CAR_Public/140722.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 22, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 144

                             Headlines


5-HOUR ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Advertising
ADIR INT'L: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Court Tosses Class Action Over Data Breach
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Moved "Baker" Suit to So. Carolina Federal Court

AT&T MOBILITY: Moved "Ly" Suit to Southern District of California
AUTOLIV INC: Has MOU to Settle SEC Lawsuit for $22.5 Million
BARNES & NOBLE: Arbitration Appeal Argued & Submitted in May
BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss Amended PIN Pad Lawsuits Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: No Trial Date Yet for Class Certification Motion

BARNES & NOBLE: Hearing on Judgment Bid in "Trimmer" Case Held
BARNES & NOBLE: Defendant in Two Securities Class Actions
BOYD GAMING: Faces "Bennett" Suit in Southern District of Alabama
BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: "Maiava" Suit Removed to C.D. California
BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Removed "Maiava" Suit to C.D. California

CALLINS LAW: Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Bonus and Vacation Hours
CLEAR CHANNEL: Former Intern Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
CONCH CONSTRUCTION: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
DEUTSCHE BANK: 2nd Cir. Dismisses Plaintiffs' Class Action Appeal
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces "Ateshkadi" Discrimination Suit in Ill.

EMERITUS CORP: Has MoU to Settle 3 Brookdale Merger-Related Suits
ETHICON INC: Judge Approves $7.76-Mil. Award in Pelvic Mesh Case
FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Disputes Claims Over Stolen Patient Records
GENERAL MOTORS: "Andrews" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Arnold" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: "Bedford" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Childre" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Gebremariam" Suit Joined in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Johnson" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Smith" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: Lawmakers Want Chief Lawyer Fired Over Recall
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Supreme Court Reverses Class-Action Status
GENERAL MOTORS: Fund Gets Chance to Settle Ignition Switch Claims
GIANT EAGLE: Violates Americans With Disabilities Act, Suit Says
HBN MEDIA: "Hejazi" Lawsuit Alleges TCPA Violations

HMI INDUSTRIES: To Pay Penalty Over Defective Floor Cleaners
INTEL CORP: Settles Pentium 4 Purchasers' Class Action
INTERNATIONAL CULINARY: Two Law Firms File Class Action in N.Y.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
JF VEHICLE: "Rodriguez" Suit Removed to M.D. Florida Court

LAMAR CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Mass Layoffs
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in D.C.
LINNCO LLC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
MAXFIELD: Recalls Buckyball Magnetic Toys Over Injuries
MIDLAND FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: DEA Probes Players' Prescription Drug Use
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
NISSAN NORTH: Removed "Chiarelli" Class Suit to E.D. New York
PAYTIME INC: Faces Class Action in Pennsylvania Over Data Breach
SME INC: Faces "Manheim" Suit Over Junk Fax Ads

UNITED CREDIT: Violated Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
VIBRAM USA: September 24 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
VIEGA LLC: August 25 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
VISALUS INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged $240-Mil. Fraud
WALLICK PROPERTIES: Sued for Violating Age Discrimination Act

WP REALTY: Accused of Violating Americans With Disabilities Act


                            *********


5-HOUR ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Advertising
----------------------------------------------------
Steven Dubois, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
attorneys general from the Northwest have sued the companies
responsible for the popular 5-Hour Energy drink, alleging they
engaged in deceptive advertising.

The Oregon lawsuit filed on July 17 in Portland contends 5-Hour
Energy falsely claims customers get extra energy and focus from a
unique blend of ingredients, when the boost actually comes from a
concentrated dose of caffeine.  The suit also targets claims that
users don't experience a crash when the effects subside and that
the product is OK for adolescents.

Oregon has been part of a group leading a 33-state investigation
into the accuracy of the product's claims.  Washington state's
attorney general filed a similar lawsuit on July 17 in King County
Superior Court in Seattle.

Other states are expected to file suit as well, said Kristina
Edmunson, a spokeswoman for the Oregon Department of Justice.

The lawsuits name Living Essentials LLC and Innovation Ventures
LLC as defendants.

5-Hour Energy spokeswoman Melissa Skabich said the company will
defend itself against what Ms. Skabich called civil intimidation.

"When companies are being bullied by someone in a position of
power, these companies roll over, pay the ransom, and move on,"
Ms. Skabich said in a statement.  "We're not doing that."

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said 5-Hour Energy
violated the state's Unlawful Trade Practices Act.  The lawsuit
seeks monetary penalties as well as refunds to all Oregon buyers
of the decaffeinated version of the product, which, according to
the lawsuit, provides no extra energy or alertness.

"Plainly and simply, in Oregon you cannot promote a product as
being effective if you don't have sufficient evidence to back up
your advertising claims," Ms. Rosenblum said.

She and 5-Hour Energy have been in a tug-of-war over that evidence
for more than a year, with her department seeking unredacted
information showing how the formula for 5-Hour Energy provides its
asserted benefits.

The heavily advertised energy drink was introduced a decade ago,
and the lawsuit estimates it is sold at more than 100,000 retail
locations in the United States.

The state officials investigating 5-Hour Energy say they are
concerned about safety.  The Food and Drug Administration said in
November 2012 that it had received more than 90 reports over four
years about illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths after the
consumption of 5-Hour Energy.

The FDA said, however, that the reports did not prove that the
energy drink caused the problems.


ADIR INT'L: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mima Martinez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Adir International, LLC dba Curacao, Case No. 2:14-cv-
05505 (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2014) alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fishcer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Court Tosses Class Action Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois state
court on July 10 tossed a putative class action over a data breach
at Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp., ruling that the plaintiffs
needed to prove that their data had actually been misused in order
to sustain their claims.

In granting Advocate's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice,
Circuit Court Judge James R. Murphy rejected the plaintiffs'
argument that the hospital's failure to adequately secure
unencrypted patient data stored on four laptops that were stolen
from its facilities resulted in an increased risk of harm that was
sufficient to confer standing.

To support their position, the plaintiffs cited the West Virginia
Supreme Court's May 28 decision in Tabata v. Charleston Area
Medical Center, which held that, even though the plaintiffs
couldn't prove that the patient data accidentally posted by the
medical center on the Internet had been misused, the breach of
their legal interest in keeping their medical information
confidential was enough to confer standing.

But while Judge Murphy acknowledged that the West Virginia case
"may be an example of how a court  could confer standing to
plaintiffs or a class of litigants who have suffered no actual
damages but are found to have suffered loss to a legally protected
interest, i.e., their interest in keeping their private
information private," he believed that the long line of Illinois
and federal court cases that support the notion that actual injury
is required to establish standing "more persuasively analyze
whether litigants have a real interest to be adjudicated."

"The facts herein are similar to those in the [other] cases, in
that there has been no injury in fact and no change in the status
quo," the judge ruled.  "Yes, there is an increased risk of harm
because it is unknown if, and when, the theft of the computers
would transmute or ripen into identity theft. [But] there is no
actual or impending certainty of identity theft."

Because the plaintiffs had not alleged nor would they be able to
prove that the information contained on the stolen computers had
been accessed or disseminated by unknown third parties or that
they have been actual victims of identity theft, they lack
standing to bring claims against Advocate for negligence, invasion
of privacy and violations of the Illinois Personal Information
Protection Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the ruling
concluded.

Judge Murphy also agreed with Advocate's contention that there are
no allegations of present injury sufficient to sustain the
negligence and ICFA claims, and that there are insufficient
allegations of intentional conduct to state a cause of action for
invasion of privacy.

The negligence and ICFA claims must be nixed because the laws are
intended to remedy present harm and not the increased risk of
possible, future identity theft alleged by the plaintiffs, while
an invasion of privacy claim cannot be maintained where a
plaintiff has voluntarily given defendant the data at issue or
where there is no evidence that the information has been
publicized, according to the ruling.

"Based on the facts alleged, there is no claim for invasion of
privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, due to the lack of
intentional conduct," the ruling said.  "At most, defendant was
negligent in not encrypting the personal information on the
computers."

The plaintiffs brought their proposed class action to Illinois'
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit after Advocate in August revealed the
theft of four unencrypted laptops that contained protected health
information and Social Security numbers belonging to more than 4
million patients.

The plaintiffs asserted that the hospital had the duty under
Illinois' Personal Information Protection Act, the federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and other statutes
to securely maintain patients' personal information, and that its
failure to do so had created an injury sufficient to establish
standing, an argument rejected by Judge Murphy on July 10.

The ruling marks the second time in just over a month that an
Illinois state court has shut down a putative data breach class
action filed against Advocate.

At the end of May, a judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
dismissed with prejudice a similar class action seeking to hold
Advocate liable for the data theft, concluding that without
connecting the data on the laptops to misuse of their information,
the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit.

The plaintiffs in the suit dismissed on July 10 are represented by
Robert M. Foote -- rmf@fmcolaw.com -- Matthew J. Herman --
mjh@fmcolaw.com -- and Kathleen C. Chavez -- kcc@fmcolaw.com -- of
Foote Mielke Chavez & O'Neil LLC.

Advocate is represented by Ted Kobus -- tkobus@bakerlaw.com --
Dan Warren -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- and George Tzanetopoulos --
gtzanetopoulos@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler.

The case is Matias Maglio et al. v. Advocate Health and Hospitals
Corp. et al., case number 13-L-538, in the Circuit Court for the
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Kane County, Illinois.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chana Biller, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Allied Interstate, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
04333-CBA-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ARAMARK CAMPUS: Moved "Baker" Suit to So. Carolina Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Aramark Campus, LLC, incorrectly named as Aramark
Corporation, removed the class action lawsuit entitled Baker, et
al. v. Aramark Corporation, et al., Case No. 2014-CP-02-01279,
from the Court of Common Pleas for Aiken County, South Carolina,
Second Judicial Circuit, to the United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-02857-JMC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiffs' class at the rate of
one-and-a-half times their normal rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Aramark Campus, LLC was formed in Delaware and has its principal
place of business in Pennsylvania.  The Company's ultimate parent,
Aramark (formerly ARAMARK Corporation) is incorporated in Delaware
and also has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glenn Walters, Esq.
          Post Office Box 1346
          1910 Russell Street (29115)
          Orangeburg, SC 29116
          Telephone: (803) 531-8844
          Facsimile: (803) 531-3628
          E-mail: glennwalterspa@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Reginald W. Belcher, Esq.
          TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A.
          Post Office Box 1473
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 227-4314
          E-mail: rbelcher@turnerpadget.com

               - and -

          James P. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540-6289
          Telephone: (609) 909-6647
          Facsimile: (609) 919-6701
          E-mail: jwalsh@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Anne Marie Estevez, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300
          Miami, FL 33131-2339
          Telephone: (305) 415-3330
          Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
          E-mail: aestevez@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Rita Srivastava, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 324-1000
          Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
          E-mail: rsrivastava@morganlewis.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Moved "Ly" Suit to Southern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ly v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC,
et al., Case No. 37-2014-00013654-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-01686-L-RBB to the proceeding.

