CAR_Public/140807.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 7, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 156

                             Headlines


ADOBE SYSTEMS: HTEAL Antitrust Suit Settlement Up for Approval
ALANIS GENERAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Premium, Suit Says
AMERASIA BANK: Faces Suit Alleging Age and Ethnic Discrimination
APOLLO EDUCATION: Nixing of Institutional Investors Suit Appealed
APOLLO EDUCATION: Agrees to Settle Stock Suit by Pension Fund

APOLLO EDUCATION: Continues to Face "Saleh" Securities Lawsuit
BAE CONSULTING: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Ordered to Pay $1.27 Billion in "Hustle" Suit
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Price-Fixing of Silver
BEST MOBILE: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BMO HARRIS: "Riley" Payday Loan Suit to Go Through Arbitration
BP PLC: Files Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Class Action
BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES: Faces "Powers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BRANNONS SANDWICH: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Class Says
CENTRAL AMERICAN DELI: Doesn't Pay OT, "Herandez" Suit Claims

DIXON SPRINGS: Class Suit Certified Against Prison Officials
DOLAN COMPANY: Sued in Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports
DYNAMIC ADIV: "Ragnauth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
EVO MERCHANT: Faces "Blotzer" Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
DIRECTV: Appeals Ruling in Early Cancellation Fees Suit

FAMILY DOLLAR: Being Sold for Too Little to Rival, Suit Claims
FREDERICK FIRE: Suit Seeks to Recover Back Pay and Overtime Wage
GARLOCK SEALING: Asbestos Claimants Allege Concealment of Evidence
GENERAL MOTORS: "Ibanez" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Illegal Distribution of Audio Devices

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Rukeyser" Suit Over Defective Switches
HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Faces "Medrano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HILTON GRAND: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Chen" Action Claims
HSBC BANK: 9th Cir. Reversed Denial of Bid to Remand Hawaii Suit
KELLOGG COMPANY: Wrongly Markets "Gardenburger," Class Suit Says

LAKE CITY: Dist. Court Ruling in American Copper Suit Upheld
MAGNUM HUNTER: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
MANDALAY DIGITAL: Linked to Coral Tell Phone Call Overages Issue
MANFREDINI LANDSCAPING: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MASSAGE PARTNERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

MICHAEL KORS: Sued Over Misleading Marketing of Merchandise
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Sued for Falsely Marketing Handcrafted Tools
MONSANTO COMPANY: Settlement of "Zina" Suit Over Furans Now Final
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Breach of Securities Exchange Act
NEW GAO: Faces "Reyes" Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay OT

NOVEX BIOTECH: Sued in California Over Growth Factor-9 Supplement
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Yet for Securities Lawsuit
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: "Vaughn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PORCAO GRILL: "Palomares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
RJ REYNOLDS: 3rd Circuit Upholds $10MM Jury Award in Tobacco Suit

ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHOCOLATE: Tenn. Judgment Claimants' Suit Stands
SAFEWAY INC: Court Vacates Hearing Dates, Stays "Romaneck" Case
SPAIN INN: Faces "Garcia" Suit over Violation of FLSA & NJSWHL
SQUILLACE STEEL: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STANFORD INT'L: Stockbrokers' Motions to Compel Arbitration Denied

SUPER NICE: "Calogne" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUPERVALU HOLDINGS: Sued Over Accessibility Barriers at Facility
TDS INC: Faces "Dowden" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TJX COS: Recalls Ecoato Sweet Paprika Powder Over Salmonella Risk
TMI REALTY: Faces "Zelaya" Suit Over Alleged Violation of FLSA

TONI'S SUSHI: Accused of Racial Discrimination in S.D. Florida
TOYOTA MOTOR: Personal Injury Claims Settlement Process Okayed
TOYOTA MOTOR: Denial of Cert. for Non-Recalled Vehicles Appealed
UNITED HEALTHCARE: "Humphrey" Suit Transferred to E.D. California
VITAQUEST INT'L: Falsely Marketed Immunity Products, Suit Says

WARD MANUFACTURING: Hasley Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Metro Background Check Policy
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION: Class Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
WESTERN UNION: Class Counsel Must Confer With Objectors
WHITING PETROLEUM: Sued in Colo. Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties

WORLD WRESTLING: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act


                            *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: HTEAL Antitrust Suit Settlement Up for Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary approval is being sought for a settlement reached in
In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation ("HTEAL") pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, according to Adobe Systems
Incorporated's June 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 30,
2014.

Between May 4, 2011 and July 14, 2011, five putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Santa Clara Superior Court and Alameda
Superior Court in California. On September 12, 2011, the cases
were consolidated into In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation ("HTEAL") pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. In the
consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Adobe, along with
Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, agreed not to
recruit each other's employees in violation of Federal and state
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs claim the alleged agreements suppressed
employee compensation and deprived employees of career
opportunities. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary
damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys fees. All defendants
deny the allegations and that they engaged in any wrongdoing of
any kind.

On October 24, 2013, the court certified a class of all persons
who worked in the technical, creative, and/or research and
development fields on a salaried basis in the United States for
one or more of the following: (a) Apple from March 2005 through
December 2009; (b) Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c)
Google from March 2005 through December 2009; (d) Intel from March
2005 through December 2009; (e) Intuit from June 2007 through
December 2009; (f) Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December
2009; or (g) Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009,
excluding retail employees, corporate officers, members of the
boards of directors, and senior executives of all defendants.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2014, the parties reached a
settlement to resolve this lawsuit, subject to the Court's
approval. On May 22, 2014, the parties jointly submitted a
settlement agreement for the Court's preliminary approval. The
company accrued a loss contingency of $10.0 million associated
with this matter during the first quarter of fiscal 2014.


ALANIS GENERAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Premium, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Chavez Arroyo v. Alanis General Contractors, Inc. and Roswell
Drywall, LLC, As Joint Employers, Case No. 1:14-cv-02451-TWT (N.D.
Ga., July 30, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff did not receive an
overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 during work weeks.

Alanis General Contractors, Inc. is a Georgia corporation with
offices in Woodstock, Georgia.  Roswell Drywall, LLC is a Georgia
limited liability company with offices in Atlanta, Georgia.
Alanis operated not as a drywall subcontractor, but as a "labor
broker" that hired the Plaintiff and his co-workers to work under
the direction and supervision of both Alanis and Roswell on the
Ponce City Market project.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert M. Weaver, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
          3516 Covington Highway
          Decatur, GA 30032
          Telephone: (404) 299-1211
          E-mail: rweaver@qcwdr.com

               - and -

          Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
          2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: (205) 870-9989
          Facsimile: (205) 803-4143
          E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com


AMERASIA BANK: Faces Suit Alleging Age and Ethnic Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Gutierrez v. Amerasia Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv-22799-KMM
(S.D. Fla., July 30, 2014) asserts age and ethnic discrimination
claim seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages to
redress violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,
The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and The Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Ms. Gutierrez was formerly employed by the employer and worked in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.  At the time of her termination, she
held the position of Vice-President/Branch Manager.  She contends
that she was discriminated against because of her age -- 68.

Amerasia Bank is a foreign bank authorized to do business in
Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos A. Mesa, Esq.
          MESA LITIGATION & LEGAL CONSULTING, P.A.
          4960 SW 72 Avenue, Suite 206
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 569-3005
          Facsimile: (305) 403-2998
          E-mail: cmesa@mesafloridalawyer.com


APOLLO EDUCATION: Nixing of Institutional Investors Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-PHX-JAT are appealing the dismissal of
lawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
according to Apollo Education Group, Inc.'s June 25, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 31, 2014.

On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas
N. Gaer naming the company, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli,
Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and
Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business practices
and prospects for growth. That complaint asserted a putative class
period stemming from December 7, 2009 to August 3, 2010. A
substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same Court
by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010 making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period.
Finally, on October 4, 2010, another purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the same Court by Robert Roth
against the same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C.
Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of
allegations, but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007
to August 3, 2010. The complaints allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 15, 2010, three
additional parties filed motions to consolidate the related
actions and be appointed the lead plaintiff.

On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated
with Gaer and the Court appointed the "Apollo Institutional
Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated
Bank as lead plaintiffs. The case is now entitled, In re Apollo
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-
PHX-JAT. On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V.
Sperling, Joseph L. D'Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B.
Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson,
and William J. Pepicello as defendants. The consolidated complaint
asserts a putative class period of May 21, 2007 to October 13,
2010.

On April 19, 2011, the company filed a motion to dismiss and oral
argument on the motion was held before the Court on October 17,
2011. On October 27, 2011, the Court granted the company's motion
to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On December 6,
2011, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, which alleges similar claims against the same
defendants.

On January 9, 2012, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On June 22, 2012, the
Court granted the company's motion to dismiss and entered a
judgment in the company's favor.

On July 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and their appeal
remains pending before that Court. If the plaintiffs are
successful in their appeal, the company anticipates they will seek
substantial damages.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Agrees to Settle Stock Suit by Pension Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare
Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB
are in the process of drafting a stipulation of settlement which
will be presented to the district court for approval, according to
Apollo Education Group, Inc.'s June 25, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 31, 2014.

On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between
November 28, 2001 and October 18, 2006. The complaint, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that the company
and certain of the company's current and former directors and
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
purportedly making misrepresentations concerning the company's
stock option granting policies and practices and related
accounting. The defendants are Apollo, J. Jorge Klor de Alva,
Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B.
Gonzales, Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura
Palmer Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V.
Sperling. On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension
Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. Lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 23, 2007,
asserting the same legal claims as the original complaint and
adding claims for violations of Section 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties
and civil conspiracy. On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed their
Second Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged
securities fraud against the same defendants.

On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in
the company's favor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of this ruling, and the Court denied this motion on April 2, 2012.
On April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. During the
pendency of this appeal, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter and, at the request of the
parties, the Ninth Circuit issued an order staying the appeal on
April 30, 2014. The parties are in the process of drafting a
stipulation of settlement which will be presented to the district
court for approval.

As of May 31, 2014, the company accrued an immaterial amount
reflecting the agreed-upon settlement. The company intends to
pursue reimbursement of the settlement amount from the company's
insurance carriers, although the outcome of any such recovery
efforts is uncertain at this point.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Continues to Face "Saleh" Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Saleh v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., 2:14-cv-00877-SRB
continues in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
according to Apollo Education Group, Inc.'s June 25, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 31, 2014.

On April 24, 2014, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Nader
Saleh naming Apollo Education Group, Inc., Gregory W. Cappelli,
and Brian L. Swartz as defendants and asserting a putative class
period stemming from October 19, 2011 to April 1, 2014. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements by misrepresenting and failing to disclose
that: (i) defendants manipulated federal student loan and grant
programs to appear to be in compliance with federal regulations;
(ii) defendants' predatory and deceptive recruiting and enrollment
practices violated federal regulations; and (iii) Apollo engaged
in a number of practices, including loan forbearance programs, to
create the appearance that it was in compliance with federal
regulations. The complaint further contends that the truth emerged
regarding these statements when Apollo announced on April 1, 2014
it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Education.
The matter is entitled Saleh v. Apollo Education Group, Inc.,
2:14-cv-00877-SRB. Per a May 13, 2014 order from the district
court, the plaintiff shall have 60 days after the appointment of
lead plaintiff(s) to file a new amended complaint or designate a
previously filed complaint as the Operative Complaint, and
defendants shall then have 60 days to respond to that Operative
Complaint.


BAE CONSULTING: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Ricardo Gonzalez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Bae Consulting, Inc. d/b/a KB Electric, and
Beatrice A Estevez, Case No. 0:14-cv-61743-BB (S.D. Fla.,
July 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bae Consulting, Inc., doing business as KB Electric, is a
corporation that regularly transacts business within Broward
County.  Beatrice A. Estevez is a corporate officer, owner or
manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Ordered to Pay $1.27 Billion in "Hustle" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Rexrode, Julie Steinberg, Saabira Chaudhuri, Devlin
Barrett and Dan Fitzpatrick, writing for The Wall Street Journal,
report that state and federal officials have collected big
penalties from the top ranks of Bank of America Corp. and its
Countrywide Financial Corp. mortgage unit for their roles in the
financial crisis.  On July 30, a federal judge added a midlevel
mortgage manager, Rebecca Mairone, to the list of those punished.

In addition to the $1.27 billion penalty levied on the Charlotte,
N.C., bank, Judge Jed Rakoff ordered Ms. Mairone to pay
$1 million.

Last October, a jury found the bank and Ms. Mairone, a former
executive at Countrywide, liable for civil fraud, the first major
case a large U.S. bank had fought in court over the mortgage
crisis.  The case involved a single Countrywide mortgage program
known as "Hustle" in which mortgage products were moved quickly
with little regard for quality, the government alleged.

Reverberations of the ruling could be felt widely. Bank of
America, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other banks are weighing
potential settlements with the Justice Department or U.S. housing
regulators on a variety of mortgage matters that still are
lingering more than five years after the financial crisis.

Judge Rakoff's decision could, in particular, complicate Bank of
America's negotiations with the Justice Department in a separate,
larger case over mortgage securities the bank sold to investors in
the run-up to the financial crisis.  The bank met with the Justice
Department on July 29 and July 30 as part of that negotiation,
according to people familiar with the matter, and raised its offer
for what it is willing to pay.

The $1 million fine for Ms. Mairone could stand as a rare example
of a Wall Street official having to pay a fine out of his or her
own pocket for conduct related to the financial crisis.  The judge
issued guidelines for how the fine should be paid from her own
income.  A Bank of America spokesman declined to comment on
whether the bank would assist Ms. Mairone in that effort.

While other executives at Bank of America, such as former Chief
Executive Kenneth Lewis and former Chief Financial Officer Joseph
Price, have agreed to multimillion-dollar payments as part of
settlements, those were both covered by the bank, The Wall Street
Journal previously reported.  The New York attorney general had
accused Mr. Lewis and Mr. Price of failing to disclose ballooning
losses at Merrill Lynch & Co., which Bank of America agreed to buy
in 2008.  A lawyer for Mr. Lewis declined to comment, while a
lawyer for Mr. Price said the bank was required "to indemnify him
for this cost of litigation."

Former Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo and other
executives also agreed to pay fines and other penalties related to
financial-crisis-era charges.  Mr. Mozilo agreed to pay $67.5
million, part of which he paid out of his own pocket, while former
Countrywide Chief Financial Officer Eric Sieracki was fined
$130,000. David Sambol, the firm's former president, was penalized
$5.52 million.

Lawyers for Messrs. Mozilo, Sieracki and Sambol couldn't be
reached for comment.

Prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan filed the
Hustle lawsuit against Bank of America in 2012, alleging the firm
urged workers to churn out loans in its Hustle program with little
regard for quality.

The program, named after the acronym HSSL, which stood for "high-
speed swim lane," featured loans that produced losses after being
sold to investors such as mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, the government alleged.

Judge Rakoff had harsh words for the bank and Ms. Mairone. In his
opinion, released on July 30, Judge Rakoff said the Hustle program
was a "vehicle for a brazen fraud" and was "driven by a hunger for
profits and oblivious to the harms" it inflicted on the investors
and the financial system as a whole.

Judge Rakoff also said Ms. Mairone's testimony and that of other
bank witnesses had been "implausible."

While the penalty against Ms. Mairone was less than the amount the
government had sought, as much as $1.2 million, her lawyer, Marc
Mukasey said he would be appealing the fine.

"We continue to maintain that Rebecca never intended to defraud
anyone and never did defraud anyone," Mr. Mukasey said.
"Unfortunately, more powerful people chose her as a scapegoat
because they thought she was an easy target."

For Charlotte-based Bank of America, the penalty from Judge Rakoff
was about 60% of the $2.1 billion the government was seeking. But
it comes at a tricky time for the bank, given the discussions
toward, potentially, a much larger civil settlement with the
Justice Department.

The bank argued it should pay much less than what the Justice
Department was seeking, if anything, and said it had lost money on
the loans in question.  Bank of America said the Hustle program
ended before it bought Countrywide in 2008.  A Bank of America
spokesman said on July 30 that the bank will assess its options
for an appeal.

"We believe that this figure simply bears no relation to a limited
Countrywide program that lasted several months and ended before
Bank of America's acquisition of the company," a bank spokesman
said.

Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for Manhattan, said in a
statement that the penalty reinforced "a loud and clear message to
Wall Street that this kind of conduct will not be tolerated."

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the bank's
mortgage-securities negotiations with the Justice Department are
hung up on the question of whether Bank of America should have to
pay a cash penalty for alleged misdeeds committed by Countrywide
and Merrill Lynch.

Judge Rakoff said Ms. Mairone could pay her penalty in
installments by making quarterly payments of 20% of her gross
income.  Ms. Mairone worked for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. for about
a year after leaving Bank of America. She has since left J.P.
Morgan.

Ms. Mairone's lawyers had argued that she was merely a midlevel
scapegoat and that she looped in other executives on many of her
actions.  But Judge Rakoff said that, even if Ms. Mairone didn't
act alone, she wasn't free from culpability.  He wrote that Ms.
Mairone had "most aggressively pushed forward the [Hustle] fraud
and most scathingly denounced those who raised concerns."


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Price-Fixing of Silver
-----------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Nicholson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v.  The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC
Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank Plc, HSBC Bank U.S.A. N.A., and John Doe
Nos. 1-50, Case No. 1:14-cv-05682 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2014),
arises from the unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
between three of the world's largest silver bullion banks, and
their unnamed co-conspirators to intentionally manipulate the
price of physical silver and silver derivatives

The Bank of Nova Scotia is a Canadian public company with its
principal place of business located at 44 King Street West,
Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H IHl.

Deutsche Bank AG is a German financial services company
headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.

HSBC Holdings PLC is a United Kingdom public limited company
headquartered in London, England.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christian Levis, Esq.
      Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Esq.
      Peter D. St. Phillip Jr., Esq.
      Raymond Peter Girnys, Esq.
      Vincent Briganti, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
      One North Broadway, Suite 509
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 733-7220
      E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
              ghorn@lowey.com
              pstphillip@lowey.com
              rgirnys@lowey.com
              vbriganti@lowey.com


BEST MOBILE: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Vargas v. Best Mobile Pelham, Inc., Russ Singh,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04497 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Best Mobile Pelham, Inc. is in the commercial sales business
within the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


BMO HARRIS: "Riley" Payday Loan Suit to Go Through Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge dismissed a woman's lawsuit accusing several banks
of acting as middlemen for usurious payday lenders and ordered her
to arbitrate, reports Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiff Johnetta Riley received $2,600 from four payday
loans between September 2012 through May 2013, with interest rates
of 25 to 30 percent, all through online payday lenders like Cash
Jar and SWB Funding.  She authorized the lenders to debit her
checking account with Wells Fargo, through an electronic payment
system called the Automatic Clearing House.

BMO Harris Bank, N.A., First Premier Bank, and Missouri Bank and
Trust were the originating banks, and giving the lenders access to
the ACH network.

Riley filed a class action against the banks in October 2013,
claiming that by collecting on the loans, they allowed
unscrupulous lenders to take advantage of her with illegal loans
at "unconscionable rates."

"Indeed, it would be impossible for Illegal Online Payday Lenders
to deposit payday loan proceeds or debit payday loan payments from
customers' bank accounts in states where the loans are illegal and
unenforceable without defendants' willingness to allow the illegal
online payday lenders to access the ACH Network," the federal
complaint says.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the District of Columbia rejected
Riley's contention that she isn't bound by the loan agreements to
arbitrate her claims.

"The court finds that plaintiff's factual allegations indicate
that her claims arise from and are thus intertwined with the loan
agreements containing the arbitration provision," Kollar-Kotelly
wrote, adding, "The court finds that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate
with an undefined, but expansive class of entities conducting
business with the lenders and thus cannot deny the foreseeability
of having to arbitrate her claims against BMO Harris Bank and
First Premier Bank.  This is not a case like the cases on which
plaintiff relies where the non-signatory has no relationship with
the non-plaintiff signatory of the underlying agreement or has no
role in performing the underlying agreement.  As plaintiff's
claims rest heavily on the existence of the underlying loan
agreements and defendants have a close relationship to the
lenders' activities, and a textual connection to the arbitration
provisions, the court finds that plaintiff is equitably estopped
from avoiding arbitration of her claims against defendants."

Kollar-Kotelly also rejected Riley's argument that the court
shouldn't enforce arbitration because the loans are illegal in the
District Columbia, writing, "the court finds that plaintiff's
arguments regarding the legality of the loan agreements have no
bearing on defendant's ability to enforce the agreements'
arbitration provisions."

The case is Johnetta Riley v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., et al., Case
No. 13-1677 (CKK), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.


BP PLC: Files Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that BP PLC, a
London-based company, relied on a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision to argue in support of its motion to dismiss a class
action shareholders' complaint, which was filed initially by four
Ohio pension funds.  The complaint is pending in Houston federal
court because the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the case there.

"The court must assess whether [BP is] subject to personal
jurisdiction in Ohio, where the case was originally filed," BP
writes in its July 22 memorandum in support of its motion to
dismiss.  U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison of the Southern
District of Texas has not yet issued his ruling.

The plaintiffs initially filed claims in Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System v. BP in Ohio state court, seeking to recover
losses allegedly suffered because of the decline in BP's stock
price following the April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon explosion.

Thomas W. Taylor -- ttaylor@andrewskurth.com -- a partner in
Andrews Kurth in Houston who represents BP, referred all calls to
company spokeswoman Ellen Moskowitz, who declined to comment.

Gregory Utter -- gmutter@kmklaw.com -- a partner in Cincinnati's
Keating Muething & Klekamp, represents the Ohio plaintiffs whose
complaint BP seeks to dismiss with its July 22 motion.  He did not
return a call or email.

In its memorandum in support of its dismissal motion, BP asserts
that the plaintiffs make no attempt to satisfy the requirements of
the Supreme Court's Jan. 14 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman,
"which substantially narrowed the scope of general personal
jurisdiction."  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously
that Daimler could not be sued in California when alleged conduct
by its Argentinian subsidiary that caused alleged damages took
place outside this nation's borders.

"In view of Bauman and this court's prior decision rejecting
application of specific jurisdiction, BP now moves to dismiss,"
the company's memorandum states.  BP argues that neither general
jurisdiction nor a specific jurisdiction in Ohio is "available in
this case."

In its memorandum, the company, quoting Bauman, notes that the
Supreme Court has held that "general jurisdiction can be invoked
outside a corporation's state of incorporation or principal place
of business only in the 'exceptional case' in which contacts with
that forum are 'so substantial and of such a nature as to render
the corporation at home in that state.'"

The BP memorandum continues: "The Supreme Court explained that it
will only be 'an exceptional case' in which the corporation's
operations in a forum other than its formal place of incorporation
or principal place of business [are] so substantial and of such a
nature as to render the corporation at home in that state. . . .
BP is not incorporated in Ohio, nor is its principal place of
business there.  Moreover, plaintiffs' allegations about a few
supposed business activities in Ohio do not come close to making
this an 'exceptional case' in which BP could be said to be 'at
home' in Ohio."


BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES: Faces "Powers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Powers individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated v. Brambles Industries, Inc. doing business as: Chep USA
a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-01216 (M.D. Fla.,
July 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Brambles Industries, Inc. is an international provider of pallet
and container pooling services for the Aerospace, Automotive,
Chemical, Consumer Goods, Fresh Food and Manufacturing industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


BRANNONS SANDWICH: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Class Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Khalid Elfoulki and Ketevan Chichinadze, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly-situated v. Brannons Sandwich Shop, LLC,
d/b/a Brannons and Anemacore, LLC, d/b/a Donatella's and Ronald
Brannon and Donatella Arpaia, in their individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-05964-PKC (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014)
alleges violations of the minimum wage provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

BSS and Donatella's are bars/restaurants located in New York City.
Ronald Brannon is the sole owner of BSS.  Mr. Brannon and
Donatella Arpaia are the co-owners of Donatella's.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
          Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
          E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


CENTRAL AMERICAN DELI: Doesn't Pay OT, "Herandez" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esmeralda V. Hernandez v. Central American Deli, and Nelson Perez,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04493 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Central American Deli is in the commercial catering/cleaning
business, organized under the laws of the State of New York, with
an address for service of process located at 90 Broadway,
Freeport, NY 11520.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


DIXON SPRINGS: Class Suit Certified Against Prison Officials
------------------------------------------------------------
In MICHAEL WILLIAMS, BRIAN THOMAS, SEDRICK PHILLIPS, and MIKAL
DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. SALVADOR GODINEZ, TY J. BATES, RANDY DAVIS,
OFFICER BARNHART, and UNKNOWN AND UNNAMED OFFICERS, Defendants,
CASE NO. 12-CV-0808-MJR-SCW, (S.D. Ill.), Plaintiffs Michael
Williams, Brian Thomas, Sedrick Phillips, and Mikal Davis have
sued Defendant prison officials for alleged violating their Eighth
Amendment rights by subjecting them to unconstitutional conditions
of confinement.  On July 25, 2013, Plaintiffs moved to certify a
class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The
undersigned District Judge ruled on the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class on March 31, 2014, granting the Motion to the extent
that it sought certification under Rule 23(b)(3), and denying it
as to Rules 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2). The ruling, which would grant
certification as to all inmates incarcerated at the Dixon Springs
Impact Incarceration Program ("IIP") between May 25, 2010, and the
present, was conditioned on the appointment of qualified class
counsel. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a motion under Rule
23(g) for the appointment of class counsel, which Plaintiffs did
on April 16, 2014 (Doc. 54). Responses and replies were timely
filed and the Motion is properly before the Court.

Based upon Plaintiffs' statements and coupled with the Defendants'
lack of objection, District Judge Michael J. Reagan, in a
Memorandum and Order dated July 8, 2014, granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to appoint Mr. Edward Fox as class counsel.  The Court also
certified the class of all convicted offenders in the State of
Illinois who, from May 25, 2010 through the present, were
incarcerated as inmates at the Dixon Springs Impact Incarceration
Center.

A copy of Judge Reagan's ruling is available at
http://is.gd/nNZGqqfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Edward M Fox --
efox@efox-law.com -- Ed Fox & Associates, Jarrod P. Beasley --
JarrodBeasley@KuehnLawFirm.com -- Kuehn Law Firm, Jonathan D
Wassell -- jwassell@efox-law.com -- Ed Fox & Associates & Julie O.
Herrera -- jherrera@julieherreralaw.com -- Law Office of Julie O.
Herrera.

Brian Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Edward M Fox, Ed Fox &
Associates, Jarrod P. Beasley, Kuehn Law Firm, Jonathan D Wassell,
Ed Fox & Associates & Julie O. Herrera, Law Office of Julie O.
Herrera.

Sedrick Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Edward M Fox, Ed Fox &
Associates, Jarrod P. Beasley, Kuehn Law Firm, Jonathan D Wassell,
Ed Fox & Associates & Julie O. Herrera, Law Office of Julie O.
Herrera.

Mikal Davis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated former inmates at Dixon Springs Impact Incarceration
Program, satellite facility of the Vienna Correctional Center,
Plaintiff, represented by Edward M Fox, Ed Fox & Associates,
Jarrod P. Beasley, Kuehn Law Firm, Jonathan D Wassell, Ed Fox &
Associates & Julie O. Herrera, Law Office of Julie O. Herrera.

Salvador Godinez, Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, Defendant, represented by Christopher L. Higgerson,
Illinois Attorney General's Office.

Ty J. Bates, Deputy Director of IDOC, Souther District, Defendant,
represented by Christopher L. Higgerson, Illinois Attorney
General's Office.

Randy Davis, Warden of Vienna Correctional Center, Defendant,
represented by Christopher L. Higgerson, Illinois Attorney
General's Office.

Norman Suits, head of Day-to-Day Operations at Dixon Springs
Impact Incarceration Program (IIP), Defendant, represented by
Christopher L. Higgerson, Illinois Attorney General's Office.
Barnhart, Officer, Correctional Officer at IIP, Defendant,
represented by Christopher L. Higgerson, Illinois Attorney
General's Office.


DOLAN COMPANY: Sued in Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonino Floridia and Matthew Dudevoir , Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. James P. Dolan, and
Vicki J. Duncomb, Case No. 0:14-cv-03011 (D. Minn., July 25,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

The Dolan Company provides professional services and business
information to legal, financial, and real estate sectors in the
United States.

James P. Dolan is the President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of The Dolan Company.

Vicki J. Duncomb is the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of The Dolan Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq.
      June Pineda Hoidal, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      80 South Eighth Street, 1100 IDS Center
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com
              june.hoidal@zimmreed.com


DYNAMIC ADIV: "Ragnauth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simy Ragnauth, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Dynamic Adiv Sethi Corp., Rajesh Sethi, and
Susan Sethi, Case No. 1:14-cv-04472 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime premium pay, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dynamic Adiv Sethi Corp. owns and operates a chain of at least
three cell phone retailers in Queens under the name MetroPCS.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Stein, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
     New York, NY 10001
     Telephone: (212) 563-9884
     E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


EVO MERCHANT: Faces "Blotzer" Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Evo Merchant Services, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-01208
(C.D. Cal., July 30, 2014) accuses the Defendant of negligently
and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading her privacy.

Evo Merchant Services, LLC, is a business corporation
headquartered in Melville, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIRECTV: Appeals Ruling in Early Cancellation Fees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The denial of the motion by DirecTV to compel arbitration in a
suit filed in Arkansas state court over early cancellation fees is
currently on appeal, according to the company's June 30, 2014,
Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the company assesses the company's customers
when they do not fulfill their programming commitments. Several of
these lawsuits are pending, some in California state court
purporting to represent statewide classes, and some in federal
courts purporting to represent nationwide classes. The lawsuits
seek both monetary and injunctive relief. While the theories of
liability vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these fees under
state consumer protection laws as both unfair and inadequately
disclosed to customers. The company's motions to compel
arbitration of all claims have been granted in all of the federal
cases, except for a case originally filed in Arkansas state court.
The denial of the company's motion as to that case is currently on
appeal.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Being Sold for Too Little to Rival, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of all
common stockholders of Family Dollar Stores Inc. ("Family Dollar"
or the "Company").  The complaint asserts that the Company's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the sale of the Company to Dollar Tree, Inc. ("Dollar Tree").

On July 28, 2014, Dollar Tree announced that it has entered into
an agreement to acquire Family Dollar in a merger valued at
approximately $8.5 billion.  Under the terms of the transaction,
Family Dollar shareholders will receive $59.60 in cash and the
equivalent of $14.90 in Dollar Tree shares for each share of
Family Dollar common stock they own for a total value
consideration of $74.50 per share.  Analysts have projected that
the inherent value of the Company is worth at least $79 per share.

The claims asserted in the lawsuit concern whether the Board of
Directors of Family Dollar breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders by failing to maximize shareholder value before
agreeing to enter into an agreement with Dollar Tree, and whether
Dollar Tree is underpaying for Family Dollar shares.

Owners of common stock of Family Dollar who would like to learn
more about this lawsuit and their ability to participate as a
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to them, can visit Brower
Piven's Web site at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentinvestigations.html.
Shareholders may also request more information by contacting
Brower Piven at:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1925 Old Valley Road
          Stevenson, MD 21153
          Telephone: (410) 415-6616
          E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com


FREDERICK FIRE: Suit Seeks to Recover Back Pay and Overtime Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Myers, 152 Stonegate Drive, Frederick, MD 21702, On Behalf
of Herself and Similarly Situated Persons v. Frederick Fire and
Flood, 5938 Jefferson Pike, Frederick, MD 21773; and Jack R.
LaForce, Jr., 10944 Pleasant Walk Rd., Myersville, MD 21773, Case
No. 1:14-cv-02436 (D. Md., July 30, 2014) is brought on behalf of
similarly situated past and present employees of Frederick Fire
and Flood, for back pay and to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Frederick Fire and Flood is a Maryland limited liability
corporation having its principal office and place of business
located in Frederick County, Maryland.  Jack R. LaForce is owner
and majority shareholder in FFF.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Patrick McDermott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF E. PATRICK MCDERMOTT LLC
          2666 Ogleton Road
          Annapolis, MD 21403
          Telephone: (410) 990-0792
          Facsimile: (410) 741-3979
          E-mail: epmcdlaw@gmail.com


GARLOCK SEALING: Asbestos Claimants Allege Concealment of Evidence
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that after losing the fight on the estimated liability of
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC in asbestos cases, a group of
plaintiffs seeks to reopen the record, alleging concealment of
evidence.

Both sides in the case traded accusations of misrepresenting
evidence to the court.

The case has drawn other asbestos defendants seeking access to the
evidence that led U.S. Senior Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges to
find that the plaintiffs lawyers had concealed evidence of their
clients' exposure to other sources of asbestos when presenting
their claims in lawsuits and then to the trusts formed out of the
bankruptcy of other asbestos defendants.

In their latest court filing, the official committee of asbestos
personal injury claimants renewed its argument that Garlock
concealed crucial evidence.

For example, Garlock said, plaintiffs lawyers suppressed evidence
that their clients, who won a $9 million verdict against Garlock,
had been exposed to Unibestos made by Pittsburgh Corning on the
U.S.S. John Marshall submarine.

But Garlock's counsel had documents and transcripts indicating
that Unibestos was present on the submarine, the committee argued,
and failed to produce it during the estimation proceedings.

The certification by the unnamed plaintiffs lawyer in Pittsburgh
Corning's bankruptcy that his client had been exposed to Unibestos
insulation reflects that he was "entitled to cast a vote for his
client in the reasonable belief that the client would be entitled
to claim against an eventual Pittsburgh Corning trust, and that
belief could properly rest on the client's trade and work history
(disclosed in tort suit), and counsel's general knowledge and
experience of asbestos matters," according to the plaintiffs.

Garlock was named in more than 13,000 asbestos cases between 1987
and its bankruptcy filing in 2010, according to the plaintiffs.
"Garlock suffered the verdicts and paid the settlements that it
did not because it lacked evidence, but because it faced dire
risks under the tort law and in front of juries and managed those
risks as best it could," the committee said.

When Hodges decided against using Garlock's history of settling
asbestos cases to estimate its future liability, he was rejecting
the standard methodology in bankruptcy cases for estimating an
asbestos defendant's liability, the plaintiffs said.
Much of the plaintiffs' filing is redacted.

U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn Jr. of the Western District of
North Carolina recently ruled that the trial Hodges held to
estimate Garlock's liability should not have been closed to the
public and press.  Judge Cogburn remanded the case for the lower
court to conduct fact-finding about the public's right of access.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ibanez" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Alondra Ibanez, et al. v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-05238, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05880-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 case involves an alleged unprecedented failure to disclose,
indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous defects in GM
vehicles.  Since 2002, GM has sold millions of vehicles throughout
the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which
the vehicle's ignition switch can unintentionally move from the
"run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in
a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a
failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the
complaint.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM
was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10, 2009, acquired
substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of
General Motors Corporation through a Section 363 sale under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          455 Market Street, Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 536-3986
          Facsimile: (415) 537-4120
          E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Jayne Conroy, Esq.
          Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
          Andrea Bierstein, Esq.
          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: jconroy@simmonsfirm.com
                  phanly@simmonsfirm.com
                  abierstein@simmonsfirm.com
                  mbreit@simmonsfirm.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Illegal Distribution of Audio Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance of Artists And Recording Companies, Inc. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. General Motors
Company, Denso International America, Inc., Ford Motor Company,
Clarion Corporation of America, Case No. 1:14-cv-01271 (D.D.C.,
July 25, 2014), is brought for violation of the Audio Home
Recording Act specifically by manufacturing or importing and
distributing digital audio recording devices without complying
with the AHRA.

The 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.

The Defendants design, manufacture, market and distribute
automotive vehicles in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dustin Gary Cho, Esq.
      COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
      1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20004
      Telephone: (202) 662-6000
      E-mail: dcho@cov.com

         - and -

      Jonathan M. Sperling, Esq.
      COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
      The New York Times Building
      620 Eighth A venue
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 841-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 841-1010
      E-mail: jsperling@cov.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Rukeyser" Suit Over Defective Switches
-------------------------------------------------------------
William L. Rukeyser, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-05715
(S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2014), alleges that the Defendants designed,
manufactured, advertised, promoted, warranted and sold millions of
GM Vehicles containing defective ignition switches for use in the
United States and worldwide.

General Motors LLC is engaged in the business of designing,
developing, manufacturing, distributing, marketing, and selling GM
Vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      620 Fifth Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com


HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Faces "Medrano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose V. Medrano v. Hersha Hospitality Management, L.P., Case No.
1:14-cv-04496 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hersha Hospitality Management, L.P. is in the commercial cleaning
and hospitality business with an address for service of process
located at 80 State Street, Albany, NY 12207-2543.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


HILTON GRAND: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Chen" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Chen, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-
03373 (N.D. Cal., July 25, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
negligently and willfully contacted the Plaintiff on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC develops, manages, markets,
and operates a system of brand-name vacation club ownership
resorts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              jason@kazlg.com

          - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Jessica R. K. Dorman, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              Jessica@westcoastlitigation.com


HSBC BANK: 9th Cir. Reversed Denial of Bid to Remand Hawaii Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii's deceptive-marketing claims against major credit card
providers belong in state court, reports Tim Hull at Courthouse
News Service, citing a 9th Circuit ruling entered on August 1,
2014.

Attorney General David M. Louie sued Bank of America, Capital One,
Chase, Citigroup, Discover and HSBC in 2012 in state court,
alleging that they had deceived cardholders in marketing various
"debt protection" products, including extended warranties,
identity theft and stolen-card protection plans, and credit-score
tracking.

The complaints claimed that the companies often neglected to
inform cardholders about the restrictions of such plans, and that
telemarketers used unfair tactics to sign consumers up.  The
companies usually collect a percentage of a cardholder's monthly
balance to pay for such plans.

The companies removed the lawsuits to federal court in Honolulu,
prompting the Attorney General to seek their return to state
court.

U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayash found that at least one of the
claims against each provider was preempted by the National Bank
Act, and kept the cases in federal court.  The judge concluded
that the state had implied in the lawsuits that the card-providers
had charged illegal interest rates, claims over which are
generally preempted by federal law.

A unanimous appellate panel reversed on August 1, 2014, and sent
the cases back to state court.

"Even assuming that protection plan fees are interest, the
complaints here did not allege that the card providers charged
excessive interest rates," wrote Judge Andrew Hurwitz for the
three-judge panel.

"Counts I and II alleged that the card providers violated sections
480-2(d), 480-13.5, and 481A-3 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes,
which govern business disclosure, contractual terms, and trade
practices," he added.  "None of these provisions proscribes the
interest that a financial institution may charge."

The state's unjust enrichment claims had nothing to do with
interest rates either, the panel found.

The panel also rejected the companies' argument that the Class
Action Fairness Act provided the federal court with jurisdiction
over the state's claims, finding that the Attorney General had
"unambiguously disclaimed class status."

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Laura J. Baughman, Esq.
          J. Burton LeBlanc, IV, Esq.
          Sherri Ann Saucer, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          The Centrum
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: lbaughman@baronbudd.com
                  bleblanc@baronbudd.com
                  asaucer@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Richard Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169

               - and -

          L. Richard Fried, Jr., Esq.
          Patrick F. McTernan, Esq.
          CRONIN, FRIED, SEKIYA, KEKINA & FAIRBANKS
          600 Davies Pacific Center
          841 Bishop Street
          Honolulu, HI 96813-3962
          Telephone: (808) 524-1433

The Defendants-Appellees HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. and HSBC Card
Services, Inc., are represented by:

          Michael C. Bird, Esq.
          Summer H.M. Fergerstrom, Esq.
          Tracey Lynn Kubota, Esq.
          WATANABE ING LLP
          First Hawaiian Center
          999 Bishop Street, 23rd Floor
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 544-8300
          Facsimile: (808) 544-8399
          E-mail: mbird@wik.com
                  sfergerstrom@wik.com
                  tohta@wik.com

               - and -

          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          David W. Moon, Esq.
          Jason Sung-Hyuk Yoo, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
          Telephone: (310) 556-5800
          Facsimile: (310) 556-5959
          E-mail: jstrickland@stroock.com
                  dmoon@stroock.com
                  jsyoo@stroock.com

The Defendants-Appellees Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. and Capital
One Services, LLC are represented by:

          James F. McCabe, Esq.
          James R. McGuire, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: jmccabe@mofo.com
                  jmcguire@mofo.com

               - and -

          Margery S. Bronster, Esq.
          Andrew L. Pepper, Esq.
          BRONSTER HOSHIBATA ALC
          Pauahi Tower
          1003 Bishop Street #2300
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 524-5644
          Facsimile: (808) 599-1881
          E-mail: mbronster@bhhawaii.net
                  apepper@bhhawaii.net

The Defendants-Appellees Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and
Department Stores National Bank are represented by:

          Michael Purpura, Esq.
          Michael J. Scanlon, Esq.
          CARLSMITH BALL LLP
          ASB Tower
          1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2100
          Post Office Box 656
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 523-2500
          Facsimile: (808) 523-0842
          E-mail: mpurpura@carlsmith.com
                  mscanlon@carlsmith.com

               - and -

          Noah A. Levine, Esq.
          Robert W. Trenchard, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
          E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com
                  robert.trenchard@wilmerhale.com

The appellate case is State of Hawaii v. HSBC Bank Nevada, Case
No. 13-15611, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The District Court case is State of Hawaii v. HSBC Bank
Nevada, Case No. 1:12-cv-00263-LEK-KSC, in the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii.


KELLOGG COMPANY: Wrongly Markets "Gardenburger," Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kellogg Company is wrongly
marketing its "Gardenburger" as "Made With Natural Ingredients"
despite the fact it contains Hexane, a federally recognized
synthetic chemical, a class action filed in San Diego says.

The case is Tasneem L. Mohamed v. Kellogg Company, Case No.
201400025230, in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Diego.


LAKE CITY: Dist. Court Ruling in American Copper Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2006, American Copper & Brass, Inc. received an
unsolicited advertisement on one of its facsimile (fax) machines
for a product sold by Lake City Industrial Products, Inc. This
prompted American Copper to file a lawsuit in federal court
against Lake City and its president, Jeffrey Meeder, alleging that
they had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47
U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., by sending American Copper an
unsolicited fax advertisement. American Copper also sought class-
action certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. After extensive briefing, the district court
granted class certification and subsequently granted American
Copper's motion for summary judgment.

Lake City now appeals, arguing that (1) the class definition
approved by the district court includes individuals who lack
standing to assert TCPA claims; (2) the class is not objectively
ascertainable; and (3) the district court committed reversible
error by failing to apply Rule 3.501(A)(5) of the Michigan Court
Rules (MCR), which prohibits class actions in TCPA lawsuits.

In an opinion dated July 9, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/33Zuc1from Leagle.com, the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court judgment.

The Sixth Circuit said it acknowledges Lake City's argument that
allowing TCPA class-action suits to be maintained in federal
district courts could lead to forum shopping.  It said this might
well be true but, as the Supreme Court recently held in a case
involving a conflict between Rule 23 and a New York procedural
rule prohibiting class actions in cases involving a statutory
penalty, a "Federal Rule governing procedure is valid whether or
not it alters the outcome of the case in a way that induces forum
shopping." Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 559 U.S. 393, 416 (2010).  The Sixth Circuit, therefore,
rejects Lake City's argument that the district court erred in
declining to apply MCR 3.501(A)(5).

The case is AMERICAN COPPER & BRASS, INC., a Michigan corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAKE CITY INDUSTRIAL
PRODUCTS, INC. and JEFFREY MEEDER, Defendants-Appellants, NO. 13-
2605.

ARGUED: Stephen J. Schlegel -- sjschlegel@schlegelltd.com --
STEPHEN J. SCHLEGEL, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants.

Phillip A. Bock -- phil@bockhatchllc.com -- BOCK & HATCH, LLC,
Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Stephen J. Schlegel, Eryk A. Folmer, STEPHEN J.
SCHLEGEL, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants.

Phillip A. Bock, BOCK & HATCH, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, for
Appellee.


MAGNUM HUNTER: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York dismissed a consolidated securities suit filed against Magnum
Hunter Resources Corporation, according to the company's June 25,
2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation disclosed in its filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2014, that certain class action complaints had been previously
filed against the Company and certain of its officers. In late
2013, the class action cases that remained outstanding were
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaints in the Securities Case
alleged that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements in its filings with the SEC, including statements
related to the Company's internal and financial controls, the
calculation of non-cash share-based compensation expense, the late
filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012 (which was filed by the Company with
the SEC in June 2013), the dismissal of the Company's previous
independent registered accounting firm, and other matters
identified in the Company's Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April
16, 2013, as amended. The complaints demanded that the defendants
pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including
damages allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock
price between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013.

On June 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting
the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the
Securities Case and, accordingly, the Securities Case has now been
dismissed.  The plaintiffs can appeal the decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


MANDALAY DIGITAL: Linked to Coral Tell Phone Call Overages Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mandalay Digital Group, Inc. is allegedly involved in facilitating
charges for phone call overages, over which Coral Tell Ltd. is
facing claims, according to Mandalay's June 30, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS 19.2
million or $5.3 million was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District
Court against Coral Tell Ltd. an Israeli company which owns and
operates a website offering advertisements The claim against Coral
Tell Ltd. relates to charges for phone call overages. The suit
relates to a service offered by the Coral Tell website, enabling
advertisers to display a virtual cellular number in the
advertisement instead of their real cellular number. The plaintiff
claims that calls were charged for the connection time between two
segments of the call, instead of the second segment alone; that
the caller was charged even if the advertiser did not answer the
call (as the charge began upon initiation of the first segment);
and that the caller was charged for text messages sent to the
advertiser, although the service did not support delivery of text
messages. Coral Tell Ltd. has served a third party notice against
Logia and two additional companies for the company's alleged
involvement in facilitating the overages. The company has no
contractual relationship with Coral Tell Ltd.

On November 25, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the
parties to submit their position as to whether the defendant
(applicant) has a right to appeal the District's Court decision or
must request the Supreme Court to grant a right to appeal.
On December 25th, 2013, after reviewing the parties' positions,
the Supreme Court ordered the respondents (Cellcom, Logia, Ethrix)
to submit their response to defendant's petition to grant the
right to appeal, by January 26th, 2014. Appellant responded
thereafter and the appeal is now under review and pending
judgment. Usually, in petitions such as this the Supreme Court
makes a judgment based on the parties' written responses. Such
judgment may take several weeks to several months to be released.


MANFREDINI LANDSCAPING: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Lopez and Cesar Garcia, on behalf of themselves, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v.
Manfredini Landscaping Company, D/B/A Manfredini Landscaping &
Design, Also D/B/A Manfredini Landscaping And Design Co. and
Enrico Manfredini, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05699 (N.D.
Ill., July 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide landscaping, gardening, hardscaping, and
maintenance services, and builds custom fireplaces and outdoor
kitchens.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


MASSAGE PARTNERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Orsetti, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Massage Partners, Inc., d/b/a Massage Envy, and Michael Muskat, an
individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-22759 (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2014),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Massage Partners, Inc. owns and operate a spa know as Massage Envy
located in Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com


MICHAEL KORS: Sued Over Misleading Marketing of Merchandise
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tressa Gattinella, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc.; Michael Kors,
L.L.C.; Michael Kors Retail, Inc.; and Michael Kors Stores,
L.L.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-05731 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2014), seeks
monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief
from Defendants, arising from its deceptive and misleading
labeling and marketing of merchandise it sells at its company-
owned Michael Kors Outlet stores.

The Defendants are a Delaware corporation that operate retail
outlet stores, with the principal place of business at 11 West
42nd Street, New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE KREGER
      303 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1201
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212)956-2136
      Facsimile: (212)956-2137
      E-Mail: vvavne@kregerlaw.com

         - and -

      Jason Alverstein, Esq.
      Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
      200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com
              ostrovv@kolavvvers.com
              edelsberg@kolavvvers.coin


MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Sued for Falsely Marketing Handcrafted Tools
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee Electric Tool dba Stiletto Tools advertises tools as
"100% handcrafted," though its own video shows they are made
mechanically, a class action claims in California Federal Court,
according to Courthouse News Service.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Settlement of "Zina" Suit Over Furans Now Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the suit Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al.
over dioxins/furans contamination is final after an objection to
the accord was denied, according to Monsanto Company's June 25,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2014.

As described in the company's Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended Aug. 31, 2013, and the company's Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly periods ended Nov. 30, 2013, and Feb. 28, 2014,
on Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the
Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto,
Pharmacia and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named as the
successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged
class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and
students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed
to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro,
West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the
contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and
operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture
between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo Nobel). Akzo
Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia
was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit
seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate
value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to
test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The
complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination
and punitive damages. Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend
Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011,
the judge dismissed both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case.

The class action certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007.
On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the
Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb
replaced Allen as class representative) case as a class action for
property damage and for medical monitoring. On Nov. 2, 2011, the
court, in response to defense motions, entered an order
decertifying the property class.

After the trial for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began
on Jan. 3, 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle as
to both the medical monitoring and the property class claims. The
proposed settlement provides for a 30-year medical monitoring
program consisting of a primary fund of up to $21 million and an
additional fund of up to $63 million over the life of the program,
and a three year property remediation plan with funding up to $9
million. On Feb. 24, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the
parties' proposed settlement. A fairness hearing was held June 18,
2012, resulting in the trial court's final approval of the
settlement.

Certain plaintiffs objected to the approval of the settlement and
appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.  On Nov.
22, 2013, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed the
appeal and upheld the fairness of the class action settlements.
The objector filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court which was denied. The settlement is final and the
parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement.


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Breach of Securities Exchange Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rand-Heart of New York, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Netsol Technologies, Inc., Najeeb
Ghauri, Naeem Ghauri, and Salim Ghauri, Case No. 2:14-cv-05787
(C.D. Cal., July 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

Netsol Technologies, Inc. designs, develops, markets, and exports
software products primarily to the automobile finance and leasing,
banking, healthcare, and financial services industries worldwide.

The Individual Defendants are members of the Board of Directors of
Netsol Technologies, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      9430 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 209-2468
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2087
      E-mail: service@ssbla.com


NEW GAO: Faces "Reyes" Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeronimo Reyes and Mariano Jacobo de Jesus, individually and on
behalfofothers similarly situated v. New Gao No. 1 Kitchen Inc.
(d/b/a No. 1 Restaurant), Neng Xing Wang and Jane Doe, Case No.
1:14-cv-05724 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

New Gao No. 1 Kitchen Inc. owns, operates or controls a Chinese
Restaurant located at 3853 Broadway, New York NY 10032 under the
name "No. 1 Restaurant".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


NOVEX BIOTECH: Sued in California Over Growth Factor-9 Supplement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Engel, an Individual, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Novex Biotech, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability
company; