CAR_Public/140730.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 30, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 150

                             Headlines


ALCO STORES: Seeks to Junk Shareholder Suit Over Argonne Merger
ALLAN-ODIS INC: Faces "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALLIED HEALTH: Home Health Aide Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
ASSEMBLY AMERICAN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages

BANCO SANTANDER: No Date Limit Yet in "Planos Economicos" Suit
BANCO SANTANDER: High Court Yet to Rule on Consumer Complaints
BANCORP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Delaware
BANK OF AMERICA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Mortgage Notice Class Action
BEST BUY: Minn. Court Stays Discovery in Securities Lawsuit

BEST BUY: Shareholder Suit Consolidated with Derivative Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: "Grove" Suit Moved From California to N.J.
CALIFORNIA: Mag. Judge Orders "Gruce" Suit Be Summarily Dismissed
CANON INC: Faces N.Y. Class Action Over Defective PIXMA Printers
CHARITY REST: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

CHUNG SOL GARDEN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Dist. Ct. Ruling in Fraud Suit Affirmed
COMSCORE INC: Oct. 1 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
COMVERSE LTD: Subsidiary Still Faces Israeli Optionholder Lawsuit
COMVERSE LTD: Lawsuits by Former Employees v. CTI in Mediation

COMVERSE LTD: Labor Suits Transferred to Tel Aviv District Court
CONOPCO INC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Breyers Ice Cream Labeling
DENBURY RESOURCES: Court Dismisses Material Misstatement Suit
ELWYN INC: Faces "Branch" Suit Alleging Racial Bias & Retaliation
EXPRESS SERVICES: "Stoddart" Suit Deal Hearing Moved to Dec. 5

F & R SCAFFOLDS: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Ex-Loader Claims
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Tax Suit
GOOGLE INC: Antitrust Suit May Give Leverage to Microsoft, Oracle
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Updates on Fair Labor Standards Act Lawsuits
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Securities Litigation in California Continues

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Wins Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit in California
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sept. 15 Settlement Hearing in "Gammel" Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Wants Suit by Pension Fund in Cal. Dismissed
IOWA: State High Court Rejects Class Action Over Race Bias
ISR GROUP: Mag. Judge's Report Adopted; "Sondesky" Suit Stayed

JAMES B. NUTTER: District Court Ruling in "Marshall" Case Upheld
JRFCJ LLC: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Retaliation
KIA MOTORS: Fails to Disclose Switch Defect, "Precht" Suit Claims
L. SZECHUANEAST: Faces "Monterroso" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Subsidiaries Sued by Royalty Owners in Kansas

LIFE PROTECT: Faces "Makaron" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
LIONS GATE: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
M. A. SOUDERS: Faces "Shreves" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MARILYN M. GRAY TIERNAN: Appeals Ct. Upholds Dilworth Suit Ruling
MARKIT LTD: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in New York Court

MAXUM PETROLEUM: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Guska" Suit Says
MIDWEST GENERATION: Liability Complaints Kept Stayed After Ch.11
MILFORD WATER: Oct. 15 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
MOJO GRILL: Faces "Claytor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Removes Name-and-Likeness Release From Forms

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Former Players File Concussion Class Action
NCO FINANCIAL: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in Molinar Case
NEW FOOD CORP: Fails to Pay Workers' Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
NEWCREST MINING: To "Vigorously Defend" Shareholder Class Action
NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: State Securities Suits Stayed Pending "Biver"

PACIFIC MARITIME: Class Allegations in "Alexander" Suit Dismissed
PANARIUM KISSENA: Suit Seeks to Recover Illegal Meal Deduction
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action in Tel-Aviv Court
PROSENSA HOLDING: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in New York
PROSPERITY MORTGAGE: Lower Court Ruling in "Petry" Case Affirmed

ROLF TIDE: Faces "Ortega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SABOR Y RUMBA: "Quinde" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAFEWAY INC: Inks MoU to Settle Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
SAN JUAN ASSET: "Hidalgo-Velez" Suit ReturnS to Puerto Rico Court
SATINSKY GROUP: R669 Car Scheme Investors Set to File Class Action

TACO BELL: Ninth Circuit Tosses Class Action Over TCPA Violations
TRANSNET: Pensioners Seek High Court Approval of Class Action
TRATTORIA ROMANA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Closes Sterling Merger; Class Suit Deal Pending
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Securities Lawsuit

VERIZON COMMS: Removed "Porto" Suit to S.D. New York
WATTS WATER: Leaky Toilet Pipe Settlement Gets Final Approval
YIANNIS INC: Refused to Pay Employees Overtime Wages, Action Says
YTS TRADING: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
ZYGO CORP: Settles "Wnuk" Suit; Del. Securities Suit Abandoned


                            *********


ALCO STORES: Seeks to Junk Shareholder Suit Over Argonne Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alco Stores, Inc. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated shareholder
suit filed against it over a merger agreement with Argonne Capital
Group, LLC (Sponsor), according to Alco's company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 4, 2014.

On September 5, 2013, Advanced Advisors, a Company stockholder,
filed a class action petition in the District Court of Shawnee
County, Kansas (case no. 13C001007) citing, among other parties,
the Company and the Company's directors, Royce Winsten, Terrence
Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson, as
defendants.  The petition challenged the defendants' actions in
causing the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement under which
the Sponsor was to purchase all of the outstanding shares of the
Company.  The allegations against the defendants included breaches
of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of
fiduciary duties.  The amount of the damages was unspecified.

On September 23, 2013, Paul Hughes, an individual Company
stockholder, filed a class action petition in the District Court
of Shawnee County, Kansas (case no. 13C001096) citing, among other
parties, the Company and the Company's directors, Royce Winsten,
Terrence Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson,
as defendants.  The petition challenged the defendants' actions in
causing the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement under which
the Sponsor was to purchase all of the outstanding shares of the
Company.  The allegations against the defendants included breaches
of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of
fiduciary duties.  The amount of the damages was unspecified.  On
March 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal without
prejudice.  On April 10, 2014, the court entered a dismissal order
and removed the case from the active docket.

On September 27, 2013, Jeffery R. Geygan, an individual Company
stockholder, filed a class action petition in the District Court
of Shawnee County, Kansas (case no. 13C001120) citing, among other
parties, the Company and the Company's directors, Royce Winsten,
Terrence Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson,
as defendants.  The petition challenged the defendants' actions in
causing the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement under which
the Sponsor was to purchase all of the outstanding shares of the
Company.  The allegations against the defendants included breaches
of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of
fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages was unspecified.

On November 21, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to
consolidate the Geygan case and the Advanced Advisors case.  On
December 18, 2013, the court granted the consolidation motion, and
the cases were consolidated under case no. 13C1007.  On January 9,
2014, the Plaintiffs filed their consolidated  and verified
derivative petition, citing, among other parties, the Company and
the Company's directors, Royce Winsten, Terrence Babilla, Dennis
Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson, as defendants.  The
petition challenges the defendants' actions in causing the Company
to enter into the Merger Agreement under which the Sponsor was to
purchase all of the outstanding shares of the Company.  The
allegations against the defendants include breaches of fiduciary
duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of fiduciary
duties. The amount of the damages is unspecified.

On January 30, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' consolidated and verified derivative petition.  The
court set a July 18, 2014 hearing for the Company's motion to
dismiss.


ALLAN-ODIS INC: Faces "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aracely Corona and Gerardo Corona, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Allan-Odis,
Inc., and Aurelio Lee, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05559 (N.D.
Ill., July 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Allan-Odis, Inc. is engaged in real estate business and maintains
a principal address at 801 W. Greenwood Ave., Waukegan, Illinois
60087.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


ALLIED HEALTH: Home Health Aide Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Mingo, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Allied Health Services, Inc., Patience
Ndumele, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-05674 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 24, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated current and former employees of the Defendants are
entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for
which the proposed class members did not receive overtime premium
pay, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Allied Health Services, Inc. is a New York corporation, with its
principal place of business located in Bronx, New York.  Patience
Ndumele is an officer, director or managing agent of the Company.
The identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown at this time.
The Defendants are an employment agency that employed the
Plaintiff to work as a home health aide for numerous customers
located in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Coudert Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Esther Bornstein individually and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Allied Interstate, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04399
(E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Allied Interstate, LLC engaged in the collection of debts.  Its
principal place of business is located within Columbus, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Palace, Esq.
      383 Kingston Avenue
      Brooklyn, NY 11213
      Telephone: (347) 651-1077
      Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
      E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


ASSEMBLY AMERICAN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
J. Ysabel Jasso, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. The Assembly American Bar &
Cafe, Inc., and Gary Taylor, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05565
(N.D. Ill., July 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Assembly American Bar & Cafe, Inc. is a restaurant doing
business in the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


BANCO SANTANDER: No Date Limit Yet in "Planos Economicos" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The High Court of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court in Brazil
have yet to issue a formal ruling on the limitation period for
complaints filed against Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A. over the
calculation of inflation, according to the company's June 18,
2014, Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Like the rest of the banking system, Santander Brazil has been the
subject of claims from customers, mostly depositors, and of class
actions brought for a common reason, arising from a series of
legislative changes relating to the calculation of inflation
("planos economicos"). The claimants considered that their vested
rights had been impaired due to the immediate application of these
adjustments. In April 2010, the High Court of Justice ("STJ") set
the limitation period for these class actions at five years, as
claimed by the banks, rather than twenty years, as sought by the
claimants, which will probably significantly reduce the number of
actions brought and the amounts claimed in this connection. As
regards the substance of the matter, the decisions issued to date
have been adverse for the banks, although some proceedings have
been brought at the STJ and the Supreme Federal Court ("STF") with
which the matter is expected to be definitively settled. In August
2010, STJ handed down a decision finding for the plaintiffs in
terms of substance, but excluding one of the "planos" from the
claim, thereby reducing the amount thereof, and once again
confirming the five-year statute of limitations period. Shortly
thereafter, the STF issued an injunctive relief order whereby the
proceedings in progress in this connection were stayed until this
court issues a final decision on the matter. In spite of the fact
STF initiated judgment in November 2013, a formal ruling has not
been handed down as of the date hereof the company cannot predict
as to when a formal ruling will be handed down by either the STJ
or the STF.


BANCO SANTANDER: High Court Yet to Rule on Consumer Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Federal Court in Brazil is yet to decide on lawsuits
raising the same issue filed by consumer rights organizations
against Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A., according to the company's
June 18, 2014, Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Banco Santander is a party in public class action suits on the
same issue filed by consumer rights organizations, Public
Prosecutor's Offices and Public Defender's Offices. In these
cases, the provision is made only after the final unappealable
sentence is handed down on the lawsuits, based on the individual
execution orders. The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decided
against the banks. The Supreme Federal Court (STF) is still
analyzing the subject and has already ordered the suspension of
all the procedures except those that were not already decided in
trial courts and those who have a final decision. There are
decisions favorable to banks at the STF with regard to the
economic phenomenon similar to that of savings accounts, as in the
case of monetary restatement of time deposits.


BANCORP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 18 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against The Bancorp, Inc. and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Delaware, and docketed under 14-cv-00952-UNA,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased The Bancorp securities between April 24, 2013 and
June 10, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased The Bancorp securities
during the Class Period, you have until September 16, 2014 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

The Bancorp, Inc. operates as the financial holding company for
The Bancorp Bank, which provides various commercial, retail, and
related banking products and services to small and mid-size
businesses.  The Company provides services in Philadelphia,
Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, Bucks, and Lehigh counties in
Pennsylvania; New Castle County in Delaware; and Mercer,
Burlington, Camden, Ocean, and Cape May Counties in New Jersey.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had under-reserved
for loan losses due to adverse loans; (2) Bancorp's operations and
credit practices were in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act
("BSA"); and (3) as a result of the above, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On April 23, 2014, after the market close, Bancorp announced
financial results for the first quarter of 2014, reporting that
net income for the period decreased to $298,000, or fully diluted
earnings per share of $.01, compared to net income of $7.4 million
or $.20 per diluted share for the comparable period in 2013.
According to Bancorp's Chief Executive Officer, the quarter was
significantly impacted by an additional loan loss provision of
$11.8 million principally related to "newly identified adversely
classified loans".

On this news, Bancorp shares fell $2.76, or over 15%, to close at
$15.84 on April 24, 2014, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On June 10, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
announcing that it had entered into a Stipulation and Consent to
the Issuance of a Consent Order with the FDIC.  The Order became
effective on June 5, 2014, and requires the bank to correct the
weaknesses in its Bank Secrecy Act Compliance Program.

On this news, shares of Bancorp fell $4.66, or over 28%, on
extremely heavy volume, to close at $11.54 on June 11, 2014.

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Mortgage Notice Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on July 17 refused to throw out a proposed class action
brought against Bank of America NA by a mortgager who says the
bank systematically fails to present mortgage satisfaction
notices, holding that the state statutes at issue aren't preempted
by federal law.

U.S. District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied BofA's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint that accuses the company, which
holds mortgages for tens of thousands of homes in New York, of
failing to timely file mortgage satisfactions on time.  The bank
is liable to all those in the state for whom it failed to timely
present a notice for recording, according to the suit.

Judge Bricccetti said the court didn't need to address the issue
of standing because BofA "presents merit arguments in the guise of
standing arguments."  BofA had argued that plaintiff Milton
Adler's claims fail because the National Bank Act and regulations
of the Office of the Comptroller preempt application of the state
statutes against BofA, a national bank.

"The court disagrees," Judge Bricccetti wrote in the 16-page
order, which also addressed other arguments.  "In summary,
defendant has failed to offer a coherent reading of the NBA or
[OCC regulation] Section 34.4, and its preemption arguments were
uniformly rejected in what appears to be the only other case to
have considered them."

The July 17 decision, which rejected all of the top bank's
arguments for dismissal of the suit alleging it fails to timely
present to the county clerks of the state of New York proof that
mortgages have been satisfied, comes five months after JPMorgan
Chase Bank NA was hit with a similar suit.

In February, plaintiff Amy Schwartz said two New York statutes
require mortgagees like JPMorgan to present to the proper county
clerk a satisfaction of mortgage when the mortgagor has paid the
entire principle and interest due.  Those laws require a mortgagee
to be liable for between $500 and $1,500 for delays between 30 and
90 days, according to that suit.

In the immediate case, Mr. Adler filed his suit last July and
amended it in September.  Mr. Adler sought to represent all BofA
mortgagers in New York who paid all amounts due after July 12,
2007, but for whom the bank failed to present a certificate
discharge satisfaction of mortgage within 30 days.

Mr. Adler said in the suit that banks "frequently fail to comply"
with their mortgage satisfaction obligations.

