CAR_Public/140709.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 135

                             Headlines


ABBVIE INC: "Morgan" Suit Consolidated in Androgel Products MDL
AFOD LTD: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee
AL-KARAWAN: Recalls Manna Wassalwa Soft Candy
AMERICAN PENSION: Removed "Oliver" Suit to Utah District Court
AMERICAN REALTY: Being Sold to Ventas for Too Little, Suit Claims

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Judge Dismisses Suits Over Extra Water in Beer
ATTITUDES IMPORT: Recalls Tripod Lamps Due to Faulty Wiring
AUTOLIV INC: Has MoU to Settle US Securities Class Actions
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Approval of Accord in LSI Purchase Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Certifies Overtime Suit as Class Action

BANKRATE INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Lawsuit
BEST BUY: Removed "Restrepo" Suit to Minnesota District Court
BLUE CROSS: Illegally Misleads Policyholders, "Cowart" Suit Says
CATERPILLAR INC: "Windy" Suit Consolidated in C13/C15 Engine MDL
CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

CHINA CERAMICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
CHOICES MARKETS: Recalls Le Moutier Goat Cheese Due to Toxin
COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al-Karawan Manna Wassalwa
CONAIR CORP: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Styling Irons
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Systems Administrators File OT Class Action

COUNTRY CROCUS: Recalls Bread Items Due to Undeclared Egg, Milk
COVERALL NORTH AMERICA: 9th Cir. Affirms $994,800 in Atty Fees
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Cotner" Suit Over Pinnacle Hip Product
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued Over Defective Pinnacle Hip Product
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Deal OK'd in Suit Over Botched Forfeitures

DS WATERS: "Haley" Suit Moved From Central to Northern California
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Perrill" Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
FRESH SPROUTS: Recalls Fresh Bean Sprouts Due to Salmonella
FROMAGERIE LE DETOUR: Recalls Le Verdict d'Alexina Cheese
FROMAGERIE LE DETOUR: Recalls Sentinelle Cheese Due To Toxin

GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Shan Lemon Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 641,121 Cars Due to Ignition Switch Woes
GENERAL MOTORS: "Deighan" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Letterio" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Salazar" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Corbett" Class Suit in North Carolina
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Says Attorneys Must Focus on Due Process
GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Partner Discusses Class Actions
GENZYME: Judge Dismisses Class Action on Myozyme Complaint
GOLDMAN SACHS: Former Employees Support Gender Bias Class Action

GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baba Ghanouj Soup Starter Soup Base
GREYSTONE ALLIANCE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
HARVEST MEATS: Unsuitable Ingredients Prompt Meat Products Recall
HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Texas Court
INTEL CORPORATION: Sued Over Termination of Worker

INVACARE CANADA: Recalls Aquatec Backrest
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Breached Fiduciary Duties, Suit Claims
KAWARTHA DAIRY: Recalls Chocolate Ice Cream
KENAN TRANSPORT: Removed "Murray-Palmer" Suit to S.D. Florida
KHG OF SAN ANTONIO: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says

KUO HUA: Recalls Wafer & Noodle Products Due to Undeclared Wheat
LAC BASKETBALL: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
LINKEDIN CORP: Members May Pursue Case on Promotional Spam
LOUISVILLE BEDDING: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Pricing
LOWE'S HOME: Accused of Gender Discrimination in Eastern Texas

MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act
MARS INC: Judge Green Lights Misbranding Claims
MYFOOTPATH LLC: Faces "LeBlanc" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Small Leagues Profit Massively, Atty. Argues
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Worried About Bidding War for Athletes

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 8th Cir. Revives Claims of Secret Salary Cap
NATIONAL PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Suit Over Disabilities Act Violation
NATIONAL RIFLE: Sued in Ohio Over Violation of Telephone Act
NEVADA: Plaintiff in Health Insurance Class Action Dies
NEVADA YELLOW: Cab Drivers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action

NEW YORK TIMES: Accused of Selling Subscription Lists to Scammers
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NU-WAY TRANSPORTATION: "Loshbough" Suit Moved to C.D. Illinois
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Meeting Scheduled to Discuss Class Action
RADIOSHACK CORP: State Court Sustains Demurrer in "Brookler"

RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Orders Additional Proof in "Ordonez" Suit
RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Order on Motion for Judgment in FLSA Suit
SAMSUNG: Settles DRAM Price-Fixing Class Action for $310-Mil.
SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE: Removed "Aycock" Class Suit to Arizona
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Faces Class Action Over Public Day Programs

STELLAR RECOVERY: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
SUNRISE PROPANE: Settles Class Action Over Deadly Blast for C$23MM
SUPERIOR ENERGY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation in Pa.
SUTTER HEALTH: Court Dismissed 3rd Amended "Sidibe" Complaint
TREASURY WINE: Maurice Blackburn Files Shareholder Class Action

ULTA SALON: Still Faces Labor Litigation in California Court
UNITED SERVICES: Removed "Dye" Insurance Suit to S.D. Florida
UNITED STATES: N.Y. Court Certifies Class Action v. Census Bureau


                            *********


ABBVIE INC: "Morgan" Suit Consolidated in Androgel Products MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Morgan v. Abbvie, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:14-cv-01432, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05002 to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
re: Androgel Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545.

According to the MDL Order, on January 31, 2014, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration announced that it was "investigating the risk
of stroke, heart attack, and death in men taking FDA-approved
testosterone products."  The Plaintiffs filed the Androgel-related
actions in the wake of this announcement.  All actions involve the
Plaintiffs or their survivors, who used one or more testosterone
replacement therapies and contend that their (or their decedent's)
use of the drugs caused their injuries, which include heart
attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism.  All
testosterone replacement therapy actions will share factual
questions regarding general causation and the background science
regarding the role of testosterone in the aging body (possibly
including examination of the recent studies that prompted the FDA
investigation), as well as involve common regulatory issues in
light of the FDA's announcement and subsequent actions, if any.

ANDROGEL(R) is a form of testosterone replacement therapy,
indicated for the treatment and prevention of low testosterone
levels caused by hypogonadism.  Hypogonadism is a specific
condition of the sex glands which, in men, may result in the
diminished production or nonproduction of testosterone.

The Defendants developed, manufactured, promoted, marketed,
distributed, tested, warranted and sold in interstate commerce the
ANDROGEL(R) testosterone therapy.

Plaintiff Wayne Morgan is represented by:

          Allan Berger, Esq.
          Andrew J. Geiger, Esq.
          ALLAN BERGER & ASSOCIATES, PLC
          4173 Canal St.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 486-9481
          E-mail: aberger@allan-berger.com
                  ageiger@allan-berger.com


AFOD LTD: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Afod Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan, Yukon
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8997

Affected products: 200 g. Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee with
all codes where milk is not declared on the label


AL-KARAWAN: Recalls Manna Wassalwa Soft Candy
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 2, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Coffee Master
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9008

Affected products: 740 g. Al-Karawan (Arabic characters only)
Manna Wassalwa Soft Candy with all codes where egg is not declared
on the label


AMERICAN PENSION: Removed "Oliver" Suit to Utah District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Oliver v. American Pension
Services, et al., Case No. 140407746, was removed from the 3rd
District Court, Salt Lake County, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah (Central).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-00487-DB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Christensen, Esq.
          Zane L. Christensen, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          9980 S 300 W #200
          Sandy, UT 84070
          Telephone: (801) 676-6447
          E-mail: stevenchristen@gmail.com
                  zanechristensen@christensenyounglaw.com

Diane A. Thompson, Court-Appointed Receiver for American Pension
Services, Inc., is represented by:

          Mark R. Gaylord, Esq.
          Melanie J. Vartabedian, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP (UT)
          201 S Main, Suite 800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2221
          Telephone: (801) 531-3000
          E-mail: gaylord@ballardspahr.com
                  vartabedianm@ballardspahr.com


AMERICAN REALTY: Being Sold to Ventas for Too Little, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
American Realty Capital Healthcare too cheaply through an unfair
process to Ventas Inc., for $11.33 a share or $2.6 billion,
shareholders claim in New York County Court in Manhattan.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Judge Dismisses Suits Over Extra Water in Beer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that even if Anheuser-Busch intentionally waters down its beers,
its compliance with federal regulations shields it from civil
litigation, a federal judge ruled.

"If the perceived injustice at issue in this case is as important
to plaintiffs as they have suggested through the course of this
litigation, they can make their concerns known to [federal
regulators] and lobby for changes in the regulation," U.S.
District Judge Donald Nugent wrote, dismissing multidistrict
litigation consolidated from class actions filed across the
country.

The consumers accused Anheuser-Busch of watering down its staple
alcoholic drinks including Budweiser, Bud Ice, Bud Light Platinum,
Michelob Ultra, Natural Ice and Bud Light Lime, a process that it
claims violates the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAAA).

"Anheuser-Busch possesses technology that allows it to precisely
identify and control the alcohol content of its malt beverages to
within 'hundredths of one percent (0.01%),'" but that the company
"routinely and intentionally adds extra water to its finished
product to produce malt beverages that 'consistently have
significantly lower alcohol content than the percentages displayed
on its labels,'" the complaint states.

Nugent dismissed the action, however, after focusing on Section
7.71(c) of the FAAA, which states: "For malt beverages containing
0.5 percent or more of alcohol by volume, a tolerance of 0.3
percent will be permitted, either above or below the stated
percentage of alcohol."

Anheuser-Busch contends -- and the plaintiffs never disputed --
that its products are within the 0.3 percent articulated in the
FAAA, the court found.  The claims thus turned on any profits
gained from the alleged knowing misrepresentation of alcohol
content on beer labels.

"The problem is that the regulation itself does not distinguish
between intentional and unintentional variances from the stated
percentage," Nugent wrote.  "Neither does it identify any
circumstances or exceptions that would preclude application of the
0.3 percent tolerance for any malt beverages containing more than
0.5 percent alcohol by volume.  There is no stated or referenced
exception based on intent, actual knowledge, precision of
available measuring technology, or the size and profitability of
the manufacturer."

Nugent shot down demands to use the court's "interpretive and
equitable powers to create an exception to the tolerance when a
misstatement of alcohol content, no matter the degree, is knowing
or intentional."

"A court cannot add language to a regulation that is unambiguous
on its face, nor can it import or manufacture exceptions that were
not included by the enacting agency," he wrote.

"If a regulation or piece of legislation is not desirable, does
not match the will of the citizens, or was, for any other reason,
improvidently enacted or articulated, the legislative body has the
power to revoke it or to modify it to conform more specifically to
their intents and purposes," the judge added.  "It is not the
court's role to presume their collective intention, second guess
their policy choices, or save them from their own mistakes or
misstatements."

Nugent also rejected claims that the allegedly watered-down beer
violates the governing principles of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau, formerly known as the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco
and Firearms, to prevent any misleading or false information on
consumer labels.

"Section 7.71(c) is easily reconciled with the FAAA/TTB
implementing statutes and regulations, if we simply accept that
the TTB has reasonably determined that a stated alcohol content
accurate to within a 0.3 percent in either direction provides
adequate information to identify the nature and quality of the
product, and that any variation within that range is not
significant enough to be considered misleading and/or deceptive,"
Nugent wrote, abbreviating the bureau's name.

Likewise the plaintiffs failed to show that the court should not
afford the word "tolerance" its ordinary meaning, instead
considering it as "a term of art that allows only 'unintentional
deviations' from the goal of absolute accuracy."

"Plaintiffs have offered no legal or industry specific authority
for this proposition," Nugen wrote.  "They have offered no source
from the TTB or any other agency related to the regulation of
alcoholic beverages and/or labeling standards in any food or
beverage industry.  They have failed to cite any definition of the
word 'tolerance' in any dictionary, manual, handbook, or other
source that limits the word 'tolerance' to the acceptance of
'unintentional deviations.'"


ATTITUDES IMPORT: Recalls Tripod Lamps Due to Faulty Wiring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 25, 2014
Posting date:             June 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40209

Affected products: Lamps on wooden tripods

The recall involves lamps on wooden tripods, sold with black or
beige lampshades.  The model numbers subject to the recall are
I3609 (black lampshade) and I3610 (beige lampshade).

The internal wiring of the lamp is faulty and may pose a risk of
electrical shock to users.  The product does not meet Canadian
electrical standards and is therefore not authorized to bear the
UL Certification Mark.

Neither Attitudes Import nor Health Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product.

Approximately 33 units of the recalled product were sold in
various stores across Canada.

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

Companies:

   Distributor      Attitudes Import
                    Laval
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected lamps and
call Attitudes Import at 1-800-479-0199 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. Monday through Friday for a refund.


AUTOLIV INC: Has MoU to Settle US Securities Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. on June 27 disclosed that it has entered into a
memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of its
pending US class action securities lawsuit.

Autoliv, Inc., two of its officers and one of its employees are
defendants in a purported class action securities lawsuit filed by
the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis on
April 17, 2013 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit alleges that Autoliv
misrepresented or failed to disclose that antitrust violations by
Autoliv artificially inflated Autoliv's earnings and stock price
in violation of the federal securities laws.  Plaintiff seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the alleged
class of purchasers who bought Autoliv common stock between
October 26, 2010 and July 21, 2011.

Autoliv has entered into a memorandum of understanding with
Plaintiff reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the
lawsuit and the claims of the alleged class for a payment of $22.5
million.  Autoliv expects to record a net expense of approximately
$4.5 million in its second quarter results.  The balance of the
settlement amount will be paid by Autoliv's insurance carrier.

The proposed agreement is not an admission of wrongdoing or
acceptance of fault by Autoliv or any of the individuals named in
the complaint.  The defendants are settling to eliminate the
uncertainties, risk, distraction and expense associated with
protracted litigation.

The proposed agreement is subject to negotiation and execution of
a final settlement agreement among the parties and final approval
by the court following notice to the settlement class and a
fairness hearing.

                          About Autoliv

Autoliv, Inc. -- http://www.autoliv.com-- develops and
manufactures automotive safety systems for all major automotive
manufacturers in the world.  Together with its joint ventures,
Autoliv has more than 80 facilities with over 56,000 employees in
29 countries.  In addition, the Company has ten technical centers
in nine countries around the world, with 21 test tracks, more than
any other automotive safety supplier.  Sales in 2013 amounted to
US $8.8 billion.  The Company's shares are listed on the New York
Stock Exchange and its Swedish Depository Receipts on the OMX
Nordic Exchange in Stockholm (ALIV sdb).


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Approval of Accord in LSI Purchase Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated shareholder suit against Avago
Technologies Limited over its acquisition of LSI filed a motion
for final approval of a proposed settlement, according to Avago's
June 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2014.

