CAR_Public/140716.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 16, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 140

                             Headlines


23ANDME INC: Court Compels Arbitration of DNA Kit Class Claims
ACT EVENT: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, "Flores" Suit Claims
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Sued for Conspiring to Fix Propane Tank Prices
ARDSLEY COUNTRY: Faces "Arciola" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Class Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval

ASA COLLEGE: Misrepresents Degree Programs, "Sanchez" Suit Says
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Filed Misleading Proxy Statement, Suit Claims
ASTA PARKING: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CAPITAL PIZZA: Faces "Linkovich" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CENTURY 21: Does Illegal Background Checks, "White" Suit Claims

CHICAGO, IL: State High Court Tossed Health Insurance Requirement
CITY LIFE: Faces "Barra" Suit in Nev. Over Failure to Pay OT
COMCAST CORP: Race Discrimination Suit Can Proceed as Class Suit
DELL INC: RI Court Tosses Negligence Count in Sales Tax Action
ELAVON INC: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

EXPRESS FASHION: Faces Privacy Class Action in California
FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Mechanic Can Sue for Further Damages in Asbestos Suit
FT SUPERMARKET: Faces "Concepcion" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GEMINI MANUFACTURING: Recalls Power Chargers Due to Burn Hazard

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kluessendorf" Suit Over Ignition Switch
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Switch Defects
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Panadol Advance Bottle
HURONIA REGIONAL: Ex-Residents Face Delay in Getting Case Files
HYMANS SEAFOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Fuel-Economy Claims
JC SEAFOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
JORDY'S TRUCK: "Pelayo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KELLOGG ROOFING: "Self" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LABORATORY CORP: Disclosed Credit Card Expiry Dates, Suit Claims

LIFEGUARD PRESS: Recalls Charging Kits Due to Fire, Shock Hazards
LINGERIE FOOTBALL: Misclassifies Players to Avoid OT, Suit Says
MANGOES CAFE: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MASTER CUTLERY: Recalls Neck Knives Due to Laceration Hazard
MBJ CAFETERIA: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

MEDORA SNACKS: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MONSANTO CO: Residents Can Register Dioxin Claims in Nitro Office
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Sued in C.D. California Over TCPA Violations
MVM INC: Faces "Buckson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Guards Overtime
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Players Can Have Up to $5K According to Deal

NEW SOUTH WALES: Defense Dept. May Face Suit Over State Mine Fire
PACIFIC COAST: Faces "Welch" Shareholder Class Suit in California
PASADENA CITY, CA: Suit Disputes Water Rates Set for Nonresidents
PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Celecoxib Patent
PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action

PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Price" Class Suit Over Merger With Avago
POCAHONTAS COUNTY, VA: Residents' Appeal Over Landfill Fees Nixed
RADIOSHACK CORP: Liable in Pennsylvania OT Suit, Judge Rules
REAL TIME: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
RIVKA ORLYN: "Felix" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

SEQWATER: Maurice Blackburn Files Class Action Over 2011 Floods
SLOAN VALVE: Aug. 25 Hearing Set for $18MM Flushmate Settlement
STAAR SURGICAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
STAGE 3: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STUDENT MAID: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TAMKO BUILDING: Faces Class Action Over Defective Shingles
THOMAS M. COOLEY: 6th Cir. Says School Failed to Prove Malice
TOTAL BUILDING: Faces "Perkins" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNITED BUILDING: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit in Minn. Over ERISA Violation

VALEANT PHARMA: Recalls About 850,000 Tubes of Muro Eye Ointment
VAPOR PASSION: Faces "Camejo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VOXX INT'L: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses Escrow Mismanagement Class Action
WHOLE FOODS: Removed "Rivera" Suit to S.D.N.Y.

* Cost of Top 10 Most Expensive Settlements of 2013 Totals $638MM
* Hanna Law Firm Sued Over Shoddy Credit-Card Collection Lawsuits


                            *********


23ANDME INC: Court Compels Arbitration of DNA Kit Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Terms of Service agreement that 23andMe supplies to users of its
do-it-yourself DNA kit is problematic but still compels
arbitration of all class claims, a federal judge found, reports
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service.

Consumer-protection lawsuits against Mountain View, Calif.-based
23andMe Inc. have been flooding the courts over the past year, and
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh is presiding over the consolidated
litigation in San Jose, Calif.

There are also at least three pending arbitrations involving class
claims about the DNA saliva test Personal Genome Service (PGS),
which 23andMe sells for $99 a pop, Koh noted.

Earlier this year, 23andMe filed an omnibus motion to compel
arbitration of all claims.  It noted that users who want to see
their test results must create an online profile and agree to a
Terms of Service that says "any disputes shall be resolved by
final and binding arbitration."

Though the plaintiffs highlighted that they gave no such consent
when purchasing their tests, Koh dismissed all claims without
prejudice and compelled arbitration.  She did so despite finding
that "23andMe's practice of obscuring terms of service until after
purchase -- and for a potentially indefinite time -- is unfair,
and that a better practice would be to show or require
acknowledgement of such terms at the point of sale."

The TOS includes language stating that disputes would fall under
the "rules and auspices of the American Arbitration Association
(AAA)," but Koh noted that the AAA is normally used during cases
involving two corporate entities -- not consumers.

"The problem is further compounded by the fact that the TOS
purport to bind users who are never asked to view the TOS and
click 'I ACCEPT,'" the 31-page ruling states.  "For example, as
noted above, the TOS purport also to bind users who merely visit
23andMe's website even if the user lacks an account."

Koh also agreed with the plaintiffs that the arbitration clause in
the TOS was unconscionable "because it is buried at the end of the
TOS" and because they never received a copy of the agreement.

"Customers who purchase the DNA kits have only a 60-minute window
to cancel their orders and receive a full refund," the ruling
states.  "By the time those customers create accounts and register
their DNA kits -- when 23andMe first requires them to acknowledge
the arbitration provision -- they have already paid 23andMe, and
the cancellation period may have long expired."

Despite these findings, Koh said that the arbitration provision is
enforceable because it was not substantively unconscionable.

"It is not enough that the terms are slightly one-sided or confer
more benefits on a particular party; a substantively
unconscionable term must be so unreasonable and one-sided as to
'shock the conscience,'" Koh wrote.

Holding arbitration in San Francisco near company headquarters
also would not deprive the consumers of their "day in court," the
ruling states.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert P. Varian, Esq.
          James N. Kramer, Esq.
          M. Todd Scott, Esq.
          Alexander K. Talarides, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          The Orrick Building
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
          Telephone: (415) 773-5700
          Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: rvarian@orrick.com
                  jkramer@orrick.com
                  tscott@orrick.com
                  atalarides@orrick.com

The case is David Tompkins, an individual, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. 23andMe, Inc., Lead Case No.
5:13-CV-05682-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The consolidated litigation is captioned
In re 23andMe Consumer Products Litigation.


ACT EVENT: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, "Flores" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucia Flores, Daniel Moreno, Abel Moreno, Shameka Donnell,
Vontrael Donnell, Tiffany Donnell, Travon Donnell, Robert
McDaniel, and Yolanda Simpson v. ACT Event Services, Inc.,
Roman Luis Gaona, Final & Touch Cleaning Services a/k/a Final
Touch Cleaning Services, Inc., and Final Touch Cleaning Service,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02412 (N.D. Tex., July 3, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and
Collective Action Plaintiffs for wages earned while employed  by
the Defendants.

ACT Event Services, Inc., conducts events planning business in
Texas.

Final & Touch Cleaning Services, provides commercial and
residential cleaning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy M. Dortch, Esq.
      Lauren Catherine Tow, Esq.
      Tom A. Carse, Esq.
      COOPER & SCULLY
      900 Jackson, Suite 100
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 712-9530
      Facsimile: (214) 712-9540
      E-mail: micah.dortch@cooperscully.com
              lauren.tow@cooperscully.com
              tom@carselaw.com


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Sued for Conspiring to Fix Propane Tank Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arrow Hardware, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Amerigas Partners, L.P., Amerigas Propane, L.P.,
Amerigas Propane, Inc., Ugi Corporation, Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P., Ferrellgas L.P., Case No. 2:14-cv-04132 (E.D. Pa. July 7,
2014), arises from the Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price of propane exchange tanks
by reducing their fill levels.

Amerigas Partners, L.P., Amerigas Propane, L.P., Amerigas Propane,
Inc., Ugi Corporation, Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas L.P.,
are in the business of distribution and sale of exchangeable
portable steel tanks containing propane gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      1101 Market St., Ste 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 864-2800
      E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
      Tobias L. Millrod, Esq.
      POGUST, BRASLOW & MILLROD LLC
      8 Tower Bridge, Suite 15, 161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (610) 941-4204
      Facsimile: (610) 941-4245
      E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com
              tmillrood@pbmattorneys.com


ARDSLEY COUNTRY: Faces "Arciola" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Arciola v. The Ardsley Country Club, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-05057 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Ardsley Country Club, Inc., owns a country club located at
North Mountain Drive, Ardsley, Westchester County, NY, 10503.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      PAUL MCIINNES, LLP
      2000 Baltimore, Suite 100
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com


ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Class Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armtec Infrastructure Inc. on July 7 disclosed that the previously
disclosed agreement to settle the proposed class action
proceedings against the Corporation and others commenced by
investors who purchased shares of the Corporation during the
period of March 24, 2011 through June 8, 2011 has received court
approval in Ontario and Quebec.

This settlement provides for a payment in the amount of
approximately Cdn. $12.9 million, inclusive of all taxes, fees,
interest and costs, which amount will be paid by Armtec's insurers
and, accordingly, will not impact Armtec's cash resources.

A court-approved notice is expected to be issued to class members,
which will detail claim and opt-out procedures.  Despite court
approval, the proposed settlement remains subject to, among other
things, the fulfillment of certain conditions concerning the
number of opt-outs from the proposed settlement.

                 About Armtec Infrastructure Inc.

Armtec is a manufacturer and marketer of a comprehensive range of
infrastructure products and engineered construction solutions for
customers in a diverse cross-section of industries that are
located in every region of Canada, as well as in selected markets
globally.


ASA COLLEGE: Misrepresents Degree Programs, "Sanchez" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karilinfrica Sanchez, Shawanna Dilworth, Nelson Forastieri,
Andre Lashley, Tommy Miranda, and Renee Davis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v.  ASA College, Inc.,
Alex Shchegol, Victoria Kostyukov; Victoria Shtamler; Roberto
Dumaual; Lesia Willis-Campbell; Jose Valencia; Shanthi Konkoth;
Mark Mirenberg; Alexander Agafonov; and John/Janedoes 1 and 2,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05006 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2014), arises from a
massive scheme to draw millions of dollars of federal and state
financial aid at the students' expense and detriment by
systematically and fraudulently misrepresenting the nature of
ASA's certificate and degree programs to past, current, and
prospective students.

ASA College, Inc., a privately owned, for-profit career college in
New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.
      Eileen M. Connor, Esq.
      Danielle Tarantolo, Esq.
      Jennifer Magida, Esq.
      NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
      7 Hanover Square, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212)613-5000

         - and -

      Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq.
      Hayley Horowitz, Esq.
      EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
      75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 763-5000


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Filed Misleading Proxy Statement, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Monson, derivatively on behalf of Associated Estates Realty
Corp. and individually on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated shareholders of Associated Estates Realty Corp.
v. Associated Estates Realty Corp., an Ohio Corporation,
Jeffrey I. Friedman, Albert T. Adams, Michael E. Gibbons, Mark
L. Milstein, James J. Sanfilippo, James A. Schoff, Richard T.
Schwarz, and James M. Delaney, Case No. 1:14-cv-01477 (N.D. Ohio,
July 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for breaching
their fiduciary duty of candor by filing a false and misleading
proxy statement in connection with the Associated Estates Realty
Corporation 2011 Equity-Based Award Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aanchal Soni, Esq.
      Rochelle Lynn Paley, Esq.
      James D. Wilson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES D. WILSON
      29225 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 35
      Cleveland, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 342-4138
      Facsimile: (216) 342-4288
      E-mail: asoni@wilsonlawyers.com
              rpaley@wilsonlawyers.com
              jwilson@wilsonlawyers.com


ASTA PARKING: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro A. Rodriguez, Jarol Julian Merino, and others similarly-
situated v. Asta Parking, Inc, a Florida corporation, Prakash
Patel individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61542 (S.D. Fla., July 6,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Asta Parking, Inc., is a valet parking company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
      5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230
      Miami, FL 33126
      Telephone: (305) 403-2000
      Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
      E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com


CAPITAL PIZZA: Faces "Linkovich" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Linkovich, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Capital Pizza Huts, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01865 (D.
Colo. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Capital Pizza Huts, Inc., operates approximately 88 Pizza Hut
franchise restaurants in Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
      PAUL MCIINNES LLP
      2000 Baltimore, Suite 100
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
              mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


CENTURY 21: Does Illegal Background Checks, "White" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Latifah White, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Century 21 Department Stores LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05058 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for procuring background checks on employees and job applicants
without making a legally required stand-alone disclosure and
receiving written authorization.

Century 21 Department Stores LLC is a New York City retailer
offering top designer merchandise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Nicholas P. Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375

          - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, Texas 77046
      Telephone: (713)877-8788


CHICAGO, IL: State High Court Tossed Health Insurance Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Signaling trouble for Gov. Pat Quinn's pension-reform law, the
Illinois Supreme Court on July 3, 2014, tossed a new requirement
for retired state employees to contribute to their health
insurance premiums, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News
Service.

The 2012 overhaul of the state's health insurance payments
eliminated the statutory standards for state contributions to
pensioners' health insurance premiums, instead allowed the
director of the Department of Central Management Services to make
an annual determination as to the amounts charged to the state and
to retirees.

Pensioners claimed in a lawsuit that the change violated the
pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution, which
provides that "membership in any pension or retirement system of
the State shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the
benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired."

The Illinois Supreme Court was nearly unanimous in finding for the
retirees on July 3, 2014.

"The [constitution] drafters chose expansive language that goes
beyond annuities and the terms of the Pension Code, defining the
range of protected benefits broadly to encompass those attendant
to membership in the state's retirement systems," Justice Charles
Freeman wrote for the six-member majority.  "Then, as now,
subsidized health care was one of those benefits.  For us to hold
that such benefits are not among the benefits of membership
protected by the constitution would require us to construe article
XIII, section 5, in a way that the plain language of the provision
does not support.  We may not rewrite the pension protection
clause to include restrictions and limitations that the drafters
did not express and the citizens of Illinois did not approve."

Gov. Quinn's pension-reform law, passed in December 2013 and
already the target of several class actions, may now have trouble
staying afloat.

The law reduces cost-of-living increases for pensioners, gradually
raises the retirement age for employees, and caps their
"pensionable salary," in an effort to patch up a $100 billion
deficit in the state pension system.

Last year, the state devoted 22 percent of its general revenue
fund to public employee pensions.

"Today, the Illinois Supreme Court made it very clear that the
Pension Clause means what it says," state Senate president John
Cullerton said in a statement.  "If the court's decision is
predictive, the challenge of reforming our pension systems will
remain."

But a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's office told the
Chicago Tribune the decision "has no direct impact" on the pension
litigation.

"While this decision is very clear on the fact that the pension
clause covers health care benefits, the arguments in the pension
reform litigation are different than the ones in this healthcare
case," Attorney General spokeswoman Maura Possley said.  "We will
continue to vigorously defend the pension reform law."

The appellate case is Roger Kanerva, et al. v. Malcolm Weems, et
al., Case No. 2014 IL 115811, in the Supreme Court of the State of
Illinois.


CITY LIFE: Faces "Barra" Suit in Nev. Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Cecilia Barra, Patricia Arias, Ubakvka Rolevska, and
Mayra Onofre v. City Life Usa, Inc., Corporate, LLC, Higuchi
Developer, Inc., Aliza Elazar Higuchi, and Nita Labouz, Case No.
2:14-cv-01101 (D. Nev. July 7, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

City Life USA, Inc., Corporate, LLC, Higuchi Developer, Inc., own
and operate retail establishments in and around Clark County,
Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
      Dana Siegocki, Esq.
      LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      2965 S. Jones Blvd, Suite E-4
      Las Vegas, NV 89145
      Telephone: (702) 383-6085
      Facsimile: (702) 385-1827
      E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com
              dana@overtimelaw.com

         - and -

      Joel Beck, Esq.
      LAWLOR WINSTON WHITE & MURPHY
      2350 S. Jones Blvd #101-3C
      Las Vegas, NV 89146
      Telephone: (855) 529-2325


COMCAST CORP: Race Discrimination Suit Can Proceed as Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameet Sachdev, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a federal
judge has allowed some African-American employees alleging race
discrimination at a Comcast Corp. facility on the South Side to
sue as a class, a decision that would increase the risk for the
company.

Eleven current and former workers brought the lawsuit in 2011.
With the class certification, they are suing on behalf of about
350 people who have worked at the facility since 2005.

The mere certification of a class-action suit can prompt
defendants to settle in light of the sums at stake.

In this case, class members could each get up to $300,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages, said Noelle Brennan, one of the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

With 350 class members, the potential damages could total $105
million, not including back pay, attorneys' fees or the cost of
other injunctive relief.

The issue before U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly was
not whether Comcast discriminated against African-Americans who
worked at its South Side operation, at 721 E. 112th St.

The bigger question before him was whether the workers had enough
in common to join together in a single suit.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to a hostile work
environment where they were called "ghetto techs" and other
racially derogatory terms.  They also accused Comcast of forcing
them to work in a substandard facility that was infested with
cockroaches and rats.  Despite employee complaints about the
working conditions, Comcast did nothing to remedy the
discrimination, the suit said.

Judge Kennelly found that several named plaintiffs and potential
class members heard racial slurs in the workplace, which provided
proof of the common question of whether a hostile environment
existed for African-American employees.  The judge also said the
issue of facility conditions is common to the employees who worked
there.

"Comcast has not persuasively argued that '(q)uestions of
individual damage calculations will inevitably overwhelm questions
common to the class,'" Judge Kennelly wrote in a opinion released
on July 5.

The plaintiffs also sought to have a class of employees certified
based on claims of disparate pay, promotions and discipline, but
the judge rejected the request.

"This decision," Ms. Brennan said, "demonstrates that when
plaintiffs put forth overwhelming evidence of a racially hostile
work environment, class certification is not just appropriate, but
necessary."

A Comcast spokesman said the company "is pleased that the court
has denied part of the motion for class certification, and we
disagree with the court's decision to grant this motion in part."
He added that Comcast "intends to defend itself vigorously in
court, and the company is committed to nondiscrimination in all of
its employment decisions."


DELL INC: RI Court Tosses Negligence Count in Sales Tax Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Rhode
Island Supreme Court has held that Dell was not negligent by
collecting sales taxes on certain services purchased in
conjunction with the sale of its computer products.

In the class action lawsuit, two plaintiffs, Nicholas T. Long and
Julianne Ricci, claimed Dell violated the DTPA and was negligent
when it collected sales taxes from them in 2000, according to the
June 27 opinion.

Justices Paul A. Suttell, Maureen McKenna Goldberg, Francis X.
Flaherty and Gilbert V. Indeglia voted in the majority, with
Goldberg authoring the opinion.

Justice William P. Robinson III concurred in part and dissented in
part.

"A justice of the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor
of Dell on both counts," the opinion states.  "This case has been
pending for more than ten years and thus far has resulted in two
opinions of this Court.  It is not over."

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the grant of summary
judgment on the negligence count and on the request for injunctive
relief by Mr. Long.

"However, the grant of summary judgment on the (Deceptive Trade
Practices Act) count by . . . Ricci is vacated," the opinion
states.  "Additionally, we affirm the Superior Court justice's
grant of the plaintiffs' motion to strike the tax administrator's
affirmative defenses."

Mr. Long and Ms. Ricci purchased Dell computers in late 2000 and
also selected an optional service contract.  In May 2003, they
filed a class action lawsuit against Dell, claiming it charged
both Ms. Ricci and Mr. Long sales tax on nontaxable services.

The two-count complaint alleged that the defendants violated the
DTPA and were liable for negligence.

Dell moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration, arguing
that by accepting delivery of the goods, the plaintiffs agreed to
the terms and conditions agreement, which contained an arbitration
provision.

The Superior Court denied that motion and entered an order of
final judgment on March 29, 2004.  The defendants appealed from
that judgment.

In March 2007, while the appeal of the order denying the motion to
compel arbitration was pending, the defendants moved for summary
judgment.

In response, the plaintiffs requested that the Tax Administrator
for the Rhode Island Division of Taxation be notified of the
proceeding because the defendants' contentions on summary judgment
implicated Rhode Island tax law.

The tax administrator then moved to intervene in the case.  The
Superior Court justice permitted the tax administrator to
intervene solely "for the purpose of appearing and being heard on
the issues of subject matter jurisdiction, the proper
interpretation and construction of tax regulations and statutes,
and the application and constitutional validity of tax statutes."

The tax administrator moved to dismiss the case for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. The Superior Court justice denied the
motion to dismiss.  The defendants and the tax administrator
petitioned the Rhode Island Supreme Court for writs of certiorari
to review the question of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the
court granted the petitions.

On Dec. 14, 2009, the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued separate
opinions on these preliminary issues.

"In DeFontes . . . we held that the Superior Court justice
properly denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration because
plaintiffs did not agree to be bound by the terms and conditions
in the shrinkwrap agreement contained in the computer's
packaging," the opinion states.  "In Long . . . we held that that
the Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the DTPA
claim and ancillary jurisdiction over the negligence claim.  We
remanded the case to the Superior Court."

With the arbitration and subject-matter jurisdiction issues
resolved, the Superior Court turned to the defendants' summary
judgment motion.

After concluding that Ms. Ricci was improperly taxed, the Superior
Court next addressed Dell's legal arguments that it was
nonetheless not liable under the DTPA or in negligence.

Addressing the negligence claim, the Superior Court concluded that
Dell did not owe a duty to Ms. Ricci, and therefore Ms. Ricci did
not have an actionable tort claim.

Turning to the DTPA claim, the court concluded that "as a matter
of law, Dell's actions did not constitute negligence or violate
the DTPA."

On April 9, 2012, an order and final judgment entered, granting
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion
to strike.  The plaintiffs appealed the order granting summary
judgment to defendants, and the tax administrator appealed the
order striking his affirmative defenses.

In his opinion, Justice Robinson stated that he concurred in the
majority's ruling concerning its affirmance of the Superior
Court's grant of summary judgment in Dell's favor on the count of
negligence; its affirmance of the Superior Court's dismissal of
the requests of Mr. Long for injunctive and declaratory relief;
and its affirmance of the Superior Court's granting of plaintiffs'
motion to strike the tax administrator's affirmative defenses.

"However, as for the majority's vacating the Superior Court's
granting of Dell's motion for summary judgment on count 1 of the
complaint (alleging violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices
Act), I must respectfully, but very vigorously, record my
dissent," Justice Robinson's opinion states.  "Taking into account
settled principles of law as well as the plain meaning of the
following words -- immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous,
and material -- I am convinced that no reasonable jury could
conclude that Dell violated the Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(DTPA)."

The majority opinion states that, while Dell can argue that it was
operating under a "good faith interpretation of tax law," a jury
could also infer that "Dell's efforts to avoid its own tax nexus
with Rhode Island unfairly resulted in consumers being charged for
taxes that they should not have been charged," Justice Robinson's
opinion states.

"Contrary to the stance adopted by my colleagues in the majority,
I am completely unable to perceive any evidence presented by
Ms. Ricci suggesting that Dell's actions were anything other than
a 'good faith interpretation of tax law,'" his opinion states.

"Moreover, in what I consider to be a further departure from
common sense, the majority perceives a possible deception and
unfairness in a practice from which Dell does not profit one
whit," he states.

"For the reasons which I have just discussed, I must dissent from
the majority's determination that a genuine issue of material fact
remains with respect to whether Dell's actions were immoral,
unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous and, accordingly, unfair."

Rhode Island Supreme Court case number: 12-248


ELAVON INC: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Stewart, and other similarly situated employees v. Elavon
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00310 (E.D. Tenn. July 7, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and equal amount of liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Elavon, Inc., offers credit card terminals and credit card payment
processing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JESSE D. NELSON PLLC
      P.O. Box 22685
      Knoxville, TN 37933
      Telephone: (865) 383-1053
      Facsimile: (865) 383-1054
      E-mail: jesse@jessenelsonlaw.com


EXPRESS FASHION: Faces Privacy Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that Express Fashion
Apparel LLC is accused in a class action filed on July 7 of
violating a California privacy law when a cashier collected the
phone number and email address of a customer who was paying with
his credit card.

The complaint, brought by lead plaintiff Andrew Staveley, alleges
Express has a "uniform policy" of requesting customers' personal
information at checkout.  He accuses the company of violating
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by instructing employees
to obtain phone numbers and email addresses in conjunction with
their credit card information.

Mr. Staveley visited an Express store in San Louis Obispo,
California, last month, the lawsuit said, and during checkout, the
cashier asked him for his email address and telephone number,
which he gave.  The complaint said Mr. Staveley believed he needed
to provide the information to complete his purchase and obtain his
receipt.

After the Express employee recorded the information into a cash
register, Mr. Staveley used his credit card to complete his
purchase, according to the suit.

"At this point in the transaction, Defendant had Plaintiff's
credit card number, name, telephone number and e-mail address
recorded in its databases," the complaint said.

The plaintiff said shortly after visiting Express, he received an
email from the company. According to the complaint, Express
"utilized a policy whereby [its] cashiers both request and record
personal identification information in conjunction with credit
card transactions at the point-of-sale in [its] retail
establishments."

Mr. Staveley seeks to represent a proposed class of Express
customers who shopped at one of the company's California retail
stores in the last year.  The lawsuit seeks an award in the amount
of $1,000 for Mr. Staveley and each of the class members.

The complaint is the latest in a string of suits brought against
retailers operating in the Golden State under California's privacy
law.  Wal-Mart Stores Inc., OfficeMax North America Inc. and
Redbox Automated Retail LLC have all been accused in lawsuits of
violating the Song-Beverly Act by collecting customer ZIP codes
and credit card information.

Mr. Staveley's attorney Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group
APC suggested on July 8 that the collection of personal telephone
numbers represents a greater invasion of customer privacy because
scores of people can be identified as living in the same ZIP code,
but a person can be individually linked with their phone number.

"A telephone number is far more personal than a ZIP code,"
Mr. Kazerounian said.

Mr. Staveley is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Matthew M.
Loker of Kazerouni Law Group APC, Joshua Swigart of Hyde & Swigart
and Sina Rezvanpour, Shuan Lue and Sara Rezvanpour of RKR Legal.

The case is Andrew Staveley v. Express Fashion Apparel Inc., case
number 2:14-cv-05258, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that an Alabama hospital
on July 7 asked a federal judge to throw out a proposed class
action over an employee's theft of sensitive patient information,
saying the plaintiffs have failed to link the data breach to any
actual economic harm they have suffered.

In a brief filed in Alabama federal court, Flowers Hospital argued
that the plaintiffs' allegation that the data breach allowed
identity thieves to file false tax returns in their names isn't
enough to establish standing to maintain the lawsuit.

Although four of the five named plaintiffs assert that an
unidentified third party used their Social Security numbers to
file phony tax returns, the hospital said they fail to link that
crime to a financial loss.  They don't claim, for example, that
they have been denied their tax refunds or have incurred
unreimbursed fees or expenses from the alleged fraud, according to
the brief.

"The conclusory allegations in the amended complaint fail to
satisfy the requirement that they show an injury in fact in order
to confer standing," the hospital said.

Flowers Hospital -- located in Dohan, Alabama -- discovered in
February that an employee, Kamarian D. Millender, had stolen a
trove of patient data, including names, addresses, Social Security
numbers and health insurance information.  Mr. Millender has since
been arrested and charged with trafficking in stolen identities,
and the hospital has agreed to provide affected patients with free
credit monitoring.

The plaintiffs, led by Bradley S. Smith, lodged their complaint in
May, claiming the hospital "flagrantly disregarded" their privacy
rights by failing to safeguard their personal information.  The
suit alleges that the hospital's failures violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and subjected them to increased risk of identity
theft and medical fraud.

However, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Clapper
v. Amnesty International USA, the hospital said on July 7 that the
increased likelihood of identity theft in the future was not
enough to confer standing on the plaintiffs.

"In fact, most federal courts that have analyzed data breach
cases, especially the post-Clapper cases, have determined that
plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims of increased
likelihood of harm were too attenuated," the brief said.

In addition to its standing challenge, the hospital argued that
several of the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for
independent reasons.

For example, the plaintiffs contend that Flowers Hospital was
negligent as a matter of law because it violated the Health
Insurance Portability and Privacy Act and Alabama law.  But the
hospital pointed out on July 7 that Alabama is one of the few
states in the U.S. that doesn't have a data breach notification
law or similar statute, questioning which state statute the
plaintiffs were referring to.

The hospital also said it "vehemently denies" that it violated
HIPPA, but added that such a violation wouldn't amount to
"negligence per se" anyway.

M. Adam Jones of M. Adam Jones & Associates LLC, an attorney for
the plaintiffs, told Law360 on July 8 that he was confident the
case would survive the hospital's motion to dismiss.  He added
that only the criminals responsible know exactly how many patients
had their information compromised, but that it was safe to assume
the number is in the hundreds, if not more than 1,000.

"We intend to find out," he said.

Flowers Hospital is represented by Richard E. Smith --
resmith@csattorneys.com -- Jonathan W. Macklem --
jwmacklem@csattorneys.com -- and J. Paul Zimmerman --
jpz@csattorneys.com -- of Christian & Small LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by M. Adam Jones and Jordan S.
Davis of M. Adam Jones & Associates LLC and James M. Terrell --
jterrell@mmlaw.net -- of McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC.

The case is Smith et al. v. Triad of Alabama LLC d/b/a Flowers
Hospital, case number 1:14-cv-00324, in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama.


FORD MOTOR: Mechanic Can Sue for Further Damages in Asbestos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for SFGate, reports that the state Supreme
Court on July 9 allowed a former Bay Area service station owner to
seek additional damages from Ford Motor Co. for exposing him to
brake-lining asbestos that has afflicted him with terminal cancer.

A jury awarded Patrick Scott $1.5 million in damages and legal
costs against Ford in November 2012.  The July 9 order allows him
to ask another jury for punitive damages.  Mr. Scott and his wife,
Sharon, have settled claims against other automakers for
undisclosed amounts.

Mr. Scott worked in a Navy shipyard, where he was also exposed to
asbestos, before opening his first service station in Sausalito in
1965.  He leased an Atlantic Richfield station in San Francisco in
1970, then moved his business to a Beacon station in St. Helena in
1977.  He stopped working in 2011 after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma, an incurable form of lung cancer that is caused by
asbestos but typically does not show up until decades after
exposure.

Asbestos has long been used in the linings of motor vehicle brakes
and clutches and is still used in brake pads, though it is banned
in some other products.  Scientists had established its connection
to cancer by the mid-1950s, but the federal government did not
regulate workplace asbestos exposure until 1971.

According to court records, Ford mentioned asbestos in one of its
publications in 1975 but did not put warnings on brake cartons
until at least 1980.  A Ford internal investigation cited by
Scott's lawyers found mesothelioma among company employees in the
late 1970s and early 1980s at nearly three times the rate of the
general population.

The jury found Ford 22 percent responsible for Mr. Scott's
suffering, assigned 19 percent of the responsibility to Mr. Scott
himself, apparently for continuing to work after he learned of the
danger, and attributed the rest of the blame to the Navy and other
entities.

Ford appealed the verdict, arguing that information about the
potential dangers of asbestos in brake linings was widely known to
auto mechanics from the time Scott started working.  But the
state's First District Court of Appeal said in April that the jury
heard evidence that Ford had known of the risks before Mr. Scott
did and failed to warn him.

Ford also argued that the jury should not be allowed to award
punitive damages because they are barred by law in Michigan, where
the company is based.  That argument was accepted by a judge in
Alameda County, where the case was tried, but rejected by the
appeals court, which said Ford was not entitled to a "nationwide
shield" against penalties that California juries can assess for
egregious conduct.  That ruling entitles Mr. Scott to a partial
retrial and is also a precedent for future cases.


FT SUPERMARKET: Faces "Concepcion" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farlin Concepcion, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. F.T. Supermarket Services Inc. d/b/a Foodtown
Supermarket and Robin Estevez, Case No. 1:14-cv-05028 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

F.T. Supermarket Services Inc., is a supermarket located at 756
St. Nicholas Avenue, New York, NY 10031.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
      ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
      271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 576-1857
      Facsimile: (212) 576-1888


GEMINI MANUFACTURING: Recalls Power Chargers Due to Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gemini Manufacturing Inc., of Gaffney, S.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 31,000 Power adaptor/chargers (promotional
giveaway).  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The adaptors can overheat, posing a burn hazard.

The firm has received one report of a consumer who was burned on
their hand.

The recalled adaptor/chargers are used to charge cell phones and
other electronic products and have model number ADCP3-1000
imprinted on the plug side of the adaptor.  They are plastic cubes
about 1" to 1 1/4" on one side with two prongs for plugging into
an electrical outlet and a USB port on the other.  Recalled
chargers come in five different colors: black, blue, green, red
and white.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/lLbeEq

The recalled products were manufactured in China and distributed
by Distributed by

The recalled adaptors/chargers were distributed free as a
promotional giveaway at trade shows nationwide from October 2013
to April 2014.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled
adaptors/chargers and throw them away.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kluessendorf" Suit Over Ignition Switch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra K. Kluessendorf, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Motors LLC; General Motors Holding,
LLC; Delphi Automotive PLC; and DPH-DAS LLC f/k/a Delphi
Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-05035 (S.D.N.Y., July 3,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose
switch engine defects of General Motors vehicles.

General Motors LLC, is a Delaware company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan, conducts business in this District, and is
responsible for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of all
General Motor automobiles in the United States, as well as
engineering design, development, research and development, and
manufacturing activities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rebecca Quinn, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN LAW GROUP LLP
      270 Lafayette Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10012
      Telephone: (212)680-5150
      Facsimile: (646)277-1151
      E-mail: rquinn@flgllp.com

          - and -

      Garrett D. Blanchfield Jr., Esq.
      Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
      REINHARDT WENDORF &BLANCHFIELD
      El 250 First National Bank Building
      332 Minnesota St.
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 287-2100
      Facsimile: (651)287-2103
      E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Switch Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Alondra Ibanez and Sylvia Degado, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-05238 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to disclose ignition switch defects in
General Motors vehicles.

General Motors LLC, is a Delaware company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan, conducts business in this District, and is
responsible for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of all
General Motor automobiles in the United States, as well as
engineering design, development, research and development, and
manufacturing activities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq.
      SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES AND BARNERD LLP
      455 Market Street Suite 1150
      San Francisco, CA 94015
      Telephone: (415) 536-3986
      Facsimile: (415) 537-4120
      E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com

         - and -

      Jayne Conroy, Esq.
      Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
      Andrea Bierstein, Esq.
      Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
      112 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016-7416
      Telephone: (212) 784-6400
      Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
      E-mail: jconroy@simmonsfirm.com
              phanly@simmonsfirm.com
              abierstein@simmonsfirm.com
              mbreit@simmonsfirm.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Panadol Advance Bottle
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), of Moon Township, Penn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 10,600 Panadol Advance 100 count
caplets.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The packaging is not child-resistant as required by the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act.  These products contain acetaminophen
which is required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act to be
sealed with child-resistant packaging.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves bottles of 100ct Panadol Advance pain
relievers.  The medicine was sold in white containers with a blue
label, inside a blue box.  "Panadol" and "Advance" are printed on
the label.  Lot numbers and dates codes are located on the left
side panel of the box and on the left side of the label on the
bottle, near the bar code.  Lot numbers and date codes included in
the recall are:

Lot number: 14241, expiration date: 02/2015
Lot number: 14002, expiration date: 10/2014
Lot number: 13881, expiration date: 09/2014
Lot number: 13801, expiration date: 09/2014

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/XCuAHU

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A. and sold
exclusively at drug, grocery and mass merchandise stores in Puerto
Rico from Nov. 2012 through Feb. 2014 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately place the product out of a child's
sight and reach, and contact GSK for a refund.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Ex-Residents Face Delay in Getting Case Files
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paola Loriggio, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that some
former residents of an Ontario institution for the developmentally
disabled are facing delays in obtaining their case files from the
province after settling a class-action lawsuit out of court.

Many of those involved in the lawsuit over alleged abuse and
neglect at the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, Ont., are
seeking access to records of their stay there as they prepare to
submit a claim for compensation.

Lawyers representing the class, which includes those
institutionalized at the center between 1945 and 2009, say the
deadline to file a claim had to be pushed back from Aug. 5 to
Nov. 30 in part because of the holdup in obtaining the documents.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services, which administers
the records, says it has received more than 2,000 requests for
case files, with more arriving daily.  It says 1,000 files have
been released, some 960 requests are still being processed and
roughly 70 files "have not yet been located" despite efforts to
find them.

Spokeswoman Gloria Er-Chua says the settlement agreement doesn't
require ex-residents to use their files to make a claim.

However, under the terms of the settlement, more money will be
awarded to those who provide more detailed accounts of what they
endured at the facility.

"The delay is certainly concerning to us," said David Rosenfeld,
one of the lawyers representing former Huronia residents.

"One of the major reasons why the settlement was achieved . . . is
because the class is particularly old, they're advancing in age
and persons with disabilities, as far as I understand, have a
higher mortality rate than those of the normal population, so we
wanted to get a settlement that would get some compensation to
them relatively quickly."

"And so any delays to the claims process, and the claims deadline,
delays compensation to the class so of course it's concerning."

A $35-million settlement was reached in September 2013 just as the
suit was about to go to trial and approved in December.

The agreement also called for the province to formally apologize
to the thousands who lived at Huronia for the suffering they
experienced there.

In a speech delivered in the provincial legislature, Premier
Kathleen Wynne addressed what she called a "painful chapter" in
Ontario's history, saying the province had failed to protect its
most vulnerable residents.

Part of the agreement aims to preserve the center's grim history,
which many plaintiffs feared would be swept under the rug when the
case was settled without a trial.

A reference to the "conditions" at the center must appear on a
commemorative plaque on the Huronia grounds.  The cemetery where
hundreds of children were buried must be maintained and the names
of the dead catalogued.

Researchers will also be allowed to visit the now-closed center
and retrieve artifacts they deem historically important.

The facility opened in 1876 as the Orillia Asylum for Idiots and
was operated by the province for 133 years before it shut down in
2009.  The suit alleged residents suffered almost daily
humiliation and abuse.  Some said they worked in the fields for
little or no money, and recalled being put in straightjackets or
drugged, as well as other physical, sexual and verbal abuses.


HYMANS SEAFOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Alshehabi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hymans Seafood Company, Inc.; Eli Hyman, individually;
Aaron Hyman, individually; and Brad Gena, individually, Case No.
2:14-cv-02724 (D.S.C., July 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation as well as other relief
allowed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hymans Seafood Company, Inc., owns and operates a restaurant in
downtown Charleston.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E. MILLER LAW OFFICE
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Telephone: (843) 579-7373
      E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Fuel-Economy Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Ji-yoon, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that six
carmakers, including two Korean and four foreign companies, have
been hit with an unprecedented class-action lawsuit here for
making bogus fuel-economy claims on their top-selling models.

A group of 1,785 car owners filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central
District Court on July 7, seeking between 1.5 million won and 3
million won ($1,490-$2,960) each in compensation over the false
gas mileage claims.

Of them, 1,517 people -- or about 85 percent -- were owners of
Hyundai Motor's Santa Fe sport utility vehicle, while 234 were
owners of Ssangyong Motor's Korando Sports.

Four of the foreign models are the Audi A4 2.0 TDI, Volkswagen
Tiguan 2.0 TDI, Chrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee and BMW Mini Cooper
Countryman.

"These companies misled consumers into purchasing vehicles of a
different quality and paying higher fuel costs than promised,"
said Kim Woong, a lawyer with law firm Yeyul representing the
plaintiffs.

"They were engaged in fraud, false advertising and a breach of
warranty."

According to Kim, Some 3,000 consumers expressed their intention
to file a lawsuit and the first batch of the complaints was filed
as related documents were ready.

"We will continue to collect complaints by the Aug. 24 deadline
and file additional lawsuits," he added.

In February, a group of consumers had launched a lawsuit against
Hyundai over the mileage overstatement.  But the court denied the
claim at the time.

The new lawsuit was prompted by recent government tests that found
discrepancies between the stated and actual fuel economy ratings
of the six car models.

On June 26, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
decided to impose 1 billion won and 200 million won in fines on
Hyundai and Ssangyong, respectively, for reporting inaccurate fuel
ratings on their two SUV models.

On the same day, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
confirmed that the discrepancies between the stated and actual gas
mileages of the two Korean cars were within the legally allowable
level of 5 percent.

But the Industry Ministry said it will sanction four foreign cars
for overstating fuel ratings.  Based on their car sales, each
carmaker is expected to face fines worth 3 to 4 million won.

The different test results spared much controversy among carmakers
even though the government later decided that the Transport
Ministry should take the initiative on related vehicle tests in
the future.

"We will explain our position fully in court," a Hyundai official
said of the new class-action suit.


JC SEAFOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yusniel H. Ramirez, and others similarly situated v. JC Seafood,
Inc., a Florida corporation, The Fish Company, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Carlos J. Sanguily individually, James O'Hanlon
individually and Michael O'Hanlon individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
22494 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2014), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

JC Seafood, Inc. and The Fish Company, Inc., are seafood suppliers
doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS P.A.
      5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230
      Miami, FL 33126
      Telephone: (305) 403-2000
      Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
      E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com


JORDY'S TRUCK: "Pelayo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Pelayo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jordy's Truck Parts & Service, Inc. and Cynthia Ortiz,
Case No. 4:14-cv-01873 (S.D. Tex., July 3, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jordy's Truck Parts & Service, Inc., owns and operates a parts
store for heavy duty trucks located at 11733 Highway 75 North,
Willis, Texas 77378.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net


KELLOGG ROOFING: "Self" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Self, on behalf of himself and of all other individuals
similarly situated v. Kellogg Roofing Construction, LLC, Case No.
3:14-cv-01429 (M.D. Tenn. July 7, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and equal amount of liquidated damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kellogg Roofing Construction, LLC, owns and operates a
construction company located in Hermitage, Davidson County,
Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Morgan E. Smith, Esq.
      Randall W. Burton,Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MORGAN SMITH
      144 2nd Avenue North, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 620-5848
      Facsimile: (615) 244-9231
      E-mail: morgan@lawonyourschedule.com


LABORATORY CORP: Disclosed Credit Card Expiry Dates, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher W. Legg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61543 (S.D. Fla., July 6,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for knowingly and
intentionally including credit and debit card expiration dates on
its electronically printed receipts.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings provides clinical
laboratory services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bret Leon Lusskin Jr., Esq.
      BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
      20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (954) 454-5841
      Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
      E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

        - and -

      Scott David Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd.
      Hallandale, FL 33009
      Telephone (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


LIFEGUARD PRESS: Recalls Charging Kits Due to Fire, Shock Hazards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lifeguard Press Inc. Bowling Green, Ky., announced a voluntary
recall of about 25,400 Charging Kits.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The wall charger can overheat and emit smoke and sparks, posing
fire and burn hazards to consumers.  The prongs on the charger can
detach and remain in the electrical outlet, posing a risk of
electrical shock.

Lifeguard Press has received six reports of the wall chargers
emitting smoke and sparking and six reports of prongs detaching
from the plug.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves seven models of charging kits with universal
serial bus (USB) connectors that are used to recharge Apple
iPhone, iPad and iPod devices.  The recalled kits were sold under
the Ban.do, Jonathan Adler and Lilly Pulitzer brand names and
contained a wall charger, a 12 to 24-volt car charger, a 30-pin
USB cord and a Lightning port adapter.  The wall chargers are
plastic cubes about 1 1/4 inches long, 1 inch wide and 1/2 inch
tall with two metal prongs for plugging into an electrical outlet
on one end and a USB port on the opposite end.  Ban.do wall
chargers came in the colors yellow and black and white stripe.
Jonathan Adler wall chargers came in multicolor and blue and white
patterns. Lilly Pulitzer wall chargers came in multicolor floral
patterns.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Tt3HcV

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Dillard's, Lilly Pulitzer, Nordstrom's and independent boutiques
nationwide from February 2014 to June 2014 for between $25 and
$30.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the USB wall
charger and contact Lifeguard Press to return the charging kit for
a full refund.


LINGERIE FOOTBALL: Misclassifies Players to Avoid OT, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lingerie League misclassifies its football players as
independent contractors to avoid paying them wages and overtime, a
former player claims in a class action, reports Matt Reynolds at
Courthouse News Service.

Melissa Margulies sued Legends Football League, Lingerie Football
League and the league's founder and chairman Mitchell Mortaza on
June 27, 2014, in Superior Court.  Margulies claim some players in
the 10-team league went through complete seasons without being
paid a dime.

Originating as a halftime show at the Superbowl, Legends Football
also operates leagues in Australia and Canada.  Until last year,
players wore modified bras, panties, and garters.  But Mortaza has
since adopted the Legends Football League brand and replaced
lingerie with performance wear and protective shoulder pads.

According to Margulies, the league requires players to sign on as
independent contractors, but the contract requires players to sign
over their publicity and promotional rights, and attend all
practices and promotional events.  And if players do not show up
at practices, games or events they may be fired.

"The designation of the football players as independent
contractors was and is clearly improper because the players lack
the requisite control and discretion over their job
responsibilities and duties to deserve treatment as independent
contractors," the complaint states.

Margulies, who played in the league for three years until August
2013, says players are not paid minimum wage.  She says wages are
tied to ticket sales and team performance.

"However, there were entire seasons where plaintiff and members of
the plaintiff class received no income despite playing in the
football league," the 20-page complaint states.

Alleging violations of labor laws, Margulies seeks general and
compensatory damages, restitution, waiting time penalties,
interest and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Morrison, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 394-0888
          Facsimile: (310) 394-0811
          E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com


MANGOES CAFE: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Suchite Morales, Marvin Hernandez, Thomas Hernandez on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mangoes
Cafe Inc., doing business as: Mangoes Mexican Bar & Grill, Walter
Aguirre, Marco Aguirre, Case No. 2:14-cv-04168 (E.D.N.Y. July 7,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mangoes Cafe Inc., owns and operates a restaurant located in
Bethpage, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea Rodriguez, Esq.
      Peter A. Romeo, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      500 Bi-county Blvd
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Telephone: (631) 756-0400
      Facsimile: (631) 756-0547
      E-mail: atarazi@laborlaws.com
              promeo@laborlaws.com


MASTER CUTLERY: Recalls Neck Knives Due to Laceration Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Master Cutlery Inc., of Secaucus, New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,000 MTech USA Karambit Neck Knife and
Sheath.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The sheath does not hold the knife securely, allowing the knife to
fall out of the sheath unexpectedly.  This poses a risk of
laceration to the consumer.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves the Karambit neck knife and sheath.  The half-
moon shaped knife measures 7 inches in length and was sold in an
urban camo print.  "MTech USA" is laser printed on the blade.
Model number MT-664UC-SO is marked on the back of the knife.  The
knife fits into an unmarked molded black sheath that is about 4.5
inches in length.  The sheath has a snap clip on the back and also
comes with a beaded lanyard chain.  Replacement sheaths have
"MTech USA" laser printed on the back.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/nXL3ec

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Big 5 Sporting Goods stores from March 2014 through
May 2014 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled knife and
sheath, store the knife and sheath in a safe area and contact
Master Cutlery for instructions on obtaining a free replacement
sheath.


MBJ CAFETERIA: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Garcia and Solomon Atanacio Maldonado, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v.  MBJ Cafeteria Corp.
d/b/a MBJ Food Services, MBJ LIC Corp., MBJ JV Inc., MBJ Downtown
Inc., Joaquin Vasques, Christina Rugoso, Michael Geller, and
Richard Halem, Case No. 1:14-cv-05020 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

MBJ Cafeteria Corp., MBJ LIC Corp., MBJ JV Inc., and MBJ Downtown
Inc., provide cafeteria and catering services in various City
University of New York higher educational institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDORA SNACKS: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregor Martin on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Medora Snacks, LLC, Medora Holdings, LLC, Costco
Wholesale Corporation, Linda Fishman, and Barry Renow, Case No.
1:14-cv-05059 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Medora Snacks, LLC, Medora Holdings, LLC, Costco Wholesale
Corporation own and operate PopCorners, a brand of "all natural"
popped corn chip products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Nicholas P. Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 ParkAvenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


MONSANTO CO: Residents Can Register Dioxin Claims in Nitro Office
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The State Journal reports that people who lived, worked or
attended school in areas impacted by dioxins produced at
Monsanto's Nitro plant can register their interest in obtaining
medical monitoring or property clean up if they haven't already
done so.

The Monsanto class action settlement took effect May 7.  Beginning
Tuesday, July 8, the court-appointed administrator of the Nitro
Class Action Settlement, Thomas V. Flaherty, will have an office
in Nitro through Oct. 31 to help individuals who qualify obtain
benefits for exposure to the dioxins, a chemical by-product of the
weed killers produced at the Nitro plant.

Dioxins have been linked to cancer, birth defects and learning
disabilities as well as other serious health concerns.

To avoid going to trial, Monsanto agreed in 2012 to spend up to
$84 million on a 30-year medical monitoring program -- $21 million
for the initial testing, with another $63 million available if
dioxin levels warrant. They also agreed to spend another $9
million on property clean up.

The claims office, located at 2303 1st Avenue, Nitro, will be open
July 8-Oct. 31 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Tuesday through Friday, and
from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturdays.

Mr. Flaherty and Class Counsel Stuart Calwell said the settlement
comes after eight years of litigation and appeals. Now that the
agreement is finalized, settlement money can be used for "medical
examinations and property cleanup services to people and property
affected the production of 'dioxin' at the Nitro Monsanto plant,"
they said.

To be eligible for medical testing, individuals must have been
gone to school, worked or lived near Nitro in Putnam or Kanawha
counties full-time between January 1, 1948 and Sept. 30, 2010.
Those who pre-registered should receive packets in the mail.
Those who haven't already registered but would like to should
contact the Nitro Class Action Settlement Administrators by
calling (877) 673-5049, emailing info@ncasallc.com or visiting the
Nitro office.

Information also is available online at www.bibbclass.com or by
contacting the Calwell Practice, 500 Randolph St., Charleston.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Sued in C.D. California Over TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph R. Manning Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly v. Monster Worldwide, Inc.; and DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
8:14-cv-01035 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently and intentionally contacting Plaintiff
on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Monster Worldwide, Inc., is an online employment solution for
people seeking jobs and employers who need people.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. O'Malley, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: jomalley@trialnewport.com


MVM INC: Faces "Buckson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Guards Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rolanda Buckson, 1707 E. 31 Street, Baltimore, MD 21218 v.
MVM Inc.,  8301 Greensborodr., Ste 300, Mclean,VA22102
CSC Lawyers Inc., Service Co., 7 St. Paul street, Suite1660,
Baltimore, MD 21202, Case No. 1:14-cv-02160 (D. Md., July 3,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation to security guards for required training or
training time.

MVM Inc. and CSC Lawyers Inc., provide security guards at various
governmental facilities in Maryland, Washington, D.C. and
Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devan Michael Wae Wang, Esq.
      Richard P. Neuworth, Esq.
      LEBAU AND NEUWORTH LLC
      606 Baltimore Ave, Ste 201
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 296-3030
      Facsimile: (410) 296-8660
      E-mail: dw@joblaws.net
              rn@joblaws.net


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Players Can Have Up to $5K According to Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Around 100,000 college football and men's basketball players can
receive up to $5,000 a year for use of their likenesses in NCAA-
based video games, according to a settlement in an ongoing class
action dispute, reports Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

Attorneys for former Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller announced in
June that they had reached a settlement with the NCAA over a class
action, now in its fifth year, involving publicity rights for
former and current college athletes.

This settlement followed a $40 million settlement deal with
Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Co., which is expected to
go to around 100,000 college athletes.

In total, a fund of $60 million is expected to be available for
student athletes whose names, images and likenesses were used in
EA video games, according to court documents.

Testimony in the trial involving NCAA athletes on television
wrapped up June 27, 2014, and U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken
is expected to rule in mid-August.

The terms of the video games settlement were filed in U.S.
District Court on June 30, 2014.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs
estimate that the settlement with the NCAA would result in 75
percent of the amount they hoped to recover at trial, calling it
"a very favorable outcome."

The settlement with the NCAA caps payments at $1,818 per roster
appearance, and $3,182 for the EA settlement.  The combined
settlements will create a cash fund of $60 million before fees and
expenses.

Sam Keller, Bryan Cummings, Bryon Bishop and Lamar Watkins are the
named plaintiffs in the NCAA right-of-publicity class, and are
expected to receive $5,000 each from the settlement.  Keller and
O'Bannon would receive $15,000 from the EA settlement.

The EA settlement includes a portion for "roster-only" plaintiffs
who did not have avatars in video games.

Judge Wilken must approve the settlement before it goes into
effect.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
                  leonard@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
          Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1200 G. Street N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-4486
          Facsimile: (866) 734-0622
          E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com
                  cboyd@smplegal.com

The NCAA is represented by:

          Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
          Kelly M. Klaus, Esq.
          Rohit K. Singla, Esq.
          Carolyn H. Luedtke, Esq.
          Luis Li, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512-4000
          Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
          E-mail: glenn.pomerantz@mto.com
                  kelly.klaus@mto.com
                  rohit.singla@mto.com
                  carolyn.luedtke@mto.com
                  luis.li@mto.com

               - and -

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Robert J. Wierenga, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 S. Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1500
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  rwierenga@schiffhardin.com

The case is Samuel Michael Keller, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Electronic Arts, Inc.;
National Collegiate Athletics Association; Collegiate Licensing
Company, Case No. 4:09-cv-1967 CW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


NEW SOUTH WALES: Defense Dept. May Face Suit Over State Mine Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Blue Mountains Gazette, a report which found that
Defence personnel were responsible for the State Mine bushfire
which destroyed two homes at Mr. Irvine and three others further
west has added weight to fire victims' rights to compensation,
according to a senior barrister.

Brendan Pendergast, the class action principal with Maddens
Lawyers, said the inquiry highlighted a litany of errors and a
disturbing lack of procedure and supervision at the Marangaroo
Training Centre when it came to fire risk and bushfire prevention.

"The results of this report suggest the Defence Department's
handling of fire risk at this site was, at best, disorganized and,
and worst, cavalier," Mr. Pendergast said.

He urged locals affected by the fires to make a claim.  Maddens
was offering victims a "no win, no fee" approach to its
compensation claim advice, ensuring that victims would not lose
out, regardless of the result.

"Any compensation payouts will be greater than any costs
incurred," he said.  "On the other hand, if the case doesn't stand
up, there are no legal fees to pay."

Maddens is leading a class action on behalf of victims of the
Springwood/Winmalee fire against Endeavour Energy, which it claims
was responsible because of inadequate maintenance of trees.  It
also gained compensation for many survivors of the Black Saturday
bushfires in Victoria in 2009.

Mr. Pendergast said the Marangaroo report showed that, for as long
as 20 years, "the department completely overlooked any
recommendations or suggestions they implement bushfire prevention
strategies at the site, even though the training ground had been
identified as a huge risk".

"Even the NSW RFS had indicated the site was too risky for them to
work at.  Yet, still, the Defence Department made little, if no,
efforts to rectify the situation."

Mr. Pendergast said the cost of these oversights was now being
paid for by the property owners burnt out by the fire.  "People
who had little knowledge of, and certainly no control over, what
went on at the Marangaroo site are still today the ones that are
paying the highest price for the inadequacies of the Defence
Department," he said.

"People affected by this fire should not feel they need to 'wear'
the costs and inconvenience the October 16 fire imposed."

He also suggested that fire victims often underestimated the full
value of property lost in a bushfire, particularly when it came to
the value of assets like trees, orchards and gardens, and the
negative impact of the fire on properties, such as erosion.

He encouraged any victims of the State Mine fire to contact
Maddens Lawyers, either via the firm's website --
maddenslawyers.com.au -- or the hotline (1800 815 228).


PACIFIC COAST: Faces "Welch" Shareholder Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Welch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pacific Coast Oil Trust, Pacific Coast Energy Company
LP, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, Halbert S.
Washburn, Randall H. Breitenbach, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC,
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Robert W.
Baird & Co. Incorporated, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated, Oppenhetmer & Co. Inc, and Janney Montgomery Scott
LLC, Case No. BC550418 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendants made materially
misleading statements and omitted material information from
Pacific Coast's Registration Statements and Prospectuses.

The Registration Statement made false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's (1) capital expenditures and (2) hedge
contracts' expiration, Mr. Welch contends.

Pacific Coast Oil Trust is a Delaware statutory perpetual trust
formed by Pacific Coast Energy Company LP through a conveyance of
interests in California onshore oil properties located in the
Santa Maria and Los Angeles Basins.  Pacific Coast Energy Company
LP owns the underlying properties from which these net profits
interests were conveyed.  Pacific Coast Energy Company LP offers
oil and gas exploration, development, and production services.
The Company was formerly known as BreitBura Energy Company L.P.
and changed its name to Pacific Coast Energy Company LP in
December 2011.  The Company was founded in 1997 and is based in
Los Angeles, California.

PCEC (GP) LLC manages Pacific Coast Energy Company LP.  Pacific
Coast Energy Holdings LLC is the sole member of Defendant PCEC
(GP) LLC.  PCEC (GP) LLC is managed by the Board of
Representatives of Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC.  The
principal business of PCEC is located in Los Angeles, California.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Pacific Coast Defendants.

Defendants Barclays, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, UBS,
Wells Fargo, RBC, Baird, Stifel, Oppenheimer, and Janney were the
underwriters of the Company's Offering, served as a financial
advisor, and assisted in the preparation and dissemination of the
Pacific Coast Defendants' alleged false and misleading
Registration Statement.  The Underwriter Defendants are investment
banking houses which specialize, inter alia, in underwriting
public offerings of securities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          4771 Cromwell Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (213) 985-1274
          Facsimile: (213) 985-1278
          E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com
                  jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12
          Cleveland Heights, OH 44106
          Telephone: (216) 229-6088
          Facsimile: (216) 229-6092
          E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Donald Broggi, Esq.
          Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com
                  tlaughlin@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Amber Eck, Esq.
          ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          625 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
          E-mail: ambere@zhlaw.com


PASADENA CITY, CA: Suit Disputes Water Rates Set for Nonresidents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.; Linnea Warren; Thomas Wolfe; Edward
Henry; and all others similarly situated v. City of Pasadena, Case
No. BC550394 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2014)
challenges two components of the rates charged by the City of
Pasadena for water service to nonresidents.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is a nonprofit public benefit
corporation with over 200,000 California taxpaying members.  HJTA
was organized under the laws of California for the purpose, among
others, of advocating the reduction of taxes and engaging in civil
litigation on behalf of its members and all California taxpayers
to achieve its tax reduction goals.  The Individual Defendants are
Pasadena water customers.

On behalf of themselves and all members of the class they
represent, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that both components
are invalid, and a refund of the amounts charged for each
component beginning March 24, 2013.

The City of Pasadena is a charter city in California.  The City
levies and collects the charges that are the subject of the
litigation.  The City operates its own utility, designated
Pasadena Water and Power, for the provision of water and
electricity to its residents and nonresident subscribers.
Pasadena Water and Power is not an independently governed separate
entity, but is a department of the City.

The City bills its customers a fixed monthly "distribution and
customer charge" based on their meter size, plus a tiered
"commodity rate" based on the amount of water they consume during
the month.  Under Section 13.20.030 of the Pasadena Municipal
Code, Area B customers (those outside the city) are charged
approximately 25% more than Area A customers (those inside the
city) for both "distribution and customer charges" and "commodity
rates."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan M. Coupal, Esq.
          Timothy A. Bittle, Esq.
          J. Ryan Cogdill, Esq.
          HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS FOUNDATION
          921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 444-9950


PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Celecoxib Patent
-------------------------------------------------------------
AFSCME Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., G.D. Searle LLC, and
Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Case No. 3:14-cv-00482 (E.D. Va.,
July 3, 2014), alleges that the Defendants implemented a scheme to
unlawfully prolong patent protection for Celecoxib to avoid the
consequences of the Federal Circuit ruling invalidating its patent
and allowing earlier competition into the market for Celebrex.

Pfizer, Inc., is engaged in the worldwide marketing, production,
and distribution of pharmaceutical products, including in this
district.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Buckley Warden IV, Esq.
      Wyatt B. Durrette Jr., Esq.
      DURRETTECRUMP PLC
      1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 916-6597
      Facsimile: (804) 775-6911
      E-mail: bwarden@durrettecrump.com
              wdurrette@durrettecrump.com


PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Pfizer Inc. won
the dismissal on July 8 of a long-running shareholder class action
accusing the company of misleading investors about the safety of
its Celebrex and Bextra pain-relieving drugs.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in New York
came ahead of a Sept. 9 trial in the case, which investors
launched in 2004 and followed an earlier ruling precluding
testimony by the plaintiffs' damages expert.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, James Sabella -- jsabella@gelaw.com
-- had acknowledged at a hearing after that May ruling that
"without a damages expert a securities fraud trial can't be
tried."  They sought to amend a report issued by their expert,
Daniel Fischel, a former dean of the law school at the University
of Chicago whose methodology for calculating damages Swain had
found to be flawed.

Judge Swain, however, said the plaintiffs did not deserve a second
chance and agreed with Pfizer the case should be dismissed.

"Plaintiffs' failure to proffer admissible loss causation and
damages evidence is fatal to plaintiffs' claims," Judge Swain
wrote.

Pfizer in a statement said it was pleased with the ruling, adding
it "has always believed the evidence in this case demonstrates
that the company's historical statements about Celebrex and Bextra
were accurate."

Mr. Sabella, a partner at law firm Grant & Eisenhofer who
represented lead plaintiff Teachers' Retirement System of
Louisiana, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The class action, which Swain had previously certified, covered
investors who bought Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000, and
October 19, 2005.  Concerns about the safety of Celebrex and
Bextra began to mount following the release of medical studies in
late 2004, when rival Merck & Co Inc withdrew its own Vioxx drug
from the market because of associated cardiovascular risks.  The
lawsuit contended before fall of 2004, Pfizer and its executives
hid material results of tests conducted starting in 1998 regarding
the safety of Celebrex and Bextra that indicated similar risks.

Revenues from Celebrex and Bextra fell by over $2 billion in the
first nine months of 2005 after the safety concerns were made
public, the lawsuit said.  The company's market capitalization
meanwhile dropped by $68.4 billion between October 2004 and
October 2005, the lawsuit said.

Pfizer pulled Bextra from the U.S. market in April 2005 at the
recommendation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In September 2009, Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle a
U.S. Department of Justice probe into the marketing of drugs
including Bextra.

The case is In re: Pfizer Inc Securities Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 05-md-01688.


PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Price" Class Suit Over Merger With Avago
---------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Price, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. PLX Technology, Inc., Michael J. Salameh, Martin
Colombatto, Stephen Domenik, John H. Hart, David K. Raun, Ralph
Schmitt, Eric Singer, Patrick Verderico, Avago Technologies
Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., and Pluto Merger Sub, Inc.,
Case No. 9853 (Del. Ch. Ct., July 2, 2014) arises out of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger between the Company and Avago
pursuant to which Avago has agreed to acquire all the outstanding
shares of the Company through the Offer.

PLX is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
located in Sunnyvale, California.  PLX designs, develops,
manufactures and sells integrated circuits that perform critical
system connectivity functions.  The Company provides a range of
connectivity bridges that allow various systems to communicate
with each other and offers a full complement of semiconductor
devices, software development kits, hardware design kits, software
drivers, and firmware solutions.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Avago is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avago Technologies Limited,
a Singapore corporation with principal executive offices located
in Yishun Avenue, Singapore.  Avago is a leading designer,
developer, and global supplier of analog, digital, mixed signal,
and optoelectronics components and subsystems and specializes in
III-V compound semiconductor design and processing.  Merger Sub is
a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avago.
Merger Sub was created for the sole purpose of closing the
Proposed Transaction and has not engaged in any other business
activities prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike
          Building C, Suite 305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957
          Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
          E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
                  cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4693
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
                  kaufman@whafh.com


POCAHONTAS COUNTY, VA: Residents' Appeal Over Landfill Fees Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The State Journal reports that the state Supreme Court rejected an
appeal by some Pocahontas County residents who don't think they
should have to pay mandatory garbage fees if they recycle, compost
and make use of "free days" at the local landfill.

Residents John Leyzorek, Douglas H. Bernier and Charlotte W. Elza
had appealed a circuit court order that collectively assessed
several thousand dollars in fees, penalties and interest against
them for their non-payment, but the court affirmed the circuit
court ruling and calling their arguments "frivolous."

The three had insisted they should be exempt from paying for
garbage service because they use alternative methods of disposal,
but the court said not using so-called "green boxes" for recycling
or subscribing to the refuse service "does not excuse the non-
payment" of the refuse fee.

A Pocahontas County Circuit judge disagreed, however, ordering
Bernier to pay $49 in unpaid "green box" fees for 2006, plus $150
in statutory penalties as well as costs and pre- and post-judgment
interest; Mr. Leyzorek was ordered to pay $498 in unpaid "green
box" fees for 2001 through 2006, plus $900 in statutory penalties,
costs and pre- and post-judgment interest as well as a judgment.
Ms. Elza, too, was fined $498 in unpaid green box fees for 2001
through 2006, plus $90 in statutory penalties, plus costs and pre-
and post-judgment interest.

Mr. Leyzorek, Mr. Bernier and Ms. Elza also questioned whether a
county has the authority to enact a mandatory refuse service fee,
an argument the court dismissed as "meritless."  They also
questioned whether they were being deprived of equal protection
and if the "green box" fee was permissible tax under the state
constitution.

The court, however, found that a mandatory refuse fee "is a
reasonable and valid exercise of the police powers" and that
county and regional solid waste authorities have a duty to develop
a comprehensive litter and solid waste control plan and thus have
rule-making authority.

"The Court concludes that the circuit court correctly awarded
respondent summary judgment because the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for petitioners,"
the justice pointed out in the memorandum decision.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Liable in Pennsylvania OT Suit, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Pearson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
RadioShack Corp., the electronics retailer that could run short on
cash next year, was found by a federal judge to have violated
Pennsylvania law for calculating overtime wages.

While RadioShack's calculations comply with baseline federal
regulations, they violate the state's more expansive Minimum Wage
Act, which requires compensating workers for overtime at 1-1/2
times the basic rate, U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg in
Philadelphia ruled on July 10.  RadioShack said last year that it
faces at least $5.8 million in claims for unpaid overtime in the
Pennsylvania case.

Former store manager David Verderame sued the chain last year in
state court accusing it of shortchanging workers on overtime since
April 2010.

RadioShack had the case moved to federal court and asked Goldberg
to dismiss the claims.  The July 10 ruling sets the stage for
evidence gathering on potential damages and time-keeping data,
Pete Winebrake, an attorney for Mr. Verderame, said in a phone
interview.

RadioShack used a fluctuating workweek method, paying certain
salaried employees at half the regular rate for overtime hours.
Judge Goldberg cited two similar cases in which federal judges had
ruled that method of calculation impermissible under Pennsylvania
law.

RadioShack, which is facing increasing pressure from an
industrywide slump in electronics demand, may run short on cash
next year, Standard & Poor's said in a June 16 report.  The Fort
Worth, Texas-based company faces a significant chance of default
in the next year, according to S&P, which lowered the company's
credit rating to CCC.

The case is Verderame v. RadioShack Corp., 13-02539, U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).


REAL TIME: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lee Tannlund, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-05149 (N.D. Ill. July 7, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for its abusive and harassing tactics in an effort to
collect debt.

Real Time Resolutions, Inc., is one of the largest non-originating
servicers of real estate mortgage loans and specializes in
residual loan workouts, including non-mortgage debts, for other
large financial institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Daniel Ankcornm, Esq.
      ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC
      11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (619) 870-0600
      Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
      E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com


RIVKA ORLYN: "Felix" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Felix, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Rivka Orlyn d/b/a Cafe Mogador, Case No. 1:14-cv-05027
(S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Rivka Orlyn owns restaurant called Cafe Mogador located at 101
Saint Marks Place, New York, NY, 10009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
      ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
      271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 576-1857
      Facsimile: (212) 576-1888


SEQWATER: Maurice Blackburn Files Class Action Over 2011 Floods
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Age's Amy Remeikis and The Australian Associated Press report
that Australia's largest class action has been filed on behalf of
Queenslanders, as victims of the 2011 floods seek to claim damages
from the Queensland government and water agencies Seqwater and
Sunwater.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers filed the claim in the New South Wales
Supreme Court on behalf of more than 4000 flood affected residents
and businesses.

Principal Damian Scattini said the January 2011 flood, which
devastated much of south east Queensland was "preventable".

Many people have been led to assume that the January 2011 flood
was caused by unprecedented heavy rainfall in early January, and
that as a result the flood that occurred could not be avoided --
when that is simply wrong," Mr. Scattini said in a statement.

"The claim filed on July 8 paints a much starker picture, going
back to as far as December 1, 2010, and outlining that for every
day in December 2010 through until mid-January 2011 there was a
flood emergency -- where both dams were full, substantial heavy
rain had already fallen and more rain was predicted.

"Despite this, at every opportunity from December 1, 2010 onwards
the flood engineers failed again and again to undertake proper
release strategies for both dams, irrespective of the continuing
weather warnings that made it clear more heavy rain was expected.

"This continued until the engineers were left with no other option
but to dump huge volumes of water at once in mid-January, leading
to a flood event that should have been avoided."

No specific dollar figures have been linked to the compensation
claim, however estimates place it at about $1 billion.  The exact
figure will only be known if the class action lawyers can prove
the operation of the dams created the flooding.

Premier Campbell Newman said he "would love to" comment on the
class action, but could not as it was now before the courts.

In 2012 Queensland's long-running flood inquiry found Wivenhoe Dam
operators did not not properly follow the manual on the weekend
leading up to the flood peak.

The inquiry also found dam engineers John Tibaldi, Rob Ayre and
Terry Malone had breached Wivenhoe dam's operating manual and
referred them to the then Crime and Misconduct Commission to
examine whether they lied under oath and covered their tracks
about which strategies they adopted.

After a five-month review, the CMC found there was no evidence the
engineers colluded to mislead the floods inquiry about how
Wivenhoe was managed before Brisbane and Ipswich flooded.

But in line with the flood inquiry's recommendations, the CMC's
probe was limited to documents the engineers prepared about their
actions and their oral testimony to the inquiry.

It did not look at whether their management of the dam's gates
during the flood crisis could amount to a criminal offence or
official misconduct.

More than 78 per cent of Queensland was declared a disaster zone
and more than 2.5 million people were affected during the floods
from December 2010 to January 2011.


SLOAN VALVE: Aug. 25 Hearing Set for $18MM Flushmate Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
hearing has been set for final approval of an $18 million class
action settlement to compensate owners of Flushmate toilets
containing a flaw that has caused more than 300 of the devices to
explode.

The Aug. 25 hearing in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California will bring hundreds of thousands of
potential class members closer to receiving at least $50 each to
make up for the trouble their toilets caused them.

Since the Consumer Product Safety Commission declared the toilets
defective in 2012, more than 2.4 million Series 503 Flushmate III
Pressure-Assist Flushing Systems have been recalled.  That year,
the commission said it had received 304 reports of toilet-tank
explosions and 14 reports of impact or laceration injuries.

The flawed mechanism involves a sealed plastic vessel that sits
inside the toilet tank.  Unlike ordinary commodes, which use
gravity to flush the water out, the Flushmate system compresses
and pressurizes air inside the vessel which, when the toilet is
flushed, releases the air, which then forces water into the bowl,
which then "pushes" the waste out.  The system was touted as a
water saver that was more effective than traditional johns, and
was sold as a "premium" product that added about $100 to the cost
of toilet, according to the complaint in United Desert Charities
v. Sloan Valve Co.

The problem was, according to the complaint, that the pressure in
the vessels proved too strong for seams which, when they burst,
propelled the forced air at a velocity so strong it could lift the
lid off the toilets' tanks, shattering them and often causing
collateral bathroom damage.

Sloan Valve Co., the parent company of Flushmate products, offered
a repair kit to toilet owners who wanted to preclude such an
explosion, but refused to pay the cost of installation, according
to the complaint.

That didn't sit well with United Desert Charities, a Palmdale,
Calif., nonprofit that owned seven toilets with the Flushmate
pressure system.  In 2012, the organization sued Sloan and toilet
manufacturer American Standard Brands, alleging the repair kits
don't repair the flaw and cannot even be installed in many
toilets.  The complaint contended that the defendants failed to
properly design and test the Flushmate system, and asked for
actual and punitive damages, as well as restitution.

According to settlement documents filed on June 30, the defendants
will pay for unreimbursed out-of-pocket repair and replacement
costs as well as property damage.

Lead plaintiffs' attorney is David Birka-White --
dbw@birka-white.com -- of Birka-White Law Offices.


STAAR SURGICAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 8 disclosed has filed a class action lawsuit
against STAAR Surgical Company and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Central
District of California, and docketed under 14-cv-05263, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased STAAR securities between February 27, 2013 and June 30,
2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased STAAR securities during the
Class Period, you have until September 8, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

STAAR designs, develops, manufactures and sells implantable lenses
for the eye and delivery systems used to deliver lenses into the
eye.  The Company purports to be the leading maker of lenses used
worldwide in corrective or "refractive" surgery, and also makes
lenses for use in surgery that treats cataracts.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that the Company's Monrovia Facility:  (i) lacked adequate
methodologies and facilities for the manufacture, packing, storage
and installation of the Company's implantable lenses; (ii) lacked
adequate procedures for documenting complaints, sterility testing,
and maintaining required records; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, the Monrovia Facility was not in conformity with
current good manufacturing practice requirements at all relevant
times.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
publicly released a Warning Letter, dated May 21, 2014, concerning
an inspection of STAAR's Monrovia Facility which took place from
February 10, 2014 to March 21, 2014.  The FDA letter noted several
regulatory violations at the facility and stated that, among other
things, "the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used
for" manufacture, packing, storage or installation of the
Company's implantable lenses are "not in conformity with the
current good manufacturing practice requirements." The FDA further
advised STAAR that "failure to promptly correct these violations
may result in regulatory action being initiated by the FDA without
further notice."

On this news, STAAR shares declined $1.89, or nearly 11.25%, to
close at $14.91 on July 1, 2014.

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


STAGE 3: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Stage 3 Separation, LLC, Case No. 0:14-cv-61542 (S.D.
Fla., July 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stage 3 Separation, LLC, provides solids control services to the
oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
      5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230
      Miami, FL 33126
      Telephone: (305) 403-2000
      Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
      E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com


STUDENT MAID: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaina Anderson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Student Maid, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00118 (N.D. Fla.
July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Student Maid, Inc., is a Florida corporation which provided
cleaning services to customers, located in Alachua County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew William Birk, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATHEW BIRK
      309 NE 1st St.
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
      E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


TAMKO BUILDING: Faces Class Action Over Defective Shingles
----------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of consumers, along with co-counsel, Birka-White Law
Offices; Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP; and Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, L.L.P., have filed a class action lawsuit against Tamko
Building Products Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento Division (Case 2:14-at-00847).
The lawsuit, which was filed on July 3, 2014, was filed on behalf
of Robert and Linda Hoekman and all others similarly situated who
purchased the shingles.  It is alleged that Tamko shingles are
defective and prone to early failure.

In Hoekman's case, according to the Class Action Complaint, the
claimants compared Tamko's shingles to competitors and decided to
purchase Tamko shingles based on Tamko's advertising and marketing
materials, specifically that the shingles would be free from
defects for 50 years.  In August 2013, the Hoekmans learned that
their shingles were severely cracking, blistering, and prematurely
failing, and that parts of their roof were suffering from
significant granule loss.  They contacted Tamko and received a
Warranty Claim Form to complete and return with photographs and
other supporting documents.  They returned these documents to
Tamko on September 13, 2013 and, on or about October 10, 2013,
they received a letter from Tamko with a "Tamko Warranty Claim
Settlement Work Sheet" and a Material Certificate prorated for 40
squares of the same defective Tamko Heritage Shingle; labor costs
were excluded.  It was only when the Hoekmans contacted Tamko in
August 2013 that they first became aware of Tamko's Limited
Warranty and other limitations.

According to the complaint, Tamko shingles do not perform as
advertised and are not compliant, despite being marketed as being
durable, reliable, and compliant with ASTM D3462 standards
appropriate for use in homes and other structures.  The plaintiffs
also allege negligence/negligent design and unfair and deceptive
trade practices in violation of the California's Unfair
Competition Act (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

Tamko Building Products also assured its customers that the
products would be defect-free for at least 50 years; however, the
Plaintiffs allege that the shingles do not conform to Tamko
Building Products warranties and representations.  According to
the complaint, the Tamko shingles allegedly contain a defect that
causes the following problems:

   -- Blistering
   -- Cracking
   -- Early granule loss
   -- Increased moisture absorption
   -- Wind loss
   -- Reduced life expectancy

Also, according to the lawsuit, there is a specific defect in the
design and manufacture of Tamko's shingles that permits blisters
and cracks to occur.  Tamko designed the shingles to be
manufactured with less than the required amount of asphalt, and in
such a way that the design permits moisture to intrude, which
creates a gas bubble that leads to blistering and cracking.  The
defects in the shingles allegedly result in damage to the building
components of the structures on which they were installed and
damage property within those structures.  It is also alleged that
Tamko continued to market and sell the shingles and make false
representations and warranties despite learning that the shingles
are defective. Tamko also markets and represents that its Shingles
"offer the longest up-front protection available," according to
the lawsuit.

Tamko tiles are unfit for their intended use and the defects are
so severe that consumers must repair or replace their shingles
sooner than reasonably expected and the product is neither durable
nor suitable for use as a building product when compared to other
roofing products, according to the allegations.  Had the
Plaintiffs known that Tamko's Limited Warranty included the
limitations it contains, such as an arbitration clause, the
Plaintiffs would not have had the Tamko shingles installed at
their home, according to the lawsuit's allegations.

Parker Waichman LLP continues to offer free lawsuit consultations
to consumers who have purchased Tamko Business Products shingles
as described in the lawsuit.  For more information, please visit
the firm's Tamko Shingles Class Action Lawsuit page at
yourlawyer.com. Free case evaluations are also available by
calling 1(800) LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).


THOMAS M. COOLEY: 6th Cir. Says School Failed to Prove Malice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the dismissal of dueling defamation claims between a New York firm
and a Michigan school could signal a coda to nationwide litigation
over alleged inflation of the salary expectations for law school
graduates.

Based in Lansing, Mich., Thomas M. Cooley Law School has been
battling the Manhattan-based firm formerly known as Kurzon Strauss
for the past three years over allegations that it lured students
by painting rosy prospects of their future careers.

Cooley defended its reputation by lobbing defamation claims
against its accusers and received a countersuit in return.

On July 2, 2014, the 6th Circuit found that the school failed to
prove "actual malice" by the Manhattan firm, now known as Kurzon
LLP.

A week earlier, a Manhattan federal judge booted Kurzon's
countersuit on standing grounds, in an opinion that described the
origins of the sprawling litigation.

David Anziska, a lawyer formerly with the New York-based firm
Kurzon Strauss, began three years ago to search for signs of fraud
in how law schools across the country promote themselves to
prospective students.  Over the course of his investigation,
Anziska posted a statement on the blog JD Underground calling
Cooley one of the "worst offenders" of postgraduation data
manipulation.  Anziska also noted "reports" that Cooley students
"are defaulting on loans at an astounding 41 percent," the opinion
states.

Although his employer insisted that it did not know about this
blog post and posted a retraction in June 2011, Cooley sued the
firm, its partner Jesse Strauss and Anziska in Michigan state
court for defamation and other counts.

The school also went after four anonymous bloggers, including a
former student behind the site "The Thomas Cooley Law Scam" in
July.  The next month, Kurzon alleged in a Michigan federal
complaint that Cooley committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation
and deceptive business practices regarding its postgraduate
employment data.  New York Law School faced a $200 million lawsuit
alleging similar behavior that same week.

Cooley's president Don LeDuc reacted by posting a private message
on the school's password-protected intranet:

"We believe these particular defendants have crossed the line both
legally and ethically, calling us criminals who deceive our
students and steal their tuition money, and ascribing to us
fraudulent student loan activities and default rates," LeDuc
wrote, according to the ruling.

While LeDuc said the message was intended for students and staff,
Kurzon claimed that LeDuc's statement defamed them to the New York
bar and others.

Virtually all of these cases now have been tossed.

Cooley's general counsel James Thelan commented in an e-mail that
spate of "unsuccessful class action lawsuits" were "unfortunate
and misguided."

"We can't speak for other law schools, but Cooley takes great
pride in the diversity of solid, professional employment that its
graduates find on the strength of the law degree they earn here,"
he wrote.

Meanwhile, the failed lawsuits may indirectly have inspired
reform.

The American Bar Association now "requires law schools to give
more meaningful and transparent statistics regarding post-graduate
employment rates," attorney Jeffrey Kurzon noted in an e-mail.

Thelan countered that this "more detailed breakdown of
postgraduation employment data" is "not any different than the
data that we've always been willing to provide our students,
prospective students, and applicants on request."

Cooley is "pleased to have these matters moving to final
resolution," he added.

Kurzon, for his part, indicated that his firm is "reviewing our
options" regarding the dismissed defamation suit.

The case is Kurzon LLP v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, et al.,
Case No. 12CV8352-LTS-RLE, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


TOTAL BUILDING: Faces "Perkins" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher R. Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Total Building Maintenance Inc., Monica Y.
Rios and Neil Chopra, Case No. No. 3:14-cv-02398 (N.D. Tex., July
3, 2014), unpaid regular wages due, as well as overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Total Building Maintenance Inc., employs janitors to clean
commercial offices and buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcie J. Schanfish, Esq.
      MASSENGILL SCHANFISH, PLLC
      PO Box 217
      Ennis, TX 75120
      Telephone: (972) 878-9105
      Facsimile: (972) 878-0554
      E-mail: marcie@mslegalgroup.com


UNITED BUILDING: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominico Lopez v. United Building Maintenance Associates, Inc. and
Sharad Madison, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05056 (S.D.N.Y.
July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

United Building Maintenance Associates, Inc. is in the commercial
cleaning and maintenance business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffee, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Bldg. 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NY 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffef@jkffeGlenn.com


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit in Minn. Over ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERISAclaim.com on July 7 disclosed that on June 23, 2014,
UnitedHealthcare (UHC) was sued by a new provider class-action in
its overpayment recoupment and offset practice for alleged ERISA
violations and fiduciary fraud.  The new ERISA class-action suit
filed in a federal court in Minnesota alleges that UHC has been
withholding or offsetting new payments in part or in whole from
the providers when the patients and the plan sponsors were
misinformed as if the payments were made to the providers, and
also alleges that UHC has never complied with ERISA claims
regulation when requesting for the alleged overpayment and
offsetting new payments from other patients.  The new putative
class on behalf of all similarly situated providers is seeking for
ERISA benefits payments due, injunctive and declaratory relief,
and ERISA notice and appeal rights.

On July 4, 2014, ERISAclaim.com announced a serious of new
healthcare executive brainstorming programs to assess and
demystify the new ERISA overpayment recoupment and offset
class-action, because the No. 1 health care claim denials today in
USA have been the payer overpayment recoupment and offset
practice, without any ERISA compliance, for several years in the
past for all or certain types of claims, potentially resulting in
inevitable provider bankruptcy and subsequent patient bankruptcy,
according to Dr. Jin Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, a national
expert on ERISA compliance and appeals.

The court case info: Peterson, D. C, et al v. UnitedHealth Group
Inc. et al, U.S. District Court U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN),
Civil Docket For Case #: 0:14-cv-02101-PAM-SER, Filed 06/23/14.
Significantly, this ERISA putative provider class-action for the
"Offset Class" was filed in the wake of and in accordance with a
similar provider class-action filed recently in New Jersey for the
"Recoupment Class":

Case Info: Premier Health Center, P.C., et al. v. UnitedHealth
Group, et al., Case#: 2:11-cv-00425-ES-SCM, Filed 08/01/13, United
States District Court for The District of New Jersey.

A copy of the Court Order is available at http://is.gd/dm2L9C

In the last year court decision in Premier Health Center, P.C., et
al. v. UnitedHealth Group, et al., the court ruled against UHC in
its overpayment recoupment practice:

"To be sure, as previously discussed, United's recoupment
procedures violate three specific ERISA regulations across the
class." according to the court document.

"In 2011, United recovered approximately $430 million in
overpayments to providers.  58% of the $430 million was recovered
as a result of providers' voluntarily sending a check to United,
while 42% was recovered through offsets", according to the court
document.

"However, they all violate ERISA in three respects.  First, they
fail to provide "[a] description of the plan's review procedures
and the time limits applicable to such procedures, including a
statement of the claimant's right to bring acivil action under
section 502(a) of [ERISA] following an adverse benefit
determination on review." 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2650.503-1(g)(1)(iv).25
Second, they fail to indicate that the provider, "upon request and
free of charge, [will have] reasonable access to, and copies of,
all documents, records, and other information relevant to the"
overpayment determination. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2650.503-1(h)(2)(ii).
Third, they fail to "[p]rovide claimants at least 180 days
following receipt of a notification of an adverse benefit
determination within which to appeal the determination." 29 C.F.R.
Sec. 2650.503-1(h)(3)(i)," according to the court document.

However, in the provider class-action in Minnesota, healthcare
providers alleged additional ERISA violations by UnitedHhealthcare
Group for withholding and offsetting newly adjudicated claim
payments from one patient to satisfy another alleged overpayment
in the past from other unidentified patients in complete ERISA
violations, and even worse, by misrepresenting to the patients and
the plan sponsors on patient EOB's that "payment made to
provider", when in truth and in fact no such payment was ever made
to the providers, according to the Court Complaint.

In particular, the plaintiff Lutz Surgical Partners alleged the
following: "For example, . . . Instead, United identified a
different United Insured covered by a different United Plan who
had been treated by Lutz on December 16, 2012.  According to the
PEOB, United caused that United Plan to pay Lutz $19,460.00 for
this treatment which was now characterized by United as the
"ORIGINAL OVERPAYMENT AMOUNT."  The PEOB then explained that the
entire amount owed to Lutz for the services provided to the June
12, 2013 patient ($2,700.00) was being unilaterally offset against
the prior alleged overpayment relating to the December 16, 2012
patient ($19,460.00), with the added explanation that "THIS
REPRESENTS PREVIOUS BENEFITS THAT WERE PAID IN ERROR."  United
therefore reported that the "TOTAL PAID TO THE PROVIDER" for
services rendered to the June 12, 2013 patient was $0.00.  In the
"REMARKS" section of the PEOB, United stated: "The amount payable
for this Explanation of Benefits has been used to reduce an
overpayment made on the given claim(s).  Please adjust your
patient account balance accordingly." according to the court
document.

To find out more about PPACA Claims and Appeals Compliance
Services from ERISAclaim.com:
http://www.erisaclaim.com/products.htm

Located in a Chicago suburb in Illinois, for over 15 years,
ERISAclaim.com is the only ERISA & PPACA consulting, publishing
and website resource for healthcare providers in the country.
ERISAclaim.com offers free webinars, basic and advanced
educational seminars and on-site claims specialist certification
programs for doctors, hospitals and commercial companies, as well
as numerous pending national ERISA class action litigation
support.  Dr. Jin Zhou is regarded as the industry "Godfather of
ERISA claims" for healthcare providers.

For any questions, please contact Dr. Jin Zhou, president of
ERISAclaim.com, at 630-808-7237.


VALEANT PHARMA: Recalls About 850,000 Tubes of Muro Eye Ointment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Loftus, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.'s Bausch & Lomb unit
has recalled about 850,000 tubes of an eye-care ointment because
some tubes contained tiny crystal particles that could injure the
cornea.

Bausch & Lomb said June 27 it believed the crystal particles
formed when the tubes of Muro 128 ointment were exposed to
freezing temperatures during shipments last winter.

The problem could cause injury to the cornea, leading to eye
irritation and abrasions, Bausch & Lomb said in a recall notice it
sent to retailers and distributors May 30, which instructed them
to return the product.  The recall wasn't widely publicized; the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted some details of the
recall on its website.

The over-the-counter ointment is typically used as a nighttime
treatment for corneal edema, or swelling of the outermost layer of
the eye.  Users are supposed to apply a small amount to the inside
of the eyelid every three to four hours or as directed by a
doctor.

Bausch & Lomb said it initiated the voluntary recall in the
interest of patient safety after an increase in the number of
complaints it received from users about a "gritty, sandlike
feeling" in the eye after use of the product.

The recall affects tubes of Muro 128 distributed in the U.S.,
Canada and Hong Kong but not in other regions, said a Bausch &
Lomb spokeswoman.

The company investigated and didn't find any problems with its
manufacturing process, the spokeswoman said.  Instead, Bausch &
Lomb blamed the "extreme weather conditions" of winter, saying the
affected products may have been exposed to freezing temperatures
after leaving company-owned facilities.  Freezing temperatures can
cause the crystal formations in the salt-based product, the
spokeswoman said; boxes containing the tubes carry a "do not
freeze" label.

Several people have posted comments about the recall on Bausch &
Lomb's Facebook page in recent weeks.  One woman said it felt like
"shards of glass" were in her eyes after using the product.
Another complained that Bausch & Lomb didn't sufficiently alert
consumers to the recall.

Bausch & Lomb said the recall notice was only sent to wholesalers,
retailers and eye-care providers, not to consumers, after
discussions with the FDA.

The FDA assigned a "Class II" status to the recall, which the
agency reserves for products that could cause temporary or
reversible problems, or where the risk of serious health problems
is remote.

The recalled lots contained expiration dates ranging from June
2014 to October 2016.


VAPOR PASSION: Faces "Camejo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Ortega Camejo and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Vapor Passion Corp., Yasania Bravo, Carlos
Llamos, Case No. 1:14-cv-22485 (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Vapor Passion Corp., manufactures E-cigarettes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      3191 Grand Ave., #1531
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 458-1282
      Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
      E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com


VOXX INT'L: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 8 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of VOXX
International Corporation common stock between May 15, 2013 and
May 14, 2014, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 8, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/voxx/

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

The complaint charges VOXX and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act.  VOXX, together
with its subsidiaries, operates as a manufacturer and distributor
in the automotive, premium audio, and consumer accessories
industries in the United States and internationally.  The Company
operates in three different segments: (a) Automotive, which
includes rear seat entertainment systems, satellite radio
products, remote start systems, digital TV tuners, mobile
antennas, and other multi-media applications.  Some of the
Company's brands in this segment include Jensen(R), Advent(R),
Audiovox(R), Mac Audio(R), Code Alarm(R), InVision(R), and
Hirschmann; (b) Premium Audio, which includes home theater
systems, high-end loudspeakers, outdoor speakers, sound bars,
sound bases and headphones.  Some of the Company's brands in this
segment include Klipsch(R), Jamo(R), Energy(R), Heco(R) and
Magnat(R); and (c) Consumer Accessories, which includes universal
remote controls, reception products, indoor Bluetooth speakers,
outdoor iPod docks, and other connectivity and charging
applications.  Some of the Company's brands in this segment
include RCA, Acoustic Research, Terk(R), Audiovox(R), Schwaiger(R)
and Oehlbach(R).

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, VOXX issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial performance and future prospects and failed to disclose
the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing
declining headphone sales in its Premium Audio segment; (ii) that
the Company was experiencing a greater than expected sales decline
in its Consumer Accessories segment; (iii) that the Company failed
to timely record losses for its Hirschmann, Invision and Klipsch
acquisitions, trademarks of various brands, and its Technuity
business, among other things, thereby materially overstating the
Company's financial condition and misstating the Company's
financial results and financial statements; and (iv) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company's financial performance and
outlook during the Class Period.

On January 9, 2014, the Company held a conference call with
analysts and investors.  With regard to the Company's outlook for
fiscal 2014, Defendants lowered their sales guidance from $840
million to $825-$830 million, raised their EBITDA guidance from
$62 million to $65 million, and reiterated their gross margin
guidance of 28.8%.  In reaction to these announcements, the price
of VOXX common stock fell $2.99 per share, or 18%, to close at
$14.00 per share, on heavy trading volume.

On May 14, 2014, after the markets closed, VOXX announced its
financial results for the fourth quarter and year end of 2014, the
period ending February 28, 2014. For the year, the Company
reported net sales of $809.7 million, gross margin of 28.4%, and
EBITDA of $54.5 (minus any impairment charges) -- all below the
Company's stated guidance.  Moreover, the Company reported an
impairment charge of $57.6 million related to its Hirschmann,
Invision and Klipsch acquisitions, trademarks of various brands,
and its Technuity business, among other things.  In reaction to
these announcements, the price of VOXX common stock fell $2.56 per
share, or 25%, to close at $7.51 per share, on heavy trading
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
VOXX common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

With more than 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses Escrow Mismanagement Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge dismissed a class action accusing Wells Fargo Bank NA of
intentionally setting up escrow accounts so that consumers would
incur large negative escrow balances, finding the claims are
preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act.

U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz on July 3 granted Wells
Fargo's motion to dismiss Michelle Hayes' complaint alleging it
violated California's Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act by failing to maintain plaintiffs' escrow
accounts and representing that the accounts have benefits they do
not have, according to the order.

"The court finds that HOLA preemption applies to the case at bar,"
the order said.

Ms. Hayes had argued that Wells Fargo improperly calculated the
amounts that consumers would pay into their escrow accounts so
that they would accumulate large negative balances, be charged
late fees and penalties, and potentially face foreclosure
proceedings.  Her proposed class action sought to represent all
Wells Fargo consumers in the U.S. for whom Wells Fargo failed to
conduct an initial escrow account analysis, the order said.

In its October 2013 motion to dismiss, Wells Fargo argued that
Ms. Hayes' claims are preempted by HOLA and that California's
competition statute does not apply to mortgage loans and escrow
accounts, according to the order.

Ms. Hayes voluntarily dismissed her CLRA claim but defended her
UCL claim after the motion to dismiss, arguing that Wells Fargo is
not entitled to HOLA protections because it's not a federal
savings association, the order said.

Citing another California federal court decision from April and a
Ninth Circuit finding, Judge Lorenz dismissed the suit with
prejudice, finding that HOLA preemptions apply to Wells Fargo and
the UCL is a type of state law that is preempted by the federal
HOLA.

"Hayes's argument is contradicted by Ninth Circuit authority," the
order said.

Ms. Hayes is represented by Brian J. Lawler of Pilot Law PC and
Joseph J. Siprut and Aleksandra M.S. Vold of Siprut PC.

Wells Fargo is represented by Mark T. Flewelling and Yaw-Jiun Wu
of Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen Campbell & Trytten LLP and Regina
J. McClendon -- rmcclendon@lockelord.com -- and Jason L. Sanders
-- jsanders@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord LLP.

The case is Hayes v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, case number 3:13-cv-
01707, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


WHOLE FOODS: Removed "Rivera" Suit to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
Alberto Rivera, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-05025 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2014), gives notice that this
action is to be removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., is an American supermarket.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Lipsky, Esq.
      BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Telephone: (212) 392-4772
      Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
      E-mail: dl@bronsonlipsky.com

        - and -

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
              danalgottlieb@aol.com


* Cost of Top 10 Most Expensive Settlements of 2013 Totals $638MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dimarco, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that privately
initiated discrimination lawsuits are not uncommon in the United
States, and while they were down year-over-year, the number of
filings in 2013 was still significant and costly for businesses.
According to Seyferth Shaw LLP's 2014 Workplace Class Action
Litigation Report there were 12,311 discrimination class action
lawsuits filed in 2013, dipping from 14,260 in 2012.  As a result
of the astronomical costs and potential bad press associated with
litigation, many of these cases were settled out of court.  And in
2013, the cost of the 10 most expensive settlements totaled over
$638 million.  With money like that on the line, the roster is a
great indicator of what companies will want to ensure their
policies prevent against.


* Hanna Law Firm Sued Over Shoddy Credit-Card Collection Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Horwitz, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued a major debt collection
law firm on July 14, alleging it is a "mill" that produces shoddy,
mass-produced credit-card collection lawsuits.

The bureau's claim, filed in federal court in Atlanta, states that
Frederick J. Hanna & Associates has filed hundreds of thousands of
lawsuits on behalf of banks including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of
America, Capital One and Discover without doing even basic checks
to determine whether the people they sued actually owed debts.

"The Hanna firm relies on deception and faulty evidence to drag
consumers to court and collect millions," the bureau's director,
Richard Cordray, said in a statement.  "We believe they are taking
advantage of consumers' lack of legal expertise to intimidate them
into paying debts they may not even owe."

Though Hanna & Associates' lawsuits have all the trappings of
formal litigation, the bureau alleges, the firm is really a bulk
debt-collection agency masquerading as a law firm.  Hanna &
Associates attorneys were told not to spend more than one minute
reviewing most cases before they were filed, the bureau claims,
and in Georgia, one Hanna & Associates attorney signed off on
138,000 lawsuits over two years, a pace that the bureau declared
incompatible with legitimate legal work.

The bureau's suit seeks to force Hanna & Associates and its owners
to change its collection practices, pay restitution to consumers
and disgorge "ill-gotten revenues."

In response to the suit, the law firm issued a statement declaring
that "we strongly deny the allegations of the complaint and,
moreover, the overall characterization of our law firm."  Hanna
"completely cooperated" with the bureau's investigation, the firm
said, "and we are obviously disappointed by the events."

The bureau's suit may signal additional actions against credit
card collections law firms, which file millions of lawsuits a
year.  Consumer advocates and plaintiff's attorneys have long
alleged that the debt collection industry is rife with misconduct.

"The current business model is of filing shoddy paperwork and
relying on courts to rubber-stamp it," said Peter Holland, a
professor at the University of Maryland's law school who runs its
consumer debt clinic.  "The CFPB looked at just one law firm in
just one state."

The suit against Hanna & Associates may also have ramifications
for the banks the law firm serves.  Mass litigation has long been
a cornerstone of major banks' collection strategies, with the
banks using a handful of law firms like Hanna & Associates to file
suit over billions of dollars of alleged debts since the
recession.  But how banks handle and collect on alleged debts has
become increasingly controversial.

In 2011, JPMorgan Chase was forced to largely shutter its debt
litigation operation following allegations of discrepancies in
internal computer systems that track debts and the "robo-signing"
of legal documents en masse. Other lenders -- including Bank of
America -- routinely sold tens of millions of dollars of credit
card debts to collections industry buyers under contracts stating
that some of the accounts might already have been paid off by
consumers.

In the run-up to a settlement with the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency last year, JPMorgan estimated that 9 percent of
the lawsuits filed on its behalf between 2008 and 2011 had errors,
though the bank argued that the mistakes were mostly not serious.
Which entities will end up bearing the bulk of regulators'
scrutiny for such sloppiness remains an open question.

Banks should think about their potential liability, Mr. Holland
said. "Their law-firm agents are in their name filing things that
are not accurate."


                             *********

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  * * *