"Indeed, mortgage satisfactions are often filed months, if not
years, after they are due, and sometimes not at all," the amended
complaint said. "This is no mere procedural peccadillo . . . there
is a real possibility that a large loss by a title company as a
result of the widespread failure of banks to timely present
mortgage satisfactions may disrupt the entire system for
transferring residential property in New York state."

Judge Briccetti on July 17 rejected BofA's argument that the
claims were preempted by federal law, as well as that Mr. Adler
had failed to state a claim because he failed to allege the date
on which BofA had presented Mr. Adler's certificate.

"Here, the date of presentment for recording is peculiarly within
defendant's knowledge," the judge wrote. "And although plaintiff
does not allege the date on which defendant presented the mortgage
satisfaction to the County Clerk for recording, he does allege the
date on which it was executed by defendant (July 20, 2012) and
that it was recorded by the County Clerk thirty-eight days later
(on August 27, 2012)."

A representative for BofA declined to comment except to note that
the decision is "procedural" and not a ruling on the merits of the
case.

Mr. Adler and the putative class are represented by D. Greg
Blankinship, Todd S. Garber and Jeremiah Frei-Pearson of
Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP.

BofA is represented by Christine B. Cesare --
cbcesare@bryancave.com -- and Scott H. Kaiser --
scott.kaiser@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave LLP.

The case is Milton Adler v. Bank of America NA, case number 7:13-
cv-04866, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


BEST BUY: Minn. Court Stays Discovery in Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota took
plaintiffs' motion to certify a consolidate securities suit
against Best Buy Co., Inc., under advisement, and stayed
discovery, according to the company's June 9, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2014.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
against the company and certain of the company's executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
This federal court action alleges, among other things, that the
company and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other
statements relating to the company's fiscal 2011 earnings guidance
that had been made available to the public. Additionally, in March
2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single
shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against the company and certain of the
company's executive officers in the same court. In July 2011,
after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene
LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of
fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action
with prejudice. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
alter or amend the court's decision on the company's motion to
dismiss. In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
alter or amend the court's decision on the company's motion to
dismiss in part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff did in October
2012. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in
December 2012. A hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5,
2013, the court issued an order granting the company's motion to
dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the
motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the statements
alleged to have been made were not forward-looking statements and
therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Plaintiffs moved
to certify the purported class. Following briefing and oral
argument in March 2014, the court took the matter under
advisement, staying discovery pending a decision which is expected
in late spring or summer of 2014.


BEST BUY: Shareholder Suit Consolidated with Derivative Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action filed by a single shareholder, Daniel
Himmel, against Best Buy Co., Inc. was consolidated with a
purported shareholder derivative action, according to the
company's June 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

In June 2011, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned,
Salvatore M. Talluto, Derivatively and on Behalf of Best Buy Co.,
Inc. v. Richard M. Schulze, et al., as Defendants and Best Buy
Co., Inc. as Nominal Defendant, was filed against both present and
former members of the company's Board of Directors serving during
the relevant periods in fiscal 2011 and the company as a nominal
defendant in the U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota.
The lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duty, among other claims, including violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in failing to
correct public misrepresentations and material misstatements
and/or omissions regarding the company's fiscal 2011 earnings
projections and, for certain directors, selling stock while in
possession of material adverse non-public information.

Additionally, in July 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Daniel Himmel, against the company
and certain of the company's executive officers in the same court.
In November 2011, the respective lawsuits of Salvatore M. Talluto
and Daniel Himmel were consolidated into a new action captioned,
In Re: Best Buy Co., Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and a
stay ordered pending the close of discovery in the consolidated
IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. case.

The plaintiffs in the securities actions seek damages, including
interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and
expenses they incurred in the lawsuits.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: "Grove" Suit Moved From California to N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Grove, et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01602, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).  The
New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-04637-
FLW-TJB to the proceeding.

The action is for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
distribution, labeling, and sale of Plavix.

Plavix was heavily marketed directly to consumers through
television, magazine and Internet advertising, and was touted as a
"super-aspirin," that would give a person even greater
cardiovascular benefits than a much less expensive, daily aspirin
while being safer and easier on a person's stomach than aspirin.
The Plaintiffs contend that those assertions have proven to be
false.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barrett Lindsay Beasley, Esq.
          SALIM-BEASLEY, LLC
          1901 Texas St.
          Natchitoches, LA 71457
          Telephone: (318) 238-1827
          Facsimile: (318) 354-1227
          E-mail: bbeasley@salim-beasley.com


CALIFORNIA: Mag. Judge Orders "Gruce" Suit Be Summarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire ordered that the complaint
captioned STANLEY GRUCE, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants,
NO. 2:14-CV-0560 AC, (E.D. Cal.) be summarily dismissed and the
case is closed.  The CDCR stands for California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.

By his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he is Americans with
Disabilities Act-qualified and seeks equitable relief pursuant to
the Armstrong Remedial Plan (ARP).  The ARP encompasses "all
present and future California state prison inmates and parolees []
with mobility, sight, hearing, learning, or kidney disabilities."
Plaintiff's pursuit of equitable relief regarding his alleged
right to a particular placement as a result of his mobility
impairment appears to fall squarely within the Armstrong class
action and the ARP.

However, Magistrate Judge Claire's review of the complaint
demonstrates that it is subject to summary dismissal. She said
dismissal without leave to amend is only proper where it is clear
that a claim "could not be saved by any amendment."  "It is this
court's determination that the defects of this complaint could not
be cured by amendment," the Magistrate Judge wrote in her July 8,
2014 Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/qnJ3v4
from Leagle.com.

Stanley Gruce, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CANON INC: Faces N.Y. Class Action Over Defective PIXMA Printers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Recycler, citing Actionable Intelligence, reports that the OEM
is facing complaints about selling PIXMA machines with defects in
the USA.

Actionable Intelligence reported on the cases, taken up at the US
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which are
class-action complaints from consumers accusing Canon of
"knowingly selling certain PIXMA inkjet all-in-ones with a
printhead defect that renders the printer inoperable for printing,
copying, scanning and faxing".

The first class action was filed on May 23 on behalf of
Sarah Barrett, whilst the second was filed on July 10 on behalf of
Marcus Ho, with both complaints stating that "after limited use
[or] well before the end of their useful lives", some of the PIXMA
machines display a "wrong or incorrect printhead error message",
U052, and refuse to print, scan, copy or fax thereafter.

Ms. Barrett's complaint came after she bought a PIXMA MX892 in
Virginia, and includes mentions of 16 other defective models that
Canon allegedly continued to sell, including the MX892, MP600,
MX860 and MX700, all of which use a "permanent thermal printhead
rather than an integrated inkjet cartridge with a replaceable
printhead".

Part of Ms. Barrett's complaint added that if the issue "cannot be
resolved by trouble-shooting [. . .] the printer must be returned
to Canon for service", but the OEM allegedly knew of the defect
"because of the repairs it was asked to do", and yet did not
recall the machines.  The complaint added that "Canon has refused
to pay for labour or diagnostic expenses" for consumers affected a
year after purchase (after warranty runs out), with repair costs
said to "exceed the price" of buying a new machine.

Ms. Barrett's complaint also stated: "By engaging in the above
described conduct, Canon committed acts and omissions with actual
malice and accompanied by a wanton and wilful disregard of
persons, including Plaintiff and members of the Class, who
foreseeably might by [sic] harmed by those acts and omissions."

The complaint alleges Canon "violated the New York Consumer
Protection Act and breached both expressed and implied
warranties", with "no fewer than tens of thousands of persons
nationwide" said to be affected", with Ms. Barrett seeking
"restitution and disgorgement as a result of Canon's unfair
business practices", as well as Canon "be ordered to inform the
public about the printer defect".

Mr. Ho's complaint names additional machines such as the MG5320,
MP530, MP960, MX850 and MX892, with Ho buying an MG5320 that also
displayed the message, and Canon apparently refusing to "repair or
replace the printer for free because it was outside its warranty
period".  This complaint adds that the internet is full of
"consumers [who] have complained of the exact same print defect".


CHARITY REST: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Charity Rest. Corp. (d/b/a Caridad Restaurant), Lazaro
Pichardo and Ruben Pichardo, Case No. 1:14-cv-05468 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 21, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Charity Rest. Corp. operates a restaurant and is owned by Lazaro
Pichardo and Ruben Pichardo, located at 51 E. 170th Street, Bronx,
NY 10452.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212)317-1200


CHUNG SOL GARDEN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Manual Martinez-Rivera, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Chung Sol Garden Corporation d/b/a Chung Sol
Bat Restaurant, Joon Kim, in his individual and professional
capacity, and Nan Kim, in her individual and professional
capacity, Case No. 2:14-cv-04575 (D.N.J., July 21, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Chung Sol Garden Corporation operates a restaurant named Chung Sol
Bat at 560 Old Post Road, Edison, New Jersey 08817.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael John Palitz, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      E-mail: mjp@employmentlawyernewyork.com


CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Dist. Ct. Ruling in Fraud Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit issued a
summary order on July 10, 2014, affirming a district court
judgment in the case captioned LLEN MACKLIN DIMURO, MARGARET
OHAYON, DANA STEIN, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v CLINIQUE LABORATORIES, LLC, ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES,
INC., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-4551-CV.  A copy a copy the
ruling is available at http://is.gd/xaVBK3from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action complaint against
Defendants asserting claims under Connecticut, New Jersey, and
Illinois consumer fraud statutes, along with claims for breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust
enrichment, arising from Defendants' marketing of seven different
cosmetic products sold under the "Repairwear" product line. The
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, in a
November 22, 2013, decision and order, granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint
with prejudice. This appeal followed.

According to the Second Circuit, the denial was not based on a
clearly erroneous factual finding. The district court's denial of
the Plaintiffs' request to amend their consolidated complaint was
also not an abuse of discretion, the Second Circuit added.

ERIN GREEN COMITE -- ecomite@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott,
Colchester, CT (Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Chicago, IL, James E. Cecchi --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.,
Roseland, NJ, on the brief) for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

KENNETH A. PLEVAN -- kenneth.plevan@skadden.com -- (Boris
Bershteyn -- boris.bershteyn@skadden.com -- Xiyin Tang --
xiyin.tang@skadden.com -- on the brief), Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, David R Schaefer--
dschaefer@bswlaw.com -- Sean M. Fisher -- sfisher@bswlaw.com --
Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman LLP, New Haven, CT, for Defendants-
Appellees.


COMSCORE INC: Oct. 1 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IF SOFTWARE FROM COMSCORE CALLED RELEVANTKNOWLEDGE OR
PREMIEROPINION, HAS BEEN INSTALLED ON YOUR COMPUTER, YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.
www.DataCollectionSettlement.net

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging
that Defendant comScore, Inc. used its data collection software to
collect information from consumers' computers without their
consent.  If you are a part of the Settlement Class, your legal
rights may be affected whether or not you act.  Please read this
Notice carefully. Visit www.DataCollectionSettlement.net to read
the full notice and view other court documents.

What is the Lawsuit About? The lawsuit claims that comScore
includes its data collection software, called RelevantKnowledge
or PremierOpinion, with free third party digital products like
screensavers.  Once the third party software is installed,
Plaintiffs allege that comScore's software collects information
from consumers' computers without their consent.  Plaintiffs claim
that this collection of information violates federal privacy laws
-- specifically, the Stored Communications Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act.

comScore vigorously denies that it violated any law and maintains
that it always employs best practices in honoring consumer
privacy. The Court has not determined who is right. Rather, the

Parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the
uncertainties and expenses associated with further litigation.

How Do I Know if I am a Class Member? You are a Class
member if you have had comScore's data collection software
downloaded and installed onto your computer at any time since
2005 via one of comScore's bundling partners and you used your
computer in interstate commerce and/or communication.  More
detailed information concerning the Class can be found at
www.DataCollectionSettlement.net

What Can I Get From the Settlement? If you are a Settlement
Class member and the Court approves the Settlement, you may be
entitled to money.  Each Settlement Class member who submits
a valid claim will be entitled to an equal (known as pro rata)
share of the $14,000,000 Settlement fund.  Class members who
wish to better understand the expected amount that will be paid to
individual Class members based on the current number of claims
fled can contact Class Counsel for further information at
1-866-354-3015.

The Settlement also requires comScore to take certain steps to
modify its disclosures and the process for obtaining consent for
the download and installation of its software.  The Settlement
Agreement available at www.DataCollectionSettlement.net
describes the full details of the Settlement terms.

How Do I Submit a Claim for Payment? To qualify for a cash
payment, you must submit a timely and properly completed claim
form signed under penalty of perjury.  You may submit this online
at www.DataCollectionSettlement.net no later than
December 30, 2014, or you may mail a completed claim form
postmarked no later than December 30, 2014 to Dunstan et al. v.
comScore, Inc. Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 43273,
Providence,
RI 02940-3273.  Only claims that meet the requirements of the
Settlement Agreement will be eligible for payment.

What are My Other Options? You will be a member of
the Settlement Class unless you exclude yourself from the
Settlement.  If you do not wish to be a Settlement Class member,
you may exclude yourself by sending a letter to the Settlement
Administrator postmarked by September 3, 2014.  If you choose
to exclude yourself, you give up your right to any payment or
to object to the Settlement, but you retain any rights you may
currently have to sue comScore over the legal issues in this
action.  If you choose to bring your own lawsuit, you will have to
hire and pay for your own lawyer.

You and/or your lawyer also have the right to appear before the
Court and/or object to the proposed Settlement.  Objecting is
telling the Court you don't like something about the Settlement.
You can object ONLY if you stay in the Settlement Class.  Your
written objection must be filed with the Court and postmarked
and mailed or delivered to the attorneys for all parties to the
lawsuit no later than September 3, 2014.  Specific instructions
about how to object to, or exclude yourself from, the Settlement
are available at www.DataCollectionSettlement.net

If you do nothing you will remain a Settlement Class member,
and if the Court approves the Settlement, you will be bound by all
orders and judgments of the Court.  However, you need to timely
submit a valid claim form to get a payment. If the Settlement
is approved, your claims relating to the alleged unauthorized
collection of data through comScore's software will be fully and
finally resolved and released.

Who Represents Me? The Court has appointed lawyers from
Edelson PC that brought the lawsuit to represent the Class.
These attorneys are referred to as Class Counsel.  You will not be
charged for these lawyers.  If you want to be represented by your
own lawyer in this case, you may hire one at your own expense.

When will the Court Consider the Proposed Settlement? The
Court will hold the "Final Approval Hearing" to determine the
fairness of the Settlement on October 1, 2014 in the United States
Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Courtroom 1801, Chicago,
IL, 60604.  There, the Court will hear any objections concerning
the Settlement.  The hearing may be postponed to a different date
or time without notice.  You are not required to come to this
hearing.  At the hearing to determine the fairness of the
Settlement, Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees
of up to 1/3 of the Settlement fund and for expenses incurred
investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the
Settlement.  The Court has also appointed Class Representatives,
and Class Counsel will ask the Court for an incentive award of
$11,000 to each of these individuals for their services in helping
bring and settle this case, which will be paid from the Settlement
fund.  The Court may award less than these amounts.

How Do I Get More Information? This Notice is only a summary
of the lawsuit and proposed Settlement.  For more information
including the full notice, go to www.DataCollectionSettlement
net, contact the Settlement Administrator at 1-855-467-0204 or
Dunstan et al. v. comScore, Inc. Settlement Administrator, P.O.
Box 43273, Providence, RI 02940-3273, or call Class Counsel at
1-866-354-3015.

By Order of the Court Dated: June 6, 2014


COMVERSE LTD: Subsidiary Still Faces Israeli Optionholder Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Ltd. continues to face a lawsuit in Israel over alleged
"illegal" backdating of CTI options, according to Comverse, Ltd.'s
June 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

Comverse Technology, Inc. and certain of its former subsidiaries,
including Comverse Ltd. (a subsidiary of the Company), were named
as defendants in four potential class action litigations in the
State of Israel involving claims to recover damages incurred as a
result of purported negligence or breach of contract due to
previously-settled allegations regarding illegal backdating of CTI
options that allegedly prevented certain current or former
employees from exercising certain stock options.


COMVERSE LTD: Lawsuits by Former Employees v. CTI in Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation process is currently ongoing in lawsuits filed by
employees who seek to recover damages that are claimed to have
been incurred as a result of CTI's negligence in reporting and
filing its financial statements, according to Comverse, Inc.'s
June 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The
Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees. By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases. On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a
class of plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action. The
defendants responded to this amended complaint on November 11,
2012, and the plaintiffs filed a further reply on December 20,
2012. A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on December 25,
2012, during which all parties agreed to attempt to settle the
dispute through mediation. The mediation process is currently
ongoing.

Separately, on July 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an
order that CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a reserve to
satisfy any potential damage awards that may be awarded in this
case, but did not seek to enjoin the Share Distribution. The
Company does not believe that the motion has merit. On July 25,
2012, the court indicated that it will not rule on the motion
until after it rules on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs. On August 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to appeal the court's order to the Israeli Supreme Court and
on November 11, 2012, CTI responded to plaintiff's motion. The
parties are awaiting a decision.


COMVERSE LTD: Labor Suits Transferred to Tel Aviv District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Employment lawsuits filed by a former Comverse Ltd. employee and a
former Verint Systems Ltd. employee have been consolidated with
the Tel Aviv District Court cases, according to Comverse, Inc.'s
June 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively. The Katriel
litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009,
against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number
4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd.
The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and
both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court.
These cases have been consolidated with the Tel Aviv District
Court cases.

An additional case has been filed by an individual plaintiff
similarly seeking to recover damages up to an aggregate of $3.3
million allegedly incurred as a result of the inability to
exercise certain stock options. The case generally alleges the
same causes of actions alleged in the potential class action.

On February 4, 2013, Verint and CTI completed the Verint Merger.
As a result of the Verint Merger, Verint assumed certain rights
and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out
of the actions. However, under the terms of the Distribution
Agreement between CTI and the Company relating to the Share
Distribution, Verint, as successor to CTI, is entitled to
indemnification from the Company for any losses it suffers in its
capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with these
actions.


CONOPCO INC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Breyers Ice Cream Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports that a Unilever United
States Inc. subsidiary has been hit with a putative class action
in New Jersey state court, claiming that the company has duped
consumers by labeling various Breyers ice cream products as "all
natural," which they allegedly aren't.

The suit that Mount Laurel, New Jersey resident Yosh Jefferson
filed in Bergen County Superior Court on July 16 targets Conopco
Inc. over alkalized cocoa in 23 Breyers' ice cream flavors that
claim to be all natural.

The use of the term "all natural" is "false, misleading,
inaccurate and deceptive" because the products include cocoa
processed with alkali, a non-natural processed ingredient that
contains the artificial ingredient potassium carbonate, according
to the complaint.

"This misrepresentation cultivated the image that Breyers's ice
creams were more wholesome and less artificial than those ice
cream products that were not natural," the complaint said.  "As a
result of this false and misleading labeling, Breyers has profited
from sales transactions by causing thousands of consumers in New
Jersey to purchase Breyers ice cream."

Bringing claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Truth
in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, Mr. Jefferson
claims he paid more for Breyers ice cream because of the allegedly
false and misleading labeling.  That includes a 38 percent
difference between Breyers and similar products not advertised as
all natural, such as Friendly's ice creams, according to the
complaint.

Mr. Jefferson is seeking compensatory damages, statutory damages
under the TCCWNA, treble damages under the CFA, restitution and
disgorgement, and attorneys' fees, among other relief.

Conopco is no stranger to such "all natural" litigation.

In early 2012, Conopco and Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc. reached
proposed settlements totaling $7.5 million with consumers in
California federal court, which was expected to end three related
class actions alleging the companies falsely advertised Ben &
Jerry's and Breyers chocolate ice cream as all natural.

In each of the three cases, the ice cream purchasers said the
products contained contained cocoa alkalized with potassium
carbonate.

U.S. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted preliminary approval of the
settlement in March 2012 but denied a motion for final approval of
the deal that September based on the Ninth Circuit's ruling in
Dennis v. Kellogg.

In that case, the appellate court in July 2012 struck down the
$10.6 million settlement of a putative class action accusing
Kellogg Co. of falsely advertising that its Frosted Mini-Wheats
cereal helped children pay attention, ruling that a suggested
charitable donation had no connection to the suit's claims and
that the attorneys' fees were excessive.

Mr. Jefferson is represented by Bruce Greenberg --
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- and Susana Cruz Hodge --
scruzhodge@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC.

The case is Jefferson v. Conopco Inc., case number L-7025-14 in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County.


DENBURY RESOURCES: Court Dismisses Material Misstatement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Sabados, Esq. -- bruce.sabados@kattenlaw.com -- of Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that the US District Court for the Eastern District of New
York recently dismissed a class action claim, determining the
reasserted claim violated the applicable statute of repose that
requires all claims be brought within three years after the cause
of action accrues.  In April 2010, plaintiffs filed a class action
alleging the Registration Statement and Proxy disseminated by
defendant in connection with a merger contained material
misstatements and omissions.  In September 2011, the District
Court determined that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a claim
under Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
alleging a material misstatement in the Proxy because plaintiffs
were unable to vote on the merger.  On May 2, 2013, plaintiffs
moved to reassert the Proxy claim with a new plaintiff in the
class action.

The District Court determined that the reasserted claim was
time-barred because it violated the one- and three-year framework
of the applicable statute of repose. Plaintiffs argued that the
new claim did not violate the three-year statute of repose because
the reasserted claim related back to the original complaint.  The
District Court disagreed, holding that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(c), which governs claims relating back, applied to a
statute of limitations but not to a statute of repose, and granted
defendant's motion to dismiss.

Bensinger v. Denbury Resources Inc., No. 10-cv-1917 (JG) (VVP)
(E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2014).


ELWYN INC: Faces "Branch" Suit Alleging Racial Bias & Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patience Branch v. Elwyn, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04421-NS (E.D.
Pa., July 24, 2014) is an action for monetary damages and other
appropriate relief to redress the Defendant's alleged violations
of the Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act,
which prohibit discrimination on the bases of gender, race, and
retaliation because of complaints of discrimination by employers
and any person.

Patience Branch is an African-American female citizen of the
United States and a resident of Collingdale, Pennsylvania.

Elwyn Inc. is a corporate entity registered in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, with its headquarters located in Elwyn,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Olugbenga O. Abiona, Esq.
          Brian Matthew Rhoades, Esq.
          1433 South 4th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19147
          Telephone: (215) 625-0330
          Facsimile: (215) 625-0159
          E-mail: oluesq@aol.com


EXPRESS SERVICES: "Stoddart" Suit Deal Hearing Moved to Dec. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
In MICHAEL H. STODDART, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., et
al., Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-01054-KJM-CKD, (E.D. Cal.), the court
issued an order to show cause directing counsel for plaintiff to
show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure
to comply with the court's April 11, 2014 order setting a
preliminary approval hearing and for failure to prosecute this
action.

On June 30, 2014, the parties filed a joint stipulation to
continue the July 11, 2014 hearing on plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval. The parties stated that plaintiff's counsel
was out of the country and unavailable for the hearing and on
March 5, 2014 the parties engaged in mediation. The parties also
stated that the settlement must be approved by defendant's Board
of Directors and defendant anticipates the board will vote by mid-
July. The parties requested that the hearing on plaintiff's motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement to be
continued to December 5, 2014.

District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted the request and
continued the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval to December 5, 2014.

In her July 9, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/m6pAsAfrom Leagle.com, Judge Mueller added that the
Order to Show Cause was discharged because on July 3, 2014, the
plaintiff's counsel filed a declaration explaining why she did not
timely file a motion for preliminary approval not less than
twenty-eight days before the July 11, 2014 hearing, in accordance
with the court's April 11, 2014 order.

"Despite counsel's failure to take responsibility for not keeping
the court apprised and timely requesting a continuance of the July
11th hearing date, given counsel's prompt response to the court's
order to show cause and counsel's explanations, the court declines
to impose sanctions," Judge Mueller concluded.  "Counsel is
cautioned however that future failures to comply with court orders
are unlikely to be met with such restraint."

Michael H. Stoddart, Plaintiff, represented by Marta Manus --
mmanus@grahamhollis.com -- GrahamHollis A.P.C. & Graham S.P.
Hollis, GrahamHollis, APC.

Express Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn
Grumer -- janetgrumer@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Aaron
N. Colby -- aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,
Elizabeth Scott Wood -- elizabeth.wood@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee &
Taft, APC & Jessica John Bowman -- ssica.johnbowman@mcafeetaft.com
-- McAfee & Taft, APC.

Phillips & Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn
Grumer, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Aaron N. Colby, Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP.

Western Wine Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carolyn B.
Hall -- carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC & Robert Allen Jones --
robert.jones@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart.


F & R SCAFFOLDS: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Ex-Loader Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aguedo Reisel Gonzalez Vento and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. F & R Scaffolds, Inc., M & R Temporary
Fences and Building Supplies, Inc. Rosa G Jorge, Case No. 1:14-cv-
22747-JLK (S.D. Fla., July 24, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a fence repairer and
loader from December 1, 2013, through June 13, 2014.

F & R Scaffolds, Inc., and M & R Temporary Fences and Building
Supplies, Inc., are corporations that regularly transacts business
within Miami-Dade County.  Rosa G. Jorge is a corporate officer,
owner, or manager of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.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


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Tax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Ohio counties brought a lawsuit on behalf of a class of all
Ohio counties against the Federal National Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(Freddie Mac), as well as the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA), as conservator for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In
their suit against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, the
Enterprises) and FHFA, the Ohio counties sought unpaid real
property transfer taxes under Ohio law. The Enterprises claim that
they are exempt, per their federal charters, from such state
taxes.

The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on
October 23, 2013.

In an opinion dated July 10, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/tZHs5Wfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment
dismissing the case.

According to the Sixth Circuit, the state real property transfer
taxes at issue are encompassed in the Enterprises' statutory
exemptions from all taxation. Moreover, real property transfer
taxes are excise taxes rather than taxes on real property which
are an exception to those tax exemptions. Finally, Congress had
the power to enact the exemptions under the Commerce Clause, and
the enactment does not run afoul of any constitutional provision.
Therefore, constitutionally sound federal statutes exempt Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac from real property transfer taxes.

The case is BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO, and
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SENECA COUNTY, OHIO, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, NO.
13-4429.

ARGUED: Nathaniel C. Giddings -- ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com --
HAUSFELD LLP, Washington, D.C.

Michael A.F. Johnson -- Michael.Johnson@aporter.com -- ARNOLD &
PORTER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Patrick J. Urda, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Intervenor.

ON BRIEF: Nathaniel C. Giddings, James J. Pizzirusso --
jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com -- HAUSFELD LLP, Washington, D.C., Don
Springmeyer -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- WOLF, RIFKIN,
SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada, Mark H.
Troutman -- mtroutman@isaacwiles.com -- Mark Landes --
mlandes@isaacwiles.com -- ISAAC, BRANT, LEDMAN & TEETOR LLP,
Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.

Michael A.F. Johnson, Howard N. Cayne -- Howard.Cayne@aporter.com
-- Asim Varma -- Asim.Varma@aporter.com -- Dirk C. Phillips --
Dirk.Phillips@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Washington,
D.C., Michael J. Ciatti -- mciatti@kslaw.com -- Merritt E.
McAlister -- mmcalister@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP,
Washington, D.C., Michael D. Leffel -- mleffel@foley.com -- FOLEY
& LARDNER LLP, Madison, Wisconsin, Jill L. Nicholson --
jnicholson@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Chicago, Illinois,
for Appellees.

Patrick J. Urda, Jonathan S. Cohen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor.


GOOGLE INC: Antitrust Suit May Give Leverage to Microsoft, Oracle
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Goldstein, writing for FierceWireless, reports that an
antitrust lawsuit that Google is seeking to have dismissed could
provide ammunition to its competitors as they try to make
arguments to European antitrust regulators, especially if the case
reveals damaging secrets.  The search giant is facing a lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California from
two smartphone customers, who filed a proposed class-action suit
against Google in May.  The suit alleges that the way in which
Google licenses Android to smartphone companies is unfair to
Google's competitors for search and other mobile services.  The
plaintiffs' lawyers argue that Google forces OEMs to set its own
search engine as the default search function on Android phones,
putting competitors at a disadvantage.

Google argued that if an OEM opts to install Google apps it can
also preload competing apps.  And consumers can replace Google as
the default search engine by changing settings on their phones.
The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that most consumers are unlikely to
do so.

As Reuters notes, if a judge lets the lawsuit proceed, the
plaintiffs' attorneys would be allowed to scour internal Google
emails and contracts with smartphone vendors and could interview
Google executives under oath.  Google declined to comment, and a
hearing on Google's bid to dismiss the case is scheduled for
October.

Last year a group of companies, including Microsoft, Nokia,
Oracle, Expedia and TripAdvisor, filed a complaint with European
antitrust regulators over some of the same issues in the U.S.
lawsuit.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Updates on Fair Labor Standards Act Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
In its June 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014, Hewlett-
Packard Company provided updates on litigations involving
allegations of Fair Labor Standards Act violation.

HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are
seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on
allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other
state laws. Those matters include:

     (i) Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data
Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May
10, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York claiming that current and former EDS
employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining
computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt
employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al.
v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on October
23, 2007, is also now pending in the same court alleging similar
facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial
purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the court
granted conditional certification of a class consisting of
employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated
Cunningham and Steavens matter. Approximately 2,600 current and
former EDS employees have filed consents to opt in to the
litigation. The plaintiffs had alleged separate "opt-out" classes
based on the overtime laws of the states of California,
Washington, Massachusetts and New York, but the plaintiffs have
dismissed those claims.

    (ii) Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
collective action filed on June 15, 2012 in the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York alleging that
certain information technology employees allegedly involved in
installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. On August 31, 2012, HP filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
complaint and filed counterclaims against two of the three named
plaintiffs. Also on August 31, 2012, HP filed a motion to transfer
venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas. A hearing on HP's motion to transfer venue was scheduled
for November 21, 2012, but was stayed by the court.

   (iii) Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is
a class action filed on March 16, 2009 in California Superior
Court alleging facts similar to the Cunningham and Steavens
matters. In March 2010, the court stayed the matter; that stay was
lifted in October 2012. On December 13, 2013, HP removed the case
to federal court. The plaintiffs moved to remand the case; the
case was subsequently remanded to state court.

    (iv) Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
nationwide collective action filed on February 17, 2011 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
claiming that a class of information technology support personnel
were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. On February 10, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the court conditionally certify the case as a
collective action. On July 11, 2013, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in its entirety.
Only one opt-in plaintiff had joined the named plaintiff in the
lawsuit at the time that the motion was filed.

     (v) Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
collective action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
that certain technical support employees allegedly involved in
installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or
hardware for HP were misclassified as exempt employees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP
violated California law by, among other things, allegedly
improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On September 20,
2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional class
certification. On February 13, 2014, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Securities Litigation in California Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
In re HP Securities Litigation continues in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to Hewlett-Packard Company's June 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2014.

HP is involved in various stockholder litigation relating to,
among other things, its November 20, 2012 announcement that it
recorded a non-cash charge for the impairment of goodwill and
intangible assets within its Software segment of approximately
$8.8 billion in the fourth quarter of its 2012 fiscal year and
HP's statements that, based on HP's findings from an ongoing
investigation, the majority of this impairment charge related to
accounting improprieties, misrepresentations to the market and
disclosure failures at Autonomy that occurred prior to and in
connection with HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the impact of
those improprieties, failures and misrepresentations on the
expected future financial performance of the Autonomy business
over the long term. This stockholder litigation was commenced
against, among others, certain current and former HP executive
officers, certain current and former members of HP's Board of
Directors, and certain advisors to HP. The plaintiffs in these
litigation matters are seeking to recover certain compensation
paid by HP to the defendants and/or other damages.

These matters include In re HP Securities Litigation consists of
two consolidated putative class actions filed on November 26 and
30, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging, among other things, that from
August 19, 2011 to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing
material information and making false statements related to HP's
acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of HP's
enterprise services business. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same
period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) by concealing material
information and making false statements related to HP's
acquisition of Autonomy and that certain defendants violated SEC
Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging in a "scheme" to defraud
investors. On July 2, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On November 26, 2013, the court granted in part and
denied in part HP's motion to dismiss, allowing claims to proceed
against HP and Margaret C. Whitman based on alleged statements
and/or omissions made on or after May 23, 2012. The court
dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that were based on alleged
statements and/or omissions made between August 19, 2011 and May
22, 2012.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Wins Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Hewlett-Packard Company's motion to dismiss In
re HP ERISA Litigation with leave to amend, according to the
company's June 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative
class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to
November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby
violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative
information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and
HP's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict
participants from investing in HP stock. On August 16, 2013, HP
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 31, 2014, the
Court granted HP's motion to dismiss this action with leave to
amend.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sept. 15 Settlement Hearing in "Gammel" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing is set September 15, 2014 for a $57
million settlement reached in the securities suit Richard Gammel
v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., according to the company's
June 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative
securities class action filed on September 13, 2011 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging, among other things, that from November 22, 2010 to
August 18, 2011, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making
false statements about HP's business model, the future of the
webOS operating system, and HP's commitment to developing and
integrating webOS products, including the TouchPad tablet PC. On
April 11, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On September 4, 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended
complaint. On October 19, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint asserting the same causes of action but dropping one of
the defendants and shortening the period that the alleged
violations of the Exchange Act occurred to February 9, 2011 to
August 18, 2011. On December 3, 2012, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint. On May 8, 2013, the court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
As a result of the court's ruling, the alleged class period in the
action runs from June 1, 2011 to August 18, 2011. The parties
commenced mediation before a private mediator on December 3, 2013.
On March 31, 2014, the parties executed a settlement stipulation
and the plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of
the settlement with the court. On May 2, 2014, the court
preliminarily approved the settlement, directed notice be sent to
class members, and set the final approval hearing for September
15, 2014. As part of the proposed settlement, HP and certain of
its insurers have agreed to pay approximately $57 million into a
settlement fund.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Wants Suit by Pension Fund in Cal. Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is seeking to dismiss a securities lawsuit
filed by the Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension
Fund, according to the company's June 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2014.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class
action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct
("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was
serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that
period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior
in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP. On
February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September
9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9,
2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on
October 24, 2013. A hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint was held on May 29, 2014.


IOWA: State High Court Rejects Class Action Over Race Bias
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Iowa Supreme Court rejected
a class-action lawsuit on July 18 that alleged the Iowa executive
branch discriminated against black job applicants, even while
finding that African-Americans face subtle biases that make it
harder to land employment.

In agreeing with a lower court decision to dismiss the case, the
justices said the class of 5,000 black employees and job
applicants failed to prove they suffered systemic discrimination
because they did not show that specific hiring practices
disadvantaged them.

But all seven recognized the impact of implicit bias, in which
individuals subconsciously favor whites over blacks.  Meanwhile,
three justices said they were concerned that blacks may have been
disadvantaged by subjective resume-screening processes that left
them less likely to be granted interviews at some agencies.

The plaintiffs argued that state managers had allowed biases to
creep into decisions on which candidates to interview and hire.
Their case was based on statistics that suggest blacks received
fewer interviews and jobs than whites at state agencies such as
the Department of Transportation and a growing body of social
science research affirming the concept of implicit bias.

District Judge Robert Blink initially dismissed the case in 2012
after a lengthy trial.  Plaintiffs appealed to the high court, but
all seven justices agreed Blink's decision should stand.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Tom Newkirk, argued on appeal that the
state's record-keeping involving decisions related to 20,000 job
openings was incomplete and didn't allow him to challenge specific
practices.  He noted data, including some from state consultants
and experts, suggested that blacks were generally disadvantaged
and argued that should support a claim against the entire system.

But Justice Brent Appel said there was substantial evidence to
support Blink's conclusion that the records could've been studied
to pinpoint problems with specific screening and hiring practices,
which varied by agency.

The ruling is expected to end a seven-year lawsuit in which the
plaintiffs were seeking millions of dollars in lost wages and
changes to state hiring practices to better track and eliminate
racial disparities.  Iowa is 91 percent white.

Solicitor General Jeff Thompson, who defended the state, said he
was relieved by the outcome.  But he emphasized that he was
working with agencies to improve how applicants are screened so
that decisions are based on specific criteria that can be tracked.

"Win or lose, we have been working with our client agencies to
make improvements in the hiring process," he said.

Justice Appel, whose opinion was endorsed by three other justices,
said that overt racism has been replaced by unconscious
discrimination as the "headwinds faced by African Americans in the
employment marketplace."  He said the case had to be dismissed
under existing state and federal law, but suggested the plaintiffs
could have pursued a negligence claim to hold the state
responsible for failing to address the discriminatory impact.

Justice Thomas Waterman wrote a separate opinion joined by two
others agreeing the lawsuit should be dismissed, even though
"there undoubtedly was subjectivity and -- as the plaintiffs
credibly demonstrated -- implicit bias in multiple state hiring
decisions."

Mr. Newkirk said he knew the appeal faced long odds, but the
ruling was "tremendously positive" by paving the way for future
lawsuits to hold employers responsible for discriminatory
practices.

"The recognition of implicit bias is huge," he said.  "It's
disappointing that the state may escape on what is effectively a
technicality. (But) our ultimate goal was to gain increased
understanding within the court system for a realistic assessment
of how race interferes with equality in the modern world.  And we
did that."

Justice Waterman said a friend-of-the-court brief filed by NAACP
raised "serious questions as to whether the state committed
unlawful discrimination."  The brief noted that state expert
Robert Miller found an "adverse impact" against blacks who applied
at eight large agencies, in a step that involves scoring resumes
to select interviewees.  But he said plaintiffs didn't pursue
whether "inappropriate screening devices" were used.

"I do not downplay what this case has shown," he wrote.  "Even
according to Miller, it appears African Americans on the whole
were disadvantaged in getting job interviews from some agencies,
including some large departments like the Department of Human
Services and the Department of Transportation.  This conclusion
. . . is disturbing although inconclusive."


ISR GROUP: Mag. Judge's Report Adopted; "Sondesky" Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARBIE SONDESKY and RONALD SONDESKY, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. ISR GROUP,
INC. and ALFRED LUMPKIN, Defendants, NO. 14-1077, (W.D. Tenn.) is
before the Court on the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge, filed June 18, 2014, recommending that the May
29, 2014 motion of the Defendant, Alfred Lumpkin, seeking to stay
this action pending resolution of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of
Defendant, ISR Group, Inc., be granted. According to the Court's
docket, no objections to the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation have been filed, and the time for objections has
now expired.

Accordingly, Chief District Judge J. Daniel Breen adopts the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and grants Mr.
Lumpkin's motion to stay proceedings.

The Court directed the parties to notify the Court within 30 days
following the resolution of Defendant's bankruptcy petition.

A copy of the Distric Court's July 17, 2014 is available at
http://is.gd/esuovDfrom Leagle.com.

Barbie Sondesky, Plaintiff, represented by Anne C. Martin --
amartin@bonelaw.com -- BONE MCALLESTER NORTON PLLC, Marshall T.
Cook -- mcook@bonelaw.com -- BONE MCALLESTER NORTON PLLC & Susan
R.High-McAuley -- shigh-mcauley@bonelaw.com -- BONE MCALLESTER
NORTON PLLC.

Ronald Sondesky, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, represented by Anne C. Martin, BONE
MCALLESTER NORTON PLLC, Marshall T. Cook, BONE MCALLESTER NORTON
PLLC & Susan R. High-McAuley, BONE MCALLESTER NORTON PLLC.

Alfred Lumpkin, Defendant, represented by Angie C. Davis --
angiedavis@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ.

ISR Group, Incorporated, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
(Bankr. W.D. Tenn. Case No. 14-11077) on April 29, 2014.  John
Stuecheli signed the petition as chief restructuring officer.
The Debtor estimated $10 million to $50 million in assets and
liabilities.  Franklin Childress, Jr., Esq., at Baker Donelson
Bearman, serves as the Debtor's counsel.  Judge Jimmy L Croom
presides over the case.


JAMES B. NUTTER: District Court Ruling in "Marshall" Case Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Marshall, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland, who borrowed
$252,000 from Savings First Mortgage, LLC, in a reverse mortgage
transaction, commenced an action against James B. Nutter &
Company, which purchased the mortgage from Savings First, alleging
that Nutter was liable for conspiring with Savings First to
violate the Maryland Finder's Fee Act.  Marshall alleged that
Savings First collected $3,666 in fees from him at closing, in
violation of Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Section 12-804(e), which
prohibits a mortgage broker from "charg[ing] a finder's fee in any
transaction in which the mortgage broker . . . is the lender," and
that because Nutter funded the loan pursuant to a preexisting
agreement, it was liable as a civil coconspirator.

The district court held that Nutter could not be a violator of
Section 12-804(e) because that statute regulates only mortgage
brokers and Nutter was not a "mortgage broker" in the transaction.
The court concluded that because Nutter was not "legally capable"
of violating the Act, it could not, under Shenker v. Laureate
Education, Inc., 983 A.2d 408 (Md. 2009), be held liable for
conspiring with Savings First to violate the Act. Accordingly, it
granted Nutter's motion for summary judgment.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit agreed with the
district court and affirmed the summary judgment ruling.

In its July 10, 2014 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/ZCz03Ifrom Leagle.com, the Fourth Circuit held that
Nutter did not function as a mortgage broker, but rather as a
funding lender; Nutter was "not personally bound by the duty
violated by the wrongdoing"; and, therefore, could not be held
liable for conspiring with others to commit that wrongdoing.

The case is WILLIAM AUBREY MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES
B. NUTTER & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-1940.

ARGUED: Martin Eugene Wolf -- mwolf@gordon-wolf.com -- GORDON &
WOLF, CHTD., Towson, Maryland, for Appellant.

Todd W. Ruskamp -- truskamp@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON
L.L.P., Kansas City, Missouri, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Richard S. Gordon, Benjamin H. Carney, Thomas M. McCray-
Worrall, GORDON & WOLF, CHTD., Baltimore, Maryland; Cyril V. Smith
-- csmith@zuckerman.com -- William K. Meyer --
wmeyer@zuckerman.com -- ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant.

Clayton T. Norkey -- cnorkey@shb.com -- Benjamin M. Johnston --
bjohnston@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P., Kansas City,
Missouri, for Appellee.


JRFCJ LLC: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelvin Clark, And all others similarly situated v. JRFCJ LLC, Case
No. 3:14-cv-00870-MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2014) seeks to
recover damages for retaliation and unpaid back wages, an
additional amount as liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs.

JRFCJ LLC is a corporation that owns several car dealerships
throughout the Middle District of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earl M. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          PO Box 40091
          Jacksonville, FL 32203
          Telephone: (904) 356-5252
          E-mail: jaxlawservice@gmail.com


KIA MOTORS: Fails to Disclose Switch Defect, "Precht" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Precht, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kia Motors America, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01148 (C.D.
Cal., July 21, 2014), arises from the Defendants failure to
disclose brake switch defects.

Kia Motors America, Inc. is a California corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business located at 111 Peters
Canyon Road, Irvine, California 92606. It is a subsidiary of Kia
Motors Corporation, a South Korea-based company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      10200 Willow Creek Road Suite 160
      San Diego, CA 92131
      Telephone: (619) 308-5034
      Facsimile: (888) 341-5048
      E-mail: alan@clgca.com

         - and -

      William Anderson, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

      Jon Herskowitz, Esq.
      BARON & HERSKOWITZ
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.
      Suite 1704
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 670-0101
      Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
      E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com


L. SZECHUANEAST: Faces "Monterroso" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Monterroso, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. L. Szechuaneast, Ltd. (d/b/a Pig Heaven ), How Ling Li
and Hui Fong Lee, Case No. 1:14-cv-05469 (S.D.N.Y., July 21,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wage and overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards
Act.

L. Szechuaneast, Ltd. operates a Chinese restaurant, and is owned
by How Ling Li and Hui Fong Lee.  It is located at 1540 Second
Ave., New York, New York 10075.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212)317-1200


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Subsidiaries Sued by Royalty Owners in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Layne Christensen Company subsidiaries face a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, purportedly on
behalf of royalty owners, according to the company's May, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

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


LIFE PROTECT: Faces "Makaron" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Makaron, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Life Protect 24/7, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05776-SJO-
PJW (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2014) alleges violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          324 S Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com


LIONS GATE: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Dale Barger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., Jon Feltheimer, James
Keegan, James Barge, and Michael Burns, Case No. 1:14-cv-05477
(S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2014), alleges violation of the Securities
Exchange Act.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a film studio that produces and
distributes motion pictures, television, home and family
entertainment, and digital media.

The Individual Defendants are members of the board of directors of
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312)377-1181
      Facsimile: (312)377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


M. A. SOUDERS: Faces "Shreves" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Shreves and Shawn P. Halter On behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. M. A. Souders, Inc. d/b/a Turf
Services c/o Statutory Agent and Michael A. Souders, Case No.
2:14-cv-00966 (S.D. Ohio, July 21, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

M. A. Souders, Inc. provides landscaping, snow removal and other
services to customers with principal office located in Pickaway
County at 7910 Main Street, Orient, Ohio 43146.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Joseph Francis Scott, Esq.
      Scott & Winters Law Firm, LLC
      17410 Dorchester Dr.
      Cleveland, OH 44119
      Telephone: (216) 650-3318
      Facsimile: (216) 664-2663
      E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com


MARILYN M. GRAY TIERNAN: Appeals Ct. Upholds Dilworth Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two
affirmed a probate court judgment in ROSEMAE B. DILWORTH,
Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARILYN M. GRAY TIERNAN, as Trustee,
etc., Defendant and Respondent, NO. A139476.

A copy of the July 9, 2014 Appeals Court ruling is available at
http://is.gd/wMJmJvfrom Leagle.com.

Magnolia Dilworth Austin established the Magnolia Dilworth Austin
Trust (the trust) in 1990 and amended its terms in 2002.  Ms.
Austin died in 2012. The trust document provided that on her
death, after payment of certain expenses and taxes, the "remaining
balance" of the trust estate was to be distributed in two shares.
One share was to go to her niece, Cassandra Lyles, but if Lyles
died before Ms. Austin, that share was to go to her friend,
Virginia Saxton. Both Lyles and Saxton died before Ms. Austin, so
the share in question is a failed bequest. The other share was to
go to Saxton, but if Saxton died before Ms. Austin, the share was
to go to Saxton's surviving issue, by right of representation.

Rosemae Dilworth is another of Austin's nieces. She petitioned the
probate court for an order declaring that the share in question be
distributed to Austin's estate, from there presumably to be
distributed according to the rules governing intestacy. Marilyn
Tiernan is the daughter of Saxton and a beneficiary of the trust.
Tiernan maintained that under Probate Code section 21111,
subdivision (b), the share in question, like the other share,
should go to Saxton's surviving issue. The probate court agreed
with Tiernan and, after issuing an order interpreting the
beneficiary provisions of the trust document, dismissed Dilworth's
petition.

The sole issue on appeal was how the share of the trust that is a
failed bequest should be distributed.

Following de novo review, the Calif. Appeals Court affirmed the
judgment of the probate court concluding that paragraph B is a
residuary clause and that, by operation of section 21111, subd.
(b), the failed bequest of part B(1) is to be distributed to
Saxton's issue, by right of representation, as specified in part
B(2). This conclusion is in accord with Austin's apparent intent
and with the rule of interpretation that intestacy is to be
avoided: "The words of an instrument are to receive an
interpretation that will give every expression some effect, rather
than one that will render any of the expressions inoperative.
Preference is to be given to an interpretation of an instrument
that will prevent intestacy or failure of a transfer, rather than
one that will result in an intestacy or failure of a transfer."

In January 2013, Dilworth filed a first amended "class action"
petition, on behalf of herself and unnamed nieces and nephews of
Austin, seeking: (1) "a determination of the court that Dilworth
herself, and in addition as a class representative of the group of
seven nieces and nephews that survived Austin's death, are
collectively heirs at law and are thereby entitled to share of
one-half of Austin's estate under the laws of intestacy"; (2)
injunctive relief requiring the trustee to divide trust assets and
to place one-half of such assets under control of a special
administrator for Austin's estate; (3) an accounting of Austin's
estate; and (4) appointment of a special administrator for
Austin's estate.

On September 5, 2013, the court entered final judgment in the
case, dismissing Dilworth's "class action" petition.  Dilworth
timely filed a notice of appeal.

The probate court did not address Dilworth's attempt to proceed as
a class action and neither did the Appeals Court.


MARKIT LTD: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Markit Ltd. is facing a consolidated antitrust lawsuit in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York in connection
with credit default swaps, according to the company's June 16,
2014, Amendment No. 3 to FORM F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

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

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


MAXUM PETROLEUM: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Guska" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bosko R. Guska, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Maxum Petroleum Operating Company, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00080 (D.N.D., July 21, 2014), is brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, on behalf of all persons who were, are, or
will be employed by Defendant in hourly labor who have not been
compensated at the proper federally mandated hourly wage and
corresponding overtime rate.

Maxum Petroleum Operating Company is a Delaware corporation
engaged in commerce in the field of petroleum product/gas fueling
and servicing of Frac sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Loren, Esq.
      LOREN LAW GROUP
      100 South Pine Island Road, Suite 132
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 585-4878
      E-mail: jloren@lorenlaw.com


MIDWEST GENERATION: Liability Complaints Kept Stayed After Ch.11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complaints against Midwest Generation by residents living near the
Crawford and Fisk Stations remain stayed as a result Chapter 11
Cases, according to NRG Energy, Inc.'s June 16, 2014 EX-99.1 to
FORM 8-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

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


MILFORD WATER: Oct. 15 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
MILFORD WATER CO. LEGAL NOTICE COMMONWEALTH
MILFORD WATER CO.
LEGAL NOTICE

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
WORCESTER, ss. SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2009-2166-D

JAMESON MELLO, et al.,
on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

MILFORD WATER COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER FOR NOTICE AND SCHEDULING OF HEARING ON SETTLEMENT

The parties to the above-captioned action (the "Action"), having
made a joint motion for an order for notice and scheduling of a
hearing with respect to a settlement of the Action in accordance
with a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed with the Court
on or about June 18, 2014 (the "Stipulation"), which, together
with the exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for
the proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement"), and
which provides for the ultimate dismissal of the Action with
prejudice; and the Court having considered the Stipulation and
accompanying documents; and counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel
for the Defendants having consented, on behalf of their clients,
to the entry of this Order;

Jameson Mello, Julie Gamy, Lucy Mello, a minor by Jameson Mello
and Julie Gamy, George Marotta, Elizabeth Marotta, Pamela A.
Fields, Frances Weaver, Susan Calabro, Kenneth Calabro and all
others similarly situated.

Milford Water Company, R.H. White Construction Co., Inc.,
Whitewater, Inc., Leonard H. White, Estate of Leonard H. White,
David H. White, Henry C. Papuga, Joseph F. Edwards, John Peters,
III, and William J. Vitalini.  This list includes both Defendants
and Reach and Apply Defendants.

Entered and Copies Mailed 6-30-14

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2014,
that:

1. Definitions. Except for terms defined herein (with the
definitions to be applicable to both the singular and the plural
forms of each term defined if both such forms of such term are
used herein), the Court adopts and incorporates the definitions in
the Stipulation for purposes of this Order.

2. Approval of Notice. The Court approves, in form and content,
the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and Settlement
Hearing (the "Notice"), substantially in the form submitted by the
parties to the Court.  The Court further finds that the
publication and mailing of the Notice, pursuant to the procedures
set forth in Section IV of the parties' Joint Motion for Approval
of Class Action Settlement (the "Joint Motion"), will fully
satisfy the requirements of Mass. R. Civ. P. 23, due process and
applicable law, is the best notice practicable and shall
constitute due and sufficient notice of the Settlement and
Settlement Hearing (as defined below), and all other matters
referred to in the Notice to all persons entitled to receive such
Notice.  Defendant Milford Water Company shall, no later than ten
(10) business days before the Settlement Hearing, file or cause to
be filed appropriate affidavits of proof of publication and
mailing with respect to the Notice.

3. Certification of the Settlement Class. This Court previously
certified this matter as a class action pursuant to Mass. R. Civ.
P. 23. See Certification Order, dated December 31, 2012 (the
"Certification Order").  To the extent that it may be necessary,
the Court conditionally certifies the Class for purposes of the
Settlement to include the claims set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint that were added after the Certification Order entered,
and the parties who were added after the Certification Order
entered.

4. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The Court preliminarily
approves the Stipulation and the Settlement set forth therein as
fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the
Class, subject to further consideration at the Settlement Hearing.

5. Settlement Hearing. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") shall
be held before this Court on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 at 3:00
p.m. at the Worcester County Superior Court, 225 Main Street,
Worcester, Massachusetts, to: (a) determine whether, for
settlement purposes only, the Court's prior certification of the
Class, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 23, should be made final; (b)
determine whether the Court should enter a Final Order granting
final approval of the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation; (c) determine whether
final judgment should enter pursuant to the Stipulation, inter
alia , dismissing the Action with prejudice (the "Final
Judgment"); (d) consider Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses (the "Fee and Expense Motion"); and (e) hear and
determine any other issues and matters relating to the proposed
Settlement. The Court reserves the right to adjourn and reconvene
the Settlement Hearing, including with respect to Plaintiffs' Fee
and Expense Motion, without further notice to the Class Members,
other than an oral announcement at the Settlement Hearing or any
adjournment thereof.  Plaintiffs' and Defendants' papers in
support of final approval and/or in opposition to any objections,
and Plaintiffs' papers in support of their Fee and Expense Motion,
may be filed with the Court and served upon all parties no later
than fifteen (15) business days before the Settlement Hearing, and
on any Class Members filing objections or, if they are represented
by independent legal counsel, on their counsel, no later than five
(5) business days before the Settlement Hearing. Defendants may
file papers, if any, opposing Plaintiffs' Fee and Expense Motion
no later than ten (10) business days before the Settlement
Hearing.  All papers in further support of the Settlement or the
Fee and Expense Motion, and responding to any objections or
oppositions shall be filed with the Court and served on all
parties and any objecting Class Member at least three (3) business
days before the Settlement Hearing.  The Court may approve the
Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing with such
modifications as may be consented to by the Parties and without
further notice to the Class Members.

6. Appearance at Settlement Hearing and Objections to Settlement.
Any Class Member may appear and show cause, if he, she or it has
any reason why the Settlement should or should not be approved, or
why the Final Order and/or Final Judgment should or should not
enter, provided, however, that no Class Member shall be heard or
entitled to contest the approval of the proposed Settlement or, if
the Settlement is approved, the Final Order and Final Judgment to
be entered thereon, unless that Class Member, no later than
Tuesday, September 30, 2014: (a) has served (i) a written notice
of objection, including a written notice of his, her or its
intention to appear if he, she or it intends to do so, (ii) proof
of his, her or its membership in the Class, (iii) a written
statement of the position he, she or it will assert, (iv) the
reasons for his, her or its position, and (v) copies of any
papers, briefs or other matter they wish the Court to consider, on
the following legal counsel by certified or overnight mail, return
receipt requested:

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

James L. O'Connor, Jr., Esq.
C. Deborah Phillips, Esq. NICKLESS, PHILLIPS and O'CONNOR
625 Main Street
Fitchburg, MA 01420

     - and -

James M. Galliher, Esq. BONVILLE and HOWARD
154 Prichard Street
Fitchburg, MA 01420

     - and -

Barry Altman, Esq.
ALTMAN and ALTMAN
404 Main Street, Suite #3
Wilmington, MA 01887 Counsel for the Plaintiff

Counsel for the Defendants:

Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq.
David Glod, Esq. RICH MAY, P.C.
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110

     - and -

William D. Jalkut, Esq.
FLETCHER TILTON, P.C.
370 Main Street, Suite 1200
Worcester, MA 01680

and (b) filed said objections, papers and briefs, and proof of
service on the above-listed counsel, with the Clerk of Court,
Civil, Worcester County Superior Court, 225 Main Street,
Worcester, MA 01608, on or before the same date.  Any Class Member
who does not make his, her or its objection in the manner provided
herein shall be deemed to have waived such objection (including
any right of appeal), and shall forever be foreclosed from making
any such objection, including any objection to the fairness or
adequacy of the proposed Settlement as incorporated in the
Stipulation, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

7. Stay of Proceedings. All proceedings in the Action, other than
such proceedings as may be necessary to carry out the terms and
conditions of the Settlement or proceedings in connection with
Plaintiffs' Fee and Expense Motion, are hereby stayed and
suspended until further order of this Court.  Pending final
determination of whether the Settlement provided for in the
Stipulation shall be approved, Plaintiffs and all other members of
the Class, or any of them, are barred and enjoined from
commencing, prosecuting, instigating or in any way participating
in the commencement or prosecution of any action asserting any
Released Claims against any of the Released Parties.

8. Retention of Jurisdiction. This Court retains exclusive
jurisdiction over the Action to consider all further motions,
applications or proceedings arising out of or in connection with
the Settlement and the Stipulation.

Brian A. Davis
Associate Justice of the Superior Court


MOJO GRILL: Faces "Claytor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Claytor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Mojo Grill and Catering Co of Belleview, LLC.,
Cabana's Catering, LLC, and Rondo Fernandez, in his individual
capacity, Case No. 5:14-cv-00411 (M.D. Fla., July 21, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants fail to pay overtime compensation
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Mojo Grill and Catering Co of Belleview, LLC and Cabana's
Catering, LLC, are engaged in catering business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn L. Birken, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN L. BIRKEN, PA
      100 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1300
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
      Telephone: (954) 990-4495
      Facsimile: (954) 990-4469
      E-mail: sbirken@birken-law.com

        - and -

      Zachary West, Esq.
      BERMAN & BERMA, PA
      805 NW 13th Street, Suite D
      Gaineville, Fl 32601
      Telephone: (561) 826-5200
      Facsimile: (561) 826-5201
      E-mail: zwest@thebermanlawgroup.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Removes Name-and-Likeness Release From Forms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Wolken and Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports,
report that with a federal judge deliberating about how to rule in
a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA concerning the use of
college athletes' names and likenesses, the association has
eliminated a much-debated name-and-likeness release from the set
of forms Division I athletes sign annually.

Athletes who signed the release had granted permission for the
NCAA or an associated third party, such as a school or conference,
to use his or her name or picture to promote NCAA championships or
other events without being compensated.  The NCAA's removal of
that component from what is known as the Student-Athlete
Statement, which includes a series of other releases on disclosure
of personal information and eligibility, is yet another indication
that the NCAA is trying to distance itself from legal
entanglements that have arisen as a result of growing questions
about who owns college athletes' names and likenesses.

NCAA spokesperson Stacey Osburn was not immediately available for
comment.

During the lawsuit -- whose plaintiffs are led by former UCLA
basketball player Ed O'Bannon -- it was alleged that some
athletes, including those under age 18, had been told by school
officials that they were required to sign the form to be eligible
to play.  Some of the athletes who testified during a 15-day trial
in June talked about preseason sessions in which they and their
teammates were presented with sets of forms, given little time to
read them and then asked to sign them -- which they did.

The NCAA has maintained that athletes were not required to sign
the Student-Athlete Statement's name-and-likeness release portion.
During the trial, University of South Carolina President Harris
Pastides testified that he did not view such forms as mandatory.
The plaintiffs, however, submitted into evidence excerpts of 2013
depositions from Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner
John Swofford and then-Fresno State President John Welty in which
they said they believed athletes would be ineligible to play if
they did not sign the name-and-likeness release portion of the
form.

The various statements relate to what U.S. District Judge Claudia
Wilken had raised earlier in the case as a potentially key issue
-- whether athletes validly transfer their name-and-likeness
rights to another party.

"The removal is one further illustration of a continuing march by
the NCAA to withdraw from the positions they staunchly have been
defending," said Michael Hausfeld, the lead attorney for the
O'Bannon plaintiffs.  "If these things can be so easily removed,
then it appears they had little to any validity in the first
instance."

The NCAA is now trying to eliminate the problem, an e-mail
obtained by USA TODAY Sports indicates.

Responding to an inquiry this week about a delay in the NCAA's
release of the 2014-15 version of the Student-Athlete Statement,
NCAA director of academic and membership affairs Kris Richardson
wrote in an e-mail that the delay "has been necessary to enable
appropriate review, including legal review, of the change to this
year's form."  The email was sent to to Big East Conference senior
associate commissioner for administration and NCAA relations Joe
D'Antonio.

"Usually, the NCAA Student-Athlete Statement does not have many
changes from one year to the next," the e-mail says.  "This year,
however, the 'Promotion of NCAA Championships, Events, Activities,
or Programs' section has been recommended for removal from the
form. . . . [T]hat section, unlike the other sections of the NCAA
Student-Athlete Statement, is not a mandatory component for
purposes of eligibility.  Because student-athletes are not
required to complete that section in order to maintain
eligibility, it has been recommended for removal from the NCAA
Student-Athlete Statement, beginning with the 2014-15 version of
the form."

The e-mail said that once the recommended change had been reviewed
and approved, the statement would become available to the schools.
The new form appears on the NCAA website.

Mr. Richardson's e-mail went on to say that following the release
of the new version of the Student-Athlete Statement, "the national
office staff will continue work on a separate form and process for
conferences and institutions to use to help ensure compliance
with" with NCAA rules concerning the use of athletes' names and
likenesses for promotion of NCAA championships, events, activities
or programs.

Some conferences and schools, including the Big Ten Conference
schools, have been requiring athletes to sign more specific name-
and-likeness release forms.  The Big Ten form has stated that the
athlete's signature grants to the school and conference "the right
to publish, duplicate, print, broadcast or otherwise use in any
manner or media, my name, photograph, likeness or other image of
myself for any purpose" the school or conference determines is in
its interest.

Such uses, the form states, include "promotional and marketing
materials and uses by the Big Ten Network, CBS, ABC and ESPN. ...
I agree that neither I nor my heirs shall be entitled to any
compensation for the use of my name, photograph, likeness or other
image of myself."

Mr. Richardson's e-mail to Mr. D'Antonio also addressed such
forms, saying that schools and conferences could continue to use
them regardless of the change to the Student-Athlete Statement.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Former Players File Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Fenno, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that two
former NFL players have filed the first federal class-action
lawsuit against the NFL Players Assn. over head injuries.

Christian Ballard and Gregory Westbrooks accused the players union
of concealing the long-term effects of traumatic brain injuries
and not doing enough to address the issue, according to the
complaint filed on July 17 in U.S. District Court in St. Louis.

The same attorneys also filed a lawsuit on July 17 in St. Louis
Circuit Court making the same claims against the NFLPA on behalf
of former Pro Bowler Neil Smith, Ladell Betts and Anthony Davis.

"NFL players could have avoided or mitigated the dangers of their
sport had the NFLPA provided them with truthful and accurate
information," one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Bob Langdon, said
in a statement.

While a federal judge granted preliminary approval last week to a
settlement between retired players and the NFL over similar
issues, the NFL Players Assn., has, until now, escaped the legal
furor.

In a statement, the NFLPA said the federal lawsuit "has no merit"
and that issues of health and safety are a priority.

The 40-page complaint claims the union didn't act in the best
interest of its members in relation to head injuries.  "Of the
millions of dollars received as dues from NFLPA members . . . the
NFLPA spent no significant funds on research and development of
safer helmets, safer competition rules, or safer football
equipment that could prevent or mitigate brain trauma to players,"
the complaint said.

Mr. Westbrooks played for four NFL teams between 1975 and 1981
while Mr. Ballard spent 2011 and 2012 with the Minnesota Vikings.

Three former presidents of the union -- Trace Armstrong,
Kevin Mawae and Troy Vincent -- are also named as defendants.

Both lawsuits seek medical monitoring and financial compensation.


NCO FINANCIAL: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in Molinar Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY MOLNAR and WESLEY THORNTON, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiffs, v.
NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13CV131-BAS (JLB), (S.D. Cal.) seeks to stop
defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited telephone calls
and text message calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide
and to obtain redress for all persons injured.

Presently before the Court is the parties' Joint Statement for
Determination of Discovery Dispute for which oral argument was
held on May 20, 2014. The parties' discovery dispute concerns the
scope of subpoenas served on and documents produced by plaintiffs'
creditors and telephone carriers. The creditors and telephone
carriers are not parties to the litigation.

Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, in an order dated July 8,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/8QbYaofrom
Leagle.com, overruled plaintiffs' objections to documents
requested from third party creditors and telephone carrier with
the exception that each plaintiff may narrow the time period of
call records to the extent they fall outside the time period for
which a plaintiff seeks to hold defendant NCO liable.

"Should plaintiffs decide to narrow the time period for the call
records, then they must provide defendant with a writing that sets
forth their agreement to be bound by the narrowed time period,"
Mag. Judge Burkhardt said. "Should the parties determine an
addendum to their protective order is appropriate, the parties may
jointly move the court to amend the protective order," he added.

Jeffrey Molnar, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly
situated and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by
Beatrice Skye Resendes -- skye@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC, Douglas J Campion --
doug@djcampion.com -- Law Offices of Douglas J Campion, Ronald
Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Office of Ronald
Marron Alexis Marie Wood -- alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC, Kas L. Gallucci --
kas@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
APLC, Keith James Keogh -- Keith@Keoghlaw.com -- Keogh Law, LTD &
Patric Alexander Lester -- pl@lesterlaw.com -- Patric Lester and
Associates.

Wesley Thornton, on behalf of themselves. all others similarly
situated and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by
Beatrice Skye Resendes, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC,
Ronald Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron, Alexis Marie Wood, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC, Kas L. Gallucci, Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron, APLC, Keith James Keogh, Keogh Law, LTD & Patric
Alexander Lester, Patric Lester and Associates.

Aileen Martinez, on behalf of themselves, all other similarly
situated and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by
Beatrice Skye Resendes, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC,
Douglas J Campion, Law Offices of Douglas J Campion, Ronald
Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron, Alexis Marie Wood, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC, Kas L. Gallucci, Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron, APLC, Keith James Keogh, Keogh Law, LTD & Patric
Alexander Lester, Patric Lester and Associates.

Chiquita Bell, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Marron, Law Office of
Ronald Marron, Keith James Keogh, Keogh Law, LTD & Patric
Alexander Lester, Patric Lester and Associates.

Teyia Bolden, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Marron, Law Office of
Ronald Marron, Keith James Keogh, Keogh Law, LTD & Patric
Alexander Lester, Patric Lester and Associates.

Antoinette Stansberry, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Marron, Law
Office of Ronald Marron, Keith James Keogh, Keogh Law, LTD &
Patric Alexander Lester, Patric Lester and Associates.

Alexander Monge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Asaf Agazanof --
asaf@lawasaf.com -- Asaf Law, Nicholas J. Bontrager --
nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M
Friedman, PC & Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C.

NCO Financial Systems, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Damian P. Richard -- drichard@sessions-
law.biz -- Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel, LLP, Bryan C. Shartle
-- bshartle@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions Fishman Nathan and Israel
LLC, James K. Schultz -- jschultz@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions
Fishman Nathan & Israel LLC, Michael D. Slodov --
mslodov@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel,
LLC & Debbie P Kirkpatrick -- dkirkpatrick@sessions-law.biz --
Sessions Fishman Nathan and Israel.


NEW FOOD CORP: Fails to Pay Workers' Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Rey Silva, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. New Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, JCA Food
Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, JJC Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, SWF Food
Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, Mother Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, Jason
Ferreira, Jose Ferreira and Andres Ferreira, Case No. 2:14-cv-
04457-JFB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., July 24, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants failed to compensate their employees for overtime hours
worked.

The Corporate Defendants (the "Ferreira Enterprise") consist of a
chain of five supermarkets doing business as Ferreira Foodtown,
owned and operated by Jason Ferreira, Jose Ferreira and Andres
Ferreira.  Ferreira Foodtown operates as a grocery retailer, with
online shopping services in addition to physical store locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven John Moser, Esq.
          3 School Street, Suite 207B
          Glen Cove, NY 11542
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
          E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


NEWCREST MINING: To "Vigorously Defend" Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Herald Sun reports that Newcrest Mining says it will "vigorously
defend" a class action shareholders launched against Australia's
largest gold miner over its massive financial writedown in 2013.

Newcrest Mining downgraded its production forecasts and reduced
the value of its assets by more than $6 billion on June 7, 2013,
partly due to the significant fall in the gold price.

Law firm Slater and Gordon has now filed proceedings in the
Federal Court in Melbourne on behalf of investors who bought
shares in Newcrest between August 13, 2012 and June 6, 2013.  The
claim alleges Newcrest had no reasonable grounds to issue its
August 2012 gold production forecast, and misled and deceived
investors leading up to June 2013.

Newcrest has already admitted to withholding information about its
gold production from the wider investment market in the week
leading up to its June 2013 downgrade announcement.  Several
analysts from investment banks were alerted to the downgrade in
briefings during that week.  Newcrest has been fined $1.2 million
by the corporate regulator for the contravention.

The class action will seek compensation for "substantial"
shareholder losses stemming from those actions, but also
Newcrest's conduct well before the downgrade announcement, Slater
and Gordon senior class action lawyer Ben Phi said.

"While our clients welcome Newcrest's admissions, we allege that
these contraventions form part of a wider course of misconduct,"
he said.

Newcrest has previously said it will defend the proceedings.


NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: State Securities Suits Stayed Pending "Biver"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four state Circuit Court securities actions against Nicholas
Financial, Inc. have been stayed pending resolution of one filed
by Marvin Biver (Case No. 8:14-cv-00250-VMC-TGW), according to the
company's June 16, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

Litigation was filed against the Company and its directors related
to the Arrangement contemplated in a recently terminated
Arrangement Agreement between the Company, on the one hand, and
Prospect Capital Corporation and three of its subsidiaries, on the
other hand.  Jason Simpson v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 13-011726-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida),
filed December 24, 2013; Gabriella Rago v. Nicholas Financial,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-03261-VMC-TGW (U.S. District Court,
Tampa, Florida), filed December 30, 2013; Matthew John Leonard v.
Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-011811-CI (Circuit
Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed December 31, 2013;
Michelangelo Lombardo v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case
No. 14-000095-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed
January 3, 2014; Edward Opton v. Stephen Bragin, et al., Case No.
14-000139-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed
January 6, 2014; Marvin Biver v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:14-cv-00250-VMC-TGW (U.S. District Court, Tampa,
Florida), filed February 3, 2014; and Richard Abrons v. Nicholas
Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00583-VMC-TGW (U.S.
District Court, Tampa, Florida), filed March 10, 2014.

These seven substantially similar lawsuits were filed in
connection with the Arrangement contemplated in the Arrangement
Agreement between the Company, on the one hand, and Prospect
Capital Corporation ("Prospect") and three Prospect subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Prospect Parties"), on the other hand. On
April 30, 2014, the Biver and the Abrons lawsuits were
consolidated (hereafter, the "Biver lawsuit"). On May 8, 2014, the
Rago lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice.
Each plaintiff to the five pending lawsuits purports to represent
a class of all of the Company's shareholders other than the
defendants and any person or entity related to or affiliated with
any defendant. Four of the lawsuits name as defendants the
Company, the Company's directors, and the Prospect Parties. The
fifth lawsuit names those same parties as defendants, with the
exception of two of the Prospect Parties. Each plaintiff alleges
that the consideration to be paid for the Company's Common Shares
is inadequate and that certain terms of the Arrangement Agreement
are contrary to the interests of the Company's public
shareholders. The plaintiffs in the Biver lawsuit make such
allegations only in the context of asserting claims against the
Company's directors and the Prospect Parties under Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, predicated on
alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the Registration
Statement filed by Prospect on January 13, 2014. Each plaintiff,
except for the plaintiffs in the Biver lawsuit, asserts a breach
of fiduciary duty claim against the Company's directors, and an
aiding and abetting claim against the Company and/or certain of
the Prospect Parties. Each plaintiff seeks declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, other equitable relief and/or unspecified
damages with respect to the proposed transaction. Each plaintiff,
except for the plaintiffs in the Biver lawsuit, also seeks an
award of attorneys' fees. By agreement of the parties and orders
dated May 12, 2014 and May 22, 2014, the four state Circuit Court
actions have been stayed pending resolution of the Biver lawsuit.
On May 30, 2014, the court in the Biver lawsuit denied motions
filed by the Company, the Company's directors and the Prospect
Parties to dismiss the Biver lawsuit, or to abstain from
exercising jurisdiction. However, the court granted those parties'
motions to stay the Biver lawsuit, and ordered that the Biver
lawsuit is stayed for 120 days or pending resolution of the
Arrangement approval proceedings in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, whichever occurs first.


PACIFIC MARITIME: Class Allegations in "Alexander" Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria signed a stipulation dismissing
class allegations in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE ALEXANDER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION INTERNATIONAL, and INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION LOCAL 10, CASE NO. C13-3296 VC, (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of Judge Chhabria's July 9, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/X0jtFDfrom Leagle.com.

Ms. Alexander filed the class action Complaint, alleging that she
and a class of similarly situated persons were denied equal
employment opportunities as a result of Defendants' policy and
practice which excludes applicants based on disability. The
parties have been in settlement discussions since February 2014.
During the course of settlement, Defendants provided information
and documents stating the number of people who are similarly
situated to Plaintiff and have been affected by Defendants'
policies and practices. Based on the information provided by the
Defendants, the Plaintiff no longer believed that she could
establish numerosity to support a class action.

Accordingly, the parties stipulated that the class action
allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint are dismissed.

Jean Hyams -- jean@levyvinick.com -- LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS
LLP, Oakland, CA, Jinny Kim, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY - EMPLOYMENT
LAW CENTER, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Stephanie
Alexander.

Robert Jon Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, San Francisco, CA, Clifford D. Sethness --
csethness@morganlewis.com -- Larry M. Lawrence --
llawrence@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Los
Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant, Pacific Maritime
Association.

Gillian B. Goldberg -- ggoldberg@hgmq.org -- HOLGUIN, GARFIELD,
MARTINEZ & QUINONEZ, APLC, Los Angeles, California, Robert H.
Lavitt -- lavitt@workerlaw.com -- (pro hac vice), Jennifer L.
Robbins -- robbins@workerlaw.com -- (pro hac vice), SCHWERIN
CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP, Seattle, WA, Attorneys
for Defendants, International Longshore and Warehouse Union and
International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 10.


PANARIUM KISSENA: Suit Seeks to Recover Illegal Meal Deduction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Neng Yu, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Panarium Kissena Inc. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery; Panarium Inc. d/b/a
Fay Da Bakery; Boulangerie De Fay Da Inc. d/b/a Fay Da Bakery, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-04385 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and illegal meal deductions
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operates a bakery under the name Fay Da
Bakery within the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action in Tel-Aviv Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli mobile
communications operator, on July 21 disclosed that it was served
with a lawsuit and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as
a class action, filed against Partner and against additional
cellular operators and content providers on July 15, 2014 in the
Tel-Aviv - Jaffa District Court.

The claim alleges, inter alia, that the cellular operators,
including the Company, breached legal provisions and provisions of
their license and thereby created a platform that lead to the
customers' damages alleged in the claim.

If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action the total amount
claimed against all of the defendants is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS300 million.  The amount claimed
against Partner is not estimated separately.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.


PROSENSA HOLDING: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Prosensa
Holding N.V., on July 19 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class comprising all
persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
ordinary shares of Prosensa pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on or about June 28,
2013.  Please contact us at (310) 201-9150, or at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.  If you inquire
by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number
and number of shares purchased.

Prosensa is a biotechnology company engaged in the discovery and
development of RNA-modulating therapeutics for the treatment of
genetic disorders.  The Company's first and lead product candidate
was drisapersen, which Prosensa was developing in collaboration
with GlaxoSmithKline to address a variety of mutations resulting
in inadequate production of dystrophin -- a protein necessary for
muscle function.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement contained materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or omitted material information concerning the development
status of drisapersen, the drug's Phase II and Phase III clinical
studies, and the prospects for drisapersen's regulatory approval.

On September 20, 2013, less than three months after the IPO, the
Company issued a joint press release with GlaxoSmithKline,
disclosing that drisapersen had not met the primary endpoint in
the Phase III study.  According to the press release, "[t]here was
no treatment difference in key secondary assessments of motor
function: 10-meter walk/run test, 4-stair climb and North Star
Ambulatory Assessment."

As a result of this news, Prosensa stock declined approximately 70
percent, or $16.86 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume,
to close on September 20, 2013 at $7.14 per share.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve
as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about
this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, at (646) 539-8980, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


PROSPERITY MORTGAGE: Lower Court Ruling in "Petry" Case Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action complaint, plaintiffs alleged that, while
Prosperity Mortgage Company held itself out to the public solely
as a mortgage lender, it also operated as a mortgage broker that
helped borrowers obtain mortgage loans from Wells Fargo. They
alleged further that all the fees that Prosperity Mortgage charged
them (and the class of similar borrowers) were "finder's fees"
within the meaning of the Maryland Finder's Fee Act. In doing
this, they claimed, Prosperity Mortgage violated the Act (1) by
charging finder's fees in transactions in which it was both the
mortgage broker and the lender and (2) by charging finder's fees
without a separate written agreement providing for them. Finally,
the Plaintiffs alleged that Long & Foster and Wells Fargo were
liable with Prosperity Mortgage as aiders and abettors and as
coconspirators.

After discovery was completed and the district court certified the
class, the court advised the parties that it had concluded that
the fees Prosperity Mortgage charged for performing lending
services were not "finder's fees" within the meaning of the
Finder's Fee Act, unless the fees had been inflated so that the
overcharge could be considered a disguised finder's fee. It
advised the Plaintiffs that they would have to prove "that they
paid some excessive or redundant fee to Wells Fargo (in the guise
of Prosperity) for finding Wells Fargo as a lender." When the
plaintiffs acknowledged that they lacked proof to meet that
burden, the court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of
the defendants.

In an opinion dated July 10, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/CC5B3pfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of
Appeals, Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding that because
Prosperity Mortgage was identified as the lender in the documents
executed at closing, it was not a "mortgage broker" as the
Finder's Fee Act defines that term and, therefore, was not subject
to the Act's provisions.

The case is BRADLEY D. PETRY, Individually and on behalf of a
Class of persons similarly situated; STACEY M. MILLER,
Individually and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PROSPERITY MORTGAGE COMPANY;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; WALKER JACKSON MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
formerly doing business as Prosperity Mortgage Corporation; WELLS
FARGO VENTURES, LLC; THE LONG & FOSTER COMPANIES, INC.; LONG &
FOSTER REAL ESTATE, INC., Defendants-Appellees.  MORTGAGE BANKERS
ASSOCIATION, Amicus Supporting Appellees. BRADLEY D. PETRY,
Individually and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated; STACEY M. PETRY, f/k/a Stacey M. Miller, Individually
and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PROSPERITY MORTGAGE COMPANY; WELLS FARGO
VENTURES, LLC; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; LONG & FOSTER REAL ESTATE,
INCORPORATED; WALKER JACKSON MORTGAGE CORPORATION, formerly doing
business as Prosperity Mortgage Corporation; THE LONG & FOSTER
COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellants.  MORTGAGE BANKERS
ASSOCIATION, Amicus Supporting Appellants, NOS. 13-1869, 13-1924

ARGUED: Benjamin Howard Carney -- bcarney@gordon-wolf.com --
GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD., Towson, Maryland, for
Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Irene C. Freidel -- irene.freidel@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP,
Boston, Massachusetts; Jay Norman Varon -- jvaron@foley.com --
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees/Cross-
Appellants.

ON BRIEF: Richard S. Gordon -- rgordon@gordon-wolf.com -- GORDON,
WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD., Baltimore, Maryland; Cyril V. Smith --
csmith@zuckerman.com -- William K. Meyer -- wmeyer@zuckerman.com
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants/Cross-
Appellees.

Brian M. Forbes -- brian.m.forbes@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP,
Boston, Massachusetts; Andrew Jay Graham -- agraham@kg-law.com --
John A. Bourgeois -- jbourgeois@kg-law.com -- KRAMON & GRAHAM,
P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Ventures, LLC. Jennifer M.
Keas -- jkeas@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Washington, D.C.,
, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants Walker Jackson Mortgage
Corporation, The Long & Foster Companies, Incorporated, and Long &
Foster Real Estate, Incorporated.

David L. Permut -- dpermut@goodwinprocter.com -- William M. Jay --
wjay@goodwinprocter.com -- Sirisha V. Kalicheti --
skalicheti@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellees/Cross-Appellants Prosperity Mortgage Company.

Gary C. Tepper, Daniel J. Tobin -- tobindj@ballardspahr.com --
BALLARD SPAHR LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Mortgage Bankers
Association.


ROLF TIDE: Faces "Ortega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Ortega on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated
v. Rolf Tide, LLC d/b/a Rolf and Daughters Philip Krajeck, Case
No. 3:14-cv-01474 (M.D. Tenn., July 21, 2014), seeks payment for
unpaid overtime work and liquidated damages on behalf of himself
and all those similarly situated.

Rolf Tide, LLC owns and operates a restaurant known as Rolf and
Daughters Philip Krajeck.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SABOR Y RUMBA: "Quinde" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Quinde, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v.  Sabor Y Rumba, Inc. (d/b/a Sabor Y Rumba) Freddy
Mendez and Angel Rojas, Case No. 1:14-cv-04396 (E.D.N.Y., July 21,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Sabor Y Rumba, Inc is a bar/restaurant owned by Freddy Mendez and
Angel Rojas located at 666 Seneca Avenue, Ridgewood, New York
11385.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lina Marcela Franco, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES
     60 East 42nd St, Suite 2020
     New York, NY 10165
     Telephone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
     E-mail: lfranco@faillacelaw.com


SAFEWAY INC: Inks MoU to Settle Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Safeway Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding settle In
Re Safeway Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. 9445-VCL,
according to the company's June 16, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

                  Amendment to Merger Agreement

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

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


SAN JUAN ASSET: "Hidalgo-Velez" Suit ReturnS to Puerto Rico Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit vacated a
district court ruling dismissing the case captioned EDUARDO
HIDALGO-VELEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v.
SAN JUAN ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Appellees,
NO. 13-1574. A copy of the First Circuit's July 9, 2014 decision
is available at http://is.gd/SJMhB9from Leagle.com.

"We vacate the judgment of dismissal, reverse the order denying
remand, and remit the case to the district court with instructions
to return it to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. Costs
shall be taxed in favor of the plaintiffs," ruled the First
Circuit Court.

According to the ruling, the district court was without
jurisdiction to grant the defendants' motions for dismissal but,
instead, should have granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand.

Luis A. Aviles, with whom Jorge M. Izquierdo-San Miguel --
jizquierdo@prtc.net -- and Izquierdo-San Miguel Law Offices, PSC,
were on brief, for appellants.

Eric Perez-Ochoa -- epo@amgprlaw.com -- with whom Adsuar Mu¤iz
Goyco Seda & Perez-Ochoa, P.S.C., was on brief, for appellees San
Juan Asset Management, Inc. and Vizcarrondo-Ram¡rez de Arellano.

Michael S. Flynn, with whom Francisco G. Bruno-Rovira --
Fgb@mcvpr.com -- Leslie Yvette Flores-Rodriguez -- Lfr@mcvpr.com -
- McConnell Valdes LLC, Alicia L. Chang --
alicia.chang@davispolk.com -- and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, were
on brief, for appellee PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (whose brief
was adopted by appellees Puerto Rico & Global Income Target
Maturity Fund, Inc., Luis Rivera, Rivera Casiano, Lugo-Rivera, and
Colon Ascar).


SATINSKY GROUP: R669 Car Scheme Investors Set to File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanna Barry, writing for The Citizen, reports that an attorney was
set to apply to bring a class action against the Satinsky Group
and various banks over the R699-a-month car scheme on July 22.

The Port Elizabeth High Court had given the respondents, which
include the motor dealership group Satinsky, and the financing
banks, until 3:00 p.m. on July 21 to file answering affidavits if
they intend to oppose.

"As an interim measure, we will look into bringing an urgent
application to interdict banks from debiting consumers' accounts
while we consider the facts of the case," PE-based attorney,
Duncan Heuer told Business.

Law firm Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, spokesperson Norton Rose Fulbright
said on July 18, it was "very involved" but would not comment on
which institution/s it was representing.

Before a class action can proceed, the affected parties must first
be declared a class with a common claim.  The application for
class certification is binding on all vehicle owners, but if it is
successful affected consumers will have the option to opt in or
opt out of the case.

Mr. Heuer stresses that if consumers opt to keep their vehicles
and restructure their financing with banks, they will not qualify
for relief under the class action.  "Consumers will have to decide
whether to keep their vehicles and opt out of the class action if
it is approved, or opt in to the class action with a high
likelihood that the vehicles will be returned to the bank," he
explains.

Vehicles will probably be returned to banks and outstanding debt
written off, Mr. Heuer says.


TACO BELL: Ninth Circuit Tosses Class Action Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J. Aaron George, Esq. -- ageorge@sheppardmullin.com -- and
Paul Werner, Esq. -- pwerner@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard
Mullin, in an article for Law.com, reports that in Thomas v. Taco
Bell Corp., No. 12-56458 (9th Cir. July 2, 2014) the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals recently held that Taco Bell, one defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, could not be
held vicariously liable for text messages that it did not send or
authorize without proof of an agency relationship.  The
unpublished decision is one of the first by an appellate court to
address the issue of vicarious liability following the Federal
Communications Commission's ("FCC's") 2013 declaratory ruling in
Dish Network.

The FCC's Dish Network ruling injected vicarious liability into
TCPA class action litigation by suggesting that such liability
could attach based on concepts of "apparent authority" and
"ratification," which the FCC left undefined.  Following the FCC's
decision, plaintiffs' counsel quickly latched onto vicarious
liability theories to pursue companies with only tenuous
connections to alleged TCPA violations.

The Ninth Circuit's decision provides much needed guidance and a
clear limitation on the vicarious liability concepts introduced by
the FCC into the TCPA litigation mix by establishing a bright line
and high bar that class action plaintiffs must meet to hold
companies vicariously liable for the alleged TCPA violations of
third-party vendors.  Relying on traditional agency principles,
the court explained that TCPA plaintiffs must show that the
company "controlled or had the right to control the [vendor]" and
"the manner and means of the text message campaign [the vendor]
conducted."  The Ninth Circuit also adopted stringent standards
that plaintiffs must establish for vicarious liability to attach
under theories of "apparent authority" or "ratification."

The events leading up to Thomas v. Taco Bell began in 2005, when
the Chicago Area Taco Bell Local Owners Advertising Association
(consisting of 12 members, including local Taco Bell store
operators and Taco Bell Corp.) hired an advertising agency to
promote Taco Bell's Nachos Bell Grande.  The advertising agency,
in turn, contracted with a vendor to coordinate the text messaging
component of the promotion.  The plaintiff alleged that she
received an unauthorized text message on her mobile phone
promoting Taco Bell's product sent from the vendor on behalf of
Taco Bell.  She then filed a putative class action against Taco
Bell under the TCPA.

In 2012, the Central District Court of California dismissed the
case on summary judgment, rejecting the plaintiff's theory that
Taco Bell could be held vicariously liable for the conduct of its
advertising vendors.  Specifically, the district court held that
the plaintiff failed to show that Taco Bell controlled the
advertising agency or the vendor, or that it controlled or had the
right to control the "manner and means of the text message
campaign."

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal in
reliance on traditional agency principles.  But, at the same time,
it recognized that in Dish Network, issued after the District
Court's ruling, the FCC concluded that vicarious liability under
the TCPA is not limited "to the circumstances of classical
agency," and should include "[p]rinciples of apparent authority
and ratification."  Even though the FCC's interpretation of the
TCPA is entitled to deference, the Ninth Circuit construed the
doctrines of apparent authority and ratification narrowly and
concluded that Taco Bell could not be held liable under either.
It explained that the plaintiff failed to establish Taco Bell's
apparent authority because she failed to show "that she reasonably
relied, must less to her detriment, on any apparent authority with
which Taco Bell Corp. allegedly cloaked" the Association, the
advertising agency, or the vendor.  As for ratification, the court
held that "the principal-agent relationship is still a requisite."
Because there was no evidence of an agency relationship, there
could be no ratification.

Although the Ninth Circuit's decision is unpublished -- and
therefore is non-binding precedent -- it is a well-considered
application of traditional principles to theories the FCC has
recognized may support liability under the TCPA that future courts
may look to as they address TCPA actions brought under a vicarious
liability theory.  And based on the Ninth Circuit's analysis,
companies will remain protected from vicarious liability under the
TCPA in the absence of a traditional principal-agent relationship.
If this construction takes hold, it represents an important
limitation on the FCC's Dish Network ruling and the availability
of theories of vicarious liability under the TCPA.


TRANSNET: Pensioners Seek High Court Approval of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article in The Citizen's citizen.co.za, Rapport
reported on July 20 that lawyers will ask the High Court in
Pretoria for approval to bring a class action against Transnet on
behalf of 62,160 pensioners from the apartheid years.  The group
wanted to claim around R79.963 billion in assets and interest from
Transnet.

According to the Rapport report, Transnet was planning to dissolve
the pension fund into which it transferred 65,000 pensioners
before stripping it of its assets.

The legal team bringing the class action reportedly discovered
documents showing that the fund's trustees, all employees of
Transnet, were amending the fund's rules in such a way that they
could dissolve the fund.

The lawsuit, which was being led by two top advocates, Jaap
Cilliers, SC and Leon Kellerman, SC, would start in the High Court
in Pretoria on July 21.

Transnet chief executive, Brian Molefe, told the newspaper that
the plight of the pensioners did not concern him because they were
"beneficiaries of apartheid".

A total of 33 percent of the pensioners were black.

If the court approves the application, it will be the start of the
largest court action ever in the country's legal history.


TRATTORIA ROMANA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Hernandez, Teofilo Perez-Sosa, Guadalupe Perez-Zacarias, and
Jose A. Reinoso, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Trattoria Romana, Inc.; Pauline Asoli; and
Vittorio Asoli; jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-04391
(E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid
minimum wages, overtime compensation, and such other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Trattoria Romana, Inc. is a New York business corporation that
owns and operates a restaurant with its office in Richmond County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway Ste 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Closes Sterling Merger; Class Suit Deal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation, an Oregon corporation ("Umpqua"), on
April 18, 2014, completed its previously announced merger (the
"Merger") with Sterling Financial Corporation, a Washington
corporation ("Sterling") pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated September 11, 2013, between Umpqua and Sterling,
according to the company's June 18, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  At the closing of the
Merger, Sterling merged with and into Umpqua, with Umpqua
surviving the Merger as the surviving corporation.

Sterling, its directors and Umpqua Holdings Corporation ("Umpqua")
are named as defendants in three lawsuits pending in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for Spokane County, which have been
consolidated under the caption In re Sterling Financial Corp.
Merger Litigation, Lead No. 13-2-03848-4. The consolidated
litigation generally alleges that the directors of Sterling
breached their duties to the Sterling shareholders by approving
the Merger, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value,
engaging in a flawed sales process, and agreeing to deal
protection provisions in the merger agreement that are alleged to
unduly favor Umpqua. Umpqua is alleged to have aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of duty. The consolidated litigation also
alleges that the disclosures approved by the Sterling board in
connection with the Merger and the vote thereon are false and
misleading in various respects. As relief, the complaints seek,
among other things, an injunction against consummation of the
Merger, rescission of the Merger if it is effected, damages in an
unspecified amount, and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and costs. The defendants believe that the lawsuits are without
merit.

On January 16, 2014 the parties to the consolidated litigation
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the
consolidated litigation (such memorandum including plaintiffs'
agreement to stay the consolidated litigation, except for
proceedings relating to the settlement), subject to court approval
and other customary conditions, including the execution of
definitive documentation. The proposed settlement covers all
holders of Sterling common stock (other than the defendants and
their immediate families, heirs and assigns) from and including
November 1, 2012 until the consummation of the Merger. The
proposed settlement provides for the defendants to make certain
additional disclosures, which were included in the proxy
statement/prospectus that was mailed to Sterling shareholders in
connection with the special meeting at which the Merger was
approved. The proposed settlement does not provide for any other
consideration from the defendants, including any monetary
consideration (other than potentially attorneys' fees as described
in the following paragraph). Sterling shareholders who are members
of the proposed settlement class will, at a later date, receive
written notice containing the full terms of the proposed
settlement and proposed release of class claims and related
matters.

In the event that the parties enter into a settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the Superior Court of Washington in and
for Spokane County will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved
by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in the
consolidated litigation that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the merger
agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, and any
disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding dissenters'
rights pursuant to Chapter 23B.13 of the WBCA), among other
claims, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders
prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in
connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for Spokane County for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses to be paid by Sterling or its successor, which
the defendants may oppose. Sterling or its successor will pay or
cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the
Superior Court of Washington in and for Spokane County. There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
settlement or that the Superior Court of Washington in and for
Spokane County will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated. Sterling management believes the proposed
settlement will have no adverse material impact on Sterling.

Neither the memorandum of understanding nor the ultimate
settlement is, and neither should be construed as, an admission of
wrongdoing or liability by any defendant. Sterling, its directors
and Umpqua continue to believe that the consolidated litigation is
without merit and vigorously deny the allegations that Sterling's
directors breached their fiduciary duties.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation is seeking to dismiss a consolidated
amended securities complaint filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, according
to the company's June 18, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action
complaint, captioned City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al., No. CV 09-00368-EFS,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling and certain of its current
and former officers.  The Court appointed City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff on March 9, 2010.
On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements concerning the company's business
and financial results.  The consolidated complaint purported to be
brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Sterling's stock during the period from July 23, 2008 to
October 15, 2009.  The consolidated complaint alleged that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose the extent of
Sterling's delinquent commercial real estate, construction and
land development loans, properly record losses for impaired loans,
and properly reserve for loan losses, thereby causing Sterling's
stock price to be artificially inflated during the purported class
period.  Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.  On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the
Complaint.  On March 2, 2011, after complete briefing, the court
held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.  On August 5, 2013, the
court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice.  On October
11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint.  The amended consolidated complaint names the same
defendants, specifies the same class period, alleges the same
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and seeks the same relief.  The amended consolidated
complaint contains similar allegations of improper disclosure
regarding Sterling's lending practices, status of loans and
reserving and accounting for loans. On January 24, 2014, Sterling
moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.


VERIZON COMMS: Removed "Porto" Suit to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Porto v. Verizon, et al., Case No.
156280/2014, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-05669 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment,
unequal pay, gender discrimination and retaliation, and asserts
claims against the Defendants for violations of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the New York Executive Law, the New York City Human
Rights Law, and the Equal Pay Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Boyd, Esq.
          Emanuel Kataev, Esq.
          THE BOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC.
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1012
          New York, NY 10017-6504
          Telephone: (212) 867-3675
          Facsimile: (212) 867-5765
          E-mail: pboyd@theboydlawgroup.com
                  ekataev@theboydlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rene Johnson, Esq.
          Pamela S. Richardson, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 919-6600
          Facsimile: (609) 919-6701
          E-mail: rjohnson@morganlewis.com
                  prichardson@morganlewis.com


WATTS WATER: Leaky Toilet Pipe Settlement Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge granted final approval on July 18 to Watts Water
Technologies Inc.'s $23 million settlement with a class of
consumers who purchased Watts' leaky toilet pipe connectors, some
of whom sustained property damage and were displaced from their
homes because of the defects.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick said on July 18 that the
settlement, which he preliminarily approved in February, is a good
one for the class, which includes consumers who bought the
couplers as well as those whose connectors failed.

Under the deal, class members can file a claim for a cash
reimbursement of $4 per connector, up to $20 if they purchased
five connectors, so they can replace the item with a brand of
their choice.  Those who suffered property damage as a result of a
faulty connector can file claims for up to 25 percent of the cost
of their repairs, according to the settlement.

"We think there will be adequate money in the fund to pay
everyone," plaintiffs' attorney Simon Paris of Saltz Mongeluzzi
Barrett and Bendesky said.  "Is everybody in the class better off
today than if they litigated? In this case, everyone gets relief."

In other lawsuits against Watts, many plaintiffs have gotten
little, if anything, Mr. Paris argued.  "We were able to litigate
against a well-heeled defense team -- it was a battle and I can
see why, in other cases, the relief was lost."

Watts' attorney, David MacCuish -- david.maccuish@alston.com -- of
Alston & Bird LLP, agreed that the case was a tough battle and
that the settlement was a "very hard bargain," and urged Judge
Orrick to approve it.

Mr. Paris also asked the judge to approve his team's bid for $5.75
million in attorneys' fees, arguing that they were asking for the
traditional 25 percent of the settlement pot and there haven't
been any objections from the class, which was notified about the
potential award.

Judge Orrick raised few concerns about the proposal, but asked
Mr. Paris to provide more details about some of the expenses for
which he's seeking reimbursement, saying he didn't want to provide
attorneys with a "blank check" without knowing where the money
might go.

The judge also questioned the proposed $7,500 fee award for lead
plaintiff Jason Trabakoolas, saying it seemed "pretty high."  But
Mr. Paris argued that Trabakoolas did much more work than simply
providing a deposition, ultimately spending more than 60 hours
assisting the litigation since it was filed two years ago.

According to the amended complaint, Mr. Trabakoolas arrived home
from a weekend vacation in July 2011 to discover that his Watts
toilet connector had ruptured, spraying water with enough force to
make a hole in the drywall next to his toilet.  Watts' plastic
coupling units are "uniformly defective in their design and
labeling," failing to warn customers about the potential that they
would spontaneously fail, the complaint said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Simon B. Paris --
sparis@smbb.com -- and Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- at
Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC; Joseph J. Tabacco Jr. --
jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- and Todd Seaver --
tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- at Berman DeValerio; Daniel E.
Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Jason S. Kilene --
jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- and Michelle J. Looby of Gustafson
Gluek PLLC; Steve W. Berman, Elaine T. Byszewski, Jeff D. Friedman
and Anthony D. Shapiro of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; and
Donald L. Perelman and Gerard A. Dever of Fine Kaplan and Black
PC.

Watts is represented by David Spruance MacCuish, Jenny Ann
Mendelsohn -- jenny.mendelsohn@alston.com -- Lindsay G. Carlson --
lindsay.carlson@alston.com -- Scott Austin Elder and Todd Brian
Benoff -- todd.benoff@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird LLP.

The case is Trabakoolas et al v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. et
al, case number 3:12-cv-01172, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


YIANNIS INC: Refused to Pay Employees Overtime Wages, Action Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzalo Mora, Jesus Garcia Macario, and Nasario Salazar v.
Yiannis, Inc. d/b/a Pallas Restaurant, Athos, Inc. d/b/a
Pallas Restaurant, and George Glavas, Case No. 2:14-cv-00862 (E.D.
Wis., July 21, 2014), alleges that the Defendants deny its Cooks
and Dishwashers payment of minimum and overtime premium wages for
work which they are suffered or permitted to perform.

Yiannis, Inc. operates Pallas Restaurant, located at 1657 S. 108th
Street, West Allis, Wisconsin 53214.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      Hawks Quindel SC
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com


YTS TRADING: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Gonzalez Garcia and Moncayoruiz Carrera, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. YTS Trading LLC, (d/b/a
Jack's Egg Farm & Sugar), Jack Egg Farm Inc. (d/b/a Jack's Egg
Farm), Jack Egg LLC (d/b/a Jack's Egg Farm), Jack Neustadt,
Mordechai Neustadt and Jack Stein, Case No. 1:14-cv-04397
(E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

YTS Trading LLC is doing business as Jack's Egg Farm & Sugar,
owns, operates, and controls an egg and sugar distribution center
located at 130 44th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11232.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina Marcela Franco, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES
      60 East 42nd St, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: lfranco@faillacelaw.com


ZYGO CORP: Settles "Wnuk" Suit; Del. Securities Suit Abandoned
--------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the settlement of Wnuk v. Zygo Corporation, plaintiffs
in In re Zygo Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Cons. C.A. No. 9551-
VCN agreed to dismiss their complaints with prejudice, according
to the company's June 9, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 6, 2014, the defendants, Zygo, Michael A. Kaufman, Gary K.
Willis, Stephen D. Fantone, Samuel H. Fuller, Seymour E. Liebman,
Carol P. Wallace, Merger Sub and AMETEK, reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs in Wnuk v. Zygo Corporation,
currently pending in the Superior Court in the State of
Connecticut (the "Connecticut Action") to settle the Connecticut
Action. In addition, as previously disclosed on page 54 of the
Proxy Statement, two putative class action complaints challenging
the merger were filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware, which by order dated April 29, 2014, the Court of
Chancery consolidated under the caption In re Zygo Corp.
Shareholder Litigation, Cons. C.A. No. 9551-VCN (the "Delaware
Action," and together with the Connecticut Action, the "Actions").

As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action
agreed to dismiss their complaints with prejudice. The settlement
remains subject to appropriate documentation by the parties and
approval by the court.  Zygo also agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to Zygo stockholders.  Information
concerning the proposed merger is set forth in -- or incorporated
by reference into -- the definitive proxy statement dated May 21,
2014 related to the special meeting of stockholders of Zygo (the
"Proxy Statement").  Zygo, AMETEK, Merger Sub and the other
defendants deny all of the allegations in the Actions. Zygo and
the individual director defendants of Zygo believe the disclosures
in the Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless,
Zygo, AMETEK, Merger Sub and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Connecticut Action in order to avoid the costs,
disruption, and distraction of further litigation.


                              *********

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  * * *