CAR_Public/140724.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 24, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 146

                             Headlines


ACCESS MEDICAL: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Class Action Over 2013 Data Breach Pending
ALING MARY'S: Recalls Sweet Buns Due to Undeclared Milk and Wheat
AMECO PARADISIO: Recalls Polo Pyjamas Due to Flammable
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: "Stone" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

APPLE INC: Settles E-Book Price-Fixing Suit for $450 Million
APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Removed "Byrd" Class Suit to S.D. California
AVCO INDUSTRIES: Faces "Carcasses" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BASS PRO: EEOC Files Hiring Discrimination Class Action
BERNARD L MADOFF: Appeals Court Rejects Ponzi Scheme Appeal

BOLLINGER FITNESS: Recalls Resistance Bands
BOUNCEBACK INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
C MART: Recalls San Mig 3 in 1 Coffeemix Due to Undeclared Milk
CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Cuisinart Electric Smoker
CATAMARAN LLC: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Parker" Suit Says

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Appeals Court Tosses Securities Class Action
CHINA XD PLASTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
CHINA XD PLASTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CHINA XD PLASTICS: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action
CHRYSLER GROUP: Sunroof Defect Class Action Can Proceed

CHUANG'S COMPANY: Recalls Old Village White Coffee
COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al Karawan Soft Candy Due to Undeclared Egg
COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al Karawan Candy Due to Undeclared Wheat
CORINTHIAN DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Palm Liver Spread
CYCLING SPORTS: Recalls 2014 MY GT Fury Team & Expert Bicycles

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Toll Fees
ELPIDA MEMORY: Settles DRAM Class Action for $310 Million
EUROTRADE IMPORT: Recalls Podravka Luncheon Meat Due to Milk
FINLEY CATERING: Faces "Pew" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FOOTWEAR IMPORTS: Recalls Phoenix Safety Footwear PH104 Stampede

GABLES PIZZA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
GENERAL MOTORS: Asks Consumers to Use Single Key in Recalled Cars
GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Judge Narrows Claims in MBS Class Action
GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Abido Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk
HALCO LIGHTING: Recalls LED Bulbs Due to Risk of Injury

HOME DEPOT: Violates Americans with Disabilities Act, Suit Claims
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Employee Background Checks
HOME HARDWARE: Recalls GetPower Portable USB Home Charger
HONDA MOTOR: Jury Awards $55.3 Mil. to Rollover Crash Victim
HUDSON VALLEY: Sued over Illegal Reposition of Personal Property

IMPERIAL WESTERN: Does Not Give Meal & Rest Periods, Action Says
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Ninth Circuit Affirms Investor Class Action
JOHNS HOPKINS: Agrees to Settle Levy Claims for $190 Million
KER MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Bartenders Minimum Wage, Suit Claims
KIND LLC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over "Cane Juice" Labeling

LIFE UNIFORM: Wants to Sell Rights to Class Action Recoveries
MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Holley" Suit to W.D. Tennessee
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Set to Rule on O'Bannon Antitrust Suit
NEUSTAR INC: Accused of Disclosing Misleading Fin'l Reports
NEW YORK: DOH Sued for Failing to Provide Discontinuance Notice

ONE TOUCH: "Isaac" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
PASRICHA & PATEL: Faces "Barros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PRINCESS TOURS: "Guo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: "Farrah" Suit Moved to E.D. Tenn.
RITE AID: Faces "Zipf" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ADA

ROBERT BOSCH: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Skil Table Saw
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Falsely Marketed Paint Products, Suit Claims
SEECO INC: Faces "Wallace" Suit in Eastern District of Arkansas
SP AUSNET: To Contribute $378.6 Mil. Towards Settlement Fund
SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages

TIMOTHY D. PADGETT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
WELLS FARGO: Removed "Zanders" Suit to Southern District of Iowa

* FDA Provides Ready Access to Recall Data Through API


                            *********


ACCESS MEDICAL: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Ramirez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Access Medical Acquisition, Inc., Access Medical Group
Of Hialeah, Inc. and Victor Lugo, Case No. 1:14-cv-22646 (S.D.
Fla., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Access Medical Acquisition, Inc. is a medical insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Class Action Over 2013 Data Breach Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Conn, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that Advocate
Health and Hospitals Corp. has now gone two for two in swatting
away class-action lawsuits stemming from last summer's massive
data breach involving more than 4 million of its patient records.
Its legal challenges on this matter aren't over yet, however.
Several other cases are pending.

Kane County (Ill.) Circuit Court Judge James Murphy recently
dismissed with prejudice a class-action suit in Matias Maglio et
al., vs Advocate, citing the plaintiffs' lack of legal standing
and failure to prove actual damages among other rationales in a
three-page ruling in favor of the 10-hospital Advocate system.
Advocate is based in the Chicago suburb of Downer's Grove, Ill.

In May, a judge in Lake County, Ill., similarly dismissed a class-
action suit there against Advocate, ruling that its plaintiffs
could not claim injuries based on potential losses.

Last July, burglars hit the Advocate Medical Group administrative
office in Park Ridge, another Chicago suburb, walking away with
four unencrypted computers with the records of 4,029,530
individuals.  It was the second-largest medical records breach
since the Office for Civil Rights at HHS began publicly posting
the larger ones to its "wall of shame" website in 2009.

In his Kane County ruling July 10, Murphy said, "Plaintiffs have
not alleged that the information contained on the computers has
been accessed or disseminated by the unknown third parties, or
that plaintiffs have been actual victims of identity theft because
of the misuses of the information."  Thus, Murphy found there were
"no allegations of present injury sufficient to sustain the
negligence" or claims Advocate had violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.

Advocate was represented in the Kane County case by Theodore Kobus
III -- tkobus@bakerlaw.com -- Daniel Warren --
dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- and George Tzanetopoulos --
gtzanetopoulos@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker Hostetler, with offices in
Cleveland and Chicago.

The Advocate system still faces several more legal challenges
stemming from the breach, with Erica Tierney and Andris Strautin
as named plaintiffs in a class-action complaint filed in federal
court for the Northern District of Illinois, and Alex Lozada v.
Advocate, a consolidation of 12 class-action cases filed in
Chicago's Cook County Circuit Court.

Jay Edelson, managing partner at Edelson P.C. in Chicago, is
representing the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, along with
Robert Clifford -- rclifford@CliffordLaw.com -- and Shannon
McNulty -- smm@cliffordlaw.com -- of the Clifford Law Offices.

Of the Kane County ruling, Mr. Edelson said, "We don't think it's
a terribly significant decision to our case."

"The damage theory that the courts have started to accept, all
flows from a federal court case in the 11th circuit with AvMED,"
Mr. Edelson said.  The Florida health insurer had two laptop
computers go missing in late 2009 along with 1.2 million
customers' records.

In the AvMED lawsuit, which reportedly settled for $3 million,
"The theory was when you're paying money for a product or a
service you expect to have part of that bargain to have the
information protected.  The 11th Circuit said that's right, it's
what people have a right to expect." The same logic should apply
to Advocate patients, he said.

"They expected the hospital to comply with HIPAA and take
reasonable steps to protect their information and they didn't get
the full benefit of the bargain," Mr. Edelson said.


ALING MARY'S: Recalls Sweet Buns Due to Undeclared Milk and Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 8, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Aling Mary's
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly
                          National, Saskatchewan, Yukon
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9027

Aling Mary's is recalling Aling Mary's brand Sweet Buns (Pandesal)
from the marketplace because they contain milk and wheat which are
not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk or
wheat should not consume the recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold in British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, and Yukon, and may have been distributed in other
provinces.

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

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

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

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

Affected products: 780 g. Aling Mary's Sweet Buns (Pandesal) with
all codes where milk and wheat do not appear on the label


AMECO PARADISIO: Recalls Polo Pyjamas Due to Flammable
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 15, 2014
Posting date:             July 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40561

Affected products: Diana & Karine polo pyjamas

The recall involves Diana & Karine 2-piece polo pyjamas for girls
identified by styles 69424 (ice cream print) and 69464 (monkey on
a scooter print).  The sleepwear is made of 100% cotton and has CA
number 32071.

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

Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources
such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than
tight-fitting sleepwear, and once ignited will burn rapidly,
potentially resulting in severe burns to large areas of the
child's body.  For this reason, cotton is not permitted in loose-
fitting sleepwear.

Neither Health Canada nor Les Modes Ameco Paradisio Apparel Inc.
has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related
to the use of this sleepwear.

Approximately 3,500 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold from
August 2012 to June 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Sri Arunkarai Amman Apparels
                    Tirapur
                    India

   Distributor      Les modes Ameco Paradisio Apparel Inc.
                    Montreal
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sleepwear and
return them to where they were purchased for a refund.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: "Stone" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Stone, et al. v. American Traffic
Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-013769 CA 20, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade County to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-22696-MGC to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Joshua Stone, Esq.
          RICHARD J. STONE, P.A.
          Two Datran Center PH 1-A
          9130 S. Dadeland Blvd.
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 670-2080
          Facsimile: (305) 670-2345
          E-mail: rich@rjstonelaw.com

The American Traffic Defendants are represented by:

          Naomi Massave Berry, Esq.
          Thomas Meeks, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          100 S.E. Second St., Suite 4200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 539-7210
          Facsimile: (305) 530-0055
          E-mail: nberry@cfjblaw.com
                  tmeeks@cfjblaw.com

Defendant City of Miami Gardens, Florida, is represented by:

          E. Bruce Johnson, Esq.
          Christopher J. Stearns, Jr., Esq.
          JOHNSON ANSELMO MURDOCH BURKE PIPER & HOCHMAN, PA
          International Building, Suite 1000
          2455 E Sunrise Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304-0220
          Telephone: (954) 463-0100
          Facsimile: (954) 463-2444
          E-mail: johnson@jambg.com
                  stearns@jambg.com


APPLE INC: Settles E-Book Price-Fixing Suit for $450 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
William Peacock, Esq., writing for Findlaw.com, reports that more
than a year later, Apple has finally taken a judge's advice and
settled its long-running e-books price-fixing antitrust case --
pending further appeals.  On the eve of the damages trial, Apple
settled with the government for $450 million, $400 million of
which goes to consumers.  However, the settlement is conditioned
on Apple not losing its appeals, appeals which could reduce the
settlement to $70 million or, if Apple gets truly lucky, nothing
at all.

That last part seems unlikely, however.  If you recall, the
government had a ton of evidence, including emails from the late
Steve Jobs.  The evidence was so compelling that the trial judge
warned Apple, on the eve of the merits trial, that it would be
best to settle.

Recapping the Merits

Apple ran its iBooks store like its App Store: publishers and
developers set their own prices, with Apple taking a cut (the
agency model).  Apple also included a Most Favored Nation clause
in its e-book contracts with publishers, ensuring that other
outlets couldn't buy books at a lesser rate.  At one point, Random
House protested -- Apple took their app out of the App Store in
retaliation.

Eventually, the agency model was forced upon Amazon and other e-
book outlets.

The threads of an Apple conspiracy were backed by statements and
emails from Steve Jobs and the heads of the publishing companies,
much like the anti-poaching class action lawsuit that is also
plaguing Silicon Valley at the moment.

How Big is the Settlement?

Apple's chipping in $450 million, assuming that the appeals don't
end in their favor.  Take the $400 million earmarked for
consumers, add the $166 million in settlements from the five
publishers who settled long ago, and you have $566 million that is
headed back to customers.  A lawyer involved in the case noted
that the settlement is "double the amount of their estimated
damages," reports Reuters.

Reuters also notes that the full $450 million is barely 1 percent
of the $37.04 billion the company made in its last fiscal year.


APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Removed "Byrd" Class Suit to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Byrd v. Applebee's International,
Inc., et a., Case No. 37-2014-00019536-CU-MT-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-01697-JM-KSC to the proceeding.

The case asserts personal injury claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul M. Kakuske, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704
          Telephone: (213) 623-9300
          Facsimile: (213) 623-9924
          E-mail: paul.kakuske@dentons.com


AVCO INDUSTRIES: Faces "Carcasses" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Misael Carcasses and others similarly situated v. Avco Industries,
Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation and Gil Korine, individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-22633 (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Avco Industries, Inc. is a paper manufacturer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


BASS PRO: EEOC Files Hiring Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
when the federal government sued Bass Pro Outdoor World for hiring
discrimination, it offered statistics showing a dearth of minority
employees, damaging comments from the retailer's managers such as
"we don't hire niggers," and asked for $300 million in potential
damages.

But the original complaint lacked one thing: named victims.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the
Springfield, Mo.-based national retailer for hiring discrimination
in 2011 -- the first class action of its kind where the agency did
not identify a single plaintiff up front, according to U.S.

District Judge Keith Ellison, presiding over the case in Houston.
By law, the EEOC doesn't have to wait for someone to come forward
with a discrimination complaint.  The agency can act on its own by
filing a commissioner's charge, or initiating a directed
investigation in age-discrimination or equal-pay cases.

The Bass Pro suit raises legal questions that go to the heart of
the agency's duty to seek a settlement before suing, and to the
EEOC's ability to invoke two overlapping but procedurally distinct
statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case also spotlights the EEOC's practical difficulty in
finding victims of hiring discrimination -- the top enforcement
priority under the agency's new strategic plan.  "A lot of people
don't know why they're not hired," EEOC assistant general counsel
Jerome Scanlan told The National Law Journal.  "We feel we have an
important role to play here."

To build a case, the EEOC may rely in part on statistical evidence
culled from reports that all employers with 100 or more workers
(and federal contractors with 50 or more) must file annually with
the agency, Mr. Scanlan said.  The reports show the sex and race
or ethnicity of workers by job category.

                      Soliciting Plaintiffs

The agency on its website is soliciting plaintiffs for the Bass
Pro case and three other pending class actions: against Mavis
Discount Tire and Performance Food Group Inc. for allegedly
failing to hire qualified women and against Texas Roadhouse Inc.
restaurants for alleged age discrimination in hiring.  "We are
looking for people who may have been affected by the unlawful
discrimination alleged in these suits," the agency said.

In the Texas Roadhouse case, filed in U.S. district court in
Massachusetts nine days after Bass Pro, the EEOC also initially
failed to identify any plaintiffs by name.  It alleged instead
that only 1.9 percent of "front of the house" employees --
hostesses, servers, bartenders -- at the Kentucky-based steakhouse
chain were older than 40.  "This figure is well below the
protected age group's representation in the general population of
defendants' locations," the complaint said.

But as the Bass Pro case shows, filing a class action without
first naming any so-called "aggrieved individuals" can open the
agency to new avenues of attack.

The case began in February 2007, when then-Commissioner Stuart
Ishi-maru charged the 15,000-employee, privately held retailer
with failing to recruit or hire black and Hispanic employees in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color,
national origin or religion.  Specializing in fishing, hunting and
other outdoor sporting gear, the Bass Pro stores are filled with
stuffed bears, moose, deer and boars. Along with hundreds of
fishing poles, walls of rifles and dozens of bows, there are
doormats with slogans like "Trespassers will be shot.  Survivors
will be shot again!" and camouflage everything -- from baby
booties to easy chair recliners.

For nearly four years, the EEOC investigated Bass Pro and then, as
required by Title VII, attempted to settle, or conciliate, the
case.  The process was distinguished by "marked acrimony," Judge
Ellison wrote in an order earlier this year.  "The court cannot
say why this was or where things went wrong," he wrote.  "It now
seems clear both sides could have engaged more skillfully and
respectfully."

Represented by a team from King & Spalding led by Atlanta partner
Michael Johnston, Bass complained that the EEOC refused to
identify potential plaintiffs before filing suit and "never
provided Bass Pro with the most basic information concerning the
claim of any aggrieved individual (such as the person's name, the
position sought, any circumstances suggesting discrimination and
the basis for any alleged emotional harm), let alone an ability to
respond to such claim or attempt to resolve it through
conciliation."

Mr. Johnston declined to comment.  A Bass Pro spokeswoman did not
respond to a request for comment.

Using statistical evidence, the EEOC said Bass Pro had a
"shortfall" of 1,000 black and Hispanic hires at its roughly 60
stores around the country.  The agency wanted $30 million to
settle, arguing that Bass Pro could be on the hook for $300
million if the case went to trial -- a maximum penalty of $300,000
for each currently unidentified person who would have been hired
but for the discrimination.  Bass counteroffered to pay $1.7
million, declaring that it wouldn't up its offer without more
information about the claims.  With negotiations at an impasse,
the EEOC sued Bass Pro in September 2011.  The agency alleged in
its nine-page complaint that the company had engaged in "a pattern
or practice of unlawfully failing to hire black and Hispanic
applicants for positions in its retail stores nationwide."  It
also alleged retaliation and record-keeping violations.

The EEOC's Mr. Scanlan said the agency knew of specific hiring
discrimination victims but didn't identify them because "we didn't
think we were required to under federal pleading standards,"
Scanlan said."  It was a choice."

The judge in 2012 dismissed much of the complaint "because EEOC
failed to allege even one plaintiff with any particularity."
Still, Judge Ellison allowed the agency to try again.

The EEOC responded in July 2012 by filing a 247-page amended
complaint naming about 200 plaintiffs, but Bass Pro continues to
attack the agency for failing to adequately identify the class
members.

                        Enforcement Scope

Last month, the company asked Judge Ellison to toss the heart of
the case on the ground that the EEOC did not try to settle in good
faith.  Bass Pro has been left to "sift through a million
application files, guess which applicants were black or Hispanic,
and then guess which of those the EEOC contends were denied a job
because of intentional discrimination," Mr. Johnston wrote.  The
agency countered that Bass Pro has destroyed evidence, refused to
provide names of at least 50 employees who complained of
discrimination and "imposed unreasonable time limitations" on
depositions.  Judge Ellison's ruling is pending.

The future of the case in large part will turn on what Title VII
provisions the EEOC is able to invoke. The agency cites both
Section 706, which permits it to sue on behalf of flesh-and-blood
discrimination victims, and Section 707, which empowers it to go
after businesses engaged in a "pattern or practice" of
discrimination.

Judge Ellison has approved the EEOC's Section 707 claims -- but
only back pay and injunctive relief are available under that
provision, and there's no trial by jury.  Judge Ellison ruled that
the EEOC "cannot bring a hybrid pattern-or-practice claim that
melds the respective frameworks."  In a pending motion, the agency
has asked him to reconsider.  "There is no hybridization," it
argued.  "The issue is whether those two claims, which involve
precisely the same facts, can be proved the same way, or have to
be proved differently and separately, and more than once."


BERNARD L MADOFF: Appeals Court Rejects Ponzi Scheme Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed an appeal
involving the settlement of class action securities claims related
to the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme.

Circuit Judges Dennis G. Jacobs, Barrington D. Parker and Denny
Chin voted in the majority, with Parker authoring the opinion.

"This appeal requires us once again to grapple with the aftermath
of the Ponzi scheme run by Bernard L. Madoff," the June 26 opinion
states.  "Defendants-Appellants PricewaterhouseCoopers and Citco2
. . . seek to overturn a partial final judgment entered in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
. . . approving the settlement of certain putative class action
claims."

The settled claims were brought by the 118 plaintiffs, who were
individual and institutional investors in so-called Madoff feeder
funds managed by the Fairfield Greenwich Group, according to the
opinion.

"The claims were brought against the group as well as its
directors and officers," the opinion states.  "The non-settling
defendants challenge one particular provision in the settlement
agreement that provides that investors who file claims under the
settlement submit to the district court's jurisdiction for the
sole purpose of participating in the settlement and not for any
other purpose."

The non-settling defendants contend that the district court erred
in approving this provision because district courts cannot permit
litigants to agree to insulate themselves from personal
jurisdiction if it would otherwise be created as a result of the
settlement, according to the opinion.

"In response, the investor plaintiffs contend, among other things,
that the non-settling defendants lack standing to lodge this
objection," the opinion states.  "The non-settling defendants
counter that they have standing because the provision in question
prejudices their rights to assert that participation in the
settlement should bar or limit investor claims against them in
other litigation.  Because we conclude that the non-settling
defendants do not have standing to challenge the settlement, we
dismiss the appeal."

The plaintiffs invested money in funds sponsored and managed by
the defendants, which, in turn, invested substantially all of
their assets with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

"After discovering that their investments were lost as a result of
Madoff's fraudulent scheme, investor plaintiffs brought a putative
class action asserting federal securities and state common law
claims against the Fairfield Greenwich defendants, their outside
public accountants, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Citco and GlobeOp
Financial Services LLC, which provided various professional
services to the funds," the opinion states.

"In addition to restitution of the $5 billion investor plaintiffs
alleged that they, as a class lost, as a result of Madoff's
fraudulent scheme, the complaint sought consequential and punitive
damages as well as disgorgement of profits purportedly obtained by
the defendants."

Following the filing of the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, the putative class representatives were approached by
several putative settlement class members who expressed concern
that, as foreign individuals and entities, participation in the
settlement class could subject them to clawback actions in United
States courts by Irving Picard, the SIPC Trustee for Bernard L.
Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Kenneth Krys, the court-
appointed Liquidator of Fairfield Sentry Ltd., seeking to recover
monies they may have directly or indirectly received through the
Fairfield Greenwich Group from Madoff.

"In response to these concerns, on the eve of the preliminary
approval hearing, the settling parties submitted an amended
proposed order purporting to limit the district court's
jurisdiction over settlement class members," the opinion states.

The preliminary approval order was amended and, at the hearing,
the non-settling defendants objected to the amended language on
the ground that class members who submitted to the court's
jurisdiction in order to accept the terms of the settlement could
not, at the same time, be permitted to limit the legal
consequences of doing so.

The non-settling defendants contended that they were currently
facing claims in litigation in the Netherlands and were entitled
to argue that any entity that participated in the New York
settlement could not pursue claims in any other jurisdiction.  The
district court overruled the objections and approved the amended
preliminary settlement order, according to the opinion.

The district court entered the final order approving the
settlement and entering partial final judgment with respect to
investor plaintiffs' claims against the Fairfield Greenwich
defendants.  This appeal followed.

"In reaching this result, we join our sister courts in holding
that a settlement which does not prevent the later assertion of a
non-settling party's claims . . . does not cause the non-settling
party 'formal' legal prejudice," the opinion states.

"For these reasons, we conclude that the non-settling defendants
do not have standing to object to the settlement," the opinion
states. "In view of this conclusion, we decline to address the
remaining issues argued on appeal."

The 118 plaintiffs in the suit include Jitendra Bhatia,
Kishanchand Bhatia, Jayshree Bhatia, Mandakini Gajaria, Abn Amro
Life S.A., Bahia Del Rio S.A., Bevington Management, Ltd., Calwell
Investment S.A., Diamond Hills Inc. and Hedge Strategy Fund LLC.

The 69 defendants in the suit include Corina Noel Piedrahita,
Walter M. Noel Jr., Andres Piedrahita, Jeffrey Tucker, Amit
Vigayvergia, Fairfield Heathcliff Capital LLC, Yanko Dellaw
Schiava, Philip Toub, Lourdes Barreneche and Cornelis Boele.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case number: 13-1642-
cv


BOLLINGER FITNESS: Recalls Resistance Bands
-------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 15, 2014
Posting date:             July 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40477

Affected products: Fitness Resistance Bands

The recall involves Bollinger Fitness Classic and Soft Tech
resistance bands with door attachment.  Resistance bands with the
names Classic Heavy, Classic Medium, Soft Tech Xtreme, Soft Tech
Heavy and Soft-Tech Medium are included in this recall.

The 1.2 metre (4 foot) long resistance bands are made of gray
rubber with gray, red, black or blue accents and have black foam
handles and a door attachment.  A 13 centimetre (5-inch) long
strap of nylon webbing is looped onto the band with a plastic ball
attached or encased that serves as a door anchor.  The Bollinger
Fitness logo appears on the handles.  The model number can be
found on the product's packaging; model numbers 5771, 5772, 5773,
5774 and 5775 are included in this recall.

A black plastic ball attached to the resistance band's door anchor
can unexpectedly release and strike the user, posing an injury
hazard to consumers.

Bollinger has received one report of an injury.

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

A total of 3,037 recalled products were sold into Canada at
Winners, Marshalls and Homesense locations across Canada.
Approximately 60,000 were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Taiwan and
sold from May 2013 to June 2014 in Canada and from July 2012 to
March 2014 in the United States.

Companies:

   Distributor     Bollinger Fitness, a division of Alliance
                    Sports Group L.P.
                   Grand Prairie
                   Texas
                   United States

   Importer        Winners Merchants International LP
                   Mississauga
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the door attachment and
contact Bollinger Fitness to get instructions on how to receive a
free replacement door attachment, including free shipping.


BOUNCEBACK INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wodena Cavnar, Rosaline Terrill and Linda Parks, on their own
behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Bounceback Inc., a Missouri corporation, Stone Fence Holdings
Inc., Gale Krieg and Does 1 - 20, Case No. 2:14-cv-00235-RMP (E.D.
Wash., July 18, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


C MART: Recalls San Mig 3 in 1 Coffeemix Due to Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           C Mart Enterprises Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on July 4, 2014 has been updated to
include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling San Mig brand 3 in 1 Coffeemix from the
marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the
label.  People with an allergy to milk should not consume the
recalled products described below.

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

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

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

The recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities.  The
CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to
the recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

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


CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Cuisinart Electric Smoker
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 18, 2014
Posting date:             July 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Appliances
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Improper Safety Mechanisms, Product
                          Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40607

Affected products: Cuisinart Electric Smoker

The voluntary recall involves specific units of the Cuisinart
electric smoker identified by product number 85-1153, which have
the following batch codes inscribed on them:

15013, 15213, 50214, 51314, 41514, 51814, 51614 and 22014.

The electric smokers are black with the name "Cuisinart" printed
on the stainless steel door.  The product has five cooking racks
and a thermostat to control the temperature.

The affected Cuisinart electric smokers are being recalled as a
precautionary measure due to safety concerns that gas may build up
within the unit causing the door on the smoker to open while the
unit is in use.

Canadian Tire has received five reports of the door on the smoker
opening while in use.  No injuries have been reported.

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

Approximately 2,572 units of the affected Cuisinart electric
smokers were sold at Canadian Tire stores across Canada.

The recalled Cuisinart electric smokers were manufactured in China
and sold between December 2013 and May 2014.

Companies:

   Importer     Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited
                Toronto
                Ontario
                Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected Cuisinart
electric smoker and return them to their local Canadian Tire store
for a refund.


CATAMARAN LLC: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Parker" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damien Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Catamaran, LLC, Catamaran PBM Of Illinois II, Inc.,
and Aerotek, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05396 (N.D. Ill., July 15,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and minimum wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Catamaran, LLC manages, controls, and operates customer service
call centers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 201-0575
      Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
      E-mail: bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net
              cpsons@bormeslaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 726-3400


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Appeals Court Tosses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that plaintiffs in a proposed securities class action
against Chesapeake Energy Corp. failed to show at the complaint
stage that the defendants acted with recklessness or intent
regarding their duty to disclose material facts to investors, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled.

The plaintiffs allege that purchasers of Chesapeake's common stock
between April 30, 2009, and May 11, 2012, were misled about the
energy supplier's financial condition in two ways.

One, they allege that the company did not disclosed that
volumetric production payment transactions, under which Chesapeake
received immediate cash in exchange for the promise to deliver gas
over time, involved future production costs of about $1.4 billion.
The defendants allegedly touted the $6.3 billion raised in the
transactions but did not disclose the production costs.

Two, plaintiffs allege that Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon was
allowed to purchase a 2.5 percent interest in new gas wells
drilled in a given year but was not required to bear the costs of
exploring land on which no wells were ultimately drilled.

Plaintiffs argued that this created an incentive for Ms. McClendon
to lead the company into "an aggressive land-grab strategy that
maximized his odds of participating in productive wells but
contributed to Chesapeake's debt problems."

Judge Monroe Gunn McKay, in affirming the lower court's dismissal
of the case, concluded "there is little in the complaint [against
Chesapeake] to support the conclusory allegation that these
allegedly misleading omissions and statements were motivated by
the intent to defraud or a reckless disregard" of a known fact
that was so obviously material that the defendants must have been
aware of its materiality and that its non-disclosure would likely
lead investors to being mislead.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Judge
McKay notes that plaintiffs must plead with particularity facts
that give rise to a strong inference of scienter, or intent to
defraud or recklessness.

Moreover, under the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Tellabs Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., the inference of scienter must be one
that a reasonable person would deem "'cogent and at least as
compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts
alleged,'" Judge McKay said.

The plaintiffs only showed that the defendants allegedly knew of
the arguably material facts, Judge McKay said.

The stock price dropped by nearly 60 percent when the market
learned about the downside of the two programs, according to the
plaintiffs.


CHINA XD PLASTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
Sungwan Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jie Han, Taylor Zhang, and China XD Plastics Company
Limited, Case No. 1:14-cv-05308 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company's business and operations.

China XD Plastics Company Limited engaged in the research,
development, manufacture, and sale of modified and engineering
plastics products primarily for use in the fabrication of
automobile parts and components in the People's Republic of China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Kevin Chan, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212)202-3827
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              kchan@rosenlegal.com


CHINA XD PLASTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on July 15 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
China XD Plastics Company Ltd. between August 12, 2009 and July
10, 2014, asserting violations of the federal securities laws and
seeking to recover losses of China XD Plastics shareholders.

To join the China XD class action, visit the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan toll-free
at 866-767-3653; you may also email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.  The
lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

According to the suit, China XD overstated its revenue and net
income in its quarterly and annual reports issued to U.S.
investors.  On July 10, 2014, Bleecker Street Research released a
report asserting that China XD Plastics had filed reports with
regulators in China that showed materially smaller amounts of
revenue and net income for fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012, than
reported in its SEC filings.  In addition, the report asserts that
China XD Plastics' gross margins are unbelievably high relative to
its competitors, and that its CFO has been linked to an
embarrassing financial fraud at another Chinese public company.
This adverse information caused the price of China XD stock to
drop, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than September 15, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation,
please visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com
To discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of The Rosen Law Firm,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com
or kchan@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CHINA XD PLASTICS: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 16 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against China XD Plastics Company Ltd. and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-5359, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased China XD securities between August 12, 2009
and July 10, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased China XD securities during
the Class Period, you have until September 15, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

China XD is a specialty chemical company that is engaged in the
research, development, manufacture, and sale of modified and
engineering plastics products primarily for use in the fabrication
of automobile parts and components in the PRC.  Its modified
plastics are used to fabricate various auto components, including
exteriors consisting of automobile bumpers, rearview and side view
mirrors, and license plate parts; interiors, such as door panels,
dashboards, steering wheels, glove compartments, and safety belt
components; and functional components comprising air conditioner
casings, heating and ventilation casings, engine covers, and air
ducts.  The Company also offers specially engineered plastics and
environment-friendly plastics for use in oilfield equipment,
mining equipment, vessel propulsion systems, and power station
equipment.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) China XD reports gross margins substantially
higher than its main competitor, yet spends much less on research
and development ("R&D"); (ii) China XD reported substantially
higher revenues and net income in its SEC filings compared to
filings made to the Chinese state regulatory authority known as
the State Administration for Industry and Commerce ("SAIC") during
the fiscal years 2008 through 2010; and (iii) as a result of the
above, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 10, 2014, the price of China XD common stock fell $1.17
(15%) to close at $6.48 on heavy trading volume after the release
of an article by the research entity Bleeker Street Research on
SeekingAlpha.com, which disclosed for the first time, among other
things, that China XD reports gross margins substantially higher
than its main competitor, yet spends much less on R&D, and China
XD has reported higher revenues and net income in SEC filings
compared to SAIC filings.

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


CHRYSLER GROUP: Sunroof Defect Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
New Jersey federal judge has refused to dismiss a putative class
action against Chrysler Group LLC over alleged manufacturing flaws
that cause sunroofs on several of its Jeep models to leak,
although he reduced the number of claims allowed to proceed in the
suit.

Judge Michael Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted in part and denied in part defendant Chrysler's
motion to dismiss the action brought by 11 consumers nationwide,
including named plaintiff Jay Miller, who purchased Jeep vehicles
with leaking sunroofs.

In a June 30 opinion, Judge Shipp said he was dismissing without
prejudice the claims against Chrysler for breach of express
warranty, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing.  The judge also dismissed claims with prejudice
for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

However, Judge Shipp allowed claims for breach of implied
warranty, violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and violations of
state consumer protection laws to go forward.

Judge Shipp rejected Chrysler's argument that the implied warranty
claim in this case fails because leaking sunroofs would not render
the plaintiffs' vehicles unfit to serve as a mode of
transportation.

"While defendant may ultimately prevail on this argument, the
Court is not prepared to rule a family car that fails to shelter
the family from rain "merchantable" as a matter of law," Judge
Shipp wrote.

The suit claims that failure-prone "drain tubes" and other
manufacturing flaws cause factory-installed sunroofs on the Jeep
Patriot, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep
Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country, and
Chrysler 300 to permit "rain, snow, sleet, car wash water and
other forms of moisture" into the vehicle's cabin, resulting in
damage to upholstery, electronics, and other components.

Plaintiffs assert that defendant Chrysler knew of the defects, but
failed to disclose them to car buyers.  Chrysler also routinely
refused to provide warranty repairs or other remedies for the
leaking sunroofs, plaintiffs allege.


CHUANG'S COMPANY: Recalls Old Village White Coffee
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 16, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Chuang's Company Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia, Ontario, Possibly
                          National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9056

Chuang's Company Ltd. is recalling Old Village brand White Coffee
from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should not
consume the recalled product.

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

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

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

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


COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al Karawan Soft Candy Due to Undeclared Egg
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Coffee Master, Odeco Trading Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9006

The food recall warning issued on July 4, 2014 has been updated to
include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Coffee Master and Odeco Trading Inc. are recalling Al Karawan
brand Soft Candy from the marketplace because they contain egg and
wheat which are not declared on the label.  People with an allergy
to egg or wheat should not consume the recalled products described
below.

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

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

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

The recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities.  The
CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to
the recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.


COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al Karawan Candy Due to Undeclared Wheat
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 16, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Coffee Master, Odeco Trading Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario,
                          Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on July 15, 2014 has been updated
to include additional distribution information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Coffee Master and Odeco Trading Inc. are recalling Al Karawan
brand Soft Candy from the marketplace because they contain egg and
wheat which are not declared on the label.  People with an allergy
to egg or wheat should not consume the recalled products.

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

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

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

The recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities.  The
CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to
the recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

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


CORINTHIAN DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Palm Liver Spread
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 16, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Corinthian Distributors Ltd., Wilby
                          Commercial Limited
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Possibly National, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9057

Industry is recalling Palm brand Liver Spread from the marketplace
because it contains milk which is not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled
product described below.

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

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

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

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

Affected products: 227 g. Palm Liver Spread where milk is not
declared in the list of ingredients


CYCLING SPORTS: Recalls 2014 MY GT Fury Team & Expert Bicycles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 17, 2014
Posting date:             July 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40617

Affected products: 2014 MY GT Fury Team and Expert Bicycles

The recall involves two 2014 GT brand downhill mountain bikes.

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

  Bicycle Models          Bicycle Codes
  --------------          -------------
  2014 GT Fury Team      GM0046
  2014 GT Fury Expert    GM0211

The 2014 GT Fury Team is a black downhill mountain bike with lime
green accents.  The brand GT and the name Fury are in blue.  The
name Team is in smaller lime green letters and placed just above
the name Fury.

The 2014 GT Fury Expert is a blue downhill mountain bike with red
accents.  The brand GT and the name Fury are in white.  The name
Expert is in smaller red letters and placed just above the name
Fury.

The wheel hubs can break and cause the brake system to fail,
posing crash and injury hazards to the consumer.

Cycling Sports Group, Inc. has received five reports of hub
failure, including one with injury, involving these bicycles
worldwide.  No incidents were reported from Canada.

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

Approximately 32 units of the recalled bicycle were sold by
authorized GT Dealers across Canada and approximately 120 units
distributed in the United States.

The recalled 2014 MY GT Fury Team and Expert bikes were
manufactured in Taiwan and sold from February 2014 to June 2014 in
Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Cycling Sports Group, Inc.
                    Norwalk
                    Connecticut
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using 2014 MY GT Fury Team and
Expert bicycles.  Consumers should contact a GT authorized dealer
for free replacement of both the front and rear complete wheels at
no charge.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Toll Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc. on July 11 urged an Oklahoma
federal judge to toss a putative consumer class action accusing it
of improperly charging renters inflated "administrative fees" for
electronic toll charges, saying the fees were fully disclosed in
the rental contract.

The suit, which accuses Dollar of breaching customer contracts by
tacking on an administrative fee of $15 or $20 for each electronic
toll, fails because the fee is outlined in the rental contract.
Additionally, the lead plaintiffs assert Oklahoma and Florida
consumer protection law claims when the disputed transaction
actually occurred in Texas, the company said.

"With respect to each cause of action asserted in the complaint,
plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted," the company said in its motion to dismiss.

Filed in May, lead plaintiffs Stephen and Anne Sallee claim that
Dollar and two of its subsidiaries improperly charged the higher
administrative fee, even though the actual fee associated with
processing electronic tolling charges is a fraction of that
amount.  The Sallees allege the rental car giant misrepresent the
administrative fees, harming thousands of consumers.

The Sallees, residents of Florida, rented a car from Dollar during
a trip to Texas in November and incurred four toll charges
totaling $4.70, the complaint said.  Upon returning the car, a
Dollar agent informed them that there were no additional charges,
but the Sallees later received a bill for the $4.70, plus $60 in
administrative fees, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs argued the company improperly leads customers to
believe that the fees go toward processing the tolls, but only a
small portion of those fees are used for administering Dollar's
electronic toll program, while the rest is a hidden additional
charge on top of customers' rental fees, the suit said.

"By representing that its $15 or $25 per toll charge was an
'administrative fee' . . . when the administrative cost of these
toll programs is not nearly that high, Dollar breached its
contracts with its customers by charging more for customers'
rentals without including or otherwise disclosing its rental price
increase to them," the complaint said.

However, Dollar on July 11 argued the Sallees in their complaint
concede that the fees were disclosed in the contract, so the
company therefore did not breach the contract by charging the
fees.

The company said the customers were given the chance to enroll in
the Pass24 program offered through Dollar by electronic toll
collection company Rent a Toll Ltd., under which Dollar pays for
any toll charges customers incurred between $8 and $21 per day.
The contract says that any customer who opts out of the program
will face the administrative fees, Dollar said.

The company also said the plaintiffs are improperly asserting
Oklahoma and Florida law claims, even though Texas law is the only
one applicable to the suit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Tony M. Graham and R. Jack
Freeman of Graham & Freeman PLLC, Jeffrey W. Lawrence of The
Lawrence Law Firm, Bruce D. Greenberg --
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- and Jeffrey A. Shooman --
jshooman@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC and
Daniel R. Karon and Laura K. Mummert of Goldman Scarlato Karon &
Penny PC.

Dollar is represented by Sarah Jane Gillett --
sgillett@hallestill.com -- of Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden &
Nelson PC and John F. Ward -- jward@jenner.com -- III of Jenner &
Block LLP.

The case is Stephen Sallee et al. v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group Inc. et al., case number 4:14-cv-00250, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.


ELPIDA MEMORY: Settles DRAM Class Action for $310 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
ABC10 News reports that if you purchased a piece of equipment
which uses dynamic random access memory, commonly referred to as
DRAM, between 1998 and 2002, you may be eligible to take part in a
$310 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette announced the decision on
July 14, alerting businesses and consumers who purchased products
like computers, video game consoles, MP3 players, printers, PDAs,
DVD players or the DRAM itself that they may be entitled to cash
payments from the settlement fund.

The fund was created through settlements with 12 manufacturers
over claims that they conspired to raise the prices of their
products.  However, if you bought DRAM directly from one of the
manufacturers named in the suit, you are not eligible.

It is expected that approximately $200 million will be paid out to
those affected, who need to file claims by August 1st in order to
compensated.  It's unknown how much each individual class member
will receive, but estimates indicate it will be at least $10.

If you think you were affected by the gouging, Mr. Schuette says
you can get additional information on the process and how to fill
out a claim form at www.dramclaims.com or by calling 1-800-589-
1425.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California presides over this case.  The case is called In re:
Dynamic Random Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1486.

The Defendants are:

   * Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA), Inc.;
   * Hitachi, Ltd.;
   * Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc.,
     presently known as SK hynix Inc. and SK hynix America Inc.;
   * Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies North America
     Corp.;
   * Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.;
   * Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics
     USA, Inc.;
   * Mosel-Vitelic Corp., Mosel-Vitelic (USA), Inc.;
   * Nanya Technology Corp., Nanya Technology Corp. USA, Inc.;
   * NEC Electronics America, Inc., presently known as Renesas
     Electronics America, Inc.;
   * Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor,
     Inc.;
   * Toshiba Corp., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.;
     and
   * Winbond Electronics Corp., Winbond Electronics Corporation
     America, Inc.


EUROTRADE IMPORT: Recalls Podravka Luncheon Meat Due to Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Eurotrade Import - Export Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward
                          Island, Manitoba, National, New
                          Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Nunavut,
                          Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan,
                          Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest
                          Territories, Yukon
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on July 15, 2014 has been updated
to include additional distribution information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Eurotrade Import - Export Inc. is recalling Podravka brand
Luncheon Meat from the marketplace because it contains milk which
is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk
should not consume the recalled product described below.

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

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

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

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

Affected products: 200 g. Podravka Luncheon Meat with all codes
where milk is not declared on the label.


FINLEY CATERING: Faces "Pew" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Pew, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. Finley Catering Co., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04246 (E.D. Pa.,
July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Finley Catering Co., Inc. operates a food service business that
caters events at various Philadelphia-area locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center, Suite 211
      715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


FOOTWEAR IMPORTS: Recalls Phoenix Safety Footwear PH104 Stampede
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 17, 2014
Posting date:             July 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Electrical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40591

Affected products: Phoenix brand safety footwear style PH104
Stampede

The recall involves the Phoenix safety boot, style PH104 Stampede.
It can be identified by the manufacture date Jan. 2014 and
manufacturer # 8532 which can be found on the tongue of the boot.

The footwear has a tag marking of an omega indicating it complies
with Electrical Shock Resistance.  The CSA Group has not certified
this safety footwear for electrical shock resistance and as such
the product may present a risk to the wearer when such protection
is required.

Neither Health Canada nor Footwear Imports 2001 Inc. has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of this product.

687 pairs of boots were distributed in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
select Giant Tiger store locations in Ontario, Quebec, Nova
Scotia, Manitoba and Alberta from May 1, 2014 to June 14, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Haiyu Limited-Liability Company
                    China

   Importer         Footwear Imports 2001 Inc.
                    Montreal
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers with the affected model are advised to immediately
discontinue use of the product and to contact their Giant Tiger
store for refund or exchange.


GABLES PIZZA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Porfirio Ramentol and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. v. Gables Pizza & Salad Corp. and Miguel Bermudez, Case
No. 1:14-cv-22647 (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gables Pizza & Salad Corp. is a restaurant located in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


GENERAL MOTORS: Asks Consumers to Use Single Key in Recalled Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corilyn Shropshire, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
General Motors is advising consumers to use a single key in cars
affected by ignition problems until their recalled cars can be
repaired.

The company ran full-page advertisements in newspapers on July 17,
including the Chicago Tribune and the Cleveland Plain-Dealer,
asking drivers to remove all items from their key rings because
anything beyond the weight of a single key -- including a key fob,
rewards cards, or other ornaments usually attached to key chains
-- may trigger the ignition to turn off.

GM has recalled 29 million vehicles this year, more than half of
which were linked to defective ignition switches.  At least 13
deaths have been linked to the problem.

The ads also ask drivers to make sure the transmission is in the
"park" position before leaving the car.  Manual transmissions
should be placed in reverse, according to the ad.  In each case,
the parking brake should be applied.

GM last year sold 2.8 million vehicles in the United States and
9.7 million worldwide.


GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Judge Narrows Claims in MBS Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, Kurt Orzeck and Evan Weinberger, writing for
Law360, report that a New York federal judge has pared claims from
a putative class action accusing Goldman Sachs & Co. of making
misleading statements in connection with the sale of mortgage-
backed securities, according to a July 15 court filing.

In a handwritten note dated July 10, U.S. District Judge Miriam
Cedarbaum indicated that she had granted in part and denied in
part Goldman's motion to dismiss parts of the NECA-IBEW Health &
Welfare Fund's fourth amended complaint.  The notice referred back
to an oral opinion issued by the judge and didn't provide details
on which claims were dismissed or why.

NECA filed the fourth iteration of its long-running suit in
November 2012, targeting Goldman, its units Goldman Sachs Mortgage
Co. and GS Mortgage Securities Corp., and three executives.  The
union pension fund alleged the defendants made false and
misleading statements in offering documents for GS Mortgage
Securities asset-backed certificates issued through 14 trusts.

Previous versions of the complaint had been dismissed, but the
Second Circuit in September 2012 partially reinstated the proposed
class action, finding that NECA alleged a cognizable injury and
appropriately represented all potential plaintiffs who purchased
certificates from seven of 17 separate offerings.

The Second Circuit ruled that the pension fund could plausibly
represent the claims made by purchasers of certificates of those
seven series because they were made up of mortgages issued by many
of the same lenders.  Because of that, NECA could argue that it
was harmed by the same misrepresentations about the quality of
those mortgages as other holders.

In June, Goldman filed a motion to dismiss parts of NECA's fourth
amended complaint, contending that, among other things, the
complaint overstepped the bounds of the Second Circuit's mandate
by purporting to include claims related to seven offerings that
were previously dismissed for lack of standing.

Goldman further argued that the three executives can't be held
liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 because they
signed only the registration statement and not any of the
prospectus supplements that contained the alleged
misrepresentations upon which NECA based its claims.

The defendants sought the dismissal of several other claims based
on Judge Cedarbaum's March ruling in a related class action filed
against Goldman by the Police and Fire Retirement System of the
City of Detroit.

Pursuant to the court's findings in that case, NECA can't maintain
its Section 11 claims against Goldman Sachs Mortgage, and the
fund's allegations that the credit ratings assigned to the
certificates were somehow false or misleading because they
purportedly were based on inaccurate loan data and supposedly
"outdated" models must fail, Goldman argued.

NECA shot back that the "mandate rule" doesn't bar any of its
claims, saying the Second Circuit's decision changed the law on
the issue of standing, identifying a new set of facts that must be
examined and alleged to determine if a plaintiff has standing.
Specifically, a court must examine whether there are common loan
originators in both the offerings purchased by the plaintiff and
in those offerings that the plaintiff didn't purchase but for
which it is asserting claims, NECA said. It is undisputed that all
14 offerings at issue in the fourth amended complaint meet the new
standard, the fund said.

The fund also contended that Goldman was incorrect to assert that
neither GSMC nor the executives can be held liable under Section
11, and said Goldman rehashed old arguments about its credit
rating allegations based on an "oversimplified reading" of the
complaint.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
and Cavanagh & O'Hara.

The defendants are represented by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

The case is Neca-Ibew Health & Welfare Fund et al. v. Goldman
Sachs & Co. et al., case number 1:08-cv-10783, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Abido Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Greenworld Food Express Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on July 14, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Green World Food Express Inc. is recalling Abido brand coating
mixes from the marketplace because they may contain milk which is
not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should
not consume the recalled products.

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

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

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

The recall was triggered by the CFIA's test results.  The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

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


HALCO LIGHTING: Recalls LED Bulbs Due to Risk of Injury
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Halco Lighting Technologies LLC, of Norcross, Ga., announced a
voluntary recall of about 9,500 ProLED bulbs.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The LED bulbs can overheat and fall onto consumers below, posing
impact and burn hazards.

The firm has received reports of five incidents of the LED bulbs
separating from the socket.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves 14 Halco LED bulb models used in recessed
lights, as outdoor security lighting and in retail displays.  The
bulbs have a metal cone-shaped housing, are silver in color,
either 14 or 18 watts, and have clusters of 6 to 16 LEDs.
"ProLED" is printed on a label on the plastic housing of the bulb
along with model numbers, product names, and date codes.  The
PAR30 bulbs measure about 4.75 inches long and 3.75 inches wide.
The PAR38 bulbs measure about 4.75 inches long and 4.75 inches
wide.  The following models are included in the recall:

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
lighting retailers and distributors nationwide from June 2009
through March 2014 for between $20 and $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled LED bulbs,
remove the bulbs from the fixture and contact Halco for free
replacement LED bulbs.


HOME DEPOT: Violates Americans with Disabilities Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00973-CRE (W.D.
Pa., July 18, 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


HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Employee Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Basso, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Home
Depot Inc. faces a potential class action lawsuit for allegedly
running credit reports and background checks without notifying
employees and job applicants.  The home improvement company also
allegedly failed to give current and potential employees copies of
the credit and background reports before taking actions against
them based on the outcome of these reports, thus violating the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The Home Depot class action lawsuit was filed at a Georgia federal
court by Texas resident Trent Henderson on behalf of himself and
other potential class members.  Mr. Henderson alleges he applied
for a job at his local Home Depot in Houston earlier this year via
online application.  The application included an "I Agree" button
preceded by terms and disclosures and application confirmation,
which Henderson clicked and provided his agreement.

For the application, Mr. Henderson willingly disclosed information
about his past history, completed an interview, and performed a
drug test as per required by the application process.  According
to the Home Depot class action lawsuit, "Home Depot obtains
consumer reports about applicants, including Henderson, at
approximately the same time it requires applicants to complete
drug tests."

Shortly after the drug test was conducted, Mr. Henderson was
allegedly contacted by a Home Depot agent who informed him that he
would not be receiving the position of employment because of his
background.  By refusing to hire Henderson based on the
information of this consumer report, Home Depot's actions are
considered adverse employment action and violation of FCRA,
according to the Home Depot background check class action lawsuit.

On May 5, Mr. Henderson and his attorneys requested information
about Mr. Henderson's files from Home Depot, including copies of
background checks and consumer reports.  Home Depot did not
respond and did not provide the plaintiff's information.

"Home Depot did not provide Henderson with a copy of any consumer
report that Home Depot had obtained or a written description of
his rights under the FCRA, whether prior to or after notifying him
of its decision not to hire him," the class action lawsuit says.
His complaint goes on to state that Home Depot routinely refuses
to release copies of consumer reports or provide notice of these
reports to employees and job applicants.

Additionally, Mr. Henderson's class action lawsuit also seeks to
address how Home Depot violated FCRA rules through its application
agreement prompt.  Nowhere in the terms and disclosures provided
by Home Depot's online application does it use the term consumer
report or indicate to an applicant that Home Depot may search for
personal information from consumer report agencies.

The Home Depot background check class action lawsuit seeks to
certify a Class of individuals who applied for work at Home Depot,
agreed to the terms and disclosures, and were subject to consumer
report without being informed on or after July 3, 2013.
Mr. Henderson's class action lawsuit is also seeking to certify
those who have faced adverse employment action, like Mr.
Henderson, and who did not receive copies of these reports.

Because of the sheer number of people who have applied for
employment at Home Depot in the past year alone, the Class of
plaintiffs could potentially include thousands of Home Depot
applicants.

Mr. Henderson is represented by Steven L. Woodrow and Christopher
L. Dore of Edelson PC and Jennifer Auer Jordan of The Jordan Firm
LLC.

The Home Depot Background Check Class Action Lawsuit is Henderson
v. The Home Depot Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02123, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.


HOME HARDWARE: Recalls GetPower Portable USB Home Charger
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 18, 2014
Posting date:             July 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Unauthorized products
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40603

Affected products: GetPower Portable USB Home Charger

The recall involves the GetPower portable USB home charger AC USB
adapter.  The two model numbers affected are CWP-ACUSB-MULTI and
BD-201A-BD202A.  These two models have the same store item number
identified as 3514-036 and UPC 7-67322-19196-9.

The products were offered in the following colours: assorted pink,
red, blue, black, white, green, orange, and purple.

The affected product has not been tested to determine whether it
is compliant with the Canadian Standards for electrical product
safety and may pose a safety hazard.

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

Approximately 10,290 units were sold in Home Hardware stores
across Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
April 2013 to July 2014.

Companies:

   Importer     Home Hardware Stores Ltd.
                St. Jacobs
                Ontario
                Canada

Consumers should stop using the portable USB charger immediately
and return it to a Home Hardware store for a credit.


HONDA MOTOR: Jury Awards $55.3 Mil. to Rollover Crash Victim
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a jury ordered Honda Motor Co.
to pay $55.3 million for a rollover accident that left a
Pennsylvania man paralyzed, but the car company said on June 27 it
would appeal.

Lawyers for Carlos Martinez, 57, of York, argued during a nine-day
trial that a faulty seat belt design in his Acura Integra caused
the permanent injuries he suffered in 2010.

Mr. Martinez was driving to work in suburban Baltimore when a tire
blew out and he lost control of the car, said his attorney,
Stewart Eisenberg.  The seatbelt failed to prevent Mr. Martinez's
head from hitting the roof of the car as it rolled over, the
lawyer said.

Acura is a division of Honda.  A spokesman for the company denied
any problems with the "proven restraint system used by virtually
every manufacturer."

"The evidence here clearly established that there is no vehicle-
based defect that caused Mr. Martinez's injuries," Honda spokesman
Chris Martin said in an emailed statement.

Mr. Eisenberg contended Honda knew such an injury was possible
based on seat belt testing it conducted in 1992.

Damages awarded by the Philadelphia jury on June 26 include money
for pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of
consortium and loss of earnings.  Mr. Martinez, a married father
of four, worked in construction as a glazier but is now paralyzed
from the chest down.

"All of a sudden their life is destroyed by this accident," said
Eisenberg.

Mr. Martinez's nephew, a passenger in the car, was wearing his
seatbelt but was not injured, Mr. Eisenberg said.


HUDSON VALLEY: Sued over Illegal Reposition of Personal Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Clarke, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, Case No. 7:14-cv-
05291 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,
specifically out of the wrongful repossession of the Plaintiff's
personal property by the Defendant in its illegal efforts to
enforce a security interest.

Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union is a federal credit union with
its principal place of business in Poughkeepsie, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Miller, Esq.
      BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      26 Broadway, 21st Fl
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 248-7906
      Facsimile: (212) 248-7908
      E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com

         - and -

      Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
      Douglas A. Micko, Esq.
      Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
      CROWDER, TESKE, KATZ & MICKO, PLLP
      222 South Ninth Street, Suite 3210
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 746-1558


IMPERIAL WESTERN: Does Not Give Meal & Rest Periods, Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin E. Renfro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of all other "aggrieved" employees v.
Imperial Western Products, a California Corporation, and DOES 1-
10, inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-01448 (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2014),
seek to recover compensation for missed meal-and-rest periods,
compensation for unpaid wages, civil penalties and/or damages for
failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, waiting-
time penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Imperial Western Products offers various waste oil and grease
removal products for commercial food producers and offers truck
transportation services for bulk, dry and liquid products, and
other commodities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
      DESAI LAW FIRM PC
      3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 614-5830
      Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
      E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Ninth Circuit Affirms Investor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit
on July 16 affirmed Intuitive Surgical Inc.'s win in a securities
fraud class action, holding that allegedly false or misleading
statements that the company made regarding its finances and growth
prospects are largely "nonactionable forward-looking statements"
or "garden variety corporate optimism."

A three-judge appellate panel upheld U.S. District Judge Lucy H.
Koh's ruling dismissing the suit brought by Intuitive shareholder
Police Retirement System of St. Louis.  PRS alleged that Intuitive
and seven of its executives knowingly or recklessly misrepresented
the robotic surgical device maker's financial situation in a 2007
regulatory filing and four analyst calls in 2008, causing
artificial inflation of the company's share price.

But the Ninth Circuit panel found that PRS' complaint didn't meet
the heightened pleading requirements under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act and federal civil procedural rules.

"The heart of PRS' allegations, which target misstatements made
during various analyst calls, are not actionable because they are
covered by the safe harbor provision of the PSLRA or mere
corporate puffery," Judge M. Marget McKeown wrote for the panel.
"Nor are the claimed omissions in the 2007 annual report
actionable because they are not material."

Intuitive, which manufactures the da Vinci line of robotic
surgical systems for minimally invasive surgeries, experienced
continual revenue growth from 1999 to 2007, and its share price
closed at $353 in December 2007, according to court documents.
But the company's stock and revenues subsequently began to fall,
and by the end of the class period in PRS' suit in January 2009,
its share price closed at $110.54, court documents said.

Ultimately, Intuitive disclosed that it was unable to sustain
system placement growth and that 2008 revenue had increased only
46 percent, meeting the company's guidance of 40 percent growth
but falling slightly short of its expected 49 percent to 50
percent growth for 2007, according to court documents.

PRS claimed that the individual defendants had access to advance
undisclosed information about Intuitive's business and present or
future prospects but knew of or recklessly disregarded the falsity
of certain public statements and disclosures.

In the July 16 ruling, the Ninth Circuit panel characterized the
alleged misstatements made during the analyst calls as "classic
growth and revenue projections" that fall within the PSLRA's safe
harbor.

"Contrary to PRS' assertions, the statements are not 'misleading
as to the then-present effects and circumstances' of known trends
on Intuitive's financial health; they plainly project expectations
for future growth," Judge McKeown wrote.

Four of the challenged statements in PRS' suit fall into the realm
of corporate puffery, the appellate panel said. PRS argued that
those statements, including Intuitive's assertion that the
opportunity for system placement at hospitals was "still very,
very large," are objectively verifiable and qualify as material
misstatements.  But the panel disagreed, saying the statements are
the "antithesis of facts" and represent the "feel good" talk
characteristic of nonactionable puffery.

While acknowledging that the 2007 annual report filed with the SEC
was factually accurate, PRS alleged that certain statements in the
report altered the "total mix" of information available to
investors, faulting Intuitive for not detailing known trends,
including that system placement was declining because of market
saturation and the economic downturn.

The appellate panel said that the securities laws don't require
the kind of reporting demanded by PRS.

"Nothing about the statements in the 2007 annual report would give
a reasonable investor the impression that Intuitive's growth was
different than it was in reality," Judge McKeown wrote.  "The
statements accurately reflect the company's growth in 2007; they
do not purport to speak to any trends in Intuitive's growth or
revenues and do not alter the total mix of information available
to investors. The 2007 annual report is neither incomplete nor
misleading."

The panel further found that PRS didn't establish the requisite
scienter on the part of Intuitive's executives through any of
several theories, including the core operations theory, which
relies on the principle that corporate officers have knowledge of
the critical core operations of their companies.  At best, the
facts in PRS' complaint only support an inference of the
executives' knowledge of all core operations, not scienter, Judge
McKeown wrote.

Michael D. Celio of Keker & Van Nest LLP, who argued the case for
Intuitive before the Ninth Circuit, praised the appeals court's
ruling.

"We are thrilled Judge McKeown not only agreed with Judge Koh's
well-reasoned opinion dismissing the complaint and exonerating
Intuitive Surgical, but also that she restored the core operations
theory to its original intention," Mr. Celio said in an email.
"Armed with this opinion, future defendants can dedicate their
valuable resources to developing their business instead of
battling groundless allegations."

Judges M. Margaret McKeown, Jerome Farris and A. Wallace Tashima
sat on the Ninth Circuit panel.

PSR is represented by Ian D. Berg -- iberg@aftlaw.com -- Takeo A.
Kellar -- tkellar@aftlaw.com -- Atara Hirsch -- ahirsch@aftlaw.com
-- and Mitchell M.Z. Twersky -- mtwersky@aftlaw.com -- of Abraham
Fruchter & Twersky LLP.

Intuitive is represented by Michael D. Celio -- mcelio@kvn.com --
Robert A. Van Nest --- rvannest@kvn.com -- and Cody S. Harris --
charris@kvn.com -- of Keker & Van Nest LLP.

The case is Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive
Surgical Inc. et al., case number 12-16430, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


JOHNS HOPKINS: Agrees to Settle Levy Claims for $190 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Fenton, Scott Dance, Colin Campbell and Nayana Davis,
writing for The Baltimore Sun, report that Johns Hopkins Hospital
has agreed to pay $190 million to settle claims from thousands of
women who may have been surreptitiously recorded during pelvic
exams by gynecologist Dr. Nikita A. Levy.

The amount of the settlement is one of the largest on record
involving sexual misconduct by a physician.  Dr. Levy, a doctor in
the Johns Hopkins Community Medicine system for 25 years, took his
life in February 2013 during an investigation that revealed he was
using tiny cameras concealed in pens and key fobs to record
patients.

Investigators found more than 1,300 videos and images during
searches of Dr. Levy's home and office.  Plaintiffs' attorneys
estimate more than 8,000 patients could have a claim.

Because the women could not be identified from the images, all
former patients could be considered victims.  Anyone treated by
Levy has been affected by a feeling of "betrayal" and an invasion
of doctor-patient confidentiality, said Jonathan Schochor, the
lead attorney for the patients.

"Many of our clients still feel a betrayal and lack of trust and
have fallen out of the medical system," Mr. Schochor said.  "They
stopped seeing their doctors, they stopped taking their children
to doctors.  They refused to see male OB-GYNs, or any OB-GYN.

"Their lives, needless to say, have been severely and negatively
impacted," he said.

In a statement, Hopkins said the settlement would be paid through
its insurance policy and "will not in any way compromise the
ability of the health system to serve its patients, staff and
community."

"It is our hope that this settlement, and the findings by law
enforcement that the images were not shared, helps those affected
achieve a measure of closure," the hospital statement read.

Donald L. Devries Jr., an attorney for Hopkins, acknowledged that
Levy had committed a "colossal breach of trust" but emphasized
that the doctor was a "rogue employee" whose actions could not
have been flagged by the institution.

"There was no inkling of it," Mr. Devries said.  "It's one of
those situations where no matter what rules or regulations or
whatever you put in place, if somebody wants to violate it
secretly as this physician did, there's not a thing that
institution is going to be able to do to know that."

Howard Janet, another plaintiffs' attorney, disputed that, saying
Levy's actions occurred within the scope of his employment as a
physician working for Hopkins.

"Our position is that if it's something they didn't know, it's
something they should have known," Mr. Janet said.

While industry experts said Hopkins, a multibillion-dollar
operation, would be able to absorb any financial hit, hospital
system officials might be more cautious in hiring decisions,
especially in affiliated settings that carry the Hopkins banner --
and benefit from its credibility and resources.

"That's what the hospital brand name means to the consumer," said
Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management, business
economics and public policy at the Wharton School of the
University of Pennsylvania.

Hopkins might have settled to avoid more liability, said
Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the
University of Pennsylvania Law School.  "You don't pay $200
million unless you thought you had a risk of losing quite a bit
more than that," he said.

Dr. Levy, who was 54 at the time of his death, practiced in East
Baltimore under the arm of the Johns Hopkins Community Physicians,
where he served largely low-income residents of the area.  A
Jamaican-born New Yorker, he was married and had three children,
and had a reputation among some patients as willing to go above
and beyond to provide care, such as driving through a snowstorm to
deliver a patient's child.

In court, plaintiffs' attorneys alleged that Dr. Levy "engaged in
doctor-patient boundary violations during the course of his
patients' treatment," including "an excessive number of
unnecessary pelvic exams and engaging in inappropriate physical
contact."  Some patients said Dr. Levy practiced without medical
professionals on hand as observers.  Observers are used routinely
in hospitals for the safety of patients and doctors.

Kim Hoppe, a spokeswoman for Hopkins Medicine, said hospital
officials had "redoubled our efforts to uphold the highest
standards of patient privacy."

"We have implemented numerous steps to educate, inform and empower
our staff to identify and alert us if they have any concerns," she
said in an email.  "We also conducted a comprehensive initial
inspection of our facilities and continue to conduct random
inspections."

Mr. Schochor said settlement negotiations had been continuing for
months until July 18, and attorneys received word on July 21 that
Circuit Judge Sylvester B. Cox had granted preliminary approval of
the agreement.

Attorneys from both sides plan to work with outside experts over
the next few months to determine how to calculate individual
patient payouts.  Mr. Schochor said each plaintiff will be
evaluated by a "team of professionals," including a psychiatrist.
The plaintiffs will then be placed into one of four categories,
based on the degree to which they were affected; attorneys
declined to provide more details.

Neither side sought to determine which patients were pictured in
the images found in Levy's possession, to avoid further privacy
violations.  The images were of sex organs and did not show faces.

"Because we don't know and never will know who was actually
videotaped or photographed, no one's in a position to put at ease
the minds of Dr. Levy's patients that they were not" recorded,
Mr. Janet said.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for September.
Additional patients who believe they have a claim to the
settlement will be allowed to come forward until November,
Mr. Schochor said.  It was not clear how much of the settlement
the attorneys will receive; Mr. Schochor said that would be
decided by the judge.

In a class-action lawsuit involving a Delaware pediatrician
convicted of recording assaults on hundreds of children that led
to a $123 million settlement in 2012, attorneys received 22.5
percent of the total payout.

Dr. Levy was terminated by Hopkins on Feb. 8, 2013, after
allegations of secret surveillance were brought to the attention
of hospital officials by a female colleague who had become
suspicious of the pen he wore around his neck.  Within days, his
Towson-area home was searched by police.

He was found dead Feb. 18.  He left a letter of apology to his
wife before wrapping a plastic bag around his head and pumping it
with helium.

Among the items seized from Dr. Levy's home and office were six
cameras concealed in pens and two cameras concealed in fobs, which
can be attached to key chains.  Police also seized four computers
and several external hard drives.

After Dr. Levy's death, authorities continued investigating his
activities in an attempt to learn the scope of the criminal
activity and determine whether images were shared with others.  A
spokesman for the Baltimore state's attorney's office said earlier
this year that authorities had concluded Dr. Levy was acting on
his own.

Mark Cheshire, the spokesman, also said at that time that
investigators determined Dr. Levy had not recorded underage
patients.  But Mr. Janet, the plaintiffs' attorney, said on July
21 that 62 underage victims were identified.  Police did not
respond to questions about the discrepancy.

Plaintiffs' attorneys also expressed skepticism that Dr. Levy
acted alone; Messrs. Schochor and Janet said the plaintiffs hired
a "profiler" who said that those who engage in this type of
conduct are "prone to disseminate" their images.  They
acknowledged, however, that no such evidence was uncovered by
investigators.


KER MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Bartenders Minimum Wage, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Freudenthal and Marissa Peters, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated v. Ker Management Services, LLC a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Winghouse III, Inc. formerly known as:
Winghouse of Tampa, Inc. a Florida Corporation, et al., Case No.
8:14-cv-01708 (M.D. Fla., July 15, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay all bartenders minimum wage pursuant
to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ker Management Services, LLC owns and operates "WingHouse"
restaurant throughout the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


KIND LLC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over "Cane Juice" Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Kat Greene and Greg Ryan, writing for
Law360, report that an Illinois federal judge on July 14 tossed a
proposed class action accusing snack bar maker Kind LLC of
improperly listing evaporated cane juice as an ingredient rather
than sugar, finding the plaintiff had failed to adequately allege
she had been injured or deceived.

Plaintiff Rochelle Ibarrola alleged Kind misrepresented the
ingredients in Vanilla Blueberry Clusters and five other products.
But U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said Ms. Ibarrola had not
explained how she was deceived, or what she believed evaporated
cane juice to be, if not a form of sugar.

"Ibarrola fails to allege how the inclusion of evaporated cane
juice in the list of ingredients or the claim that Vanilla
Blueberry Clusters contained no refined sugars affected her
decision to purchase the product," the judge said.

Judge Ellis said Ms. Ibarrola also had not explained why the
inclusion of molasses in the list of ingredients did not cause her
to forego buying Vanilla Blueberry Clusters, but the inclusion of
cane syrup would have.  Molasses is also a sweetener derived from
sugar cane, the judge said.

Ms. Ibarrola points out that she did not think that Vanilla
Blueberry Clusters were sugar free, but she does not make clear
what, if anything, she actually thought with regard to the sugar
content of, or the sweeteners used in, Vanilla Blueberry Clusters
such that the court can infer that she was actually deceived.

"Because Ibarrola fails to plausibly allege that she was deceived
or that a reasonable person would be deceived by Kind's
representations, her fraud and [Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act] claims fail to state a cause of
action," the judge said.

She also dismissed Ms. Ibarrola's claim for unjust enrichment,
saying that absent deception, the claim for unjust enrichment must
fail.  However, the judge did decline to rule at this stage on the
question of whether Ms. Ibarrola has standing to sue for
misrepresentations on products that she never purchased.

"While Ibarrola alleges only that she purchased Vanilla Blueberry
Clusters, she sues Kind for misrepresentations on six of its
products. Kind contends that Ibarrola lacks standing with regard
to the five other products and that Ibarrola cannot serve as a
class representative for those who purchased those products," the
judge said, adding that Ibarrola can amend her complaint.

Consumers have sued Chobani Inc., Nestle USA Inc. and other
companies in the past two years over their use of "evaporated cane
juice," claiming the term suggests the products are healthier than
they actually are because the ingredient is essentially the same
as sugar.  The suits have met with mixed success, and many judges
have postponed ruling until a hearing from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration on the matter.

The FDA said in March that it was seeking additional input on its
recommendation against companies' use of the term evaporated cane
juice on food labels, a frequent target of class action litigation
in recent years.

The FDA is reopening the comment period on its 2009 draft guidance
that advised companies against using the term to describe
sweeteners derived from sugar cane syrup, since it "falsely
suggests that the sweeteners are juice."

Kind is represented by Dale J. Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com --
Matthew D. Provance -- mprovance@mayerbrown.com -- and Michael L.
Resch -- mresch@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP.

Ms. Ibarrola is represented by Wexler Wallace LLP, Oliver Law
Group PC, Parker Waichman LLP and Holland Groves Schneller &
Stolze LLC.

The case is Rochelle Ibarrola v. Kind LLC, number 3:13-cv-50377,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


LIFE UNIFORM: Wants to Sell Rights to Class Action Recoveries
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUHC Wind Down Corp., formerly known as Life Uniform Holding
Corp., and its affiliates, seek the Bankruptcy Court's authority
to sell rights to any payments they may recover as a result of a
class action interchange litigation.

On October 20, 2005, an action was initiated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York by various retailers
and trade associations against Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Mastercard
International Inc. The plaintiffs asserted that Visa and
Mastercard conspired to unlawfully fix the price of interchange
fees to merchants for transactions processed over their networks.
An interchange fee is a fee that a merchant's bank pays a
customer's bank when merchants accept cards using card networks
like Visa and MasterCard for purchases.

On December 13, 2013, the Eastern District Court approved a class
settlement in the class action interchange litigation. The order
approving the settlement is under appeal. Life Uniform may have a
claim in the litigation and may be entitled to a monetary
recovery. However, it is impossible to predict when the settlement
event will occur and any actual recovery could be obtained.

To bring additional assets into their estates, Life Uniform want
to sell their contingent rights to Cascade Settlement Services LLC
or a party submitting a better offer. The parties have negotiated
an asset purchase agreement, selling the assets for $135,000, but
is subject to higher offers.

Michael W. Yurkewicz, Esq., at Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that Life Uniform has
attempted to market the asset and reached out to all known
industry players. Of the interest received, Life Uniform
determined the agreement with Cascade provided the best
opportunity.

Life Uniform is represented by:

     Domenic E. Pacitti
     Michael W. Yurkewicz
     Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP
     919 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
     Wilmington, Delaware 19801
     Telephone: (302) 426-1189
     Facsimile: (302) 426-9193


MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Holley" Suit to W.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Holley v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT-
003136-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02553-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Daniel Holley alleges that he was injured by his
physician's off-label use of Medtronic and Medtronic Sofamor Danek
USA, Inc.'s Infuse(R) Bone Graft device.  Infuse is a Class III
medical device whose design, manufacturing method, and labeling
were specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration
pursuant to the agency's Premarket Approval process.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Joe Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS, PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  lcronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Renfro, Esq.
          BECKER LAW OFFICE
          9300 Shelbyville Rd., Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 581-1122
          E-mail: krenfro@beckerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
          CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Set to Rule on O'Bannon Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that after
nearly five years that included hundreds of filings, 15 days of
trial and millions -- if not tens of millions -- of dollars in
legal work, a verdict in the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust
lawsuit now rests with U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken.

On July 10, attorneys for the plaintiffs submitted a final written
closing argument that reflected the bitterness of this protracted,
potentially landmark case.  Displaying as much derision as legal
precision, they called the closing argument that the NCAA filed on
July 8 "a stunning admission of defeat" in which it "revisits
stale legal debates . . . and preserves issues decided long ago
for appeal."

"In some places," the plaintiffs added, "it is as if our three-
week trial did not occur."

That is, at best, an overstatement.  The NCAA did say on July 8 it
continues to dispute one of Judge Wilken's pre-trial rulings and
"preserves this argument for appeal, if necessary."  But it
admitted nothing, never mind defeat, in its answer to what the
plaintiffs offered last week in the first of the closing arguments
that Judge Wilken requested from the sides when the trial
concluded June 27.

If anything, the NCAA's closing kept the pressure on the
plaintiffs to further enunciate their position on the most
fundamental, albeit legally nuanced, matters of a case that
Judge Wilken is likely to decide within weeks but then head for
lengthy appeals.

NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said on July 10 the association had
no comment besides a statement it issued after its filing on
July 8 in which chief legal officer Donald Remy said: "Despite
their attempt to shoehorn their rhetoric into the framework of an
antitrust case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the
NCAA's rules violate the law . . . . The plaintiffs' claims are
wrong on the facts and unsupported by the law, and the court
should reject them."

The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Michael Hausfeld, told USA TODAY
Sports late on July 10 he feels good about his side's position.

"I think the (filing) emphasizes the support in the law for our
position," he said.  "The (major) conferences say they want
reform, but they can't do the reform they want because they are
constrained by the have-not schools.  That's the essence of the
trial.  That's the essence of an anti-competitive restraint.  And
if the (major) conferences can't do what they say they want to do
-- what needs to be done -- someone is going to do it for them."

That someone would be Judge Wilken.

And the plaintiffs -- led by former UCLA basketball player
O'Bannon -- are asking her for an injunction that would heavily
overhaul the NCAA's limits on what Bowl Subdivision Football and
Division I men's basketball players can receive for playing sports
and for the use of the names, images and likenesses in in live
television broadcasts, rebroadcasts of games and video games.

A proposed injunction order filed by the plaintiffs on the final
day of the trial would bar the NCAA, its schools, conferences and
business partners from having any of 11 prohibitions on
prospective, current and former football and men's basketball
players.

This would result in the players being allowed to make group
licensing deals with a school, conference, telecaster or video
game manufacturer for the use of their names, images and
likenesses.  It also would allow deferred compensation for the use
of players' names and images to be paid "through a trust fund
payable upon expiration of athletic eligibility or graduation,
whichever comes first."

In addition, it would allow players to receive compensation for
"third-party endorsements," as in the Olympic model, as long the
respective school approves.

Any decision in the plaintiffs' favor could have far-reaching
consequences for the NCAA, which is also before Judge Wilken in
another set of antitrust lawsuits that are based on the
differential between the value of a current athletic scholarship
-- basically tuition, room, board, books and mandatory fees -- and
the actual cost of attending college.

Judge Wilken is "not going to shy away (from ruling for the
plaintiffs) because of the consequences," said Steve Williams an
attorney who handles anti-trust and complex civil litigation for
the Bay Area-based firm Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy and has
appeared before Judge Wilken but is not involved in this case.

On the other hand, Mr. Williams said, the issues in this case are
"a big gray area, and while there are unappealing, unattractive
things that the NCAA does, (she) will be focused on the legal
issues."

The NCAA, in its closing argument on July 8, renewed its
contention that the most basic of those issues involves a 1984
Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA has relied upon for decades to
preserve its amateurism system.  That ruling, the NCAA has argued,
should have prevented the O'Bannon case from getting anywhere near
this point.  But Judge Wilken, in an October 2013 refusal to
dismiss the O'Bannon case, she indicated she does not think the
1984 ruling applies here.

Assuming that remains Judge Wilken's position, the first of the
issues she must consider in the O'Bannon case involves a
determination of whether there are any bona fide markets in which
the NCAAs' compensation limits have an impact -- and whether the
impacts are harmful.  The plaintiffs have offered two markets she
must evaluate:

   * One in which schools compete to recruit football or men's
basketball players, or what has been called the college or higher-
education market.

   * Another involving the use of the athletes' names, images and
likenesses in live television broadcasts, rebroadcasts of games
and video games.

As Judge Wilken explained to the sides, according to a transcript
of the trial's final session: "So, what we are looking for, then,
is a buyer, a seller, a market, a product, an agreement, a
restraint, injury, damages, victim."

The burden of showing all of this and how it meets antitrust legal
standards is on the plaintiffs.

The NCAA argued on July 8 that the plaintiffs should be required
to stand by their original definition of the education market as
one in which the athletes buy educational services and athletic
opportunities from schools.  The NCAA claims that the alleged
restraint occurs in a different market -- one in which the
athletes are sellers of the name, image and likeness rights -- and
so the plaintiffs' argument should fail.

The plaintiffs reiterated on July 10 it is not that simple.  They
wrote there is an "exchange" transaction between schools and
recruits.

"Each may be viewed as both a buyer and a seller," they wrote.
"Colleges sell educational services and buy athletic services,
while athletes buy educational services and sell athletic
services.  These dual aspects of the exchange transaction are
intertwined. . . . In either view of the market, the NCAA
exercises" the power to set the price and the terms.

With regard to the most financially critical aspect of the market
for the use of the athletes' names, images and likenesses in live
TV broadcasts, the NCAA contended on July 8 -- as it has
throughout the case -- that the law does not recognize athletes'
rights to sell their names, images and likenesses in live
television broadcasts.  This is an argument that Judge Wilken
basically rejected in a major pre-trial ruling in April, and the
plaintiffs wrote the July 10 that ruling "should not be
revisited."

Judge Wilken's evaluations of these aspects of the case likely
will be based in complex economic and legal principles, but they
will be critical.

"It's this first stage that will make or break this case," said
Michael A. Carrier, a Rutgers-Camden law school professor who has
done empirical studies of the outcomes of antitrust cases and has
reviewed all of the written closing arguments in the O'Bannon
case.  "That's why one of the main issues in the post-trial briefs
has been over whether the plaintiffs have made the appropriate
showing of the markets involved. And I thought they did a nice job
showing how the buying and selling aspects are intertwined.

"They did a nice job with the markets aspect of the case."

If Judge Wilken finds that that the plaintiffs have carried their
burden in the markets portion, the case will come down to her
determination of whether the benefits that the NCAA and its
Division I schools (and possibly sports fans) get from the
association's compensation limits outweigh the economic harm that
those limits do to football and men's basketball players.

Along the way, Judge Wilken will have to determine whether the
NCAA has legitimate justifications for its compensation limits and
perhaps whether the association can accomplish its goals in a less
restrictive way.

In their filing on July 10, the plaintiffs continued their
campaign against the NCAA's contentions that its limits:

   * Increase consumer choice and demand because amateurism makes
Bowl Subdivision Football and Division I men's basketball distinct
from pro football and basketball and, therefore, more appealing to
fans than they would be if the players were paid for the use of
their names, images and likenesses.  The plaintiffs wrote that the
NCAA "has not demonstrated that amateurism is a revered, immutable
concept or that it has any meaningful effect on the popularity of
Division I men's basketball or FBS football."  They pointed out
that the NCAA has changed its rules about what athletes can
receive and they pointed to trial testimony from NCAA President
Mark Emmert that he supports the idea of increasing the value of a
scholarship so it covers the cost of attendance but that college
athletes, as amateurs, should not be paid.

The plaintiffs wrote: "This is the perfect tautology: Players
cannot be paid if they are amateurs, and Players are amateurs
because they are not paid."

    * Increase output because if schools are allowed to offer
football and men's basketball players for use of name and
likeness, some schools will leave Bowl Subdivision football and/or
Division I sports, which would reduce the number of games
available to fans and reduce opportunities for athletes.  The
plaintiffs termed this "speculative" and unsupported by any
economic analysis from an NCAA expert witness.

    * Maintain competitive balance because if schools can pay
athletes for use of name and likeness, higher-revenue schools
would pay more money to athletes than would lower-revenue schools,
attracting better players.  The plaintiffs responded that, at
trial, all the NCAA could offer was opinions of school and
conference personnel that Judge Wilken previously had deemed
"deficient."

"This type of self-serving evidence is entitled to little weight,"
the plaintiffs wrote.

    * Further the integration of athletics and education by
preventing money from making football and men's basketball players
less focused on their academics and more isolated from other
athletes and students.  The plaintiffs contend that graduation
rates for football and men's basketball players lag behind the
rates for men in general student bodies.  They also noted that
because football and men's basketball players get full
scholarships while many other athletes get partial scholarships,
there already is a financial gap between them.

If the NCAA has convinced Judge Wilken that even one of the four
justifications are legitimate, they can win the case.  But if
Judge Wilken finds any of the NCAA's justifications are
legitimate, she must consider whether the plaintiffs have shown
such a goal can be achieved in a substantially less restrictive
way. (The NCAA has offered prior court rulings that say such
alternatives also must be available "without significantly
increased cost," but the plaintiffs took issue with that on
July 10, contending other court cases cast "some doubt" on whether
that "reflects the current state of the law" in Judge Wilken's
geographic jurisdiction.)

The plaintiffs again pointed out on July 10 that conferences
already are discussing less restrictive alternatives and "all of
them are well within the Court's equitable powers to enforce."


NEUSTAR INC: Accused of Disclosing Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Neustar, Inc., Lisa A.
Hook, Steven J. Edwards, and Paul S. Lalljie, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00885 (E.D. Va., July 15, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions, and
engaged in a scheme to deceive the market.

Neustar, Inc. provides communications clearinghouse services to
telecommunication companies and internet service providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve J. Toll, Esq.
      Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Aniskevich, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower
      Washington, D.C. 20005-3965
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
              dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
              eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554 1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554 1444
      E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
              avi@blbglaw.com


NEW YORK: DOH Sued for Failing to Provide Discontinuance Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janie Taylor; Eddy Lemieux by his Next Friend Marie Ladiny; and
Anibal Santiago by His Friend Denise Rivera, individually and on
behalf all others similarly situated v. Howard Zucker, as Acting
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health;
Kristin M. Proud, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of
Temporary and Disability Assistance, Case No. 1:14-cv-05317
(S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2014), alleges that the Plaintiffs did not
receive timely and adequate notice of the reduction and
discontinuance of their home care services.

Howard Zucker is the Acting Commissioner of the New York
State Department of Health, and as such is responsible for the
administration of the Medicaid program in the State of New York.

Kristin M. Proud is the Commissioner of the New York State
Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and as such is
responsible for the operations of the Office of Fair Hearings,
including but not limited to ensuring compliance with Aid
Continuing Directives, scheduling and conducting Fair Hearings,
issuing recommended decisions after Fair Hearings, and ensuring
compliance with Fair Hearing decisions involving the Medicaid
program.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.
      Sabrina Tavi, Esq.
      Benjamin Taylor, Esq.
      NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
      7 Hanover Square, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212)613-5000


ONE TOUCH: "Isaac" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Isaacs, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. One Touch Direct, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-01716 (M.D. Fla., July 15, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

One Touch Direct, LLC operates call centers around Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


PASRICHA & PATEL: Faces "Barros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Barros on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Pasricha & Patel, LLC, Gary S. Pasricha also known as:
Gurpreet S. Pasricha and Sheetal A. Patel, Case No. 2:14-cv-04436
(D.N.J., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pasricha & Patel, LLC is a New Jersey law firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell A. Schley, Esq.
      Law Offices Of Mitchell Schley, LLC
      Two Tower Center Blvd., 8th Floor
      East Brunswick, NJ 08816
      Telephone: (732) 325-0318
      Facsimile: (732) 325-0317
      E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com

                           *     *     *

Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a law firm that handles Fair Labor Standards Act cases has been
named in a collective action in Newark federal court for allegedly
failing to pay overtime to its paralegals.

Pasricha & Patel of Edison, N.J., improperly classifies its
paralegals as exempt from overtime and does not pay time-and-a-
half for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, according to the
suit filed July 15.  The suit was filed on behalf of the firm's
five paralegals and an unspecified number of former paralegals.

The named plaintiff, Jason Barros, has worked for the firm for
about five years.  He put in 440 hours of overtime in 2011, 375
hours in 2012, 75 hours in 2013 and 60 hours to date in 2014, the
suit claims.

The suit seeks double the overtime wages allegedly due to
Mr. Barros and the other collective action members, as provided
under the FLSA.  Mitchell Schley -- mschley@schleylaw.com --
counsel for the plaintiff, said he could not provide an estimate
of the damages because he did not know the salaries of Barros or
other paralegals.

The law firm's violation of the FLSA is willful and not based on
good faith or a reasonable belief that its conduct complied with
the statute, the suit says.

"In this regard, in addition to the defendants being attorneys,
this firm has itself represented employees who have alleged that
their employer unlawfully failed to pay them overtime pay in
violation of the FLSA," the suit claims.

The defendants are the firm and its two principals, Gary Pasricha,
also known as Gurpreet Pasricha, and Sheetal Patel.  The firm has
five lawyers and lists practice areas that include commercial
litigation, business law, immigration, family law, motor vehicle
violations, personal injury, real estate and business
transactions.

Mr. Pasricha has handled at least two FLSA cases, in 2009 and
2010, in the District of New Jersey.  He represented the plaintiff
in one case and the defendant in the other.  Both ended in
settlements and the terms were not placed on the record.

The firm's representations of others in FLSA cases and its
representations that its attorneys have expertise in employment
law support a finding that its violations were willful, said
Schley, a solo in East Brunswick, N.J.  The statute of limitations
for the FLSA is two years, or three years for willful violations,
Schley said.

Paralegals' entitlement to overtime is a well-settled question,
according to Schley.  He cited U.S. Department of Labor regulation
29 C.F.R. Section 541.301(d)(7), which provides that paralegals
and legal assistants generally do not qualify as exempt from
overtime because an advanced degree is not a prerequisite for
entry into the field.  Although many paralegals have a four-year
college degree, most specialized paralegal programs are two-year
associate programs from a community college or similar
institution, according to the regulation.

Paralegals may be exempt from overtime if they have an advanced
specialized degree in another professional field that is applied
to their duties, according to the regulation cited by Schley. For
example, the regulation says, an engineer who is hired as a
paralegal to provide expert advice on product liability or patent
cases would qualify for an exemption to overtime.

None of the paralegals at Pasricha & Patel fall into that
category, since none of them possess advanced specialized degrees
in other professional fields, the suit says.

Mr. Schley said it was "ironic" that a law firm versed in the FLSA
would pay its paralegals a salary but no overtime.

"For the most part, law firms realize it's not a debatable
question so most law firms pay [overtime to paralegals],"
Mr. Schley said.  "Then, of course, there are going to be firms
that don't pay them and hope for the best."

Patrick Papalia -- ppapalia@archerlaw.com -- of Archer & Greiner
in Hackensack, N.J., who represents the defendants, said
paralegals' entitlement to overtime pay is not as black and white
as Mr. Schley depicts it. Rather, each case requires a separate
analysis of the claimants' duties, he said.

Mr. Papalia cited the holding in Austin v. CUNA Mutual Insurance
Society, (W.D. Wisc., 2006), that a paralegal with a high degree
of autonomy can be exempt from overtime.

Mr. Papalia added that the regulation cited by the plaintiff's
lawyer does not represent a complete picture of federal
regulations on overtime for paralegals.  Mr. Papalia cited 29 CFR
541.202(c), to support the assertion that paralegals who exercise
independent judgment in the way they manage their files may be
considered exempt from overtime pay.  Barros, the only paralegal
currently a party to the case, falls into this category,
Mr. Papalia said.


PRINCESS TOURS: "Guo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hang Guo, Individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Princess Tours Inc., Yi Di Xue, Yi Guo Yang,
John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-04319 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Princess Tours Inc. is engaged in coach bus business located at
34-24 Collins Place, Flushing, NY 11354.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: "Farrah" Suit Moved to E.D. Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Farrah, et al. v. Provectus
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01231, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee (Knoxville).  The Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00338-PLR-HBG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Securities Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          519 Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP (NASHVILLE)
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          George E. Barrett, Esq.
          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
          BARRETT, JOHNSTON, MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com
                  jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  tmiles@barrettjohnston.com

Consol Plaintiff Paul Jason Chaney is represented by:

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          110 W A Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          E-mail: FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com

Consol Plaintiff Jayson Dauphinee is represented by:

          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP (CHICAGO)
          10 S LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Bramlett, Esq.
          Robert P. Bramlett, Esq.
          BRAMLETT LAW OFFICE
          P.O. Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 248-2828
          Facsimile: (866) 816-4116
          E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
                  pk@bramlettlawoffices.com
                  robert@bramlettlawoffices.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John S. Hicks, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          211 Commerce Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37201-1800
          Telephone: (615) 726-5600
          Facsimile: (615) 744-7337
          E-mail: jhicks@bakerdonelson.com


RITE AID: Faces "Zipf" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
------------------------------------------------------------
Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00975-CRE (W.D.
Pa., July 18, 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


ROBERT BOSCH: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Skil Table Saw
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Cosby, writing for The Cook County Record, reports that a
Tennessee woman is suing a tool manufacturer, claiming she was
injured due to faulty safety features on a table saw.

Jennifer Adcock filed a lawsuit June 3 in the Cook County Circuit
Court against Robert Bosch Tool Corp., citing product liability.

According to the complaint, Adcock was using Bosch's Skil table
saw on June 17, when the blade came into contact with her left
hand and caused severe injuries.  Ms. Adcock accuses Bosch of
failing to utilize updated safety technology in the blade guard
and safety features.

About a handful of similar claims involving table saws have been
filed in the Cook County Circuit Court since April, including one
against Bosch, as well as a few others against Sears and other
defendants over Craftsman table saws.

Ms. Adcock is seeking more than $50,000 in damages and is being
represented in the case by attorneys F. John Cushing III of
Cushing Law Offices.

Cook County Circuit Court Case No. 2014L005882.


RUST-OLEUM CORP: Falsely Marketed Paint Products, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Webber and Lawrence Fredericks, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, RPM
International Inc., and Synta Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02248 (D.
Md., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for false
and misleading marketing, advertising, selling and warranting of
Rust-Oleum Restore paint products used to resurface outdoor wood
and concrete decks and patios, as well as related and attached
structures.

Rust-Oleum Corporation makes protective paints and coatings for
home and businesses.

RPM International Inc. is the holding company for Rust-Oleum
Corporation and Synta Incorporated.

Synta Incorporated is a wholesale paint manufacturer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT AND LADUCA LLP
      8120 Woodmont Ave Ste 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: brendant@cuneolaw.com


SEECO INC: Faces "Wallace" Suit in Eastern District of Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Wallace and Joe Rath, On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Seeco Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00415-
BRW (E.D. Ark., July 18, 2014) alleges breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles R. Hicks, Esq.
          111 Center Street, Suite 1200
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 371-0068
          E-mail: charleshicks@gmail.com

               - and -

          Keith L. Grayson, Esq.
          GRAYSON & GRAYSON, P.A.
          209 East Main Street
          Heber Springs, AR 72543
          Telephone: (501) 206-0905
          E-mail: graysonandgrayson@att.net


SP AUSNET: To Contribute $378.6 Mil. Towards Settlement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that victims of Victoria's deadliest Black
Saturday bushfire look set to receive close to half a billion
dollars in compensation, with parties agreeing to settle the class
action that ran for more than a year.

Subject to the Supreme Court's approval, the plaintiffs will
receive a settlement sum of about $494.7 million to compensate
them for the devastating effects of the Kilmore East-Kinglake
fire, which killed 119 people.

Lead plaintiff Carol Matthews lost her son Sam, 22, in their St
Andrews home during the horrific events of February 7, 2009.  She
represents more than 10,000 group members who brought personal
injury and property claims against the electricity provider,
maintenance servicer and government entities.

Ms. Matthews, who made the decision to accept the settlement on
behalf of the plaintiffs, said: "The decision to accept the
settlement figure was made after lots and lots of discussions with
the team at Maurice Blackburn."

Asked what she wanted to so next, Mrs. Matthews said: "I woke up
on the Friday, I had a life, on the Saturday my past, my present
and my future were all thrown up in the air.  And now five years
later I can't say a lot has changed."

The fire killed 119 people, destroyed 1200 homes and caused an
estimated $1 billion damage.

The plaintiffs claimed the "entirely preventable" fire was sparked
due to the negligence of energy giant SPI Electricity, maintenance
contractor Utility Services Corporation Limited and the Department
of Sustainability and Environment for failing to reduce fuel
loads.

The DSE, CFA and Victoria Police also faced allegations they
failed to give appropriate warnings about the bushfire.

SP AusNet company secretary Susan Taylor said the company would
contribute $378.6 million towards the settlement, although it did
not admit liability.  Ms. Taylor said the company maintains that a
lightning damage to a conductor that failed on Black Saturday,
sparking the blaze, was undetectable and that the company was not
negligent.

The Victorian State Parties will contribute more than $100 million
and Utility Services Corporation will hand over $12.5 million.

Ms. Taylor said the total losses suffered by the plaintiffs were
not finalized, but it was estimated SP AusNet's contribution would
cover up to 35 per cent of the total losses and costs.

The judgment in the trial before Justice Jack Forrest, which began
in March last year and finished up last month, had been expected
to be handed down early next year.

Maurice Blackburn lawyers said the payout was more than double the
previous highest Australian class action settled of $200 million
in the Centro shareholder class action.

Andrew Watson, head of Maurice Blackburn's class action
department, said it was the best possible settlement.  "We
squeezed the lemon dry."

The class action was so large the Victorian Government funded a
purpose-built courtroom to accommodate the teams of barristers,
expert witnesses and large numbers of people interested in
attending the trial.

Four cases brought in relation to the other fires have settled and
a trial over the Murrindindi-Marysville blaze is due to begin
later this year.


SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Garcia, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective v. Spectrum Of
Creations, Inc. d/b/a Food Trends and Alison Moskowicz, Case No.
1:14-cv-05298 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime, tips illegally retained by
Defendants, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Spectrum Of Creations, Inc. is a catering business under the trade
name Food Trends.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


TIMOTHY D. PADGETT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Battle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Timothy D. Padgett, individually, and Timothy D.
Padgett, P.A., a Florida Professional Corporation, Case No. 2:14-
cv-14286-KAM (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234-5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234-5321
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


WELLS FARGO: Removed "Zanders" Suit to Southern District of Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Zanders, et al. v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. LACL130554, was removed from the Iowa
District Court in and for Polk County to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa (Central).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00288-JEG-RAW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs want to collect unpaid wages from the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark D. Sherinian, Esq.
          Melissa C. Hasso, Esq.
          SHERINIAN & WALKER PC
          630 Colony Park
          3737 Woodland Avenue
          West Des Moines, IA 50266
          Telephone: (515) 224-2079
          Facsimile: (515) 224-2321
          E-mail: sherinianlaw@msn.com
                  mhasso@sherinianlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Karin A. Johnson, Esq.
          Michael A. Giudicessi, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP (IA)
          801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor
          Des Moines, IA 50309-8011
          Telephone: (515) 248-9000
          Facsimile: (515) 248-9010
          E-mail: karin.johnson@faegrebd.com
                  michael.giudicessi@faegrebd.com


* FDA Provides Ready Access to Recall Data Through API
------------------------------------------------------
Taha A. Kass-Hout, M.D., M.S., in article for FDAVoice, reports
that every year, hundreds of human and animal foods, drugs, and
medical devices are recalled from the market by manufacturers.
These products may be labeled incorrectly or might pose health or
safety issues.  Most recalls are voluntary; in some cases they may
be ordered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  Recalls are
reported to the FDA, and compiled into its Recall Enterprise
System, or RES.  Every week, the FDA releases an enforcement
report that catalogues these recalls.  And now, for the first
time, there is an Application Programming Interface (API) that
offers developers and researchers direct access to all of the
drug, device, and food enforcement reports, dating back to 2004.

The recalls in this dataset provide an illuminating window into
both the safety of individual products and the safety of the
marketplace at large.  Recent reports have included such recalls
as certain food products (for not containing the vitamins listed
on the label), a soba noodle salad (for containing unlisted soy
ingredients), and a pain reliever (for not following laboratory
testing requirements).

At present, FDA provides various ways to access the recalls data,
including an RSS feed, a Flickr stream, and a search interface.
This new API supplements these sources as the first, and one-call,
access to the entire enforcements archive.  The hope is that this
API will be useful to developers and researchers interested in FDA
enforcement actions.  Developers can now call into the API to add
recalls data to mobile apps or consumer websites.  And researchers
could use the API to study individual manufacturers, product
categories, or specific foods or drugs.

The recalls database is the second dataset to be released on
openFDA.  Since openFDA debuted on June 2, 2014, the website has
generated considerable interest. In the past five weeks, the site
has had 34,000 sessions (two-thirds are new sessions) from 26,000
unique visitors worldwide that generated 80,000 page views.

The adverse events API has been accessed by 18,000 Internet
connected devices, with nearly 2.4 million API calls since the
launch.  At least one new website, http://www.researchae.com has
been created to allow any user to submit queries on the adverse
events data, and several other companies are integrating the data
into their products and services.  It is also being accessed by
researchers inside and outside FDA and by journalists as well.

More APIs will follow in the weeks ahead.  OpenFDA is taking an
agile (development in small chunks of iterations) approach in the
creation and release of these APIs, with the objective of getting
feedback from developers and researchers (as well as from industry
and the public) at the GitHub and StackExchange forums that serve
our project.  "We plan to incorporate some of the feedback into
future iterations of the API.  Accordingly, as we learn more about
how the public might seek to use this data -- and as a result of
our agile and user-centered methodologies -- the API structure may
change in quite a bit in the coming months.  It's also important
to note that this API, like all others on openFDA, are in beta and
are not ready for clinical use.  However, their contribution to
FDA's public health mission already now grows every day,"
Mr. Kass-Hout said.


                             *********

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  * * *