CAR_Public/140729.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 149

                             Headlines


3001 CASTOR: Court Certified Class of Strip Club Exotic Dancers
7-ELEVEN INC: Franchisee Group Files Race Bias, Privacy Suit
ABC PIZZA: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ACTION AUTO: Removed "Smoluk" Suit to S.D. Florida
AMERICAN GENERAL: Urged Businesses to Buy VEBA Plans, Suit Says

AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Faces "Mack" Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
APPLE INC: May Pay Up to $400-Mil. in Antitrust Suit Over E-Books
BP PLC: May Be Liable for Not Divesting Stock From Retiree Plans
CA TEACHERS' RETIREMENT: To Reduce Retirees' Benefits, Suit Says
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Retaliates Against Spine Surgeon, Suit Says

CIGNA HEALTH: Removed "Hyde" Suit to C.D. California
CLARIANT CORP: Sued by Drivers Union Over Unresolved Grievances
DOLCE GROUP: Faces "Taylor" Suit in D. Md. Over Breach of FLSA
ELTMAN ELTMAN: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act
EXPEDIA INC: Sued for Lying About Luggage Fees for Airline Ticket

FERRELLGAS LP: Reduced Propane in Tanks, "LJAX" Suit Claims
FERRELLGAS LP: Reduced Propane in Tanks, Ace High Suit Claims
FERRELLGAS LP: Conspired to Reduce Propane in Tanks, Suit Claims
FERRELLGAS LP: Tuckerton Sues Over Illegal Reduction of Propane
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Nearly 20,000 Cadillac, Chevrolet Camaros

GOOGLE INC: Denies Controlling Search Engines on Handheld Devices
GUTHY-RENKER: Ignores Cancellation Requests, Proactiv User Claims
HABANOS CUBAN: Faces "Callazo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HERTZ CORP: Court Approved $11-Mil. Deal on "PlatePass" Toll Fees
HILLYARD INC: Court Refused to Approve Labor Class Settlement

HITACHI HVB: "Howe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HSBC CARD: Illegally Records Telephone Conversations, Action Says
INT'L CULINARY: Sued for Promising Students of Becoming Chefs
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: 9th Circuit Upholds Class Action Dismissal
JOHNS HOPKINS: Levy's Patients Traumatized Over Secret Recording

JIMMY JOHN'S: Does Not Pay workers Overtime, "Brunner" Suit Says
M&M DENTISTRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Suit Claims
M-I LLC: "Dewan" Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to E.D. California
MACY'S INC: Fails to Pay Workers All Compensable Wages, Suit Says
MANPOWER INC: "Ramirez" Suit Asserting Labor Claims Dismissed

MOORE CAPITAL: Has Prelim. Approval of $57.75-MM Fraud Settlement
NINE WEST: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
NUVE MIGUEL: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
PAIN RELIEF: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
PANASONIC CORP: Sued Over Distribution of Capacitors

PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS: Tex. Sup. Court Overturns Discovery Sanction
PLATINUM RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Servers Properly, Suit Says
PROSENSA HOLDING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Statement
SENSA PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over Weight Loss Miracle Product
SCHOLARSHIP STORAGE: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA

SHANGHAI HUSI: McDonald's Suspends Sales of Chicken Nuggets in HK
SPORT CHALET: Shareholder Seeks to Enjoin Proposed Sale to Vestis
TARGET COMMERCIAL: Removed "Parkin" Suit to Arizona Dist. Court
THOROUGHBRED MOTORSPORTS: Court Affirms Tricycle Class Ruling
TRADER JOE'S: $3.3-Mil. Deal Over "All Natural" Labels Approved

U.S. BANK: Suppressed Public Presence in Home Auctions, Suit Says


                            *********


3001 CASTOR: Court Certified Class of Strip Club Exotic Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Philadelphia strip club must face claims that it underpaid
dancers and forced them to share their tips with other employees,
reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

Former exotic dancer Priya Verma is the lead plaintiff in a class
action against 3001 Castor Inc. dba The Penthouse Club @ Philly,
ABDCE Pennsylvania Management LLC, and 10 others.  Referring to
the pornographic publication "Penthouse," the club's slogan is
"Where the Magazine Comes to Life."

Verma said the topless club improperly classifies its dancers as
independent contractors instead of employees, depriving them of
minimum wage as well as overtime compensation.  The dancers also
share a percentage of their tips with the club and reimburse it
for ordinary business expenses, according to the complaint.  In
addition to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
class brought claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Wage
Payment and Collection Law, and common law.

In a motion to dismiss, the defendants relied on an affidavit by
statistical consultant Joan Lenahan, who said that the club does
not pay its dancers.  Rather customers pay the dancers for stage
performances and club-priced private dances, minus room rental
fees of $10, $125 or $200 for four-minute, half-hour and one-hour
private dances, respectively.

While dancers decide for whom to dance, they receive no
compensation if they do not perform any private dances or get paid
for performing on stage, Lenahan said.

Verma moved to strike Lenahan's affidavit and for conditional
class certification this past April.

Though U.S. District Judge Anita Brody refused to strike the
affidavit on June 30, she also denied the club summary judgment,
noting various conduct rules that the club imposes on dancers,
regulating their choice of dress, hair and makeup, and number of
songs to which they must dance.

"Given that defendant markets itself on the basis of providing
topless dancers, it cannot credibly argue that the services
performed by dancers are not an integral part of its business,"
Brody wrote.  "This factor weighs in favor of employee status."

The club's control of dancers' profits also indicates employee
status, the ruling states.

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

The evidence supports a finding that Penthouse Club dancers are
employees, not independent contractors, according to the ruling.

"Defendant exerts significant control over its dancers' behavior
and appearance; defendant dominates the key levers driving the
dancers' opportunity for profit; the dancers have no specialized
skills and a limited real investment; and the dancers are integral
to the success of the defendant's club," Brody wrote.  "Measured
against these factors, the transient and non-exclusive nature of
the dancers' employment carries limited weight."

The judge conditionally certified the class under the FLSA and
ordered the production of potential plaintiffs' contact
information and the dissemination of notice.

While the court refused to certify the class under state law,
Verma may refile the motion at the close of discovery.

The case is Priya Verma, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. 3001 Castor, Inc., d/b/a The Penthouse Club
and/or The Penthouse Club @ Philly, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-
03034-AB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.


7-ELEVEN INC: Franchisee Group Files Race Bias, Privacy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
After a Japanese corporation bought the 7-Eleven chain, it began
illegal surveillance of franchisees, turned business owners into
low-level employees, and pushed out hard-working South Asian
immigrant store-owners, transforming "the American Dream into an
American Nightmare," a class action claims in California Federal
Court, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service.

"Tragically, 7-Eleven has now become a cautionary tale of the
dangers of corporate greed in the franchise context," the
complaint states.  "7-Eleven has become an unfortunate example of
the tragic results that occur when a franchisor ceases to consider
its franchisees as valuable, independent contractors and business
owners and to see them merely as disposable assets to be exploited
for short-term profits, then discarded once their value has been
extracted."

FOAGLA Inc., a franchise owners association, and five 7-Eleven
operators filed the lawsuit against 7-Eleven Inc., alleging racial
discrimination, invasion of privacy and illegal surveillance
retaliation against franchisees, and misclassification of
employment relationship with franchisees.

"Throughout the 20th century, 7-Eleven pioneered and grew the
'convenience store' concept and helped make it a standard part of
American life," the complaint states.  "What fueled 7-Eleven's
growth was its franchise arrangement with small business owners,
many of them South Asian immigrants from such countries as India
and Pakistan, who paid upfront franchise fees and operated the 7-
Eleven franchised stores in exchange for a percentage of the store
profits.

"7-Eleven found that the South Indian cultural traits of hard
work, family unity, respect for authority, and community-
mindedness made South Asians ideal owner/operators for 7-Eleven
stores."

But things changed when Tokyo-based Seven and I Holdings Co., one
of the largest retail conglomerations in the world, took over the
7-Eleven chain in 2005, the franchisees say.  Staffing many of its
top management positions with West Point graduates, the company
took a "cold, predatory and militaristic approach to business."

The new regime saw an opportunity to exploit the franchisees and
transform the goodwill they had built in their local markets into
corporate profit by expelling franchisees, paying them nothing,
and selling their franchises for enormous profit, according to the
complaint.

"In fact, they realized that they could increase their profits
exponentially by reselling valuable stores over and over -- an
industry practice known as 'churning,'" the franchisees say.

7-Eleven diminished the role of the franchisee from independent
contractor and small business owner to the role of a low-level
employee with no say in the operation of their store, the
complaint states.

The franchise controls the day-to-day operations of its
franchisees, exerting "a heightened and almost pathological level
of control by 7-Eleven over franchisees," according to the
complaint.

For example, 7-Eleven controls the maintenance of the equipment in
franchisees' stores, the volume on their televisions, and
employees' payroll and paychecks, the lawsuit states.  It also
employs illegal surveillance to spy on franchisees and has hired
unlicensed private investigators to follow franchisee activities
outside of the store, the franchisees say.

In addition to having unfettered access to franchisees' electronic
surveillance DVR systems, 7-Eleven now seeks to impose a more
intrusive surveillance system, purportedly to protect franchisees.
The systems "are actually being used as a 'sword' to monitor and
harass franchisees where they would otherwise have a reasonable
expectation of privacy," the complaint states.

These combined actions have been particularly discriminatory
toward franchisees of South Asian descent, as 7-Eleven has
"implemented tactics designed to exploit South Indian cultural and
societal traits -- such as respect for authority and fear of being
shamed in their communities -- to its full advantage," the
complaint states.

7-Eleven has "resorted to tactics against South Asian franchisees
ranging from stalking, spying, bullying, and interrogation to
coerce these franchisees into giving up their stores without
compensation," according to the complaint.

The company also threatens to make public any claims of franchisee
impropriety, even when false, knowing that such claims carry with
them "a great deal of shame to the family within the tightly knit
South Asian community, thereby making it even easier to coerce
these franchisees," according to the lawsuit.

According to Professor Jaideep Singh, "7-Eleven is 'aware of and
exploits the social vulnerability of South Asian American
immigrants' in which 'everyone knows everyone else, and often the
intimate details of their personal business' and where threats by
7-Eleven investigators of incarceration and public censure leads
to 'community level shaming' which, in turn, will lead to 'social
exclusion' and 'inflict a 'social death' upon shunned community
members,'" the complaint states.

7-Eleven has sued many South Asian franchisees through the country
and "even resorted to police-like interrogation tactics to create
a fear of criminal exposure and deportation to innocent, but
frightened and impressionable minority franchisees," with the
ultimate goal of disenfranchising them, according to the
complaint.

"As a result of 7-Eleven's illegal and discriminatory actions,
numerous South East Asian franchisees have already been targeted
and lost their business and this protected group, of which FOAGLA
is substantially comprised, continues to be targeted and harassed
to date."

The franchisees seek declaratory judgment that 7-Eleven's actions
violate federal and state laws, including civil rights law, "by
purposely targeting, harassing and threatening FOAGLA members and
all franchisees of South Asian descent," by invading their
privacy, churning their stores to retaliate against "outspoken and
minority franchisees," and court costs.

A 7-Eleven spokeswoman told Courthouse News on July 9, 2014: "The
allegations made in this complaint are false.  7-Eleven is proud
of its very diverse, independent franchisee population.  In fact,
USA Today named 7-Eleven one of the Top 50 Franchises for
Minorities in 2013, and has received recognition as one of the top
franchisee opportunities by Professional Woman's Magazine,
Hispanic Network Magazine and BLACK EOE Journal."

She added: "Honest, hardworking, independent franchisees are the
backbone of the 7-Eleven brand."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Schindler, Esq.
          SCHINDLER LAW GROUP
          20321 SW Birch Street, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92260
          Telephone: (949) 483-8700
          Facsimile: (949) 464-9714
          E-mail: eric@schindlerlaw.net


ABC PIZZA: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santo Vasquez, on his own behalf of those similarly situated v.
ABC Pizza International, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01751 (M.D. Fla.,
July 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

ABC Pizza International, Inc. is a pizzeria that conducts business
in Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kimberly De Arcangelis Woods, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
     20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600
     PO Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Telephone: (407) 420-1414
     Facsimile: (407) 420-5956
     E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com


ACTION AUTO: Removed "Smoluk" Suit to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Smoluk, et al. v. Action Auto
Body, LLC, et al., Case No. CACE 14-003573-03, was removed from
the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft.
Lauderdale).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-
61669-DPG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lindsay Marie Timari, Esq.
          Charles Merrill Eiss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L.
          8211 W. Broward Blvd., Suite 360
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 990-6923
          Facsimile: (855) 423-5298
          E-mail: ltimari@icelawfirm.com
                  ceiss@icelawfirm.com


AMERICAN GENERAL: Urged Businesses to Buy VEBA Plans, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
American General Life Insurance urged dozens of small business
owners to buy voluntary employee beneficiary association plans, or
VEBA plans, that the Internal Revenue Service has ruled are
"illegal tax avoidance schemes," businesses claim in a federal
class action, reports Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Ulti-Mate Connectors sued American General Life
Insurance (AIG) and nine other defendants on July 9, 2014,
alleging RICO violations, fraud, unfair competition, false
advertising, aiding and abetting and other counts.

According to Ulti-Mate, for more than a decade AIG has offered
unlawful VEBA plans, which it calls "specialized whole life
insurance policies."

A high-level AIG executive allegedly told the plaintiffs'
financial planner that the plans allow small business owners to
make tax-deductible payments, and that they could dip into the
plans, tax-free.  When the financial planner inquired about the
legality of plans, the planner was assured the program was
aboveboard, the complaint states.

"The problem is that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has
repeatedly ruled that VEBA plans like the ones defendants
established, promoted and administered do not comply with federal
tax law, determinations that have been consistently upheld by
federal courts.  At all relevant times, defendants were well aware
of the non-compliant nature of their programs," the lawsuit
states.

As early as 2001, the IRS informed AIG that the programs were
illegal, Ulti-Mate claims, but it and the other defendants
continued to offer the program.

Ulti-Mate claims that small business owners learned "unpleasant
truths" after the U.S. Department of Justice took legal action
last year to enjoin program administrator/defendant Sea Nine
Associates and the firm's employee, defendant Kenneth Elliot, from
marketing the VEBA program.  California has since suspended Sea
Nine's operations, the lawsuit states.

In time, Ulti-Mate says, owners realized that the plans were the
"same or substantially similar" to tax-avoidance schemes, that
their life insurance premium payments were not tax-deductible,
that the claim that they could withdraw money tax-free was
"false," and that the plaintiffs were "victims ensnared in this
long-running scheme."

"With their high fees and low cash values, the policies have few
advantages once stripped of their supposed tax advantages," the
48-page complaint states.

Further, Ulti-Mate says, defendants concealed from the plaintiffs'
financial planner a 2004 letter issued by tax attorneys that found
the programs were unlawful.

Without that crucial information, the business owners made
$914,696.74 in contributions to the VEBA program, according to the
complaint.  After an IRS audit, they were forced to pay
$362,904.91 in penalties, interest, and back taxes, the lawsuit
states.

"AIG had worked closely with the other defendants on these
programs since 2001 or 2002, supplied some of the most critical
marketing materials used to market these programs, and sold many
policies," the complaint states.  "At all relevant times, AIG knew
that plaintiffs and members of the class were induced by
defendants' conduct to believe that purchasing these policies
through a VEBA program provided the significant tax advantages
described elsewhere in this complaint," the lawsuit states.

Named as defendants are AIG, Sea Nine, Innovative Private
Strategies & Insurance Services, I.P.S. Private Advisors, Lalat
Pattanaik, Laban Pattanaik, Elliot doing business as Kae, Kae
Consulting, Vista Barranca, and Peter Mordin.

The plaintiffs seek punitive damages, restitution, rescission and
costs.

AIG spokesman Jon Diat declined to comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tyler Meade, Esq.
          MEADE & SCHRAG LLP
          1816 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 843-3670
          Facsimile: (510) 843-3679
          E-mail: michael@meadeschrag.com


AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Faces "Mack" Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarai Mack, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., a foreign profit corporation, Case
No. 0:14-cv-61676-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 243-4295
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


APPLE INC: May Pay Up to $400-Mil. in Antitrust Suit Over E-Books
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers and state attorneys general revealed on July 16, 2014,
that their deal over Apple's fixing of e-book prices could lead to
$400 million in payments, reports Adam Klasfeld, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

"This outcome would represent a consumer recovery of more than 200
percent of the maximum estimated consumer damages, placing this
case among the exceedingly rare cases that provide consumers
nationwide with double the amount of their estimated damages,"
lawyers for the consumers wrote in a 24-page memorandum seeking a
federal judge's approval.

Apple had fought longest when faced with several antitrust class
actions against it and publishers Simon & Schuster, Macmillan,
Penguin, Hachette and HarperCollins.  While the other publishers
settled those claims for a total of $166 million, Apple went to a
bench trial last year that ended with U.S. District Judge Denise
Cote finding that it had played a central role in the price-fixing
conspiracy.

A damages trial was initially slated for this month, and the
consumers' expert would have urged the jury to reach a $280
million figure.  Antitrust law meanwhile supports tripling that
figure.

The 2nd Circuit made the future of that trial uncertain, however,
when it advanced Apple's appeals of multiple Cote decisions.  That
court stopped class action notification and seemed primed to
postpone the trial.

Before those issues could be resolved, Apple reached an
unspecified settlement with its opponents in June.  The details of
that agreement came to light with the filing of July 16's memo.

If the appellate court orders a liability retrial, consumers will
receive a smaller recovery of $50 million.

The consumers will collect nothing if the circuit clears Apple of
violating antitrust laws.

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman estimated that
consumers in his state stand to recover "7 percent, or as much as
$28 million" of the total payout.

"This settlement proves that even the biggest, most powerful
companies in the world must play by the same rules as everyone
else," Schneiderman said in a statement.  "In a major victory, our
settlement has the potential to result in Apple paying hundreds of
millions of dollars to consumers to compensate them for paying
unlawfully inflated ebook prices."

Lawyers for Apple did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The Plaintiff States are represented by:

          Greg Abbott, Esq.
          Daniel Hodge, Esq.
          John B. Scott, Esq.
          John T. Prud'Homme, Esq.
          Kim Van Winkle, Esq.
          Rebecca Fisher, Esq.
          TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 12548
          Telephone: (512) 463-1265
          E-mail: Rebecca.Fisher@texasattorneygeneral.gov

               - and -

          George Jepsen, Esq.
          Michael E. Cole, Esq.
          Gary M. Becker, Esq.
          CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          55 Elm Street
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 808-5040
          E-mail: Gary.Becker@ct.gov

               - and -

          R. Michael Dewine, Esq.
          Doreen Johnson, Esq.
          Edward J. Olszewski, Esq.
          Matthew McKinley, Esq.
          OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
          150 E. Gay St., 23rd Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 466-4328
          E-mail: Doreen.Johnson@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

The Settlement Class is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Jeffrey Dubner, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          South Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: KPierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  jdubner@cohenmilstein.com


BP PLC: May Be Liable for Not Divesting Stock From Retiree Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
BP's failure to divest stock from its employee retirement plans as
share prices dropped after the 2010 oil spill may leave the oil
giant liable, reports Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service,
citing a 5th Circuit ruling.

The April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling
rig triggered the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.  As BP
struggled for months to cap its well, the Macondo Prospect, its
share price plummeted from $59.52 to a low of $27.02 on
June 25, 2010.

The United Kingdom company's U.S. subsidiary, BP North America
Inc., maintains four employee investment and savings plans,
commonly known as 401(k) plans, with one-third of each plan made
up of BP shares.

By June 14, 2010, the oil spill had wiped out an estimated $1.155
billion in the company stock holdings of BP's 401(k) participants,
the newspaper Pensions & Investments reported.

Plan participants filed a class action against BP, its directors
and State Street Bank and Trust Co., the trustee of BP's 401(k)
plans, the day before its share price bottomed out.

They sought relief under the Employee Retirement Income and
Security Act (ERISA), arguing that as plan managers the defendants
knew BP shares were not a good investment.  Further, the 401(k)
holders claimed the plan managers should have divested their BP
shares "when maintaining such an investment became imprudent," the
lawsuit said.

BP and its co-defendants moved to dismiss, alleging that 5th
Circuit precedent entitled the plan managers to a "presumption of
prudence" in their decision to keep their employee savings plans
heavily invested in BP stock.

Siding with BP, U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison in Houston found
that the employees' arguments could not overcome the presumption.

Shortly after the parties made their cases before the appellate
court in New Orleans, the U.S. Supreme Court touched on this very
issue in the case Fifth Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.

Throwing out the "presumption of prudence" in a unanimous June 15
opinion, the high court held that fiduciaries managing a plan
invested in company stock "are subject to the same duty of
prudence that applies to ERISA fiduciaries in general, except that
they need not diversify the fund's assets."

In light of this precedent, the 5th Circuit issued an unpublished
opinion vacating Ellison's dismissal of the case and remanding it
to him on July 14, 2014.

BP vice president Geoff Morrell noted in a statement that the
company "intends to renew its motion to dismiss in the District
Court" because BP does not believe the plaintiffs satisfy the "new
standards" set forth by the Supreme Court.

The appellate case is Ralph Whitley, et al. v. BP, P.L.C., et al.,
Case No. 12-20670, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.  The District Court case is Ralph Whitley, et al.
v. BP, P.L.C., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-4214, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.


CA TEACHERS' RETIREMENT: To Reduce Retirees' Benefits, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the California State
Teachers' Retirement System threatens to reduce retired teachers'
benefits without a legally required hearing, a class action claims
in California Superior Court.


CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Retaliates Against Spine Surgeon, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hooman Melamed, M.D., an individual v. Cedars-Sinai Medical
Center, a corporation; William Brien, M.D an individual; Rick
Delamarter, M.D. an individual; Michael Langberg, M.D. an
individual; Neil Romanoff, M.D., an individual; and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. BC551415 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., July 11, 2014) alleges that the Defendants took retaliatory
and adverse actions against the Plaintiff, including summarily
suspending his medical staff privileges to treat scoliosis and
kyphosis, thereby, causing him to sustain damages.

Hooman Melamed, M.D., is an orthopaedic spine surgeon, who was a
health care worker and member of the medical staff at Cedars and
who had certain privileges at Cedars and other health facilities.

According to the complaint, Mr. Melamed identified, reported and
disclosed certain suspected unsafe and substandard conditions and
services at Cedars that were a threat to patient care and safety.
He contends that because of his attempts to properly and
accurately report, disclose, disallow, and eliminate the Subject
Conditions, he was subjected to a continuous course of conduct by
the Defendants, which was designed to harass, exclude, humiliate,
intimidate, and retaliate against him, and cause damage to his
reputation.

Cedars Sinai Medical Center is a California corporation.  The
Defendants provide medical services and operate medical
facilities.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark T. Quigley, Esq.
          GREENE BROILLET & WHEELER, LLP
          100 WIlshire Blvd., Suite 2100
          Santa Monica, CA 90407
          Telephone: (310) 576-1200
          Facsimile: (310) 576-1220


CIGNA HEALTH: Removed "Hyde" Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hyde v. CIGNA Health and Life
Insurance Company, Case No. LC101688, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-05718 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff through her claims for relief seeks benefits under
an employee welfare benefit plan that is governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd J. Bloomfield, Esq.
          RICE & BLOOMFIELD, LLP
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1180
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 999-2220
          Facsimile: (818) 999-2388
          E-mail: tjb@rbtriallaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean P. Nalty, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: sean.nalty@ogletreedeakins.com


CLARIANT CORP: Sued by Drivers Union Over Unresolved Grievances
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89 v.
Clariant Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00524-CRS (W.D. Ky.,
July 23, 2014) arises under the Labor-Management Relations Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Clariant has refused to arbitrate two
Union grievances in which the Union asserts that Clariant has
improperly denied vacation benefits to its members.  The Union
files the complaint to ask the Court to compel Clariant to
arbitrate those grievances.  One of the grievances was filed on
September 17, 2013, on behalf of Bruce Crosson, and another filed
on September 18, 2013, on behalf of a class of similarly situated
grievants.

The Union is a labor organization representing employees in an
industry affecting commerce.

Clariant is a New York limited liability company authorized to do
business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          KIRCHER, SUETHOLZ, & GRAYSON, PSC
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 636-4333
          Facsimile: (502) 636-4342
          E-mail: dave@unionsidelawyers.com


DOLCE GROUP: Faces "Taylor" Suit in D. Md. Over Breach of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zachery Taylor, Kimberly Plemons and Eric Driggers, Individually
and on behalf of all similarly-situated individuals v. Dolce Group
Concepts, LLC, Dolce Group Management, LLC, Dolce Group DC, LLC
d/b/a Ketchup, Case No. 8:14-cv-02302 (D. Md., July 18, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid, and illegally withheld, straight-time
compensation, overtime compensation, liquidated damages and
interest, and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as Ketchup that
serve modern American cuisine, which is located at 152 Waterfront
Street, National Harbor, Maryland 20745.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew David Freeman, Esq.
      Brooke E. Lierman, Esq.
      Kevin D. Docherty, Esq.
      BROWN GOLDSTEIN AND LEVY LLP
      120 E Baltimore, St Ste 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21202-6701
      Telephone: (410) 962-1030
      Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
      E-mail: adf@browngold.com
              blierman@browngold.com
              kdocherty@browngold.com


ELTMAN ELTMAN: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanket Kulkarni, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., Case No.
1:14-cv-05447 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2014), is brought for violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C. is a law firm and is located at 140
Broadway, New York, NY 10005.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sameer Singh Birring, Esq.
      FISHMAN & MALLON, LLP
      305 Broadway, Suite 900
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 897-5840


EXPEDIA INC: Sued for Lying About Luggage Fees for Airline Ticket
-----------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
class action accused Expedia of lowballing luggage fees for
airline tickets, and of using a deceptive pop-up add to offer a
bogus discount through an Expedia mobile app.

Lead plaintiff Jeffrey D. Weidenhamer sued Expedia in King County
Court, alleging consumer law violations, unjust enrichment and
violation of the Washington Sellers of Travel Act.  Weidenhamer
claims he had to pay $650 in baggage fees because Expedia falsely
promised one free checked bag with online airfare purchases, and
claims it failed to give mobile application users the 5 percent
discount it promised in its pop-up ad.

"More specifically, this action concerns defendant's false
statements concerning air fares, including those about applicable
fees for airfare purchasers' first checked baggage -- namely, that
statements during online airfare purchases that baggage fees were
lower than they actually were," the lawsuit states.

"In addition, it concerns defendant's misleading pop-up statements
when it encounters difficulties with its United States website
functionality:

"'It looks like we have an issue with the site.  We're working to
fix this as soon as possible.  Here are some ways to find your
perfect trip in the meantime: Download the Award-Winning Expedia
App: Our app may be available even if the site is not.  With it,
you can book flights and hotels or check all your Expedia
itineraries from anywhere.  The app won the People's Voice Webby
Award and we think you'll like it too.  To say thank you for your
patience, we'll also give you 5% OFF YOUR APP PURCHASE with the
code MOBILEGO.'

"Although the pop-up statements indicate consumers can book
flights using Expedia App while defendant had 'an issue with the
site' and receive a 5% discount off their purchase, that statement
is in fact false."

Weidenhamer claims that says Expedia's website states that
airlines "may" charge a fee for checked baggage, but when he
clicked the hyperlink provided, it clearly said his carrier
charged "no fee" for the first checked bag.  Weidenhamer says he
was at the airport when he learned that contrary to Expedia's
representations, he was being charged an extra $650 for baggage.

"Upon arrival with his family at the airport, plaintiff learned
that, contrary to defendant's representation that there was no
additional fee for first check baggage, in fact there were
significant additional round trip charges totaling approximately
$650 for the first checked baggage.  These additional and
previously undisclosed fees increased the total airfare by
approximately 41% (from $1,593.20 to approximately $2,243.20),"
according to the complaint.

"Defendant's Internet airfare statements and omissions were likely
to mislead and did mislead plaintiff and other reasonable
consumers, because they made a significant difference in their
online airfare purchase decisions."

Weidenhamer says he never got his promised discount for buying
tickets though an app on his iPad.

"Thus, defendant's airfare advertising statements were false or
misleading.  Such statements were material to reasonable consumers
(and therefore likely to mislead them) because (a) they would
consider full fare advertising important to their airfare purchase
decisions, and (b) they would consider the Expedia App and its 5%
discount enticement important to their decisions on whether they
would attempt to overcome difficulties with Expedia's U.S. website
by downloading and using the app or, instead, migrate to another
online travel competitor," according to the lawsuit.

Weidenhamer says his complaints to Expedia "fell on deaf ears" and
the company refused any sort of refund until the Ohio Attorney
General's Office intervened.

Expedia then gave Weidenhamer a "one time courtesy refund" of 5
percent but did not reimburse him for the baggage fees.

"Expedia also stated that it disclosed during plaintiff's booking
process that there may be baggage fees and that it 'provides
baggage information . . . as listed by our airline partners' and
'generally the baggage fees that apply to the entire trip are
based on the marketing carrier's first leg (not operating
carrier).'  Notably, Expedia did not address the fact that its
'additional fees' hyperlink opened the baggage fee web page
clearly stating for the operating carrier that there would be 'No
fee' for a first checked bag," the complaint states.

The class includes customers who purchased Expedia online airfares
on the Web or using a mobile app from July 2012 to the present and
were charged higher baggage fees than represented and/or were
denied the promised 5 percent discount.

Weidenhamer seeks refunds, actual, incidental, consequential,
exemplary and/or statutory damages, civil penalties and injunctive
relief.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Duncan Turner, Esq.
          BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
          19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200
          Shoreline, WA 98155
          Telephone: (206) 621-6566
          Facsimile: (206) 621-9686
          E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com


FERRELLGAS LP: Reduced Propane in Tanks, "LJAX" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
LJAX Enterprises, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class of
all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, L.P.; Ferrellgas
Partners, L.P.; Amerigas Propane, Inc.; Amerigas Propane, L.P.;
Amerigas Partners, L.P.; and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
04184 (W.D. Mo., July 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
conspired to reduce the amount of propane they would put in their
tanks and thereby raise the per-pound price of propane across the
country.

Ferrellgas, LP, Ferrellgas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane LP,
AmeriGas Partners, LP, Amerigas Propane, Inc., and UGI Corporation
are Delaware corporations that operate propane distribution
business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
      Robert A. Horn. Esq.
      HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
      2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 421-0700
      Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
      E-mail: jkronawitter@hab-law.com
              rhorn@hab-law.com

          - and -

      Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
      Jeremy S. Spiegel, Esq.
      WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
      1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 545-7200
      Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
      Email: reuben@wka-law.com
             spiegel@wka-law.com


FERRELLGAS LP: Reduced Propane in Tanks, Ace High Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ace High Auto Repair & Propane, individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, LP,
Ferrellgas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane LP, AmeriGas Parners,
LP, Amerigas Propane, Inc., and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02354 (D. Kan., July 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
conspired to reduce the amount of propane they would put in their
tanks and thereby raise the per-pound price of propane across the
country.

Ferrellgas, LP, Ferrellgas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane LP,
AmeriGas Partners, LP, Amerigas Propane, Inc., and UGI Corporation
are Delaware corporations that operate propane distribution
business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
      SHARP MCQUEEN PA
      6900 College Blvd., Suite #285
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 661-9931
      Facsimile: (913) 661-9935
      E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com

         - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
      GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com
              tbright@gbcslaw.com


FERRELLGAS LP: Conspired to Reduce Propane in Tanks, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan-Larson LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a limited
partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing
business as Blue Rhino; Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited
partnership, also doing business as Amerigas Cylinder Exchange;
and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00635 (W.D.
Mo., July 18, 2014), brings this action against Defendants based
on their conspiracy to fix the prices of propane sold in
exchangeable portable steel tanks.

Ferrellgas, LP, Ferrellgas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane LP,
AmeriGas Parners, LP, Amerigas Propane, Inc., and UGI Corporation
are Delaware corporations that operate propane distribution
business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Michael Ponder, Esq.
      COOK BARKETT PONDER & WOLZ
      1610 N. Kings Highway, Suite 201
      Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
      Telephone: (573) 335-6651
      Facsimile: (573) 335-6182
      E-mail: mponder@cbpw-law.com

         - and -

      Vineet Bhatia, Esq.
      Richard W. Hess, Esq.
      Alexander L. Kaplan, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
      1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
      Houston, TX 77002-5096
      Telephone: (713) 651-9366
      Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
      E-mail: vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com
              rhess@susmangodfrey.com
              akaplan@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Stephen Morrissey, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
      Seattle, WA 98101-3000
      Telephone: (206) 516-3880
      Facsimile: (206)516-3883
      E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com

        - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      2114 Middle Street, Suite 208
      Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
      Telephone: (205) 238-6757
      Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com

        - and -

      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200
      Oxford, Mississippi 38655
      Telephone: (662) 550-4511
      Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com


FERRELLGAS LP: Tuckerton Sues Over Illegal Reduction of Propane
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tuckerton Lumber Company, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a limited
partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing
business as Blue Rhino; Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited
partnership, also doing business as Amerigas Cylinder Exchange;
and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02353 (D.
Kan., July 18, 2014), brings this action against Defendants based
on their conspiracy to fix the prices of propane sold in
exchangeable portable steel tanks.

Ferrellgas, LP, Ferrellgas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane LP,
AmeriGas Parners, LP, Amerigas Propane, Inc., and UGI Corporation
are Delaware corporations that operate propane distribution
business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
      SHARP MCQUEEN, PA
      6900 College Blvd, Suite 285
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 661-9931
      E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com

        - and -

     Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
     William E. Hoese, Esq.
     Doughlas A. Abrahams, Esq.
     KOHN, sWIFT & GRAFT, PC
     One South Broad, Suite 2100
     Philadephia, PA 19107
     Telephone: (215) 238-1700

        - and -

     Susan R. Gross, Esq.
     Warren Rubin, Esq.
     Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
     Tina Moukoulis, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES BERNANRD M. GROSS, PC
     100 Penn Square East, Suite 450
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Telephone: (215) 561-3600

       - and -

     Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
     Randall B. Weill, Esq.
     Michael S. Smith, Esq.
     PRETI FLAHERTY
     One Center, P.O Box 9546
     Portland, ME 04112-9546

       - and -
     Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
     Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
     ISSAC, BRANT, LEDMAN & TEETOR, LLP
     250 East Broad Street, Suite 900
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 221-2121


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Nearly 20,000 Cadillac, Chevrolet Camaros
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that General Motors Co. and its main
Chinese partner are recalling nearly 20,000 imported Cadillac SRX
sport utility vehicles and Chevrolet Camaros to replace defective
seat bolts.

GM said the defect might allow seats to descend to their lowest
position, possibly causing a safety hazard.  The company did not
say how many of each type of vehicle were being recalled.  In
total it is recalling 19,836 vehicles.

This is GM's third recall in China in 14 months.  In December, the
company and its main Chinese partner recalled 1.5 million vehicles
to replace a fuel pump bracket.

In May 2013, they recalled imported SRX sport utility vehicles to
adjust nuts on wheels.


GOOGLE INC: Denies Controlling Search Engines on Handheld Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rejecting claims that it monopolizes the search engines on
handheld wireless devices, Google told a federal judge that its
contracts actually promote competition, reports Mike Heuer at
Courthouse News Service.

Gary Feitelson and Daniel McKee filed the class action against
Google in San Jose, Calif., this past May, taking aim at Google's
alleged requirement that equipment manufacturers "preload" Android
phones with Google suites.  The complaint accuses Google of
violating the Sherman and Clayton Acts as well as California's
unfair competition law and the state's Cartwright Act.

In a motion to dismiss filed on July 11, 2014, Google said the
suit fails to "allege facts to support the necessary elements of
claims under federal antitrust law for illegal restraint of trade
or actual or attempted monopolization.  Pointing out that it
provides a service, and that the Clayton Act applies only to
"tangible commodities," which Google does not offer, Google said
the federal law is inapplicable here.

Google also disputed that its licensing and distribution of "free
mobile software applications" to equipment manufacturers like
Apple somehow caused consumers "to overpay for their Android
mobile devices that were preloaded with these free apps."

"Google licenses its Android operating system at no charge to OEMs
[original equipment manufacturers] as the backbone of the mobile
devices they manufacture, and through separate mobile app license
agreements -- called Mobile Application Distribution Agreements
('MADAs') -- Google allows OEMs to preload a suite of free Google
apps onto these Android devices," the motion states.  "Of course,
both the Android operating system and the Google apps are entirely
optional for OEMs to use on their devices."

The 35-page motion describes the allegations as "self-defeating."

"Google's conduct is not only fully consistent with but actually
promotes lawful competition," Google wrote.

Rather than claim that Google's contracts "prevent rival search
engines from reaching consumers through the various distribution
channels available to them," the plaintiffs have merely challenged
Google's desire for "prominent placement" of its apps on Android
devices, Google said.

"The complaint does not allege facts sufficient to demonstrate
that (a) any OEM was somehow coerced to preload Google Search on
any device; (b) any OEM was prevented from preloading an app of
its choice on a device; or (c) any consumer was prevented from
obtaining the apps that he or she desired," the motion continues.
"In light of these pleading deficiencies, it is facially
implausible to assert that Google's rivals are unlawfully
foreclosed from the ability to compete for access to consumers.
As a result, plaintiffs fail to allege any actual foreclosure of a
relevant antitrust market, which is a prerequisite to a cognizable
antitrust claim."

Manufacturers are free to load rival search engines and other
apps, and users like McKee and Feitelson are free to download and
use rival apps, including rival search engines that they can set
as their default search engines, the company argued.

Google is represented by:

          Brian C. Rocca, Esq.
          Sujal J. Shah, Esq.
          Susan J. Welch, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 393-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 393-2286
          E-mail: brian.rocca@bingham.com
                  sujal.shah@bingham.com
                  susan.welch@bingham.com

               - and -

          Hill B. Wellford, Esq.
          Jon R. Roellke, Esq.
          Gregory F. Wells, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
          2020 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 373-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 373-6001
          E-mail: hill.wellford@bingham.com
                  jon.roellke@bingham.com
                  gregory.wells@bingham.com

               - and -

          John E. Schmidtlein, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Pitt, Esq.
          James H. Weingarten, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 12th St NW
          Washington DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com
                  jpitt@wc.com
                  jweingarten@wc.com
                  bstoll@wc.com


GUTHY-RENKER: Ignores Cancellation Requests, Proactiv User Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that the firm
behind the celebrity-endorsed acne treatment Proactiv ignores
cancellation requests and illegally bills customers' banks and
credit cards, a class action claims in California Federal Court.

Named plaintiffs Nanci Quintana Gomez sued Guthy-Renker, alleging
racketeering, unfair competition, and violation of California
Automatic Renewal Law.

Guthy-Renker sells 15 beauty and skincare products, including
Proactiv, Meaningful Beauty, WEN Haircare and Sheer Cover, using
direct marketing and celebrity endorsements from the likes of
Cindy Crawford, Justin Bieber and Jessica Simpson.

Quintana claims the company defrauds customers by enrolling them
in memberships and making unauthorized withdrawals from their
credit cards and bank accounts for products they've never received
or ordered.  Customers are charged even after they've canceled
their accounts, Quintana says.

"Defendant's scheme is deceptively simple.  Defendant requires
consumers to provide credit card or debit card information at the
time they make any initial purchase of defendant's products," the
July 11 lawsuit states.  "Defendant then uses that credit card and
debit card information to automatically enroll them in supposed
'continuity program' memberships, pursuant to which defendant
automatically sends them its products on what is supposedly a 90
day periodic interval.

"After consumers call to cancel, defendant continues to charge
their credit and debit cards for its products, despite the fact
that it does not have authorization to do so and it is prohibited
from making such charges under the rules of the electronic payment
networks through which it processes its credit and debit card
transactions."

Guthy-Renker makes other unauthorized charges, Quintana claims,
such as offering customers 90-day supplies and pretending it will
charge customers a monthly fee for the products.

The reality, says Quintana, is that Guthy-Renker charges "charges
consumers for its products on intervals of 28 days or less, and
ships its '90 day supplies' of products on 84-day intervals."

"By charging them at a greater frequency than they authorized,
defendant squeezes a thirteenth 'monthly' charge to consumers'
accounts each year, exceeding the 'per month' charges for which
defendant obtained consumers' authorizations.  These extra charges
serve no purpose other than to make additional profits for
defendant," the lawsuit states.

In addition, the company charges for products that consumers did
not order, Quintana says.

After ordering an initial 30-day supply of Proactiv, Quintana
says, she received products she did not order or want, incurring
charges from November 2012 to May 2013.  She says the company
charged her 14 times for Proactiv products in one year, for a
total of $284.18.

Quintana says she was charged an additional $347.68 for Meaningful
Beauty products she neither ordered nor received.  Though she
asked for her money back, Quintana says she received only a
partial refund of $139.91.  She seeks an injunction, damages and
costs.

Guthy-Renker did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Keller, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 659-9937
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: jfkeller@kellergrover.com


HABANOS CUBAN: Faces "Callazo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Irastorza Collazo and all others similarly situated under
v. Habanos Cuban Cafe & Pizza Inc. and Raul Busquet, Case No.
1:14-cv-22695 (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Habanos Cuban Cafe & Pizza Inc. is a restaurant that transacts
business within Dade County, Florida.

Raul Busquet is a corporate officer and/or owner and/or manager of
the Habanos Cuban Cafe & Pizza Inc.

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: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


HERTZ CORP: Court Approved $11-Mil. Deal on "PlatePass" Toll Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz can pay $11 million to settle claims that it charged
customers unwarranted "PlatePass" electronic toll fees, reports
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling, granting the deal final approval.

Susan Doherty, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action,
allegedly rented from Hertz in September 2009.  After a car
accident she noticed a transponder device on the windshield for
PlatePass, which she used on nine days to pay highway tolls
electronically instead of stopping to pay cash, according to the
complaint.

Although the device had a notice stating that Doherty's credit
card would be charged for tolls, Doherty claimed that she returned
the car on Oct. 6, 2009, and received a bill for $3.25 from
PlatePass stating that she owed a fee for the cash price of tolls
and a $2.50 per diem service fee.

A week later, however, PlatePass allegedly deducted $77.75
directly from Doherty's account without any further notice or
authorization.

The Web site for PlatePass said she had been charged $57.75 for
tolls at the cash price and $20 in administrative fees, and that
the maximum fee she could be charged was $10 per month, not per
week, as the paper invoice stated, according to the complaint.

Doherty's original complaint in New Jersey named as defendants the
Hertz Corp., PlatePass and its parent, American Traffic Solutions
Inc.  Her claims were eventually consolidated with those of Dwight
Simonson, who alleged that American Traffic Solutions sent him a
bill for a $10 service charge and a 75 cent toll for driving the
Hertz car rented at the Orlando International Airport in June 2009
through a PlatePass toll lane.

Hertz never told Simonson his rental car was pre-enrolled and
activated with PlatePass, let alone that he would be charged fees
for using the service, according to his complaint.

With Doherty and Simonson purporting to represent a class of up to
1.8 million consumers, the court refused to award American Traffic
Solutions and PlatePass summary judgment in April 2013.

U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman granted an $11 million settlement
between the parties final approval on June 25, noting the class's
"overwhelmingly positive reaction," as only 51 members opted out,
and of the two objections filed, one was withdrawn, and the other
was "factually and legally insufficient."

Indeed, the settlement meets all requirements for approval,
according to the ruling.

"There was extensive discovery with over 40,000 pages of documents
and a large amount of electronic discovery being exchanged,
including an entire transactional database provided by
defendants," Hillman wrote.

They will recover more than $3.1 million in attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, according to the settlement, which also includes
service awards of $5,000 each for Doherty and Simonson.

"Named plaintiffs, Mr. Simonson and Ms. Doherty, had the ability
and the incentive to represent the claims of the class vigorously,
and did so adequately and appropriately through their personal
involvement in the case and the burdens of litigation which they
endured," Hillman wrote.  "The court also find[s] that the named
plaintiffs actively participated in the litigation by retaining
adequate counsel and monitoring and assisting in the course of the
litigation through discovery, the production of documents, and by
participating in depositions.  The court similarly find[s] that
class counsel in this matter was experienced, qualified, and well
able to conduct the litigation as amply demonstrated by their own
history of litigation complex class litigation in state and
federal court and their success in defeating motions to dismiss."

Hertz reportedly reaped $10.8 billion in revenue in 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
          Michael Coren, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
          127 Maple Avenue
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 747-9003
          Facsimile: (732) 747-9004
          E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com
                  mcoren@cprlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          Mark Fistos, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS
          & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (800) 400-1098
                     (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822

               - and -

          Stephen A. Dunn, Esq.
          EMANUEL & DUNN, PLLC
          130 South Salisbury Street
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 792-3703
          E-mail: sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John F. Ward, Jr., Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 923-2650
          Facsimile: (312) 840-7650
          E-mail: jward@jenner.com

The case is Susan Doherty and Dwight Simonson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00359-NLH-KMW, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.


HILLYARD INC: Court Refused to Approve Labor Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rejecting a proposed settlement by cleaning-products retailer
Hillyard, a federal judge found that the deal with product
demonstrators does not give proper notice or provide a fair
release of claims, reports William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse
News Service.

Lawrence Christensen and George Currea are the lead plaintiffs in
the labor class action that accuses Hillyard Inc., of failing to
reimburse employees for travel expenses from demonstrations.
Employees say Hillyard also requires demonstrators to purchase
products, laptops, cellphones and uniforms out of pocket.

After a full day of private mediation earlier this year, Hillyard
agreed to pay $750,000 to settle the claims -- amounting to about
$75 per class member for each week they worked from 2009 to the
present.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins rejected the deal on July
10, 2014, however, after finding that it appeared to bind only for
the named plaintiffs and Hillyard, and failed to include the terms
for the general release of claims of other class members.

While the $750,000 settlement seemed fair on its face, Cousins
said the notice lacked the required advisory that putative class
members could make an appearance through an attorney if they
desired.

"The court denies preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
agreement, but grants leave to refile for preliminary approval
should the parties reach a settlement agreement that cures the
deficiencies identified in this order," Cousins wrote.  "The court
also denies adopting the proposed notice to the class as that
notice fails to inform class members that they may enter an
appearance through an attorney."


HITACHI HVB: "Howe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Howe v. Hitachi HVB, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00158 (N.D.
Ga., July 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime
wages, liquidated damages, actual damages, compensatory damages,
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hitachi HVB, Inc. describes its business as a premier
international supplier of electrical equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Brian Henson, Esq.
      Christopher D. Vaughn, Esq.
      THE VAUGHN LAW FIRM, LLC
      Suite 150, 246 Sycamore Street
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Telephone: (404) 378-1290
      E-mail: bhenson@thevaughnlawfirm.com
              cvaughn@thevaughnlawfirm.com

          - and -

      Frank DeMelfi, Esq.
      DEMEL FI LAW GROUP, LLC
      4651 Woodstock Rd., Suite 208-103
      Roswell, GA 30075
      Telephone: (678) 948-7808
      Facsimile: (866) 874-7808
      E-mail: fdemelfi@gmail.com


HSBC CARD: Illegally Records Telephone Conversations, Action Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan O. Lindgren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HSBC Card & Retail Services, Inc. a/k/a HSBC Card
Services Inc., by and through Its Successor in Interest Capital
One Financial Corporation, HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc.,
and Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-05615
(C.D. Cal., July 18, 2014), rises out of the Defendants' policy
and practice during the period relevant herein of electronically
recording telephone conversations of California credit card
holders, including, but not limited to, confidential telephone
conversations, without the consent of all parties.

HSBC Card & Retail Services, Inc. is the credit card and retail
services division of HSBC Finance, is the fifth largest provider
of MasterCard and Visa credit cards and the third largest issuer
of private label credit cards in the United States.

HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc. is a provider of information
technology and centralized operational and back-end support
services to HSBC Finance and all of its subsidiaries.

Capital One Financial Corporation took custody of Tech Services'
telephony architecture systems for calling and recording telephone
calls.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth J. Arleo, Esq.
      ARLEO LAW FIRM PLC
      16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Telephone: (858) 674-6912
      Facsimile: (760) 789-8081
      E-mail: elizabeth@arleolaw.com


INT'L CULINARY: Sued for Promising Students of Becoming Chefs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The International Culinary Center, formerly known as the French
Culinary Institute, conned students into forking over $45,000 with
false promises that they'd become chefs and sidestep low-paying
entry-level cooking slots in kitchens, a class action claims in
New York Federal Court, reports Nick Divito, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiffs Larry Grabovan and Daniel Oglander claim they paid
the tuition only to land jobs that paid between $9 and $12 an hour
"that they could get without any experience or education
whatsoever."

Students such as Grabovan and Oglander pay the enormous tuition
"because defendants lie to them," according to the lawsuit.
"Defendants represent, and have represented, that paying more than
$45,000 for a six month program (nine months for night and weekend
courses) makes economic sense because, upon graduation, they could
would be immediately eligible for and attain chef or other 'top
culinary jobs' that pay $60,000 and upwards -- and that would
otherwise take them years to reach, absent defendants' expertise,
prestige and industry connections.

"This is not hyperbole," the plaintiffs say.  They say that they
and other class members "paid tens of thousands of dollars in
tuition to attend ICC because of defendants' false promises.  They
relied upon defendants' own website that promised prospective
students that they could 'walk straight into a top culinary' job
once they graduated."

The lawsuit continues: "Being a chef is hard work, but becoming a
chef is even harder.  The recipe for success usually requires
years of dedication and arduous work, at low pay, before kitchen
staff employees are given the opportunity to rise up through the
ranks.  And, even with tons of discipline and all the right
skills, there is usually no guarantee that no one will attain such
a high-level position."

The defendants promised plaintiffs that paying the tuition and
attending the school would get them more than just a good
schooling; it would also get them the prestige of a "French
Culinary Institute"-type diploma "that would allow graduates to
skip the years of peeling carrots and to attain chef positions or
other 'top culinary jobs' immediately upon graduation," the
lawsuit claims.

Plaintiffs say defendants' use of words such as "chefs" and "top
culinary jobs" lured them into signing up.

"Put simply, defendants, promised that investing in an ICC
education made economic sense, notwithstanding the high price
tag," according to the complaint.

The cooking school "aggressively marketed this vision" to target
students, though the school had no reasonable ground to believe
that such assertions were true, and provided "outright lies, all
of which were designed to create, in the minds of plaintiffs, the
strong impression they would be both professionally and
financially better off if they attended" the cooking school, the
lawsuit states.

"Unfortunately, defendants' promises turned out to be half-baked,"
according to the complaint.

Instead, the cooking school's students only got a "worthless'
education, and now are saddled with student loans they cannot
repay, the lawsuit states.

Defendant Dorothy Hamilton founded the school in 1984 as the
"French Culinary Institute."  The cooking school rebranded itself
in 2011 when the U.S. Department of Education indicated that that
it would deem it "financially irresponsible," according to the 36-
page lawsuit.

Plaintiffs want their tuition back, plus damages for violation of
state business laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell M. Yankwitt, Esq.
          YANKWITT LLP
          140 Grand Street
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 368-7410
          Facsimile: (914) 801-5930


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: 9th Circuit Upholds Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
affirmed a lower court finding that a pension fund failed to show
that purchasers of stock in a robotic surgical devices maker were
defrauded by executives' allegedly false statements.

The plaintiffs alleged that public statements about the market
prospects for the da Vinci Surgical Systems robotic devices made
by Intuitive Surgical Inc., were false and misleading.  But Judge
M. Margaret McKeown, writing for the panel, found that the
company's statements were "in large part, forward-looking
statements or garden variety corporate optimism -- neither
category is actionable under the securities laws."

For example, corporate puffery and optimistic statements are not
actionable because investors "'know how to devalue the optimism of
corporate executives,'" the court said.

The decision upholds a dismissal by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh
of the Police Retirement System of St. Louis' complaint.

The plaintiffs alleged that although the company executives said
Intuitive would continue to grow, "individual defendants knew or
should have known that system placement was decreasing because of
the economic downtown, market saturation," and sales trends.
The complaint did not meet the heightened pleading requirements
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
including that there was a strong inference of scienter, or
fraudulent intent, by the defendants, the panel said.

Scienter only can be shown by specific admissions by corporate
executives who are involved in the minutia of firm operations, the
court said.

The court further noted that the Ninth Circuit has refused to
require a rule of completeness for securities disclosures because
it would be impossible to disclose all pertinent details.

The plaintiffs said false and misleading statements about
Intuitive's financial health caused the company's share price to
artificially inflate from February 1, 2008, to January 7, 2009.


JOHNS HOPKINS: Levy's Patients Traumatized Over Secret Recording
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that for Myra James, the process of
going to the gynecologist is now too much to bear.  Since she
found out her practitioner of 20 years, Dr. Nikita Levy, had been
using tiny cameras to secretly record his patients' genitals, she
said, "I can't bring myself to go back."

Dr. Levy, 54, had worked at the East Baltimore Medical Center, a
Johns Hopkins community clinic, for 25 years before he was fired
in February of 2013 after admitting to the misconduct and
surrendering his devices to authorities.

A search of his home revealed 1,200 videos, and hundreds of
images, according to authorities.  Dr. Levy committed suicide
10 days after his firing.

On July 21, Johns Hopkins Hospital agreed to a $190 million
settlement with about 8,000 former patients of Levy's who
contacted lawyers after Dr. Levy's conduct was made public last
year.

Ms. James, like all 12,600 of Dr. Levy's former patients, does not
know if she is among those who were recorded -- faces of patients
are not visible in the images, lawyers said, rendering it
impossible to identify their subjects -- but she said her faith
and trust has been irreparably eroded by the possibility.

"You're lying there, exposed.  It's violating and it's horrible,
and my trust is gone.  Period," she said.

The Associated Press normally does not identify possible victims
of sex crimes, but Ms. James, 67, agreed to the use of her name.

The settlement all but closes a case attorneys for both Johns
Hopkins and Dr. Levy's former patients say traumatized thousands
of women who, according to the women's lead attorney, Jonathan
Schochor, are still -- a year and a half later -- "extraordinarily
upset."

"They are in fear, dismayed, angry, and anxious over a breach of
faith, a breach of trust, a betrayal on the part of the medical
system," Mr. Schochor said during a news conference on July 21.
"Many of our clients still feel betrayed, and still feel the
breach of trust they have experienced, and they have fallen out of
the medical system."

The preliminary settlement is one of the largest on record in the
U.S. involving sexual misconduct by a physician.

Hopkins said insurance will cover the settlement, which "properly
balances the concerns of thousands of plaintiffs with obligations
the Health System has to provide ongoing and superior care to the
community."

Hopkins' attorney Donald DeVreis on July 21 said the hospital was
unaware of Levy's "horrible conduct," and that he had become a
"rogue employee" when he began recording his patients.

Levy graduated from the Weill Cornell Medical College in
Manhattan, and completed his internship and residency at Kings
County Hospital Center.  He began working at Hopkins in 1988, and
was working at Hopkins East Baltimore Medical Center at the end.
He saw roughly 12,600 patients during his years at Hopkins.

"He was cold, and I was kind of scared of him," Ms. James said.
"His bedside manner -- he didn't have any.  But all my doctors
were at Hopkins.  I've had two surgeries there, my primary doctor
is there.  I was used to going there for everything."

Some women told of being inappropriately touched and verbally
abused by Levy, according to Mr. Schochor.  Some said they were
regularly summoned to Dr. Levy's office for unnecessary pelvic
exams.

"Did he take pictures of me? There's no way of knowing," said
another former patient whose two children were delivered by
Dr. Levy.  "I felt violated, because I don't know if for sure if
he had pictures of me, or who has seen them."

His suicide -- by wrapping his head in a plastic bag with a hose
connected to a helium tank -- frustrated everyone who wanted to
know his motives and see him face justice.

Once alerted to Levy's conduct, hospital authorities quickly
notified Baltimore police and escorted Levy off campus. Police and
federal investigators later said they found no evidence he shared
the material with others.  Mr. Schochor said all the images will
be destroyed by court order.

"It is our hope that this settlement -- and findings by law
enforcement that images were not shared -- helps those affected
achieve a measure of closure," Mr. DeVreis said.

The settlement involves eight law firms and is subject to final
approval by Judge Sylvester B. Cox after a "fairness hearing"
where the women can speak.  Each plaintiff was interviewed by a
forensic psychologist and a post-traumatic-stress specialist to
determine how much trauma she suffered and how much money she will
receive.

Hopkins sent out letters to Dr. Levy's entire patient list last
year, apologizing to the women and urging them to seek care with
other Hopkins specialists.

"Hopkins had no idea or inkling," Mr. DeVreis said.  "This
conduct, we agree, was not just inappropriate but outrageous, and
it was a breach of trust.  At this point we're doing our best to
work with the former patients to achieve a measure of closure for
the patients and the Hopkins community."

But for some of Dr. Levy's patients, the settlement provides
little solace.

"It doesn't make me feel better," said the former patient.  "I
don't think any amount of money can replace feeling violated like
that."


JIMMY JOHN'S: Does Not Pay workers Overtime, "Brunner" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Brunner, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, as Class/Collective representative v. Jimmy John's
Enterprises, Inc., and JS Fort Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05509
(N.D. Ill., July 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
intentionally misclassifying Plaintiff and other 2nd ASMs as
exempt employees, therefore denying them of wages and overtime
compensation, is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jimmy John's Enterprises, Inc. is a privately owned fast food
restaurant giant, specializing in the sale of sub sandwiches.

JS Fort Group, Inc., is a franchisee of Jimmy John's Enterprises,
Inc., doing business in the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert M. Foote, Esq.
      Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
      Matthew J. Herman, Esq.
      Peter L. Currie, Esq.
      FOOTE, MEILKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
      10 West State Street, Suite 200
      Geneva, IL 60134
      Telephone: (630) 232-7450
      Facsimile: (630) 232-7452


M&M DENTISTRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Borgstrom v. M&M Dentistry, Inc., an Arizona corporation;
Lubomir Mihaylov and Maria Mihaylov, husband and wife, Case No.
2:14-cv-01658-JJT (D. Ariz., July 23, 2014) is brought against the
Defendants for their alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime
wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

M&M Dentistry, Inc., was incorporated in Arizona and has its
principal place of business in Mesa, Arizona.  The Individual
Defendants are the owners of M&M Dentistry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


M-I LLC: "Dewan" Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Dewan v. M-I, L.L.C., Case No.
4:12-cv-03638, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California (Fresno).  The California District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01151-AWI-MJS to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to collect unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002-1637
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net

               - and -

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
          PLAN BENEFITS SECURITY DIVISION, N-4611
          200 Constitution Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20210
          Telephone: (202) 693-5281
          E-mail: moore.melissa@dol.gov

The Defendant is represented by:

          Samuel Zurik, III, Esq.
          Robert P. Lombardi, Esq.
          KULLMAN FIRM
          1100 Poydras St., Suite 1600
          1600 Energy Centre
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 524-4162
          Facsimile: (504) 596-4189
          E-mail: sz@kullmanlaw.com
                  rpl@kullmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Martin J. Regimbal, Esq.
          KULLMAN FIRM
          200 6th St North, Suite 704
          Columbus, MS 39701
          Telephone: (662) 244-8824
          Facsimile: (662) 244-8837
          E-mail: mjr@kullmanlaw.com

Intervenors Sarmad Syed and Ashley Balfour is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Conner, Esq.
          Ira R. Spiro, Esq.
          SPIRO LAW CORP.
          11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 235-2350
          E-mail: jennifer@spirolawcorp.com
                  ira@spirolawcorp.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


MACY'S INC: Fails to Pay Workers All Compensable Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Prado, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Macy's, Inc., an Ohio corporation, and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC551578 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., July 15, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged
failure to pay employees all compensable wages for time worked.

Mr. Prado is a resident of California.  He was employed by the
Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee working out of its
Fulfillment Center located in City of Industry, California.

Macy's, Inc., is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Cincinnati,
Ohio and is engaged in business in Los Angeles County and
throughout California.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
          555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Olsen, Esq.
          OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 550-9352
          Facsimile: (619) 923-2747
          E-mail: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com


MANPOWER INC: "Ramirez" Suit Asserting Labor Claims Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted a motion for summary
judgment in the purported class action lawsuit captioned Patricia
Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
employees v. Manpower Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-02880-BLF.
Judge Freeman also denied as moot the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  In addition, Judge Freeman denied a motion
to intervene as additional named plaintiffs filed by two
individual members of the putative class.

Plaintiff Patricia Ramirez was employed by a temporary services
employment agency, Manpower Inc./California Peninsula, for three
days in January 2013.  She brought the putative class action
against MI/CP and against three other entities, Manpower, Inc.,
Manpowergroup Public Sector Inc., and Manpowergroup US Inc.  Ms.
Ramirez's operative second amended complaint asserts various state
labor code violations pertaining to the Defendants' alleged
failure to pay wages for orientation, training, and assessment
meetings.

On May 13, 2014, the Defendants learned of the Plaintiff's
bankruptcy during her deposition.  On May 22, 2014, the Defendants
filed the Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that (1) the
Plaintiff is judicially estopped from pursuing this lawsuit
because she failed to disclose it in her bankruptcy case, and (2)
the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this lawsuit because the
lawsuit was the property of the bankruptcy estate and was not
abandoned to the Plaintiff prior to discharge.


MOORE CAPITAL: Has Prelim. Approval of $57.75-MM Fraud Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moore Capital can pay $57.75 million to settle commodities-fraud
claims that it manipulated the prices of platinum and palladium,
reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission had fined Moore Capital
Management $25 million in 2010 for manipulating the prices of
platinum and palladium futures contracts.

Specifically, Moore engaged in a practice known as "banging the
close," whereby a trader manipulates the day's closing price for a
commodity by buying or selling a large number of futures contracts
in order to benefit on a larger position in a separate transaction
based on the futures settlement price of the day.

Several individuals filed a commodities fraud class action one day
later, and their claims were consolidated with similar claims that
sought damages for the firm's market manipulation.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley III on July 15, 2014, granted
preliminary approval to settlement agreements under which Moore
will pay $48.4 million for its alleged manipulation of the futures
market, and $9.35 million for the effects of its conduct on class
members who purchased platinum or palladium bullion.

Joseph Welsh, a former commodities trader at now-bankrupt
defendant MF Global, also agreed to an entry of judgment against
him for negligence for $35 million, with the stipulation that the
judgment can only be enforced against insurance policies.

Pauley's order rejected an objection by MF Global's trustee, who
sought a "clarification" that Welsh's admission is not binding on
his former employer.

"The trustee has not shown formal legal prejudice here and does
not have standing to object," Pauley wrote.  "Courts do not
typically prognosticate about the rest judicata effect of current
orders in some future circumstance."

Class member Susan Levy meanwhile failed to support her objection
that the settlement favored "short" investors, over investors who
bet "long."

"The plan of allocation treats longs and shorts equally.  This
objection is a misunderstanding of the allocation," Pauley said.

The court will hold a fairness hearing in November, and class
members will be permitted to submit their objections to the
settlement via email.


NINE WEST: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Rumph, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nine West Holdings, Inc., a foreign profit
corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61673-UU (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 243-4295
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


NUVE MIGUEL: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v.  Nuve Miguel Corp. d/b/a Associated Supermarket, Flavio
Urgiles, Klever Urgiles, Luis Urgiles, Victor Urgiles and
Segundo Urgiles, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-05451
(S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages owed to them pursuant to both the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Nuve Miguel Corp. is a supermarket with its principle place of
business at 755 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York 10025.

The Individual Defendants are the owners, operators and managers
of the Corporate Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


PAIN RELIEF: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Torregano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pain Relief & Diagnostic Center and Transworld
Systems, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-02985-DWF-JJG (D. Minn., July 23,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com

               - and -

          Mark L. Vavreck, Esq.
          MARTINEAU, GONKO & VAVRECK, PLLC
          401 N 3rd St Ste 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 659-9500
          Facsimile: (612) 659-9220
          E-mail: mvavreck@mgvlawfirm.com


PANASONIC CORP: Sued Over Distribution of Capacitors
----------------------------------------------------
Chip-Tech, Ltd. and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation Of North America,
Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd., Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.)
Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03264 (N.D. Cal., July 18,
2014), seeks damages and injunctive relief for the collusive and
concerted restraint of trade in aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
capacitors orchestrated by the Defendants.

Capacitors are one of the fundamental components found in
electrical circuits. All electronic devices we use today -- from
the cheapest household appliances to our personal computers to
multi-million dollar machinery and vehicles -- employ various
electrical circuits working in concert to perform the various
tasks for which we use them.

The Defendants are foreign companies that manufacture, sell and
distribute aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors either
directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to
customers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      Andrew M. Purdy , Esq.
      James G. Dallal , Esq.
      Ryan J. McEwan , Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940

         - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      C. Andrew Dirksen , Esq.
      GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
      Email: scera@gbcslaw.com
             cdirksen@gbcslaw.com


PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS: Tex. Sup. Court Overturns Discovery Sanction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the Texas Supreme Court has dismissed a $1.2 million judgment
against Petroleum Solutions Inc. over a diesel spill, finding that
the trial court abused its discretion by imposing spoliation
sanctions against the company when there was no proof it
intentionally lost or destroyed evidence.

"We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by charging
the jury with a spoliation instruction to the jury and striking
Petroleum's statute-of-limitations defense because that sanction
does not comply with the procedural or substantive standards set
forth in Brookshire Brothers," the court said in a unanimous July
11 opinion.

In the Brookshire Brothers case, the Texas Supreme Court adopted a
two-part test for determining whether a particular sanction for
discovery abuse is just, Justice Deborah Lehrmann wrote for the
majority.

In that case, the court also said that a trial court may deliver a
spoliation instruction only if it finds the spoliating party has
intentionally concealed discoverable evidence, or acted
negligently and caused the nonspoliating party "to be irreparably
deprived of any meaningful ability to present a claim or defense,"
Justice Lehrmann said.

In this case, the trial court's sanctions were an abuse of
discretion because no proof exists that Petroleum Solutions
intentionally concealed evidence or irreparably deprived plaintiff
Bill Head Enterprises of any meaningful ability to present its
claim.

The court reversed an intermediate state appeal court's ruling for
Head and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.

On another point, the court, with Justice Jeffrey Boyd dissenting,
affirmed a finding that third-party defendant Titeflex Inc. was
entitled to indemnity from Petroleum Solutions.

In 1999, Petroleum Solutions manufactured and installed an
underground diesel-fuel storage system and a gauging system for
detecting any fuel releases at the Silver Spur Truck Stop in
Pharr, Texas, owned by Bill Head.  Following a large diesel leak,
Head sued Petroleum Solutions.

In the course of Petroleum Solution's investigation into the
spill, it took possession of, and then lost through a third party,
a "flex connector" -- component of the fuel system that the
defendant claimed was faulty and the cause of the spill.


PLATINUM RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Servers Properly, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Forde, on behalf himself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. Platinum Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a
Eddie Merlot's Prime Aged Beef and Seafood, Case No. 1:14-cv-05496
(N.D. Ill., July 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay their servers and other tipped employees a sub-
minimum hourly wage under the tip-credit provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Platinum Restaurants, LLC, does business as Eddie Merlot's Prime
Aged Beef and Seafood, which operates restaurants located in
Warrenville, Burr Ridge, and Lincolnshire, Illinois and throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


PROSENSA HOLDING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Statement
----------------------------------------------------------
Amar Singh, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hans G.C.P. Schikan, Berndt A.E. Modig, Giles V.
Campion, Colleen A. Devries, Luc M.A. Dochez, Remi Droller, Daan
Ellens, Peter Goodfellow, Martijn Kleijwegt, David Mott, Patrick
Van Beneden, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Leerink Swann LLC (N/K/A Leerink Partners LLC), Wedbush
Securities Inc., KBC Securities USA, Inc., Trout capital LLC, and
Prosensa Holding N.V., Case No. 1:14-cv-05450 (S.D.N.Y., July 18,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and materially
misleading statements in Prosensa's Registration Statement.

Prosensa Holding N.V. is a biotechnology company based in Leiden,
Netherlands, it is engaged in the discovery and development of
ribonucleic acid-modulating (or "RNA"-modulating) therapeutics for
the treatment of genetic disorders.

The Individual Defendants are Members of the Board of Directors of
Prosensa Holding N.V.

The Underwriter Defendants serve as underwriter of the Company's
Initial Public Offering.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian P. Munty, Esq.
      Gregory Linkh, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      122 E 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)201-9150
      Facsimile: (310)201-9160

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619)230-0063
      Facsimile: (619)255-1856

         -and-

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, New York 10016
      Telephone: (212) 802-1486
      Facsimile: (212)602-1592

         - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


SENSA PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over Weight Loss Miracle Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sensa Products unjustly
enriched itself by selling stuff it claimed consumers could
sprinkle on food, and lose weight from it "without dieting," a
class action claims in California Federal Court.


SCHOLARSHIP STORAGE: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Curtis and Benjamin Krauter, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Scholarship Storage Inc d/b/a
Business as Usual, and Michael Williams, Case No. 2:14-cv-00303-NT
(D. Me., July 23, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
          Phillip E. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP
          160 Capitol Street
          PO Box 79
          Augusta, ME 04332
          Telephone: (207) 623-5110
          E-mail: jyoung@johnsonwebbert.com
                  pjohnson@johnsonwebbert.com


SHANGHAI HUSI: McDonald's Suspends Sales of Chicken Nuggets in HK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Marie Roantree and Donny Kwok, writing for Reuters, report
that McDonald's Corp has suspended sales of chicken nuggets and
other items in Hong Kong after it said it had imported products
from Shanghai Husi Food, the U.S.-owned company at the center of a
food safety scare in China.

McDonald's said in a statement late on July 24 that it had
imported certain products from Shanghai Husi between July last
year to June this year, although no food items from the Shanghai
supplier remained in stock.  The fast-food company said it had
also stopped selling its McSpicy chicken filets, chicken and green
salads, fresh corn cups and iced lemon tea.  McDonald's said it
had stopped using the following ingredients from another branch,
Guangzhou Husi: lettuce, corn kernels, lemon slices, green salad,
cucumber, onion and tomato.

"We reiterate that until today, all the food sold at McDonald's
restaurants conform to the food safety standard under Hong Kong
legal regulations," McDonald's said.

The announcement came after Hong Kong said it had suspended, with
immediate effect, all imports from Shanghai Husi Food, which is
owned by Illinois-based OSI Group.

The food scandal broke after a TV report on July 20 showed staff
at Shanghai Husi Food using long expired meat and picking up food
from the floor to add back to the mix.

Hong Kong's Centre for Food Safety said in a statement late on on
July 24 that any food products from Husi already imported into the
city would be marked, sealed and banned from sale, pending the
results of investigations by Chinese authorities.

China is McDonald's third-biggest market as measured by the number
of restaurants.

The latest food safety scare in China has also ensnared KFC parent
Yum Brands Inc, which has required all of its KFC and Pizza Hut
restaurants to seal up and stop using all meat materials supplied
by the Husi factory.

McDonald's said the company sourced about a fifth of its Chicken
McNuggets in Japan from Shanghai Husi and had halted sales of the
product on July 21.

Food safety is one of the top issues for Chinese consumers after a
scandal in 2008 where dairy products tainted with the industrial
chemical melamine led to the deaths of six infants and made many
thousands sick.


SPORT CHALET: Shareholder Seeks to Enjoin Proposed Sale to Vestis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Lieberman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sport Chalet, Inc., Craig L. Levra, John R. Attwood,
Miki R. Beradelli, Rachel C. Glaser, Donald J. Howard, Randal G.
Scoville. Kevin J. Ventrudo, Versa Capital Management, LLC, Vestis
Retail Group, LLC and Everest Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. BC551232
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 9, 2014) seeks to enjoin
the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Sport Chalet
common stock by Vestis Retail Group, LLC, which is owned by funds
advised by Versa Capital and its wholly-owned subsidiary Everest
Merger Sub.

Sport Chalet is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Flintridge, California.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
Versa Capital is a private equity investment firm with more than
$1.4 billion of assets under management focused on control
investments in special situations involving middle market
companies where value and performance growth can be achieved
through enhanced operational and financial management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com


TARGET COMMERCIAL: Removed "Parkin" Suit to Arizona Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Parkin v. Target Commercial
Interiors Incorporated, Case No. CV2014-008707, was removed from
the Superior Court of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix
Division).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
01659-SRB to the proceeding.

The Complaint asserts one cause of action for failure to pay
overtime for hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
Plaintiff purports to bring the claim on behalf of herself and
"all other similarly situated employees who work(ed) for Target
and who have not been appropriately paid the requisite overtime
compensation."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Kaitlyn A. Redfield-Ortiz, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 North Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: nicholas.enoch@azbar.org
                  kaitlyn@lubinandenoch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          R. Shawn Oller, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Camelback Esplanade
          2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 474-3600
          Facsimile: (602) 957-1801
          E-mail: soller@littler.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Schmitt, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Cornell, Esq.
          NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 400
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 305-7500
          Facsimile: (612) 305-7501
          E-mail: jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com
                  jcornell@nilanjohnson.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Claire A. Hoffmann, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  clairehoffmann@paulhastings.com


THOROUGHBRED MOTORSPORTS: Court Affirms Tricycle Class Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
federal appeals court has affirmed a $95,000 judgment against
Texas-based Thoroughbred Motorsports Inc. over a defective
motorized tricycle, rejecting the company's challenges to the jury
instructions on the Wisconsin Lemon Law and federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act claims.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit ruled July 10 in favor of the buyer of the Stallion
motorized tricycle finding that the district court's instructions
"explained accurately and clearly the issues relevant to Wisconsin
Lemon Law."

Writing for the panel, Judge David Hamilton said the lower court
correctly instructed the jury how the law would apply when the
manufacturer told the consumer to have repairs done by someone
other than a "manufacturer's authorized motor vehicle dealer."  He
said the instructions also correctly "focused the jury on the
central issue of the case: whether Amato Ford was acting on
Thoroughbred's behalf when repairing Burzlaff's vehicle, or
whether he went there at his own risk and without Thoroughbred's
authorization."

In 2009, plaintiff Ronald Burzlaff paid more than $35,000 for the
Thoroughbred Motorsports Stallion, an unusual vehicle with a
steering wheel, heat and air conditioning and other features
uncommon in motorcycles, the opinion stated.  The Stallion was
purchased at the only Thoroughbred dealership in Wisconsin, which
was 300 miles from the plaintiff's home.

The panel said Mr. Burzlaff's vehicle had numerous problems
immediately: It was delivered without a gas cap and would not
start, the heating and air conditioning failed, the steering wheel
was loose, and the transmission and cooling system leaked.

After reporting the problems, the company told Mr. Burzlaff he
could take his vehicle to a nearby Ford dealer for warranty
repairs, although it did not specify a particular dealer, the
opinion stated.  But after the Stallion had been out of service
for repairs for 71 days during the first year, Mr. Burzlaff
demanded a new vehicle or a refund.

Thoroughbred refused, and after a further effort to repair the
Stallion failed, Mr. Burzlaff sued under federal and state laws.
A jury found for Mr. Burzlaff on both his claims and on appeal
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

Thoroughbred challenged the jury instructions on the Lemon Law
claim, the sufficiency of the evidence on that claim, and the
submission of the Magnuson-Moss claim to the jury.

The panel rejected all of the defendant's challenges, including
Thoroughbred argument that if the vehicle is not taken to one of
the company's listed authorized dealerships for the actual
repairs, the Lemon Law does not apply.

"The Lemon Law thus protects consumers who go to a repair facility
authorized by the manufacturer," the panel said.  "That is true
whether the facility is a 'manufacturer's authorized motor vehicle
dealer' or not.  With this understanding of the statute, the
district court's instructions were right on target."

Sitting on the panel were Hamilton, Chief Judge Diane Wood and
U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall of the Northern District of
Illinois, sitting by designation.


TRADER JOE'S: $3.3-Mil. Deal Over "All Natural" Labels Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trader Joe's can pay $3.3 million to settle class-action claims
that it sticks "All Natural" labels on products that contain
synthetic ingredients, reports Dan McCue at Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling.

U.S. Judge District William Orrick in San Francisco also approved
an award of $950,000 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs'
counsel.  The amount, roughly 28 percent of the settlement fund,
is "consistent with the lodestar and the success achieved, and in
the acceptable range in the Ninth Circuit," Orrick said.

In addition to providing equitable relief, Trader Joe's has agreed
to stop using the disputed labels, according to the order.

Tamar Davis Larsen and Aran Eisenstat are the lead plaintiffs in
the case, which accuses the popular grocer of committing fraud in
violation of state and federal law by willfully mislabeling
several products as "All Natural" and "100% Natural," despite
their allegedly use of one or more synthetic ingredients.

In all, the plaintiffs filed three complaints, defeated a motion
to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings, and began
merits and class discovery.

The parties attended three separate mediation sessions under the
supervision of the retired Judge Peter Lichtman, but failed to
agree on settlement terms.  Lichtman then prepared his own
proposed settlement, including settlement terms and attorneys'
fees, which the parties accepted.  The parties filed the
stipulation of class settlement this past February.

Each class member with proof of purchase is entitled under the
settlement to a full reimbursement for each product bought during
the class period.  Each class member without a proof of purchase
may receive reimbursement for the value of up to 10 products.  Any
amounts left in the fund will not revert to Trader Joe's, but will
rather be distributed in the form of products to class members at
Trader Joe's retail locations throughout the United States.

As of June 29, 2014, there were a total of 59,830 claims made by
class members representing a total claim value of about $1.9
million.

Orrick is also presiding over an unrelated class action that
accuses Trader Joe's of misbranding or mislabeling products to
suggest they do not contain sugar.

The case is Tamar Davis Larsen, et al. v. Trader Joe's Company,
Case No. 11-cv-05188-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


U.S. BANK: Suppressed Public Presence in Home Auctions, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hargraves at Courthouse News Service reports that U.S. Bank
manipulated the market to suppress public participation, drive
down the price of foreclosed real property at auction and defraud
Hawaii homeowners, a class action claims in state court.

The 30-page lawsuit is a virtual "how to" manual on unfair
foreclosure sales.

Lead plaintiff Nancy L. Manchester claims the defendants:

   * "chilled competitive bidding" by changing the location of
     advertised auctions without publishing a new notice;

   * changed auction dates with such frequency that most sale
     dates advertised were not the actual auction dates;

   * changed sale dates unilaterally and without publishing
     notices of the rescheduled actions' new dates and times;

   * advertised the auctions of properties by quitclaim deed when
     in fact all buyers other than defendants received limited
     warranty deeds;

   * included as a term of sale an unreasonable expectation that
     bidders were to close their sales within 30 days of their
     auctions; and

   * implied that a foreclosing mortgagee could render a sale
     illusory on a whim.

These practices, according to the complaint in the First Circuit
Court, reduced the competition between U.S. Bank and bidders at
nonjudicial auction, "allowing defendant U.S. Bank to purchase
foreclosure properties cheaply on credit bid, with no or minimal
competition from prospective third-party bidders, for later resale
at higher prices," in violation of state law that says a mortgagee
exercising a power of sale must act as the "attorney of agent" of
the mortgagor.

Manchester sued U.S. Bank, acting as mortgagee exercising a power
of sale; Routh Crabtree Olsen P.S., a professional service
corporation that provides legal representation on foreclosing
mortgagees; Crabtree's company RCO Hawaii LLLC; and Derek Wong, a
Hawaii-licensed attorney.

Manchester claims the defendants "breached duties to act in good
faith to sell the properties to the owners' best advantage and to
use reasonable diligence to secure the best possible price."

The class consists of all persons who owned and mortgaged property
in Maui County, Kauai County or the City and County of Honolulu
who were subjected to a notice of foreclosure sale signed on
behalf of U.S. Bank by Wong or another attorney employed by
defendants, claiming for the bank the rights of a mortgagee with a
power of sale, whose auctions' location was changed from the
location published in the original notice of sale without any new
noticed being published, and for which a deed was recorded on or
after July 11, 2010 transferring title to the high auction bidder.

Manchester seeks damages and declaratory relief stating that the
publication of notices of foreclosure under power of sale with
offers of quitclaim deeds, and the failure to publish notices of
postponement violated defendants' legal duties and should be
without legal effect.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Bickerton, Esq.
          BICKERTON LEE DANG SULLIVAN MEHEULA
          Topa Financial Center
          Fort Street Tower
          745 Fort Street, Suite 801
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 599-3811
          Facsimile: (808) 533-2467
          E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *