. C 13-1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re
VeriFone Securities Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of VeriFone securities between
December 14, 2011 and February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under
the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule
10b-5 for securities fraud and control person liability. The
claims were based on allegations that the company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding the company's business, operations, and financial
controls during the putative class period. The complaint sought
unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Two additional
class actions related to the same matter (Laborers Local 235
Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-
1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-
1853) were filed in April 2013. On May 6, 2013, several putative
plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law firms filed motions to consolidate
these three securities class actions and requesting appointment as
lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in
Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al.
and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed
their respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and
July 17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed
lead plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v.
VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. On October 7, 2013, the court
entered an order appointing the Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and
appointing Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead
plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on December 16,
2013. The first amended complaint expanded the putative class
period to December 14, 2011 and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and
removed the current officer who was named in the original
complaint from the action. The company filed the company's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint on February 14, 2014, lead
plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014 and the
company filed the company's reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27,
2014, the court took the motion to dismiss under submission
without oral argument.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Motion to Junk "Zoumboulakis" Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
took the motion to dismiss Zoumboulakis v. McGinn et al.
under submission without oral argument, according to Verifone
Systems, Inc.'s June 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,
2014.

On May 24, 2013, a federal derivative action, Zoumboulakis v.
McGinn et al., Case No. 13-CV-02379, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
certain current and former directors and officers derivatively on
the company's behalf. The complaint, which names the company as a
nominal defendant, alleges breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of
control and asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 for false or misleading financial statements
and proxy statement disclosures. The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including exemplary damages, restitution from
defendants, injunctive relief directing the company to make
certain corporate governance reforms, and payment of the
plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees. On August 12, 2013, the
court entered defendants' motion seeking to relate this action to
the pending shareholder class action, Sanders v. VeriFone Systems,
Inc. et al. On October 31, 2013, the court entered a stipulation
and order setting a December 31, 2013 deadline for the filing of
an amended complaint and setting a January 30, 2014 deadline for
defendants to move or answer. An initial case management
conference was held on January 17, 2014. On January 21, 2014,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which removed one of the
company's former officers from the action and added an additional
former director as a defendant. The amended complaint brings
claims against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse
of control, violations of Securities Exchange Act Section 14(a),
and unjust enrichment. The amended complaint also brings claims
for insider trading against three of the named former and current
directors. The company filed the company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on March 7, 2014, plaintiff filed her opposition
on April 23, 2014, and the company filed the company's reply on
May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court took the motion to
dismiss under submission without oral argument.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Lawsuit by VSL Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation is ongoing in a consolidated lawsuit filed against
Verint Systems Limited on behalf of employees and former
employees, according to Verint Systems Inc.'s June 5, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit
Deutsch, a former employee of the company's subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against Comverse Technology, Inc. in the Tel Aviv Regional
District Court (Case Number 1335/09) (the "Deutsch District
Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion
to approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purports
to represent a class of the company's employees and former
employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during the company's previous extended filing delay
period. In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small
amount of individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their
inability to exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of
alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On
February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack
of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
Regional District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District
Action. On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal
actions were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of
CTI's former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse
Limited in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09)
(the "Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv
Regional District Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel
District Action"). In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is
seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI
stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the
suspension of option exercises during CTI's previous extended
filing delay period. In the Katriel District Action, in addition
to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to
certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to
their inability to exercise CTI stock options as a result of
alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On
March 2, 2010, the Labor Court ordered the transfer of the case to
the District Court in Tel Aviv - Jaffa, based on an agreed motion
filed by the parties requesting such transfer.
On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested
motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012,
the court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the
consolidated class certification motion and an amended
consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited.
Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the
Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set
aside up to $150 million in assets to secure any future judgment.
The District Court ruled that it would not decide this motion
until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion was
heard. On August 16, 2012, in light of the announcement of the
signing of the CTI Merger Agreement, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to appeal this District Court ruling to the Israeli
Supreme Court. The company filed the company's response to this
motion on September 6, 2012.

Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in the company and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third
parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share
distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a
result of the Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an
independent public company and ceased to be a wholly owned
subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets
other than its equity interest in us.

The company and the other defendants filed the company's responses
to the complaint on November 11, 2012 and plaintiffs filed their
replies on December 20, 2012. A pre-trial hearing for the case was
held on December 25, 2012, during which all parties agreed to
attempt to settle the dispute through mediation.

On February 4, 2013, the company completed the CTI Merger. As a
result of the CTI Merger, the company has assumed certain rights
and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out
of the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action.
However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI
and Comverse relating to the Comverse share distribution, the
company, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from
Comverse for any losses the company suffers in the company's
capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with the
Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action.

On February 28, 2013, the mediation process began and, as of the
date of the Company's report, remains ongoing.


VINEYARD FOOD: Campos Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gaudencio Campos, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Vineyard Food & Beverage Inc. d/b/a Lily Farm, and
Steven Kil, Case No. 1:14-cv-04404 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Vineyard Food & Beverage Inc., is a restaurant located at 297 7th
Avenue, New York, New York 10001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, 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: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


WESTFIELD RENTAL: Local Baking Suit Remanded to Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Local Baking Products, Inc. filed a class action complaint on its
behalf and all others who received unsolicited facsimile
transmissions from defendant Westfield Rental Mart (Rental Mart),
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47
U.S.C.A. Section 227. Following the entry of a consent judgment
between Local Baking and Rental Mart, Farmers Insurance Company of
Flemington (Farmers), Rental Mart's insurer under a Business
Owner's Policy, moved to intervene in the underlying class action
litigation. The trial court granted Farmers' motion allowing
permissive intervention and also decertified the class of
plaintiffs relying on the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division's opinion in Local Baking Products, Inc. v. Kosher Bagel
Munch, Inc., 421 N.J.Super. 268 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 209
N.J. 96 (2011). Thereafter, the judge dismissed Local Baking's
complaint.

Following the motion judge's retirement, a different Law Division
judge entered an order on May 6, 2013, memorializing the
conclusions reached by the motion judge in his opinion.

This appeal ensued.

In an Opinion dated June 23, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/p5pw8bfrom Leagle.com, the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division concluded that the trial judge did not
abuse his discretion in granting Farmers' motion for permissive
intervention. Furthermore, the accompanying decertification of the
class action was appropriate in light of Kosher Bagel, ruled the
Appellate Court.

However, Local Baking's individual claims against Rental Mart
should not have been dismissed with prejudice, held the Appellate
Court.  The judge's opinion failed to analyze the sufficiency of
these claims, and that portion of the order must be reversed.

Accordingly, said the Appellate Court, the trial court ruling is
affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further
proceedings.

The case is LOCAL BAKING PRODUCTS, INC., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTFIELD RENTAL MART, INC., d/b/a PARTY
STOP COSTUME CORNER, a/k/a, WESTFIELD RENTAL MART, INC.,
Defendant, and FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLEMINGTON,
Defendant/Intervenor-Respondent, NO. A-4852-12T4.

Andrew T. Fede -- afede@archerlaw.com -- argued the cause for
appellant (Archer & Greiner, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Fede, on the
briefs).

Paul Piantino, III -- piantinop@whiteandwilliams.com -- argued the
cause for respondent (White and Williams, LLP, attorneys; Mr.
Piantino, of counsel and on the brief; Geoffrey F. Sasso --
sassog@whiteandwilliams.com -- and Theo Tsakalis, on the brief).


                             *********

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  * * *