CAR_Public/140804.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 153

                             Headlines


ACTIVE SPORTS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
ADVANCED CALL: "Decker" Suit Moved From E.D. to W.D. Michigan
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
AMERICAN HEALTH: Recalls Ibuprofen Tablets, USP, 600 mg
APPLE INC: Accused of Spying via iPhone's "Location Service" Tool

BANNER HEALTH: Sued Over Disclosure of Medicare ID/SS Numbers
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 4 Lots of IV Solution Due to Plastic
BLUE CROSS: Accused of Illegally Keeping $667-Mil. Excess Profits
BOUNCEBACK INC: Accused of "Renting" County Prosecutor's Seals
BRIDGEVIEW BANK: "Wooley" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

BRISTOL-MYERS: Recalls COUMADIN(R) Due to Particulate Matter
CACOCO INC: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella
CARGILL INC: Recalls NatureWise Meatbird Feed Due to Excess Sodium
CARMEL FOOD: Recalls Rising Moon Organics Butternut Squash Ravioli
CEVA LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Hourly and Overtime Wages, Suit Says

COINABUL LLC: Faces "Hussein" Class Suit for Failing to Ship Gold
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Terminated Worker Due to Race, Suit Claims
CONVATEC: FDA Classifies Recall of Flexi-Seal FMS as Class I
DANCING STAR: Recalls Various Snacks Containing Carob Powder
DELTA AIR: Oct. 14 Final Hearing on $1.4MM Workers Suit Accord

DIGNITY HEALTH: Pension Plans Not Exempted From ERISA Requisites
DYNIA & ASSOCIATES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
EARTH CIRCLE: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella
GENERAL MOTORS: "Corbett" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Sauer" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Ignition Switch Suit in Mercer County
GENERAL MOTORS: Musicians Sue Over In-Vehicle CD-Copying Devices
GEO GROUP: Forces Guards to Work Off the Clock, Class Suit Says
GMAIL INC: News Outlets Still Await Ruling on Sealed Filings
GOMACRO: Recalls MACROBARS Brand Almond Butter + Carob

GOOGLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Users Data Granted in Part
GOOGLE INC: Asks Court Not to Unseal Docs in Gmail Privacy Suit
GREAT AMERICAN: Updates Recall on Ready-To-Eat Products
HART-HANKS SHOPPERS: Violates Minimum Wage and OT Laws, Suit Says
HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Removed "King" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas

HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Lactated Ringers and 5% Dextrose Injection
IDAHO, USA: AG Urged Ninth Circuit to Reverse Abortion Ban
INFRASTRUCTURE CORP: Did Not Properly Record Overtime, Suit Says
INTEL CORP: Accused of Firing Sexually Harassed Design Engineer
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim

JOHNS HOPKINS: $190-Mil. Deal in Suit Over Spying Ob-Gyn Approved
LEVY RESTAURANTS: Accused of Racial and Disability Discrimination
LX JEWELRY: Sued for Terminating Worker Solely Due to Pregnancy
MAJOR LEAGUE: Sued by Disgruntled Minor League Ballplayers
MASSAGE ENVY: Got Prelim. OK of $0.5-Mil. Deal in Insurance Suit

MICROS SYSTEMS: Being Sold for Too Little to Oracle, Suit Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Claims
MTA METRO-NORTH: Faces "Chu" Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Amends $60-Mil. Deal to Streamline Process
NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces Class Suit in Southern District of Texas

NEW YORK, USA: Teacher Tenure Violates Constitution, Parents Say
PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Delivery Sales Tax Denied
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Being Sold for Too Little to Dai-Ichi, Suit Says
QUALITY FOODS: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Chicago Drivers Demand Refunds of $100-Tickets

SUTTER HEALTH: $4-Bil. Class Action Over Stolen Records Halted
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Chinese Commission Among Drywall Suit Defendants
TENNESSEE, USA: Faces Class Suit for Denying Health Coverage
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective 2AZ-FE Engines
TRUMP INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit in Nevada Over Unpaid Overtime

URS CORP: Being Sold to AECOM for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
VILLAGE OF WOODRIDGE: 7th Cir. Unable to Agree on $30 Fee Issue
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Court Approved Settlement in "Connolly" Suit
WORLD WRESTLING: Issued Misleading Statements, Shareholders Claim
YUM BRANDS: Food Safety Scandal in China Hits KFC, Pizza Hut Sales


                            *********


ACTIVE SPORTS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Cassidy and Alex Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Active Sports, Inc. d/b/a The House,
Case No. 0:14-cv-03022-MJD-SER (D. Minn., July 28, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ADVANCED CALL: "Decker" Suit Moved From E.D. to W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Decker v. Advanced Call Center
Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-12597, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan.  The Michigan District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-00795-GJQ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought the action for damages and injunctive relief
based upon the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and The Regulation of Collection
Practices Act.

Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC is a Georgia corporation
and debt collector with an office located in Bingham Farms State
of Michigan.  GE Capital Retail Bank, now known as Synchrony Bank,
a wholly owned subsidiary of GE Capital Retail Finance
Corporation, is a foreign corporation and debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Parker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN P. PARKER, PC
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 642-6268
          Facsimile: (248) 659-1733
          E-mail: brianparker@collectionstopper.com

Defendant Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, is represented
by:

          Alan J. Taylor, Esq.
          SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD (MI)
          Novi Office Center, Suite 203
          39475 Thirteen Mile Rd.
          Novi, MI 48377
          Telephone: (248) 994-0063
          E-mail: ataylor@smsm.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meryl Katz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Allied Interstate, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04518
(E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


AMERICAN HEALTH: Recalls Ibuprofen Tablets, USP, 600 mg
-------------------------------------------------------
American Health Packaging (Columbus, OH) has voluntarily recalled
Lot #142588, Expiration Date, 01/2016 of Ibuprofen Tablets, USP,
600 mg, in a hospital unit dose presentation that may contain
individual blistered doses labeled as Oxcarbazepine Tablets, 300
mg, lot #142544.  In addition, American Health Packaging (AHP) has
voluntarily recalled Oxcarbazepine Tablets, 300 mg, lot #142544,
Expiration Date, 02/2016.  The voluntary recall is the result of
mislabeled inner unit dose blister packaging which could result in
patients receiving ibuprofen and missing their scheduled dose of
oxcarbazepine.

Ibuprofen 600 mg tablets are indicated for the relief of mild to
moderate pain; for relief of the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid
arthritis and osteoarthritis; and treatment of primary
dysmenorrhea.  Inadvertent consumption of ibuprofen may cause
adverse reactions in a number of patients in which use of
ibuprofen is contraindicated.

Oxcarbazepine is used for treating certain types of seizures in
patients with epilepsy.  Failure to receive the proper dose of
oxcarbazepine could increase the chances of having a seizure.
Affected products as follows:

Cartons of 100 count (10x10) Hospital Unit Dose blisters of AHP
Ibuprofen Tablets, USP, 600 mg, with outer carton NDC#: 68084-703-
01 and individual dose NDC#: 68084-703-11, Lot #142588, Expiration
Date, 01/2016.  The drug product can be identified by physical
description: white, oval-shaped, film-coated tablets, with "IP
465" printed on one side.

Cartons of 100 count (10x10) Hospital Unit Dose blisters of AHP
Oxcarbazepine Tablets, 300 mg, with outer carton NDC#: 62584-143-0
and individual dose NDC#: 62584-143-11, Lot #142544, Expiration
Date, 02/2016.  The drug product can be identified by physical
description: yellow color, capsule shaped, film-coated tablets
scored and debossed with '184' on one side and scored on other
side.

To date, AHP has received 1 customer complaint which resulted in
the investigation and recall of these drug products.  AHP has not
received any adverse event reports attributable to the mislabeled
drug.

American Health Packaging initiated a voluntary product recall on
July 1, 2014 as a safety precaution, and will continue to closely
monitor for reports of adverse drug reactions and product
complaints.  Notification of the recall has been sent to
distributors who received the affected product with instructions
on how to notify their customers.

These hospital unit dose products were distributed nationwide
beginning June 20, 2014. No other products or lots were affected
by this incident.

Consumers who have received the recalled product should
immediately discontinue use and contact GENCO Pharmaceutical
Services at 855-419-4608 from 7am to 5pm CST for instructions on
returning the recalled product.

For medical information questions or product complaints related to
Oxcarbazepine Tablets, 300 mg or Ibuprofen Tablets, USP, 600 mg
please contact American Health Packaging customer service at
1-800-707-4621 from 8am to 4pm EST.

Any adverse events that may be related to the use of these
products should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by fax
at 1-800-FDA-0178 or by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787 or on the MedWatch website.

The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


APPLE INC: Accused of Spying via iPhone's "Location Service" Tool
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple uses the "location service" function on iPhones to spy on
customers and give their private information to third parties,
including the federal government, a class action claims in Federal
Court, reports Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Chen Ma sued Apple on behalf of roughly 100 million
iPhone users, claiming Apple violated their privacy.

"In or around September 2012, Apple released iPhone 4 which
contains an iOS operating system software that enables iPhone 4 to
track its users' whereabouts down to every minute, record the
duration that users stay at any given geographical point, and
periodically transmit these data stored on the users' devices to
Apple's database for future references," according to the July 24
complaint.

The iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5C and iPhone 5S also come pre-
installed with the tracking software, the complaint states.

Ma, who has an iPhone 5S, claims that Apple did not inform its
customers about the software, so it could track them without their
knowledge or permission.

There is no way for iPhone users to turn the tracking service off
"without substantially compromising significant number[s] of
functionalities of iPhones," according to the lawsuit.

Ma says she found out about the software when China's Central
Television (CCTV) launched an investigation into the location
service feature.

When CCTV asked Apple about the feature, "Apple only stressed that
it will not disclose to any third party the data concerning iPhone
consumers' detailed daily whereabouts, but did not deny that these
iPhones are indeed transmitting such highly sensitive and private
consumers' data to its database to be stored for future
reference," the complaint states.

But Ma claims that Apple has released consumers' information to
third parties, including the U.S. government, which "has made more
than 1,000 information requests to Apple."

Though she acknowledges that she does not know how Apple has
responded to these requests for information, Ma claims that the
release of customers' private information "has not been for a
legitimate public concern."

She seeks class certification and an injunction preventing Apple
from collecting and storing customers' private information without
giving them prior notice, and from sending their data to a third
party without their permission.  She also seeks compensatory and
punitive damages for invasion of privacy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Wang, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ADAM WANG
          12 S. First Street, Suite 708
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 421-3403
          Facsimile: (408) 416-0248
          E-mail: adamqwang@gmail.com


BANNER HEALTH: Sued Over Disclosure of Medicare ID/SS Numbers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Banner Health Network mailed
its magazine to more than 50,000 members, with their Medicare
ID/Social Security numbers on the mailing labels, a class action
claims in Maricopa County Court.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 4 Lots of IV Solution Due to Plastic
------------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. announced it is voluntarily recalling
four lots of intravenous (IV) solutions to the hospital/user
level.  These products have been found to contain particulate
matter identified as cellulosic fibers and/or plastics.  Baxter
received four complaints over a period of six months from
customers whose visual inspection identified the appearance of
visible particulate matter prior to administration to a patient.

If infused, adverse health consequences of particulate matter
could vary depending on the amount of particulate matter injected
into the patient, the size of the particles, the patient's
underlying medical condition and the presence of a right-to-left
cardiac shunt.  The presence of particulate foreign matter may
elicit inflammatory and allergic responses, both chronic and
acute, and may be life threatening.  There have been no reported
adverse events associated with this issue to date, and an
investigation is underway to determine root cause.

Sodium Chloride Injection, USP is an intravenously administered
injectable indicated as a source of water and electrolytes, for
use as a priming solution in hemodialysis procedures, and may be
used as a diluent for reconstitution of a powdered drug product.
Potassium Chloride Injection is an intravenously administered
injectable indicated as a potassium replacement to support nerve
conduction, muscle contraction and prevention of cardiac
arrhythmias.  The lots being recalled were distributed worldwide
to customers and distributors between February 2013 and June 2014.

Baxter has notified customers, who are being directed not to use
products from the recalled lots.  Recalled products should be
returned to Baxter for credit by contacting Baxter Healthcare
Center for Service at 1-888-229-0001, Monday through Friday,
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time.
Unaffected lots of product are available for replacement.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can call Baxter at
1-800-422-9837, Monday through Friday, between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time.  Consumers should contact
their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced
any problems that may be related to using these drug products.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


BLUE CROSS: Accused of Illegally Keeping $667-Mil. Excess Profits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Arizona, a supposed nonprofit, illegally kept excess profits of
$667 million rather than returning it to policyholders, a class
action claims in Maricopa County Court.


BOUNCEBACK INC: Accused of "Renting" County Prosecutor's Seals
--------------------------------------------------------------
A collections company "rented" county prosecutor's seals to
threaten consumers with jail time unless they paid alleged debts,
and gave the prosecutors a share of the collection fees, three
women claim in a federal class action, reports June Williams,
writing for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiffs Wodena Cavnar, Rosaline Terrill and Linda Parks
sued Bounceback, its parent company Stone Fence Holdings and
director Gail Krieg on July 18, alleging violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and Consumer Protection Act.

Cavnar claims Bounceback uses the seal and letterhead of county
prosecutors to coerce consumers into paying for allegedly bounced
checks plus substantial collection fees.

The plaintiffs say they received seemingly official letters
containing a "warning of criminal charges," and "criminal
prosecution" if they did not pay the amount of the check and more
than $180 in fees.

Bounceback failed to disclose the letter was from a collection
agency and not a law enforcement office, the complaint states.
The demand letters contain a toll-free number supposedly to the
local prosecuting attorney's office, but actually for Bounceback,
according to the complaint.

"What plaintiffs did not realize was the letters were actually
sent by defendant Bounceback Inc., a for-profit debt collection
company based in Missouri," the lawsuit states.  "Bounceback's
operations are much like those of any other high-volume debt
collector: It solicits its business from large national retailers
and other merchants, receives electronic information about unpaid
checks directly from those merchants, and sends out standardized
collection notices to consumers.

"There is one crucial difference, however: Under Bounceback's so-
called 'Check Enforcement Program,' county prosecutors rent out
the prosecutor's seal and letterhead to Bounceback in exchange for
a cut of the collection fees, thereby cloaking ordinary civil debt
collection under a sham 'criminal diversion' program.  Consumers
who receive Bounceback's letters are led to believe they are from
the prosecutor, not from a private collection agency."

The plaintiffs claim prosecutors have "no meaningful control" over
Bouncebacks's collection activities and have not investigated
whether the unpaid check was written with criminal intent or was
"simply an innocent mistake."

"Bounceback enters into contracts with prosecutors purportedly
permitting it to operate in the prosecutor's name, and it pays the
prosecutor a fee for each successfully collected check.  Prior to
Bounceback initiating its collection activities, the local
prosecutor neither conducts any investigation of a particular
check writer, nor makes any individualized determination regarding
either probable cause or the likelihood of prosecuting a check
writer who does not pay the Bounceback fees and participate in the
'Diversion Class,'" according to the complaint.

Bounceback made numerous misrepresentations, in violation of state
and federal laws, the complaint says.

Privatized check enforcement programs are legal in Washington and
allow companies to contract with county prosecutors in exchange
for a fee or percentage of collection charges.  Oregon recently
banned public agencies or officials from allowing debt collection
entities to use official seals or letterheads.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, return of all unlawful
collection fees, and statutory, treble and exemplary damages for
violations of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BRIDGEVIEW BANK: "Wooley" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Wooley, et al. v. Bridgeview
Bank Mortgage Company, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02234, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-05757 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, including straight time
and overtime compensation and related penalties and damages.

Bridgeview Bank Mortgage Company LLC is a mortgage lending and
banking company formed under the laws of the state of Delaware.
The Company is headquartered in Lombard, Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          Mikah K. Thompson, Esq.
          Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 West 110th Street, Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 667-9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
                  mthompson@workerwagerights.com
                  krickley@workerwagerights.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian P. Baggott, Esq.
          Gregory Thomas Wolf, Esq.
          Wade P. K. Carr, Esq.
          DENTONS US, LLP
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64111-7700
          Telephone: (816) 460-2400
          Facsimile: (816) 531-7545
          E-mail: brian.baggott@dentons.com
                  gregory.wolf@dentons.com
                  wade.carr@dentons.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: Recalls COUMADIN(R) Due to Particulate Matter
------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Companydisclaimer icon (NYSE:BMY) is
voluntarily recalling six lots of COUMADIN(R) FOR INJECTION, 5 mg
single-use vials in the U.S.  The recall is a precautionary
measure based on the company's investigation of visible
particulate matter found in a small number of COUMADIN FOR
INJECTION unreleased samples.  Bristol-Myers Squibb believes the
safety risk to patients is low, and is further mitigated by the
product's prescribing information advising that intravenous drug
products be inspected visually prior to administration.

Injected particulate metallic and non-metallic cellulose material
can cause serious and potentially fatal adverse reactions such as
embolization.  Allergic reactions to the foreign material could
also occur.  To date, there have been no product complaints or
adverse events reported to Bristol-Myers Squibb related to this
issue.

COUMADIN FOR INJECTION was discontinued in early April 2014.  The
oral formulation, Coumadin tablets, is not impacted by the recall.

COUMADIN FOR INJECTION is a prescription medicine used to treat
blood clots and to lower the chance of blood clots forming in the
body.  COUMADIN FOR INJECTION is typically administered in a
hospital setting by health care professionals to patients not able
to receive the oral formulation.

COUMADIN FOR INJECTION 5 mg single-use vials is packaged in
cartons of six vials.  The affected COUMADIN FOR INJECTION
includes the following six lots distributed to hospitals and
pharmacies from November 2011 through January 2014:

  Lot Number      NDC               Expiration
  ----------      ---               ----------
  00201125        0590-0324-35      Sep-2014
  00201126        0590-0324-35      Nov-2014
  00201127        0590-0324-35      Dec-2014
  00201228        0590-0324-35      Jun-2015
  00201229        0590-0324-35      Jul-2015
  00201230        0590-0324-35      Sep-2015

Bristol-Myers Squibb has issued recall communications to health
care professionals and other customers involved and is arranging
for return of all recalled products.  Anyone that has COUMADIN FOR
INJECTION which is being recalled should stop use and distribution
and contact Bristol-Myers Squibb's recall vendor, GENCO, at
1-855-838-5784 to arrange for return of remaining stock.

Health care professionals and patients may call the following
number for assistance if they have further questions about the
recall:

The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


CACOCO INC: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------
CaCoCo, Inc. has been notified by its supplier of a recall of
Organic Carob Powder due to possible health risks related to
Salmonella contamination.  Salmonella is an organism that can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail, or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems.
Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal
pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result
in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis, and arthritis.

CaCoCo, Inc. has taken immediate action to recall its products,
CaCoCo "Original" and "Global Warrior" containing said Organic
Carob Powder in order to ensure the safety of its consumers.
CaCoCo, Inc. is working closely with the FDA on this matter.
CaCoCo, Inc. is dedicated to providing the highest quality organic
and raw products and the safety of our customers is our number one
priority.

Products were sold to California distributors, retail outlets, and
farmers markets in 8.14 oz. and 2 lbs. bags.  The products in this
recall include:

Product Name: Original and Global Warrior

  Lot #      UPC Code          Exp. Date
  -----      --------          ---------
  OG99       091131352113      10/19/2014
  OG100      091131352113      11/28/2014
  OG101      091131352113      06/18/2015
  GW99       091131352076      10/19/2014
  GW100      091131352076      11/28/2014
  GW101      091131352076      06/18/2015

No other CaCoCo, Inc. products are affected by this recall and no
illnesses have been reported to date.  This recall is initiated as
a precautionary measure due to a possibility of contamination as
notified by its suppliers.

Consumers that have purchased these products with the above stated
lot numbers or expiration dates are asked not to consume the
product and discard it according to your state/local regulation
guidelines or return the product to the original point of purchase
for exchange.

Consumers with questions may contact CaCoCo, Inc. at (530) 362-
8632, Monday - Friday from 9:00 am - 5:00 pm PST.


CARGILL INC: Recalls NatureWise Meatbird Feed Due to Excess Sodium
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cargill's animal nutrition business announced a voluntary recall
of its Nutrena NatureWise meatbird feed due to excess levels of
sodium.  Sodium is an essential nutrient for poultry.  However,
excess levels of sodium in diets for meatbirds may result in
pulmonary hypertension, increased mortality, reduced growth rate,
increased water consumption, wet droppings, and wet litter.
Consumption of the affected feeds may have contributed to poultry
illness and death.  Customers should call their veterinarian if
their animals have experienced adverse health effects while
consuming the affected product.

The affected products were manufactured at Cargill's West Branch,
Iowa, facility on April 28, 2014, and were distributed in Iowa,
Illinois, and possibly Missouri.  Products were sold in 40-lb.
bags under the name NatureWise Meatbird 22% Crumble with the
product code 91585-40 and lot code 5941181016.  The product and
lot codes can be found on the bottom left corner of the tag that
is attached to the bag.

Cargill is taking appropriate steps to retrieve all affected
products, and is continuing to investigate how the excess levels
of sodium in the feed occurred.

Consumers should return remaining product to their local dealer or
retailer for a replacement or full refund.


CARMEL FOOD: Recalls Rising Moon Organics Butternut Squash Ravioli
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayward, CA-based Carmel Food Group issued a voluntary recall of
Rising Moon Organics Butternut Squash Ravioli, a frozen product,
because of mixed product in the packages with SELL BY APR 09 2015
(ONLY). This mislabeling incident has resulted in product which
may contain undeclared allergens, milk, egg, and soy.  People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, egg, and soy run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

Product: Rising Moon Organics Butternut Squash Ravioli, 8 oz, UPC#
7-85030-55557-6. One Code Date is affected: Pkg. SELL BY
April 9, 2015, case sell by 040915 (Only this Sell By date is
being recalled).

The product involved was distributed through retail stores
nationwide.

The recall was initiated when it was discovered that some packages
labeled Butternut Squash that contain ravioli pieces with a
different filling that may include milk, egg, and soy ingredients.

No illnesses have been reported to date in association with this
product.

Consumers can return the product to their place of purchase for a
full refund.  Consumers with questions can contact the company at
510-429-0356.  Monday - Friday 8am to 5pm, Pacific Time.


CEVA LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Hourly and Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ceva Logistics U.S. Inc.
fails to pay hourly and overtime wages, or to provide meal and
rest breaks, a class claims.

The case is Sergio Aquino v. Ceva Logistics U.S. Inc.; Ceva
Freight Management International Inc., in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Riverside.


COINABUL LLC: Faces "Hussein" Class Suit for Failing to Ship Gold
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Web site Coinabul.com made millions of dollars by offering to
sell gold for bitcoins, but failing to ship the gold, according to
a federal class action, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse
News Service.

Lead plaintiff Yazan Hussein sued Coinabul and its CEO Jason Shore
on July 25.

"Defendants run an online marketplace called 'Coinabul' where
consumers may exchange 'bitcoins' -- a new form of digital
currency -- for physical denominations of silver or gold.
Unfortunately, rather then delivering the metals promised to their
customers, defendants chose to capitalize on the lack of effective
regulatory oversight in this burgeoning industry, and instead
defrauded their customers out of millions of dollars worth of
bitcoins," the lawsuit states.

Bitcoin is a digital currency, not issued or regulated by any
government, that can be traded or used to purchase goods or
services anonymously.

Coinabul claimed to be the "World's first Bitcoin-to-Gold resource
available to the Bitcoin marketplace."  It is a Wyoming LLC,
allegedly based in Cheyenne, but actually is operated from
California, without being registered to do business there,
according to the lawsuit.  Shore lives in California.

"Unfortunately, while defendants continued to readily accept
Bitcoin from consumers, defendants stopped shipping the promised
gold or silver in return.  As a result, defendants unlawfully
misappropriated millions of dollars worth of their customers'
bitcoins," according to the complaint.

Unlike credit card transactions, bitcoin transactions are
anonymous.  They are final, and cannot be reversed.

Coinabul stopped honoring its sales in June 2013, but continued
accepting Bitcoins, even when it had no metal in its inventory,
until April 2014, the complaint states.

Hussein claims he transferred 1,644.54 bitcoins to Coinabul last
year, but did not receive the gold he ordered, even after he
provided the company with his personal information, including his
Social Security number, which Coinabul claimed it needed to comply
with money laundering laws.

Two major Bitcoin exchanges collapsed in February this year,
leading some commentators to speculate that the currency would not
survive.

The price of the crypto-currency is highly volatile, and topped
$1,000 in November 2013.  It's now at about $590.

Hussein seeks class certification, restitution, rescission, and
damages for fraud unjust enrichment and breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: bthomassen@edelson.com


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Terminated Worker Due to Race, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Delilah Escalante v. Consumers Energy Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-
12928-RHC-PJK (E.D. Mich., July 28, 2014) alleges that the
Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's employment due to her
national origin, race and disability.  The Plaintiff contends that
the Defendant treated her differently than other similarly
situated employees in the terms and conditions of her employment
because of her national origin, race and disability.

Ms. Escalante is an Hispanic female of Mexican descent.  She is a
disabled individual because she suffers from hypertension.

Consumers Energy Company is a Michigan corporation conducting
business throughout the state of Michigan with its registered
office in Jackson, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Hardesty, Esq.
          Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq.
          Armin Halilovic, Esq.
          GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
          2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 275-5200
          Facsimile: (248) 817-2765
          E-mail: dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com
                  cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com
                  ahalilovic@goldstarlaw.com


CONVATEC: FDA Classifies Recall of Flexi-Seal FMS as Class I
------------------------------------------------------------
ConvaTec has announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has classified the company's recently initiated voluntary
global recall of Flexi-Seal(TM) CONTROL Fecal Management System
(FMS) as a Class I recall.

The FDA defines a Class I recall as a situation in which there is
a reasonable probability that use of, or exposure to, a violative
product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

ConvaTec began notifying customers in late April that all lots of
Flexi-Seal CONTROL FMS (Model Number: ICC 411107, SAP codes:
1704335 for U.S. Products) were being urgently recalled.  The
notification requested that all lots be quarantined immediately
and returned to the company as soon as possible.  ConvaTec also
notified regulatory agencies in all countries where product was
distributed.

Flexi-Seal CONTROL FMS is a temporary containment device used for
the management of acute fecal incontinence in patients who are
often immobilized and critically ill and have little or no bowel
control and liquid or semi-liquid stool.

In the U.S., the decision to voluntarily recall was made following
the determination that Flexi-Seal CONTROL FMS should have a 510(k)
clearance, rather than the use of the current Note to File that
was based on existing 510(k) clearance for other Flexi-Seal
products.

The company received reports from U.S. healthcare facilities of 13
adverse events, including twelve serious injuries and one death
for the period Feb. 2013 through March 2014.  A causal link has
not been established for all reported events.

The company also conducted an analysis following reports that the
Auto-Valve feature that is unique to Flexi-Seal CONTROL FMS had
not been consistently performing relative to the inflation and
deflation of the device's retention balloon.

Inconsistent performance of the Auto-Valve feature may result in
the following failure modes of the device:

    Auto-Valve fails to limit inflation to 45mL
    Balloon is unable to be inflated fully
    Balloon is unable to be deflated fully
    Auto-Valve leaks at Inflation Port

These failure modes may result in the following health hazards:

    Rectal damage (necrosis/ perforation/ulceration or bleeding)
    Expulsion of the device and/or leakage
    Fecal soiling of bed linen/incontinence pads leading to skin
    deterioration around the anus, peeling skin, and raw,
    irritated lesions due to skin contact with fecal matter

In addition to the mentioned adverse health consequences, death
may also occur.

For these reasons and to address any potential risk of harm,
ConvaTec voluntarily initiated a global recall of all Flexi-Seal
CONTROL FMS kits.

The recall does not affect any of the other Flexi-Seal products or
Flexi-Seal Privacy Collection Bags, which are sold separately.

Customers with questions regarding the recall should contact the
ConvaTec customer service center at 1-800-422-8811 (Monday-Friday,
8:30am - 7:00pm EST).

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.


DANCING STAR: Recalls Various Snacks Containing Carob Powder
------------------------------------------------------------
Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infection
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

Products impacted by the recall include:

Dancing Star LLC brand:

Carob Supergreens Chunks of Energy (10# UPC 7-69270-20005--2),
production lots (0844-1, 0844-2, 0844-3, 0954-1, 0954-2, 0954-3,
0954-4, 0994-1, 0994-2, 1014, 1094-1, 1094-2, 1094-3, 1154-1,
1154-2, 1154-3, 1154-4, 1574, 1634-1,1634-2, 1634-3, 1644, 1684,
1744-1, 1744-2, 1744-3, 1824-1, 1824-2, 1924-1, 1924-2, 1994).

Carob Supergreens Chunks of Energy (7 oz UPC 7-69270-70008-8),
production lot 1014.

Date Flax with Turmeric Chunks of Energy (10# UPC 7-69270-20004-
5), production lots (0794-1, 0794-2, 0794-3, 0954, 1004, 1084,
1124, 1134-1, 1134-2, 1134-3, 1134-4, 1134-5, 1624-3, 1784-1,
1914, 1974).

Date Flax Turmeric Chunks of Energy (7 oz UPC 7-69270-70006-4),
production lot 1004.

Rave Bites Brand:

Rave Bites Carob Supergreens (7oz UPC 7-69270-70008-8), Sell By
Date 6/06/15.

Rave Bites Date Flax with Turmeric (7oz UPC 7-69270-70006-4), Sell
By Dates 4/10/15 and 4/25/15.

Bulk Carob Powder:

Bulk organic Carob powder (10# UPC 7-69270-80001-6) Julian dates
(0154, 0914, 0974, 0994, 1044, 1054, 1114, 1154, 1194, 1534, 1684,
1704, 1824, 1894).

There are no other flavors of Dancing Star Chunks of Energy or
Rave Bites being recalled

The recalled items are distributed nationwide and sold to retail
stores, some of them in bulk for the sales of smaller quantities
to their customers.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased this item are urged to not eat the
product, and to dispose of it or return it to the store where it
was originally purchased for credit.

This precautionary action was taken because the products contain
Carob Powder that was part of Ciranda Inc.'s Organic Carob powder
recall.

The company is working closely with FDA on this issue. "Ensuring
that Dancing Star LLC maintains the highest standards possible,"
said Michael Garfield-Wright (owner Dancing Star LLC, Buckland, MA
01338).  "We stand behind the safety and integrity of our products
and strive to insure the highest quality possible".

Customers with questions or who would like product replacements or
refunds may contact 413 625-8300 between 8:00-4:30 EST, Monday
through Friday, or email recall@chunksofenergy.com.


DELTA AIR: Oct. 14 Final Hearing on $1.4MM Workers Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge has preliminarily approved a $1.4 million settlement
reached between Delta Airlines Inc. and workers who say they were
cheated out of wages.

Andrew Bell worked for Delta from March 2012 to August 2012 as a
part-time Ready Reserve Cargo Customer Agent at San Francisco
International Airport, according to a class action complaint he
filed in California's Northern District in April 2013.  He alleges
Delta has a policy of paying Ready Reserve employees two weeks
after the work is done, not allowing them to take meal and rest
breaks, making them work "off the clock," failing to pay them
overtime and not providing accurate wage statements.  He claims
violation of several of California's provisions under the
California Labor Code, the Private Attorney General Act and the
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The class includes all Ready Reserve Employees who worked for
Delta in California beginning March 18, 2009, through March 17,
2014.

"The court grants preliminary approval of the class settlement
Agreement," said U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in an
order issued on July 22, 2014.  "The court finds that the
settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable to the class."

If the settlement is finalized, Delta will pay $1,415,444 to the
class, which now seeks $353,861 in attorneys' fees.

A final approval hearing is set for October 14, 2014 at 2 p.m. in
San Francisco.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-0333
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
          E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah C. England, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH C. ENGLAND
          351 California Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-9800
          E-mail: dcengland@earthlink.net

The case is Andrew Bell v. Delta Airlines Inc., et al., Case No.
13-CV-01199-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


DIGNITY HEALTH: Pension Plans Not Exempted From ERISA Requisites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
finding that a health care conglomerate's pension plans are not a
"church plan," a federal judge refused to exempt them from ERISA
requirements.

The dispute stems from a class action filed by former Dignity
Health billing coordinator Starla Rollins in April 2013, claiming
that Dignity Health's pension benefits plan was underfunded in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Dignity countered that its plan need not conform to ERISA
standards because it is a church plan.

Enacted in 1974, ERISA establishes minimum funding standards and
disclosure obligations for employee benefit plans, among other
requirements, to ensure that employees receive the benefits they
are promised.

ERISA specifically exempts "church plans" from its requirements.
The term "church plan" means "a plan established and maintained by
its employees by a church or a convention or association of
churches."

In advancing the action this past December, U.S. District Judge
Thelton Henderson found that Dignity does not have statutory
authority to establish its own plan and must follow ERISA
regulations.

After the court refused to let Dignity appeal that finding,
Rollins sought a declaration that the plan was not exempt from
ERISA regulations and that Dignity must bring it into compliance
with ERISA.

Dignity claimed that it needed to retain an expert and engage in
more discovery, leading the court to narrow the scope of Rollins'
motion to the question of whether the plan is exempt from ERISA.

Rollins argued that there is no material dispute of fact that the
plan is not exempt from ERISA since Catholic Healthcare West,
Dignity's predecessor, which is not a church, established it.

Dignity, in turn, said that various religious women's orders
controlled CHW when the plan was established in 1989, and that
those orders would be considered churches for the purposes of
ERISA.  It also argued that the statute of limitations bars
Rollins' claim, and the sought-after relief would not be
"equitable" since the Internal Revenue Service has consistently
considered the plan exempt.  Finding otherwise would be
"inconsistent" and "grossly unfair" since it previously relied on
IRS rulings that it was exempt, Dignity said.

In granting Rollins partial summary judgment on July 22, 2014,
Henderson said Dignity "appears to confuse the meaning of the term
equitable insofar as it distinguishes remedies available at law
from remedies available in equity, and the meaning of the term as
it relates to fairness to Dignity."

"Declaratory relief is a form of equitable relief," he added.
"Nothing in the ERISA statute creates an exemption from such
relief where the result would be, in one parties' view,
'inequitable' or 'unfair,' and the court declines to create such
an exception for Dignity here."

The court also differentiated the case at hand from the precedent
Dignity had cited.

"Furthermore, if adhered to, Dignity's argument would lead to the
perverse result where one erroneous IRS determination would have
to be infinitely perpetuated for the sake of avoiding so-called
'gross[] unfair[ness]," Henderson wrote.  "An erroneous IRS
ruling, however, should not be permitted to trump a court's
interpretation of a statute, and certainly should not be permitted
to persist indefinitely simply by virtue of having come first."

Internal CHW documents also demonstrate and in some cases state
that CHW established the plan, not the women's religious groups,
according to the ruling.

Whether the religious orders controlled CHW is "immaterial because
CHW was a separate corporation at the time it established the
plan," Henderson added.

Even if the groups exhibited some control over CHW, "that alone is
insufficient to set aside CHW's separate identity," the decision
states.

Board members from the religious orders also had final approval
over some matters but did not have approval rights over the
establishment of the plan, the court said.

Dignity also failed to show that the plan resulted from a 1990
merger, Henderson said, noting that Dignity's own supporting
evidence "show[s] only that some sponsoring congregations decided
to merge their plans to the already-established CHW Plan; they do
not raise genuine dispute as to the actual establishment of the
Plan."

"To the extent Dignity attempts to re-litigate the court's
interpretation of the ERISA statute by arguing that under its
preferred interpretation of the statute, a plan established by CHW
would be exempt, and alleging that the court's interpretation
results in excessive government entanglement with religion -- the
law of the case is controlling," the decision continues.

Neither side replied immediately to a request for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Rinaldi, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: brinaldi@cohenmilstein.com

Dignity Health is represented by:

          Barry S. Landsberg, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 W Olympic Blvd #20
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4259
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: blandsberg@manatt.com

The case is Starla Rollins v. Dignity Health, et al., Case No. 13-
cv-01450-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


DYNIA & ASSOCIATES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Brecher, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Dynia & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
04516 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


EARTH CIRCLE: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------
Earth Circle Organics, (River Canyon Retreat, Inc., dba) has been
notified by its supplier of a recall of Organic Carob Powder due
to possible health risks related to Salmonella contamination.
Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometime
fatal infections in young children, frail, or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis, and arthritis.

Earth Circle Organics has taken immediate action to recall Organic
Carob Powder in order to ensure the safety of its consumers.
Earth Circle Organics is working closely with the FDA on this
matter.  Earth Circle Organics is dedicated to providing the
highest quality organic and raw products and the safety of its
customers is our number one priority.

Products were sold to distributors and retail outlets in North
America.

No other Earth Circle Organics products are affected by this
recall and no illnesses have been reported to date.  The recall is
initiated as a precautionary measure due to a possibility of
contamination as notified by our suppliers.

Consumers that have purchased these products with the above stated
lot numbers and expiration dates are asked not to consume the
product and discard it or return the product to the original point
of purchase.

Consumers with questions may contact Earth Circle Organics at 530-
273-3663 ext 216, Monday - Friday from 9 am-5 pm PST.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Corbett" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Corbett, et al. v. General Motors,
LLC, Case No. 7:14-cv-00139, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05754-JMF to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          RHINE MARTIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1612 Military Cutoff, Suite 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772-9960
          Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
          E-mail: jsm@rhinelawfirm.com
                  jrr@rhinelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary Peller, Esq.
          600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20781
          Telephone: (202) 662-9122
          Facsimile: (202) 662-9680
          E-mail: peller@law.georgetown.edu


GENERAL MOTORS: "Sauer" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Sauer v. General Motors LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04080, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05752-JMF
to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John McNeill Broaddus, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 755-1115
          E-mail: jbroaddus@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Justin Silver Brooks, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA (DE)
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: jbrooks@gelaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Ignition Switch Suit in Mercer County
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a West Virginia man has filed a
lawsuit against General Motors Corp., claiming a defective
ignition switch in a Chevrolet Cobalt caused a 2006 accident that
killed his pregnant wife.

The Charleston Daily Mail reported Jason Vest of Princeton filed
the lawsuit in Mercer County Circuit Court.  It also names a parts
manufacturer and a Princeton car dealership.

The lawsuit says 26-year-old Keisha Vest's car failed to stop at
an intersection and collided with a tractor-trailer in Mount Airy,
North Carolina.  The vehicle's airbags didn't deploy.

Earlier this year, GM began recalling older small cars such as the
Cobalt and Saturn Ion to fix faulty ignition switches.  GM says
the switches have caused more than 13 deaths, although lawmakers
say the death toll is closer to 100.


GENERAL MOTORS: Musicians Sue Over In-Vehicle CD-Copying Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors, Ford and others owe the Alliance of Artists and
Recording Companies a lot of money for importing "in-vehicle CD-
copying devices" that violate copyright law, the Alliance claims
in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff AARC sued General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Denso
International America, and Clarion Corp. of America, on July 25 in
Federal Court.

The AARC is based in Alexandria, Va. It seeks actual damages,
statutory damages of $2,500 for each illegal device manufactured,
imported or distributed for the previous three years, plus another
50 percent of actual damages, to be paid to the Register of
Copyrights.

The AARC sued under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17
U.S.C. Sections 1001 et seq., a section of U.S. copyright law.
The AARC was established after the Act was passed, to defend the
rights of artists, as home copying of music became possible and
popular.

"Congress enacted the AHRA to ensure both that consumers would
have access to digital audio copying technology and that artists
and other copyright owners would be fairly compensated for the
copying of their works," AARC says in the lawsuit.

It continues: "Defendants are multibillion-dollar companies that
manufacture, import, and/or distribute hundreds of thousands of
products in the United States every year.  Defendants are also
beneficiaries of the AHRA, which shields them from liability for
copyright infringement for manufacturing, importing, and/or
distributing certain recording devices as long as they (a)
incorporate certain copying control technology and (b) pay a
modest royalty per device that is then distributed to musical
artists and music copyright owners.  Nonetheless, defendants have
refused to comply with the AHRA and refused to pay the royalties
that Congress has determined they owe for the recording devices
they manufacture, import, and/or distribute -- notwithstanding
intensive efforts by the AARC going back at least two years to
persuade defendants to live up to their statutory obligations.
Defendants' intransigence has left the AARC with no choice but to
file this lawsuit."

The AARC claims the defendants violate copyright law by
manufacturing or importing and distributing digital audio
recording devices without complying with the AHRA.

"Defendants distribute these devices either pre-installed in
vehicles or intended for use in vehicles.  Defendants designed
these devices for the express purpose of copying music CDs and
other digital musical recordings to a hard drive on the devices,
and they market these devices emphasizing that copying function.
By doing so, defendants violate the AHRA because defendants (a)
have not registered these devices with the U.S. Copyright Office;
(b) have not paid royalties for these devices; and (c) have not
incorporated the Serial Copy Management System or its functional
equivalent in these devices, all of which are required by the
AHRA."

The AARC claims that other manufacturers of in-vehicle CD-copying
devices comply with the law, and pay the required royalties
through the Copyright Office.

Denso is a Delaware corporation based in Southfield, Michigan.

Clarion Corp. in a California corporation based in Cypress,
California.

Under the Audio Home Recording Act, digital audio recording
devices (DARD) are not supposed to be able to copy a copy of a CD.
The DARD therefore must be able to distinguish an original from a
copy, and "must never allow a user to copy a 'copy,'" according to
the complaint.  The device that performs these functions is the
Serial Copy Management System.

The AARC claims that General Motors offers what it calls a "Hard
Drive Device" in a slew of models, including Cadillacs, which
allow illegal copying.  Denso supplies it with the devices,
according to the complaint.

Ford does the same thing, in its Ford and Lincoln brands, and gets
the devices from Clarion, the AARC says.  Ford calls it a
"Jukebox."

The AARC seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, damages and
costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dustin Cho, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2401
          Telephone: (202) 662-5458
          Facsimile: (202) 778-545
          E-mail: dcho@cov.com


GEO GROUP: Forces Guards to Work Off the Clock, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, a large private prison company, forces its guards
to work off the clock, a class action claims in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


GMAIL INC: News Outlets Still Await Ruling on Sealed Filings
------------------------------------------------------------
Although a massive class action over Gmail privacy has been
settled, news outlets reminded a federal judge on July 18, 2014,
that they're still waiting for a ruling on sealed filings in the
case, according to William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

News agencies -- including Courthouse News, Gannett, McClatchy and
the New York Times -- lobbied U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh earlier
this year to deny requests by Google and the lead plaintiffs to
file under seal, citing public interest in the case involving
millions of Gmail users.  The sprawling class action dubbed In re
Google Inc. -- Gmail Litigation claimed that the tech giant's new
privacy policies violate federal computer fraud, eavesdropping and
wiretap laws.

The parties settled in late May, after the 9th Circuit refused to
certify the class.  The agreement became final in July when the
last minor litigant in the case turned 18.

But the intervening news outlets said in a filing on July 18,
2014, that Koh still needs to rule on requests from both sides to
file under seal despite the settlement.

"Because the court has not yet ruled on the sealing motions,
thousands of pages of attachments remain either heavily redacted
or entirely sealed," attorney Thomas Burke, of the firm Davis
Wright Tremaine, wrote for the news services.  "The public
continues to have a strong interest in seeing the entire factual
basis for the court's class certification ruling in a case that
affects the privacy of millions of Americans.  Indeed, the fact
that a settlement has been reached should not be an obstacle to
ruling on the motion or allowing access to documents."

A final case management conference was set for July 30 in Koh's
courtroom.

The Media Intervenors are represented by:

          Thomas R. Burke, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Segal, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 276-6500
          Facsimile: (415) 276-6599
          E-mail: thomasburke@dwt.com
                  jonathansegal@dwt.com

The case is In Re Google Gmail Litigation, Case No. 5:13-md-02430-
LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


GOMACRO: Recalls MACROBARS Brand Almond Butter + Carob
------------------------------------------------------
GoMacro, of Viola, Wis., is recalling MACROBARS brand almond
butter + carob lots 1634 and 1645 and sunflower butter + chocolate
lot 1646, because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

GoMacro was notified on July 23 by its supplier of carob powder,
an ingredient in the company's almond butter + carob bars, that
one of their customers received a positive test for Salmonella.
In the interest of abundant caution, GoMacro is voluntarily
recalling lot 1646 of sunflower butter + chocolate because it was
produced on the same line after lots 1634 and 1645.  These
MacroBars were distributed across the country and internationally
via retail stores, mail order and direct delivery.

Affected MacroBars will be clearly marked as either almond butter
+ carob with lot numbers 1634 (expiration 10 Mar 15) or 1645
(expiration 18 Mar 15) or sunflower butter + chocolate lot 1646
(expiration 18 Mar 15) and in a foil wrapper.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The carob powder supplier has ceased the production and
distribution of this product.  Consumers who have purchased this
product are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund.

"Even though there is no indication of contamination in our
product, GoMacro puts the consumer at the forefront of every
decision we make.  We offer this voluntary recall in the interest
of protecting the health of the consumer," GoMacro President Jola
Sonkin said.

If you have any questions our Operations Manager, Tony Saarem, is
available by phone, Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (CST) at (608)-627-2310.


GOOGLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Users Data Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Google users barely managed to survive a third dismissal in their
class action over the search giant's commingling of user data
across Google products and disclosure of such data to third
parties, according to Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse
News Service.

Lead plaintiff Robert Demars and others filed the original
complaint after Google updated its privacy policy on March 1,
2012, to permit the commingling of user data across different
Google products such as Gmail and YouTube.

The new policy allowed Google to combine a user's information from
one service with the user's information from other services.

The users claimed that the policy violates their privacy rights by
allowing Google to take information from their Gmail accounts to
be used in a different context, such as to personalize search
engine results or advertisements.  They also said that Google
disclosed their data to application developers and advertisers.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal twice before dismissed the
users' claims against Google, finding that the first complaint
lacked standing because the users could not show how they were
economically harmed and that the second complaint contained
insufficient facts to support the users' claims.  He warned that
any further dismissals would likely be with prejudice.

The users' latest complaint included the addition of allegations
concerning Google's plan, "Emerald Sea," which was unveiled as
early as May 2010 with the apparent objective to reinvent Google
as a social media advertising company.

"The plan's execution involves creating cross-platform dossiers of
user data that would allow third-parties to better tailor
advertisements to specific consumers.  Plaintiffs allege that
despite this objective, Google left in place the prior policies in
order to avoid tipping-off customers.  They cast Emerald Sea as
evidence of Google's intent to deceive consumers by disregarding
existing privacy policies in pursuit of ad revenue," Grewal wrote
in his dismissal ruling.

The new allegations effectively allege the same harm as before.
An Android Device Switch Subclass further alleges that its class
members had to replace their Android devices in order to avoid
Google's invasive policy, costing them money.

An Android Application Disclosure Subclass claims that Google's
disclosures to third parties increased their phones' battery and
bandwidth consumption, causing them to incur additional costs, and
invaded their statutory and common law privacy rights.

The users asserted their claims as violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Federal Wiretap Act, Stored
Electronic Communications Act, California's Unfair Competition
Law, in addition to common law theories of breach of contract and
intrusion upon seclusion.

Google urged the court to dismiss the users' case once and for
all.

"Like Rocky rising from Apollo's uppercut in the 14th round,
plaintiffs' complaint has sustained much damage but just manages
to stand," Grewal stated in a 28-page ruling that dismissed all
but two of the users' claims.

"After running each claim (and subclaim) of each class (and
subclass) through the gauntlet of constitutional and procedural
hurdles, two claims remain: the App Disclosure Subclass' breach of
contract claim, and the fraudulent prong of the App Disclosure
Subclass' UCL claim.  Plaintiffs may proceed on these two causes
of action alone," Grewal wrote.

Because the users did not amend their claims following the court's
dismissal of their Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act and
breach of contract claim on behalf of the entire class, those
claims must be dismissed with prejudice.

The users' Consumers Legal Remedies Act claims fail because they
do not claim that any of the members of the Device Switch Subclass
read, heard or were otherwise aware of Google's operative privacy
policy before creating their account, so they could not have
relied on any representation it contained in making their decision
to purchase Android phones.

However, the App Disclosure Subclass can continue with its breach
of contract claim alleging that its members entered into a
contract with Google when they registered for an Android
Market/Google Play account and Google breached the contract's
terms by disclosing user data to third parties following every
download or purchase of an app.  They cite damages in the form of
resource consumption.

As the court already ruled, allegations of resource depletion,
including battery power, give rise to standing.  Additionally,
despite Google's arguments to the contrary, the subclass points to
explicit terms in the contracts that Google allegedly breached.

The subclass' claim under the fraudulent prong of the UCL also
carries weight.

The users "allege that Google left a privacy policy in place which
led consumers to believe that access to their data would be
limited to certain groups.  These allegations fill 10 pages with
extensive detail about the plan and its concealment, such that
they clear the bar of Rule 9(b).  Plaintiffs also successfully
plead that they relied on these policies in making the decision to
use Google Play and download Android applications.  Finally,
plaintiffs plead that they have suffered the loss of battery power
and other system resources as a result of Google's fraudulent and
surreptitious conduct.  Once again, whatever the ultimate merits
of this claim, the App Disclosure Subclass has stated a claim for
relief that may go forward," Grewal wrote.

The case is In Re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation, Case No.
5:12-cv-01382-PSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


GOOGLE INC: Asks Court Not to Unseal Docs in Gmail Privacy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Google urged a federal judge to ignore demands made
by news outlets to deny requests to seal documents in a massive --
and settled -- class action over Gmail privacy.

News agencies -- including Courthouse News, Gannett, McClatchy and
the New York Times -- lobbied U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh earlier
this year to deny requests by Google and the lead plaintiffs to
file under seal, citing public interest in the case involving
millions of Gmail users.  The sprawling class action dubbed In re
Google Inc. - Gmail Litigation claimed that the tech giant's new
privacy policies violate federal computer fraud, eavesdropping and
wiretap laws.

The parties settled in late May, after the 9th Circuit refused to
certify the class.  The agreement became final last week when the
last minor litigant in the case turned 18.

But after the news outlets reminded Koh that they were still
waiting for rulings on the requests to file under seal, attorneys
for Google urged the judge not to bother in light of the
settlement.

"The self-styled media intervenors' perceived need for public
access to the information sought to be sealed is significantly
diminished by the court's denial of class certification with
prejudice," Google attorney Whitty Somvichian, of the firm Cooley
LLP, wrote in an answer filed on July 24, 2014.  "The media
intervenors opposed the motions to seal on the basis that 'the
public interest cannot be overstated,' in part, because 'this case
has the potential to affect the rights of the millions of class
members.'  Now that the court has denied class certification with
prejudice and each of the representative plaintiffs' cases has
been dismissed, the need for the 'millions of class members' to
have access to Google's confidential information is necessarily
diminished.  Moreover, the court -- on its own initiative --
redacted its order on class certification, strongly implying that
the underlying documents on which that order relied contain
sensitive confidential information that should be sealed."

Google Inc. is represented by:

          Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  wsomvichian@cooley.com
                  kwong@cooley.com

The case is In re Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, Case No. 5:13-md-
02430 LHK (PSG), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


GREAT AMERICAN: Updates Recall on Ready-To-Eat Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Great American Marketing, a Houston, Texas establishment, is
recalling approximately 475 pounds of FSIS and FDA-regulated,
ready-to-eat products due to possible contamination with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The sandwich and wrap products were produced on July 15, 2014, and
then shipped to retail locations in Texas. Case labels or
packaging may bear the sell by date of 07/26/14.

Products regulated by FSIS bear the establishment number
"EST 31680" or "P-31680" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The
following FSIS-regulated products are subject to recall:

   -- 7.4 ounce plastic-covered tray packages containing Chicken
      Caesar Wraps.

   -- 8.1 ounce plastic-covered tray packages containing Club
      Wraps.

FDA-regulated products being recalled (are listed at
http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls) and include:

   -- 10.5 ounce plastic-covered tray packages containing Ham and
      Cheddar Premium sandwiches.

   -- 10.5 ounce plastic-covered tray packages containing Turkey &
      Swiss Premium sandwiches.

The problem was discovered when FSIS collected a sample of a
separate product on July 15, 2014, that was confirmed positive for
L. monocytogenes on July 21.  The sampled product was held.
However, the plant produced the additional FSIS and FDA regulated
products listed in this recall without conducting a complete
clean-up of the production equipment.  Those products have entered
commerce and are subject to recall.  FSIS and the company have
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.

Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns.  Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms.  An invasive
infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract.  In pregnant
women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths,
premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn.
In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older
adults and persons with weakened immune systems.  Listeriosis is
treated with antibiotics.  Persons in the higher-risk categories
who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating
contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health
care provider about eating the contaminated food.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:

                 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until
steaming hot.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Bill Welch at (713) 682-6471.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the
FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online
Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24
hours a day at:

              http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


HART-HANKS SHOPPERS: Violates Minimum Wage and OT Laws, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hart-Hanks Shoppers and Pennysaver violate minimum wage and
overtime laws by paying sales reps on a straight commission basis,
a class action claims in Orange County Court.


HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Removed "King" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled King, et al. v. Homeward
Residential Inc., et al., Case No. CV14-274, was removed from the
Craighead County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (Jonesboro).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00183-BSM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq.
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          The Rozelle-Murphy House
          1301 Scott Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
          E-mail: cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com
                  scott@emersonpoynter.com
                  wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          Daniel Odell Turner, Esq.
          Todd Martin Turner, Esq.
          ARNOLD, BATSON, TURNER & TURNER, P.A.
          Post Office Box 480
          Arkadelphia, AR 71923
          Telephone: (870) 246-9844
          E-mail: dan@arnoldbatsonturner.com
                  todd@abtt.us

               - and -

          Joel G. Hargis, Esq.
          CRAWLEY & DELOACHE, PLLC
          533 West Washington
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 972-1127
          Facsimile: (501) 915-0410
          E-mail: joel@crawleydeloache.com

               - and -

          Kathy A. Cruz, Esq.
          CRUZ LAW FIRM, PLC
          1325 Central Avenue
          Hot Springs, AR 71901
          Telephone: (501) 624-3600
          E-mail: kathycruzlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian V. Otero, Esq.
          Ryan A. Becker, Esq.
          Stephen R. Blacklocks, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS
          200 Park Avenue, Suite 5200
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 309-1020
          Facsimile: (212) 309-1100
          E-mail: botero@hunton.com
                  rbecker@hunton.com
                  sblacklocks@hunton.com

               - and -

          Jamie Marie Huffman Jones, Esq.
          Kevin A. Crass, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          Regions Center, Suite 2000
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
          Telephone: (501) 370-1430
          E-mail: jjones@fridayfirm.com
                  crass@fridayfirm.com


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Lactated Ringers and 5% Dextrose Injection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. announced it is initiating a voluntary nationwide
user-level recall of one lot of Lactated Ringers and 5% Dextrose
Injection, USP, 1000 mL, Flexible Container, NDC 0409-7929-09, Lot
35-118-JT, Expiry 1NOV2015 .  This action is due to one confirmed
customer report where particulate was identified within the
solution of the primary container.  The particulate was identified
as a filamentous-like structured particulate indicative of mold.
Analysis of the primary container and overwrap indicated a
puncture in the same physical location, causing the primary
container to leak.

Intravenous administration of a non-sterile product can result in
infections that may be life-threatening, and may result in
prolonged hospitalization or organ failure.  Hospira has not
received reports of any adverse events associated with this issue
for this lot to date, and has not identified any quality issues
with retention samples for this lot.  Hospira has investigated and
determined the root cause of the event and has implemented
corrective actions to address this issue.

In general, a defect in a container leading to a leak may create a
breach in sterility since an open pathway exists for contamination
of fluid.  If the leak is not detected, and the solution becomes
contaminated and it is not identified prior to administration,
there is potential that contaminated solution could be
administered to the patient.

The product is indicated for parenteral replacement of
extracellular losses of fluid and electrolytes, with or without
minimal carbohydrate calories, as required by the clinical
condition of the patient.  The product is packaged in 1000mL
flexible containers, 1 container per overwrap, and 12 overwrapped
containers in each case.  The lot number is located in the upper
left hand side of the primary container.  This lot was distributed
nationwide from Dec. 2013 through Feb. 2014 and was distributed to
hospitals, clinics, wholesalers and distributors. This recall is
being conducted as a precautionary measure.

Anyone with an existing inventory should stop use and
distribution, quarantine the product immediately, and call
Stericycle at 1-888-912-8457 between the hours of 8am to 5pm EST,
Monday through Friday, to arrange for the return of the product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


IDAHO, USA: AG Urged Ninth Circuit to Reverse Abortion Ban
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the Idaho attorney general on July 18, 2014, urged the 9th Circuit
to reverse a ruling that Idaho's ban on abortions after 20 weeks
of pregnancy is unconstitutional, arguing that a woman and
physician do not have standing to pursue their claims.

The lower court judgment was handed down after Bannock County
resident Jennie Linn McCormack filed a federal class action
alleging she was charged in 2010 with having an "unlawful
abortion" in her second trimester.

According to court records, McCormack, a single mother with three
children, was living on $200 to $250 a month when she discovered
that she was pregnant.  With no abortion clinics in the eight
southeastern Idaho counties, including Bannock, she faced a trek
to the nearest abortion clinics in Salt Lake City.

Even if McCormack did make it to Salt Lake City, she would have
had to spend hundreds of dollars for the procedure.  McCormack
decided to take a cheaper option, taking five abortion pills her
sister had ordered off the Internet, it was alleged.

McCormack later was questioned by Pocatello police officers, who
had received a tip that a woman was keeping a fetus in a box on
her back porch, according to court records.

On May 17, 2011 Bannock County prosecutor Mark Hiedeman charged
McCormack with the felony of an unlawful abortion, under Idaho's
abortion law.

Just over three months later, a magistrate judge dismissed the
case at a preliminary hearing.  Later that year, McCormack and her
attorney-physician Richard Hearn asked a federal judge to enjoin
Hiedeman from pressing charges under the regulations.

Hearn, an attorney at Pocatello firm Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge &
Bailey, intervened after McCormack filed suit.

Two statutes under Chapter 6 of the Idaho Code placed restrictions
on pregnant women during the first and second trimester, while a
third under Chapter 5 of the code, Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn
Child Protection Act, effectively bans abortions after 20 weeks of
pregnancy.  Under the regulations, a woman convicted of an
"unlawful abortion" faces a $5,000 fine or up to 5 years in state
prison.  Idaho physicians may be criminally charged for
prescribing FDA-approved abortion medications to women through the
second trimester of pregnancy, the plaintiffs said.

In March 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill found
that under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the regulations are
unconstitutional.

Finding that the "purpose of the . . . [law's] . . . categorical
ban is to protect the fetus -- not the mother," Winmill ruled that
that the statute "embodies a legislative judgment equating
viability with twenty weeks' gestational age, which the Supreme
Court expressly forbids."

But Idaho Deputy Attorney General Clay Smith on July 18 morning
urged the court to reverse.  Arguing for Stephen Herzog,
Hiedeman's successor as Bannock County prosecuting attorney, Smith
said McCormack's undue burden challenge was "plainly" moot in
light of the magistrate judge's dismissal of her case.  Smith
challenged Winmill's finding that the regulations are
unconstitutionally vague, arguing in his brief that they protect
women and ensure that that physicians performing abortions "adhere
to the reasonable standard of professional care."

Ninth Circuit Judge Kim Wardlaw was not convinced that McCormack's
claims were moot.  Though Smith had argued that Hiedeman had
granted immunity to the plaintiff, she noted that Herzog "could
change his mind at any time," and to reinstate the charges, within
the 5-year statute of limitations.

Smith tried to shift the focus to Hearn.  As the Idaho court's
order noted, Hearn is a practicing attorney who has not practiced
as a medical doctor since 1997, and did not perform abortions when
he practiced.

Smith told the panel: "That issue is whether Ms. McCormack's
attorney who is also a licensed but nonpracticing physician, may
offer medication abortions which would allow his patients to
complete the abortion in their own home, in a manner that the
appellant believes is inconsistent with the relevant FDA drug
labels, and with protocols promulgated by the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the National Abortion
Federation."

In his brief, Smith argued that there is "undisputed evidence"
that second-trimester abortions should be performed in hospitals
because of the risk of death or injury to women because of the
"increased fetus size."

"Under these circumstances, Hearn does not adequately represent
the interests of his putative Bannock County patients for third
party standing purposes," Smith wrote.

When Richard Hearn stepped forward to argue his case, he was
almost immediately challenged by Senior U.S. District Judge Donald
Walter, who appeared via video link-up from Louisiana.

Walter asked Hearn why it's an "undue burden" for a woman to go to
hospital for an abortion during the second trimester.

Taken off guard, Hearn replied: "The burden is that a woman would
need to be admitted to the hospital to have an abortion that she
could safely have outside the hospital."

Walter's tinny voice echoed through speakers: "Is there any reason
to believe she couldn't get to a hospital?"

Hearn said that for McCormack, and other low-income women, getting
to a hospital is "prohibitive."  Some don't have insurance, Hearn
said, and Medicaid does not cover abortions in the state.

Walter was not satisfied. "Tell me what the burden is," the judge
pressed.

Hearn countered that that are no physicians in Bannock County who
provide medical abortions.  That caused the judge to take pause.

"Is that in the record?" Walter asked.

"Yes," Hearn said, letting the silence hang.

"There are no doctors providing medical abortions in Bannock
County.  One doctor, myself, has asked to," the attorney
continued.  "No doctors are providing -- that is in the record --
second trimester or first trimester abortions in Bannock County or
southeast Idaho.  Ms. McCormack had to go to Salt Lake City in
order to have an out-patient abortion in Utah," the attorney said.

"If asked" Smith and the Idaho attorney general would "concede
that not one of these statutes that we're talking about is
constitutional," Hearn added.

"But unconstitutional statutes, just like unloaded guns, can still
threaten people that they're pointed toward.  At least until it's
known that the statute is unconstitutional, the doctors and women
in Idaho will have these statutes pointed toward them by
prosecutors," Hearn said.

Further, he said, the attorney general's office, including Smith,
had warned the Idaho Legislature that the Pain-Capable Unborn
Child Protection Act was unconstitutional.

As he made his case, Hearn grew quite animated, waving his hands,
his voice straining.

"Why don't you calm down a little bit, you're liable to have a
heart attack," Judge Harry Pregerson quipped.

"At my age that's certainly true, your honor," Hearn replied.


INFRASTRUCTURE CORP: Did Not Properly Record Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Najera v. Infrastructure Corporation of America, Case No.
4:14-cv-01322 (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2014) alleges that the Defendant
did not record and properly classify hours worked by the
Plaintiff, in excess of 40 hours per week, as overtime hours under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Infrastructure of America is a Missouri limited partnership with
its principal place of business located in Brentwood, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James G. Nowogrocki, Esq.
          Richard D. Worth, Esq.
          WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.C.
          1015 Locust, Suite 400
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 588-9500
          Facsimile: (314) 588-9595
          E-mail: jnowogrocki@weisslawstl.com
                  rworth@weisslawstl.com


INTEL CORP: Accused of Firing Sexually Harassed Design Engineer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation wrongly fired a design engineer who alleges he
was sexually harassed by a supervisor and needed to take medical
leave to overcome the stress of the situation, according to a
state court claim, reports Courthouse News Service.

The case is Mark Ehrensberger v. Intel Corporation; Does, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that International Game Technology
is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to GTech
Corp., in a cash and stock swap valued at $6.4 billion,
shareholders claim in Clark County Court, Nevada.


JOHNS HOPKINS: $190-Mil. Deal in Suit Over Spying Ob-Gyn Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Women whose Johns Hopkins Hospital gynecologist secretly filmed
their pelvic exams have persuaded a Baltimore judge to approve a
$190 million settlement, their lawyers said, according to Adam
Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service.

Baltimore County Police found Nikita Levy, 54, dead in his home on
Feb. 18, 2013, after losing his job at Johns Hopkins following
reports that he used a pen camera and other devices to record his
patients.  Three anonymous women filed suit the next month,
alleging that the 25-year ob-gyn was also "guilty of boundary
violations," and stating that the hospital reported the doctor's
conduct to the Baltimore City Police.

"It is alleged that a subsequent investigation by the Baltimore
City Police Department and a search of Dr. Levy's home in Towson,
Maryland, revealed an 'extraordinary amount' of evidence,
including, but not limited to, multiple servers for storage of
electronic and digital data," the lawsuit said.

The Baltimore City Circuit Court certified the case as a class
action in October, and the lawyers for the women announced a
settlement on July 21, 2014.

Attorneys Jonathan Schochor and Howard Janet said that their
clients were "extremely distraught" to learn of Levy's actions.

"They felt a great breach of faith and trust," the attorneys said
in a statement.  "They felt betrayed.  Now, with this proposed
settlement, we can begin the process of healing our community."

Two more of Levy's alleged victims filed separate suits against
Johns Hopkins in December, represented by Ryan Burke.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Schochor, Esq.
          SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO AND STATON, P.A.
          1211 St. Paul Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 234-1000
          Facsimile: (410) 234-1010

               - and -

          Howard Janet, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS LLC
          Commerce Centre East
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030


LEVY RESTAURANTS: Accused of Racial and Disability Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnett Valerie, Erik Silverman, Ramses Graham, Anthony Peterkin,
and Sydney Silvera v. Levy Restaurants, Inc.; Levy Premium
Foodservice Limited Partnership, Brooklyn Events Center, LLC dba
Barclays Center; and Aaron La Greca, Alphonse Lanza and Lisa
Brefere in their Individual Capacity, Case No. 1:14-cv-04499-KAM-
SMG (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs have
suffered from systemic maltreatment and egregious abuse on the
basis of race or disability.

The Plaintiffs work at the kitchens of Levy Premium, which
provides food and catering services for Barclays Center in
Brooklyn, Kings County, New York.

Levy Premium is owned, operated and managed by Levy Restaurants,
Inc.  Barclays owns the Barclays Center arena and oversees its
operations, including the Food and Beverage department, run by
Levy Premium.  Defendants Aaron La Greca and Alphonse Lanza are
the managers of the Plaintiffs.  Lisa Brefere is a consultant for
Barclays and directs the operations of Levy Premium.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Walker G. Harman, Jr., Esq.
          Ronnie L. Silverberg, Esq.
          THE HARMAN FIRM, PC
          1776 Broadway, Suite 2030
          New York, NY 10019
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3926
          Telephone: (212) 425-2600
          E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
                  rsilverberg@theharmanfirm.com


LX JEWELRY: Sued for Terminating Worker Solely Due to Pregnancy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paola Remigio v. LX Jewelry, Inc., LX NYC Jewelry, Inc., and Jain
Hai Liu, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05759 (S.D.N.Y., July 28,
2014), seeks damages to redress the alleged injuries the Plaintiff
has suffered as a result of being discriminated against and
terminated by her employer solely due to her pregnancy and gender.

LX Jewelry, Inc. and LX NYC Jewelry, Inc. are New York domestic
business corporations with their principal place of business
located in New York City.  Jain Hai Liu is the owner or officer of
LX.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Umansky, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212)248-7431
          E-mail: aumansky@tpglaws.com


MAJOR LEAGUE: Sued by Disgruntled Minor League Ballplayers
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that most
minor league baseball players earn only $3,000 to $7,500 a year
for work weeks of up to 70 hours, while Major League Baseball
enjoys billions of dollars in revenue, minor leaguers claim in a
federal class action against Major League Baseball, its 30 teams,
and Commissioner Bud Selig.

Yadel Marti, who played for the Oakland Athletics from 2010
through 2012, and five other former minor leaguers filed the labor
complaint on July 21, 2014.  They seek damages for violations of
state and federal labor laws, unfair competition and antitrust
violations.

"Since minor leaguers do not belong to a union, nothing has
prevented the defendants from artificially and illegally
depressing minor league wages," the lawsuit states.  "Given that
MLB carefully controls the entryway into the highest levels of
baseball, and given the young minor leaguer's strong desire to
enter the industry, MLB and the defendants have exploited minor
leaguers by paying salaries below minimum wage, by not paying
overtime wages, and by often paying no wages at all."

The average value of MLB's 30 franchises is estimated at $744
million.  Major League Baseball pulled in revenue of more than
$7.5 billion in 2012 and expects $9 billion this year, according
to the complaint.

"The baseball players employed by the defendants account for much
of this rise in revenue, as they comprise the chief product
offered by MLB and its teams.  Without baseball players, MLB and
its teams would not exist.  Yet MLB and its franchises pay most
players -- the minor leaguers -- wages that fall well below
minimum wage," the players say.

While major leaguers' salaries have increased by more than 2,000
percent since 1976, minor leaguers' salaries have increased by an
average of only 75 percent.  Inflation has risen by more than 400
percent in that time, according to the complaint.

Unlike major leaguers, minor leaguers do not have a union or
collective bargaining agreement, and "efforts to unionize minor
leaguers have been unsuccessful because minor leaguers fear
retaliation by the defendants.  Minor leaguers are afraid to
challenge the MLB-imposed wage system, for fear it would
jeopardize their careers," the complaint states.

Because minor leaguers are powerless against MLB, the league is
able to collude on many aspects of the minor leaguers' working
conditions, such as wages, contract terms and discipline,
according to the complaint.

"Most minor leaguers earn between around $3,000 and $7,500 for the
entire year, despite routinely working between 50 and 70 hours per
week during the roughly five-month championship season," the
players say.

Although salary guidelines are not publicly available, the players
believe that MLB imposes the following salaries per month during
championship season: $1,100 for Rookie and Short-Season A; $1,250
for Class-A; $1,500 for Class-AA; and $2,150 for Class-AAA.

In comparison, the minimum yearly salary for a major league player
in 2014 is $500,000 and the average salary in 2013 was $3.3
million, according to mlb.com.

During the championship season, the minor league players have a
day off only about once every two to three weeks.  Before their
three-hour games, the players are required to participate in
mandatory activities such as batting and fielding practice,
throwing, stretching and conditioning, resulting in seven-day
workweeks that are well over 40 hours, according to the complaint.

MLB also requires minor leaguers to participate in spring
training, which falls outside of the paid five-month championship
season, leaving the players to work without pay.  Spring training
can last a month or longer, the lawsuit states.

Additionally, around 30 to 45 players per franchise are selected
to participate in an instructional league for one month after the
championship season, to hone their skills, during which they also
go unpaid, the complaint states.

"In order to monopolize players and depress their salaries, the
MLB cartel inserted a provision (known as the reserve clause) into
players' contracts that allows teams to retain the contractual
rights to players and restricts their ability to negotiate with
other teams for their baseball services and the compensation they
receive, which reserve clause preserves MLB's minor league system
of artificially low salaries and nonexistent contractual
mobility," the players say.

Under the contract, which usually grants an MLB team the exclusive
rights to a minor leaguer for seven championship seasons, the
player cannot voluntarily leave one team to play for another
baseball team, even outside of MLB or outside of the country.
They must also get the commissioner's approval to retire from
baseball during that seven-year term, the complaint states.

"By the expiration of the contract, much of the value of the minor
leaguer as a young prospect has expired because the player has
aged," the complaint states.

The players seek class certification, a protective injunction and
damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and state
labor and wage laws of California, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania,
Maryland and Oregon.

MLB did not immediately return a request for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel Kornhauser, Esq.
          155 Jackson St., #1807
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 981-6281


MASSAGE ENVY: Got Prelim. OK of $0.5-Mil. Deal in Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massage Envy Franchising can pay $504,000 to settle a class action
alleging that it forced therapists to pay for liability insurance,
reports Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

The case is Yvette R. Balderas, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly-situated v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Case
No. 12-cv-06327 NC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division.


MICROS SYSTEMS: Being Sold for Too Little to Oracle, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micros Systems is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair
process to Oracle, for $68 a share or $5.3 billion, shareholders
claim in a class action in Howard County Court, according to
Courthouse News Service.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Kaff and Gitty Kaff, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-04517 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MTA METRO-NORTH: Faces "Chu" Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Chu v. MTA Metro-North Railroad, Case No. 1:14-cv-05770-AT
(S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff has been
subjected to a hostile work environment and adverse employment
actions, as well as an atmosphere of adverse employment actions,
including termination based on his age, race, and in retaliation
for his opposition to discriminatory practices.

Mr. Chu is a Chinese male, born on December 7, 1956.

MTA Metro-North Railroad is an agency authorized to do business in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Ian Marks, Esq.
          WHITE, RICOTTA & MARKS, P.C.
          86-12 37th Avenue, Second Floor
          Jackson Heights, NY 11372
          Telephone: (347) 464-8694
          E-mail: mmarks@wrmattorney.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Amends $60-Mil. Deal to Streamline Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sam Keller, Electronic Arts
and the National Collegiate Athletic Association on July 23, 2014,
amended their $60 million settlement to streamline the class
notice and claims process.

The filing is submitted jointly by the Right of Publicity
Plaintiffs, the Antitrust Plaintiffs, Ryan Hart, Electronic Arts
Inc., and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, pursuant
to the request of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The ROP Plaintiffs are Samuel Michael Keller, Bryan Cummings,
LaMarr Watkins, Bryon Bishop, Shawne Alston, and Ryan Hart.  The
Antitrust Plaintiffs are Edward C. O'Bannon Jr., Oscar Robertson,
William Russell, Harry Flournoy, Alex Gilbert, Sam Jacobson, Thad
Jaracz, David Lattin, Patrick Maynor, Tyrone Prothro, Damien
Rhodes, Eric Riley, Bob Tallent, Danny Wimprine, Ray Ellis, Tate
George, Jake Fischer, Jake Smith, Darius Robinson, Moses Alipate
and Chase Garnham.

The trial involved claims that the NCAA used student-athlete
likenesses without permission or payment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery St., 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com

Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association is represented
by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Robert J. Wierenga, Esq.
          Kimberly K. Kefalas, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main St., Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1500
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtnery@schiffhardin.com
                  rwierenga@schiffhardin.com
                  kkefalas@schiffhardin.com

Defendant Electronic Arts Inc. is represented by:

          Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
          R. James Slaughter, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: rvannest@kvn.com
                  rslaughter@kvn.com

The two lawsuits are (i) Samuel Michael Keller, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Electronic
Arts, Inc.; National Collegiate Athletics Association; and
Collegiate Licensing Company, Case No. 4:09-cv-1967 CW; and (ii)
Edward O'Bannon, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association; Collegiate Licensing Company; and Electronic Arts
Inc., Case No. 09-cv-3329 CW, both in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.


NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces Class Suit in Southern District of Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Oilwell Varco, Case No. 4:14-cv-
02156 (S.D. Tex., July 28, 2014) alleges claims for employment
discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Todd Slobin, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net


NEW YORK, USA: Teacher Tenure Violates Constitution, Parents Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenure provisions in New York education law violate the state
constitution's guarantee of a "sound, basic education" for all
children, seven parents claim in court, according to Marlene
Kennedy at Courthouse News Service.

The lawsuit filed on July 28, 2014, in Albany County Supreme Court
challenges 10 sections of education law that the parents say "make
it nearly impossible to dismiss and discipline teachers with a
proven track record of ineffectiveness or misconduct."

Lead plaintiff John Keoni Wright sued New York State; the Regents
of the University of the State of New York, an executive-level
department that sets education policy; Board of Regents Chancellor
Merryl Tisch; and state Education Commissioner John King.

Five of the seven parents are from the New York City area and two
are from Rochester.  They sued on behalf of themselves and their
children.

Wright claims the importance of good teachers is illustrated by
his twin daughters, Kaylah and Kyler, who attend a public school
in Brooklyn.  While they share nearly everything in common, one
twin is struggling to catch up to the other academically after
spending a year with an ineffective teacher, Wright says.

"The gulf between Kaylah's and Kyler's learning illustrates what
is a matter of common sense.  An ineffective teacher can leave a
student ill-equipped to advance, or even to stay apace of those
alike in all respects except the quality of their teacher," Wright
says.

The complaint divides the 10 challenged sections of education law
into three groups: "permanent employment statutes," "disciplinary
statutes" and "LIFO statutes," an acronym for "last in, first
out," in reference to the law's seniority provisions.

Either together or by themselves, the statutes "confer permanent
employment, prevent the removal of ineffective teachers, and
result in layoffs of effective teachers in favor of less-
effective, more senior teachers," the parents claim.

The complaint classes as "permanent employment statutes" the
procedures for granting tenure, which new teachers typically
receive after a three-year probationary period.

Few teachers are denied tenure, the parents say, even though a so-
called annual professional performance review was added in 2012 to
aid in teacher evaluations.  The APPRs, as they are called, use
results on state tests, classroom observation and other measures
to assign teachers numerical scores that equate to "highly
effective," "effective," "developing" and "ineffective."

But "teachers are not rated ineffective even when their students
consistently fail state exams," the parents say, citing statistics
that show that while 91.5 percent of teachers outside New York
City were rated "highly effective" or "effective" in 2012, just 31
percent of students taking state standardized tests in English and
math that year met proficiency standards.

"These discrepancies indicate that the APPR ratings operate as a
rubber stamp for tenure and are not a meaningful check within the
tenure process," according to the complaint.

The parents say the "disciplinary statutes" keep low-rated
teachers in schools by making it "prohibitively expensive, time-
consuming and effectively impossible to dismiss an ineffective
teacher who has already received tenure."

Education law lists specific circumstances under which tenure can
be revoked -- conduct unbecoming, incompetency, physical or mental
disability, neglect of duty -- but a disciplinary proceeding must
be held first and such hearings "are rarely initiated," according
to the parents.

"Principals and administrators would be more likely to use the
3020-a process to discipline or dismiss a teacher if it was less
time-consuming and more effective," the parents say.  The 3020-a
process is a section of the education code dealing with
disciplinary hearings.

They say the "LIFO statutes" require that the last teachers hired
be the first fired when a school district must reduce its
instructor ranks.

"New York is one of only 10 states to conduct layoffs on the basis
of seniority alone, irrespective of a teacher's performance,
effectiveness or quality," the parents say.

They contend that without LIFO, "school administrators conducting
layoffs would consider teacher performance, a higher number of
effective teachers would be retained, and fewer children would
suffer the loss of an effective teacher."

The parents ask the court to find that the 10 provisions of
education law violate the state constitution, and to block
enforcement through preliminary and permanent injunctions.

The plaintiffs, who also seek court costs and attorneys' fees, are
represented by Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis in Manhattan.

The New York Daily News reported that former CNN journalist
Campbell Brown and a reform group she founded, Partnership for
Educational Justice, are behind the complaint.

New York State United Teachers, a federation of more than 1,200
local unions representing educators, called the lawsuit "a
politically motivated attack against every dedicated teacher in
New York State."

NYSUT, headquartered near Albany, expressed confidence the court
would find the complaint lacked merit.

"We welcome the opportunity to expose the many lies and
misrepresentations about tenure laws and establish, once and for
all, the plain truth: Tenure is an absolutely necessary safeguard
for teachers, for students and for quality public schools," NYSUT
President Karen Magee said in a statement.

It's the second lawsuit in July in New York challenging teacher
tenure.  In early July, a class action was filed in Richmond
County Supreme Court, Staten Island, claiming teacher tenure
discriminates against poor and minority children.

The lawsuits follow a June ruling in Los Angeles Superior Court
that found teacher tenure violates the equal protection provision
of the California Constitution.


PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Delivery Sales Tax Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit alleging sales tax on Papa John's delivery fees is
illegal will move forward, reports Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse
News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

A Florida district court denied Papa John's motion to dismiss or
stay a class action alleging that the pizza chain added sales tax
to delivery fees in violation of state law.

Papa John's claimed that, even if it wrongfully collected sales
tax on deliveries, the allegations have no merit under Florida law
because it paid taxes to the state's Department of Revenue.

One Florida statute says the only damages that could be paid in a
case like this is "the difference between what the retailer,
dealer, or vendor collected as a tax, fee, or surcharge and what
the retailer, dealer or vendor paid to the taxing authority,"
according to the ruling.

Papa John's also said that the three plaintiffs who filed the
class action -- Bruce Schojan, Sean Timmons and Christopher
Tollerton -- knew about the fees and therefore have no claim under
Florida's voluntary pay doctrine.

But Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington said neither of the pizza-
maker's arguments warrant dismissal of the case at the preliminary
juncture.

"Whether or not the plaintiffs paid the sales tax with full
knowledge of the situation is a question of fact that the court
cannot reconcile on a motion to dismiss," she wrote in the 16-page
opinion.

Judge Hernandez Covington agreed with the plaintiffs that Florida
revenue rules go against taxing something like pizza delivery
fees.

"The Florida Administrative Code provides that the charge for
transportation services is not subject to tax when the charge is
separately stated on an invoice or bill of sale and the charge can
be avoided by a decision or action on the part of the purchaser,"
she wrote.  "Therefore, the court declines to stay this action and
the motion to dismiss is denied."

Papa John's had until July 30 to respond to the complaint,
according to the ruling.

The case is Bruce Schojan, et al. v. Papa John's International
Inc. and Papa John's USA, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-1218-T-33MAP, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Being Sold for Too Little to Dai-Ichi, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Directors are selling Protective Life Insurance Corp. too cheaply
through an unfair process to Dai-Ichi Life Insurance, for $5.7
billion, or $70 a share, shareholders claim in the Delaware
Chancery Court.


QUALITY FOODS: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Quality Foods Corporation d/b/a Kuhn's Market, Case
No. 2:14-cv-01010-JFC (W.D. Pa., July 28, 2014) alleges violations
of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Chicago Drivers Demand Refunds of $100-Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a federal class action, Chicago drivers demand partial refunds
of their $100 red-light tickets, claiming that a whistleblower
revealed the red-light camera operator bribed city officials to
win the contract, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiff Matthew Falkner sued Redflex Traffic Systems on
July 17, 2014.

"In approximately 2010, a whistleblower -- a Redflex executive --
reported that an improper relationship between Redflex consultants
and City of Chicago officials wherein Redflex officials bribed
City of Chicago officials to secure the lucrative City of Chicago
Red Light Camera contract," the complaint states.

The red light traffic camera system, installed in 2003, is a
network of 384 robotic cameras across the city that captures red-
light violators on video, and automatically sends them a $100 red-
light ticket.

"The City of Chicago contract was Redflex's largest contract in
North America, and provided Redflex in excess of $100 million in
revenue since 2003, out of the approximate $500 million in ticket
revenue realized by the City of Chicago between 2003 and 2012.
This represented approximately 13 percent of Redflex's worldwide
revenue," Falkner claims.

He adds: "The primary object of the bribery was a provision
setting the amount from each red light ticket paid by a class
member that would be paid to defendants.  As a direct result of
the bribery scheme, defendants were able to contractually retain
approximately 20 to 25 percent of all 'ticket revenue' generated
by tickets paid by class members."

Falkner seeks class certification and refunds of the portion of
red light tickets that went to Redflex because the contract was
achieved through bribery.

He is represented by Thomas Connick with Dubyak, Connick, Sammon,
Thompson and Bloom in Cleveland, with assistance from local
counsel Thomas Cronin in Chicago.

Counsel may be reached at:

     Thomas Connick, Esq.
     DUBYAK, CONNICK, SAMMON, THOMPSON AND BLOOM
     3401 Enterprise Parkway  Suite 205
     Cleveland, Ohio 44122
     Tel: (216) 364-0500
     Toll Free (888) 902-1499
     Fax: (216) 364-0505
     E-mail: tconnick@dcsblaw.com

The Chicago Tribune reported in July that thousands of drivers
have been wrongly ticketed for red-light violations in Chicago
during sudden spikes of camera activity that neither the city nor
Redflex can explain.

"Cameras that for years generated just a few tickets daily
suddenly caught dozens of drivers a day," the Tribune reported on
July 18, 2014.

"One North Side camera generated only a dozen tickets for rolling
rights out of 100 total tickets in the entire second half of 2011.
Then, over a 12-day spike, it spewed 563 tickets -- 560 of them
for rolling rights."

The Tribune said it found these spikes in an analysis of more than
4 million tickets issued since 2007.

"The experts all said the available evidence leads them to only
two possible explanations -- that ticket procedures were quietly
broadened to catch more violators, or that malfunctions led the
system to wrongly tag lawful drivers," the Tribune reported.

Chicago transportation officials told the Tribune they had no
knowledge of the unusual camera activity, although Redflex's
contract requires it to report any anomaly in ticketing patterns.

Experts who reviewed the Tribune's findings suggested that drivers
are entitled to refunds.


SUTTER HEALTH: $4-Bil. Class Action Over Stolen Records Halted
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a state
appeals court on July 21, 2014, halted a $4 billion class action
against Sutter Health over stolen patient records, holding that no
one can prove the data has ever been used.

Dozens of Sutter Health patients sued the healthcare provider
after thieves broke stole a computer containing over the medical
records of over 4 million patients in 2011.  The office had no
security alarm or cameras, and the files on the computer were
password-protected but unencrypted.

Under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
patients can sue for nominal damages award of $1,000 each for the
negligent release of medical information -- a potential $4 billion
windfall for the Sutter Health patients affected by the stolen
computer.

Sutter Health objected to the suit and moved to strike the class
allegations, requests that Sacramento County Superior Court Judge
David De Alba denied.  De Alba reasoned that the patients did not
have an obligation to prove that an unauthorized person had viewed
their medical data to in order to pursue claims that Sutter Health
breached the Confidentiality Act.

The hospital chain petitioned the Third Appellate District for
review of De Alba's denial, and on July 21, 2014, the Sacramento
panel of that court agreed that the mere possession of medical
records by an unauthorized person is insufficient to show a breach
of confidentiality.

"The statute contains a lengthy list of circumstances under which
the healthcare provider must or may disclose medical information,
circumstances which do not violate the nondisclosure duty," Judge
George Nicholson wrote for the panel.  "Thus, disclosure under the
law implies an affirmative communicative act.

"Here, there is no dispute that the computer was stolen by, not
given to, the unauthorized person," Nicholson continued.  "Sutter
Health did not intend to disclose the medical information to the
thief, so there was no affirmative communicative act by Sutter
Health to the thief.  As a result, the law does not apply to the
facts of this case."

The appeals court noted that the California Supreme Court recently
held that in order for a healthcare provider to violate the
Confidentiality Act, it must make an "unauthorized, unexcused
disclosure of privileged medical information."

"No breach of confidentiality takes place until an unauthorized
person views the medical information," Nicholson wrote.  "It is
the medical information, not the physical record (whether in
electronic, paper, or other form), that is the focus of the
Confidentiality Act.  While there is certainly a connection
between the information and its physical form, possession of the
physical form without actually viewing the information does not
offend the basic public policy advanced by the Confidentiality
Act."

So while Sutter Health negligently stored the patient records --
unencrypted, on a desktop computer, in a building with no security
system -- there is no allegation that anyone ever viewed the
stolen records, the appeals court found.

"Interpreting the Confidentiality Act to provide $1,000 in damages
to every person whose medical information came into the possession
of an unauthorized person without that person viewing the
information would lead to unintended results," Nicholson wrote.
"For example, if a thief grabbed a computer containing medical
information on four million patients, but the thief destroyed the
electronic records to reformat and wipe clean the hard drive and
sell the computer without ever viewing the information or even
knowing it was on the hard drive, the healthcare provider would
still be liable, at least potentially, for $4 billion.  For all we
know, that may have happened here.  We cannot interpret a statute
to require such an unintended result."

The appeals court ordered De Alba to sustain Sutter Health's
objection and dismiss the class action without leave to amend.

A similar class action, filed earlier this year, is pending in an
Alameda County court.

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Robert H. Bunzel, Esq.
          William I. Edlund, Esq.
          Michael D. Abraham, Esq.
          BARTKO, ZANKEL, BUNZEL & MILLER
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1152
          E-mail: rbunzel@bzbm.com
                  bedlund@bzbm.com
                  mabraham@bzbm.com

The case is Sutter Health et al., Petitioners v. The Superior
Court of Sacramento County, Respondent; Dorothy Atkins, et al.,
Real Parties in Interest, Case No. C072591, in the Court of Appeal
of the State of California, Third Appellate District.


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Chinese Commission Among Drywall Suit Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Mcconnaughey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
lawyers for people who say defective Chinese drywall wrecked their
homes are again suing the manufacturers.  And the lawsuit adds a
new defendant -- the Chinese commission that oversees 117
companies including in aerospace, nuclear power and electronics.

Attorney Lenny Davis says the lawsuit is trying to get the Chinese
officials' attention.

The lawsuit filed on July 30 comes two weeks after U.S. District
Judge Eldon Fallon held Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. and related
defendants in contempt of court for ignoring court proceedings
over harm done by the drywall.  He ordered Taishan to pay $55,000
in fines and attorneys' fees, and to stop doing business in the
U.S.

The new lawsuit adds to the list of defendants China's State-Owned
Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.


TENNESSEE, USA: Faces Class Suit for Denying Health Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Tennessee is illegally
denying health coverage to tens of thousands of people who are
eligible for its federally funded Medicaid program, TennCare, a
class action claims in Tennessee Federal Court.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective 2AZ-FE Engines
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toyotas with 2AZ-FE engines,
in some model years from 2006 to 2011, burn excessive oil, which
can lead to sudden engine failure, a class action claims in
California Federal Court.


TRUMP INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit in Nevada Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Trump International Hotel Las
Vegas forces employees to work off the clock and stiffs them for
overtime, a class action claims in Clark County Court in Nevada.


URS CORP: Being Sold to AECOM for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Directors are selling URS Corp. too cheaply through an unfair
process to AECOM Technology Corp., in a cash and stock deal ($33
plus 0.734 shares per 1) valued at $6 billion, shareholders claim
in Delaware Chancery Court, Courthouse News Service reports.


VILLAGE OF WOODRIDGE: 7th Cir. Unable to Agree on $30 Fee Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
After an en banc hearing, a splintered 7th Circuit was unable to
reach a majority opinion on the constitutionality of an ordinance
that imposed a $30 fee on everyone arrested in a Chicago suburb,
reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service.

In 2011, Jerry Markadonatos was arrested and charged with
shoplifting in the Village of Woodridge, and was told at the
police station that he had to pay a $30 administrative fee as part
of the booking process.  He paid the fee, posted bond, and was
released without being jailed.

After his guilty plea, 12 months of court supervision, and paying
$785 in fines, Markadonatos said he was able to get his
shoplifting charge dismissed and received a "not guilty"
adjudication.

Markadonatos filed a class action against Woodridge, claiming that
the fee, which has since been repealed, violated arrestees'
substantive and procedural due process rights.  Markadonatos
sought damages based on the $30 he paid.

A divided 7th Circuit panel this year upheld U.S. District Judge
James F. Holderman's decision to dismiss the suit, but the circuit
voted on June 3 to rehear the case.

On July 21, 2014, the circuit released a fractured opinion in
which five judges voted to affirm the decision to dismiss, four
judges voted to reverse the decision, and one judge voted to
remand with instructions to dismiss for want of standing to sue.

The appellate judges who voted in favor of Woodbridge split on
their reasoning.

Judges Richard Posner, Joel Flaum and Michael Kanne found that the
village's ordinance did not impose a fee simply for being
arrested, but that it was payment for arranging for a bail bond
that allowed the arrestee to stay out of jail.

"The opening sentence of the ordinance states that it imposes
'fees for the following activities and purposes,' and the activity
for which the booking fee is imposed is 'posting bail or bond on
any legal process,' including the legal process that consists of a
custodial arrest pursuant to a warrant," Posner wrote.

The right to bail is a valuable right for which a person seeking
it -- whether guilty or innocent -- must pay, and the $30 is a
part of that cost, the three judges found.

The judges likened the $30 fee to Woodridge's fees to release an
impounded animal or pay for a towed vehicle.

"(A) dog or cat may escape the owner's control, and later be
impounded, without fault on the owner's part.  The animal may have
been stolen, or have escaped from its home because a careless
workman had left a door or window ajar, or been lured from its
litter box by a rogue Woodridge police officer with catnip.  Even
in such cases, impounding the animal confers a benefit on the
owner for which he must pay despite his lack of fault," Posner
wrote.  "Or consider the Village's $250 'towing fee': the owner
must pay to recover his car even if he believes with good reason
that the car was towed in error from a legal parking spot.  It is
the same in the false-arrest case if the arrested person wants to
be bailed out."

Posner pointed out that the judges were not condoning the conduct
of the Woodridge police if they charged the $30 fee to people they
arrested who did not attempt to post bail or bond.

"Being arrested is not a 'service' to the person arrested! But the
plaintiff in this case did not want to risk time in jail.  He
posted bond and was released.  He paid for and received a valuable
service.  No constitutional right of his was violated," Posner
wrote.

Judges Frank Easterbrook and John Tinder, who also voted to affirm
the dismissal, pointed out that neither side asked the circuit to
read the ordinance as applicable only to bail, but instead agree
that the ordinance imposes a $30 fee on all arrests.

Their reasoning for voting to dismiss was based on the argument
that being arrested based on probable cause comes with substantial
burdens that are justifiable under the Constitution, and the $30
fee is no exception.

Easterbrook pointed out that probable cause can justify things
such as being held for as long as 48 hours before seeing a
magistrate, holding a defendant in custody pending trial, and
seizing a suspect's assets pending forfeiture, making it
impossible for the suspect to hire his preferred lawyer.

"All of these losses vastly exceed a $30 fee.  If probable case
justifies months in jail and an inferior lawyer, what sense could
it make to say that a $30 fee is constitutionally excessive? True,
someone arrested on probable cause does not get the $30 back if he
prevails at trial -- but neither does he get back the value of
time spent in jail or the value of the difference between a top-
notch lawyer and the average quality provided under the Criminal
Justice Act," Easterbrook wrote.

He argued that requiring an arrestee to pay a $30 booking fee does
not constitute a deprivation of a fundamental right.  Like Posner,
Easterbrook rationalized the fee by comparing it to a fee imposed
to recover a towed car.

"These fees often are in the range of $100.  No one wants his car
towed any more than he wants to be arrested.  And cars may be
towed without good cause, just as people may be arrested without
good cause.  It seems more likely that a village would impose a
steep towing fee as a means of generating revenue (which would
increase the incentive to tow even properly parked cars) than that
it would impose a modest arrest fee.  Yet at oral argument,
counsel for Markadonatos acknowledged that a towing fee is valid.
What he could not explain is why the Constitution allows a $100
fee after a car is taken to the pound but no fee at all after a
person is taken to the stationhouse."

Dissenting Judge Diane Sykes argued that the circuit should not
even be deciding whether the ordinance was constitutional because
Markadonatos had no standing to pursue the case.

She pointed out that Markadonatos conceded that there was probable
cause for his arrest, as evidenced by his admittance of guilt in
court, so he cannot press an argument that the $30 fee is
irrational as applied to those who are innocent or wrongfully
arrested.

Markadonatos did not argue that the substantive component of the
Due Process Clause prohibited Woodbridge from requiring lawfully
arrested people to pay a booking fee, Sykes wrote.

"As such, he has suffered no harm that is fairly traceable to the
alleged deprivation of process about which he complains," she
wrote.

In a separate dissenting opinion, Judge David Hamilton, joined by
Judges Diane Wood, Ilana Rovner and Ann Claire Williams, pointed
out that Posner's opinion was based on a case that was not
actually before the circuit, as the village never disputed that
the fee was based simply on being arrested and was not part of a
bail service.

"(I)n the face of a plainly unconstitutional fee for the privilege
or 'service' of being arrested, Judge Posner has chosen not to
decide the case that has actually been presented to us.  His
opinion chooses instead to decide a different case, one shaped by
rewriting the ordinance and overlooking the plaintiff's
allegations," Hamilton wrote.

The four dissenting judges contended that requiring someone to pay
a non-refundable fee based solely on the say-so of one police
officer deprived arrestees of their property without due process
of law.

The arrest fee "denies due process because it imposes a permanent
deprivation of property based on the unreviewable decision of one
police officer.  We don't tolerate such arbitrary government
deprivations even for parking tickets.  The village's arrest fee
provided neither process nor law in any recognizable form.  This
arrest fee is indistinguishable from a fee the police might charge
merely for subjecting you to a traffic stop, a breathalyzer test,
a Terry stop and frisk, or for executing a search warrant at your
house," Hamilton wrote.

He argued that even when an arrest is supported by probable cause,
this is too low a bar to justify a permanent deprivation of
property.  Therefore, the moment Markadonatos was brought to jail
and paid the $30 fee, that was an arbitrary deprivation of
property without any process of law, which gave him a ripe due
process claim, Hamilton said.

Because none of the positions commanded a majority, the judgment
of the district court to dismiss was affirmed.

The "en banc court cannot agree on what questions the case raises,
whether the plaintiff is the right person to raise them, whether
they have been properly preserved, or what doctrinal framework
applies.  Our fractured nondecision suggests that this case was a
poor vehicle for resolving the constitutionality of a jail booking
fee," Sykes wrote.

The appellate case is Jerry G. Markadonatos v. Village of
Woodridge, Case No. 12-2619, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.  The original case is Jerry G.
Markadonatos v. Village of Woodridge, Case No. 11-CV-7006, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Court Approved Settlement in "Connolly" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has approved a second labor settlement with Weight
Watchers, resolving overtime claims that accrued while policies
challenged in an earlier class action remained in place, according
to the Courthouse News Service.

The case is Jeri Connolly, et al. v. Weight Watchers North America
Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01983-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


WORLD WRESTLING: Issued Misleading Statements, Shareholders Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that World Wrestling Entertainment
inflated its stock price with false and misleading statements, and
the share price fell from $19.93 to $11.27 in a single day,
May 16, when the truth came out, shareholders claim in a federal
class action.


YUM BRANDS: Food Safety Scandal in China Hits KFC, Pizza Hut Sales
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the owner of the KFC and Pizza
Hut restaurant chains said on July 31 a food safety scandal in
China has hurt sales and might be severe enough to cut into the
company's global profit.

Yum Brands Inc., in a filing with the U.S. securities regulator,
gave no financial details and said it was too early to know when
sales might rebound.  But it said if the "significant sales
impact" continues, it might hurt this year's profit.

The scandal erupted in July when a Shanghai TV station reported
that Husi, owned by OSI Group Inc. of Aurora, Illinois, repackaged
old beef and chicken and sold it to KFC and McDonald's Corp.
restaurants in China.  KFC and McDonald's stopped using product
supplied by Shanghai Husi and Yum said its restaurants severed all
ties with OSI in China, the United States and Australia.

Chinese authorities have detained five Husi employees but have yet
to confirm whether the company sold expired meat.

"The result has been a significant, negative impact to same-store
sales at both KFC and Pizza Hut in China over the past 10 days,"
Yum said in the filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

"If the significant sales impact is sustained, it will have a
material effect on full-year earnings per share," the filing said.

Yum is China's biggest restaurant operator, with more than 4,600
KFC outlets and 1,200 Pizza Huts.


                              *********

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  * * *