The case arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Diane Elizabeth Richard, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: drichard@robbinsarroyo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rishi Puri, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-1553
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: rpuri@seyfarth.com


AUTOLIV INC: Has MOU to Settle SEC Lawsuit for $22.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc., on June 27, 2014, announced that it entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle
to settle for $22.5 million the lawsuit and claims alleging that
the Company misrepresented or failed to disclose that its
antitrust violations artificially inflated the Company's earnings
and stock price in violation of the federal securities laws,
according to the Company's Form 8-K dated June 27, 2014, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2014.

Autoliv, Inc. ("Autoliv"), two of its officers and an employee are
defendants in a purported class action securities lawsuit filed by
the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis
("Plaintiff") on April 17, 2013 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action File No.
13-CIV-2546) (the "Lawsuit"). Plaintiff purports to bring the
Lawsuit on behalf of a class of purchasers who bought Autoliv
common stock between October 26, 2010, and July 21, 2011.
Plaintiff alleges that Autoliv misrepresented or failed to
disclose that antitrust violations by Autoliv artificially
inflated Autoliv's earnings and stock price in violation of the
federal securities laws. Plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the alleged class of purchasers.

On June 27, 2014, Autoliv announced that it entered into a
memorandum of understanding with Plaintiff reflecting an agreement
in principle to settle the Lawsuit and the claims of the alleged
class for a payment of $22.5 million. Autoliv expects to record a
net expense of approximately $4.5 million in its second quarter
results. The balance of the settlement amount will be paid by
Autoliv's insurance carrier.

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

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

Autoliv, Inc. is a holding company. Autoliv is the supplier of
automotive safety systems, with a range of product offerings,
including modules and components for passenger and driver-side
airbags, side-impact airbag protection systems, seatbelts,
steering wheels, safety electronics, whiplash protection systems
and child seats, as well as night vision systems, radar and other
active safety systems. Autoliv has two main operating segments:
airbags/seatbelt (including restraint electronics) products and
active safety electronics products.


BARNES & NOBLE: Arbitration Appeal Argued & Submitted in May
------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s appeal from the court's denial of its
motion to compel arbitration in connection with a nationwide class
action alleging claims for unfair business practices and false
advertising was argued and submitted on May 16, 2014, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
3, 2014.

Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.  On April 17,
2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California against the Company. The complaint is styled as a
nationwide class action and includes a California state-wide
subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for HP TouchPad
Tablets placed on the Company's website in August 2011. The
lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and false
advertising under both New York and California state law,
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law,
and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance
of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a
specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does
not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response
to the complaint on May 18, 2012, and moved to compel plaintiff to
arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to a
contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012. The Company has
also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to transfer the
action to New York. The court denied the Company's motion to
compel arbitration, and the Company appealed that denial to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the Company's
motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action has been
stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the court's
denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The Company filed its
opening brief on the appeal on February 11, 2013. The answering
brief was filed on April 13, 2013, and the Company's reply brief
was filed on May 23, 2013. The appeal was argued and submitted on
May 16, 2014.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a content, commerce and technology company
that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and
other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. As
of April 27, 2013, it operated 1,361 bookstores in 50 states, 686
bookstores on college campuses, and operates one of the Web
eCommerce sites, and develops digital content products and
software. Barnes & Noble operates in three segments: B&N Retail,
B&N College and NOOK. The Company's principal business is the sale
of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer
titles), mass market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science
fiction and other popular fiction), children's books, eBooks and
other digital content, NOOK and related accessories, bargain
books, magazines, gifts, cafe products and services, educational
toys & games, music and movies direct to customers through its
bookstores or on barnesandnoble.com.


BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss Amended PIN Pad Lawsuits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended consolidated
putative class actions alleging, among other things, breach of
contract and invasion of privacy, is pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
3, 2014.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including
damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were
transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single
consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its
entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended
complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That
motion is pending.

The Company also has received inquiries related to this matter
from the Federal Trade Commission and eight state attorneys
general, all of which have either been closed or have not had any
recent activity. The Company intends to cooperate with them if
further activity arises. In addition, payment card companies and
associations may impose fines by reason of the tampering and
federal or state enforcement authorities may impose penalties or
other remedies against the Company.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a content, commerce and technology company
that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and
other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. As
of April 27, 2013, it operated 1,361 bookstores in 50 states, 686
bookstores on college campuses, and operates one of the Web
eCommerce sites, and develops digital content products and
software. Barnes & Noble operates in three segments: B&N Retail,
B&N College and NOOK. The Company's principal business is the sale
of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer
titles), mass market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science
fiction and other popular fiction), children's books, eBooks and
other digital content, NOOK and related accessories, bargain
books, magazines, gifts, cafe products and services, educational
toys & games, music and movies direct to customers through its
bookstores or on barnesandnoble.com.


BARNES & NOBLE: No Trial Date Yet for Class Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. has filed an opposition and the plaintiff has
filed a response in connection with a motion for class
certification but no trial date has been set, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
3, 2014.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations against defendants with respect to salaried
Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of
California from the period of August 5, 2007 to present: (1)
failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed
meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure
to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for business
expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The
claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these
salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from
California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.
The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. The
parties have completed pre-certification discovery. Plaintiff's
motion for class certification was filed November 11, 2013, Barnes
& Noble's opposition was filed February 28, 2014, and plaintiff's
reply was filed April 11, 2014. The hearing date for the
certification motion is scheduled for July 1, 2014. No trial date
has been set.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a content, commerce and technology company
that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and
other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. As
of April 27, 2013, it operated 1,361 bookstores in 50 states, 686
bookstores on college campuses, and operates one of the Web
eCommerce sites, and develops digital content products and
software. Barnes & Noble operates in three segments: B&N Retail,
B&N College and NOOK. The Company's principal business is the sale
of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer
titles), mass market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science
fiction and other popular fiction), children's books, eBooks and
other digital content, NOOK and related accessories, bargain
books, magazines, gifts, cafe products and services, educational
toys & games, music and movies direct to customers through its
bookstores or on barnesandnoble.com.


BARNES & NOBLE: Hearing on Judgment Bid in "Trimmer" Case Held
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in connection
with the Steven Trimmer's complaint is fully briefed and the
hearing date is scheduled for July 7, 2014, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
3, 2014.

On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former Assistant
Store Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL). Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he and
other similarly situated ASMs were improperly classified as exempt
from overtime and denied overtime wages prior to July 1, 2010,
when the Company reclassified them as non-exempt. The complaint
seeks to certify a collective action under the FLSA comprised of
ASMs throughout the country employed from January 25, 2010 until
July 1, 2010, and a class action under the NYLL comprised of ASMs
employed in New York from January 25, 2007 until July 1, 2010. The
parties have completed the first phase of discovery with respect
to the individual claims asserted by Trimmer and one opt-in
plaintiff only. The Court has stayed all class-wide discovery at
this point. The Company filed a summary judgment motion on
November 25, 2013. That motion is fully briefed. The hearing date
for the summary judgment motion is scheduled for July 7, 2014.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a content, commerce and technology company
that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and
other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. As
of April 27, 2013, it operated 1,361 bookstores in 50 states, 686
bookstores on college campuses, and operates one of the Web
eCommerce sites, and develops digital content products and
software. Barnes & Noble operates in three segments: B&N Retail,
B&N College and NOOK. The Company's principal business is the sale
of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer
titles), mass market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science
fiction and other popular fiction), children's books, eBooks and
other digital content, NOOK and related accessories, bargain
books, magazines, gifts, cafe products and services, educational
toys & games, music and movies direct to customers through its
bookstores or on barnesandnoble.com.


BARNES & NOBLE: Defendant in Two Securities Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Two class action complaints were filed against Barnes & Noble,
Inc., alleging violations of the federal securities law, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
3, 2014.

Anthony Taylor (Taylor) and Stephen Maitland-Lewis (Maitland-
Lewis) filed class action complaints for violations of the federal
securities law on January 8, 2014, and January 23, 2014,
respectively. Both of these actions, which are substantially
similar, were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Leonard
Riggio, William Lynch, Jr., and Michael Huseby are named as
defendants in the Taylor action. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Michael
Huseby, William Lynch, Jr. and Allen Lindstrom are named as
defendants in the Maitland-Lewis action. The complaints allege
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (making false statements or
otherwise engaging in a scheme to defraud, or omitting to state
material facts causing inflation of company stock), and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (liability for
controlling persons). Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the
defendants made, or caused the Company to make, false statements
or omitted, or caused the Company to omit, material information
with respect to the Company's failure to implement adequate
internal controls over financial reporting.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a content, commerce and technology company
that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and
other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. As
of April 27, 2013, it operated 1,361 bookstores in 50 states, 686
bookstores on college campuses, and operates one of the Web
eCommerce sites, and develops digital content products and
software. Barnes & Noble operates in three segments: B&N Retail,
B&N College and NOOK. The Company's principal business is the sale
of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer
titles), mass market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science
fiction and other popular fiction), children's books, eBooks and
other digital content, NOOK and related accessories, bargain
books, magazines, gifts, cafe products and services, educational
toys & games, music and movies direct to customers through its
bookstores or on barnesandnoble.com.


BOYD GAMING: Faces "Bennett" Suit in Southern District of Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bennett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Boyd Gaming Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00330 (S.D.
Ala., July 16, 2014) is brought under Chapter 5 (Wire or Radio
Communication) of the Title 47 of the United States Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
          21 South Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 990-5558
          Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
          E-mail: epunderwood@gmail.com


BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: "Maiava" Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Maiava v. Brinderson Constructors,
Inc., et al., Case No. BC531880, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-
cv-01099 to the proceeding.

The case arises from labor-related issues.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael S. Kun, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
          E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com


BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Removed "Maiava" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Francisco P. Maiava v. Brinderson
Constructors, Inc., et al., Case No. BC531880, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-05514-BRO-AJW to the proceeding.

The case arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal J. Fialkow, Esq.
          James S. Cahill, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NEAL J. FIALKOW INC.
          215 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 584-6060
          Facsimile: (626) 584-2950
          E-mail: nfialkow@pacbell.net
                  j.cahill@rossbacherlaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          SAHAG MAJARIAN II LAW OFFICES
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron F. Olsen, Esq.
          Michael S. Kun, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN PC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
          E-mail: cemail@ebglaw.com
                  mkun@ebglaw.com


CALLINS LAW: Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Bonus and Vacation Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonia N. Okonkwo v. The Callins Law Firm, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
02263-CAP (N.D. Ga., July 16, 2014) is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated, seeks payment for
overtime, bonus, vacation hours, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Ms. Okonkwo was employed full-time with Callins Law Firm from
December 2008 until she involuntarily terminated her employment on
June 2014.  She worked an Associate Attorney practicing real
estate default law with particular emphasis on creditor's rights.

The Callins Law Firm, LLC is a Georgia Limited Liability Company
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Callins Law Firm is a firm
engaged in the practice of law.

The Plaintiff represented herself in the lawsuit:

          Antonia N. Okonkwo, Esq.
          OKONKWO, LLC (THE RESILIENT LAW SOLUTION)
          11555 Medlock Bridge Road, Suite 100
          Johns Creek, GA 30097
          Telephone: (404) 980-2277
          Facsimile: (678) 274-0057
          E-mail: anokonkwo@okonkwolaw.com


CLEAR CHANNEL: Former Intern Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
All Access reports that Clear Channel has been hit with a class
action suit alleging that the company wrongfully withheld wages
from interns at its stations.  The suit, filed by attorneys
Virgina & Ambinder, LLP and Leeds Brown Law, P.C. with Liane Arias
as named plaintiff, is one of several suits against companies
which offer unpaid internships in the wake of a court ruling that
interns are covered by New York labor law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ms. Arias was an unpaid intern in August-December 2011 in Clear
Channel's promotions and marketing department, with her duties
described as "searching out current events and assembling reports;
creating newspaper articles; going to promotional events and
"giveaways" to promote Defendants' radio stations," and other
necessary tasks.  Interestingly, in one paragraph, the plaintiff
is incorrectly referred to as "Tierney;" Melissa Tierney was a
SiriusXM intern who filed a class action suit against the
satellite operator in April.


CONCH CONSTRUCTION: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Rodriguez v. Conch Construction & Roofing, Inc., and Michael
Garcia, Case No. 4:14-cv-10052-JLK (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
were unlawfully denied overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Conch Construction & Roofing, Inc., had employees engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or had
employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or
materials that were moved in or produced for commerce by a person.
Michael Garcia had operational control over the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
          TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
          2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: 2nd Cir. Dismisses Plaintiffs' Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed an appeal
against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company by plaintiffs who
claimed it and its trusts did not own their loans and mortgages.

Circuit judges Amalya Lyle Kearse, Dennis G. Jacobs and Barrington
D. Parker Jr. voted in the majority, with Kearse authoring the
opinion.

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the facts alleged
by plaintiffs do not give them standing to pursue the claims they
asserted, and we affirm the judgment of dismissal," the June 30
opinion states.

David Rajamin, Edith Gonzalez Larios, Jesus Valdez, Maurice Nunez,
Elias Estrada, Irma Estrada, Theresa Doty, Robert Basel and Larry
Myron Kegel mortgaged their homes in 2005 or 2006 and borrowed
sums ranging from $24,000 to $1,008,000, totaling $3,776,000,
according to the opinion.

The complaint challenged the defendants' ownership of the
plaintiffs' loans and mortgages; their right to collect and
receive payment on the loans; and the right to commence or
authorize commencement of foreclosure proceedings where payments
have not been made or received.

The plaintiffs claimed the assignments were defective because
their mortgage loans were not specifically listed in mortgage loan
schedules or other attachments to the assignment agreements.

"The complaint also alleged that assignments by First Franklin to
Deutsche Bank of four of plaintiffs' deeds of trust were executed
and publicly recorded in 2009 or 2010, after First Franklin had
ceased operations and years after the securitization transactions
took place," the opinion states.

"Plaintiffs argue that the execution and recordation of these
mortgage assignments after the securitization transactions that
created the defendant trusts indicate that these mortgages were
not included in the mortgage loan pools that were sold to those
trusts."

On appeal, the plaintiffs claim the district court erred in
dismissing the complaint, arguing that they have a "concrete
interest in putting to the test defendants' claims to own
[plaintiffs'] mortgages and mortgage documents."

"We conclude that plaintiffs failed to allege injuries sufficient
to show constitutional standing to pursue their claims," the
opinion states.

The recorded assignments do not support plaintiffs' contention
that their loans and mortgages were not owned by defendants,
according to the opinion.

"Moreover, plaintiffs have not alleged that the promissory notes
were not conveyed to the Trustee in a timely manner," the opinion
states.  "Section 2.01(b) of the PSAs states that documentation,
including each 'original Mortgage Note' and each 'original
recorded Mortgage' 'has [been] delivered . . . to the Custodian.'"

The fact that the plaintiffs mount no viable challenge to the
timeliness of the assignment of the promissory notes scuttles
their contention that the mortgages were not timely assigned,
according to the opinion.

"The apparent 'custody' of plaintiffs' notes by custodians, which
the assignment agreements explicitly allow the trustee to use,
does not imply that those agreements failed to convey ownership of
plaintiffs' obligations to defendants," the opinion states.  "We
have considered all of plaintiffs' arguments on this appeal and
have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district
court is affirmed."

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case number: 13-1614


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces "Ateshkadi" Discrimination Suit in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Azita Ateshkadi v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-05488 (N.D. Ill., July 17, 2014) alleges that the Company
discriminated against the Plaintiff, a qualified individual with a
handicap, because of her disability (Ovarian Cancer and Rheumatoid
Arthritis) and her disability requiring time off of work.

Discover Financial Services, Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing
business in the state of Illinois and other surrounding states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael T. Smith, Esq.
          MICHAEL T. SMITH & ASSOCIATES
          440 W. Irving Park Road
          Roselle, IL 60172
          Telephone: (847) 895-0626
          E-mail: msmith39950@aol.com


EMERITUS CORP: Has MoU to Settle 3 Brookdale Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emeritus Corp., on June 26, 2014, entered into a memorandum of
understanding with respect to a proposed settlement of three
consolidated purported class action lawsuits relating to the
Merger Agreement filed against the Company and Brookdale Senior
Living Inc., a Delaware corporation, pursuant to which Brookdale
and Emeritus will make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed merger, according to Emeritus' Form 8-K dated June
27, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 27, 2014.

Accordingly, Emeritus filed a Current Report on Form 8-K to update
the joint proxy statement/prospectus included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4, file No. 333-196201, filed by Brookdale
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and
declared effective by the SEC on June 5, 2014, and the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed by Emeritus Corporation, a Washington
corporation ("Emeritus") with the SEC on June 5, 2014, in each
case concerning the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
February 20, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among
Brookdale, Emeritus, and Broadway Merger Sub Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Brookdale
("Merger Sub"). The joint proxy statement/prospectus was first
mailed to the respective shareholders of Brookdale and Emeritus on
or about June 9, 2014.

As disclosed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus, following
the announcement of the execution the Merger Agreement, three
purported class action lawsuits relating to the Merger Agreement
were filed on behalf of Emeritus shareholders in the Superior
Court of King County, Washington against Emeritus, members of the
Emeritus board of directors, Brookdale and Merger Sub (the
"Defendants"), which lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into
a single action captioned In re Emeritus Corp. Shareholder
Litigation, No. 14-2-06385-7 SEA (the "Washington Action").

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

                       http://is.gd/qlqZAo

The settlement will not affect the timing of the respective
special meetings of Emeritus and Brookdale, which were each
scheduled to be held on July 10, 2014, or the amount of the
consideration to be paid to Emeritus shareholders in connection
with the proposed merger. The settlement is not, and should not be
construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any of
the Defendants. The Defendants believe that no further disclosure
is required to supplement the joint proxy statement/prospectus
under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk that the
Washington Action may delay or otherwise adversely affect the
consummation of the proposed merger and to minimize the expense of
defending such action, the Defendants have agreed, pursuant to the
terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed merger, all of which are set
forth below. Nothing in this Current Report or any settlement
shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality
of any of the disclosures set forth herein. The parties have
agreed to use their collective best efforts to obtain final
approval of the settlement and the dismissal of the Washington
Action with prejudice. Subject to completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the
Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Emeritus' shareholders. As
explained in the Memorandum of Understanding, if the settlement is
finally approved by the Washington court, the parties anticipate
that it will resolve and release all claims in all actions
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Emeritus shareholders
prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in
connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel in the Washington Action will file a petition
in the Washington court for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by Emeritus or its successor. Emeritus or its
successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Washington court. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Washington court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated.

Emeritus Corporation owns and operates a portfolio of communities
providing services to its residents, including independent living,
assisted living, specialized memory care, and, to a lesser extent,
skilled nursing care.  The Company provides a variety of
supportive living services in a professionally staffed environment
that enables seniors to live with dignity and independence.


ETHICON INC: Judge Approves $7.76-Mil. Award in Pelvic Mesh Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary has lost a bid to upend an $11.1
million verdict in the first bellwether trial over allegedly
harmful pelvic mesh implants.

Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee on July 15
denied motions by Ethicon for a new trial and judgment
notwithstanding the verdict that would have struck a jury award of
$3.35 million in compensatory damages and $7.76 million in
punitive damages from early last year.

At trial, "there was strong evidence presented and multiple
sources of evidence that in fact there were many problems with
this product," Judge Higbee said in court, according to a
preliminary transcript.

The decision "only marks the start of the appeals process,"
Ethicon spokesman Matthew Johnson said in a statement.  "We will
be filing an appeal in this case as we believe the jury's verdict
and damage awards were not supported by the evidence presented at
trial."

The litigation, In re Pelvic Mesh/Gynecare Litigation, No. 291,
encompasses thousands of suits claiming injuries from the Gynecare
Prolift pelvic mesh product, created by Somerville, N.J.-based
Ethicon to treat organ prolapse and urinary incontinence, and
marketed beginning in 2002.

It was designed for minimally invasive implantation through the
vagina, and J&J has maintained that the products are safe.
But the plaintiffs claim they have a high failure rate, cause
serious complications and necessitate corrective surgeries,
despite their billing as safer than other surgical methods.  The
products allegedly erode into organs and vaginal walls, causing
chronic pain, pain during sexual intercourse, scar tissue and
other injuries.

Suits were first filed in 2008, shortly before the federal Food
and Drug Administration first announced that complications were
being reported.

Linda Gross of Watertown, S.D., sued in November 2008, claiming
she underwent 18 surgeries to correct injuries caused by a
Gynecare Prolift mesh implant.

After five days of deliberation, the jury found in a 7-2 vote that
Ethicon failed to warn Ms. Gross' doctor about possible side
effects and made fraudulent misrepresentations to Ms. Gross.
The jury unanimously found no cause of action on Ms. Gross'
defective-design claim and voted 7-2 that there was no cause of
action on a fraudulent misrepresentation claim as to Ms. Gross'
doctor.

The jury's compensatory damages award was made up of $1.1 million
for pain and suffering, $1 million for future medical expenses,
$500,000 for future lost wages, $385,000 for past medical
expenses, $180,000 for past lost wages, and $185,000 for a per
quod claim.

Days later, in the ensuing punitive damages trial, the panel
delivered a 7-2 verdict awarding an additional $7.76 million.
Judge Higbee began a two-month temporary assignment to the
Appellate Division on April 14 but has since returned to Atlantic
County.

On July 15, she ruled from the bench, denying Ethicon's motions
for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict,
dispensing with Ethicon's claims that there was insufficient
evidence to support the verdict.

The evidence "not only was sufficient, but it was extremely strong
in support of the plaintiff's position," Judge Higbee said,
according to the preliminary transcript.

She cited evidence that Ethicon was aware of the medical
complications associated with Prolift.  That testimony "could have
been believed, and apparently was believed by the jury . . . that
the defendant knew about this problem, that they were told about
this problem, that their own doctors were warning them about this
problem, that their own studies were showing this problem . . .
and therefore, that the defendant had a duty to warn about the
problem," Judge Higbee was quoted as saying in the transcript.

Judge Higbee also relied heavily on testimony of the physician who
performed the implanting procedure for Ms. Gross.  He testified
that he was not fully aware of the risks and probably wouldn't
have recommended the product to Ms. Gross, a young patient at age
41, had he been informed, according to Judge Higbee.  The doctor
was not named in the transcript.

Judge Higbee also brushed aside Ethicon's claims that she made
evidentiary errors and didn't properly charge the jury.

"The idea that I could have gone through the trial and not made
one evidential mistake is not likely, but I don't see any myself
at this point in time," Judge Higbee said according to the
transcript. "The Appellate Division is going to have to see it."

She noted that punitive damages claims are typically barred in
pharmaceutical cases, but Ms. Gross' injuries occurred before any
FDA approval was obtained.

Judge Higbee also declined to reduce the punitive damages total,
noting that it "could have been a $15 million award and still fit
under the parameters."

Adam Slater of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland, N.J., Ms.
Gross' counsel, said more evidence has cropped up since Ms. Gross'
trial, through depositions and medical literature.

"We look forward to more trials as we move forward," Mr. Slater
said.  "We feel like the evidence is much, much stronger than it
even was then."

Ethicon's Johnson, in his statement, said the company "acted
appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and
marketing of the Prolift pelvic organ prolapse repair kit."

"We empathize with all women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse
(POP), which can be a serious and debilitating condition, and we
are always concerned when a patient experiences adverse medical
events," Johnson added.  "We have always made patient safety a top
priority and will continue to do so."

Ethicon's lead defense counsel, Kelly Crawford of Riker Danzig
Scherer Hyland & Perretti in Morristown, N.J., didn't respond to
an email on July 16.

Ms. Gross' suit was one of 5,957 New Jersey suits against Ethicon
filed as of July 14, according to judiciary data.  The multicounty
litigation also encompasses 1,472 suits against C.R. Bard of
Murray Hill, N.J., over similar mesh products.

Another 59,061 suits over these and other pelvic mesh products
have been lodged in federal court -- referred to multidistrict
litigation in the Southern District of West Virginia -- against
J&J/Ethicon, C.R. Bard and other companies, according to federal
judiciary data.


FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Disputes Claims Over Stolen Patient Records
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
an Alabama hospital denies it was negligent in protecting the
sensitive personal information of two former patients who have
brought a proposed class action alleging identity thieves stole
their records that were left unattended and unsecured.

In a July 7 motion to dismiss, counsel for Flowers Hospital
disputed the allegations of two former patients that the Dothan,
Ala., facility was liable because a former employee stole records
containing their medical and financial information from a room
left unattended and unsecured in the facility.

In Smith and McGee v. Triad of Alabama, in U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Alabama, plaintiffs Bradley Smith and Julie
McGee claim they learned since the theft -- which occurred
sometime between June 2013 and February -- that they have been
victims of IRS tax refund fraud, which they imply was a
consequence of the records theft.  They allege that the stolen
documents contained their Social Security numbers, medical
diagnoses, physician identification and insurance information --
all of which leave them vulnerable to a new and growing fraud
involving false medical claims.

But the hospital argues that the plaintiffs do not have standing
because they cannot show any actual economic or other harm from
the security breach. Citing recent federal court decisions on
security breach liability, the hospital argues that claims of an
increased likelihood of harm do not meet that test.  And, the
hospital contends, the plaintiffs cannot show a direct link
between the disappearance of their records and the alleged tax
return fraud.

"Plaintiffs do not allege that they have lost the ability to
receive a tax refund otherwise owed, nor are there allegations
that Plaintiffs have been subjected to some unreimbursed fees or
expenses as a result of the third-party filing fraudulent tax
returns in their names," the hospital's motion argues.

The plaintiffs allege Flowers has violated the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act, and engaged in negligence and invasion of privacy
by public disclosure of private facts. They seek injunctive relief
and a variety of damages.

The complaint states former Flowers employee Kamarian Deshaun
Millender was arrested and charged with trafficking in stolen
identities.  An unknown accomplice remains at large.

Counsel for the hospital are Richard Smith, Jonathan Macklem and
J. Paul Zimmerman, of Christian & Small LLP.  Plaintiffs are
represented by M. Adam Jones and Jordan Davis, of M. Adam Jones &
Associates, LLC; and James Terrell, of McCallum, Methvin &
Terrell, P.C.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Andrews" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anna Andrews v. General Motors
LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-01239, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05351-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Frank Calcagnie, Esq.
          Scot D. Wilson, Esq.
          Mark P Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: kcalcagnie@rcrlaw.net
                  swilson@rcrlaw.net
                  mrobinson@rcrsd.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Arnold" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Arnold, et al. v. General Motors
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02882, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05325-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Kristofer S. Riddle, Esq.
          Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C
          120 N Lasalle Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
                  ksr@cliffordlaw.com
                  smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          G. Patrick Murphy, Esq.
          Patricia S. Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY & MURPHY LLC
          3415 Office Park Drive, Suite D
          Marion, IL 62959
          Telephone: (618) 248-3236
          E-mail: gpatrick@murphymurphyllc.com
                  trisha@murphymurphyllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard Cartier Godfrey, Esq.
          Andrew Baker Bloomer, Esq.
          Leonid Feller, Esq.
          Robert Burkart Ellis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (IL)
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 861-2391
          Facsimile: (312) 861-2200
          E-mail: rgodfrey@kirkland.com
                  andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
                  leonid.feller@kirkland.com
                  rellis@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Bedford" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Bedford Auto Wholesale, Inc. v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-11544, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05356-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Goodman, Esq.
          280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 407
          Birmingham, MI 48009-5394
          Telephone: (248) 647-9300
          Facsimile: (248) 647-8481
          E-mail: pjgoodman1@aol.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Childre" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Childre v. General Motors, LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01320, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05332-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
          DUGAN LAW FIRM
          One Canal Place
          365 Canal St., Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648-0181


GENERAL MOTORS: "Gebremariam" Suit Joined in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Mesafint Gebremariam v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00627, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05340-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Fiore, Esq.
          Mary E. Alexander, Esq.
          MARY ALEXANDER AND ASSOCIATES PC
          44 Montgomery Street Suite 1303
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4440
          Facsimile: (415) 433-5440
          E-mail: jfiore@maryalexanderlaw.com
                  elise_alexander@hotmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Johnson" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Johnson v. General Motors, LLC,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00477, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05347-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: "Smith" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Smith v. General Motors, LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00120, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05338-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Don Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-9168
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul V. Cassisa, Jr., Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          P. O. Box 1138
          1200 Jefferson Ave., Suite 205
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (601) 513-8000
          E-mail: paul.cassisa@butlersnow.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawmakers Want Chief Lawyer Fired Over Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
lawmakers demanded General Motors fire its chief lawyer and do
more to help crash victims as a Senate subcommittee delved deeper
into GM's mishandling of the recall of small cars with defective
ignition switches.

The July 17 grilling was GM's fourth appearance before Congress,
but senators aren't done with their investigation.  Sen. Claire
McCaskill, D-Mo., who chairs the subcommittee, said she will hold
a hearing in the next few weeks to ask government safety
regulators about their role in the recall.

GM has admitted that it knew about the faulty switches for more
than a decade before recalling the cars.  The ignition switches
can slip out of the "run" position, causing the engines to stall
and shutting off power to the air bags.  It took years for GM
engineers to connect the switch problem to the failure of the air
bags to deploy.

GM recalled 2.6 million small cars beginning in February.  That
recall prompted an unprecedented safety review within the company,
which has since issued 54 separate recalls for 29 million
vehicles.

Ms. McCaskill praised GM CEO Mary Barra, saying she has
"confronted the problem head on and the corporate culture that
caused it."

But Ms. McCaskill also put Barra on the spot, telling the CEO she
should have fired GM's corporate counsel, Michael Millikin, based
on the conclusions of an internal report by outside attorney
Anton Valukas.  Ms. Barra, with Mr. Millikin sitting beside her,
defended him as a man of "tremendously high integrity."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said GM needs to be more
transparent and assume more responsibility.  He called for the
public release of all of the documents given to Mr. Valukas and
the unsealing of previous lawsuit settlements.  He also asked if
GM will waive the legal shield that protects it from lawsuits
related to crashes that happened before its July 2009 bankruptcy.

In each case, Mr. Millikin said no.

Mr. Blumenthal asked whether a compensation plan for victims of
small-car crashes should be expanded to other recalls.
Specifically the 8.2 million older large cars -- such as the
Chevrolet Impala and Malibu -- that GM recalled on June 30 for
defective ignition keys.  Three deaths were linked to that issue,
but GM has yet identify the cause.

Kenneth Feinberg, the compensation expert administering the plan,
said he was only hired to deal with the initial recalls.
Ms. Barra said the June 30 recall was due to different issues.

The compensation plan will take claims between Aug. 1 and Dec. 31.
Blumenthal suggested that victims should be allowed to delay their
compensation payments until the Justice Department finishes its
investigation into GM.  That investigation will likely find
evidence of "cover-up, concealment, deceit and even fraud," he
said.

But Ms. Barra said Mr. Feinberg's parameters won't change.
Victims will likely be compensated within 90 to 180 days of a
filing and will give up their right to sue the company if they
accept the payments.

The Valukas report found that GM's legal staff, which began
getting reports of air bags failing to deploy in Chevrolet Cobalts
and Saturn Ions in late 2005, acted without a sense of urgency.

Ms. McCaskill said GM's legal staff was warned four times by
outside lawyers that it faced millions in punitive damages due to
the switches.  The warnings began in October 2010 and ended in
April 2013.  Mr. Millikin said the GM board was not informed of
the potential legal liabilities.

Mr. Millikin also said the warnings weren't reported to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission until after the recalls began
earlier this year.

Ms. McCaskill, a former prosecutor, said she can't understand why
Mr. Millikin and one of his top deputies still are with GM.

"This is a either gross negligence or gross incompetence on the
part of a lawyer," she said. "I think the failure of this legal
department is stunning."

Mr. Millikin said he only learned about the ignition switch
problems in February and acted quickly once he did.

Senators also focused on how GM failed to answer requests for
information from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration on fatal crashes.  GM responded to the so-called
"death inquiries" by asserting attorney-client privilege or saying
it had not assessed the cause of a particular crash, said Sen.
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

"I consider it a cover-up when a manufacturer does not respond
fully and accurately to NHTSA," Ms. Boxer told Mr. Millikin.

Ms. Boxer asked Ms. Barra if the people who gave "non-answers" to
safety regulators had been fired. Barra said she believed they
had.

Those regulators will soon have to give Congress answers of their
own.  Senators say the safety agency missed signs of Chevrolet
Cobalt stalling problems and failed to hold GM accountable. Sen.
Edward Markey, D-Mass., said the agency ignored consumer
complaints and written reports from its own contractors that
linked the switches to air bag failures in two fatal crashes.

"I think the whole story has to get out there," Markey said.


GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Supreme Court Reverses Class-Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
DeAnn Komanecky, writing for Savannahnow.com, reports that the
Georgia Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, has reversed a decision
by the Georgia Court of Appeals granting class-action status in a
lawsuit against Georgia-Pacific's Savannah River Mill Plant.

The suit was originally filed in 2010 by Kirbi and Aaron Ratner
and David and Kathy McDonald, who live near the Fort Howard Road
Plant.  The lawsuit presented claims of nuisance, trespass and
negligence, alleging that sludge dumped in disposal cells at the
plant released hydrogen sulfide, a gas that causes egg-like smells
and is corrosive to metal.  The property owners claim the gas
caused loss of property values and physical damage to homes.

Much of the reported damage has been from corrosion to air-
conditioning systems.

Class action certification was granted by Effingham County
Superior Court Chief Judge William E. Woodrum in July of 2012.
The class-action certification allowed lawsuit members to include
owners of 65 properties that neighbor the plant. The properties
included an area west of Fort Howard Road, south of the railroad
line and east of Rincon-Stillwell Road.

Georgia-Pacific appealed that ruling to the Georgia Court of
Appeals in 2013.  That court upheld the class-action status.

The issue was then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court by
Georgia-Pacific and arguments were heard early this year.

The Supreme Court ruling states that the homeowners did not meet
state requirements to qualify as a class, including the
requirement of commonality.

"We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it
certified the class, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of
Appeals," Justice Keith Blackwell said, in writing for the
majority.  "What matters to class certification is not the raising
of common questions -- even in droves -- but, rather the capacity
of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive
the resolution of the litigation."

The opinion also states there was no evidence in the record that
might prove on a class-wide basis that the entire area defined as
the class was contaminated with hydrogen sulfide gas from the
sludge fields.

"There is, for instance, no scientific evidence of the amounts of
gas released from the sludge fields, no evidence of the rate of
release, no evidence of the extent to which the amounts released
and rates of release varied over time, and no evidence of exactly
how the gas would be expected to move through the air upon its
release," the court wrote. And while the record contains some
anecdotal evidence of hydrogen sulfide gas in some areas around
the Mill, "this anecdotal evidence is not enough to satisfy a
rigorous analysis with respect to the commonality of the
particular class that the trial court satisfied."

In a dissent of the majority court decision, Justice Carol
Hunstein wrote that while she disagreed that the class was not
supported by the record, "I note that the majority's opinion
expressly contemplates the possibility that the plaintiffs here
could still, with additional evidence, establish the existence of
a sustainable class."

Ben Perkins, a Savannah attorney representing the plaintiffs, said
presenting additional evidence to the trial court is one option to
be explored for his clients in light of the July 11 ruling.

"Second, we could file separate lawsuits on behalf of individual
property owners whose property has been damaged by Georgia-
Pacific's pollution," Mr. Perkins said.  "Despite Georgia-
Pacific's claim that it is taking steps to halt its pollution, a
claim Georgia-Pacific has made for more than a decade, the
property damage and resulting diminution in property value caused
by Georgia-Pacific's pollution continues to occur."

Mr. Perkins said he and the other attorneys involved in the suit
would continue to work for their clients.

"Those persons whose property rights have been trampled upon by
Georgia-Pacific are entitled to compensation, and we will do
everything in our power to help them obtain such relief."

Carrie Thompson, a spokesperson for Georgia-Pacific, said that her
company had just received the decision.

"We are evaluating it and the impact that it will have,"
Ms. Thompson said.  "This is one step in the overall legal process
on this issue.  We'll continue moving forward in that process, and
we'll continue working hard to be a good neighbor."


GENERAL MOTORS: Fund Gets Chance to Settle Ignition Switch Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that an
unusual meeting recently took place in Atlanta between the lawyer
charged with administering the GM victims' compensation fund and
lawyers suing the automaker over faulty ignition switches blamed
for car accident deaths.

Afterward, the lawyer who set up the meeting, Jere Beasley of
Beasley Allen in Montgomery, Ala., announced plans to give the
fund a chance reach settlements with his clients.

However, Marietta lawyer Lance Cooper said on July 10 the meeting
will not change his effort to continue discovery in the lawsuit
that Beasley said is the foundation of all the litigation against
GM over the ignition switch defect.  That's the case of Ken and
Beth Melton, the parents of Brooke Melton, who was killed in a
crash caused by an ignition switch that suddenly turned to the
"off" position as her car was in motion.  That case has led to
recalls of millions of GM vehicles.

The Meltons announced in May that they would return money GM paid
them to settle their case confidentially.  Instead, the Meltons
want to pursue more claims that company executives knew of the
defect for a decade and covered it up.

The July 16 meeting with mediator Kenneth Feinberg, who has
handled victims' funds in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks
and the BP oil spill, won't affect the Melton case, Mr. Cooper
said.

"The Meltons are not interested at this point in settling with
GM," Mr. Cooper said.  He added that he had a motion to remand the
Melton case to Cobb County State Court, fighting GM's effort to
move the case to federal court in New York and combine it with
others to be frozen under the company's bankruptcy.

Although the amount of the Melton settlement last year was
confidential, GM described in a report about its internal
investigation that a case identical to the Meltons' ended in a $5
million settlement. So far, GM has refused to accept the Meltons'
return of the money, according to Cooper.

Under the terms of the GM victims compensation fund, the Meltons
could keep the settlement and still seek additional compensation,
Mr. Cooper said.  Yet he maintained that his clients are not
concerned with money but with finding the truth and making it
known.  "There are so many questions still to be answered, and
they need to be answered," he said on July 10.

Mr. Cooper said he has other cases that will likely be resolved
through the victims' compensation fund. But he says GM has set too
many restrictions on which cases can be settled through the fund.
He estimated that about 1 million cases can be covered under the
terms the company has set.  But the total number of cars recalled
because of the ignition switch defect is far greater. Beasley
estimated it at 17.1 million.  Mr. Cooper said he thinks that
number may be high, but certainly the series of recall
announcements from GM add up to several million.

Mr. Cooper said he believes GM is only including about half the
cases that should be covered by the fund.  He said Mr. Feinberg
impressed him as "very forthright and very sincere."  But he
added, "We're disappointed that GM has tied his hands on a number
of vehicles."

Mr. Feinberg, of Feinberg Rosen in Washington and New York,
couldn't be reached.

Messrs. Cooper and Beasley said they would work together on the
Melton case and others.

The meeting in Atlanta on July 16 also included Cole Portis, who
heads the Beasley Allen firm's products liability section.
"We met in Atlanta because of Lance," said Mr. Beasley.  He added
that he made the plans after receiving a call from Mr. Feinberg.

Mr. Beasley said he drove to Atlanta from Montgomery with his wife
and checked into a corner suite at the Ritz-Carlton Buckhead.
While his wife visited her sister in the suburbs, the four men --
Messrs. Beasley, Portis, Cooper and Feinberg -- gathered in the
sitting room of Mr. Beasley's suite for "just over two hours."

Before the meeting, the Beasley Allen public relations department
had sent a string of news releases criticizing GM, saying the
company couldn't be trusted.  On July 10, Mr. Beasley announced he
is "willing to give the plan a chance."  Mr. Feinberg managed to
persuade the plaintiffs lawyers that their "clients will be
treated fairly," Mr. Beasley said.  He added, "We will continue to
file lawsuits."  And he said victims who don't want to go through
the fund still have the option of litigation.


GIANT EAGLE: Violates Americans With Disabilities Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Giant Eagle, Inc. and Echo Realty, LP, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00964-CRE (W.D. Pa., July 17, 2014) is brought
pursuant to The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HBN MEDIA: "Hejazi" Lawsuit Alleges TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Ashkan Hejazi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HBN Media, Inc. dba Commissions, Inc., Case No. 8:14-
cv-01105-JVS-RNB (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2014) alleges violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Gouya Askari Ranekouhi, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  gouya@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


HMI INDUSTRIES: To Pay Penalty Over Defective Floor Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that HMI Industries Inc., a Strongsville, Ohio-based maker
of floor cleaners, has agreed to pay a $725,000 civil penalty for
allegedly failing to report a problem with overheating in its
floor cleaners, according to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission.

The settlement was accepted by the commission 2-1.  HMI also has
agreed to implement a safety compliance program.

Regulators alleged that the now-recalled Majestic 360 floor
cleaner had problems with its wiring overheating and causing
electrical arcing.

A $325,000 portion of the penalty has been suspended in "reliance
upon HMI's status as a small business, and its demonstration of
and contractual representations regarding its inability to pay a
greater penalty due to its financial condition," the CPSC said.

The commission alleged the firm materially misrepresented the
number of incidents with its floor cleaners.  When it reported to
regulators the issues with the floor cleaners in 2009, HMI
allegedly said that it only knew of 40 consumer complaints, none
of which involved injury.

However, HMI had received 2,000 complaints about the floor
cleaners causing electrical arcing, 120 reports of the floor
cleaners overheating and causing property damage, and two reports
of injury.

Manufacturers are supposed to report within 24 hours any product
defects that could create an unreasonable risk of serious injury
or death, that could create a substantial product hazard or fail
to comply with any other consumer product safety rule.

The floor cleaner, which was sold for just under two years
starting in 2004 through 2006 retailed for $1,800.  The model, of
which 44,000 were sold, was recalled in 2009.

HMI did not admit any violations of the Consumer Product Safety
Act as part of the settlement.


INTEL CORP: Settles Pentium 4 Purchasers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that in a
proposed settlement made public on July 15, Intel Corp. agreed to
pay $15 each to potentially millions of consumers who bought
computers equipped with Pentium 4 processors between 2000 and
2002.  In exchange, plaintiffs attorneys Geoffrey Munroe --
gam@GirardGibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs and Michael Danko of Danko
Meredith will release Intel from claims it manipulated performance
scores to make the processors appear better than they were.

"It has taken more than 19,000 hours of attorney and paralegal
time, and more than $2.4 million in out-of-pocket costs, but by
building a robust record of Intel's benchmarking activities and
employing novel legal theories, plaintiffs have achieved their
primary objectives," the motion for settlement approval states.

Attorneys on both sides of Skold v. Intel, 05-3923, had arrived in
Santa Clara County Superior Court in late June ready to give
opening statements in a bench trial before Judge Peter Kirwan.

They set up their equipment and lugged stacks of paperwork up to
the second-floor courtroom.  But Judge Kirwan ordered one more
last-minute round of mediation, and after a full day of tense
negotiations, they reached a preliminary agreement that could
finally lay the 10-year-old case to rest.

The class is estimated at up to 4.7 million members.  Mr. Danko
said he hopes at least half make claims, which would put Intel on
the hook for roughly $35 million.  The settlement pool is not
capped and claimants do not need receipts of purchase to
participate, though they must attest under penalty of perjury that
they made the purchase based on their best recollection.
That low hurdle was a key concession sought by plaintiffs
attorneys.  "[M]ost class members replaced their Pentium 4
computers long ago and have no physical evidence of their
thirteen-year-old computer purchase," the motion states.  "While
plaintiffs could have sought a monetary judgment for a greater sum
if they prevailed at trial, they would still face the problem of
getting the money into the hands" of class members.

Intel also has agreed to donate computers worth $4 million to
Teach for America and to pay up to $16.45 million in attorney
fees.

Munger Tolles & Olson partners Gregory Stone --
Gregory.Stone@mto.com -- and Daniel Levin -- Daniel.Levin@mto.com
-- led Intel's team from Los Angeles, along with Miriam Kim in the
firm's San Francisco office.

Plaintiffs attorneys claim internal Intel emails, PowerPoint
presentations and performance reviews paint a clear picture of how
Intel executives designed new benchmark tests and tweaked existing
third-party tests to boost the new chip's performance, hiding
their involvement to make the tests seem unbiased.

But plaintiffs attorneys had a hard time showing how the padded
benchmarks translated to consumers paying more for Intel
computers. They estimated the benchmarks led to an average price
inflation of $65, but Intel argued the connection was too tenuous.

"The reason we fought the litigation for as long as we did, is we
don't think anybody was harmed or misled as a result of those
benchmarks," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.  "[The processors]
operated as we said they would, and they operated as we advertised
them to."

Most consumers never saw the benchmark reviews, Intel attorneys
argued, scoffing at plaintiffs' theory that industry experts and
publications that relied on the reviews passed the information to
consumers.  In the settlement motion, plaintiffs attorneys
admitted their theory of consumer price inflation is "unique," and
already has been rejected by judges outside California.

Judge Kirwan decided to let the sides fight it out at trial,
denying a motion for summary judgment on the subject in April.
But plaintiffs attorneys remained concerned about the challenge of
finding and compensating class members, Mr. Danko said.  Intel,
which spent six months trying to locate and depose class members,
identified only 15,000, some of whom were ultimately determined
not to have a valid claim.

Mr. Danko called the permissive claims process a huge win for
plaintiffs.  "It is a very easy procedure that we developed, so
they can basically do it over the Internet," he said.
What the proposed settlement does not provide for is a court order
that would prevent Intel from using misleading benchmarks for
future products.  Girard Gibbs partner Munroe said in April that
his team had uncovered evidence the practice extended beyond the
Pentium 4.

Under pressure, Intel agreed in 2010 to a disclaimer that its
performance tests may have been optimized for Intel processors.
Third-party company Business Applications Performance Corp.
(BAPCo) also has added 26 new checkpoints to ensure benchmarks are
uncorrupted.

"The new processes address plaintiffs' allegations," according to
the settlement document, "significantly diminishing the necessity
of a risky and expensive trial to address any ongoing conduct."


INTERNATIONAL CULINARY: Two Law Firms File Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Gallo LLP and Yankwitt LLP on July 14 announced
their filing of a class action on July 10, 2014 on behalf of
current and former students of the International Culinary Center
("ICC"), formerly known as the French Culinary Institute.  The
class action is brought on behalf of students who attended either
of ICC's campuses, located in Manhattan, NY and Campbell, CA, and
enrolled in any of the school's "Culinary Chef" or "Pastry Chef"
programs.  The case, filed in the federal court for the Southern
District of New York, is titled Larry Grabovan et al. v.
International Culinary Center et al., Case No. 14 CV 5147.
Current or former ICC students who wish to learn more about the
action, or about how to participate in the litigation, should
visit the website maintained by plaintiffs' counsel at
www.icclawsuit.com

                Background on the ICC Litigation

The action charges that ICC misled students into paying $45,000 or
more for 6 to 9 month non- degree-granting programs.  The
complaint alleges that students agreed to pay these fees based on
ICC's advertising and on alleged statements by ICC's admissions
personnel that ICC was worth the high price tag because, upon
graduating, students would obtain jobs as Chefs, or other "top
culinary jobs," that would pay good salaries and allow them to
avoid years of working in entry-level "cook" positions.  The
phrase "Become a Chef in 6 months" allegedly appeared frequently
in ICC advertisements and other materials.  Based on these
promises, the two named plaintiffs, combined, borrowed nearly
$100,000 to pay for their ICC educations.

Upon graduating, the plaintiffs allegedly learned that their
degree enabled them to obtain only the sorts of low-paying
entry-level positions that ICC had promised them they could avoid-
positions that they could have obtained without paying for an ICC
diploma (or any other schooling).  Contrary to ICC's alleged
misrepresentations, the plaintiffs discovered that an ICC
education does not offer any shortcut to the "Chef" position, nor
an accelerated career path, any more than other culinary schools
with fewer celebrity endorsements.  But it does cost a lot.

The class action seeks to recover, among other damages, a return
of all money students paid or borrowed to fund their ICC
education, for which they received degrees of allegedly minimal to
no economic value, as well as student loan fees and interest.

The case is championed by lawyers who have had significant success
litigating cases for culinary students.  In the last few years,
Gallo LLP has recovered more than $100,000,000 in cash and debt
relief for former students.  This includes a $40,000,000 class
action settlement for former culinary students in Amador et al. v.
California Culinary Academy et al., Case No. CGC-07-467710 (S.F.
Superior Court).  Gallo LLP also has represented approximately
1,400 former students alleging fraudulent sales and marketing
practices in Vasquez et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts,
Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC393129.  Most of those
cases are ongoing in Los Angeles.

                      About the Attorneys

Gallo LLP -- http://www.gallo-law.com-- is a California-based
commercial and consumer law firm with offices in the San Francisco
Bay Area and Los Angeles.  It has been litigating large-scale
fraud cases against for-profit culinary and other vocational
schools since 2007.

Yankwitt LLP -- http://www.yankwitt.com-- is a sophisticated New
York litigation firm specializing in complex, federal litigation.
Located steps from the federal courthouse in Westchester, Yankwitt
LLP has extensive experience litigating in the Southern District
of New York.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Russell, a/k/a Kimberly Moore, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals v. Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00331-CG-B (S.D. Ala., July 17,
2014) accuses violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
          21 South Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 990-5558
          Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
          E-mail: epunderwood@gmail.com


JF VEHICLE: "Rodriguez" Suit Removed to M.D. Florida Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rodriguez v. JF Vehicle
Transporters, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CA-6311, was removed from
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01734-MSS-TBM to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin D. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN D. SMITH, PA
          6099 Stirling Rd., Suite 101
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 797-9626
          Facsimile: (954) 239-3956
          E-mail: kevin@kdsmithlaw.com


LAMAR CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Mass Layoffs
--------------------------------------------------------
Diane E. Coston, writing for WHTC, reports that the first of what
could be many lawsuits has been filed against a Hudsonville
construction company that announced a complete shutdown on July
11th, putting some 280 people out of work.  Mlive is reporting
that a former Colorado employee, Kyle Chism, has filed a class
action lawsuit because, he says, Lamar Construction violated
federal law by failing to notify workers 60 days before mass
layoffs.  The shutdown came after Fifth Third Bank pulled Lamar's
line of credit in the wake of "some unexpected losses."  Lamar
filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, meaning the company's value will
be divided by the courts among its creditors.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 14 disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
Liquidity Services, Inc. between February 1, 2012 through May 7,
2014, inclusive, against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers and directors, alleging securities fraud pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Washington, D.C. based company operates an online auction
marketplace for wholesale, surplus and salvage assets for both the
Federal government and private industry.

The litigation is styled Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc., Civ
No.: 1:14-cv-01183.  A copy of the Complaint filed in this action
is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at www.whafh.com

Throughout the Class Period, Liquidity falsely represented the
financial condition of the Company in issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's current and future
profitability, its growth initiatives including the integration
and performance of its acquisitions, the seriousness of the
competition in the industry, and the adverse effects of its
declining Department of Defense business and the offsetting gains
in its commercial and local and state government segments.  At all
relevant times, Defendants wrongfully portrayed Liquidity as a
profitable, growing company with substantial potential for further
growth, and falsely reassured investors that any struggles by the
Company were merely temporary side effects to its lucrative growth
initiative.  These material misrepresentations and omissions
artificially inflated the Company's stock and allowed certain
Company insiders to receive a windfall from selling the Company's
stock at inflated prices.

If you purchased Liquidity common stock during the Class Period,
you may move to be appointed as lead plaintiff by September 12,
2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf
Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in
New York, Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of
this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been
repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to
major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at
(800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our
website at www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "Liquidity
Services Inc., litigation."

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq. or Gregory Stone
Email: donovan@whafh.com
       gstone@whafh.com
       classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735
     (212) 545-4774


LINNCO LLC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
LawFuel reports that on behalf of 16 underwriters of LinnCo, LLC's
IPO on October 12, 2010, Skadden secured the dismissal of a
putative securities class action claiming the defendants failed to
disclose to LinnCo investors that Linn Energy, LLC was allegedly
overstating the cash flow available for distribution to Linn
Energy unit holders such as LinnCo.

On July 8, Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York issued a 50-page opinion holding
that the plaintiffs failed to allege any material misstatement or
omission by the defendants and dismissing the complaint with
prejudice.


MAXFIELD: Recalls Buckyball Magnetic Toys Over Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------
Ian Simpson, writing for Reuters, reports that magnetic toys
called Buckyballs, which can be swallowed and have been blamed for
numerous injuries, are being recalled at the end of a years-long
legal fight, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said on
July 17.

Millions of the loose, high-powered rare earth magnets were sold
as toys and desktop accessories.  When swallowed, their powerful
attraction can pinch or trap intestines and require surgery to
remove.

Under a settlement accord, owners of Buckyballs and similar
Buckycubes can obtain refunds through a trust overseen by the
CPSC, the agency said in a statement.  Craig Zucker, co-founder of
the former distributor of Buckyballs, Maxfield and Oberton
Holdings, will fund the trust.

"This recall is intended to protect children and teenagers from
the risk of injury that can occur when more than one magnet is
ingested," it said.

A refund can be requested through an online site,
BuckyballsRecall.com.  The deadline for submitting a refund
request is Jan. 17.

The magnets went on the market in 2009 and numerous incidents were
reported involving children.  In January 2011, a 4-year-old boy
had his intestine perforated when he swallowed magnets he thought
were candy, the CPSC has said.

The CPSC filed an administrative complaint in July 2012 against
Maxfield and Oberton seeking a recall.

Zucker was added to the complaint last year after the company shut
down.  The CPSC in May approved a settlement agreement reached
between Zucker and commission staff.

More than 2 million Buckyball toys and at least 200,000
Buckycubes, a similar cube-shaped magnet, have been sold in the
United States, the CPSC has said. They were made in China.

"Buckyball" also is used to refer to a molecule known as
Buckminsterfullerne, named for architect and geodesic dome
proponent Buckminster Fuller.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Jallo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01666-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 15, 2014)

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: DEA Probes Players' Prescription Drug Use
------------------------------------------------------------
Tadd Haislop, writing for Sporting News, reports that if the NFL
didn't take retirees' class-action lawsuit accusing the league of
providing drugs without warning players of consequences seriously,
it probably should now that the Drug Enforcement Administration is
involved.

The DEA has "quietly" launched an investigation into the abuse of
such prescription drug use in NFL locker rooms, sources tell the
New York Daily News.  "They want to find out who provided and
distributed the drugs to football players," according to a report.

The investigation reportedly started just after May's federal
lawsuit, in which players identified by name accuse teams of
illegally dispensing powerful narcotics and other drugs to keep
players on the field without regard for their long-term health.

"The allegations in our lawsuit, that the NFL has violated state
and federal drug laws, have been confirmed by over 1,300 former
NFL players," attorney Steve Silverman told The News.  "We are
pleased to learn that the DEA and United States Department of
Justice are also taking our clients' allegations seriously and are
actively protecting the welfare of NFL players."

Specifically, the DEA's New York division is trying to find out
how team doctors get access to narcotics like Percodan and Vicodin
and anti-inflammatories like Toradol, according to the report.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Good and Edward K. Soucek, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-04295-ER (E.D. Pa., July 16, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          FLITTER LORENZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822-0782
          Facsimile: (610) 667-0552
          E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com


NISSAN NORTH: Removed "Chiarelli" Class Suit to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chiarelli v. Nissan North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 503934/2014, was removed from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04327-NGG-VVP
to the proceeding.

Vincent Chiarelli alleges that his 2006 Nissan Frontier vehicle
had a defective timing chain tensioning system that caused the
timing chain system to fail and cause extensive damage to the
vehicle and the ultimate destruction of the engine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Spring Valley, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: tsvi@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David M. Covey, Esq.
          Soo Yeon Kim, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          2 World Financial Center
          225 Liberty Street, 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 422-0202
          Facsimile: (212) 422-0925
          E-mail: david.covey@sdma.com
                  soo.kim@sdma.com

               - and -

          E. Paul Cauley, Esq.
          Mahsa Soheil, Esq.
          S. Vance Wittie, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 5400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 227-8200
          Facsimile: (469) 227-8004
          E-mail: paul.cauley@sedgwicklaw.com
                  mahsa.soheil@sedgwicklaw.com
                  vance.wittie@sedgwicklaw.com


PAYTIME INC: Faces Class Action in Pennsylvania Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article at insurancenewsnet.com, a complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
is seeking class action status for litigation against Paytime Inc.
in connection with a recent data breach.  The suit lists three
plaintiffs -- Holly P. White of Lancaster, Doris McMichael of New
Cumberland and Daniel B. Storm of Lexington, Ky. -- but does not
identify their current and past employers who use the payroll-
processing services of Upper Allen Township-based Paytime.

"Nationally, over 233,000 individuals have had their personal and
financial information misappropriated as a result of the breach of
Paytime's computer network," the complaint says.

It alleges that Paytime "violated federal guidelines and failed to
meet current data security industry standards by failing to ensure
adequate security over Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class members'
personal and financial information and by failing to retain
Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class members' personal and financial
information in a secure and safe manner."

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive
relief including provision of credit monitoring, bank monitoring,
credit restoration and identity theft insurance services for at
least 25 years.

Paytime said it discovered a compromise of user names and
passwords related to its client service center on April 30 and
began investigating immediately.  So far, its crew, along with
third-party IT forensic experts and law enforcement, have
determined that the intruders -- "skilled hackers working from
foreign IP addresses" -- first gained access to Paytime's systems
April 7.

The scope of the breach included the following, according to a
letter Paytime sent clients: "Names, Social Security Numbers,
direct deposit bank account information (if provided), dates of
birth, hire dates, wage information, home and cell phone numbers,
other payroll related information and home addresses were accessed
by the intruders.  There is also a possibility that information
related to corporate bank accounts associated with your payroll
was accessed."

Paytime said it has since run multiple tests to confirm security
and implemented new monitoring and intrusion detection systems.
The company said it will give clients' employees access to one
free year of credit monitoring, call center support and identity
restoration services in the event any employee discovers
fraudulent activity.

Asked about the lawsuit, Paytime issued the following statement:

"As Central Pennsylvania communities are aware, Paytime has been
taking, and continues to take the matter of the data security
incident very seriously.  We are working with internal and third
party investigators, the Secret Service, incident response
vendors, our business partners, our staff, our clients, their
employees and the community to address the concerns and issues
that may exist.  Now that a complaint has been filed, we must
respect the judicial process. There is a formal process we must
follow to address the allegations and accusations in the
complaint.  At this time we are not free to discuss this further.
We are confident our good faith efforts to preserve the security
and confidentiality of information in our control will prevail in
this matter."


SME INC: Faces "Manheim" Suit Over Junk Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------
Carol Manheim, d/b/a Plantation Plaza Therapy Center,
individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. SME Inc., USA, d/b/a Superior Medical Equipment, Case
No. 2:14-cv-02856-DCN (D.S.C., July 16, 2014) challenges Superior
Medical Equipment's practice of sending fax advertisements, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Carol Manheim owns and operates Plantation Plaza Therapy Center, a
sole proprietorship, that provides rehabilitation, physical
therapy, and clinical counseling.  Plantation Plaza Therapy Center
is located in Charleston, South Carolina.

SME Inc., USA, doing business as Superior Medical Equipment, is a
North Carolina corporation that sells physical therapy and rehab
supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Clarke Newton, Esq.
          John S. Nichols, Esq.
          BLUESTEIN, NICHOLS, THOMPSON & DELGADO, LLC
          PO Box 7965
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 779-7599
          Facsimile: (803) 771-8097
          E-mail: cnewton@bntdlaw.com
                  jsnichols@bntdlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc B. Hershovitz, Esq.
          MARC B. HERSHOVITZ, PC
          One Alliance Center, 4th Floor
          3500 Lenox Road
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 262-1425
          Facsimile: (404) 262-1474
          E-mail: marc@hershovitz.com


UNITED CREDIT: Violated Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lukas Levad, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
United Credit and Collections, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01265-CDP
(E.D. Mo., July 17, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Eason, Esq.
          EASON LAW FIRM
          124 Gay Ave., Suite 200
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 932-1066
          Facsimile: (314) 667-3161
          E-mail: james.w.eason@gmail.com


VIBRAM USA: September 24 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vibram USA Inc. and Vibram FiveFingers LLC have reached a $3.75
million class action lawsuit settlement over claims they falsely
advertised the benefits of wearing FiveFingers footwear, including
that the shoes could improve posture, reduce the risk of injury
and strengthen muscles.

An infographic accompanying this release is available at
http://media.globenewswire.com/cache/32010/file/27562.pdf

If you purchased any one of 35 styles of FiveFingers footwear
between March 21, 2008 and May 27, 2014, you may be eligible to
claim between $20 and $50 per pair.  This amount could increase to
$94 per pair if fewer claims are filed.

The deadline to file a claim is September 24, 2014.  More
information about how to file a claim for the Vibram FiveFingers
class action settlement can be found at tpcl.as/vibraminfo

Case Summary

The Vibram FiveFingers settlement resolves multiple class action
lawsuits accusing Vibram of violating certain state laws and
consumer protection statutes in connection with the marketing and
sale of FiveFingers footwear since March 21, 2008.  Some of these
allegedly false marketing statements include that the footwear can
improve posture, reduce the risk of injury and strengthen muscles.
The plaintiffs allege that the running shoes may actually be more
risky than running barefoot and can increase runners' risk of
injury because the shoes change the way they run.

The defendants deny the allegations but agreed to pay $3.75
million to resolve the litigation.

The cases being settled are: Valerie Bezdek v. Vibram USA Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:12-cv-10513-DPW, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts; De Falco v. Vibram USA Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:13-cv-10764-DPW, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts; and Safavi v. Vibram USA Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-5900-BRO-JCG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California

Potential Award

Consumers that purchased Vibram FiveFingers footwear between
March 21, 2008 and May 27, 2014 can claim between $20 and $50
cash.  No proof of purchase is required if you're claiming two or
less pairs.  Additional pairs claimed require proof of purchase.

Deadline

The deadline to file a claim is 9/24/2014.

File a Claim

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


VIEGA LLC: August 25 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------
Viega LLC on July 11 disclosed that a settlement has been reached
in a class action about certain plumbing fittings, components and
sub-components ("Viega Brass Fittings" i.e., potable water
plumbing system fittings or other components and sub-components
used in potable water plumbing systems made from UNS C3600, UNS
C37700, UNS C36500 brass, or similar copper alloys with 15+% zinc
content manufactured and/or distributed by Viega or its
affiliates).  Plaintiffs and others allege the fittings may fail
or have an impeded "useful life."  Viega denies all claims made in
the lawsuit and maintains that Viega Brass Fittings are not
defective.  The Court has not decided who is right.  The parties
agreed to the Settlement to end the litigation.  This Settlement
augments a prior proposed settlement and enhances benefits to
eligible claimants.

WHO IS INCLUDED? You are included in the Settlement as a
Settlement Class Member if you: (1) are a Person that owns or
owned a structure that contains or contained Viega Brass Fittings;
(2) or are such Person's spouse, joint owner, heir, executor,
administrator, mortgagee, tenant, creditor, lender, predecessor,
successor, subsequent owner or occupant, lessee, trust and
trustee, attorney, agent, assignee or have standing to make a
claim for a Settlement Class Member.  Settlement Class Members,
and certain affiliated/related parties, who own or have owned
buildings, homes, residences or any other structures located in
Clark County, Nevada are also members of the "Clark County
Subclass." Settlement Class Members who currently own a
residential property located in AR, AZ, CA, DE, HI, KS, LA, NV,
NH, OK, WV and WY, are also included in the "Useful Life
Subclass."  Insurance carriers are members of the Settlement Class
or Clark County Subclass if their insureds fall within these
categories and the carriers paid claims for a leak or occlusion
before June 20, 2014.  Persons who seek contribution or indemnity
from Viega on past settlement of, or judgments on, claims with
Settlement Class Members or other subclass members are members of
the Settlement Class or respective subclass(es), if they paid
those settlements or judgments before June 20, 2014. Subrogated
insurance carriers or people seeking contribution or indemnity
from Viega from the vesting of legal rights occurring after
June 20, 2014, are not Settlement Class Members or members of any
subclass, but only succeed to rights of the relevant Settlement
Class Member or subclass member.  The detailed notice sets forth
the definition and certain exclusions.  See
www.verdejosettlement.com

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Viega will provide a "Limited
Warranty" covering water leaks from a Viega Brass Fitting caused
by dezincification or drops in water flow from fixtures due to
zinc oxide build-up resulting from dezincification in a Viega
Brass Fitting that cause the water flow rate to drop below
International Plumbing Code minimum requirements.  The Limited
Warranty will be valid for 16 years from the Date of Installation
of the Viega Brass Fittings (19 years from the Date of
Installation of the Viega Brass Fittings for the Clark County
Subclass).

Viega will also pay Settlement Class Members for reasonable costs
and expenses related to leaks and reduced water flow of Viega
Brass Fittings occurring within the period of the Limited
Warranty, that were not previously paid.  For example (1) actual
or anticipated costs associated with repairs; (2) material and
labor costs to repair or replace damage to real property; (3)
actual or anticipated costs to repair or replace damage to other
property; and (4) actual or anticipated costs for temporary
housing.  Viega will also make cash payments to Useful Life
Subclass Members who submit a valid claim by July 10, 2015.  Each
Useful Life Subclass Member may receive $250 for each residence
they won containing Viega Brass Fittings.

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR BENEFITS? You must complete and submit a Claim
For to receive benefits, except for the Limited Warranty.  For
Settlement Class Members with claims accruing before July 10,
2014, Claim Forms are due on January 6, 2015.  Claims accruing on
or after July 10, 2014, must be submitted within one-hundred
eighty (180) days of when the problem occurred.  Useful Life
Subclass Members must submit a Claim Form for a cash payment by
July 10, 2015.  Claim forms available at www.verdejosettlement.com
or by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope to Verdejo v.
Vanguard Piping Systems Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 43206,
Providence, RI 02940-3206.  If you previously submitted a claim in
connection with the prior proposed settlement in this action, you
do not need to resubmit the claim.  Your prior claim will be
reviewed per the terms of the current Settlement, but you may be
eligible for additional benefits that would require submission of
an additional Claim Firm.

YOUR OTHER OPTIONS. You have a choice to stay in the Settlement
Class or not.  If you submit a Claim Form or do nothing, you are
choosing to stay in the Settlement Class.  This means you will be
legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you
will not be able to sue or continue to sue Viega about the legal
claims released by the Settlement Agreement.  If you stay in the
Settlement Class you may object to the Settlement.  You or your
own lawyer may also ask to appear and speak at the hearing, at
your own cost, but you don't have to.  The deadline to submit
objections and requests to appear is August 25, 2014.  If you
don't want to stay in the Settlement Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion by August 25, 2014.  If you excluded
yourself in connection with the prior proposed settlement in this
action, you must do so again to exclude yourself from the current
settlement.  If you exclude yourself, you cannot get the benefits
from this Settlement, but you will keep any rights to sue Viega
for the same claims in a different lawsuit.  The detailed notice
explains the requirements for all these things.  It and other
information is available at www.verdejosettlement.com

THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING. The Los Angeles Superior Court will
hold a hearing in this case, Verdejo v. Vanguard Piping Systems,
Inc., Case No. BC448383, on September 17, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. to
consider whether to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate; attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses; and a payment of
$5,000 per home to the Plaintiffs.  These payments will not reduce
the amount of benefits available to the Settlement Class.


VISALUS INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged $240-Mil. Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Sommers Schwartz, P.C. on July 14 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit alleging a $240-million fraud was filed against Michigan-
based weight-loss shake seller ViSalus, Inc., a bevy of its
owners, and outside promoters.  According to claims made in the
complaint, brought on behalf of individuals who lost money after
buying rights to distribute the company's products, the operation
was a pyramid scheme in violation of both state and federal law
including the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
Act.

Plaintiffs Timothy Kerrigan, Lori Mikovich, and Ryan Valli assert
that more than 100,000 people paid up to $999 to join ViSalus's
"Individual Promoter Sales Force" and the right to sell the
company's powdered weight management products marketed under the
brand names Vi-Shape meal replacement shake, ViSalus Go Instant
Energy, and Vi-Trim Clear Control Drink Mix.  According to the
lawsuit, however, the alleged true purpose of the company was to
induce as many people as possible to sign up as independent
promoters to fuel the profits of those at the top of the pyramid.
Once enlisted, the lawsuit contends, the plaintiffs and other
victims discovered that the only way to get back their money was
to recruit other people into themselves becoming independent
promoters -- a type of fraud that the federal RICO act is intended
to prevent.

The complaint alleges that ViSalus successfully recruited some
100,000 new distributors in two years before its sales plummeted,
after which the company's principals then pulled out more than $80
million generated by the pyramid scheme.

The named plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of the
class, seek to recover their investment and statutory damages from
the company, its promoters, and a group of professional marketers
who participated in the massive recruiting effort.

The lawsuit (Case No. 2:14-cv-12693-MFL-DRG) was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Andrew
Kochanowski of Sommers Schwartz P.C. in Southfield, Matthew Prebeg
of Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott, PLLC in Houston, and Ed Wallace of
Wexler Wallace LLP in Chicago.  Sommers Schwartz and Prebeg,
Faucett & Abbott are also currently engaged in litigation on
behalf of victims of a Texas-based energy sales pyramid scheme.

Sommers Schwartz, P.C., a law firm located in Southfield,
Michigan, represents individuals in Michigan and across the
country who have been harmed as a result of fraud, medical errors,
defective products, employment disputes, and other forms of
negligence or intentional injury, as well as businesses involved
in complex litigation matters that jeopardize their existence.


WALLICK PROPERTIES: Sued for Violating Age Discrimination Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Doran, 2212 and 1/2 Tremainsville Road, Toledo, Ohio 43613
v. Wallick Properties Midwest, LLC dba Oakleaf Village, 4220
Holland Sylvania Road, Toledo, Ohio 43623, Case No. 3:14-cv-01590
(N.D. Ohio, July 17, 2014) is an action for a violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act for a termination from employment
that was discriminatory on the basis of age.

Plaintiff Sandra Doran, is a sixty-nine-year-old female citizen of
the United States, and a resident of the City of Toledo, and the
County of Lucas, state of Ohio.  She was hired to work as a nurse
by the Defendant at its nursing home located in Toledo, Ohio.

Wallick Properties Midwest, LLC, doing business as Oakleaf
Village, operates a nursing home in the City of Toledo, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J. Landry, Esq.
          WASSERMAN, BRYAN, LANDRY & HONOLD, LLP
          300 Inns of Court Building
          405 N. Huron Street
          Toledo, OH 43604
          Telephone: (419) 243-1239
          Facsimile: (419) 243-2719
          E-mail: FLandry308@aol.com


WP REALTY: Accused of Violating Americans With Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WP Realty, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00963-DSC (W.D. Pa.,
July 17, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                             *********

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  * * *