---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 136

                             Headlines


3001 CASTOR: Exotic Dancers' FLSA Collective Action Can Proceed
ALAMEDA INDUSTRIES: Refused to Pay OT, "Flores" Action Claims
AMERICAN HOME: Arbitrator's Report on Goldstein Claim Upheld
ATLAS ROOFING: Falsely Represent Shingles, "Seaberg" Suit Claims
AXA EQUITABLE: Removed "Zweiman" Suit to S.D.N.Y. Court

BAYVIEW ASSET: Faces "Kocjancic" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BEACHBODY LLC: Sued Over Misleading Product Marketing
CAPITAL DENTAL: Faces "Kim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CAREMARK PHC: Faces "Woods" Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

DALE'S WHEELS: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DENTAL RESOURCE: Faces "Neuer" Suit in Kansas for Violating TCPA
EDEN ISLES: Accused of Violating Americans With Disabilities Act
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Accused of Conspiracy to Fix Propane Price
FOREST LABS: Judge Remands 15 Birth Defects Suits to State Court

FRANKSTON HEALTHCARE: Faces "Zandt" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GC SERVICES: "Ziehm" Suit Moved From C.D. to S.D. California
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiff Lawyers Push for Punitive Damages
GENERAL NUTRITION: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Supplements
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Removed "Aviles" Class Suit to S.D. Florida

HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces Product Liability Claims in Alaska
INOVA HEALTH: Virginia Suit Alleges Unlawful Sex Discrimination
ISLANDS RESTAURANTS: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Affirmed
JASMINE ASIAN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Lessors, Royalty Owners Sue Subsidiaries

LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: "Anand" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: "Grodko" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
LOWE'S HOME: Accused of Illegal Discrimination and Termination
M & H 4 INC: "Richarson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
M & M MEAT: Recalls Bacon Wrapped Chicken Due to Bone Fragments

MACY'S INC: Removed "Tapia" Suit to C.D. California Court
MARCHE BALKAN: Recalls Various Wafers Due to Undeclared Peanut
MARKIT LTD: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Credit Default Swaps
MEWBOURNE OIL: Removed "Knowles" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Fellig" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA

NASHVILLE LIMO: Faces "Potts" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NBTY INC: Misrepresent Amount of Whey Protein, Suit Claims
NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Shareholder Suit Over Prospect Deal Stayed
NORMANDINS: Sued over Breach of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
NORTHERN NATURAL: Recalls Beef Products Due to Unsuitable Ing.

NRG ENERGY: Bankruptcy Court Lifts Stay in Environmental Lawsuit
OCEAN SPRAY: Removed "Center" Suit to Arkansas District Court
ORGANIC TRADITIONS: Recalls Sprouted Chia & Flax Seed Powder
PACIFIC HOME: Faces "Flowers" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
PARAMOUNT: Recalls Trident Ultraviolet Sanitation Systems

PEEKSKILL SCHOOL DISTRICT: "Jackson" Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
PINNACLE SECURITY: Sued for Unlawfully Getting Consumer Reports
PJ'ZZZZ: Recalls Children's Bathrobes Due to Flame Hazard
PORTER-CABLE: Recalls Various Fixed Base Production Routers
PRIMARY FINANCIAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Belfiore" Suit Goes to E.D.N.Y. Dist. Court
ROCKY ROC: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee
ROSAN GEM: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RUBIE'S COSTUME: Recalls "Michael Myers" Halloween Costume
RUBIE'S COSTUME: Recalls "Darth Vader" Gauntlet-Children's Gloves

SAFEWAY INC: Reaches MoU to Settle Suit Over Albertson's Merger
SESAMECO: Recalls Al Koura Tahina Extra Due to Salmonella
SHIRE LLC: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of LWD's Anti-Monopoly Suit
T-BROTHERS: Recalls Crackers Due to Undeclared Egg, Milk and Soy
TELEXFREE LLC: Class Seeks to Withdraw Reference to Dist. Court

TEVA PHARMA: 6th Cir. Affirms Product Liability Suit Dismissal
THIRSTY TURTLE: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Court Rules on Disclosure Rift in False Ad Suit
UKRAINIAN CO-OP: Recalls Wieners Due to Unsuitable Ingredients
VIJA DESIGN: Recalls Chimparoo Versatile Cardi-Wraps

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Removed "Wilson" Suit to C.D. California
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: "Wilson" Suit Removed to C.D. California
WILLIAMS-SOUTHERN COMPANY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WOLF STEEL: Recalls Napoleon GD3200 Propane Gas Fireplaces
XTREME COUTURE: Falsely Advertised Joint Flex Product, Suit Says

* Democrat Mary Burke Vows to Repeal Wisconsin Asbestos Law


                            *********


3001 CASTOR: Exotic Dancers' FLSA Collective Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
exotic dancers who worked at a Philadelphia strip club that
substantially controlled the work environment and took cuts of
tips and lap dance proceeds are employees and can bring an FLSA
collective action, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled in Verma v. 3001 Castor that The Penthouse Club
improperly classified its strippers as independent contractors
instead of employees.  The ruling is a win for a proposed class of
strippers who claim they are entitled to minimum wage, overtime
compensation and all the gratuities they earned.

Judge Brody granted lead plaintiff Priya Verma conditional class
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but denied her
request for class certification of state law claims under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.  Judge Brody ruled the class-action
requirement of predominance could not be proven at this early
stage of the case given each potential class member could have
varying damages.  But Judge Brody allowed for Ms. Verma to refile
a motion for class certification after the evidentiary record has
been developed.

Judge Brody's analysis of whether the strippers were employees or
independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA claims came down
largely on the control the club exerted over the dancers' work.
According to Judge Brody's opinion, the dancers at The Penthouse
don't earn any wages, receiving all of their compensation from the
club's customers.  And during certain shifts, some of the dancers
are required to pay the club a stage rental fee to work the shift.
The club's cut of the dancers' performances range from $10 of
every $30, four-minute private dance to $200 of every $500,
one-hour private dance, Judge Brody said.  The club sets the price
and duration of all private dances and the dancers are not allowed
to charge above that price, the judge said.

The dancers also have to give a portion of their tips to various
club staff, including the DJ, "house mom," "podium host," and
possibly the valet.  The dancers face fines for being late or
leaving early from a shift, using their cellphone, chewing gum,
entering or exiting the stage from anywhere other than the stairs
or failing to wear their hair down.  There is a salon on site and
dancers are instructed on their physical appearance, Judge Brody
said.

In order to avoid additional shift fees, dancers have to work at
least four shifts a week to avoid being considered freelancers.
While the dancers can leave the club at any time and work for
another club, they are under "continuous review" by club
management when working at The Penthouse, Judge Brody said.

The club argued that dancers set their own schedules and that if
dancers "hustle," they can make up to $1,600 a shift, according to
the opinion.

"Here, the dancers' control over their schedules is minimal
compared to all of the elements of the work that defendant
controlled," Judge Brody said.  "Based on the foregoing facts, the
factor of control weighs overwhelmingly in favor of a finding that
the dancers were employees, not independent contractors."

Control of the work was one of six factors Judge Brody analyzed in
going through the FLSA's economic realities test to determine
whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor.  All
but one of the factors weighed in favor of the dancers being
employees.

In looking at the dancers' opportunity for profit or loss
depending on managerial skill, Judge Brody found the club
substantially controlled the strippers' ability to make money
despite the club's argument that the strippers set their own
schedules.

Ms. Verma argued the club sets its hours, admission fees, which
stages will be open and what music will be played, sets the time
and price for private dances and controls the club's advertising
and food and alcohol expenditures.

In citing other courts, Judge Brody said the "hustling" argument
that the strippers can work harder and make more money has been
rejected by all courts to consider it.

"Dancers at the defendants' club risk the loss of the cost of
their costume, the stage rental fee, and the mandatory tip-outs in
exchange for the opportunity to earn several hundred dollars in a
six-hour shift," Judge Brody said.  "This is not the kind of
capital investment and risk-reward profile typical of someone in
business for herself.  Dancers cannot leverage their investment in
reoccurring stage fees and tip-outs to create an increasing return
on their investment."

Finding that the club invests much more in its operations than the
dancers invest in their costumes, shoes and hair, Judge Brody said
the third factor of the relative investments of the employer and
alleged employees weighed in favor of the dancers.

As to whether the services the dancers render require a special
skill, Brody found none of the skills evaluated in the club's
audition process rise to the level of a special skill.  The club
evaluates potential dancers based on whether she is a "fluid"
dancer, and on her appearance, social skills and hygiene. Brody
said other courts have found strippers don't exhibit a skill of
people in business for themselves.

Judge Brody further found for the dancers in that they are an
"integral" part of the club's business.

Judge Brody found that the lack of permanence in the working
relationship between the club and the dancer weighed in favor of
the club.  But in light of the fact that the five other factors
weighed in favor of the dancers, Judge Brody found they were
employees.  Judge Brody conditionally certified the FLSA
collective action for the recovery of unpaid wages and liquidated
damages.

Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch in
Pittsburgh is the lead plaintiffs attorney.  John F. Innelli of
Philadelphia is representing the defendants.


ALAMEDA INDUSTRIES: Refused to Pay OT, "Flores" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Granados Flores, Ignacia Garcia, Griselda Mora, Pablo
Rodriguez, Divina Saguilan, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Alameda County Industries, Inc.,
and DOES 1- 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-03011 (N.D. Cal., July
1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failing and
refusing to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers overtime
wages based on the proper regular rate of pay.

Alameda County Industries, Inc. is a California Corporation with
headquarters in San Leandro, California which provides refuse
collection and processing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Carl Monrad, Esq.
      Xochitl Alicia Lopez, Esq.
      Aaron D. Kaufmann, Esq.
      LEONARD CARDER LLP
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1401
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 272-0169
      Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
      E-mail: pmonrad@leonardcarder.com
              xlopez@leonardcarder.com
              akaufmann@leonardcarder.com


AMERICAN HOME: Arbitrator's Report on Goldstein Claim Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Harvey Bartle, III, issued a memorandum in IN RE:
DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, NOS. 99-20593, 2:15 MD 1203, (E.D. Penn.).
The ruling relates to: SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, particularly to claimant Lidya N. Goldstein
holding Claim No. 183/00 8009457.

A copy of the June 18, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/dRCWLufrom Leagle.com.

Ms. Goldstein, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, Inc., seeks benefits from
the AHP Settlement Trust. Under the Settlement Agreement, Matrix
Compensation Benefits are awarded to compensate claimants for
medical conditions caused by Pondimin(R) or ReduxTM (Diet Drugs).
In March 2012, the claimant submitted a Green Form seeking Matrix
Benefits. The attesting physician, Dr. Andres Tamayo, represented
in Part II of the Green Form that Ms. Goldstein had ingested the
Diet Drugs Pondimin (Fenfluramine) and Redux (Dexfenfluramine) for
at least 61 days. He further stated that Ms. Goldstein suffered
from severe aortic regurgitation, an ejection fraction of 50-60%,
and New York Heart Association Functional Class II Symptoms. Based
on Dr. Tamayo's conclusion that Ms. Goldstein had severe aortic
regurgitation, The Trust determined that the Green Form stated a
Matrix A, Severity Level I claim.

On March 22, 2012, the Trust issued a tentative denial and advised
Ms. Goldstein that the Seventh Amendment to the Settlement
Agreement barred her form pursuing the Severity Level I claim
asserted on the Green Form. There is no dispute that Ms. Goldstein
did not opt-out of the Seventh Amendment.  Ms. Goldstein contested
the denial and submitted a second Green Form, which she calls in
her papers an "Amended Green Form," as well as previously provided
medical records.

On May 14, 2012, the Trust issued a Final Determination denying
Ms. Goldstein's claim on the ground that she had not stated a
claim under the terms of the Settlement Agreement as amended by
the Seventh Amendment.  Ms. Goldstein appealed the Trust's
determination on May 25, 2012, and the matter was referred to
arbitration pursuant to Section VI.C.4(h) and (i) of the
Settlement Agreement. Both parties agreed to waive an arbitration
hearing. The arbitrator issued a Report and Award dated July 5,
2013, concluding that Ms. Goldstein "is not currently entitled to
Matrix Level Benefits because the conditions that are required for
recovery of Matrix Level III, IV or V Benefits, as described in
the Settlement Agreement and modified by the Seventh Amendment,
are not present in this claim."  The Claimant appealed to the
court as permitted under the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Bartle concluded that the Arbitrator's determination was not
clearly erroneous as to her findings of fact, and she did not err
as to her conclusions of law. The Report and Award of the
Arbitrator is, thus, affirmed.

IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A.
CHIRLS -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS
PC, ARNOLD LEVIN -- ALevin@LFSBLaw.com -- LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN &
BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOHN
FITZPATRICK -- jfitzpatrick@hdp.com -- HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC,
JULES S. HENSHELL -- jhenshell@sogtlaw.com -- SEMANOFF ORMSKY
GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK --
patryk@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED, ROBERT A.
LIMBACHER -- rlimbacher@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, DeVries, Leech &
Dann LLP, ROBERT N. SPINELLI -- rspinelli@kjmsh.com -- KELLEY
JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER --
mayer@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED & RAND NOLEN,
FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP.

GREGORY P. MILLER, Special Master, represented by GREGORY P.
MILLER -- Gregory.Miller@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.


ATLAS ROOFING: Falsely Represent Shingles, "Seaberg" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Seaberg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Atlas Roofing Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-22436
(S.D. Fla., July 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
false representations of Atlas Stratford Shingles.

Atlas Roofing Corporation, is a construction industry that design
and manufacture of roofing products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Esq.
      PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
      3301 Bonita Beach Road
      Bonita Springs, FL 34134
      Telephone: (239) 390-1000
      Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
      E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com


AXA EQUITABLE: Removed "Zweiman" Suit to S.D.N.Y. Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Zweiman v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 59638/2014 E, was removed from the
Supreme Court of the state of New York, County of Westchester, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05012 to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the breach-of-contract class action is
brought due to AXA's failure to comply with material terms in the
variable deferred annuity policies held by the Plaintiff and all
other members of the putative class.

Plaintiff Jessica Zweiman is the executrix of the estate of Anne
Zweiman, who purchased a variable deferred annuity issued by AXA
in October 2008.  Ms. Zweiman alleges that AXA breached express
provisions of the contract by failing to comply with New York
State law when it implemented a hedging strategy it describes as
the AXA Tactical Manager Strategy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          Thomas M. Skelton, Esq.
          David Harrison, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          While Plains, NY 10601-23010
          Telephone: (914) 733-7227
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
                  tskelton@lowey.com
                  dharrison@lowey.com

               - and -

          Joel C. Feffer, Esq.
          Samuel K. Rosen, Esq.
          James G. Flynn, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
          E-mail: jcfeffer@hfesq.com
                  srosen@hfesq.com
                  jflynn@hfesq.com

               - and -

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  pvallely@shulaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          Kurt Wm. Hemr, Esq.
          Tansy Woan, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          E-mail: Jay.Kasner@skadden.com
                  Kurt.Hemr@skadden.com
                  Tansy.Woan@skadden.com


BAYVIEW ASSET: Faces "Kocjancic" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karissa Kocjancic, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Bayview Asset Management, LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-04037 (E.D. Pa., July 1, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in the amount
of one and 1.5 times their regular rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40  hours in a workweek.

Bayview Asset Management, LLC, is a full service mortgage
investment firm that is headquartered at 4425 Ponce de Leon Blvd.
5th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33146.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      Kalikhman & Rayz LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


BEACHBODY LLC: Sued Over Misleading Product Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------
Pamela Crawford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Beachbody, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01583 (S.D. Cal.,
July 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for false and
deceptively misleading marketing of its Derm Exclusive product
line, including Fill & Freeze.

Beachbody, LLC, is a California-based company primarily engaged in
the sale of DVD fitness videos.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. Fitzgerald , IV, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      The Palm Canyon Building
      2870 Fourth Avenue, Suite 205
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-3840
      Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
      E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


CAPITAL DENTAL: Faces "Kim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joon Young Chul Kim, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated known and unknown v. Capital Dental Technology
Laboratory, Inc. D/B/A LSK 121 and Luke S. Kahng, Case No. 1:14-
cv-05014 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay the overtime wages is willful and
intentional.

Capital Dental Technology Laboratory, Inc., is at all relevant
times hereto engaged in the business of Dental Laboratory.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      INSEED LAW PC
      2454 E. Dempster St., Suite 301
      Des Plaines, IL 60016
      Telephone: (847) 905-6262
      E-mail: ryan@inseedlaw.com


CAREMARK PHC: Faces "Woods" Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Woods, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Caremark PHC, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS Caremark Corporation,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00583 (W.D. Mo., July 1, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation and
keep accurate time records.

Caremark PHC, L.L.C., is the largest pharmacy health care provider
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Hodgson, Esq.
      THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      6 NW Main St.
      Lee's Summit, MO 64063
      Telephone: (913) 890-3529
      E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

           - and -

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


COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Strauch and Timothy Colby, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated v. Computer Sciences Corporation, Case
No. 3:14-cv-00956 (D. Conn., July 1, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages as provided by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Computer Sciences Corporation provides computer services
throughout the United States and the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN
      3 Park Ave., 29th Fl.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
      E-mail: mlitrownik@outtengolden.com


DALE'S WHEELS: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Santiago, individually and on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees v. Dale Sanders and Dale's Wheels and
Tires Direct, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-61505 (S.D. Fla., July 1,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dale Sanders, sole owner of Defendant Dale's Wheels and Tires
Direct, Inc.

Dale's Wheels and Tires Direct, Inc., is a Florida corporation
with a principal place of business located at 250 W. Sunrise
Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Buratti, Esq.
      Jason Richard Buratti
      1800 South Ocean Drive, Unite 3710
      Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
      Telephone: (954) 683-1072
      Facsimile: (954) 828-9122
      E-mail: jburatti@cwiplaw.com


DENTAL RESOURCE: Faces "Neuer" Suit in Kansas for Violating TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Neuer d/b/a Prairie Pointe Orthodontics, P.A., on behalf of
itself and all those similarly situated v. Dental Resource
Systems, Inc., John C. Harris, Mark W. Montgomery and Richard Amy,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02319-CM-KMH (D. Kan., July 3, 2014) alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah K. Wood, Esq.
          Aristotle N. Rodopoulos, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Main, Suite #1800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 256-3582
          Facsimile: (816) 337-4243
          E-mail: noah@woodlaw.com
                  ari@woodlaw.com


EDEN ISLES: Accused of Violating Americans With Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Schwartz, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Eden Isles Condominiums, Inc., a
Florida non Profit corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-22454-CMA (S.D.
Fla., July 2, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
          SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
          565 NE 69th Street
          Miami, FL 33138
          Telephone: (786) 431-1333
          Facsimile: (786) 431-1311
          E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Accused of Conspiracy to Fix Propane Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Moore's Texaco, L.L.C., a limited liability company, also
doing business as Moore's Texaco, individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P., a limited partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited
partnership, also doing business as Blue Rhino; Amerigas Partners,
L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as
Amerigas Cylinder Exchange; and UGI Corporation, a corporation,
Case No. 2:14-cv-04168 (W.D. Mo., July 1, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants conspired to fix the price of propane sold in
exchangeable portable steel tanks commonly referred to as propane
exchange tanks.

Ferrellgas Partners and Amerigas Partners, L.P., sell propane,
stored in propane exchange tanks, directly to retailers across the
United States, including grocery stores, convenience stores, and
gas stations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, PC
      1100 Main St, Ste 2500, P. O. Box 26188
      Kansas City, MO 64196
      Telephone: (816) 421-6620
      Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
      E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

         - and -

     Tim J. Riemann, Esq.
     BERKOWITZ, OLIVER, WILLIAMS, SHAW & EISENBRANDT, LLP
     2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Telephone: (816) 627-0232
     Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
     E-mail: triemann@berkowitzoliver.com


FOREST LABS: Judge Remands 15 Birth Defects Suits to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Camden, N.J., has remanded to state court
15 suits over birth defects in children born to mothers who took
Forest Laboratories' antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler rejected the defendants'
assertion that federal jurisdiction is proper because the cases
require the court to address questions about the Food and Drug
Administration's labeling of the drugs.  Judge Kugler also
rejected the defendants' claims that defendant Forest Research
Institute of Jersey City was fraudulently joined as a defendant.

The suits are part of a group of 20 that were filed in state
courts in New Jersey and removed to federal court by the
defendants.  The suits claim women who used the drug gave birth to
infants with problems ranging from heart defects to club feet.
Some of the infants died as a result of the abnormalities.
Besides Forest Research Institute, the suits name as defendants
two related entities, Forest Laboratories, based in New York, and
St. Louis-based Forest Pharmaceuticals.

The plaintiffs claim the company knew that its drugs increased the
risk of birth defects when used by pregnant women but did not warn
users, and promoted use of the drugs in women of child-bearing
years. The suits seek compensatory and punitive damages for
failure to warn and defective design under the New Jersey Product
Liability Act, as well as breach of contract and fraudulent
concealment.

The cases were consolidated under the caption In re: Forest
Research Institute Cases, 13-cv-1832.

Judge Kugler sent the cases back to the venues where they were
filed -- nine in Atlantic County and six in Hudson County.  The
ruling leaves five of the Forest cases still pending before
Judge Kugler -- four are part of a discovery dispute and in the
other, the court is awaiting additional information about the
plaintiffs' residency.

In his rejection of the defendants' argument for federal question
jurisdiction, Judge Kugler said the failure to warn and punitive
damages claims do not support a finding that the plaintiffs right
to relief under state law requires resolution of substantial
questions of federal law.

Judge Kugler also cited Sullivan v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 575 F.
Supp 2d 640, a 2008 case from the District of New Jersey.  In that
case, the court held that a punitive damages claim for failure to
warn does not require the court to address whether the New Jersey
Products Liability Act incorporates federal law by requiring a
showing of fraud on the FDA.

The judge said the defendants improperly removed some of the cases
on diversity grounds before New Jersey-based Forest Research
Institute was served.  Citing Williams v. Daiichi Sankyo,
14-cv-863, another District of New Jersey case from April of this
year, Judge Kugler said that doing so "violates the intention of
the forum defendant rule by permitting gamesmanship."

The defendants said in court papers that about 182 suits have been
filed nationwide against Forest Laboratories and its affiliates
over birth defects in the children of users.  Most of those,
roughly 154, were filed in state court in Cole County, Missouri,
although none of that group included Forest Research Institute as
a defendant.  A small group of plaintiffs filed suits in St.
Louis, but when those cases were transferred to Cole County, they
were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and re-filed in New
Jersey, with Forest Research Institute as a defendant, the
plaintiffs said.

The defendants claimed Forest Research Institute, which
coordinates regulatory and research activities for parent company
Forest Laboratories, was fraudulently joined.  Forest Laboratories
holds the rights to make Celexa and Lexapro and Forest
Pharmaceuticals conducts marketing.  But Judge Kugler found there
is "a genuine controversy as to whether FRI can be held liable
under state law governing products liability" and that it was not
fraudulently joined.

Seeger Weiss of New York filed 13 of the New Jersey birth defects
cases, and another six were filed by Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik,
also of New York, while one was filed by Laura Feldman of Feldman
& Pinto in Philadelphia.

Plaintiffs counsel did not return calls for comment; nor did
defense lawyers from Ulmer & Berne in Cleveland and McCarter &
English in Newark.

Celexa and Lexapro are also the subjects of a separate group of
six cases that were consolidated in Boston by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, which claims the company improperly
marketed the drug for use by minors.


FRANKSTON HEALTHCARE: Faces "Zandt" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Van Zandt v. Frankston Healthcare Center, LP, Case No.
2:14-cv-00732 (E.D. Tex., July 1, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant failure to pay employees overtime wages.

Frankston Healthcare Center, LP, is a nursing home located at 303
Murchison St., Frankston, TX, 75763.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S Hommel, Jr, Esq.
      WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR. PC
      1404 Rice Road, Ste 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 596-7100
      Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
      E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


GC SERVICES: "Ziehm" Suit Moved From C.D. to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Christopher Ziehm v. GC
Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:14-cv-03872, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.  The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-01599-AJB-DHB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN 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

               - and -

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS
          601 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: todd.friedman@kirkland.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew Edward Schouten, Esq.
          John H L'Estrange, Jr., Esq.
          WRIGHT AND L'ESTRANGE
          401 West A Street, Suite 2250
          San Diego, CA 92101-7928
          Telephone: (619) 231-4844
          Facsimile: (619) 231-6710
          E-mail: aschouten@wllawsd.com
                  jlestrange@wllawsd.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiff Lawyers Push for Punitive Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs lawyers are pushing for punitive damages and
inclusion of a broader scope of accidents in a planned
compensation fund for victims of General Motors Co.'s ignition-
switch defects.

During a June 18 congressional hearing over GM's recalls, chief
executive officer Mary Barra promised there would be no overall
limit on payouts and that people who suffered injuries or the loss
of loved ones predating its 2009 bankruptcy could be eligible.
She said GM would begin processing claims on Aug. 1.

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

But she deferred specifics to the fund's administrator, claims
attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who was expected to announce the
details as early as June 30.  He has been meeting with plaintiffs
lawyers to gather their views.  Some of those lawyers, speaking on
condition of anonymity, said they were pleased with some details,
such as the possibility of including cases in which the driver was
at fault, even if he or she was intoxicated.  But they're pushing
for additional concessions.

"We know the direction he is leading us into, and we're not sure
we like all of it," said Jere Beasley, founding shareholder of
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Ala.
Feinberg and GM spokesman Greg Martin declined to comment.

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

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

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

And unlike the Sept. 11 fund, the corporate wrongdoer is
bankrolling this fund to compensate for injuries and deaths, said
Julie Goldscheid, professor at the City University of New York
School of Law.  "A lot of these questions were answered by
Congress, so it took some of the discretion out of his hands for
better or worse," she said of the Sept. 11 fund, which taxpayers
paid for.  "He's in a different place now."

                         MORE THAN AIRBAGS

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

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

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

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

Also unclear is whether victims would abandon all legal claims by
participating in the fund -- although Ms. Barra told Congress that
the program would be "in lieu of going to court."

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


GENERAL NUTRITION: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a Maryland federal judge has dismissed a consolidated
class action alleging that General Nutrition Corp. and Rite Aid
Corp. made or sold dietary supplements falsely advertising that
they help joint health.

The judge gave leave for the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.

The complaint does not allege that reasonable experts in the field
would conclude, on the basis of existing scientific evidence, that
the main active ingredients would be ineffective in consumers who
do not suffer from arthritis, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick
Motz said.

The plaintiffs allege that the active ingredients in GNC's TriFlex
joint supplement line do not actually promote joint mobility and
flexibility, and that the active ingredients in a similar line of
products made by GNC and sold by Rite Aid do not help aging
joints.  The primary active ingredients in the products are
glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate.

"The mere existence of a 'battle of the experts' on the issue of
glucosamine and chondroitin's effect on nonarthritic consumers is
not sufficient to establish that defendants' advertisements
violate the state consumer protections statutes in this case,"
Judge Motz said.

According to the plaintiffs, 12 studies released during the past
decade show that glucosamine and chondroitin "perform not better
than a placebo in treating the symptoms of osteoarthritis of the
knee, hip, or lower back," the judge said.

But if there are experts who support what the defendants say in
their advertising, then the advertising is not false or
misleading, an unfair trade practice or otherwise a violation of
laws protecting consumers, Judge Motz said.

The various class actions allege violations of laws in California,
Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania
intended to protect consumers, bar deceptive practices and
guarantee express warranties.

Judge Motz suggested in a footnote that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit might want to consider certifying as a
question to the relevant state supreme courts whether the
plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently states claims under their
respective consumer protection statutes.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Removed "Aviles" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Aviles, et al. v.
Government Employees Insurance Company, Case No. 14-CA-012541, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-22464-KMM to the proceeding.

The case arises from insurance-related disputes.

The Plaintiffs are 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
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 1500 Miami Center
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347-7305
          Facsimile: (305) 347-7705
          E-mail: fzacherl@shutts.com
                  arturomartinez@Shutts.com


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Faces Product Liability Claims in Alaska
-------------------------------------------------------------
Public Employees Local 71 Trust Fund, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
d/b/a Stryker Orthopaedics, Case No. 3:14-cv-00131-TMB (D. Alaska,
July 3, 2014) alleges claims for personal injury and product
liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eva Rivka Gardner, Esq.
          Thomas V. Wang, Jr., Esq.
          ASHBURN & MASON, P.C.
          1227 West 9th Avenue, Suite 200
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 276-4331
          Facsimile: (907) 277-8235
          E-mail: erg@anchorlaw.com
                  tvw@anchorlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5622
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
                  kstephens@tousley.com


INOVA HEALTH: Virginia Suit Alleges Unlawful Sex Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celeste Morton v. Inova Health System Services, Inc. d/b/a Inova
Health System, Case No. 1:14-cv-00841-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va., July 2,
2014) alleges unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and unlawful discrimination based on her
age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Celeste Morton is an adult female resident of the Commonwealth of
Virginia and was born in 1943.  For almost 40 years, from November
1969 until May 12, 2009, the Plaintiff was employed by Inova.

Inova is a Virginia not-for-profit corporation headquartered in
Falls Church, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary A. Kit, Esq.
          Justin Gilbert, Esq.
          K&G LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3554 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 400
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 649-5500
          Facsimile: (703) 649-6363
          E-mail: zkitts@kglawpllc.com
                  jgilbert@kglawpllc.com


ISLANDS RESTAURANTS: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In KATHRYN JACOBY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ISLANDS
RESTAURANTS, L.P., Defendant and Appellant, NO. B250886,
Islands Restaurants, appealed from a June 28, 2013 order denying
its motion to compel arbitration against Kathryn Jacoby. The
Defendant was originally sued by Jonathan Chambless who withdrew
from the case for personal reasons. The trial court denied the
motion to compel arbitration, finding defendant waived its right
to arbitrate.

"Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's waiver
determination finding, we affirm the denial of defendant's motion
to compel arbitration," ruled the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Five. "We need not discuss whether the
2011 arbitration agreement was an impermissible class
communication and thus unenforceable."

Plaintiff, Kathryn Jacoby, shall recover her costs on appeal from
defendant, Islands Restaurants, L.P., the Appeals Court held.

A copy of the Calif. Appeals Court's June 20, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/MXrQqAfrom Leagle.com.

Stuart Kane LLP, Bruce D. May -- bmay@stuartkane.com -- and Eve A.
Brackmann -- ebrackmann@stuartkane.com -- for Defendant and
Appellant.

Capstone Law APC, Melissa Grant --
Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Glenn A. Danas --
Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Liana Carter --
Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent.


JASMINE ASIAN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cruz Guarchaj Xum and Diego Suy Suy, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Jasmine Asian Cuisine, and
Long K. Phan, Individually, Case No. 4:14-cv-01838 (S.D. Tex.,
July 1, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and any and all other
damages allowed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jasmine Asian Cuisine, is a restaurant located at 9938 Bellaire
Boulevard, Suite D, Houston, Texas 77036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alfonso Kennard Jr., Esq.
      KENNARD LAW PC
      5433 Westheimer Road, Suite 825,
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 742-0900
      Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
      E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Lessors, Royalty Owners Sue Subsidiaries
-----------------------------------------------------------
Layne Christensen Company subsidiaries are facing a suit filed on
behalf of lessors and royalty owners in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas, according to the company's June 16,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

On April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class
action suit against three of Layne's subsidiaries and two other
companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners
from 2004 to the present. The plantiff essentially alleges that
Layne and two other companies allocated the market for mineral
leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the
state of Kansas. The plantiff's suit was initially filed in the
District Court of Wilson County, Kansas. On July 3, 2013, the case
was removed by a co-defendant to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas. The case is still in the early stages of the
proceedings, but Layne believes it has meritorious legal position
and will continue to represent and defend Layne's interests
vigorously in this matter.


LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: "Anand" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ashish Anand v. Lihua
International Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-03381, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05037-UA to the proceeding.

The case arises from alleged violations of securities laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Movant Shawn Hart is represented by:

          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP (SAN DIEGO)
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com

Movant Robert B. Dreisin

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY & BINKOW GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sharon Ben-Shahar, Esq.
          BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS AND LINCENBERG
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
          E-mail: sbs@birdmarella.com

Bankruptcy Movant Philip Cafaro is represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          Symphony Tower
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com


LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: "Grodko" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Grodko v. Lihua
International Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-03503, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05034-UA to the proceeding.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who
purchased the common stock of Lihua between August 9, 2012, and
April 30, 2014, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
the Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities laws and
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Lihua International Inc. is a Delaware corporation that purports
to manufacture, market, and distribute refined copper products
through its wholly-owned subsidiaries Danyang Lihua Electron Co.,
Ltd., and Jiangsu Lihua Copper Industry Co., Ltd.  Throughout the
Class Period the Company was headquartered in Jiangsu Province of
the People's Republic of China.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  lglancy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sharon Ben-Shahar, Esq.
          BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS AND LINCENBERG
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
          E-mail: sbs@birdmarella.com


LOWE'S HOME: Accused of Illegal Discrimination and Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Marino v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-12622-
JCO-MJH (E.D. Mich., July 2, 2014) arises from Lowe's alleged
illegal discrimination and termination of the Plaintiff based on
her gender causing her to suffer damages.

Ms. Marino alleges that the Defendant made a conscious and
deliberate decision to discriminate and terminate specific groups
of employees at their store in Howell, Michigan.  She contends
that she was terminated because out of 12 Project Services
Exterior's team members, she was the only female and had "nothing
in common" with her male supervisor.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC is a North Carolina Corporation with
stores all around the country, including in Michigan.  The
Plaintiff worked at the Lowe's store in Howell, Michigan, which is
located in the Eastern District of Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William R. Moore, Esq.
          5524 Arapaho Pass
          Pinckney, MI 48169
          Telephone: (810) 623-0370
          Facsimile: (810) 355-1333
          E-mail: williammoore231@gmail.com


M & H 4 INC: "Richarson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynesha Richardson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. M & H 4, Inc. d/b/a International House of Pancakes
aka "IHOP"; Hussein Srour; and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:14-
cv-04034 (E.D. Pa., July 1, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

M & H 4, Inc., owns and operates a restaurant doing business as
the International House of Pancakes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


M & M MEAT: Recalls Bacon Wrapped Chicken Due to Bone Fragments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           M & M Meat Shops Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8952

Affected products: 568 g. M & M Meat Shops Bacon Wrapped Chicken


MACY'S INC: Removed "Tapia" Suit to C.D. California Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Humberto Tapia v. Macy's Inc., et
al., Case No. BC541740, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-05163-R-AGR to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lacey Rainwater, Esq.
          Matthew John Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: LRainwater@maternlawgroup.com
                  mmatern@maternlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Peter Schaedel, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Raizman, Esq.
          GONZALEZ SAGGIO AND HARLAN LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 930
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 440-0022
          Facsimile: (626) 628-1725
          E-mail: jack_schaedel@gshllp.com
                  rebecca_raizman@gshllp.com


MARCHE BALKAN: Recalls Various Wafers Due to Undeclared Peanut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Marche Balkan
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9000

Marche Balkan is recalling various wafers from the marketplace
because they contain peanut which is not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to peanut 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 peanut 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 warning 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.


MARKIT LTD: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Credit Default Swaps
--------------------------------------------------------------
Markit Ltd. is facing lawsuits filed in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of federal
and state antitrust laws in connection with credit default swaps,
according to the company's June 16, 2014, Form F-1 filing
(Amendment No. 3) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Since May 2013, Markit has been named as a defendant with the
Dealers and International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA)
in a number of putative class action lawsuits filed in U.S. courts
and arising out of allegations of violations of federal and state
antitrust laws in connection with credit default swaps. The named
plaintiffs in each case include pension funds, investment
management funds and other buy-side firms who conduct business
activities involving credit default swaps. All cases were filed
either in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
Illinois or the Southern District of New York. On October 16,
2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
all cases to the Southern District of New York and on December 13,
2013, the court consolidated all such cases for pre-trial
purposes.

The primary allegations by plaintiffs are that the defendants
conspired to prevent competitors from offering execution and
clearing services for exchange-traded credit default swaps and
that the defendants conspired to fix and maintain credit default
swap bid/ask spreads in the OTC market above the spreads that
would have been realized with the development of exchange trading
of credit default swaps. The substance of plaintiffs' request for
relief seeks a permanent injunction foreclosing defendants from
continuing their alleged anticompetitive actions and trebled
damages in an unspecified amount, plus interest, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit.


MEWBOURNE OIL: Removed "Knowles" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Knowles v. Mewbourne Oil Company,
Case No. CJ-2014-7, was removed from the District Court of Ellis
County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma (Oklahoma City).  The Oklahoma District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00690-F to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          GUNDERSON SHARP & WALKE LLP
          5301 W 75th St.
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0500
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale E. Cottingham, Esq.
          GABLE & GOTWALS-OKC
          211 N Robinson Ave., 15th Floor
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-5500
          Facsimile: (405) 235-2875
          E-mail: dcottingham@gablelaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Fellig" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zalman Fellig and Alisa Fellig, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04116 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 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


NASHVILLE LIMO: Faces "Potts" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Potts, Kimberly Hunt, and Merritt Chaplin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nashville Limo &
Transport, LLC and Joshua M. Lemay, Case No. 3:14-cv-01412 (M.D.
Tenn., July 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Nashville Limo & Transport, LLC, provides automotive
transportation services in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Illinois
and Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James S. Higgins, Esq.
     Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
     THE HIGGINS FIRM
     525 4th Avenue South
     Nashville, TN 37210
     Telephone: (615) 353-0930
     Facsimile: (615) 353-0963
     E-mail: jsh@higginsfirm.com
             street@higginsfirm.com


NBTY INC: Misrepresent Amount of Whey Protein, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Rodriguez, Jason Mencer, and Vincent Dougherty, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NBTY, Inc.,
United States Nutrition, Inc., and Healthwatchers, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-05086 (C.D. Cal., July 1, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants misrepresent the amount of whey protein available in
the products Body Fortress Super Advanced Whey Protein and Body
Fortress Super Advanced Whey Isolate.

NBTY, Inc., is the parent company of Defendants, United States
Nutrition, Inc. and Healthwatchers, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      1515 Market Street Suite 1380
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-2300
      Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Shareholder Suit Over Prospect Deal Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court granted motions to stay a consolidated shareholder lawsuit
against Nicholas Financial, Inc. over its terminated Arrangement
Agreement with Prospect Capital Corporation and three of its
subsidiaries, according to Nicholas' June 16, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

The cases are Jason Simpson v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 13-011726-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida),
filed December 24, 2013; Gabriella Rago v. Nicholas Financial,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-03261-VMC-TGW (U.S. District Court,
Tampa, Florida), filed December 30, 2013; Matthew John Leonard v.
Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-011811-CI (Circuit
Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed December 31, 2013;
Michelangelo Lombardo v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case
No. 14-000095-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed
January 3, 2014; Edward Opton v. Stephen Bragin, et al., Case No.
14-000139-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed
January 6, 2014; Marvin Biver v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:14-cv-00250-VMC-TGW (U.S. District Court, Tampa,
Florida), filed February 3, 2014; and Richard Abrons v. Nicholas
Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00583-VMC-TGW (U.S.
District Court, Tampa, Florida), filed March 10, 2014. These seven
substantially similar lawsuits were filed in connection with the
Arrangement contemplated in the Arrangement Agreement between the
Company, on the one hand, and Prospect Capital Corporation
("Prospect") and three Prospect subsidiaries (collectively, the
"Prospect Parties"), on the other hand. On April 30, 2014, the
Biver and the Abrons lawsuits were consolidated (hereafter, the
"Biver lawsuit").

On May 8, 2014, the Rago lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed,
without prejudice.

Each plaintiff to the five pending lawsuits purports to represent
a class of all of the Company's shareholders other than the
defendants and any person or entity related to or affiliated with
any defendant. Four of the lawsuits name as defendants the
Company, the Company's directors, and the Prospect Parties. The
fifth lawsuit names those same parties as defendants, with the
exception of two of the Prospect Parties. Each plaintiff alleges
that the consideration to be paid for the Company's Common Shares
is inadequate and that certain terms of the Arrangement Agreement
are contrary to the interests of the Company's public
shareholders. The plaintiffs in the Biver lawsuit make such
allegations only in the context of asserting claims against the
Company's directors and the Prospect Parties under Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, predicated on
alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the Registration
Statement filed by Prospect on January 13, 2014. Each plaintiff,
except for the plaintiffs in the Biver lawsuit, asserts a breach
of fiduciary duty claim against the Company's directors, and an
aiding and abetting claim against the Company and/or certain of
the Prospect Parties. Each plaintiff seeks declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, other equitable relief and/or unspecified
damages with respect to the proposed transaction. Each plaintiff,
except for the plaintiffs in the Biver lawsuit, also seeks an
award of attorneys' fees. By agreement of the parties and orders
dated May 12, 2014 and May 22, 2014, the four state Circuit Court
actions have been stayed pending resolution of the Biver lawsuit.
On May 30, 2014, the court in the Biver lawsuit denied motions
filed by the Company, the Company's directors and the Prospect
Parties to dismiss the Biver lawsuit, or to abstain from
exercising jurisdiction. However, the court granted those parties'
motions to stay the Biver lawsuit, and ordered that the Biver
lawsuit is stayed for 120 days or pending resolution of the
Arrangement approval proceedings in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, whichever occurs first.


NORMANDINS: Sued over Breach of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Brinker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Normandin's, a California corporation, d/b/a Normandin
Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram, Case No. (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Normandin's owns and operates an automobile dealership in San
Jose, California, doing business as Normandin Chrysler Jeep Dodge
Ram.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
      E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com


NORTHERN NATURAL: Recalls Beef Products Due to Unsuitable Ing.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Northern Natural Processing L.P.
Distribution:             Ontario, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Warehouse
CFIA reference number:    8983


NRG ENERGY: Bankruptcy Court Lifts Stay in Environmental Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An environmental suit against Midwest Generation is now active,
according to NRG Energy, Inc.'s June 16, 2014, Form 8-K/A filing
(EX-99.1) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In January 2012, two complaints were filed against Midwest
Generation in Illinois state court by residents living near the
Crawford and Fisk Stations on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, each asserting claims of nuisance, negligence,
trespass, and strict liability. The plaintiffs seek to have their
suits certified as a class action and request injunctive relief,
as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The complaints are
similar to two complaints previously filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which were
dismissed in October 2011 for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Midwest Generation's motions to dismiss the cases were denied in
August 2012, following which the plaintiffs filed amended
complaints alleging substantially similar claims and requesting
similar relief. Midwest Generation has filed motions to dismiss
the amended complaints, and these complaints are stayed as a
result of the Chapter 11 Cases.

In October 2012, Midwest Generation and the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency entered into Compliance Commitment Agreements
outlining specified environmental remediation measures and
groundwater monitoring activities to be undertaken at its
Powerton, Joliet, Crawford, Will County and Waukegan generating
stations. Midwest Generation has submitted certification to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency that all compliance
measures have been successfully completed. Also in October 2012,
several environmental groups filed a complaint before the Illinois
Pollution Control Board against Midwest Generation, alleging
violations of the Illinois groundwater standards through the
operation of coal ash disposal ponds at its Powerton, Joliet,
Waukegan and Will County generating stations. The complaint
requests the imposition of civil penalties, injunctive relief and
remediation. The matter was stayed as a result of the Chapter 11
Cases, although that stay was lifted in part in April 2013 so that
the proceedings could continue for the sole purpose of
adjudicating Midwest Generation's motion to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2013, the Pollution Control Board denied Midwest
Generation's motion to dismiss the complaint, and in December 2013
the Bankruptcy Court granted the environmental groups' motion to
lift the stay as to the remainder of the case.

In December 2012, the Sierra Club filed a complaint before the
Illinois Pollution Control Board against Midwest Generation,
alleging violations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions standards at
its Powerton, Joliet, Waukegan and Will County generating
stations. The complaint is based on alleged violations of the US
EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) regulations for
1-hour SO2, which have not yet been incorporated into any specific
state implementation plan in Illinois. The complaint requests the
imposition of civil penalties, injunctive relief, and the
imposition of further reductions on SO2 emissions to offset past
emissions. The complaint was stayed as a result of the Chapter 11
Cases. In November 2013, the Bankruptcy Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay.


OCEAN SPRAY: Removed "Center" Suit to Arkansas District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Center v. Ocean Spray
Cranberries, Inc., Case No. CV-14-929-7, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas, to the U. S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
(Fayetteville).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-
cv-05211-TLB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          Facsimile: (479) 845-2198
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marshall S. Ney, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, PLLC
          5414 Pinnacle Point Drive, Suite 500
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 464-5653
          Facsimile: (479) 464-5680
          E-mail: mney@mwlaw.com


ORGANIC TRADITIONS: Recalls Sprouted Chia & Flax Seed Powder
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Advantage Health Matters
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8986

The food recall warning issued on June 13, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Advantage Health Matters is recalling Organic Traditions brand
Sprouted Chia & Flax Seed Powder from the marketplace due to
possible Salmonella contamination.  Consumers should not consume
the recalled products described below.

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

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

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

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

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


PACIFIC HOME: Faces "Flowers" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Flowers, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pacific Home Remodeling, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01010
(C.D. Cal., July 2, 2014) alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. 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


PARAMOUNT: Recalls Trident Ultraviolet Sanitation Systems
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 30, 2014
Posting date:             June 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40273

Affected products: Trident Series 2 Ultraviolet Water Treatment
System (sanitation systems for pools)

The recall notice involves all Trident Series 2 (UV II)
ultraviolet sanitation systems for pools manufactured between
Sept. 9, 2013 and Jan. 24, 2014.  The sanitation systems are a
gray tube that stands 81.2 cm (32 in) high by 27.9 cm (11 in.) in
diameter.  They are plumbed into the pool's water circulation
pipes and plugged in or hard-wired into an electrical system.
"Trident UV II "or "Series 2 Trident Ultraviolet Corporation
Sanitation System" is printed on a black label on the front of the
units.  In addition, a silver sticker on the units has the
following wording "Paramount Series 2 Ultraviolet Pool Sanitizer
System", "Trident Series 2 Ultraviolet Water Treatment System" or
Trident Ultra UV Series 2 Water Treatment System" and a date code
of 09/09/2013 (mm/dd/yy) or later.  Some date codes consist of a
series of letters which correspond to an alpha numeric code.  The
code is comprised of 6 alpha characters.  Each character
represents a number between 1 and 0.

Using this key, once the letters are converted to numerals, the
date of manufacture is determined.  The first two digits are the
month, the next two digits are the day, and the last two are the
year.  Thus, for example, a date code of NOCHCA=09/12/13.  Devices
with date codes between 09/09/13 and 01/24/14 are affected.  For
more details consult Paramount's website.

Electrical arcing can cause the units to catch fire, posing a fire
hazard.

The former owner, Trident Ultraviolet Corporation, received 14
reports in Canada and additional reports in the United States of
the sanitation systems melting and or catching fire, one burn
injury to a consumer's hand and about $24,800 in property damage
reported.

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

Approximately 24 of the units were sold in Canada and another 960
in the United States.

These devices were manufactured in United States and China between
the periods of Sept. 9, 2013 to Jan. 24, 2014 and are date stamped
as per the description section above.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Paramount Leisure Industries d/b/a
                    Paramount Pool and Spa Systems
                    Chandler
                    Arizona
                    United States

Consumers should immediately unplug the units from the outlet, or
if hard wired, the power source should be disconnected or turned
off at the circuit breaker.  Contact Paramount for a free
replacement unit and free installation.  Paramount will have a
qualified technician remove the implicated unit and install the
replacement unit.

All products used to control micro-organisms (bacteria/algae) in
pool/spa waters require approval from Health Canada's Pest
Management Regulatory Agency in order to be manufactured, sold,
imported or used in Canada.  Only registered sanitizers (chlorine
and bromine) can be used in pools/spas and use must be in
ccordance with the registered product labels.


PEEKSKILL SCHOOL DISTRICT: "Jackson" Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Jackson and Eva Jackson, Individually and On Behalf of All
Persons Similarly Situated v. Peekskill City School District,
Board Of Education For The Peekskill City School District, James
Tosto, Dawn Tosto, and Superintendent James Willis, Case No. 1:14-
cv-04774 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2014), has been removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York from
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary E. Marzolla, Esq.
      FEERICK LYNCH MacCARTNEY PLLC
      96 SouthBroadway
      South Nyack, NY 10960
      Telephone: (845)353-2000

The Defendant is represented by:

      James Willis, Esq.
      RUTHERFORD & CHRISTIE, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212)599-5799


PINNACLE SECURITY: Sued for Unlawfully Getting Consumer Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Reilly, Troy Helton, Melanie Helton, Thelma Bryant, Laura
Espina and Omar Perez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pinnacle Security, LLC., Monitronics
International, Inc., Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.,
Security Networks, LLC, Vision Security, LLC, Vivint, Inc., Vivint
Solar, Inc., and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 3:14-cv-01580 (S.D.
Cal., July 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by unlawfully
obtaining consumer reports and referred potential purchasers of
Defendants' products without the knowledge or consent of those
potential purchasers.

Pinnacle Security, LLC, Monitronics International, Inc.,
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., Security Networks, LLC,
Vision Security, LLC, Vivint, Inc., Vivint Solar, Inc., delivers
alarm monitoring services for residential use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
      THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
      2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor,
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 236-9363
      Facsimile: (619) 236-9653
      E-mail: charo@tbmlawyers.com


PJ'ZZZZ: Recalls Children's Bathrobes Due to Flame Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 26, 2014
Posting date:             June 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40237

Affected products: Children's bathrobes

The recall involves PJ'zzzz polyester chenille children's
bathrobe.  The robes are made of 100% polyester and come in sizes
2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12.

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

Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources
such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than
tight-fitting sleepwear, and once ignited will burn rapidly,
potentially resulting in severe burns to large areas of the
child's body.

Neither Health Canada nor PJ'zzzz has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
bathrobes.

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

Approximately 65 of the recalled products were sold in Canada by:
PJ'zzzz Bed Bath Sleep in British Columbia, Head shoulders knees
and toes in Alberta, Cardboard Castles in Ontario and Dreamland in
Ontario.

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold from
October 2013 to June 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     PJ'zzzz
                    Surrey
                    British Columbia
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected robes and
contact PJ'zzzz for replacement.


PORTER-CABLE: Recalls Various Fixed Base Production Routers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 2, 2014
Posting date:             July 2, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Electrical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40297

Affected products: Porter-Cable 3 1/4 HP fixed-base production
routers and router bases

The recall involves Porter-Cable Speedmatic 3 1/4 HP fixed-base
production routers and router base, manufactured prior to
March 13, 2014 and bearing the a date code prior to 2014.

The recalled units have uninsulated handles on the base.  The lack
of electrically insulated grasping surfaces on the router base may
not comply with certification mark requirements, and may present a
risk of electric shock and personal injury.

Neither Health Canada nor Porter Cable has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 7,817 units were sold in Canada and approximately
101,000 units were sold in the United States at various retailers.

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and other
countries sold from 1990 through April 2014 in Canada and the
United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Stanley Black & Decker
                    Reynosa
                    Mexico

   Importer         Stanley Black & Decker Canada Corp.
                    Mississauga
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers with affected products should immediately stop using the
recalled routers and router bases, unplug the routers and contact
Porter-Cable for a free replacement router base.


PRIMARY FINANCIAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dina Kastel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Primary Financial Services, L.L.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-
04115-WFK-JMA (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Belfiore" Suit Goes to E.D.N.Y. Dist. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Belfiore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-04090
(E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2014), has been removed from the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Nassau, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lester L. Levy, Esq.
      Michele F. Raphael, Esq.
      Roy Herrera, Jr., Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: 212-759-4600
      Facsimile: 212-486-2093

The Defendant is represented by:

      Andrew D. Schau, Esq.
      COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
      620 Eighth Avenue
      New York, NY 10018-1405
      Telephone: 212-841-1000
      Facsimile: 212-841-1010
      E-mail: aschau@cov.com


ROCKY ROC: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 4, 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:           Rocky Roc Canada Trade Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9018

Affected products: 20 g. Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee with
all codes where milk is not declared on the label


ROSAN GEM: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eleno Mendez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Rosan Gem Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Casa Pepe Restaurant, and/or
any other corporate entity doing business as Casa Pepe, located at
114 Bay Ridge Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Geminiano Sanz, and
Robert Forconesi, Case No. 1:14-cv-04080 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Rosan Gem Restaurant owns and operates a restaurant known as Casa
Pepe, which is located at 114 Bay Ridge Avenue, Brooklyn, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUBIE'S COSTUME: Recalls "Michael Myers" Halloween Costume
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 4, 2014
Posting date:             July 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Chemical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40365

Affected products: "Michael Myers" Children's Halloween Costume

The recall involves the "Michael Myers" children's Halloween
costume.  This costume consists of a face mask and a jumpsuit.

The costume was sold in sizes medium and large and can be
identified by numbers listed below.

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

Neither Health Canada nor Rubie's Costume Company has received any
reports of incident or injuries related to the use of this
Halloween costume.

Approximately 250 units were sold at various retailers across
Canada.

The recalled costumes were manufactured in China and sold from
July 2013 to Oct. 31, 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Rubie's Costume Company
                    Richmond Hill
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Halloween
costume and return it to Rubie's or the retailer for a refund.


RUBIE'S COSTUME: Recalls "Darth Vader" Gauntlet-Children's Gloves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 4, 2014
Posting date:             July 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Chemical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40355

Affected products: Darth Vader Gauntlet - Children's Gloves

The recall involves the "Star Wars Darth Vader" Gauntlet which are
black faux leather children's Halloween costume gloves with a
large cuff.

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

Neither Health Canada nor Rubie's Costume Company has received any
reports of incident or injuries related to the use of this
Halloween costume.

Approximately 161 units of the recalled product were sold in
Canada at various retailers.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold from July
2013 to Oct. 31, 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer    Rubie's Costume Company
                   Richmond Hill
                   United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return it to Rubie's or the retailer for a refund.


SAFEWAY INC: Reaches MoU to Settle Suit Over Albertson's Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Memorandum of Understanding was reached to settle In Re Safeway
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. 9445-VCL, according to
the company's June 16, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 6, 2014, Safeway Inc. ("Safeway"), AB Acquisition LLC
("AB Acquisition"), Albertson's Holdings LLC ("Albertsons
Holdings"), a subsidiary of AB Acquisition, Albertson's LLC
("Albertson's LLC"), a subsidiary of Albertsons Holdings, and
Saturn Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub" and together
with AB Acquisition, Albertsons Holdings and Albertson's LLC,
"Albertsons"), a subsidiary of Albertsons Holdings, entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, which was subsequently amended on
April 7, 2014 pursuant to Amendment No. 1 ("Amendment No. 1") (as
amended, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the parties
agreed that, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth
in the Merger Agreement, AB Acquisition will acquire Safeway (the
"Merger").

Between March 13, 2014 and April 1, 2014, seven class action
lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by alleged
stockholders of Safeway against Safeway, the individual directors
of Safeway, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., and Albertsons,
which have been consolidated by order of the Court as In Re
Safeway Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. 9445-VCL (the
"Delaware Action").

On June 13, 2014, Safeway entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") to settle the
Delaware Action.

The Memorandum of Understanding provides for, among other things,
(i) an amendment to the Merger Agreement to adjust certain
provisions of (A) the PDC Contingent Value Rights Agreement to be
entered into at the closing of the Merger, by and among AB
Acquisition, Safeway, a shareholder representative and a rights
agent (the "PDC CVR Agreement") and (B) the Casa Ley Contingent
Value Rights Agreement to be entered into at the closing of the
Merger, by and among AB Acquisition, Safeway, a shareholder
representative and a rights agent (the "Casa Ley CVR Agreement"),
(ii) an agreement by Safeway to accelerate the "Final Expiration
Date" of the Rights Agreement, dated September 17, 2013 (the
"Rights Agreement"), by and between Safeway and Computershare
Trust Company, N.A., as Rights Agent (the "Rights Agent"), and
(iii) certain changes to the proxy statement filed in connection
with the Merger, which such changes shall be captured in the
definitive proxy statement that Safeway intends to file with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC").

While Safeway has entered into the Memorandum of Understanding,
the settlement will be subject to the approval of the Delaware
Chancery Court. Safeway and the Board of Directors of Safeway
believe the claims are entirely without merit, and, in the event
the settlement does not resolve them, intend to vigorously defend
these actions.

               Amendment to Merger Agreement

In connection with the Memorandum of Understanding, on June 13,
2014, Safeway, AB Acquisition, Albertsons Holdings, Albertson's
LLC and Merger Sub entered into an Amendment No. 2 (the "Merger
Agreement Amendment") to the Merger Agreement to (i) change the
terms of the PDC CVR Agreement such that, among other things, the
holders of the contingent value rights thereunder would, instead
of not receiving any value for any assets of the PDC Entities (as
defined in the PDC CVR Agreement) that remain unsold at the end of
the Sale Deadline (as defined in the PDC CVR Agreement), be
entitled to the fair market value of the unsold assets of the PDC
Entities, after the payment of certain fees, expenses and debt
repayments, and net of certain assumed taxes (as more fully set
forth in Merger Agreement Amendment) and (ii) change the terms of
the Casa Ley CVR Agreement to, among other things, (A) shorten the
Sale Deadline (as defined in the Casa Ley CVR Agreement) from four
years to three years and (B) provide that in the event that any
equity interests of Casa Ley, S.A. de C.V., a Mexico-based food
and general merchandise retailer ("Casa Ley"), owned by Safeway
remain unsold as of the Sale Deadline, the fair market value
determination to be made either mutually by Safeway and the
shareholder representative or by an independent investment banking
firm shall exclude any minority, liquidity or similar discount
regarding such equity interests relative to the value of Casa Ley
in its entirety.

Other than as expressly modified pursuant to the Merger Agreement
Amendment, the Merger Agreement, which was filed as Exhibit 2.1 to
the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC by Safeway on
March 10, 2014, and the Amendment No. 1, which was filed as
Exhibit 2.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC
by Safeway on April 8, 2014, each remain in full force and effect
as originally executed on March 6, 2014 and on April 7, 2014,
respectively.


SESAMECO: Recalls Al Koura Tahina Extra Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sesameco
Distribution:             Alberta, Manitoba
Extent of the product
distribution:             Consumer
CFIA reference number:    8987

The food recall warning issued on June 18, 2014 has been updated
to include an additional product.  The additional product was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

Sesameco is recalling Al Koura brand Tahina Extra from the
marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.  Consumers
should not consume the recalled product described below.

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 company.  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.


SHIRE LLC: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of LWD's Anti-Monopoly Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY, INC., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, VALUE DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. SHIRE LLC, SHIRE U.S., INC., Defendants-Appellees, which is
under In re ADDERALL XR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, DOCKET NO. 13-1232,
the plaintiffs are wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical products
including Adderall XR, a widely prescribed drug manufactured by
the defendants.  They brought this putative class action alleging
that the defendants violated the anti-monopolization provision of
the Sherman Act by breaching defendants' contracts to supply two
of their competitors -- who in turn supply the plaintiffs -- with
an unbranded version of the defendants' patented drug for resale
under the competitors' own labels. Although the contracts were
executed in connection with settlements of patent litigation, the
plaintiffs disclaim any reliance on that fact. They argue instead
that the contracts themselves gave rise to a "duty to deal" under
antitrust law.

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit disagreed and,
therefore, affirmed the judgment of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entered by Judge
Victor Marrero, dismissing the complaint.

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

A copy of the Second Circuit's June 19, 2014 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/u7Ff0Hfrom Leagle.com.

JOSEPH OPPER -- jopper@garwingerstein.com -- (Bruce E. Gerstein --
bgerstein@garwingerstein.com -- Elena K. Chan --
echan@garwingerstein.com -- Kimberly Hennings --
khennings@garwingerstein.com -- on the brief), Garwin Gerstein &
Fisher LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

MICHAEL F. BROCKMEYER -- mbrockmeyer@flhlaw.com -- Frommer
Lawrence & Haug LLP, Washington, DC (Edgar H. Haug --
ehaug@flhlaw.com -- John F. Collins -- jcollins@flhlaw.com --
Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for
Defendants-Appellees.


T-BROTHERS: Recalls Crackers Due to Undeclared Egg, Milk and Soy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk,
                          Allergen - Soy
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           T-Brothers Food And Trading Ltd., Seoul
                          Trading Corporation(BC)
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly
                          National, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8999

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.

Industry is recalling crackers from the marketplace because they
contain egg, milk, and soy which are not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to egg, milk, or soy 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, milk, or soy, 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 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: 54 g. Korepab - Seaweed with all products where
egg, milk, and soy are not declared on the label


TELEXFREE LLC: Class Seeks to Withdraw Reference to Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Anthony Cellucci, Jamilly Lake and Gerivaldo Pacheco,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated ask to
withdraw the reference of their adversary proceeding/class action
against TelexFree from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiffs contend that judicial efficiency favors withdrawal
of the reference because the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court lacks
the authority to finally adjudicate the case, so any proceedings
in the Bankruptcy Court will necessarily require additional
proceedings in the District Court.

                     TelexFree's Bankruptcy

TelexFree Inc., TelexFree LLC and TelexFree Financial Inc. filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Nevada, Case No. BK-S-14-12524-ABL, on
April 14, 2014.  On May 6, 2014, the Nevada Bankruptcy Court
transferred the bankruptcy action to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy
Court.

                          Class Action

On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiffs commenced the class action lawsuit
for violations of state and federal securities laws.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that TelexFree's offer
and sale of investment contracts constituted a pyramid-type Ponzi
scheme.  They add that to carry out their unlawful enterprise,
TelexFree and their officers and employees sold fraudulent
unregistered securities to the Plaintiffs and proposed class
members.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Martin B. Dropkin, Esq.
          DROPKIN AND LEAVITT, P.A.
          424 Broadway
          Somerville, MA 02145
          Telephone: (617) 623-4600
          E-mail: mdropkin@dropkinleavitt.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
          BONSIGNORE, LLC
          193 Plummer Hill Road
          Belmont, NH 03220
          Telephone: (781) 856-7650
          E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us

               - and -

          Ronald A. Dardeno, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANK N. DARDENO LLP
          424 Broadway
          Somerville, MA 02145
          Telephone: (617) 666-2601
          Facsimile: (617) 666-2794
          E-mail: rdardeno@dardeno.com

Appellees Gerald P. Nehra and Richard W. Waak are represented by:

          William J. Hanlon, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300
          Boston, MA 02210-2028
          Telephone: (617) 946-4995
          Facsimile: (617) 946-4801
          E-mail: whanlon@seyfarth.com

Appellee TD Bank is represented by:

          Nellie E. Hestin, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3627
          E-mail: nhestin@reedsmith.com

Appellees Citizens Financial Group, Inc. and Citizens Bank of
Massachusetts are represented by:

          Jason C. Weida, Esq.
          JONES DAY (BOS)
          100 High Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 960-3939
          E-mail: jweida@jonesday.com

Appellee Carlos N. Wanzeler is represented by:

          William D. Dalsen, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02210-2600
          Telephone: (617) 526-9698
          Facsimile: (617) 526-9899
          E-mail: wdalsen@proskauer.com

Appellee Fidelity Cooperative Bank is represented by:

          Ian D. Roffman, Esq.
          Joseph T. Toomey, Esq.
          NUTTER, MCCLENNEN & FISH, LLP
          155 Seaport Boulevard
          Boston, MA 02210-2604
          Telephone: (617) 439-2421
          Facsimile: (617) 310-9421
          E-mail: iroffman@nutter.com
                  jtoomey@nutter.com

Appellee Middlesex Savings Bank is represented by:

          Danielle Andrews Long, Esq.
          Lawrence P. Heffernan, Esq.
          ROBINSON & COLE, LLP
          One Boston Place, Floor 25
          Boston, MA 02108-4404
          Telephone: (617) 557-5934
          Facsimile: (617) 557-5999
          E-mail: dlong@rc.com
                  lheffernan@rc.com

Appellees Global Payroll Gateway, Inc. and Base Commerce LLC is
represented by:

          Monica P. Snyder, Esq.
          Thomas S. Vangel, Esq.
          MURTHA CULLINA LLP
          99 High Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 457-4000
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3868
          E-mail: msnyder@murthalaw.com
                  tvangel@murthalaw.com

The Plaintiffs' petition is captioned In re: Telexfree, LLC, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-40093, in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Worcester).  The bankruptcy
case is In re: Telexfree, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-BK-40987, in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Massachusetts.


TEVA PHARMA: 6th Cir. Affirms Product Liability Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that an
appeals court on June 27 brought a quick end to claims that dozens
of drug companies ignored the risks of a painkiller pulled from
the market in 2010.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of 99 percent of the product liability cases brought by
patients who took generic versions of propoxyphene, commonly known
under the brand names Darvon and Darvocet.  The court held that
Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other companies that sold generic
propoxyphene can't be held liable because the claims against them
are preempted by federal law.  The panel also dismissed Eli Lilly
and Co. and other branded drug companies from the case, reasoning
that they can't be targeted over generic drugs that they didn't
produce.

Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis, who represents Teva, handled
the Sixth Circuit appeal for the generic defendants.  Eli Lilly
counsel Hank Bullock -- hbullock@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown
argued for the brand-name defendants.  Louis Bograd of the Center
for Constitutional Litigation made the case for the plaintiffs.

First approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1957,
propoxyphene is an opioid used to treat to moderate pain.  Eli
Lilly originally sold the drug, but another defendant, Xanodyne
Pharmaceuticals Inc., acquired the rights to it in 2005.  Several
generic drug companies also sold the painkiller once its patent
protection ended. The FDA pulled the drug from the market in 2010,
finding its benefits were outweighed by cardiac risks.

In the wake of the FDA announcement, plaintiffs lawyers filed
nearly 100 separate lawsuits on behalf of individuals allegedly
harmed by using generic propoxyphene.  The plaintiffs alleged
various tort causes of action, including failure to warn and
breach of warranty.  The suits were consolidated into
multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves
in Lexington, Ky.

Timing wasn't on the side of the plaintiffs. In 2011, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in Pliva v. Mensing that state-law failure to
warn claims are preempted by the federal drug misbranding statute,
the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act.  In a follow-up case two years
later, Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett, the high court ruled
that state-law design defect claims are also preempted by the FCA.
Kirkland's Lefkowitz delivered the winning Supreme Court arguments
in both Mensing and Bartlett.

Citing Mensing, Judge Reeves dismissed all 91 lawsuits involving
generic propoxyphene during the pleading stage -- a huge win for
the defendants.  And the judge tossed claims that Eli Lilly and
Xanodyne are liable because they designed the drug (so-called
innovator liablity), ruling that it doesn't make sense to hold
brand-name drug companies liable for harm caused by generic
versions of their drug that they didn't produce.

The Sixth Circuit overwhelming agreed with Judge Reeves in the
June 27 opinion.  It held that while the plaintiffs pleaded
various tort claims in the cases, at bottom they were alleging a
design defect, which is exactly the kind of claim Mensing and
Bartlett preempt.

Turning to innovator liability, the court held that it's been
rejected in the overwhelming majority of states.  The panel did
revive one case, however, ruling that a single plaintiff
adequately pleaded that Eli Lilly, rather than a generic company,
may have sold the propoxyphene taken by her deceased husband.


THIRSTY TURTLE: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wade Allen v. The Thirsty Turtle 1, d/b/a The Thirsty
Turtle Sports Grill, and Ernesto Herrera, Case No. 3:14-cv-01415
(M.D. Tenn., July 2, 2014) alleges that the Defendants have
engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly employees and former employees
minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall W. Burton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL W. BURTON
          144 Second Avenue, North, Suite 212
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 620-5838
          Facsimile: (615) 620-5837
          E-mail: rburtonlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Morgan E. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MORGAN SMITH
          144 Second Avenue, North, Suite 201
          Nashville, Tennessee 37201
          Telephone: (615) 620-5848
          Facsimile: (615) 244-9231
          E-mail: morgan@lawonyourschedule.com


TOSHIBA AMERICA: Court Rules on Disclosure Rift in False Ad Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
STACEY PIERCE-NUNES, Plaintiff(s), v. TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, NO. C 14-0796 JST (LB), (N.D. Cal.), is
a putative class action case by a New York plaintiff on behalf of
a New York class alleging false advertising in violation of New
York state law by Defendant Toshiba America Information Systems,
Inc., about its "LED TVs," which were marketed as superior to LCD
TVs. The parties stipulated to an extension of time for Toshiba to
answer the complaint, and Toshiba filed a motion to transfer the
action either to the Central District of California, where Toshiba
is headquartered, or to the Southern District of New York, which
has a nexus to the class, the Plaintiff, and the sale that gave
rise to the lawsuit. The parties agreed to engage in discovery
that is relevant to the motion to transfer and to file a letter
brief if they could not work things out themselves. The discovery
at issue is about certain representations made by Scott Ramirez,
Toshiba's Vice President of Product Marketing and Development for
Visual Products, in support of the motion to transfer. The parties
disagree about whether a short deposition about limited issues is
enough (which is Toshiba's position), or whether Toshiba must
respond to broader interrogatories before the deposition (which is
Plaintiff's position).

According to Toshiba's counsel, Mr. Ramirez is the person in
charge of marketing and the person with knowledge of the genesis
of the alleged false advertising in the form of the
representations about "LED TV." Toshiba also said that it would
try to produce an organizational chart of employees involved in
marketing and sales. Plaintiffs pointed out that its
interrogatories were geared to an efficient and short deposition
of perhaps only an hour.

Given the assertions in Mr. Ramirez's declaration, his position at
Toshiba America, and Toshiba's representations, and on this
record, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler concluded that the
deposition of Mr. Ramirez is enough to address the issues in the
transfer motion. The court gave Plaintiffs a half-day to depose
Mr. Ramirez.

A copy of the Mag. Judge's June 19, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/aWIC4ifrom Leagle.com.

Stacey Pierce-Nunes, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Onofrei
Scarpulla -- fscarpulla@zelle.com -- Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason
LLP, Judith A. Zahid -- jzahid@zelle.com -- Zelle Hofmann Voelbel
& Mason LLP, Daniel R. Shulman -- daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com --
Gray Plant & Mooty, Dean C. Eyler -- dean.eyler@gpmlaw.com -- Gray
Plant & Mooty, Gregory R. Merz -- gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com -- Gray
Plant & Mooty, Hayward John Kaiser -- hjk@msk.com -- Mitchell
Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com --
Seeger Weiss LLP, Kathryn J Bergstrom --
kathryn.bergstrom@gpmlaw.com -- Gray Plant & Mooty, Patrick
Bradford Clayton -- pclayton@zelle.com -- Zelle Hofmann Voelbel &
Mason LLP & Scott Alan George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger
Weiss LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Sean Ashley Commons -- scommons@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin
LLP, Alex Doherty -- adoherty@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP &
Theodore Robert Scarborough, Jr. -- tscarborough@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP.


UKRAINIAN CO-OP: Recalls Wieners Due to Unsuitable Ingredients
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 2, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Ukrainian Co-Op Assoc. Ltd.
Distribution:             Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9011

Affected products: Meat Ukrainian Co-Op Assoc. Ltd. with variable
weight


VIJA DESIGN: Recalls Chimparoo Versatile Cardi-Wraps
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 7, 2014
Posting date:             July 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40267

Affected products: Chimparoo Versatile cardi-wraps

The recall involves long-sleeved and short-sleeved cardi-wraps.
The cardi-wrap is made from organic 95% cotton and 5% spandex
jersey, and can be worn skin-to-skin or over clothing in many
ways.  The product is available in four different colours (grey,
dark red, natural, black); however, only the black cardi-wrap is
affected by this recall.  The cardi-wrap turns into a "hands-free"
baby carrier when a cummerbund is worn over it.

The black fabric used to manufacture the cardi-wraps exhibits
premature deterioration.  It has been observed that after two
years of use, the fabric may tear easily when moderate pressure is
applied with a sharp object, making the product less safe for
skin-to-skin use with a baby.  The child could fall if the
supporting fabric tears.

Neither VIJA design INC. nor Health Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products in Canada.

Approximately 200 units of the recalled product were sold at
various stores across Canada.

The recalled product was manufactured in Canada and sold from
Sept. 2010 to March 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     VIJA design Inc.
                    Boucherville
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using this product and contact
the company by email or by telephone at 1-855-289-5343 between
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday to exchange it
for a non-defective similar product made from natural (beige)
organic fabric.


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Removed "Wilson" Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Wilson v. Wal-Mart Associates,
Inc., Case No. 30-02014-00725304, was removed from the Orange
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-05196 to the proceeding.

The case arises from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: "Wilson" Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wilson v. Wal-Mart Associates,
Inc., Case No. 30-2014-00725304-CU-OE-CXC, was transferred from
the Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Santa Ana).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01021 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor claims.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew R. Gershman, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: gershmanm@gtlaw.com


WILLIAMS-SOUTHERN COMPANY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Young, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Williams-Southern Company, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00101 (S.D.
Miss., July 1, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Williams-Southern Company, LLC, is engage in oil drilling in the
State of Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher William Espy, Esq.
      Christopher William Espy
      P. O. Box 13722
      Jackson, MS 39236-3722
      Telephone: (601) 812-5300
      Facsimile: (601) 500-5719
      E-mail: chris.espy@espylawpllc.com


WOLF STEEL: Recalls Napoleon GD3200 Propane Gas Fireplaces
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 26, 2014
Posting date:             June 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Laceration Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40177

Affected products: Napoleon GD3200 propane gas fireplaces

The recall involves the Napoleon propane gas fireplaces
manufactured by Wolf Steel Ltd.  The recalled products are model
number GD3200-P flush glass front and GD3200B-P with bay window.
The fireplace front panels are black with gold accent designs on
the outside of the product.  The model is identified on a rating
label located on the base of the fireplace behind the lower access
door.

There is a potential for the glass to break during the lighting of
the pilot burner if there is a buildup of propane gas, posing a
laceration hazard.

Wolf Steel Ltd received one report in Canada of the glass
shattering when lighting the pilot burner, resulting in cuts to
the face and neck that required medical attention.  No incidents
or injuries were reported in the United States.

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

Approximately 2,428 units of the recalled fireplaces were sold in
Canada and approximately 614 units in the United States.

The recalled fireplaces were manufactured in Canada and sold from
August 1992 to May 2001 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Wolf Steel Ltd.
                    Barrie
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should stop using the recalled fireplaces and contact
their local Napoleon Fireplace Dealer to arrange a service call to
have the upgrade kit installed on their fireplace.  A repair kit
is being offered but must be installed by a qualified gas
appliance technician.  The kit is free and a flat labour fee will
be paid to authorized Napoleon Fireplace Dealers installing the
upgrade kits.


XTREME COUTURE: Falsely Advertised Joint Flex Product, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Porter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly v.
Xtreme Couture Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company, Case No. 1:14-cv-04982 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for false advertising of Defendant's
Joint Flex product.

Xtreme Couture Pharmaceuticals, LLC, distributes, markets, and/or
sells various pharmaceutical products, including Joint Flex, to
consumers in Illinois and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Siprut PC, 17 N. State St., Suite 1600,
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com


* Democrat Mary Burke Vows to Repeal Wisconsin Asbestos Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Bauer, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Democrat Mary Burke is promising that if she's elected as
Wisconsin governor she will work to repeal a law signed by
Gov. Scott Walker and opposed by veterans that makes it more
difficult for victims of asbestos exposure to receive damages.

Mr. Walker, a Republican seeking a second term, has made his
record on veterans' issues a focus of his re-election campaign.
But he has taken heat for signing the asbestos bill in March
despite opposition from three veterans' groups representing more
than 100,000 members.

Mr. Walker also angered some veterans by repealing a 2009 law that
had expanded the rights of veterans and other protected groups to
file state employment discrimination lawsuits seeking damages.

In a statement from her campaign released on July 3, Ms. Burke
said she would work to reinstate that law as well as repeal the
asbestos law.

Mr. Walker's campaign said on July 7 in response that the governor
"has a strong record of supporting Wisconsin veterans and their
families."

Mr. Walker, who declared 2012 the "year of the veteran," has
bolstered staff at veterans' homes, invested millions to help
shore up a veterans' trust fund and offered incentives to help
ex-military members find a job or start a business.  Mr. Walker
also signed into law a bill allowing veterans to use military
education, training and other experiences to fulfill requirements
for professional credentials.

"As governor, my priority has been putting the needs of
Wisconsin's veterans ahead of politics and petty partisan
differences," Mr. Walker said on his website.

Ms. Burke, a former state Commerce secretary and Trek Bicycle
Corp. executive, also announced the formation of a statewide group
of veterans and military family members who will be working to get
her elected and with whom she will be consulting throughout her
campaign.

Ms. Burke said if elected she would restore or add a number of
committees to work with the Wisconsin Department of Veterans
Affairs, including ones focused on increasing access to and
improving programs that help veterans get jobs and an education,
and to ensure veteran input about operation of the state's
veterans homes.

Ms. Burke also said she would require that the department
establish a federal liaison office to work with the Federal Aid
Management Service, create a university services program
ombudsman, and re-establish a council to provide veteran input on
the operations of the state veterans' homes.


                             *********

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  * * *