Fifteen purported class action complaints have been filed by
alleged stockholders of LSI against the company. Eight of those
lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the
other seven lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara on behalf of the same
putative class as the Delaware actions (the "California Actions").
On January 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
order consolidating the Delaware actions into a single action (the
"Delaware Action"). These actions generally allege that the
company aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the
members of LSI's board of directors in connection with the merger
because the merger was not in the best interest of LSI, the merger
consideration is unfair and certain other terms of the merger
agreement are unfair. Among other remedies, the lawsuits seek to
enjoin the merger, or in the event that an injunction is not
entered and the merger closes, to rescind the merger or obtain
unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 7, 2014, the parties to the Delaware Action reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Action on a class
wide basis, and negotiated a stipulation of settlement that was
presented to the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 10, 2014. On
March 12, 2014, the parties to the California Actions entered into
a stipulation staying the California Actions pending resolution of
the Delaware Action. On May 16, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Action filed a motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement and award of attorneys' fees and expenses with the
Delaware Court of Chancery.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Certifies Overtime Suit as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
City News Service reports that a lawsuit over overtime pay, led by
appraisers against Bank of America, has been certified as a class
action case by a federal judge in Santa Ana, an attorney
representing the plaintiffs said on July 1.

About 350 appraisers across the country will be part of the class,
including about 185 from California, according to attorney
Bryan Schwartz, who filed the lawsuit in April 2013 on behalf of
Terry Boyd, a former appraiser for Bank of America and its in-
house appraisal firm, Landsafe.  Mr. Boyd, who was affiliated with
the Ladera Ranch office, lives in Trabuco Canyon.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter approved certification of the
class on June 27.

Mr. Schwartz argues in the lawsuit that the appraisers should not
be classified as administrators, which would exempt them from
overtime pay, because they are not "engaged in overall strategy
decisions for Bank of America," such as establishing guidelines
for all appraisers.

The appraisers are issued formulas to determine the value of
property and do not have the authority to deviate, Mr. Schwartz
said.  Bank officials have claimed the appraisers are not entitled
to overtime and breaks because they are company administrators or
are "learned professionals," Mr. Schwartz said.

"While it involves a lot of skill and training, it's not like a
lawyer or a doctor, which requires a prolonged course of
specialized instruction," Mr. Schwartz said.

Bank officials have also claimed that many of the employees worked
from home, so no one was denying them meals and breaks, but
Judge Carter noted the company has to do more to make sure the
employees get break time.

"Employers do not escape liability simply by having a formal
policy of providing meal and rest breaks," Judge Carter said in
his ruling.

In April, a $5.8 million settlement was reached in a class-action
federal lawsuit on overtime pay and benefits covering about 350
"review appraisers," who oversee appraisers.  That settlement was
finalized, Mr. Schwartz said.

In the current case, the appraisers will seek a summary judgment
in their favor, but if that is not approved, a trial is expected
around the middle part of next year, Mr. Schwartz said.

Mr. Schwartz filed a similar federal lawsuit against JPMorgan
Chase in April of last year.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
has ordered that case to mediation.


BANKRATE INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc. (NYSE: RATE) reached a proposed agreement, subject
to Court approval, to settle the private securities class action
pending against the Company and certain current and former
officers of the Company, according to the company's June 10, 2014,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bankrate would pay a
total of $18 million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve all
claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Bankrate stock between June 16, 2011 and October 15,
2012. The proposed settlement further provides that Bankrate
denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability. Bankrate's insurers
are expected to fund at least a substantial portion of the
Settlement Fund.

If this proposed settlement is approved by the Court, a notice to
the Class members will be sent with information regarding the
allocation and distribution of the Settlement Fund and
instructions on procedures to follow to make a claim on the
Settlement Fund.


BEST BUY: Removed "Restrepo" Suit to Minnesota District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Restrepo, et al. v. Best Buy Co.,
Inc., Case No. 27-CV-14-9955, was removed from the Hennepin County
District Court to the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District of
Minnesota.  The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:14-cv-02603-JNE-JSM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George W. Soule, Esq.
          Kevin P. Curry, Esq.
          SOULE & STULL LLC
          Eight West 43rd Street, Suite 200
          Minneapolis, MN 55409
          Telephone: (612) 353-6491
          Facsimile: (612) 573-6484
          E-mail: gsoule@soulestull.com
                  kcurry@soulestull.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anne M. Lockner, Esq.
          Natalie I. DeBoer, Esq.
          Mitha V. Rao, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI LLP
          800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: amlockner@rkmc.com
                  nideboer@rkmc.com
                  MVRao@rkmc.com


BLUE CROSS: Illegally Misleads Policyholders, "Cowart" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross of California illegally misleads its policyholders
about their coverage and which providers are in the policyholders'
network, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court,
according to Courthouse News Service.

Samantha Berryessa Cowart sued Blue Cross of California dba Anthem
Blue Cross for breach of contract, breach of faith and business
code violations.

She claims that Anthem recently issued member identification cards
that state, incorrectly, that many members are in Preferred
Provider Organization plans (PPO) though they actually are in
Exclusive Provider Organization plans (EPO).

"In PPO plans, members have access to a huge network of Anthem
providers and the ability to obtain covered treatment from out-of-
network providers," the complaint states.  "Unlike PPO plans, in
EPO plans, members only have access to an extremely limited
network of providers and no coverage for out-of-network providers.
When the members provide their member identification cards to
Anthem PPO providers, the providers render services believing that
the members are in an Anthem PPO plan.  As a result, members
receive services from these providers only to have Anthem
ultimately deny coverage on the ground that the providers are not
in-network EPO providers.  Thus, Anthem has wrongfully forced
potentially thousands of their members to pay out of pocket for
medical costs."

Cowart seeks class certification, costs and exemplary damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Glovsky, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT GLOVSKY
          100 East Corson Street, Suite 200-A
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (877) 316-2093
          Facsimile: (866) 243-2243
          E-mail: sglovsky@scottglovskylaw.com


CATERPILLAR INC: "Windy" Suit Consolidated in C13/C15 Engine MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Windy City Limousine LLC vs. Caterpillar, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-04229, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The New
Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04136 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In Re: Caterpillar Inc. C13 and C15 Engine Products Liability
Litigation, MDL # 2540 and Lead Case No. 1:14-cv-03722-JBS-JS.

The litigation arises 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1340
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: richard@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jamie Elisabeth Weiss, Esq.
          Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500

               - and -

          Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq.
          BECKER, HOERNER THOMPSON & YSURSA, P.C.
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, IL 62226

               - and -

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                  lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (888) 584-0411
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
          Mary E. Buckley, Esq.
          SEDWICK, DETER, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP
          One N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 641-9050
          Facsimile: (312) 641-9530
          E-mail: anthony.anscombe@sedgwicklaw.com
                  mary.buckley@sedgwicklaw.com


CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Feigie Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Central Portfolio Control, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-04086 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 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


CHINA CERAMICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against China Ceramics Co., Ltd. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-
4997, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased China Ceramics between March 30, 2012 and
May 1, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased China Ceramics securities
during the Class Period, you have until August 5, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
failed to disclose and/or materially misstated its true financial
condition.  On May 1, 2014, NASDAQ announced that trading in China
Ceramics was halted that day for "additional information
requested" from the Company.  On that same day, China Ceramics
announced, among other things, that: (i) on April 30, 2014, the
Company terminated the engagement of Grant Thornton as its
principal independent registered public accountant; (ii) following
the decision to terminate Grant Thornton, William L. Stulginsky
tendered his resignation as an independent director and Chairman
of the Audit Committee; (iii) the audit of the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2013 has not been completed; (iv) the Company is unable to timely
file its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2013; and (v) during the preparation of its 2013
financial statements the Company identified a write down of assets
for the fourth quarter resulting from unused capacity at its
Hengdali facility, which is currently estimated to be $7.5
million.

On November 1, 2013, Defendant D.W. Dong abruptly resigned as a
Director of the Company and a member of the Audit Committee.  He
was replaced by Mr. Shen Cheng Liang.

On November 13, 2013, the Company announced its financial results
for the third quarter of 2013.  In its announcement, the Company
revealed a substantial asset write-down of property, plant and
equipment.

On April 27, 2014, Mr. Stulginsky abruptly resigned as a Director
of the Company and Chairman of the Audit Committee.  The
circumstances surrounding his abrupt departure would be revealed
days later.  On April 28, 2014, Defendant Su resigned as a
Director of the Company.  On May 1, 2014, NASDAQ announced the
halt in trading of the common shares of China Ceramics.  On the
same day, the Company filed a notification on Form 12b-25 with the
SEC of its inability to timely file its Annual Report on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2013.  The following day, the
Company announced the delay in the filing of its annual report for
the year ended December 31, 2013 and partially revealed the
circumstances surrounding the delay, which includes the firing of
its auditor, the hiring of a new auditing firm, and the
re-auditing of its prior financial statements.

The Company also disclosed that it was notified by NASDAQ of its
non-compliance with NASDAQ's continued listing requirement due to
its inability to timely file its Annual Report on Form 20-F for
the year ended December 31, 2013.  In the same announcement, the
Company also revealed a substantial write down of assets in the
fourth quarter of 2013.

On May 9, 2014, the Company filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, which
provided further details regarding its firing of Grant Thornton
and the re-auditing of its prior financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.

As of July 2, 2014, trading in the Company's stock remains halted,
rendering the Company's stock illiquid and virtually worthless.

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


CHOICES MARKETS: Recalls Le Moutier Goat Cheese Due to Toxin
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Choices Markets
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8989

The food recall warning issued on June 20, 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.

Choices Markets is recalling Le Moutier Goat Cheese from the
marketplace because it may contain the toxin produced by
Staphylococcus bacteria.  Consumers should not consume the
recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell
spoiled.  The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not
easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures.  Common symptoms
of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping and fever.  In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle
cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results.  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 product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: Le Moutier Goat Cheese with best before dates
up to and including 2014SE19


COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al-Karawan Manna Wassalwa
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Coffee Master, Odeco Trading Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Industry is recalling Al-Karawan brand Manna Wassalwa from the
marketplace because it contains egg which is not declared on the
label.  People with an allergy to egg should not consume the
recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled product
as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(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 product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: 740 g. Al-Karawan (Arabic characters only)
Manna Wassalwa Soft Candy with all codes where egg is not declared
on the label


CONAIR CORP: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Styling Irons
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Conair Corp. pushed its
styling irons with false claims, after national safety recalls in
1988 and 2007, a class action claims in Federal Court in Los
Angeles.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Systems Administrators File OT Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Business Journal reports that systems administrators for
Computer Sciences Corp., which has operations in Meriden, filed a
class action lawsuit on July 2 alleging that the company failed to
pay overtime wages.

The suit says administrators performing hardware and software
installations and other work often work late into the night and on
weekends.  They allege that CSC misclassified them as exempt from
overtime pay.

CSC settled a similar lawsuit in 2005 for $24 million, according
to the three California law firms representing the plaintiffs in
the case, which was filed in New Haven U.S. District Court.

There are more than 100 potential members of the class, and claims
exceed $5 million, according to the suit.  One of the two named
plaintiffs is Farmington resident Timothy Colby, who worked for
CSC from Oct. 2011 to Feb. 2014.

A CSC spokesman said the company does not comment on pending
litigation.


COUNTRY CROCUS: Recalls Bread Items Due to Undeclared Egg, Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk,
                          Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Country Crocus Bakeshop
Distribution:             Manitoba
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8982


COVERALL NORTH AMERICA: 9th Cir. Affirms $994,800 in Atty Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the 9th Circuit deemed an award of nearly $1 million in
attorneys' fees reasonable for a settlement between Coverall and
several franchisees of the janitorial company.

Sabrina Laguna, Carlos Acevedo and Teresa Salas brought the class
action against Coverall North America in 2009, alleging they had
spent substantial amounts of money buying Coverall "franchises,"
but became nothing more than employees improperly misclassified as
independent contractors.

"Defendants purport to sell cleaning 'franchises,' knowing that
they lack sufficient business to satisfy their obligations under
their franchise agreements," the third amended complaint alleged.

Under the February 2012 settlement agreement, Coverall pledged to
assign current franchisees customer accounts, as long as they pay
their franchise fees in full.  Former franchise owners will
receive $475 each and $750 toward a new franchise.  Key to the
settlement is Coverall's obligation to update franchise agreements
and change its operating procedures.

Senior U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller in San Diego approved
the settlement, which includes $994,800 in attorneys' fees.

Amrit Singh filed the sole objection to the settlement, but the
federal appeals court in Pasadena affirmed approval, 2-1.

"We conclude that the district court correctly used the lodestar
method in gauging the fairness of the attorneys' fee award," Judge
Ronald Gould wrote for the majority.

The ruling notes that the nearly $1 million award came far below
what the attorneys' could have recovered.

"In its analysis, the District Court noted that the case had been
contentiously litigated for over two years, and that the report
submitted by plaintiffs' counsel showing that over 4,500 hours had
been billed by six attorneys, a paralegal and a law clerk was fair
and accurate," Gould wrote.  "Using that number, the District
Court calculated that the lodestar amount reached almost $3
million.  At a third of the lodestar amount, the district court
soundly concluded that the attorneys' fees award of $994,800 was
reasonable."

The amount class members will take home is disputed, according to
the ruling, which notes that Singh has "clearly" underestimated
the settlement value at $56,525, while the plaintiffs "may
certainly be overstating the value of the settlement at $20
million."

"The District Court reasonably surmised that even if the value of
the settlement was $4 million -- only a part of the amount claimed
by plaintiffs -- the attorneys' fee award would still be within
the normal bounds of reasonableness," Gould wrote.

In addition to cash for former franchisees, the settlement yields
"significant benefits for plaintiffs," including "assignment of
customer accounts and pledges for programmatic changes," Gould
added.

"The District Court elaborated that 'once franchises are assigned,
franchisees will own a valuable business they can choose to sell
or continue to operate."

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, sitting by designation from San
Francisco, wrote in dissent that the trial court did not have
enough "crucial" information to make a decision about the
settlement or the award of attorneys' fees.  He noted that the
deal does not specify who is eligible to receive "customer
accounts," and that the monetary relief to the class is uncertain
since unclaimed funds will revert back to Coverall.

"The case should be remanded for fuller development of the
record," Chen wrote.  "I also believe this case affords this court
an opportunity to provide additional guidance to the district
courts in their assessment of proposed class action settlements."


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Cotner" Suit Over Pinnacle Hip Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Cotner v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson and Johnson
Services, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-02347-K
(N.D. Tex., June 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendants placed
defective medical devices, including Pinnacle Hip Replacement
System and the Pinnacle Cup, into the stream of interstate
commerce that was implanted in the Plaintiff.

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is an Indiana corporation headquartered
in Warsaw, Indiana.  DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is a subsidiary of
Johnson and Johnson.  Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., and
Johnson and Johnson are New Jersey corporations headquartered in
New Brunswick, New Jersey.  Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., is
a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson.  The Defendants design,
manufacture, market and sell medical devices, including
reconstructive hip implants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Keane, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
          E-mail: rkeane@simonlawpc.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued Over Defective Pinnacle Hip Product
------------------------------------------------------------
Buddy Blaydes v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson and Johnson
Services, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-02353-K
(N.D. Tex., June 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to
exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing,
marketing and distribution of the Pinnacle Hip by placing the
alleged defective product into the stream of commerce as the
product causes metal fretting, corrosion, metallosis, necrosis,
other health problems, and the product has a shorter life span and
increases the need for additional surgeries.

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is an Indiana corporation headquartered
in Warsaw, Indiana.  DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is a subsidiary of
Johnson and Johnson.  Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., and
Johnson and Johnson are New Jersey corporations headquartered in
New Brunswick, New Jersey.  Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., is
a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson.  The Defendants design,
manufacture, market and sell medical devices, including
reconstructive hip implants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Keane, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
          E-mail: rkeane@simonlawpc.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Deal OK'd in Suit Over Botched Forfeitures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge approved an $855,000 settlement of a class action accusing
D.C. police of failing to return cash seized from suspects it then
failed to prosecute.

Anthony Hardy and Donnell Monts brought the lawsuit in June 2009,
challenging the district's "Forfeiture Statute," which allows
police to seize all cash "allegedly related to a violation of the
Controlled Substances Act."

The statute also requires the mayor of Washington, D.C., to give
notice by certified mail.  To retrieve their money, affected
individuals must file a claim within 30 days.  The district
meanwhile has up to a year to file the civil forfeiture action.

Hardy said $127 in cash was taken from him after his arrest in
December 2006, while Monts said police seized $823 in cash from
him after his July 2006 arrest.

The district allegedly "never provided notice of forfeiture of the
money seized, nor brought a forfeiture proceeding within one
year."

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper approved the $855,000
settlement on June 20, 2014, eight years after the filing of that
lawsuit.

The deal includes $2,500 for the class representatives.  Another
$14,000 will go toward attorneys' expenses, while another $283,000
will go toward attorney's fees.  An additional $52,600 went to the
Class Action Administration Inc., while $500,000 was set aside for
approved claims.

"The size of the payment pool and the percentage of class members
who responded are on par with typical class action settlement
awards," Cooper wrote.  "Nothing in the course of this litigation
indicates a lack of general skill or efficiency on the part of
plaintiffs' attorney.  To the contrary, counsel appears to have
handled the case quite effectively."

The underlying lawsuit was filed by attorney Henry Escoto.

The case is Anthony Hardy, et al. v. District Of Columbia, Case
No. 1:09-cv-01062 (CRC), in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.


DS WATERS: "Haley" Suit Moved From Central to Northern California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Arjay Haley v. DS Waters of
America Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-07841, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Oakland).  The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:14-cv-02996-KAW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
          Stephen Z. Boren, Esq.
          BOREN OSHER AND LUFTMAN
          5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 937-9900
          Facsimile: (323) 937-9910
          E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
                  sboren@bollaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Catherine M. Dacre, Esq.
          Emily Eschenbach Barker, Esq.
          Eric E. Hill, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission St., Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com
                  ebarker@seyfarth.com
                  ehill@seyfarth.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Perrill" Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Perrill, et al. v. Equifax
Information Services, LLC, Case No. 0:13-cv-03333, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin).
The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00612 to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Equifax Information Services LLC is a consumer reporting agency
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Ogilvie, Esq.
          Carol M. Brewer, Esq.
          ANDERSON OGILVIE & BREWER LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 914
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 651-1952
          E-mail: andy@aoblawyers.com
                  carol@aoblawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark L. Heaney, Esq.
          HEANEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          13911 Ridgedale Drive, Suite 110
          Minnetonka, MN 55305
          Telephone: (952) 933-9655
          Facsimile: (952) 544-1308
          E-mail: mark@heaneylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barry Goheen, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree St. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4618
          E-mail: bgoheen@kslaw.com

               - and -

          J. Anthony Love, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P.
          1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-6500
          Facsimile: (404) 541-3284

               - and -

          Joseph W. Lawver, Esq.
          MESSERLI & KRAMER
          1400 Fifth Street Towers
          100 South Fifth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1217
          Telephone: (612) 672-3600
          Facsimile: (612) 672-3777
          E-mail: jlawver@messerlikramer.com


FRESH SPROUTS: Recalls Fresh Bean Sprouts Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fresh Sprout International Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Fresh Sprout International Ltd. is recalling Fresh Sprouts brand
Fresh Bean Sprouts from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

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

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(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 product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: 454 g / 1 lb. Fresh Sprouts Fresh Bean Sprouts
with UPC 14/JUL/07 8 27468 00100 0


FROMAGERIE LE DETOUR: Recalls Le Verdict d'Alexina Cheese
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fromagerie Le Detour (2003) Inc.
Distribution:             British Columbia, Ontario, Possibly
                          National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8996

The food recall warning issued on June 26, 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.

Fromagerie Le Detour (2003) Inc. is recalling Le Verdict d'Alexina
and Grey Owl cheese from the marketplace because they may contain
the toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria.  Consumers should
not consume the recalled products.

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

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell
spoiled.  The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not
easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures.  Common symptoms
of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping and fever.  In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle
cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

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

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results.  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.


FROMAGERIE LE DETOUR: Recalls Sentinelle Cheese Due To Toxin
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fromagerie Le Detour (2003) Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on June 27, 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.

Fromagerie Le D‚tour (2003) Inc. is recalling Sentinelle cheese
from the marketplace because it may contain the toxin produced by
Staphylococcus bacteria.  Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

Also affected by this alert is the above product which may have
been sold in smaller packages, cut and wrapped by some retailers.
Consumers are advised to contact the retailer to determine if they
have the affected product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell
spoiled.  The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not
easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures.  Common symptoms
of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping and fever.  In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle
cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results.  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 product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: various Sentinelle Surface ripened soft cheese


GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Shan Lemon Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Gagan Foods International Limited
Distribution:             Possibly National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Gagan Foods International Ltd. is recalling Shan brand Lemon
Pickles from the marketplace because they contain mustard which is
not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to mustard
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.

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

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(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 product
from the marketplace.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 641,121 Cars Due to Ignition Switch Woes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           641121
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014284
TC ID number:             2014284
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14350

On certain vehicles, a defect in the ignition switch could allow
the switch to move out of the "run" position if the key ring is
carrying added weight or the vehicle goes off-road or is subjected
to some other jarring event.  If this were to occur, engine power,
power steering and power braking would be affected, increasing the
risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.  The
timing of the key movement out of the run position, relative to
the activation of the sensing algorithm of the crash event, may
also result in the airbags not deploying in a subsequent
collision, increasing the risk of injury.

Correction: For each key, dealers will install two key rings and
modify the key ring opening shape.

Note: Until the correction is performed, all items should be
removed from the key ring.

Affected products:

   Maker        Model           Model Year(s) Affected
   -----        -----           ----------------------
  PONTIAC      GRAND AM      1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
                             2005
  CHEVROLET    MONTE CARLO   2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
  PONTIAC      GRAND PRIX    2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
  CHEVROLET    IMPALA        2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
  CHEVROLET    MALIBU        1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
                             2003, 2004, 2005
  OLDSMOBILE   INTRIGUE      1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002
  OLDSMOBILE   ALERO         1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004


GENERAL MOTORS: "Deighan" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Deighan v. General
Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00458, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-04858-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR.
          429 Forbes Avenue
          519 Allegheny Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          E-mail: Yateslaw@aol.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Letterio" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Letterio, et al. v.
General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00488, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04857-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

Plaintiff Noel Joyce Letterio is represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR.
          429 Forbes Avenue
          519 Allegheny Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          E-mail: Yateslaw@aol.com

Plaintiff Austin DePalma is represented by:

          Michael Dennis Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 732-6067
          Facsimile: (215) 732-8060
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovanaxler.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Salazar" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Salazar, III v.
General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00362, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04859-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  csf@caddellchapman.com

Defendants General Motors LLC, General Motors Company and General
Motors Holding, LLC are represented by:

          Darrell Lee Barger, Esq.
          HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
          800 N Shoreline Blvd., Suite 2000 North Tower
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 866-8009
          Facsimile: (361) 866-8039
          E-mail: dbarger@hdbdlaw.com

Defendants Delphi Automotive PLC and DPH-DAS LLC are represented
by:

          Ilana Volkov, Esq.
          COLE, SCHOTZ, MEISEL, FORMAN & LEONARD, P.A.
          25 Main Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 489-3000
          Facsimile: (201) 678-6269
          E-mail: ivolkov@coleschotz.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Corbett" Class Suit in North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Corbett, Michael Barnes and Gertrude Barnes, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 7:14-cv-00139-
D (E.D.N.C., July 1, 2014) alleges fraud.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          RHINE MARTIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1612 Military Cutoff, Suite 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772-9960
          Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
          E-mail: jsm@rhinelawfirm.com
                  jrr@rhinelawfirm.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Says Attorneys Must Focus on Due Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber urged attorneys
for General Motors and for its customers suing over defective
ignition switches to attempt to agree on facts as much as possible
before litigating further.

The customers in In re: Motors Liquidation Co., 09-bk-50026 are
seeking to hold GM liable for economic losses they suffered as a
result of cars being recalled.

Judge Gerber ruled at a hearing on July 2 that the parties should
submit briefs on whether the customers were denied due process by
the 2009 approval of GM's bankruptcy sale, which absolved "new GM"
from claims.  He also asked for briefing on possible remedies and
on whether any of the claims were against "old GM."

He said it would be premature to brief the issue of whether GM had
committed "fraud on the court" that could make it subject to
liability despite the 2009 order.  At one point, he sketched a
"hypothetical" if it was shown that GM had deliberately concealed
from the court its knowledge of the faulty switches, saying such a
finding would constitute fraud on the court.

Judge Gerber said his plan was trying to hit "the sweet spot
between fairness and getting to the right result."

Arthur Steinberg, a partner at King & Spalding who represents GM,
said during the hearing that "everything flows from the procedural
due process issue" and that if GM prevailed on that issue, the
other issues would become moot.

Elihu Inselbuch -- einselbuch@capdale.com -- a member of Caplin &
Drysdale, similarly said that "if this court were to decide that
issue against us, presumably we wouldn't have to reach the remedy
issue."

The next status conference is set for Aug. 5.


GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Partner Discusses Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benzinga reports that earlier this year Hagens Berman, the
law firm that won a $1.6 billion class action suit against Toyota
for the company's wave of 2009-2011 recalls, was appointed interim
lead counsel of the class action lawsuit against General Motors.

Unless the court appoints another firm, Hagens Berman will lead
the case.

In an exclusive interview with Benzinga, Hagens Berman partner
Rob Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- discussed the case.

Mr. Carey began by describing one of the key differences between
Toyota's and General Motors' situations; that Toyota's recalls
dealt with complex code that would be difficult for the average
jury to understand.  The General Motors case, on the other hand,
deals with "mechanical engineering that somebody with a third
grade education can understand."

This does not, however, mean a settlement should be reached more
quickly; the 2009 bankruptcy filing could be a major complication.

Mr. Carey described the atmosphere after GM had already begun
recalling vehicles.

"No one had filed yet and that tells you a lot about the field of
the bankruptcy," he said, particularly since lawyers typically do
not sit on their hands when a situation of this nature arises.

General Motors has implied that it is not responsible for economic
loss before the company filed for bankruptcy.  "Now, I think there
has been so much of a firestorm beyond that point," Carey notes,
"that it's going to be hard for anyone to say at some point that
GM shouldn't answer for some of the harm."

The economic loss lawsuit (i.e., lost resale value due to the
recalls) will have much more of an impact on the company than the
death and serious injury cases, according to Mr. Carey.  A few
hundred people may be affected by injury, but "almost 30 million
vehicles have been recalled and it's only halfway through the
year," he said.  "The previous record [of cars recalled in a year]
was 10 million, held by the GM . . . I can't tell you how
astounding this recall number is."

Almost every car recalled is also affected by a drop in resale
value.  This is especially true for consumers of General Motors'
entry level vehicles.  The Chevy Cobalt, for example, has given up
roughly $1,000 of value on a $5,000 car, according to Mr. Carey.


GENZYME: Judge Dismisses Class Action on Myozyme Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that there is no evidence Genzyme executives intentionally
deceived shareholders about its bid to produce the orphan drug
Myozyme on a larger scale, the 1st Circuit has ruled.

U.S. District Judge George O'Toole presided over the consolidated
shareholder class action against Genzyme, which took aim at a
series of errors that led to the closure of the drugmaker's plant
in Allston, Mass., and seriously delayed approval by the Food and
Drug Administration of a license to make its drug Myozyme on a
larger scale.

Myozyme is the only drug available for the treatment of Pompe
disease, a rare metabolic disorder. Its designation as an orphan
drug comes from the fact that pharmaceutical companies like
Genzyme would otherwise abandon research of the condition, which
affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States, but for
the incentives provided by Congress.

The class would have included anyone who bought shares of Genzyme
between October 2007 and November 2009, during which time the
company consistently expressed optimism about its application for
a license to produce the drug Myozyme in a 2000-liter bioreactor
instead of a 160-liter bioreactor.  To differentiate the two
processes, Genzyme called the drug produced in the larger reactor
Lumizyme.

But shareholders said the company kept quiet when it suffered
several bioreactor failures, and when the FDA advised the company
to make significant changes to its proposed manufacturing process
for Lumizyme.

After the third bioreactor failure, Genzyme publicly attributed
the failures to the outbreak of a rare virus, a contamination
linked to the manufacturing issues previously identified by the
FDA.

And in November 2009, the company issued a public notice advising
health care providers that vials of all its drugs were found to be
contaminated with foreign particles, including steel and non-latex
rubber, also because of problems at its Allston plant.

A 2010 lawsuit by the FDA left Genzyme on the hook for a $175
million settlement.

Judge O'Toole nevertheless dismissed the shareholder action, and
the Boston-based 1st Circuit affirmed, finding no evidence that
Genzyme executives believed their optimistic statements about
Lumizyme's prospects to be misleading.

"The allegations set forth in the complaint fail to convey a
cogent and compelling inference of deceitful intent, or reckless
disregard of the truth, on the part of defendants," Judge Juan
Torruella wrote for the three-judge appellate panel.  "Scienter
has not been pled, and, accordingly, we affirm the district
court's order of dismissal."

Genzye was under no affirmative duty to disclose the bioreactor
failures until it discovered their cause, which took several
months, but it did inform the market of its tightening product
supplies, according to the ruling.

"Under these circumstances, where Genzyme kept the market apprised
of supply shortages, we are not compelled to infer that defendants
acted with fraudulent intent by taking the time to investigate,
and discover, what was essentially unknown to them," the 36-page
opinion states.

The panel did, however, note its "discomfort" with O'Toole's
refusal to let the shareholders amend their claims.

"We emphatically reiterate that the PSLRA does not require that
orders of dismissal be with prejudice," Torruella wrote,
abbreviating Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  "This is
particularly so in light of the fact that the PSLRA is a tool
designed to curb vexatious litigation, not a mechanism for denying
bona fide claimants their day in court."

Genzyme was bought by Sanofi-Aventis, a French drugmaker, in 2011
for $20.1 billion.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Former Employees Support Gender Bias Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Huddleston, Jr., writing for Fortune, reports that an ongoing
gender discrimination lawsuit against Goldman Sachs filed four
years ago by three former female employees now has the support of
several additional former employees who allege the financial giant
has a "boy's club" atmosphere where women are mocked and excluded
by their male colleagues.

The group is seeking class action status from a federal judge in
Manhattan in a suit that looks to sue Goldman on behalf of current
and former employees at the bank whose tenures stretch as far back
as July 2002.  Several former employees filed documents on July 1
supporting class certification of the lawsuit, which accuses
Goldman of hosting an environment that is "hostile to women."

In a statement sent to multiple news outlets, a Goldman spokesman
said the filings on July 1 were not a surprise and that they "lack
merit."

One former vice president in the bank's securities division,
Denise Shelley, wrote in her letter to the court that female
employees at Goldman were often hired based on their
attractiveness and then asked to pitch sales to clients only to
later have their intelligence mocked by male colleagues.
Ms. Shelley says such women were referred to as "bimbos" by male
colleagues, and she remembers one time when a new female hire was
mocked for having been a beauty pageant winner.

"The culture that I experienced at Goldman Sachs sexualized women
in a way that made it difficult for us to be taken seriously as
professional peers and diminished our ability to be fairly
reviewed, compensated, and promoted in comparison to our male
peers," Ms. Shelley wrote in a court filing.

She also claims that women were often excluded from social events
outside of work and that, after a rare occasion where she did join
her male colleagues at a bar, she was later called a "party girl"
by a managing director at the bank.

Another vice president and trader, Allison Gamba, asserts in her
own court filing supporting class certification that Goldman
frequently passed her over for promotions that went instead to
male colleagues with less impressive qualifications than her own.
Ms. Gamba also accuses the bank of holding her pregnancies and
motherhood against her by ceasing to even nominate her for
promotion once she started having children.

Ms. Gamba says she believes that "Goldman Sachs is incapable of
reforming itself to treat its female employees equally," and that
women at the bank are often unwilling to formally complain about
sexual discrimination and harassment because they fear it will
damage their careers.

In addition to seeking certification as a class action, the suit
seeks unspecified damages as well as court-imposed injunctions
that would force Goldman to take action to eliminate gender bias
at the bank.


GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baba Ghanouj Soup Starter Soup Base
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Greenworld Food Express Inc., Salem
                          Brothers
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8992

Industry is recalling Ziyad brand Baba Ghanouj and Soup Starter
Soup Base from the marketplace because they contain milk and
sesame which are not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to milk or sesame 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.

If you have an allergy to milk or sesame, do not consume the
recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results.  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 product
from the marketplace.


GREYSTONE ALLIANCE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benzion Yossef, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Greystone Alliance LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
04087 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 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


HARVEST MEATS: Unsuitable Ingredients Prompt Meat Products Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Harvest Meats Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Nunavut, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan,
                          Northwest Territories
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail, Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8991


HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Texas Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hastings Entertainment, Inc. is facing a securities lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Amarillo Division, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs' counsel sent the
Company a demand letter dated March 20, 2014 demanding that the
Board of Directors commence an action on behalf of the Company
against the Directors.  The Board of Directors appointed a Special
Committee composed of independent directors to review the
plaintiffs' allegations.  The Committee has not yet completed its
review or made any determination as to what action, if any, should
be taken in response to those allegations.

On May 9, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed, alleging material
omissions and misstatements in the company's Proxy Statement in
violation of Sections 14 and 20 of the Exchange Act.  The action,
captioned CV-00114-J-Sarabjeet Singh, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Hastings Entertainment, Inc., John
H. Marmaduke, Jeffrey G. Shrader, Ann S. Lieff, Frank O. Marrs,
Danny W. Gurr, Draw Another Circle, LLC, Hendrix Acquisition
Corp., Joel Weinshanker and National Entertainment Collectibles
Association, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division.  The
lawsuit, which purports to be a class action, seeks an injunction
preventing consummation of the Merger, rescinding the Merger, if
consummated, or granting rescissionary damages in an unspecified
amount, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and an award
of costs and expenses.


INTEL CORPORATION: Sued Over Termination of Worker
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Intel retaliated against an
employee for participating in a sexual harassment investigation
against a manager, the fired worker claims in court.


INVACARE CANADA: Recalls Aquatec Backrest
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 4, 2014
Posting date:             July 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Miscellaneous
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40369

Affected products: Aquatec Fixed Backrest

The recall involves the Aquatec Fixed Backrest.   The Aquatec
Fixed Backrest is an accessory for the Mobile Shower and Toilet
commode and is used for secure patient positioning.  The month and
year of manufacture are stamped on the back of product.

The Aquatec Fixed Backrest may become detached from the frame when
an uneven load is applied by the users back to either the top or
bottom of the backrest, posing a fall hazard.

Invacare Canada LP received one reported consumer incident but no
injury resulted.

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

Approximately 450 backrests have been sold in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold from
Aug. 2013 to April 2014.

Companies:

   Importer     Invacare Canada LP
                Mississauga
                Ontario
                Canada

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the affected
backrests and contact the company to have it replaced.  A
replacement backrest will be issued at no additional charge.


KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Breached Fiduciary Duties, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Kansas City Southern officers exposed the company to hundreds of
millions of dollars of losses by "breaches of fiduciary duties and
violations of law," a shareholder claims in a derivative lawsuit.

Bruce Lerner sued 12 company officers in Federal Court.

Kansas City Southern is a holding company with domestic and
international rail operations in North America.  KCS has a
concession from the Mexican government that allows it to operate
strategic routes between Mexico City and Texas.

The lawsuit states: "Defendants improperly touted KCS's business
prospects and issued aggressive financial guidance to demonstrate
to the market and to the corporate debt rating agencies in
particular, that the company's business metrics and financial
prospects were deserving of an investment grade debt rating.  In
particular, defendants hyped that the company was then on track to
achieve during fiscal 2013: (i) 'mid single-digit volume growth,
along with mid single-digit pricing [growth]'; (ii) 'revenue
growth ... higher on a percentage growth basis than 2012'; and
(iii) improved 'operating ratio.'  The company's guidance was
overstated because it failed to take into account several negative
trends affecting the company's business, including that KCS's
utility coal volumes and crude oil shipments declined more
drastically than defendants led the market to anticipate, that
carloads in the company's chemical & petroleum shipments to Mexico
declined due to operational issues with the company's customers in
Mexico, that the company's anticipated ramp-up of its Mexican auto
shipment business was not advancing at the rate the market was led
to believe as the new plants were not coming on line, and that the
company's heavily touted efforts to build the Port Arthur crude
oil terminal were riddled with operational difficulties pushing
the positive financial benefits of the expansion effort off
further into the future."

Lerner claims evidence of the defendants' wrongdoing began to
emerge on Jan. 24 this year, when KCS issued a press release
announcing disappointing 2013 fourth quarter fiscal results.  KCS
reported a net income of $113.8 million or $1.03 a share on
revenues of $615.6 million. Lerner said that fell below the
projected net income of $1.10 a share on $618.1 million.

For 2013, net income fell to $3.98 a share, below the $4.05 a
share the investment community had expected based on the
defendants' statements, the complaint states.  Also, Lerner claims
that KCS's operating ratio had increased, even though the market
was led to believe that it was declining.

Lerner claims KCS officials blamed the poor earnings on a variety
of factors during a conference call.  He says some of the excuses
included a plant shutdown, unplanned plant outages, reduced
shipments to another plant, weakness in petroleum shipments and
increased operating expenses.

"Then, on February 18, 2014, the market learned that the lower
house of the Mexican legislature had approved a new bill to
increase rail competition in Mexico," the complaint states.  "This
legislation, if passed by Mexico's Senate, would give third-party
companies access to KCS's currently exclusive freight and
passenger rail networks.  The Wall Street Journal, in a February
19, 2014 report entitled, 'Railroads and Mexican Government on
Collision Course: Kansas City Southern and Grupo Mexico Fight Bill
That Would Strip Exclusive Track Rights,' explained that the
Mexican government had long been dissatisfied with KCS's
performance under the concession.

"Upon disclosure of the company's true business health and limited
financial outlook, KCS's market capitalization plunged by nearly
22 percent, erasing over $2.8 billion in value.  As a direct
result of the individual defendants' wrongdoing, the company is
now the subject of a securities class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
on behalf of investors who purchased KCS shares.  The securities
class action lawsuit poses the risk of hundreds of millions of
dollars in damages to the company."

Lerner seeks damages, disgorgement of profits and a ruling
requiring KCS to improve its internal structure to protect
shareholders, including strengthening the company's disclosure
controls; strengthening the board's supervision of operations; and
allowing shareholders to elect three members to the board.

He is represented by Tim Dollar of Dollar, Burns & Becker.


KAWARTHA DAIRY: Recalls Chocolate Ice Cream
-------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kawartha Dairy Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8998

Affected products: 1.5 L. Kawartha Dairy Chocolate Ice Cream with
Chocolate Peanut Butter Ice Cream lid and contain Chocolate Peanut
Butter Ice Cream


KENAN TRANSPORT: Removed "Murray-Palmer" Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Murray-Palmer v. Kenan
Transport, LLC, Case No. CACE 14-009447, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-61496-BB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Specifically, the Complaint purports to bring a
claim for unpaid overtime and a claim for retaliatory discharge.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody M. 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 Defendant is represented by:

          Marilyn G. Moran, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418-2310
          Facsimile: (407) 418-2327
          E-mail: mmoran@fordharrison.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Aidman, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 261-7800
          Facsimile: (813) 261-7899
          E-mail: taidman@fordharrison.com


KHG OF SAN ANTONIO: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Marez and Veronica Ayala, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. KHG of San Antonio, L.L.C., d/b/a
Tiffany's Cabaret, Tim Eidson, Rick Peffer, Robert O'Hayon,
Phillip G. Phifer, Mike Fulton, Russell Ingram, R. Neck
Enterprises, Inc., M.R.G. Enterprises, Inc., and E&I Enterprises,
Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00585-OLG (W.D. Tex., July 1, 2014) is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ricardo Jose Prieto, Esq.
          Martin A. Shellist, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  mshellist@eeoc.net


KUO HUA: Recalls Wafer & Noodle Products Due to Undeclared Wheat
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kuo Hua Trading Company Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8977


LAC BASKETBALL: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Donald Sterling
misclassified Clippers employees as unpaid interns to stiff them
for wages, a former "fan relations intern" claims in a federal
class action.

Lead plaintiff Frank Cooper sued LAC Basketball Club Inc. and The
Sterling Family Trust, alleging wage and hour violations and
unfair competition.

Cooper claims he worked without pay at the Staples Center as a
"fan relations intern" from Sept. 28 to Nov. 17, 2012.

He claims that Sterling and the Clippers misclassify employees as
interns, to duck their responsibility to pay wages, and do not
provide the training that would make the intern classification
legal.

"Plaintiff's unpaid work for defendants is part of a broader trend
where employees are being misclassified as unpaid 'interns' in an
effort by employers to avoid paying wages as required by state
laws and FLSA [the Fair Labor Standards Act]," the complaint
states.  "These programs purport to be training programs, but
provide little value to the worker while enriching the employer
through the provision of free labor.  The result is that while
certain employers save wage expenses, the economy as a whole
suffers from fewer paid job opportunities.  Moreover, the economic
and moral wellbeing of our nation is compromised due to the
further marginalization of workers who cannot provide free
services but rather must accept low wage employment in other
sectors, thus foreclosing certain employment options, and indeed
entire fields, from the already vulnerable.

"Defendants' failure to pay interns for years runs afoul of basic
wage-and-hour laws, including the FLSA and California labor laws,
which require that employers pay all of their employees - even
those who are inexperienced or entry-level - the minimum wage and
overtime.  The law provides no exemption for interns unless they
are in a vocational training program, and the United States
Department of Labor uses a six-factor test to evaluate whether a
worker is a trainee or an employee.  A worker is a trainee only if
he or she receives training similar to what would be given in a
vocational school or academic educational instruction.  The
employer cannot derive any immediate advantage from the intern's
work or require the intern to do the work of regular employees.
'[I]f the interns are engaged in the operations of the employer or
are performing productive work (for example, filing, performing
other clerical work, or assisting customers), then the fact that
they may be receiving some benefits in the form of a new skill or
improved work habits will not exclude them from the FLSA's minimum
wage and overtime requirements because the employer benefits from
the interns' work.'"

Cooper claims Sterling et al. misclassified interns beginning at
least in September 2012.  He seeks class certification and damages
for wage and hour violations, unpaid wages, and unfair
competition.

He is represented by Nicholas Ranallo -- nick@ranallolawoffice.com
-- of Boulder Creek.


LINKEDIN CORP: Members May Pursue Case on Promotional Spam
----------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that LinkedIn users can pursue claims that the company spammed
their email contacts with pesky "reminder" invitations to join the
networking site, a federal judge ruled.

Disgruntled users sued LinkedIn last September, claiming it hacked
into their external email accounts, harvested their contacts and
then barraged those contacts with promotional spam.

LinkedIn urged U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif.,
to dismiss the federal class action, saying the users explicitly
consented to the challenged actions by clicking through a series
of permission screens.

The company suggested that the class members were perhaps simply
"embarrassed" by the repeat invitations they authorized LinkedIn
to send to their contacts.

The plaintiffs, including several well-educated professionals,
countered that "a few cryptic disclosures on a website" do not
give LinkedIn the right to "harvest users' email addresses and
broadcast users' persona to hundreds of people."

Koh largely agreed with LinkedIn's claim that the permission
screens amounted to consent, as a reasonable user would have
understood that the site was collecting email addresses from the
user's external email account.

LinkedIn also "clearly discloses" its intention to invite those
email contacts to connect to the user via LinkedIn, Koh said in
her 39-page ruling, which includes various screen shots of
LinkedIn's sign-up process.

She granted LinkedIn's motion to dismiss claims for violations of
the Stored Communications Act, the Wiretap Act and California's
Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act.

Regarding the state penal code, Koh said the lawsuit fails to
explain how LinkedIn "has circumvented a technical or code-based
barrier" when it allegedly "tunnel[s] through any open email
program on a user's desktop."  But Koh said the consent granted
through permission screens ends with the first invitation and does
not necessarily apply to follow-up "reminder emails" -- the
purported spam that class members say damaged their professional
reputations.

"Although the court concludes that plaintiffs have consented to
LinkedIn's initial endorsement email, the court finds that
plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they did not consent to the
second and third reminder endorsement emails," Koh wrote.

"Specifically, the second and third endorsement emails could
injure users' reputations by allowing contacts to think that the
users are the types of people who spam their contacts or are
unable to take the hint that their contacts do not want to join
their LinkedIn network."

She allowed the class members to pursue their right-of-publicity
and unlawful competition claims against LinkedIn over the second
and third reminder emails.  She also gave them 30 days to again
amend their complaint, finding no "undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive by plaintiffs, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies, or undue prejudice to LinkedIn."


LOUISVILLE BEDDING: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors of Louisville
Bedding Co. are taking the company private through an unfair
process at an unfair price of $14.37 a share, shareholders claim
in Chancery Court in Wilmington, Del.


LOWE'S HOME: Accused of Gender Discrimination in Eastern Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kellie Kifer v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, f/k/a Lowe's Home
Centers, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00730 (E.D. Tex. Jun 28, 2014) is
an employment discrimination case involving gender.  Ms. Kifer
alleges that her gender was a motivating factor in the Defendant's
decision to fire her.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, formerly known as Lowe's Home Centers,
Inc., is an active North Carolina corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wade A. Forsman, Esq.
          P.O. Box 918
          Sulphur Springs, TX 75483-0918
          Telephone: (903) 689-4144
          Facsimile: (903) 689-7001
          E-mail: wade@forsmanlaw.com


MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Amelio, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company,
Case No. 5:14-cv-04004-JKG (E.D. Pa., June 30, 2014) alleges
violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD.
          115 Federal Plaza, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


MARS INC: Judge Green Lights Misbranding Claims
-----------------------------------------------
Deshayla Strachan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Mars must face claims that it makes misleading claims about
the calories and nutrient content of its candy, including M&Ms and
Dove bars, a federal judge ruled.

Phyllis Gustavson hopes to represent a class with misbranding
claims against Mars Inc. and Mars Chocolate North America LLC.
The complaint takes aim at the labels of five Mars products --
M&Ms, Twix, dark chocolate Dove, milk chocolate Dove and Snickers
-- and says Gustavson has spent more than $25 on these products
since 2008.

Regarding nutrient content, Gustavson says the packaging for a 3.3
ounce dark chocolate Dove bar includes statements that the
chocolate bar is a "natural source of cocoa flavanols" and that
the company's "CocoaPro" process "helps retain much of the
naturally occurring cocoa flavanols" in cocoa beans.

But Gustavson says federal regulations state that a nutrient-
content claim may only use particular terms defined in FDA
regulations.  The term "source" is not among these defined terms
unless preceded by the modifier "good," according to the
complaint.

Companies may also not make content claims unless the food product
contains some fixed percentage of the established daily value for
the nutrient in question, the complaint alleges.  Gustavson says
the Dove chocolate bar cannot possibly contain adequate flavanols
to meet these requirements because the FDA has not established a
recommended daily value for flavanols.

The claims about how Mars represents the calories in its products
are similar.  Gustavson says the packaging label is deceptive
because the statements are not accompanied by the disclosure,
mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, that directs
consumers to consult the full nutrition information panel located
on the back of the package for further information regarding the
levels of fat and saturated fat contained in the products.

Though the statements refer to a "daily value" for calories,
Gustavson says the FDA has not established a daily value for
calories.  Even if a daily value for calories did exist, the
percentage statements Mars makes would allegedly still be
misleading because recent U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that
individuals strictly limit the amount of calories they consume in
the form of sugar and fat, both of which are present at high
levels in Mars' products.

The class claims Mars violated California's Unfair Competition
Law, its False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, and U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., refused
to dismiss any part of the complaint.

In its motion, Mars had claimed that the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act pre-empts the claims regarding flavanol and calorie
content.  It also said that the calorie claims implicate technical
and policy questions that are under active consideration by the
FDA and thus are committed to the primary jurisdiction of the FDA.

Gustavson countered that she seeks to enforce only what FDA and
the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990 requires.

In refusing to dismiss, Judge Koh agreed that the claims "do not
seek to impose requirements beyond what federal law requires.'

Mars had also argued that its statement "natural source of cocoa"
only means that cocoa is naturally present in the chocolate,
without characterizing the level of the flavanol.

But Koh agreed with Gustavson that the word "source" did imply
that the nutrient was present at a percentage higher than zero.

"At the very least, stating that a food product is a 'source' of a
given nutrient indicates that the nutrient is present at a level
higher than zero, and the fact that the manufacturer chooses to
note that its product is a 'source' of that nutrient arguably
implies that the nutrient is present in substantial quantities,"
Koh wrote.  "The final [FDA] regulation includes only 'good
source' as a defined term, the FDA explained, because without the
modifier 'good,' the word 'source' would 'not enable the consumer
to conclude that the level of nutrient present is less than
'high.'  This reasoning indicates that the FDA was concerned that
'source of' claims would suggest a certain level of nutrients to
consumers."

Though Mars said the FDA is actively considering front-of-pack
calorie-related labeling, Koh said this does not present a
jurisdictional issue.

That process "is not sufficiently concrete or advanced as to
warrant dismissal of plaintiff's calorie claims," the 18-page
ruling states.

Gustavson had originally brought her claims against Mars in a 2012
action against Wrigley, and Mars pointed out that the court had
dismissed a claim regarding serving size in the Wrigley case based
on the FDA's active consideration of the issue.

But Koh said "closer examination of the FDA materials cited by
defendants reveals that the FDA's plans for regulating front-of-
package calorie statements in a manner that would affect the
outcome of this case are far less apparent than they were in the
Wrigley case."

"The FDA's expressions of intent to regulate calorie statements
similar to those at issue in this case have simply been too vague
and tentative for the court to conclude, as it did in the Wrigley
case, that it was prudent not to interfere with an active and
ongoing regulatory process," she added.

Mars had not challenged a third prong of Gustavson's complaint,
which accuses Mars of failing to identify the ingredient
"polyglycerol polyricinoleic acid" by its common name.


MYFOOTPATH LLC: Faces "LeBlanc" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca LeBlanc, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. myFootpath, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-02994-LB
(N.D. Cal., June 30, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew Michael Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Small Leagues Profit Massively, Atty. Argues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that as student
athletes' class-action antitrust trial against the NCAA headed
into its third week on June 23, 2014, plaintiffs' attorney Seth
Rosenthal argued that even smaller college conferences are
profiting massively from student athletes and pouring that money
into ever more extravagant programs.

"It's fair to say there's been an arms race in college sports,"
Rosenthal said while questioning Conference USA Commissioner
Britton Banowsky.

Banowsky said he wasn't sure what an "arms race" meant, but said
he generally agreed that, "there hasn't been discipline with the
resources."

Conference USA is a mid-level conference of 16 Southern schools,
including Rice University, Louisiana Tech, Tulane, Old Dominion,
Marshall and East Carolina University.

Banowsky said his conference has done "a better job" of keeping
expenditures in line than others, but he'd like to see revenue
from athletics directed toward other university programs.

"We've see this growth in expenses," Banowsky said.  "As the
revenues flow in, instead of capturing those to give to the
library it's just plowed back in to the athletic endeavors."

A lot of this revenue growth stems from lucrative television
broadcast contracts.  Even the smaller Conference USA has seen an
$84 million revenue boost from two 6-year agreements with FOX and
CBS Sports TV.

"The size of the pie is enormous now for revenue for college
athletics isn't it?" Rosenthal asked.  "You agree the athletes are
at least in part responsible for this increase in revenue that
CUSA has enjoyed.  Without them there would be no product."

"There is more revenue flowing into the system than there has been
ever, and there is significant growth in media revenues," Banowsky
said, adding that without the student athletes, there would be
nothing to televise.

Still, Banowsky said, most athletic departments in Division One
schools around the country make no profit, and only a handful are
self-supporting.

Led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, college athletes
are suing the NCAA for the right to a share in the television
broadcast revenue for their names, images and likenesses.

NCAA attorney Kelly Klaus asked Banowsky if schools would raise
student fees to cover the cost of paying student athletes.

"They might try, but what I'm hearing is funding is very tight,"
Banowsky said.  "State funding is tight. The ability to continue
to raise student service fees for athletics is -- something no
president wants to travel that path.  You've got students
graduating in debt and you're asking them to take on more for an
athletic fee.  I think that would be very difficult for a
university president to undertake."

Klaus tried to show that if schools were forced to negotiate
licensing agreements with college athletes, schools with less
money will have no chance at competing against the bigger programs
with more money.

"What will be the effect of ability of Rice and other members to
compete for prospective student athletes in the event that other
schools were negotiating group licenses and paying significant
compensation in those sports?" Klaus asked.

"I doubt Rice would do that. But if other schools out of state
were able to provide compensation above education costs, then I'm
certain it will influence decision-making of the student athletes
that Rice was recruiting," Banowsky replied.

He continued: "If you concentrated all the best players in schools
with the highest resources, over time it would have a negative
competitive effect.  The teams with the best players would win
more consistently then they do now."

During Rosenthal's cross-examination, Banowsky said he would
support some kind of compensation held in trust that student
athletes can get after graduation, but that it must not be any
more than the cost of attending school.

Rosenthal pushed him on that point.

"There's so much money in the system right now that you believe
you can set up a trust fund without undermining the concept of
amateurism," Rosenthal said.

"I'm an advocate for incentivizing athletes to graduate," Banowsky
said, "So long as it stays within the collegiate model and the
fund doesn't exceed the cost of their education."

           Dr. Rascher Testifies on Underreport Revenues

In an earlier report, Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News
Service, said that, a sports economist testified in the antitrust
class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association
that colleges underreport revenue.

Dr. Daniel Rascher helped close out the first week of the closely
watched federal trial in June before U.S. District Judge Claudia
Wilken. Former UCLA basketball player Edward O'Bannon is the lead
plaintiff in the case, which accuses the NCAA of forcing thousands
of student athletes to sign away rights to their images, while
cheating them out of their share of television broadcast dollars.

Pointing to the University of Texas, Rascher said the school
generates $109 million every year from its football program but
has just $27 million in expenses.

"What you learn from this is the net surplus is very large," said
Rascher, a professor of sports economics at the University of San
Francisco.

The 69 Bowl Championship Series, or BCS, schools net $1.3 billion
in revenue from football alone last year, he added.

Meanwhile "NHL profits are down around $7 million per team,"
Rascher said.  "The profitability is much higher than these
professional NHL clubs."

He also noted other ways that athletic departments boost a
university's profits.  A successful college football or men's
basketball team, for example, can foster a fanaticism that drives
up application numbers, brings in more tuition dollars, and
encourages larger alumni donations.  "It's often said the athletic
department is the front porch of the university," Rascher said.

Then there are the profits from concessions, merchandise, sports
camps and parking, which Rascher said schools count differently.

A team jersey purchased at a campus bookstore, for example, would
not be credited to the athletic department, even though the
athletic department technically generates that revenue, he noted.
"It looks like on paper sometimes that those athletic departments
are losing money," Rascher said.  "It can be millions of dollars a
year, yet they don't show up on financial statements of the
athletic department.  Instead of 10 percent of schools making
money from athletics, which is a phrase the NCAA likes to use,
only 10 percent of schools are losing money from athletics."

Rascher also refuted the argument at the forefront of testimony
from former CBS executive Neal Pilson that fans watch college
sports primarily to root for the schools, not the players.

"There's a belief out there that fans just root for their alma
maters," Rascher said.  "I've looked at a couple of different
measures of demand.  One of them being attendance, another
ratings; the idea being the athletes are a major part of what
makes a team play well.  If fans were just rooting for laundry as
Jerry Seinfeld said, the quality of the team shouldn't matter that
much."

But, he added, "in college football and basketball, when a team
wins, it has a bigger impact on demand, and when a team loses it
drives demand down -- even more than the NFL."

"Fans care more about the winning and losing when they make the
decision in watching a college football game than with the NFL,"
he continued.

The trial got heated with the cross-examination of Rascher by NCAA
attorney Rohit Singla with Munger, Tolles and Olson.  One of
Singla's tactics was to try and have Rascher say that bigger
schools with more broadcast revenue will be able to pay athletes
more than schools with less revenue, therefore giving them the
advantage of acquiring the most skilled athletes.

Singla also attacked Rascher's testimony that schools are
underreporting athletic-department revenues. Several times, the
court reporter had to interrupt Singla's cross-examination to
remind men not to talk over each other.

Singla continued to fire off questions, trying to rattle Rascher.
"You have no idea what volume you think these revenues that are
being mis-accounted for represent?  You have no idea how much it
is? You have no idea what the volume represents at the average
school, do you?" he asked.

Singla also asked Rascher whether he had ever seen an athlete paid
royalties from broadcast earnings, aside from special Tiger Woods
appearances and the Roger Federer v. Rafael Nadal tennis matches.
"You have never seen royalties paid to any athlete in any sport
from broadcast revenues, have you?"

"Not that I can think of," Rascher answered.

Then Singla brought up Tonya Harding. "Do you remember the violent
incident between Harding and Nancy Kerrigan where Kerrigan was
attacked?"

Rascher said he barely remembered.

"The competition between the two of them was one of the most
highly watched," Singla said.

Rascher still could not recall a whole lot about the Harding and
Kerrigan sports rivalry.

"You wouldn't say that because a lot of people tuned in to watch
these two in an ice-skating competition means it's OK to violently
attack someone," Singla said, to which Rascher replied, "That has
nothing to do with amateurism."

           Former CBS Exec Testifies Against Class Action

In a separate report, Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News
Service, reported that a former CBS executive testified that the
popularity of college sports will take a major hit if the
athletes begin getting paid when their games are televised.

"I have a substantial concern that it would change the fabric of
the sport," said Neal Pilson, who was president of CBS Sports for
12 years and is now a sports television consultant with his own
company.

He was testifying before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken at the
federal trial of an antitrust class action against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association.  Former UCLA basketball player
Edward O'Bannon is the lead plaintiff in the case, which accuses
the NCAA of forcing thousands of student athletes to sign away
rights to their images, while cheating them out of their share of
television broadcast dollars.

Munger, Tolles & Olson attorney Kelly Klaus represents the NCAA.

Pilson said the public views college athletes differently from the
pros -- perceiving them as students and amateurs who play for the
love of the game.

"I think viewers appreciate and enjoy the concept that college
football players are playing because they enjoy playing college
football," he said.  "They volunteer to play it, they compete,
they risk injury, they are relatively young and they are amateurs.
I am not naive that the public isn't aware of the attention some
players get, but the public differentiates college sports over
professional sports for reasons that aren't true for professional
sports.  There is an identification with a college or university,
and the fact that the players move through the college system.
Most only play for one or two years.  The loyalty is not to the
players -- it is to the sport and the institution."

If schools rush to pay for the best athletes, college athletics
would most certainly become more money driven, Pilson said.

"I'm concerned that the recruiting aspect of getting young high
school players to play at certain colleges could be very
distressing," he continued.  "If there were no rules, you would
have a land rush of agents and big money chasing high school
juniors and seniors to get them to play for certain schools.  And
to get the best players you have to get the best coaches.
Salaries for coaches would be driven up.  A large number of casual
fans around the country would be turned off by the land rush that
would almost be required if this were to take place. I think it's
a negative and I think it will happen."

The words "name, image and likeness," or NIL, have been used in
the broadcast industry for a long time, but the concept of the
rights to player's names, images and likenesses is new, Pilson
added.

"There's a difference between NIL and 'NIL rights,'" he said.
"While the industry is well aware of NIL, the discussion of
whether those are NIL 'rights' is a relatively recent phenomena."

In all his years negotiating deals to broadcast sporting events,
"I've never been a part of a negotiation where there was a
discussion of the grant, transfer or license of NIL rights,"
Pilson added.

Student athletes would no longer be considered amateurs if they
are able to share in television broadcast revenues, Pilson
testified.  Noting that he had been watching the U.S. Open that
morning, Pilson said a young golfer who was identified as an
amateur certainly would not have been compensated for having had
his name and likeness shown on television.

Plaintiffs' attorney Bill Isaacson hammered away at Pilson in an
attempt to have him concede that most people no longer see student
athletes as amateurs.

Isaacson presented a passage from famed University of Alabama
coach Paul "Bear" Bryant's autobiography, which says,  "I used to
go along with the idea that football players on scholarship were
'student-athletes,' which is what the NCAA calls them.  Meaning a
student first, an athlete second. We were kidding ourselves,
trying to make it more palatable to the academicians.  We don't
have to say that and we shouldn't.  At the level we play the boy
is an athlete first and a student second."

Isaacson also pointed to a Knight Commission survey that said the
majority of Americans view college sports more like professional
than amateur sports.

Pilson said: "Maybe I'm naive, but if we go down the road of
paying players substantial sums, all will be lost, and we're just
developing a cadre of hired guns that will have no link to the
colleges other than showing up for the practices and games."
A former NBA TV president Edwin Desser testified for the
plaintiffs that, when telecasters negotiate deals to televise
games, they are paying for images and likenesses of the
participants, and that those images have value.

"You simply cannot show sports events without the benefit of
showing the players in those events," Desser said.  "I still think
the appearance of the players and their activities on the field or
the court are things of value. And to the extent that somebody is
given the legal right to capture that and disseminate it, they are
getting something of value or they wouldn't be paying for it."

           CBS Wants Broadcast Contract Away from Public

In a separate report, Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News
Service, reported that CBS said a federal judge at the helm of the
antitrust case against the National Collegiate Athletic
Association must protect a broadcast contract from public
disclosure.  The network in June filed a motion to intervene in
the class action brought by current and former student athletes
against the National Collegiate Athletic Association.  After a
slew of recent settlements, only the antitrust claims led by
former UCLA basketball player Edward O'Bannon advanced to trial.

O'Bannon claims that the NCAA forced thousands of student-athletes
to sign away rights to their images and cheated them out of their
share of television broadcast dollars. U.S. District Judge Claudia
Wilken will decide whether the NCAA must pay athletes for using
their images and likeness in television broadcasts.

CBS noted that the multimedia agreement it and Turner Broadcasting
System struck with the NCAA is an exhibit in the case and should
be sealed from disclosure during the three-week bench trial.

"The nonpublic provisions of the Multi-Media Agreement contain
competitively sensitive information, including content licensing
terms and licensing rights obtained for consideration, that are
highly sensitive to CBS," the network said.  "CBS competes with a
number of entities to obtain rights to broadcast content, and
takes steps to ensure that the Multi-Media Agreement and the
highly confidential information therein are not disclosed outside
of a group of persons within CBS who have a business reason to
know their contents."

Competitors and third parties will be able to use knowledge of the
redacted terms of the tournament contract -- specifically
provisions containing broadcaster rights and restrictions,
promotional inventory, and definitions of the terms "Broadcaster
Multi- Sport Package" and "Broadcaster Platform" -- against CBS in
future agreements, the network added.

The NCAA is also trying to keep the contract under wraps, but CBS
argued that its interests are different and "NCAA will not
'undoubtedly' make all of CBS' arguments."

"CBS operates in a different market than does the NCAA. The nature
of CBS' business means it must take into account the potential
effects of disclosure of confidential information in a manner
completely separate and apart from the NCAA," the network's motion
states.  "CBS must consider different types of potential business
partners and competitors than the NCAA.  This unique knowledge and
perspective on CBS' own competitive concerns brings new elements
to the proceeding that warrants intervention."


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Worried About Bidding War for Athletes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paying college players from broadcast revenue would start a
bidding war among school recruiters and shift the focus of
intercollegiate athletics away from education, the Southeastern
Conference's associate commissioner Greg Sankey testified on
June 24, 2014, in the NCAA antitrust trial, reports Maria Dinzeo
at Courthouse News Service.

Sankey said he could imagine all kinds of scenarios where school
recruiters and "overzealous fans" or boosters could make promises
of cash payments and other benefits to prospective players to
influence their college choice.

"What we would have done is introduce the compensation discussion
right into recruiting. The education piece of that discussion in
recruiting would be minimized.

A bidding war ensues quite quickly.  That's not the focus of what
we do now," Sankey said.

In a landmark antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, a class of
student athletes led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon
claims they should be allowed to share in the television broadcast
revenue for their names, images and likenesses.

On June 24, 2014, NCAA lawyers argued that a change in the rule to
allow student athletes to profit from name, image and likeness use
by networks would open the door to third parties, such as
boosters, to make promises to recruits that would distract them
from the real purpose of college.

Sankey said: "I don't assume that whatever promises or payments
being suggested would be directly attached to name, image and
likeness," but "it shifts from a broader consideration of what
university to attend to one that becomes more economically based."

He added: "I'm concerned about how they understand exactly what
they would be asked to do relative to this name, image and
likeness idea.  Who is going to be advising them?"

NCAA attorneys have insisted that paying players will make
Division One sports less competitive, as schools with more money
to pump into bigger programs will snap up the best players, giving
schools with smaller programs less of a chance at winning.

Plaintiffs' attorney Sathya Gosselin, with Hausfeld LLP, pointed
out on cross-examination that schools already use financially
driven incentives to influence college recruits, and that schools
in big conferences already dominate on the field.

"You agree there is significant disparity in competition,"
Gosselin said.

"No," Sankey replied. "Thirty-two conferences have automatic
qualification to tournaments.  We've had success at the
competitive level, but other people have access points."

"The SEC [Southeastern Conference] does not dominate competition
on the field?" Gosselin asked.

"No.  We're successful competitively.  I don't know what dominate
is meant to mean.  Others are successful as well.  We've won some
championships.  There have been championships we've not won as
well," Sankey said.

Gosselin made sure that U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken was
aware of the profitability of a conference like Southeastern,
pointing out that it made $314 million last year, double its
revenue in 2008.

Another recurring NCAA argument is the presumed waning of fan
interest in college sports if players are paid, as fans will no
longer consider those players to be amateurs.

As the last witness of the day, the NCAA brought in John Dennis,
whose survey, "Public Opinion About Paying Student-Athletes,"
found 69 percent of respondents were opposed to paying student
athletes, and would watch and attend fewer college football and
men's basketball games if students were paid.

"The public believes that paying student athletes would have a
negative impact on the balance of competition in schools," Dennis
said.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 8th Cir. Revives Claims of Secret Salary Cap
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th Circuit revived claims that owners of professional
football teams violated a labor contract by colluding to set a
secret cap on player salaries in 2010, reports Jack Bouboushian,
writing for Courthouse News Service.

Relations between the National Football League and its players had
been governed for almost two decades by a Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement (SSA) that expired in 2010.

In the final year of the agreement, the 2010 season, the SSA
imposed no salary cap, and many players expected a marked increase
in player salaries.  This increase never occurred, however, and
players began to suspect that NFL team owners were colluding to
avoid bidding wars over free agents.

The parties agreed to a new collective bargaining agreement in
July 2011, after an 18-week lockout that threatened the year's
season.  But once the new agreement was in place, NFL Commissioner
Roger Goodell and several NFL owners made public statements about
an unofficial 2010 salary cap, which players interpreted as an
acknowledgement of a secret salary cap in violation of the SSA.

Players then sought to reopen a 1993 case filed by now-deceased
defensive end Reggie White, which was one of the legal actions
that pressured the league into signing the SSA.

A federal judge in Minneapolis shot them down, but the 8th Circuit
ruled on June 20, 2014, that the players cannot treat the SSA as a
class settlement that can be revisited.

"Without the conceit that the SSA is a bargained-for result of the
White litigation, the rationale for treating it as a class
settlement begins to fall apart.  When a defendant breaches a
class settlement, he vitiates the consideration received by the
plaintiffs in exchange for the forfeiture of their legal rights,"
Judge Roger Wollman wrote for the three-judge panel.  "But when a
defendant breaches an independent contract signed with members of
the class, the legal rights of the class at issue in the lawsuit
are not implicated.  The mere fact that a class has suffered a
harm, seventeen years after they were certified for purposes of
unrelated litigation, does not mean that they may seek redress for
that harm as a class."

Rule 60(b), which allows a court to set aside a final judgment if
it was obtained by misrepresentation, may still offer the players
relief, the St. Louis-based court ruled.

"Our holding should not be read as in any way expressing a view on
the merits of the association's Rule 60(b) motion," Wollman wrote.
"'Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most exceptional of
cases,' and the association bears a heavy burden in attempting to
convince the District Court that the dismissal was fraudulently
procured.  We hold only that the association should be given the
opportunity to meet this burden."


NATIONAL PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Suit Over Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Amelio, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. National Penn Bank, Case No. 5:14-cv-04005-
EGS (E.D. Pa., June 30, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          115 Federal Plaza, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


NATIONAL RIFLE: Sued in Ohio Over Violation of Telephone Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Reo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Rifle Association of America, Case No. 1:14-
cv-01444 (N.D. Ohio, June 30, 2014) alleges violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.


NEVADA: Plaintiff in Health Insurance Class Action Dies
-------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Robison, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports
that time ran out for Linda Rolain.

The Las Vegas woman died on June 30, less than two weeks after her
family went public with details about Nevada Health Link insurance
exchange enrollment troubles that kept her from treatment in
January for an aggressive brain tumor.

Mrs. Rolain was one of about 150 Nevadans suing Nevada Health Link
contractor Xerox for enrollment mix-ups that left them without the
health insurance they paid for.

Mrs. Rolain is the first to die of complications from an illness
said to have gone untreated for lack of coverage.  But observers
close to her case say she may not be the last.

"We are worried that this is the first of many Nevadans who have
life-threatening issues that may end up in such tragic
circumstances.  We urge all Nevadans to verify that their
insurance is active and in place in light of the many problems
that hundreds, if not thousands, of Nevadans have gone through,"
Mrs. Rolain's law firm, Callister, Immerman and Associates, said
in a statement.

Local insurance broker Pat Casale, who in May began to help
Mrs. Rolain with her enrollment issues, said he wouldn't be
surprised if there were at least another 100 Nevadans facing both
coverage problems and "urgent and emergent" health care needs.

"I know a few that I have right now (are) in serious need of care
-- people who have actually paid premiums and have not received
care," Mr. Casale said.

Mrs. Rolain's husband, Robert, said the couple began trying to
sign up in November, well ahead of the Dec. 15 deadline for
January coverage.  After wrestling with repeated sign-up problems,
the Rolains bought a plan that took effect in March.  But they
said Xerox staffers miscommunicated the policy's effective date,
so they didn't know until May that they had coverage.

Linda Rolain was first diagnosed with a brain tumor in early 2014,
after a seizure in late 2013.  Robert Rolain said in a June 19
news conference at the downtown Las Vegas offices of Callister,
Immerman and Associates that his wife's care was delayed for
months because of their insurance troubles.

Robert Rolain alleges his wife's tumor went from treatable in
winter to fatal in spring as the couple fought for coverage.

Linda Rolain was admitted to hospice care in early June.

A Xerox spokesman said in a statement that the company would not
"be able to comment on this tragic development."

Mr. Casale blamed the coverage mishap on Xerox's "ineptitude" and
"inability to get paperwork and to process things through to" the
Rolains' insurer, Nevada Health CO-OP.

"This poor lady was told in January that she needed immediate
attention," Mr. Casale said.  "Her doctor said if she had begun
treatment in March, he might been able to give her quality of
care, and she might have lived longer.  She had no chance because
of the delay.

"Ms. Rolain should have had coverage in January. (The Rolains) did
everything they could to facilitate the acquisition of a health
plan," Mr. Casale added.  "She suffered and she died all because
of the negligence of a vendor who should not even be in the
industry."

The Silver State Health Insurance Exchange signed a $72 million
contract with Xerox in 2012 to build Nevada Health Link.  But
software glitches kept legions of consumers from enrolling in
plans when the health link opened on Oct. 1.  The exchange
enrolled just a third of the 118,000 sign-ups it targeted in its
first year.

The exchange's board decided in May to replace Xerox as the health
link's contractor.  The exchange will borrow federal eligibility
and enrollment functions in November while it looks for a
permanent replacement system for 2015's enrollment session.

Callister, Immerman and Associates filed its class action lawsuit
on April 1 after Las Vegan Larry Basich ran up $407,000 in
uncovered medical bills despite paying several months' worth of
premiums through Nevada Health Link.

Attorney Matthew Callister said on June 19 that he would seek
faster legal action for gravely ill patients, including
Linda Rolain.

"Some of our clients are so ill that if their needs are not
addressed now, it is a matter of life and death," Mr. Callister
said.


NEVADA YELLOW: Cab Drivers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Nevada
Supreme Court has ruled in a 4-3 decision that a district court
erred in holding that the Minimum Wage Amendment did not entirely
replace the existing statutory minimum wage scheme, which exempts
taxicab drivers from its minimum wage provisions.

Christopher Thomas and Christopher Craig brought an action in
district court against Nevada Yellow Cab Corporation; Nevada
Checker Cab Corporation; and Nevada Star Cab Corporation.  They
claimed damages for unpaid wages pursuant to Article 15, Section
16 of the Nevada Constitution, a constitutional amendment that
revised Nevada's then-statutory minimum wage scheme, formerly
known as the Minimum Wage Amendment.

Justices Michael Cherry, Kristina Pickering, James Hardesty and
Michael Douglas voted in the majority, with Cherry authoring the
opinion.

Justices Ron Parraguirre, Mark Gibbons and Nancy Saitta dissented,
with Justice Parraguirre authoring a dissenting opinion.

The district court held that the Minimum Wage Amendment did not
entirely replace the existing statutory minimum wage scheme under
NRS 608.250, which in subsection 2 excepts taxicab drivers from
its minimum wage provisions.

"We hold that the district court erred because the text of the
Minimum Wage Amendment, by clearly setting out some exceptions to
the minimum wage law and not others, supplants the exceptions
listed in NRS 608.250(2)," the June 26 opinion states.
"Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal order and
remand for further proceedings on appellants' minimum wage
claims."

Messrs. Thomas and Craig brought a class action against the
taxicab companies, arguing they and similarly situated taxicab
drivers had not been paid pursuant to constitutional minimum wage
requirements during the course of their employment.

The complaint was based on the Minimum Wage Amendment, which was
proposed by initiative petition and approved and ratified by the
voters in 2004 and 2006, and which raised the state minimum wage
to a rate higher than the minimum imposed in Nevada by the Labor
Commissioner.

The taxicab companies moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that
the Minimum Wage Amendment did not eliminate the statutory
exception for taxicab drivers under NRS 608.250(2)(e).

Following a hearing, the district court concluded that the Minimum
Wage Amendment did not repeal NRS 608.250 and that the statutory
exceptions could be harmonized with the constitutional amendment.

Accordingly, the district court ruled that NRS 608.250(2)(e)
expressly excludes taxicab drivers from Nevada's minimum wage
statutes and granted the taxicab companies' motion to dismiss the
complaint.

Messrs. Thomas and Craig then appealed to the Supreme Court of
Nevada.

"The text of the Minimum Wage Amendment, by enumerating specific
exceptions that do not include taxicab drivers, supersedes and
supplants the taxicab driver exception set out in NRS 608.250(2),"
the majority opinion states.  "We accordingly reverse the district
court's dismissal order and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion."

In his dissent, Justice Parraguirre stated that he would affirm
the district court's order dismissing Thomas' complaint because
the Amendment was only intended to increase the minimum wage
amount.

"We presume that a statute is constitutional, and a party who
challenges the constitutionality of a statute must clearly show
its invalidity," the dissenting opinion states.

"We must presume that implied repeal was not intended and the
exemptions set forth in NRS 608.250(2) are constitutional," the
dissenting opinion states.  "Because the Amendment was neither
intended nor understood to do more than raises the minimum wage
amount, I would conclude that these presumptions have not been
rebutted and would affirm the district court's order of
dismissal."

Nevada Supreme Court case number: 61681


NEW YORK TIMES: Accused of Selling Subscription Lists to Scammers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times, Dow Jones and Forbes sold their subscription
lists to scammers who then overcharged customers for renewals or
new orders, and sometimes kept the money without providing
subscriptions at all, a class action claims in New York Federal
Court, according to Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff I. Stephen Rabin sued the media companies on
June 23, 2014, on behalf of people "who have been induced to
subscribe, or renew subscriptions, to The New York Times, Barron's
The Wall Street Journal, or Forbes Magazine (collectively the
'Publications') by Circulation Billing Services and various
related entities (collectively, 'CBS' or the 'entities') which
obtained defendants' subscription lists, and other information
concerning plaintiff and the class members without their consent
or knowledge."

The complaint continues: "The entities sent official looking
'Notices of Renewal' or 'Notices of New Order' to subscribers of
the Publications, collected the fees far in excess of the
subscription price, and then, upon information and belief, paid
the subscription price to the publisher of the Publications and
kept the excess for themselves, or kept the entire subscription
amount for themselves and did not provide the subscription paid
for.  Defendants were aware of the entities falsely purporting to
act on their behalf, but were satisfied that the entities were
maintaining their subscription base at no cost to them, to that,
with one exception, they failed to notify their subscribers of the
scam."

The one exception is Barron's, which notified its subscribers of
the scam on Nov. 11, 2013, "years after the scam had been well
known to Barron's," the complaint states.

Rabin claims that the defendants "have profited from selling their
subscription list and other information, and continue to sell
their subscription lists and other information to the same sources
that perpetrated or caused the scam to occur without notifying
their subscribers.  Defendants have knowingly permitted the names
of their publications to be used by fraudsters to scam their
subscribers so they could profit from maintaining their subscriber
lists inexpensively and profit from the sale of their subscription
lists and other information."

Rabin seeks class certification and damages for fraud and deceit,
negligence, and business law violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond A. Bragar, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212)486-0462
          E-mail: bragar@bespc.com

The case is I. Stephen Rabin v. The New York Times Company, Case
No. 1:14-cv-04498, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Efraim Schwartz and Blimie Schwartz, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated consumers v. NorthStar Location
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04089 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are not represented by any law firm.


NU-WAY TRANSPORTATION: "Loshbough" Suit Moved to C.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Loshbough v. NU-WAY
Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01912, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Illinois (Peoria).  The Illinois Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01262-MMM-JEH to the proceeding.

The case alleges job discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq.
          Matthew J. Herman, Esq.
          Peter Lawrence Currie, Esq.
          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC
          10 West State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 232-4480
          Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
          E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com
                  mjh@fmcolaw.com
                  plc@fmcolaw.com
                  rmf@fmcolaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael R. Lied, Esq.
          HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PC
          One Technology Plaza
          211 Fulton St., Suite 600
          Peoria, IL 61602-1350
          Telephone: (309) 672-1483
          Facsimile: (309) 672-1568
          E-mail: mrl@h2law.com

               - and -

          Emily Elizabeth Bennett, Esq.
          HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          200 S. Michigan Ave., #1100
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 456-3422
          E-mail: ebennett@howardandhoward.com


QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Meeting Scheduled to Discuss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allyson Horn, writing for ABC News, reports that a public meeting
was set to be held on July 2 on Palm Island, in north Queensland,
to discuss a class action launched against the State of Queensland
and the Commissioner of Police.

The death of resident Cameron Doomadgee in a police cell in 2004
sparked riots on the island and the police station and courthouse
were burnt down.  Three residents, Lex, Agnes and Cecilia Wotton,
have now launched a class action in the Federal Court, alleging
the police response and investigation into the death were
deficient.

The Wottons allege police discriminated against them on the basis
of their race, including allowing officers with a conflict of
interest to take part in the investigation into the death.

Lawyer Stewart Levitt says the meeting will give Palm Islanders a
chance to voice their thoughts on the court action.

"All the people of Palm Island who were residents there in
November 2004, who were 93 per cent Indigenous, are defined as
being members of a group," Mr. Levitt said.

"It's effectively an opportunity for them to find out about the
case, to find out what the case can give to them and to choose
whether they want to be a part of it or not.

"We're essentially alleging that the police failed to discharge
not only their constitutional responsibilities but their statutory
responsibilities in failing to protect the people of Palm Island
as equal citizens."


RADIOSHACK CORP: State Court Sustains Demurrer in "Brookler"
------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court again sustained Radioshack
Corporation's demurrer without leave to amend in a labor suit
filed by Morry Brookler, according to the company's June 10, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

In April 2004, plaintiff Morry Brookler filed a putative class
action in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming that the company
violated California's wage and hour laws relating to meal and rest
periods. The meal period claim was originally certified as a class
action in February 2006. The company filed a Motion for
Decertification in August 2007 which was denied. After a favorable
decision by the California Court of Appeals in a similar case,
Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, the company
filed a Second Motion for Decertification which was granted in
October 2008. The plaintiff appealed this ruling and in August
2010, the California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
decertification order. In September 2010, the company filed a
Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, which
granted review and placed the case on hold pending a decision in
the Brinker case. In April 2012, the California Supreme Court
issued its decision in Brinker and in June 2012, remanded the
company's case to the California Court of Appeals with
instructions to vacate its prior order and reconsider its ruling
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Brinker. In December
2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
decertification of the meal period class. In June 2013, the
plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint to assert rest and
meal period as well as off-the-clock and Private Attorneys General
Act claims and to add an additional class representative. In July
2013 the trial court granted the Motion to Amend and the
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. In August 2013 the
company removed the case to federal court. In September 2013 the
plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case back to state court,
which was granted in October 2013. In November 2013 the company
filed a demurrer in state court to all causes of action in the
Second Amended Complaint, which was granted without leave to amend
in January 2014.

On February 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandate with the Court of Appeals seeking immediate relief from
the trial court's order. On February 11, 2014, the Court of
Appeals notified the trial court and parties of its intent to
issue a peremptory Writ of Mandate compelling the trial court to
vacate its order granting the demurrer and issue a new order
denying the demurrer. On February 21, 2014, the trial court
reversed its prior decision and denied the company's demurrer. On
February 26, 2014, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial
court had not followed proper procedure and ordered it to vacate
its February 21 order to allow the company an opportunity to
oppose the Appellate Court's notice. In April 2014, after further
briefing by the parties, the trial court again sustained the
company's demurrer without leave to amend. It is expected that
plaintiffs will appeal the trial court's order.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Orders Additional Proof in "Ordonez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an order requiring Radioshack Corp. to produce additional
evidence in a suit alleging it violated California's wage and hour
laws, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2014.

In May 2010, the company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that
the company violated California's wage and hour laws by not
providing required meal periods and rest breaks, failed to pay for
all time worked, failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to
pay minimum wage and failed to maintain required records. In
September 2010, the company removed the case to the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  In July 2012,
plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. In January 2013,
the court denied, without prejudice, the Motion for Class
Certification as to all claims. In February 2013, plaintiff filed
a Motion for Reconsideration of the court's denial of class
certification only with regard to the rest period claim. In April
2013, the court ordered that plaintiff could conduct limited
additional discovery and file a renewed Motion for Class
Certification. Plaintiff filed the renewed motion in July 2013. A
hearing on the motion was held in February 2014, at which time the
court issued a tentative ruling granting plaintiff's motion as to
the rest period claim. However, following oral argument, the court
issued an order requiring the parties to submit supplemental
evidence and briefs.  In March 2014, the court issued another
order requiring the company to produce additional evidence by June
9, 2014.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Order on Motion for Judgment in FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion by Radioshack Corp. for Judgment on Pleadings in a
lawsuit filed against it over alleged Fair Labor Standards Act
violation has been fully briefed and Radioshack is now awaiting a
decision, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2014.

In April 2012, the company was named as a defendant in a putative
nationwide collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and putative statewide class actions under New York and Ohio state
laws in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, claiming that the company's use of the "fluctuating
workweek" method to calculate overtime for certain of the
company's retail store managers violates federal and state laws
because the store managers receive bonuses in addition to their
fixed salaries. In June 2012, the company filed a Motion to
Dismiss the lawsuit. In March 2013, the court issued an opinion
granting the company's motion in part, finding that plaintiffs
were not entitled to seek overtime based upon the company's use of
the "fluctuating workweek" method prior to April 5, 2011, the date
of a U.S. Department of Labor Final Rule ("Final Rule")
addressing, among other things, proposed changes to the federal
"fluctuating workweek" regulation finding that, based upon
statements in the Final Rule, bonus payments were now incompatible
with the "fluctuating workweek" method. The court also dismissed
one of the named plaintiffs. Following the court's decision, the
company filed a Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal
and Stay the Action, which the court granted in August 2013.

Shortly thereafter the company filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which
was granted. In April 2013, plaintiffs in Pennsylvania, New York
and New Jersey filed similar lawsuits alleging violations of their
respective state laws.  In June 2013, the company filed Motions to
Dismiss in the New York and New Jersey cases.  In November 2013,
the court in the New York case granted the company's Motion to
Dismiss. In December 2013, the plaintiff in the New York case
filed a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
In April 2014, the plaintiff in the New Jersey case voluntarily
dismissed the case and filed an opt in notice in the Ohio case.
The opening briefs in the New York and Ohio appeals were filed in
March and April of 2014, respectively. In September 2013, the
court in the Pennsylvania case ordered the parties to file briefs
addressing whether the company's use of the "fluctuating workweek"
method violates Pennsylvania law. The plaintiff filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment and the company filed a Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings. These motions have been fully briefed and the
company is awaiting a decision by the court.


SAMSUNG: Settles DRAM Price-Fixing Class Action for $310-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung, Toshiba and 10 other manufacturers of Dynamic Random
Access Memory (DRAM) have reached a combined $310.72 million class
action lawsuit settlement over claims they conspired to fix the
price of DRAM data storage chips found in computers and other
digital devices.

If you purchased a digital device from January 1, 1998 to
December 31, 2002, you may be eligible to claim at least $10 or
more from the DRAM class action settlement.  No proof of purchase
necessary.  The more devices purchased, the more money you can
claim.  Eligible products include:

Computers (laptops and desktops)
Servers
Graphics cards
Video game consoles
MP3 players
Printers
PDA's
DVD players
Digital Video Recorders
Point of Sale Systems
Other digital devices

The deadline to file a claim is August 1, 2014.  More information
about how to file a claim for the DRAM class action settlement can
be found at tpcl.as/DRAMinfo.

Case Summary

The DRAM price-fixing settlement resolves multiple class action
lawsuits accusing manufacturers of conspiring to fix and raise the
prices of DRAM, a form of fast and inexpensive data storage
essential to the operation of computers and other digital devices.
Plaintiffs accused Toshiba, Samsung, Hitachi, NEC and multiple
defendants of entering into price-fixing agreements that resulted
in consumers and businesses overpaying for devices containing DRAM
from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2002.

The defendants deny the allegations but agreed to pay a combined
$310,720,000 to resolve the litigation.  It's estimated that $200
million will be paid to consumers who file a valid claim by the
August 1, 2014 deadline.

The case is In re: DRAM Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1486, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Potential Award

Consumers and entities that purchased a digital device containing
DRAM from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2002 can file a
claim to receive at least $10 or more from the DRAM class action
settlement.  The more devices purchased the more money you can
claim.  No proof of purchase is necessary, but you may be asked to
supply documentation if the Claims Administrator requests it.

Deadline

The deadline to file a claim is 8/1/2014.

File a Claim

Claim filing instructions can be found at tpcl.as/DRAMinfo


SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE: Removed "Aycock" Class Suit to Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Aycock, et al. v. Scottsdale
Healthcare Corporation, et al., Case No. CV2014-006892, was
removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01483-DLR to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry Lance Entrekin, Esq.
          ENTREKIN LAW FIRM
          1 E Camelback Rd., Suite 710
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 954-1123
          Facsimile: (480) 615-9869
          E-mail: lance@entrekinlaw.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey Mark Trachtenberg, Esq.
          LEVENBAUM TRACHTENBERG PLC
          362 N 3rd Ave.
          Phoenix, AZ 85003-1504
          Telephone: (602) 271-0183
          Facsimile: (602) 271-4018
          E-mail: gt@ltinjurylaw.com

Defendants Scottsdale Healthcare Corporation and John C. Lincoln
Health Network are represented by:

          Alicyn Marie Freeman, Esq.
          James R. Broening, Esq.
          Jathan Paul McLaughlin, Esq.
          Robert Thomas Aquinas Sullivan, Esq.
          BROENING OBERG WOODS & WILSON PC
          PO Box 20527
          Phoenix, AZ 85036
          Telephone: (602) 271-7700
          Facsimile: (602) 258-7785
          E-mail: amf@bowwlaw.com
                  jrb@bowwlaw.com
                  jpm@bowwlaw.com
                  rts@bowwlaw.com

Defendant Dignity Health is represented by:

          Cameron Charles Artigue, Esq.
          GAMMAGE & BURNHAM PLLC
          2 N Central Ave., 18th Floor
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 256-4418
          E-mail: cartigue@gblaw.com


SPRINGFIELD, MA: Faces Class Action Over Public Day Programs
------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Robbins, writing for MassLive.com, reports that a parent
of a student with mental health needs has filed a federal class
against suit against the city of Springfield and the city's school
system, claiming the student is being "warehoused in a segregated
Springfield school without educational opportunities or
therapeutic supports."

The suit was filed on June 27 in U.S. District Court by a parent
of a 15-year-old student at the Public Day School and the
Parent/Professional Advocacy League (PPAL), a statewide grassroots
family organization that advocates for improved access to services
for children with mental health needs and their families.

The suit alleges that the Public Day School, which operates an
elementary, middle and high school in three city locations,
focuses "on behavior control using drastic methods including
dangerous physical restraints, forced isolation in padded rooms
and repeated arrests and suspensions for minor offenses."

The suit said, that in 2013-2014, there were 233 students at the
Public Day School, where the drop-out rate exceeds 41 percent.

Superintendent of Public Schools Daniel J. Warwick called the
complaint "outrageous."

"These are meritless allegations that are jam-packed with
falsehoods," he said.  "I cannot wait for the opportunities to not
only defend our public day programming but also to highlight the
significant gains which have been realized by the students
enrolled in these programs."

Mr. Warwick said that the goal of the public day programs is to
provide alternative pathways for students with disabilities to be
successful within the public school setting.  He pointed to recent
public day school gains in graduation and attendance rates and
academic achievement.  He also said that the district's public day
programs, which are fully approved by the Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education, have been lauded by school districts
throughout the state as a model of excellence.

Mr. Warwick said the allegations serve as a tremendous disservice
to students with disabilities and their families as it aims to
reduce the quality and intensity of the services available to
students with disabilities, in turn limiting their pathways to
success.

"We will not let this or other similar actions by outsiders
distract us from providing quality education and services to all
of the children of the citizens of Springfield," he said.

Robert Fleischner, an attorney with the Center for Public
Representation, a public interest law firm in Northampton,
representing the plaintiffs, said the case claims that students at
the school are being segregated in violation of the Americans With
Disabilities Act which requires public systems provide services in
integrated settings.  The nature of the segregation further denies
them equal educational opportunity, Mr. Fleischner.

Also representing the plaintiffs are The Judge David H. Bazelon
Center for Mental Health, in Washington-DC., and Bingham
McCutchen, a Boston law firm.

Students typically assigned to the Public Day Schools have been
diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactive disorder and other
behavior disorders, Mr. Fleischner said.

Ira Burnim, Judge Bazelon's legal director, said in a press
release, said "these students can be educated successfully in
Springfield's neighborhood schools with reasonable modification of
school programs and appropriate school-based behavioral services."


STELLAR RECOVERY: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Guevarra Martinez and Denise Ortiz, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Stellar Recovery
Incorporated, Case No. 2:14-cv-01489-NVW (D. Ariz., July 1, 2014)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 265-3332
          Facsimile: (602) 230-4482
          E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com


SUNRISE PROPANE: Settles Class Action Over Deadly Blast for C$23MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a proposed settlement in the class-action
lawsuit related to a deadly explosion at a Toronto Sunrise Propane
plant will see the company pay C$23 million to claimants, with a
reserve fund of $8 million for affected residents.

The explosion and fire occurred on Aug. 10, 2008, killing Sunrise
employee Parminder Saini.  Firefighter Bob Leek suffered a fatal
heart attack while battling the massive fire that followed.

"This is a good settlement. Like all settlements, it's a
compromise and this is a reasonable compromise," said
Harvin Pitch -- hpitch@teplitskycolson.com -- a lawyer with
Teplitsky Colson, a firm involved in the suit.  "It was a hard-
fought contest and we fought all the way till we had a settlement
in place."

Aside from claimants, insurance, administrative and legal expenses
would be paid through the settlement.

The blast at the fuel depot at 62 Murray Rd., in the Keele Street
and Wilson Avenue area, created a massive fireball that could be
seen across the city and forced about 12,000 people from their
Downsview neighborhood homes.

The class-action lawsuit stipulated the area affected was bordered
by Keele Street, Highway 401, Sheppard Avenue and Dufferin Street.

The initial blast and subsequent explosions at the propane fuel
site could be heard seven kilometers away.  Homes, businesses and
schools in the surrounding area were damaged.

There are 6,500 members in the class-action suit.  Under the
proposed deal, some of the money will be used to settle individual
claims.  Some of the financial awards in the suit include:

   * Each resident who was displaced from their home will receive
C$200 for the first day outside their home and C$50 per day
thereafter.

   * People injured in the blast and fire will get anywhere from
C$500 to C$50,000, depending on the severity of the injury.

   * All insurance deductibles will be paid for claimants, and
uninsured property damage can be claimed as well.

   * Members of the class action can claim for lost employment or
business during the period after the blast.

The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care will also be
partially compensated for health-care services provided as a
result of the blast.

The settlement deal still has to be approved by the judge in the
case.

There will be town hall meetings to explain the settlement on
July 15, 16 and 29, at 7:00 p.m., at Northwood Community Centre
(15 Clubhouse Court).

Sunrise Propane and directors Shay Ben-Moshe and Valery Belahov
were found guilty of nine provincial offences in relation to the
explosion.


SUPERIOR ENERGY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation in Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori A. Smith v. Superior Energy Resources, LLC, Varischetti
Holdings, LP, Varischetti & Sons, Inc. and Peter Varischetti, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00854-CB (W.D. Pa., June 30, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act's antiretaliation
provision by discriminating and retaliating against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants at their locations in
Pennsylvania.  On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an opt-in class
or "collective" action under the FLSA, the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
in the District Court.  The Class Action is Lori A. Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Superior Energy Resources, LLC, Varischetti Holdings, LP,
Varischetti & Sons, Inc., Peter Varischetti, and Does #1 through
#10, Case No. 2:13-cv-00640-CB.

Superior is a Pennsylvania limited liability company, servicing
several key industries to support Marcellus shale development in
Pennsylvania and parts of New York, Ohio, West Virginia and
Maryland.  Holdings is a Delaware limited partnership and the
parent company of Superior.  Sons is a Pennsylvania corporation
and is the general partner of Holdings.  Peter Varischetti is a
Principal of Superior.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2041 Herr Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624
          Telephone: (717) 238-5707
          Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
          E-mail: dcummings@mwcfirm.com


SUTTER HEALTH: Court Dismissed 3rd Amended "Sidibe" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Sutter Health's motion to dismiss
with prejudice the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint in the
class action lawsuit captioned Sidibe, et al. v. Sutter Health, et
al., Case No. C 12-04854 LB.

In the putative class action, Plaintiffs Djeneba Sidibe, Diane
Dewey, and Jerry Jankowski sued Sutter Health, a company that owns
and operates hospitals and other health care service providers,
alleging that Sutter's anticompetitive conduct in the health care
services industry in Northern California violates federal and
state antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law.  The
alleged anticompetitive conduct is Sutter's imposing tying
arrangements that require health plans to include in their
provider network, and pay supra-competitive rates for, all
Inpatient Hospital Services that Sutter supplies in five tied
hospital service area markets (the San Francisco, Oakland,
Sacramento, Modesto, and Santa Rosa HSAs).


TREASURY WINE: Maurice Blackburn Files Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Evans, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
legal firm Maurice Blackburn lodged documents in the Federal Court
on July 2 to begin a class-action lawsuit against Treasury Wine
Estates.  The legal action is on behalf of more than 600
shareholders over what the firm claims was a late disclosure of
heavy writedowns relating to its United States business in 2013.

The lawsuit is being funded by Bentham IMF.

Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan filed the class
action in the Federal Court in Sydney.  The documents don't
specify the size of the claim, although it is expected to run into
the "tens of millions".

Treasury Wine said in a note to the Australian Securities Exchange
that it "strongly denies any and all allegations against it and
will vigorously defend the legal proceeding".

The claim alleges that Treasury, which owns brands including
Penfolds, Rosemount, Lindemans and Wynns, misled the market and
breached its continuous disclosure obligations in relation to the
financial impact of over-stocked third-party distributors in the
United States.  It is the second class-action lawsuit that has
flowed from Treasury's surprise AUD160 million write-down and
profit warning in July, 2013 which also included a now infamous
destruction of up to AUD35 million worth of low-priced bottled
wine that had to be crushed by steamrollers.

Ms. Gilsenan said the action was being brought on behalf of
Treasury shareholders "who lost millions of dollars when the
company revealed the full extent of the problem in July last
year".  She said the documents didn't specify a figure for the
size of the claim but "we expect and anticipate it would be in the
tens of millions".

Ms. Gilsenan said the case would present evidence that Treasury
knew, or should have known by August 17, 2012, that large
writedowns were inevitable and that the market should have been
alerted far earlier than it was.

"It wasn't informed until July, 2013, so shareholders unfairly
paid an inflated price for the stock in the meantime," she said.

A separate class action against Treasury has been pursued by
Melbourne lawyer Mark Elliott in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The class-action proceedings are an unwelcome distraction for
Treasury, which received a buyout proposal from United States
private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Robert.  The bid, which was
made public in May, values it at AUD3.1 billion.

Treasury said in its announcement to the ASX that the Federal
Court documents lodged by Maurice Blackburn name the applicant as
Brian Jones, who bought 1000 shares in Treasury on September 21,
2012 at an average price of AUD4.76 per share.  Mr. Jones brings
the claim on his own behalf and on behalf of other people who have
entered into the litigation funding agreement with Bentham IMF.
The claim alleges contraventions of continuous disclosure
obligations and alleges misleading and deceptive conduct.


ULTA SALON: Still Faces Labor Litigation in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. continues to face an
employment lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, according to the company's June
10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and certain unnamed defendants in state
court in Los Angeles County, California. On April 12, 2012, the
Company removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. On August 8, 2013, the
plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class and the
Company opposed the plaintiff's request and is waiting for the
court to issue a decision. The plaintiff and members of the
proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt
hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated various
provisions of the California labor laws and failed to provide
plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal
periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation
and premium pay. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties
as a result of these alleged practices.


UNITED SERVICES: Removed "Dye" Insurance Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Dye v. United Services Automobile
Association, Case No. 14-12547 CA 40, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-22429-DPG to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
          Tamra Carsten Givens, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          Complex Litigation Group
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  tgivens@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Francis Augustine Zacherl, III, Esq.
          Arturo Carlos Martinez, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          Miami Center, Suite 1500
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347-7305
          Facsimile: (305) 347-7705
          E-mail: fzacherl@shutts.com
                  arturomartinez@Shutts.com


UNITED STATES: N.Y. Court Certifies Class Action v. Census Bureau
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On the eve of the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the Civil
Right Act of 1964, a class action lawsuit alleging the U.S. Census
Bureau unlawfully screened out approximately 250,000 African-
Americans from temporary jobs for the 2010 census was certified by
a New York federal court, Outten & Golden LLP and co-counsel said
on July 2.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas' 61-page opinion rendered on
July 1 ensures that the unprecedented lawsuit, pursued under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, will go forward as a class
action on behalf of African-American job applicants who were
denied Census Bureau employment because of its criminal background
check policy.

Filed in April 2010, the lawsuit alleges that in hiring nearly a
million temporary workers, most of whom went door to door seeking
information from residents, the Census Bureau erected
unreasonable, largely insurmountable, hurdles for applicants with
arrest records -- regardless of whether the arrests were decades
old, for minor charges, or led to criminal convictions.

The court designated plaintiffs from Philadelphia, Detroit, and
Stamford, Conn. as class representatives.  The legal team for the
plaintiffs, which were appointed as class counsel, includes
lawyers from Outten and Golden, and the Center for Constitutional
Rights; Community Legal Services of Philadelphia; Community
Service Society, of New York; Indian Law Resource Center, of
Helena, Mont.; LatinoJustice PRLDEF of New York; Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights, of Washington, D.C.; and Public Citizen
Litigation Group, of Washington, D.C.

Government records show that more than 70 million people in the
U.S. have been arrested, but at least 35 percent of all arrests
nationwide never lead to prosecutions or convictions.  National
statistics also confirm that African-Americans and Latinos suffer
a disproportionately high percentage of arrests as compared to
Whites.

Most of the job applicants covered by the class action received a
form letter from the government, advising them to provide official
court records of all arrests within 30 days.  The lawsuit alleges
that the "30-day" letter's ambiguity and failure to provide basic
information such as the arrests for which documentation was
requested created confusion and set up applicants for non-
compliance and rejection.

In July 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission
advised the Census Bureau that its criminal background screening
process could violate federal law.

Adam Klein, of Outten & Golden LLP, said, "We look forward to a
trial of this case.  The evidence will show the Census Bureau
excluded many people who, on a fair review of their records, met
federal standards for having no relevant criminal history.  It's
ironic that while the Bureau promoted its desire in 2010 to better
reach communities at risk of being undercounted -- particularly
low-income people of color -- by hiring within those communities,
it then discriminated against members of those very communities."

The court also ruled that the class action cannot at this time
include Latinos who were screened out as Census Bureau job
applicants and included in the original complaint.  If the
plaintiffs are able to identify a suitable Latino class
representative, the court said, they may seek to amend the lawsuit
and the class certification order.

More information about the case is available at
www.censusdiscriminationlawsuit.com

The case is "Evelyn Houser, et al., v. Penny Pritzker, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Commerce," No. 1:10-cv-03105-FM, in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York.


                             *********

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  * * *