CAR_Public/140702.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 2, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 130

                             Headlines


12 EAST 12: Faces "Parenteau" Suit Alleging ADA Violations
765 NINTH AVE: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Faces Class Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations
ANAWALT LUMBER: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
AREVA NP: Removed "Seifaee" Suit to Massachusetts District Court

ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
B/E AEROSPACE: Removed "Zatirka" Suit to S.D. Florida
BENSCO INC: Sued Over Unequal and Discriminatory Compensation
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Faces "Alleyne" Suit Alleging Discrimination
BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Residents Pursue Radiation Risk-Related Claims

BROW LADY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Treble Damages
CATERPILLAR INC: "Bagley" Suit Included in C13/C15 Engines MDL
CORNER 47TH: Suit Seeks Injunctive Relief Under Disabilities Act
DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Approval of $8.5MM FLSA Suit Settlement
DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Approval of $4MM FCRA Suit Settlement

DOLLAR GENERAL: Discovery in EEOC's Suit to be Completed Sept.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Consolidation of "Main" & "Varela" Suits
DOLLAR GENERAL: "Wass" FLSA Litigation in Limited Discovery
DOLLAR GENERAL: Motion to Certify "Buttry" Suit Due by Sept.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Faces "Harsey" Labor Suit in Fla. Court

EDDIE MERLOT: Faces Class Action Over Tip Pooling Policy
ELECTROLUX HOME: Settles Class Action Over Defective Dryers
ENDOCYTE INC: Faces "Nguyen" Securities Suit in S.D. Indiana
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Vinson" Suit Over FCRA Violations
GAP INC: Faces "Hirsch" Suit in N.Y. Alleging ADA Violations

GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Raise Concerns Over Compensation Fund
GRAND DADDY'S: Removed "Mays" Suit to Wisconsin District Court
HUNTSVILLE EDUC BOARD: Suit Seeks to Prevent Prejudice v. Women
IDAHO MILK: Removed "Gutierrez" FLSA Suit to E.D. California
IDAHO MILK: Removed Second "Gutierrez" Suit to E.D. California

IOVATE HEALTH: Settles Class Action Over False Hydroxycut Claims
JC PENNEY: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Securities Lawsuit
JENSEN-LEWIS CO: Fails to Provide Accessible Entrance, Suit Says
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Alameda County Caregivers File Class Action
KPMG: Settles Unitholders' Class Action for At Least AU$20-Mil.

LABRIOLA CAFE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Diaz" Suit Claims
LENOVO CANADA: Faces Class Action Following Online Price Error
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Joe Fresh Children's Aqua Socks
LOWE'S HOME: Removed "Augustyniak" Class Suit to W.D. New York
MACY'S INC: Removed "Paulino" Class Suit to C.D. California

MAJOR ENERGY: Removed "Gillis" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
MICRO BIRD: Recalls G5 Commercial Bus Due to Defective Fitting
MOTOR COACH: Recalls 32 Units of D Series and J Series Buses
NATROL INC: "Lesher" Suit Included in Glucosamine/Chondroitin MDL
NEWS CORP: Catalina Seeks to Quash Non-Party Subpoena

OLD COUNTRY: Recalls Pasta Products Due to Undeclared Mustard
OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION: Faces "Giannos" Discrimination Suit
OWENS CORNING: "Maag" Suit Moved From Illinois to Pennsylvania
PARAS NEW YORK: "Hirsch" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
PETCO ANIMAL: Faces Class Action Over ZIP Code Collection

PRAXIS FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
QAUSAR SULTANA: NY Facility Violates Disabilities Act, Suit Says
RIVERSIDE NATURAL: Recalls Chia and Berries Fruit & Nut Bars
ROSE MANAGEMENT: Removed "Volcy" Suit to S.D. Florida
SCOTT SPORTS: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard

SIEMENS AG: Recalls Axiom Artis DTA, Artis Zeego
SIGNET JEWELERS: Class Cert. Bid in Sex Bias Suit v. Unit Pending
SIGNET JEWELERS: EEOC Appeals Dismissal of Gender Bias Lawsuit
SIGNET JEWELERS: Court Refuses Injunction v. Zale Acquisition
SOURCE INTERLINK: Ex-Workers Want Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act

SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SRA ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act
STAWNICHY'S MEAT: Recalls Meat Processing Beef Jerky Products
SUBARU: Recalls 105,649 Cars Due to Brake Defects
SYNTHES CANADA: Recalls Drill Bit Due to Mislabeling

TATIANA & COMPANY: Recalls Various Styles of Kissy Kissy Footies
TEOXANE SAL: Recalls Various Teosyal Products
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Engineers" Suit Included in Aggrenox MDL
THI OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces "Levine" Suit Alleging Discrimination
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 107,339 Vehicles Due to Airbag Problems

UNCLE BILL: Recalls Yummy House Licorice Ginger Due to Sulphite
UNITED AIRLINES: Judge Tosses EU Flight Compensation Class Action
VOLCOM RETAIL: Fails to Offer Safe Access at Facility, Suit Says
WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls Ultra Series Gas Boilers
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces "Carr" Product Liability Suit in Indiana

* Number of Medical Malpractice Lawsuits in Pennsylvania Steadies


                            *********


12 EAST 12: Faces "Parenteau" Suit Alleging ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. 12 East 12 Associates, LP, a New York limited
partnership, d/b/a Gotham Bar and Grill, and 12/12 Realty
Associates, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-
cv-04524 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the
Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full
and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations at
the Defendants' property in New York City.

12 East 12 Associates, LP, a New York limited partnership, doing
business as a Gotham Bar and Grill, and 12/12 Realty Associates, a
New York limited liability company, are authorized to conduct, and
are conducting business within the state of New York.  12 East 12
Associates is the lessee and operator of the subject real
property, where Gotham Bar and Grill is located.  12/12 Realty
Associates, is the owner, lessor and operator of the real
property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


765 NINTH AVE: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. 765 Ninth Ave. Rest, LLC, a New York limited
liability corporation, d/b/a Stecchino, and 765 9th Avenue
Corporation, a New York corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04534
(S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law and the New
York State Human Rights Law.

The Defendants are New York corporations.  765 Ninth Ave. Rest,
LLC, is the lessee and operator of the subject real property owned
by 765 9th Avenue Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Faces Class Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Suessenbach Family Limited Partnership; James S. Suessenbach,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
Gina M. Suessenbach, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Access Midstream Partners, L.P., and
Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01197-MEM (M.D.
Pa., June 20, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@btkmc.com
                  pmuhic@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Schaub, Esq.
          ROSENN, JENKINS & GREENWALD, LLP
          15 South Franklin Street
          Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711
          Telephone: (570) 826-5652
          E-mail: rschaub@rjglaw.com


ANAWALT LUMBER: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on June 18 disclosed that on
May 27, 2014 the Los Angeles employment law attorneys at the law
firm filed a class action complaint against Anawalt Lumber Co.,
Inc., for alleged overtime pay violations.  Ledbetter, et al. vs.
Anawalt Lumber Co., Inc., Case No. BC546906 is currently pending
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

According to the class action complaint filed against Anawalt, the
lumber company allegedly failed to pay their employees overtime
wages when these employees worked more than eight (8) hours in a
workday.  California has a daily overtime law that requires
payment of overtime wages if an employee works more than eight (8)
hours in a workday, unlike federal law which only has a weekly
overtime provision.

The complaint also alleges that Anawalt Lumber failed to provide
full, thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their
employees' fifth hour of work.  Under California Labor Code
Sections 226.7 and 512, an employer is liable to pay an employee
one hour of pay as a penalty each day the employee is not afforded
with a full thirty minute meal period prior to their fifth hour of
work.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Anawalt Lumber Co. call (800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees fight back
against unfair business practices, including violations of the
California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.


AREVA NP: Removed "Seifaee" Suit to Massachusetts District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Seifaee v. Areva NP Inc., Case
No. 14-04661, was removed from the Middlesex Superior Court to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
12621-RGS to the proceeding.

The case alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq.
          Todd J. Bennett, Esq.
          BENNETT & BELFORT PC
          24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300
          Cambridge, MA 02141
          Telephone: (617) 737-8865
          Facsimile: (617) 342-4850
          E-mail: eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com
                  tbennett@bennettandbelfort.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Grace V. Bacon Garcia, Esq.
          MORRISON MAHONEY LLP
          250 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 737-8822
          Facsimile: (617) 342-4914
          E-mail: ggarcia@morrisonmahoney.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Greenberg, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Asset Acceptance, LLC d/b/a Asset Acceptance
Capital Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-03901 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 23, 2014) accuses the Company of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


B/E AEROSPACE: Removed "Zatirka" Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Gregory Zatirka, and
similarly situated individuals v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, Case No. 2014CA006195, was removed from the Circuit
Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach
County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 9:14-cv-80825-WPD to the proceeding.

The action is brought to recover from the Defendant unpaid
overtime wages, as well as additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Arlene K. Kline, Esq.
          Elina Basham, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          222 Lakeview Avenue, 4th Floor
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 653-5000
          Facsimile: (561) 659-6313
          E-mail: arlene.kline@akerman.com
                  elina.basham@akerman.com


BENSCO INC: Sued Over Unequal and Discriminatory Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Azar v. BENSCO, Inc. d/b/a Mercedes-Benz San Antonio, Case
No. 5:14-cv-00563-HLH (W.D. Tex., June 23, 2014) is brought under
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Equal Pay Act.  The Plaintiff
alleges that she was subjected to a hostile working environment
based on sex.  She adds that the Defendant retaliated and
discriminated against her for complaining regarding her unequal
and discriminatory compensation.

BENSCO, Inc., doing business as Mercedes-Benz San Antonio, is a
domestic corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Morales Fletcher, Esq.
          MORALES FLETCHER LAW, P.C.
          115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: Melissa@themoralesfirm.com


BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Faces "Alleyne" Suit Alleging Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Alleyne v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., Macy's Inc, Jeff Binder,
Individually, Gelena Oren, Individually, Melanie Napolitano,
Individually, and Jennifer Bowen, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
04557-LTS (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff has
been unlawfully discriminated against, retaliated against, has
been degraded and humiliated, and as a result, suffers loss of
rights, emotional distress, loss of income and earnings.

Ms. Alleyne, a 51-year-old African American woman, is a resident
of New York.  She says that during her 28-year tenure working for
the Defendants, she was consistently given positive performance
reviews and complemented for her work performance.

Bloomingdale's, Inc., is an Ohio foreign business corporation,
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Bloomingdale's is a fully
owned subsidiary of Macy's, Inc.  Bloomingdale 's owns and
operates a location at 919 3rd Avenue, in New York City, where Ms.
Alleyne was a full-time employee of.  The Individual Defendants
are or were employees of the Bloomingdale's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          E-mail: JRose@tpglaws.com


BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Residents Pursue Radiation Risk-Related Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ruled that
residents who collect damages from a $6.8 million class-action
settlement over the smoldering Bridgeton Landfill in St. Louis
County can still pursue separate legal claims related to radiation
risks.

A tentative agreement reached in April calls for the landfill's
owner to pay an average of nearly $13,000 per household to
hundreds of affected residents.  But some were prepared to turn
down the deal, which required approval by 95 percent of the 400
remaining class members.

The judge also extended the deadline for residents to approve the
deal to July 18.  The law firm representing the residents was
scheduled to hold meetings on the recent changes from 4:30 to 8:00
p.m. on June 19 and June 20 and from 9:00 a.m. to noon on June 21
at Pattonville High School in Maryland Heights.


BROW LADY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Treble Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yosor Altabtabaee; Stacey Crayton; Sandra De La Cruz; Katina
Gilley; Audrey Gonzales; Esau Juarez; Brooke Mallory; Jazmyn
Reese; Tammy Robinson; Brandi Vinson; Courtney Yancy; Gladys Youna
v. The Brow Lady, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; The
Brow Lady USA, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; Eric and
Jane Doe Bowman; Nidelka Mayers and John Doe Mayers; and Violet
Hayes and John Doe Hayes, Case No. 2:14-cv-01397-HRH (D. Ariz.,
June 23, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid wages and an award of
treble damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Brow Lady USA, LLC is incorporated in the state of Arizona
with its principal place of business located in Scottsdale,
Arizona.  The Brow Lady, LLC is incorporated in the state of
Arizona with its principal place of business located in
Scottsdale, Arizona.  The Individual Defendants are the owners of
The Brow Lady.  The Defendants operate a beauty salon in Maricopa
County, Arizona.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CATERPILLAR INC: "Bagley" Suit Included in C13/C15 Engines MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bagley v. Caterpillar Inc., Case
No. 2:14-cv-00323, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Camden).  The New Jersey District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03966 to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the case to Judge Jerome B. Simandle for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Caterpillar Inc., C13 and C15 Engine Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2540.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising out
of allegations that an exhaust emission control system, called the
Caterpillar Regeneration System, used in certain model year C13
and C15 engines manufactured by Caterpillar, is defective.  In the
actions, The Plaintiffs allege that buses or trucks in which these
engines were installed suffered repeated failures and fault
warnings, resulting in costly and time-consuming repairs.  The
Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of express and implied
warranties, and all of the actions are asserted on behalf of
putative state or nationwide classes of purchasers or lessees of
vehicles with C13 or C15 engines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Clark, Esq.
          Darren K. Nelson, Esq.
          PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
          101 S 200 E, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-7840
          Facsimile: (801) 532-7750
          E-mail: rclark@parrbrown.com
                  dnelson@parrbrown.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  DEcklund@carellabyrne.com


CORNER 47TH: Suit Seeks Injunctive Relief Under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. Corner 47th Restaurant Corp., a New York
corporation, d/b/a Pietrasanta, and 683 Ninth Company, LLC, a New
York limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-04539 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 23, 2014) is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees
and costs pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New
York City Human Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights
Law.

Corner 47th Restaurant Corp., a New York corporation, doing
business as Pietrasanta, and 683 Ninth Company, LLC, a New York
limited liability company, are authorized to conduct, and are
conducting business within the state of New York.  The Restaurant
is the lessee and operator of a real property that is owned by 683
Ninth Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Approval of $8.5MM FLSA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the alleged Fair Labor Standards Act violation
suit, Cynthia Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al., is
seeking court approval for a $8.5 million settlement, according to
Dollar General Corp.'s May 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v.
Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-
01537-LSC) ("Richter") in which the plaintiff alleges that she and
other current and former Dollar General store managers were
improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeks to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 15,
2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the
court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store
managers. The Company opposed the plaintiff's motion. On March 23,
2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class. On
December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or
former Dollar General store managers. Approximately 3,950
individuals opted into the lawsuit, approximately 1,000 of whom
have been dismissed for various reasons, including failure to
cooperate in discovery.

On April 2, 2012, the Company moved to decertify the class.  The
plaintiff's response to that motion was filed on May 9, 2012.

On October 22, 2012, the court entered a memorandum opinion
granting the Company's decertification motion.  On December 19,
2012, the court entered an order decertifying the matter and
stating that a separate order would be entered regarding the opt-
in plaintiffs' rights and plaintiff Cynthia Richter's individual
claims. To date, the court has not entered such an order.

The parties agreed to mediate the matter, and the court informally
stayed the action pending the results of the mediation.
Mediations were conducted in January, April and August 2013.  On
August 10, 2013, the parties reached a preliminary agreement,
which has been formalized and submitted to the court for approval,
to resolve the matter for up to $8.5 million.  The Company has
deemed the settlement probable and recorded such amount as the
estimated expense in the second quarter of 2013.

The Company believes that its store managers are and have been
properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that
the Richter action is not appropriate for collective action
treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some,
although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff
store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Approval of $4MM FCRA Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corp. is seeking court approval for a $4.08 million
settlement reached in a suit alleging violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act related to background check procedures, according to
the company's May, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia entitled Jonathan Marcum, et al. v. Dolgencorp. Inc.
(Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) in which the plaintiffs, one
of whose conditional offer of employment was rescinded, allege
that certain of the Company's background check procedures violate
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  Plaintiff Marcum also
alleges defamation. According to the complaint and subsequently
filed first and second amended complaints, the plaintiffs seek to
represent a putative class of applicants in connection with their
FCRA claims. The Company responded to the complaint and each of
the amended complaints.  The plaintiffs' certification motion was
due to be filed on or before April 5, 2013; however, plaintiffs
asked the court to stay all deadlines in light of the parties'
ongoing settlement discussions.  On November 12, 2013, the court
entered an order lifting the stay but has not issued a new
scheduling order in light of the parties' preliminary agreement to
resolve the matter.

The parties have engaged in formal settlement discussions on three
occasions, once in January 2013 with a private mediator, and again
in March 2013 and July 2013 with a federal magistrate. On February
18, 2014, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve
the matter for up to $4.08 million, which must be submitted to and
approved by the court.

The Company's Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI")
carrier has been placed on notice of this matter and participated
in both the formal and informal settlement discussions.  The EPLI
policy covering this matter has a $2 million self-insured
retention.  Because the Company believes that it is likely to
expend the balance of its self-insured retention in settlement of
this litigation or otherwise, it accrued $1.8 million in the
fourth quarter of 2012, an amount that is immaterial to the
Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole.

At this time, although probable, it is not certain that the court
will approve the settlement. If the court does not approve the
settlement and the case proceeds, it is not possible to predict
whether Marcum ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class
action under the FCRA, and no assurances can be given that the
Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or
otherwise.  At this stage in the proceedings, the Company cannot
estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of
the claims asserted by the plaintiffs.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Discovery in EEOC's Suit to be Completed Sept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery relating to liability in a suit by the Equal
Opportunity Commission against Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar
General, alleging that the Company's criminal background check
policy has a disparate impact on "Black Applicants," is to be
completed by September 15, 2014, according to Dollar General
Corp.'s May 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In September 2011, the Chicago Regional Office of the United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or
"Commission") notified the Company of a cause finding related to
the Company's criminal background check policy.  The cause finding
alleges that the Company's criminal background check policy, which
excludes from employment individuals with certain criminal
convictions for specified periods, has a disparate impact on
African-American candidates and employees in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII").

The Company and the EEOC engaged in the statutorily required
conciliation process, and despite the Company's good faith efforts
to resolve the matter, the Commission notified the Company on July
26, 2012 of its view that conciliation had failed.

On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled
Equal Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar
General (Case No. 1:13-cv-04307) in which the Commission alleges
that the Company's criminal background check policy has a
disparate impact on "Black Applicants" in violation of Title VII
and seeks to recover monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of a class of "Black Applicants."  The Company filed its
answer to the complaint on August 9, 2013.

On January 29, 2014, the court entered an order, which, among
other things, bifurcates the issues of liability and damages
during discovery and at trial.  Under this order, fact discovery
relating to liability is to be completed by September 15, 2014.  A
status conference is scheduled for June 5, 2014.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Consolidation of "Main" & "Varela" Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corp. filed a petition for the coordination of two
labor lawsuits: Victoria Lee Dinger Main v. Dolgen California, LLC
and Does 1 through 100 (Case No. 34-2013-00146129) and Juan Varela
v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. RIC 1306158),
according to the company's May 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. RIC 1306158) ("Varela")
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside in which the plaintiff alleges that he and
other "key carriers" were not provided with meal and rest periods
in violation of California law and seeks to recover alleged unpaid
wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment
interest, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Varela plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California
"key carriers" as to these claims.  The Varela plaintiff also
asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed
under California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California (Case No. 5:13-cv-01172VAP-
SP) on July 1, 2013, and filed its answer to the complaint on July
1, 2013.  On July 30, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand the
action to state court.  The Company's response to that motion was
filed on August 19, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion and
remanded the case. The Company filed a petition for permission to
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
on September 23, 2013.  Although the petition for permission to
appeal remains pending, based on the Ninth Circuit's denial of a
similar petition filed by the Company in the Main matter, the
Company has filed a petition for coordination of those matters. A
status conference has been scheduled by the Superior Court for
July 23, 2014.

Similarly, on June 6, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Victoria Lee Dinger
Main v. Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1 through 100 (Case No.
34-2013-00146129) ("Main") was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Sacramento.  The Main
plaintiff alleges that she and other "key carriers" were not
provided with meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements and
appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California wage
and hour laws and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages,
declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Main plaintiff seeks to represent
a putative class of California "key carriers" as to these claims.
The Main plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business
practices and seeks to proceed under the PAGA.

The Company removed this action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 2:13-cv-
01637-MCE-KJN) on August 7, 2013, and filed its answer to the
complaint on August 6, 2013.  On August 29, 2013, the plaintiff
moved to remand the action to state court.  The Company's response
to that motion was filed on September 19, 2013.  On October 28,
2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion and remanded the case.
The Company filed a petition for permission to appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November
7, 2013.  The plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 15,
2013. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for permission to
appeal on April 10, 2014.

On February 6, 2014, the Superior Court referred the matter to the
trial setting process and ordered the parties to confer and agree
upon a date for trial and a mandatory settlement conference.  The
parties are to advise the court of the date agreed upon for a
trial and settlement conference no later than January 30, 2015.
If the parties are unable to agree upon a date by such time, the
court will assign the next available dates.

On April 28, 2014, the Company filed a petition for coordination
of the Main and Varela matters.   As no hearing date has been
scheduled, no deadline currently exists for either plaintiff's
response to the petition for coordination.


DOLLAR GENERAL: "Wass" FLSA Litigation in Limited Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
The suit Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp, LLC (Case No. 13PO-CC00039)
is in limited discovery and plaintiff's deadline to file any
supplemental brief was due by June 15, 2014, according to the
company's May 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On May 31, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp,
LLC (Case No. 13PO-CC00039) ("Wass") was filed in the Circuit
Court of Polk County, Missouri.  The Wass plaintiff seeks to
proceed collectively on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly
situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not
properly paid for certain breaks in violation of the FLSA.  The
Wass plaintiff seeks back wages (including overtime), injunctive
and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 11, 2013, the Company removed this action to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case
No. 6:113-cv-03267-JFM).  The Company filed its answer on July 18,
2013.

On March 28, 2014, the Wass plaintiff moved for conditional
certification of her FLSA claims.  Shortly thereafter, on April 3,
2014, the plaintiff moved the court for permission to conduct
additional limited discovery and to file a supplemental brief in
support of her motion for conditional certification.  By agreement
of the parties, the court permitted the limited discovery and
ordered that the plaintiff file any supplemental brief by June 15,
2014, or within 15 days from the last deposition of Company's
corporate representatives.  The Company's response to plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification and any supplemental briefing
is due 30 days thereafter.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Motion to Certify "Buttry" Suit Due by Sept.
------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for certification of the statewide claims in Rachel
Buttry and Jennifer Peters v. Dollar General Corp. (Case No. 3:13-
cv-00652) is due to be filed on or before September 22, 2014,
according to the company's May 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Similarly, on July 2, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Rachel Buttry and
Jennifer Peters v. Dollar General Corp. (Case No. 3:13-cv-00652)
("Buttry") was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee.  The Buttry plaintiffs seek to
proceed on a nationwide collective basis under the FLSA and as a
statewide class under Tennessee law on behalf of non-exempt store
employees who allegedly were not properly paid for certain breaks.
The Buttry plaintiffs seek back wages (including overtime),
injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages,
compensatory and economic damages, "consequential" and
"incidental" damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed its answer on August 7, 2013.  The plaintiffs
filed their motion for conditional certification of their FLSA
claims on December 5, 2013, to which the Company responded on
February 3, 2014.  On April 4, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs'
certification motion.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration or in the alternative for permission to seek
interlocutory appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit on April 18, 2014. The court denied the plaintiffs'
motion on April 24, 2014.

The Buttry plaintiffs' motion for certification of their statewide
claims is due to be filed on or before September 22, 2014.  The
court has set this matter for trial on February 17, 2015.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Faces "Harsey" Labor Suit in Fla. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The labor suit of non-exempt store employees of Dollar General
Corp. continues in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, according to the company's May 3, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 19, 2014, a lawsuit entitled Danielle Harsey v.
Dolgencorp, LLC (Case No. 5:14-cv-00168-WTH-PRL) ("Harsey") was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.  The Harsey plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide
collective basis under the FLSA and as a statewide class under the
Florida Minimum Wage Act on behalf of all similarly situated non-
exempt store employees who allegedly were not paid for all hours
worked.  The Harsey plaintiff seeks back wages (including
overtime), liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company
filed its answer on May 7, 2014.


EDDIE MERLOT: Faces Class Action Over Tip Pooling Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
Gil Corsey, writing for WDRB.com, reports that Eddie Merlot, one
of Louisville's finest steakhouses, faces a class action lawsuit
over its tip pooling policy.

"I'm a server now," said Michael Parsley, a server at the
steakhouse.  "If I work all night and don't get a drink from the
bar, I shouldn't have to tip the bartender, should I?"

Michael Parsley helped open the high-dollar restaurant more than
three years ago.  Now he's one of the eight current and former
employees suing it.  At issue: Eddie Merlot's tip pooling policy.

Mr. Parsley says he can't tip colleagues based on what a customer
leaves in gratuity.  Eddie Merlot servers are forced to put five
percent of their daily sales into a pot for hosts, runners, and
other support staff, who make minimum wage, while he earns $2.13
an hour.

"We do not have a problem tipping our staff," Mr. Parsley said.
"Now, sometimes, the staff realizes they're going to make that
money regardless of what they do."

"That's not fair," he added.  "I think everybody would hustle more
if I handed him money at the end of the night versus he's getting
what he's getting regardless of what I made."

Sharing tips is common in restaurants, but in Kentucky it's
illegal to require it.

Some workers from Lynn's Paradise Cafe claim they were fired for
not following this restaurant's tip sharing policy.  The owner
denied that allegation.  A few weeks later, the restaurant closed.

Two former employees at Doc Crows filed a similar tip-sharing
lawsuit.  It was dismissed.

Diners and former servers themselves are on the fence.

"We never pooled our tips -- we just rotated tables," said Vytas
Dovrovolskis, a former bartender.

"They were all part of the process, from seating people to getting
the food out," said former server Kelly Lasita.

Company leaders would only tell WDRB they haven't seen the class
action suit yet and couldn't comment on the case.

"It's a great restaurant," said Mr. Parsley.

Mr. Parsley says he likes his job, but he wants to be able to
afford to keep it.

"We work here, this is how it is now, we want it to change," he
said.  "Sometimes one voice or eight voices can help that change,
and I hope it changes in Louisville and Kentucky and nationally."


ELECTROLUX HOME: Settles Class Action Over Defective Dryers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Electrolux
Home Products Inc. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit
that alleged its dryers caught fire because they were defective.

Electrolux agreed to pay up to $8 million in attorneys' fees,
$1,300 per fire, a cash rebate to assist in the purchase of a
replacement Electrolux-brand or Frigidaire-brand dryer or other
home appliance up to a maximum of $350 off the price and an online
code that can be used to purchase new products at up to a 20
percent discount from Electrolux's website, according to the
settlement agreement filed April 30 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Class members will also be notified that they need to regularly
clean the dryer lint and will get free cleaning services if they
have problems within the first five years of ownership.

"The menu of options available through the settlement -- all of
which provide benefits that are uncapped by Electrolux, and allow
the settlement class members to choose multiple options -- provide
fair and adequate benefits to the settlement class when considered
in light of the litigation risks," the settlement document states.

The settlement applies to customers who bought Frigidaire, White
Westinghouse, Kelvinator, Gibson, Tappan, Crosley and Kenmore
ball-hitch dryers made between 2002 and 2011.

Electrolux has denied that its dryers are defective or that they
pose an unreasonable fire hazard to consumers.

The company denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to settle the
Electrolux dryer class action lawsuit to avoid the risk and
expense of further litigation.

The settlement was preliminarily approved on May 5.

"The parties entered into the settlement agreement solely for the
purpose of compromising and settling disputed claims," District
Judge Christina A. Snyder's order states.

The lawsuit was first filed in 2012 after plaintiffs Shawn Roberts
and Nicole Horton claimed the dryers allowed lint to accumulate
behind the drum, putting it close to the machine's heat source and
increasing its chance of catching fire.

Some of the fires spread to clothing in the dryer to travel
through a plastic air duct, which provided more fuel and did not
contain the fires, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claimed Electrolux was negligent, breached its
express and implied warranties, was negligent in failing to recall
or retrofit the dryers, breached its strict product liability,
failed to warn the class members, was unjustly enriched and
violated multiple state consumer protection laws.

The plaintiffs are represented by Edward A. Wallace --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Amy E. Keller -- aek@wexlerwallace.com --
and Dawn M. Goulet -- dmg@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace
LLP; Gretchen M. Nelson of Kreindler & Kreindler LLP; Erin
Dickinson and Charles Crueger -- ccrueger@hrdclaw.com -- of
Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC; and Gregory F. Coleman and
Mark E. Silvey of Greg Coleman Law PC.

Electrolux is represented by Michael T. Williams --
williams@wtotrial.com -- Jessica G. Scott -- scott@wtotrial.com --
and Kenneth E. Stalzer -- stalzer@wtotrial.com -- of Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP; and Matthew P. Kanny -- mkanny@manatt.com -- and
Noel S. Cohen of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number: 8:12-cv-01644


ENDOCYTE INC: Faces "Nguyen" Securities Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Nguyen, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Endocyte, Inc., and P. Ron Ellis, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01048-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 23, 2014) alleges violations of
securities laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Richard Blaiklock, Esq.
          LEWIS WAGNER, LLP
          501 Indiana Ave., Suite 200
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 237-0500
          Facsimile: (317) 630-2790
          E-mail: rblaiklock@lewiswagner.com


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Vinson" Suit Over FCRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chasity Shantell Vinson, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. FleetCor Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01939-JEC-LTW (N.D. Ga., June 20,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP-DECATUR
          108 East Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 204
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP-MARIETTA
          P.O. Box 1478
          331 Washington Ave.
          Marietta, GA 30061
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com


GAP INC: Faces "Hirsch" Suit in N.Y. Alleging ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. The Gap, Inc., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a
Gap/1969, and 513 Broadway Corporation, a New York corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-04532 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiffs was denied full and equal access to, and full and equal
enjoyment of, the facilities at the Defendants' property located
in New York City.

The Gap, Inc., a Delaware corporation, doing business as Gap/1969,
and 513 Broadway Corporation, a New York corporation, are
authorized to conduct, and are conducting business within the
state of New York.  Gap is the lessee and operator of the real
property that the Plaintiff visited, and 513 Broadway Corporation,
is the owner, lessor and operator of that property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


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."


GRAND DADDY'S: Removed "Mays" Suit to Wisconsin District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Elizabeth Mays v. Grand Daddy's,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2014 CV 412, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Marathon County, Wisconsin, to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00461-slc to the proceeding.

During relevant times, Ms. Mays worked for the Defendants as an
exotic dancer.

Ms. Mays alleges that the Defendants refused to pay her and all
other similarly situated exotic dancers an hourly wage for the
hours they have worked as employees of the Defendants.

Grand Daddy's, LLC, is a Wisconsin local corporation with a
primary place of business in Schofield, Marathon County,
Wisconsin.  The Individual Defendants are owners and officers of
the Company.  The Defendants operate a full-nudity strip club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy Burnett, Esq.
          TERWILLIGER, WAKEEN,  PIEHLER & CONWAY, S.C.
          327 North 17th Avenue, Suite 301
          Wausau, WI 54401
          Telephone: (715) 203-0487
          Facsimile: (715) 845-3538

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeff Scott Olson, Esq.
          THE JEFF SCOTT OLSON LAW FIRM, S.C.
          131 W. Wilson St., Suite 1200
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 283-6001
          Facsimile: (608) 283-0920
          E-mail: jsolson@scofflaw.com


HUNTSVILLE EDUC BOARD: Suit Seeks to Prevent Prejudice v. Women
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet T. Greenlee v. Huntsville City Board of Education; Laurie
McCaulley, David Blair, Jennie Robinson, Topper Birney and Mike
Culbreath, in their official capacity as the Huntsville City Board
of Education and not as individuals; Casey Wardinski, in his
official capacity as Superintendent of Education for the
Huntsville City Board of Education; and Fictitious parties A, that
person, persons, entity or entities who conspired to commit the
acts herein complained; B that person, persons, entity or entities
who participated in commission of the acts herein complained;
whose names are not now known, or if known, are not known as
proper party defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-01191-AKK (N.D. Ala.,
June 23, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Equal Pay Act.

The lawsuit seeks appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief
sufficient in nature to prevent the Defendants from ever again
discriminating again against others similarly situated regarding
pay based their on sex.

The Huntsville City Board of Education is the public educational
entity of the City of Huntsville.  Casey Wardinski is the
Superintendent of Education for the Huntsville City Board of
Education.  Laurie McCaulley, David Blair, Jennie Robinson, Topper
Birney and Mike Culbreath are the individuals currently sitting as
and comprising the Huntsville City Board of Education.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Irby, Esq.
          JAMES IRBY, P.C.
          120 East Tennessee Street
          Florence, AL 35630
          Telephone: (256) 766-7778
          Facsimile: (256) 766-7845
          E-mail: james@jamesirby.com


IDAHO MILK: Removed "Gutierrez" FLSA Suit to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Gutierrez v. Idaho Milk
Transport, Inc., et al., Case No. 14CECGO1176 JH, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Fresno to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-00973-LJO-GSA to the proceeding.

Florentino Gutierrez alleges, among other things, that the
Defendant failed to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Florentino Gutierrez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN RICASA
          2341 Westwood Blvd., Suite 7
          Los Angeles, Ca 90064
          Telephone: (424) 248-0510
          E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Drew R. Hansen, Esq.
          THEODORA ORINGHER PC
          535 Anton Boulevard, 9th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 549-6200
          Facsimile: (714) 549-6201
          E-mail: dhansen@tocounsel.com


IDAHO MILK: Removed Second "Gutierrez" Suit to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gutierrez v. Idaho Milk Transport,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14CECGO1176 JH, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-at-
00454 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Defendants failed to provide meal and rest
periods, as required by the California Labor Code and California
Code of Regulations, and failed to provide proper paystubs and
failed to provide the required data.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Florentino Gutierrez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN RICASA
          2341 Westwood Blvd., Suite 7
          Los Angeles, Ca 90064
          Telephone: (424) 248-0510
          E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Drew R. Hansen, Esq.
          THEODORA ORINGHER PC
          535 Anton Boulevard, 9th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 549-6200
          Facsimile: (714) 549-6201
          E-mail: dhansen@tocounsel.com


IOVATE HEALTH: Settles Class Action Over False Hydroxycut Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc. has reached a class action lawsuit
settlement over allegations it made false and misleading
statements about the effectiveness of its Hydroxycut dietary
supplement products.

If you purchased a Hydroxycut product between July 20, 2008 and
March 19, 2014, you may be eligible to claim a cash refund through
the Hydroxycut class action settlement.  No Proof of Purchase
necessary.

Case Summary:

The Iovate Hydroxycut class action lawsuit was initially filed in
2012 by a plaintiff who says he relied on allegedly false and
misleading statements on labeling and in advertisements regarding
the effectiveness of Hydroxycut products, and that such statements
violate state consumer protection laws, the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act and warranties related to Hydroxycut.  According to the
Hydroxycut lawsuit, Iovate was unjustly enriched as a result of
these allegedly false and misleading statements.

Iovate denies the allegations but agreed to settle the Hydroxycut
class action lawsuit to avoid the expense and distraction of
litigation.

Potential Award:

Class Members who have receipts of their purchase are eligible to
receive a full refund of any Hydroxycut product purchased during
the Class Period.  Class Members without Proof of Purchase will be
eligible to receive a maximum refund of up two bottles of
Hydroxycut purchased at $25 each (up to $50 total).

Deadline:

The deadline to file a claim is 7/30/2014.

File a Claim:

Claim filing instructions and a complete list of eligible products
can be found at tpcl.as/hydroxyclass.


JC PENNEY: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
entered a scheduling order on May 13, 2014, requiring that
plaintiff in securities suit against J.C. Penney Company Inc. to
file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days,
according to the company's June 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May
3, 2014.

From October 1, 2013 through October 24, 2013, four purported
class action complaints were filed naming the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah as defendants, by the following
plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division: Marcus (filed October 1, 2013), Erdem (filed
October 7, 2013), Murphy (filed October 21, 2013) and Gilbert
(filed October 24, 2013).  The Marcus, Erdem and Gilbert
complaints are purportedly brought on behalf of persons who
acquired the company's common stock during the period from August
20, 2013 through September 26, 2013.  The complaint filed by
Murphy is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired
the company's securities, including common stock, debt securities,
and purchasers of call and sellers of put options, during the
period from May 16, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and also
names William A. Ackman, a former member of the Board of
Directors, as a defendant.  The complaints allege claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs
claim that the defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and
business prospects that caused the company's common stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices.  The complaints seek class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the
court may deem just and proper.  On December 2, 2013, various
parties filed motions with the court seeking consolidation of the
pending cases and appointment of lead plaintiff.  On December 17,
2013, Murphy filed a notice of dismissal of his case without
prejudice. On February 28, 2014, the Court entered an order
consolidating the pending cases and appointed Plaintiff National
Shopmen Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and the law firm Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel for the class, with Ward
& Smith Law Firm as liaison counsel. Plaintiff Aletti Gestielle
SGR S.p.A. filed a motion for reconsideration of the appointment,
which the Court denied on May 8, 2014. The Court entered a
scheduling order on May 13, 2014, requiring that plaintiff file a
consolidated amended complaint within 60 days.


JENSEN-LEWIS CO: Fails to Provide Accessible Entrance, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. Jensen-Lewis Co. Inc., a New York corporation,
d/b/a Jensen-Lewis, and West 15 Townhouse Corporation, a New York
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04529 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants failed to provide a safe, accessible
right front entrance to their facility commonly referred to as
Jensen-Lewis located in New York City, due to multiple steps at
said entrance, without a compliant ramp or wheelchair lift.

Jensen-Lewis Co. Inc. is a New York corporation doing business as
Jensen-Lewis.  Jensen-Lewis Co. is the lessee and operator of the
subject property.  West 15 Townhouse Corporation is a New York
corporation.  West 15 Townhouse is the owner, lessor or operator
of the real property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Alameda County Caregivers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Malaika Fraley, writing for Oakland Tribune, reports that a class-
action lawsuit filed on June 18 against a leading nationwide
health care services company alleges caregivers tending to the
elderly, ill and disabled in the Bay Area and throughout the state
are being denied overtime and breaks in violation of California
labor laws.

The lawsuit against the Kentucky-based Kindred Healthcare and its
subsidiaries -- Professional Healthcare at Home and NP Plus --
alleges that employee caregivers contracted out to assisted living
and rehabilitation facilities to provide nonmedical care are
working 12- to 24-hour shifts without receiving overtime or breaks
for meals and rest.  The workers deployed to private residences
are receiving a flat-pay wage that breaks down to below minimum
wage, the lawsuit alleges.

The lead plaintiffs, Emma Delores Hawkins, of San Pablo, and
Ginger Rogers, of Sacramento, are both veteran caregivers who work
12-hour shifts five to seven days a week in private residences and
facilities in Alameda County.

"You might get a chance to go to the bathroom, but getting fresh
air or taking a break -- it's not happening.  Not a lunch break,
not a 15-minute break, nothing," Ms. Rogers said.  "It's been
going on for quite some time.  Unfortunately, a lot of people have
not been speaking up.  I decided to speak up.  I'm going for some
change in the health care profession."

Susan Moss, senior vice president of marketing and communications
at Kindred Healthcare, said on June 18 that the company is unable
to comment at this time because it had not been served with the
lawsuit and therefore have not had the opportunity to review the
allegations.

The lawsuit is being brought by the Legal Aid Society-Employment
Law Center, Women's Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate
University School of Law and the Oakland-based law firm Lewis,
Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson on behalf of caregivers who have
worked for the defendants in the last four years.

Some 300 caregivers work for the plaintiffs in California in
private homes and in facilities at any given time, the law firm
says, but the lawsuit has implications for the estimated 3.5
million such caregivers in the United States.

"We hope the lawsuit will set an industry standard requiring
compliance with laws that govern this kind of work," said
Hina Shah, an attorney for the plaintiffs.


KPMG: Settles Unitholders' Class Action for At Least AU$20-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Allen, writing for The Australian, reports that a class
action brought by more than 2000 small unitholders against
auditing and accounting giant KPMG has been settled out of court
for at least AU$20 million.

Unitholders in the Premium Income Fund, an offshoot of Gold Coast-
based finance, property and tourism group MFS, also known as
Octavia, brought the case against KPMG, which was acting as the
managed investment scheme's compliance plan auditor.  MFS
collapsed in early 2008 owing about AU$3 billion.

The Federal Court case before judge Nye Perram was due to begin
hearing from October.  But KPMG started negotiating the settlement
over the past couple of weeks, sources said.

While terms of the settlement are subject to court approval,
litigation funder Bentham IMF does not expect any proceeds from
the settlement to start flowing to unitholders until later this
year.

The class action concerns a series of related-party transactions
that allegedly occurred between 2006 and 2007 involving AU$147.5
million of PIF funds allegedly used by MFS to improperly pay a
September dividend in 2007 and to repay a AU$103 million in debt
to funder Fortress.

Although the amount of the settlement was not released, a source
close to the negotiations said it was at least AU$20 million.

Bentham IMF could earn up to about one-third of the AU$20 million
fee.  However, the settlement deed is still to be put in place.

In a brief statement to the ASX on June 18, Bentham IMF said it
would make a further announcement if and when a binding settlement
deed was executed.

On June 18, a KPMG spokesman said the firm had reached an in-
principle settlement of proceedings by unitholders and the
responsible entity of the managed investment scheme previously
known as MFS Premium Income Fund "subject to federal court
approval".  KPMG declined to comment further.

There are separate proceedings under way in Queensland brought by
ASIC against a number of former MFS directors.

MFS co-founder Michael King, who is overseas, declined to comment,
saying he was unaware of the outcome of the KPMG case.


LABRIOLA CAFE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Diaz" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Diaz, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly
situated v. Labriola Cafe - Michigan Ave., LLC and Richard
Labriola, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04692 (N.D. Ill., June
21, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff did not receive overtime
wages despite working more than 40 hours per week.

Labriola Cafe - Michigan Ave., LLC produces baked goods for
wholesale and retail sale.  Richard Labriola is the owner of
Labriola Cafe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valentin Narvaez, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


LENOVO CANADA: Faces Class Action Following Online Price Error
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Bogart, writing for Global News, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit has been filed against Lenovo Canada
following an online price error that left thousands of customers
with cancelled orders.  The proposed lawsuit calls on Lenovo
Canada to award damages equal to the difference between the
wrongful sale price and the actual price, as well as punitive
damages.

In May, Lenovo Canada abruptly cancelled customer orders over a
pricing error during an online "Door Buster" sale in which
customers were able to place orders for computers at up to 80 per
cent off.

"Between May 22 and May 23, 2014, a pricing error occurred on the
Lenovo Canada website for select Lenovo laptops.  The error
mistakenly allowed a 'door buster' e-coupon to be combined with an
instant savings discount price.  As a result, prices and the
automatically generated calculation of discount percentages and
savings appeared in error," a Lenovo spokesperson said.

Lenovo offered affected customers $100 off their next purchase as
a "gesture of goodwill," but the offer has been widely rejected by
consumers who want the company to honor the original discount.

Lenovo Canada declined to comment on the proposed lawsuit, which
was started by Quebec resident Sebastien Crete on behalf of all
affected customers.  Mr. Crete, who purchased a laptop during the
price error, told Global News on June 16 he started the lawsuit to
stand up for affected customers.  The proposed lawsuit must be
approved by a federal court before proceeding.

Many customers have also complained to Canada's Competition
Bureau.  Section 74.05 of the Competition Act prohibits the sale
of a product at a price higher than its advertised price --
however, "the provision does not apply if the advertised price was
a mistake and the error was immediately corrected."

A petition calling on Lenovo to honor the sale price of the laptop
has garnered over 6,000 signatures to date.


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Joe Fresh Children's Aqua Socks
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 11, 2014
Posting date:             June 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-39893

Affected products: Joe Fresh Children's Aqua Socks/Water Shoes

The voluntary recall involves the Joe Fresh children's Aqua
Socks/Water Shoes.  There are 19 style/color combinations of the
aqua socks products of similar design/construction, in all sizes
for toddlers and kids.

One side of the hang tag has the Joe Fresh Logo and the other side
of the tab shows the size, style, UPC, domicile and price.

The shoes may slip when used on wet smooth surfaces, resulting in
a fall hazard.

Loblaw has received three incident reports with one minor injury
due to slip and fall in Canada.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries relating to the use of these Aqua Socks / Water Shoes.

Approximately 9300 units of the recalled Aqua Socks/Water Shoes
have been sold at Loblaws banner stores across Canada and Joe
Fresh online.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold from April
2014 to May 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Loblaw Company Ltd.
                   Brampton
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Aqua
Socks/Water Shoes and return the product to any Loblaw banner
store where Joe Fresh apparel is sold.


LOWE'S HOME: Removed "Augustyniak" Class Suit to W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Augustyniak, et al. v. Lowe's Home
Centers, LLC, et al., Case No. 804062/2014, was removed from the
Erie County Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York (Buffalo).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-00488 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shawn Patrick Regan, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 43rd Floor
          New York, NY 10166-0005
          Telephone: (212) 309-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 309-1100
          E-mail: sregan@hunton.com


MACY'S INC: Removed "Paulino" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Eloy Paulino v. Macy's Inc., et
al., Case No. BC537152, was removed from the Los Angeles County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-04854-BRO-AJW to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Tai Wootton, Esq.
          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          Manu J. Elloie, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES APC
          555 West 5th Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
          E-mail: awootton@hamnerlaw.com
                  chamner@hamnerlaw.com
                  melloie@hamnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony James Nunes, Esq.
          Glenn C. Nunes, Esq.
          NUNES LAW GROUP APC
          1 Sansome Street, Suite 3500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 946-8894
          Facsimile: (415) 946-8801
          E-mail: tony@nuneslawgroup.com
                  glenn@nuneslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          George A. Stohner, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, CA 60601-5094
          Telephone: (312) 324-1000
          Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
          E-mail: gstohner@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Mills, Esq.
          Alexander Miller Chemers, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: jmills@morganlewis.com
                  achemers@morganlewis.com


MAJOR ENERGY: Removed "Gillis" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Gillis, et al. v. Major Energy
LLC, et al., Case No. 140502589, was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03856-NS to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC
          One Liberty Pl, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3985
          E-mail: ckocher@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  sparis@smbb.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David R. King, Esq.
          HERRICK FEINSTEIN LLP
          210 Carnegie Ctr., Suite 102
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 452-3802
          E-mail: dking@herrick.com


MICRO BIRD: Recalls G5 Commercial Bus Due to Defective Fitting
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              School Bus, Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           0
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014221
TC ID number:             2014221

On certain propane-powered buses, the aluminum fuel line fitting
at the propane tank can experience dissimilar metal corrosion
where it contacts the brass supply housing on the fuel tank.  This
could result in a propane leak, which in the presence of an
ignition source, could result in a fire causing property damage
and/or injury.

Dealers will replace the aluminum fuel line fitting at the fuel
tank with a new stainless steel fitting.

Affected products: 2011, 2012 Micro Bird G5 Commercial Bus


MOTOR COACH: Recalls 32 Units of D Series and J Series Buses
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           32
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014220
TC ID number:             2014220
Manufacturer recall
number:                   431

On certain buses, the load shedding feature programmed into the
multiplex controller can deactivate the headlights when the
starter is cranking.  Under certain conditions, the headlights may
become deactivated when the transmission is in gear.  Sudden loss
of headlights while a vehicle is in operation could impair the
driver's vision resulting in a crash causing injury and/or
property damage.

Dealers will reprogram the multiplex controller.

Affected products:

   Maker       Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----       -----       ----------------------
   MCI         D SERIES    2014
   MCI         J SERIES    2014


NATROL INC: "Lesher" Suit Included in Glucosamine/Chondroitin MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lesher v. Natrol, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01867, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore).  The Maryland
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01981-JFM to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit will be included in the multidistrict litigation known
as In Re: Natrol, Inc., Glucosamine/Chondroitin Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02528-JFM.

Natrol, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Chatsworth, California.  Natrol is a step-down, wholly owned
subsidiary of Plethico Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., a publicly-traded
pharmaceutical corporation based in Mumbai, India.  Natrol
operates in the herbal and nutraceutical sphere, predominantly in
the United States of America.  Natrol manufactures and sells a
portfolio of healthcare and wellness brands representing
nutritional supplements, functional herbal teas and sports
nutritional products.

One of Natrol's major products, which falsely purport to repair or
regrow cartilage and to improve joint health, is Natrol's
Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM.  The complaints allege that Natrol's
claims are scientifically unsound, false and misleading because
its products cannot help repair, regenerate or rebuild cartilage
or improve joint health.


NEWS CORP: Catalina Seeks to Quash Non-Party Subpoena
-----------------------------------------------------
Catalina Marketing Corporation asks the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida to quash a subpoena duces tecum
served upon it by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP,
counsel for the Defendants in the class action lawsuit titled Dial
Corporation, et al. v. News Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-CIV-
06802 (WHP), currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Catalina contends that the Subpoena should be quashed because it
imposes an undue burden on Catalina in that its vague requests
seek a number of documents unquantifiable at present but which
that would likely take thousands of man-hours to collect.
Catalina adds that the information requested contains highly
confidential, sensitive commercial information belonging to
Catalina -- including Catalina's business development and research
information -- for which the instant protective order provides no
protection to Catalina.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs contend that in two relevant
markets, the multifaceted and pervasive exclusionary strategies of
the Defendants have violated the antitrust laws of the United
States of America.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have
suppressed competitive promotion of a massive number of consumer
goods in 40,000 retail stores, and scores of newspapers
nationwide, to acquire and maintain two unlawful monopolies and
earn large monopoly profits at the expense of its purchasers,
which have paid unlawful, above-competitive prices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lewis T. LeClair, Esq.
          Scott R. Jacobs, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH, PC
          300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-4984
          Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
          E-mail: lLeclair@mckoolsmith.com
                  sjacobs@mckoolsmith.com

               - and -

          John C. Briody, Esq.
          James H. Smith, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH, PC
          One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 402-9418
          Facsimile: (212) 402-9438
          E-mail: jbriody@mckoolsmith.com
                  jsmith@mckoolsmith.com

               - and -

          Steven F. Benz, Esq.
          Justin M. Presant, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
          1615 M. Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          E-mail: sbenz@khhte.com
                  jpresant@khhte.com

               - and -

          R. Stephen Berry, Esq.
          BERRY LAW PLLC
          1717 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 450
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 296-3020
          E-mail: sberry@berrylawpllc.com

               - and -

          James T. Southwick, Esq.
          Richard W. Hess, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 653-7811
          E-mail: jsouthwick@susmangodfrey.com
                  rhess@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Daniel B. Goldman, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          75 East 55th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 318-6024
          E-mail: dangoldman@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Samer M. Musallam, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          875 15th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 551-1762
          E-mail: samermusallam@paulhastings.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
          Jane B. O'Brien, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          2001 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 223-7300
          E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com
                  jobrien@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Andrew C. Finch, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-300
          E-mail: afinch@paulweiss.com

Movant Catalina Marketing Corporation is represented by:

          Bradford D. Kimbro, Esq.
          Brandon Paul Faulkner, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP-TAMPA
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 4100
          PO Box 1288
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 227-8500
          Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
          E-mail: brad.kimbro@hklaw.com
                  brandon.faulkner@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher G. Kelly, Esq.
          Christine Tramontano, Esq.
          31 W. 52nd St.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 513-3200
          Facsimile: (212) 385-9010
          E-mail: christopher.kelly@hklaw.com
                  christine.tramontano@hklaw.com

Catalina's petition is captioned Dial Corporation, et al. v. News
Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-mc-00047-VMC-AEP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The
class action lawsuit is styled Dial Corporation, et al. v. News
Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-CIV-06802 (WHP), in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


OLD COUNTRY: Recalls Pasta Products Due to Undeclared Mustard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Old Country Edibles Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8943


OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION: Faces "Giannos" Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Giannos v. International Union of Operating Engineers,
Operating Engineers Trust Fund a/k/a I.U.O.E. Local 12 and NV OP
ENG CC Trust Fund, Case No. 2:14-cv-01017 (D. Nev., June 23, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff in
connection with the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges
of employment or limited, segregated or classified her in a manner
that would deprive her of any employment opportunity or adversely
affect her status because of her sex.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter C. Wetherall, Esq.
          WETHERALL GROUP, LTD.
          9345 West Sunset Road, Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NV 89148
          Telephone: (702) 838-8500
          Facsimile: (702) 837-5081
          E-mail: pwetherall@wetherallgroup.com


OWENS CORNING: "Maag" Suit Moved From Illinois to Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Maag, et al. v. Owens Corning, et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00374, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Pittsburgh).  The Pennsylvania District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-00826-JFC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David I. Cates, Esq.
          CATES MAHONEY, LLC
          216 West Pointe Drive, Suite A
          Swansea, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 277-3644
          Facsimile: (618) 277-7882
          E-mail: dcates@cateslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eugene A. Schoon, Esq.
          SIDLEY & AUSTIN
          Bank One Plaza
          10 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: eschoon@sidley.com


PARAS NEW YORK: "Hirsch" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. Paras New York Inc., a New York corporation,
d/b/a Liberty Bagel Deli & Grocery, and Clinton Association for a
Renewed Environment, Inc., a New York not-for-profit corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-04538 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014) alleges
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
City Human Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Paras New York Inc. is a New York corporation, doing business as
Liberty Bagel Deli & Grocery.  Clinton Association for a Renewed
Environment, Inc., is a New York not-for-profit corporation.
Paras New York Inc. is the lessee and operator of a real property,
which is owned by Clinton.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


PETCO ANIMAL: Faces Class Action Over ZIP Code Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, Andrew Scurria and Brandon Lowrey, writing for
Law360, report that Petco Animal Supplies Store Inc. was hit on
June 17 with a proposed class action in Massachusetts federal
court alleging the retailer violates state law by requiring
customers to divulge their ZIP codes when making credit card
purchases.

Lead plaintiffs Jeffrey Scolnick and Leah Crohn allege that Petco
would not allow them to complete credit card purchases without
revealing their ZIP codes, even though the store is not required
by credit card issuers to collect this information from customers,
according to the complaint.  As a result, they have received
unwanted marketing materials from Petco and the store has sold
their information to third parties.

"Petco recorded plaintiffs' ZIP codes into an electronic credit
card transaction form," the complaint said.  "Petco continues to
store plaintiffs' personal identification information, including
plaintiffs' name, ZIP code and credit card number, in its
databases."

According to the complaint, Massachusetts' high court has
determined that ZIP codes constitute personal information under
the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, which prohibits the
collection of personal information by retailers.  Consumers place
a high value on the privacy of their personal identifiable
information, the plaintiffs said.

Mr. Scolnick and Ms. Crohn allege they have been injured because
of the marketing materials they have received without consent and
by Petco's sale of their personally identifiable information to
third parties.

The suit seeks to represent all customers from whom Petco
requested personally identifiable information when making a credit
card purchase in Massachusetts, according to the complaint.  The
plaintiffs said they do not yet know the potential number of class
members.

Other retailers have also been recently targeted over their
collection of customers' ZIP codes during credit card
transactions.  Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is facing a proposed class
action but argues that stores can request such information when
they are contractually obligated to do so by credit card issuers,
when they are required by law or when the information is collected
for a "special purpose" such as fraud prevention.

Wal-Mart operates under separate contracts with Visa, American
Express and Discover, and AmEx requires ZIP codes to verify
certain purchases, the retailer said.

A separate suit also pending in Massachusetts federal court
alleges that Urban Outfitters Inc. subsidiary Free People LLC
violated fair business laws by collecting customers' ZIP codes
during credit card transactions and using the information to send
them junk mail.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph J. Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- and Alexander Shapoval --
ashapoval@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC.

The case is Scolnick et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies Store Inc.,
case number 1:14-cv-12547, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.


PRAXIS FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Gorbulsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Praxis Financial Solutions, Inc., Oliphant Financial
Group, LLC, John Does 1-25 and Jane Does 1-25, Case No. 1:14-cv-
03907-RRM-VVP (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 459-4971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com

               - and -

          Daniel Hymowitz, Esq.
          HYMOWITZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2080 Coney Island Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11223
          Telephone: (718) 807-9900
          Facsimile: (866) 521-6040
          E-mail: daniel@hymowitzlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 461-0002
          Facsimile: (974) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


QAUSAR SULTANA: NY Facility Violates Disabilities Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. Qausar Sultana, an individual d/b/a Subway
#28673, Case No. 1:14-cv-04530 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014) is an
action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights
Law and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Qausar Sultana, an individual, doing business as Subway #28673, is
authorized to conduct, and is conducting business within the state
of New York.  Qausar Sultana is the lessee and operator of a real
property and Subway facility located in New York City.

Mr. Parenteau asks the Court to declare that the Defendant's
subject property and facility is violative of the ADA, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and of the New York State Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


RIVERSIDE NATURAL: Recalls Chia and Berries Fruit & Nut Bars
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Advisory
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Safety Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Riverside Natural Foods Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8950

The food recall warning issued on June 11, 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.

Riverside Natural Foods Ltd. is recalling Madegood brand Chia and
Berries Fruit & Nut Bars 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 no reported illnesses associated
with the consumption 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.


ROSE MANAGEMENT: Removed "Volcy" Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit entitled Volcy v. Rose
Management Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-14-009516, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in
and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-61418-CMA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff was not paid proper
overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rodolfo Gomez, Esq.
          York Milligan Flik, Esq.
          ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
          121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-7801
          Facsimile: (305) 442-1578
          E-mail: rgomez@anblaw.com
                  yflik@anblaw.com


SCOTT SPORTS: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 10, 2014
Posting date:             June 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-39775

Affected products: SCOTT Speedster and Contessa Speedster bicycle
forks within certain serial number ranges

The recall involves SCOTT Speedster and Contessa Speedster bicycle
forks with specific serial numbers.  The serial number is printed
on a white sticker affixed to the underside of the bicycle frame
near the pedals (there is no serial number on the fork itself).
The brand name on the fork itself is "SCOTT".

The following bicycle models and serial numbers are included in
this recall:

   SCOTT Bicycle Models           Serial Number
   --------------------           -------------
   Speedster 30 (CD20)
   Speedster 40 (CD18)             AS30500001 to AS30504930
   Speedster 40 (27)               AS30700001 to AS30704651
   Contessa Speedster 25 (30)      AS30900001 to AS30903278
   Contessa Speedster 35 (27)      AS31100001 to AS31103744
                                   AS40101604 to AS40105463

The front bicycle fork could break during operation, as a result
of which the front wheel can detach, posing a fall hazard.

SCOTT Sports has received three breakage reports, without injury,
involving these bicycle forks worldwide.  No incidents were
reported from Canada.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these bicycle forks.

Approximately 481 units of the recalled bicycle forks were sold to
authorized SCOTT dealers in Canada.

The recalled SCOTT Speedster and Contessa Speedster bicycle forks
were manufactured in China and were sold by authorized SCOTT
dealers from Aug. 2013 to May 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor       SCOTT Sports SA
                     Givisiez
                     Switzerland

   Importer          MICA Sports Canada, Inc.
                     Bracebridge
                     Ontario
                     Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using affected SCOTT Speedster
and Contessa Speedster bicycles.  Consumers can contact a SCOTT
authorized dealer for a free inspection, and if appropriate,
replacement of the fork at no charge.


SIEMENS AG: Recalls Axiom Artis DTA, Artis Zeego
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 11, 2014
Posting date:             June 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-40179

Recalled products:

Axiom Artis DTA
Artis Zeego
Artis Zee Multi-purpose
Artis Zee Floor
Artis Zee Ceiling
Artis Zee Biplane

The hand switch to release a x-ray image at the patient table is
equipped with a cable extension inside the table.  A problem may
occur if the connection between cable connection and hand switch
is contaminated with an extraordinary large amount of fluid.  In a
worst case situation, uncontrolled release of a x-ray image may
happen.  If this situation occurs, the system terminates
uncontrolled x-ray after a short period.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Siemens AG
                    Wittelsbacherplatz 2
                    Muenchen
                    80333
                    Germany


SIGNET JEWELERS: Class Cert. Bid in Sex Bias Suit v. Unit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification of a gender discrimination suit
against Sterling Jewelers Inc. is now pending before an
Arbitrator, according to Signet Jewelers Limited's May 3, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
Sterling Jewelers Inc. ("Sterling"), a subsidiary of Signet, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that US store-level employment practices are
discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with
respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the
matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to
proceed on a class-wide basis. Discovery has been completed. The
Claimants filed a motion for class certification and Sterling
opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion
was held in late February 2014. The motion is now pending before
the Arbitrator.


SIGNET JEWELERS: EEOC Appeals Dismissal of Gender Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed its Notice
of Appeal of a District Court Judge's dismissal of a gender
discrimination action against Signet Jewelers Limited, according
to the company's May 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2014.

On September 23, 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against Sterling in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's
lawsuit alleges that Sterling engaged in intentional and disparate
impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of
female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present.
The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-
monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact
discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, Sterling made
a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which
was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard
oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On
January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report,
Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant
Sterling's motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the
EEOC's claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to
the Magistrate Judge's ruling and Sterling filed its response
thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the
EEOC's objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on March 7,
2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action
with prejudice. On May 12, 2014 the EEOC filed its Notice of
Appeal of the District Court Judge's dismissal of the action to
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal
is proceeding.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Court Refuses Injunction v. Zale Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied
shareholders' motion for a preliminary injunction against the
acquisition of Zale, according to the company's May 3, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the
Company's acquisition of Zale Corp. have been filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al.,
C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et
al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp.
et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale
Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v.
Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014
(collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions is brought by
a purported holder of Zale common stock, both individually and on
behalf of a putative class of Zale stockholders. The Court of
Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014 (the
"Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint on April 23, 2014. The Consolidated Action names
as defendants Zale, the members of the board of directors of Zale,
the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary of the Company. The
Consolidated Actions alleges that the Zale directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Zale stockholders in connection with
their consideration and approval of the merger agreement by
failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to an
inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher bids.
The Consolidated Actions also alleges that the Zale directors
issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy statement
regarding the merger. Further, the Consolidated Action alleges
that Zale and the Company aided and abetted the Zale directors'
breaches of fiduciary duty. The Consolidated Actions seeks, among
other things, an injunction to prevent the consummation of the
merger or, in the event that the merger is consummated, rescission
of the merger or damages, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees.
On May 23, 2014, the Chancery Court of Chancery denied
plaintiff's' motion for a preliminary injunction.


SOURCE INTERLINK: Ex-Workers Want Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michaela Tomasch and Teresa Reyes on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Source Interlink Distribution, LLC,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00327-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla., June 20, 2014) seeks to
collect unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant until they were
terminated as part of, or as a result of, plant closings ordered
by the Defendant.

Source Interlink Distribution, LLC, was a Florida corporation,
which maintained facilities nationwide, including a headquarter
facility in Bonita Springs, Florida, and in Ontario, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael T Landen, Esq.
          Bruce Katzen, Esq.
          Erin E. Bohannon, Esq.
          KLUGER KAPLAN SILVERMAN KATZEN & LEVINE, PL
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 17th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 379-9000
          Facsimile: (305) 379-3428
          E-mail: mlanden@klugerkaplan.com
                  bkatzen@klugerkaplan.com
                  ebohannon@klugerkaplan.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 423
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
          E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          David C. Tufts, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          210 S. Washington Ave.
          Post Office Drawer 3103
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
          E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
                  vmcrary@thegardnerfirm.com
                  dtufts@thegardnerfirm.com

               - and -

          Cooperating Counsel for
          THE NLG MAURICE AND JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER
          FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, A NON-PROFIT LAW FIRM
          733 St. Antoine, 3rd Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 962-6540


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Efim Blakhman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., Case No.
1:14-cv-03899 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SRA ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Hofstatter, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. SRA Associates, Inc. d/b/a SRA Associates of
New Jersey, Case No. 1:14-cv-03900 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.


STAWNICHY'S MEAT: Recalls Meat Processing Beef Jerky Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Soy,
                          Allergen - Sulphites, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Stawnichy's Meat Processing
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8897

Stawnichy's Meat Processing is recalling various beef jerky
products from the marketplace because they contain wheat, mustard,
soy and sulphites which are not declared on the label.  People
with an allergy to wheat, mustard, or soy or a sensitivity to
sulphites should not consume the recalled products described
below.

*These products have also been sold in bulk or have been repacked
at retail. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the
affected products are advised to contact their retailer.

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

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

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
inspection activities.  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.


SUBARU: Recalls 105,649 Cars Due to Brake Defects
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           105649
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014223
TC ID number:             2014223
Manufacturer recall
number:                   WQK-47

On certain vehicles, the center and rear brake lines may become
perforated due to corrosion.  This would cause a leak in the brake
system potentially increasing stopping distances, which could
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will inspect vehicles and either apply an anti-corrosion
coating to the lines, or replace them as necessary.

Affected products:

  Maker     Model                Model Year(s) Affected
  -----     -----                ----------------------
  SUBARU    LEGACY               2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
  SUBARU    IMPREZA              2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
  SUBARU    OUTBACK              2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
  SUBARU    FORESTER             2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
  SUBARU    IMPREZA WRX / STI    2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
                                 2013, 2014


SYNTHES CANADA: Recalls Drill Bit Due to Mislabeling
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 9, 2014
Posting date:             June 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-40069

Recalled Products: Drill Bit

The etching on the drill stop does not match the actual length.
Specifically, the 6mm stop drill bit (03.505.051) had the #4
etched on them, the 8mm stop drill bit stops (03.505.054) had the
#6 on them and the 12mm drill bits (03.505.057) had the #10 etched
on them.

Companies:

   Manufacturer:      Synthes (Canada) Ltd.
                      2566 Meadowpine Blvd.
                      Mississauga
                      L5N 6P9
                      Ontario
                      Canada


TATIANA & COMPANY: Recalls Various Styles of Kissy Kissy Footies
----------------------------------------------------------------
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-39901
Affected products:        KISSY KISSY Baby Footies in size 6-9
                          Months

The recall involves KISSY KISSY Velour Baby Footies made of 80%
cotton and 20% polyester and KISSY KISSY Cotton Baby Footies made
of 100% Pima cotton.  Only size 6-9 months is included in this
recall.

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 Health Canada nor Tatiana & Company has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these garments.

For information on what makes safe sleepwear, visit the Healthy
Canadians children's sleepwear page.

Approximately 231 of the recalled products were sold in Canada at
various retailers.

The recalled products were manufactured in Peru and sold from
January 2009 to May 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer      Tatiana & Company
                     Tinton Falls
                     New Jersey
                     United States

Stop using the product(s) and return it to the point of purchase
for a full refund.


TEOXANE SAL: Recalls Various Teosyal Products
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 9, 2014
Posting date:             June 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-40073

Recalled Products:

   A)Teosyal
   B)Teosyal Meso
   C)Teosyal Kiss
   D)Teosyal First Lines
   E)Teosyal Ultra Deep
   F)Teosyal Ultimate
   G)Teosyal Puresense Ultra Deep
   H)Teosyal Puresense Kiss
   I)Teosyal Puresense Deep Lines
   J)Teosyal Puresense Global Action
   K)Teosyal Puresense First Lines
   L)Teosyal Puresense Redensity I
   M) Teosyal Puresense Redensity II

A 48 yrs. old female experienced a anaphylactic collapse with low
blood pressure after injection of hyaluronic acid dermal filler
with lidocaine.

Companies:

   Manufacturer      Teoxane SA, LES Charmilles, Rue De Lyon, 105
                     Geneve, Switzerland 1203
                     Les Charmilles, Rue De Lyon, 105
                     Geneve, Switzerland 1203


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Engineers" Suit Included in Aggrenox MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and Welfare Fund v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-01641, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven).  The Connecticut District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00919-SRU to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the lawsuit for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the multidistrict litigation known as In Re:
Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2516.

The Plaintiff brings the class action on behalf of a class of end-
payors, who since August 14, 2009, indirectly purchased,
reimbursed, or otherwise paid for a drug called Aggrenox, which
combines extended-release dipyridamole with acetylsalicylic acid
(aspirin) to lower the risk of stroke in patients whose blood
clots have caused a transient ischemic attack or stroke.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH
& Co. KG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, and Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., conspired with certain
manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals to pay them not to
produce and sell a generic equivalent of Aggrenox.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                  hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  kgmarttila@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          David R. Woodward, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
                  rsteiner@heinsmills.com
                  dwoodward@heinsmills.com


THI OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces "Levine" Suit Alleging Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Levine a/k/a Linda Pough, individually and as member of a
class of plaintiffs similarly situated v. THI of Pennsylvania at
Broomall, LLC, Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC, and
Broomall Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Case No. 2:14-cv-
03849-TJS (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2014) alleges job discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry M. Rothman, Esq.
          BARRY M. ROTHMAN, P.C.
          118 Poplar Court
          Collegeville, PA 19426
          Telephone: (610) 579-9408
          Facsimile: (610) 579-9409
          E-mail: brothmanes@aol.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 107,339 Vehicles Due to Airbag Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Minivan, Car, Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           107339
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014224
TC ID number:             2014224
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SSC 241/242

On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury.  This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment.  Failure of the
passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment
is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the
seat occupant.

Note: This recall supersedes recall 2013113.  As part of the
previous recall, vehicles were inspected and only select airbag
inflators were replaced.

All vehicles having not received a replacement inflator as part of
the previous recall will now have a replacement inflator installed
by dealers.

Affected products:

   Maker       Model        Model Year(s) Affected
   -----       -----        ----------------------
   TOYOTA      COROLLA      2003, 2004
   TOYOTA      TUNDRA       2003, 2004
   TOYOTA      SEQUOIA      2002, 2003
   TOYOTA      MATRIX       2003, 2004
   LEXUS                    2002, 2003


UNCLE BILL: Recalls Yummy House Licorice Ginger Due to Sulphite
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Uncle Bill Trading
Distribution:             Alberta, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8930

Affected products: 180 g. Yummy House International Ltd. Licorice
Ginger


UNITED AIRLINES: Judge Tosses EU Flight Compensation Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report that
an Illinois federal judge on June 18 threw out a proposed class
action brought against United Airlines Inc. by passengers who
alleged the air carrier violated a European Union law requiring
certain cancelation or delay reimbursements, saying the rules
aren't enforceable in the United States.

U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. granted a motion to dismiss
the suit, which was filed in 2012 by air travelers saying United
Airlines and United Continental Holdings Inc. broke the law by
failing to compensate certain passengers when EU-based flights
were delayed for three hours or more or were canceled.  The judge
agreed with the defendants that the claim for compensation under
EU Regulation 261/2004 cannot be brought in U.S. courts.

"The question boils down to whether 'the EU intended for EU 261 to
be applied extraterritorially by specifically allowing passengers
to file claims under this regulation in courts outside the EU,'"
Judge Tharp wrote in the five-page order.  "The language of the
regulation answers that question in the negative."

The judge entered judgment in favor of the United defendants and
against the plaintiffs, who accused the companies of failing to
pay them EUR600 ($760) each under EU 261 after their London to
Chicago flight was canceled.  Multiple courts have addressed the
same arguments and reached the same conclusions, Judge Tharp held.

The June 18 ruling terminates with prejudice the lawsuit brought
by named plaintiffs James A. Bergman and Kathleen M. Lynch under
EU 261, which applies to passengers with confirmed reservations on
flights departing from airports in EU member states or arriving on
an EU-licensed airline at an airport in a member state, according
to court documents.

According to the original complaint, the purpose of EU 261 is to
allow for standardized payouts for "serious trouble and
inconvenience" that is suffered by those who experience flight
cancellations or excessive delays, especially on international
carrier routes.

Pursuant to the terms of the EU law, eligible passengers whose
flights are canceled or delayed for more than three hours are due
EUR250 for all flights of 1500 kilometers (932 miles) or less,
EUR400 for all flights within the EU of more than 1,500 kilometers
and for all other flights between 1,500 and 3,500 kilometers, and
EUR600 for all other flights, according to the complaint.

However, the airline may reduce the payout by 50 percent if it
offers to reroute passengers on an alternate flight as long as the
arrival time doesn't exceed the originally scheduled arrival time
of the flight by between two and four hours, depending on the
distance of the flight, the complaint said.

Additionally, the airlines don't have to compensate passengers in
the event of extraordinary circumstances, such as when the
cancellation or delay was caused by political instability, adverse
weather, security risks, unexpected flight safety issues or
strikes that affect the operation of an aircraft, the plaintiffs
alleged.

But Judge Tharp tossed the suit on June 18, saying he "joins the
chorus" in holding that a direct claim for compensation under EU
261 cannot brought in the courts of the United States.

"Because this conclusion disposes of the plaintiffs' only claim
for relief, and the lack of cognizability cannot be remedied, it
is not necessary to address the other grounds United advances in
support of its motion," the judge wrote.

"We are pleased with this ruling," a United spokeswoman told
Law360 on June 18.

Plaintiffs and proposed class are represented by Hank Bates of
Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC, Jennifer W. Sprengel of Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP and Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky of
Gorokhovsky Law Office LLC.

United is represented by Christopher R. Christensen --
cchristensen@condonlaw.com -- and Anthony U. Battista --
abattista@condonlaw.com -- of Condon & Forsyth LLP and Kevin P.
Shea -- kpshea@uhlaw.com -- and Timothy E. Horton --
tehorton@uhlaw.com -- of Ungaretti & Harris LLP.

The case is James A. Bergman et al. v. United Airlines Inc. et
al., case number 1:12-cv-07040, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.


VOLCOM RETAIL: Fails to Offer Safe Access at Facility, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. Volcom Retail, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
d/b/a Volcom a/k/a Volcom Clothing, and Kwan Wah & Son Realty
Corp., a New York, corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04536 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 23, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff has been unable to, and
continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to all
the accommodations and services offered at the Defendants'
property located in New York City.

Volcom Retail, Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing business as
Volcom, also known as Volcom Clothing.  Kwan Wah & Son Realty
Corp., is a New York corporation.  Volcom is the lessee and
operator of the subject property, which is owned by Kwan Wah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls Ultra Series Gas Boilers
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 10, 2014
Posting date:             June 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-39719

Affected products: Weil-McLain Ultra 80, 105, 155 and 230 MBH
Series Boilers

Weil-McLain Ultra 80, 105, 155 and 230 MBH gas-fired boilers used
for space heating which were manufactured between June 2012 and
March 11, 2014.  The boilers have a Weil-McLain logo plate affixed
to the front, a pewter/flat black cover and are either
freestanding or wall-mounted.  The boilers have a serial number
range between CP 6557046 and CP 6955985.  The model number and
serial number are located on a bar-coded label affixed to the
lower right side of the boiler, behind the removable front panel.

A cap on the boiler's manifold can crack and release gas into the
home, posing a risk of fire and explosion.

Weil-McLain has received 11 reports of manifold caps cracking in
the United States.  No fires or injuries have been reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this boiler.

About 540 units were sold in Canada and 7,900 units were sold in
the United States.

The units were manufactured in the United States and sold between
June 2012 and March 2014 in Canada and the United States by
plumbing and heating wholesale distributors, plumbers and
contactors.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Hydro Tube Enterprises Inc.
                    Sanford
                    North Carolina
                    United States

   Distributor      Weil-McLain
                    Michigan City
                    Indiana
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled boilers, turn
off the gas supply to the boilers, and contact Weil-McLain to
schedule a free inspection and repair.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces "Carr" Product Liability Suit in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mikki Carr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01041-TWP-DKL (S.D.
Ind., June 23, 2014) asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael D. Moon, Jr., Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          11 South Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 231-7726
          Facsimile: (317) 231-7433
          E-mail: mmoon@btlaw.com


* Number of Medical Malpractice Lawsuits in Pennsylvania Steadies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medical malpractice lawsuits in Pennsylvania have steadied and
leveled off over the last 10 years, according to statistics
released on June 20 in the judiciary's new data dashboards.

The data shows 1,546 med mal filings in Pennsylvania's civil
courts in 2013.  That figure was slightly more than the 1,510
filings in 2012.  The latest filings represent a 43.4 percent
decline from the "base years" of 2000-2002.  In Philadelphia, the
state's judicial district with the largest caseload, the decline
has been by slightly more than 68 percent during the same period.

"These numbers reinforce the value of court rules in balancing new
requirements for filing medical malpractice claims with the need
for access and fairness in the state court system," Chief
Justice of Pennsylvania Ronald D. Castille said.  "There has been
real improvement in what was, just a few years ago, one of the
Commonwealth's more vexing challenges."

The base years are the period just prior to two significant rule
changes made by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The first
change required attorneys to obtain -- from an appropriate
medical professional well-versed in the area of alleged
malpractice -- a "certificate of merit" that establishes that the
medical procedures in a case fall outside acceptable standards.  A
second change required medical malpractice actions to be brought
only in the county where the cause of action takes place -- a move
aimed at eliminating so-called "venue shopping."

In comparison to earlier years, 2013 had fewer jury verdicts.  For
the second time in the last three years, there was the fewest
number of jury verdicts in the decade of comprehensive statistics
gathering.  Slightly more than 77 percent of the jury verdicts in
2013 were for the defense.  Two of the five nonjury verdicts in
2013 were for the defense.


                             *********

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  * * *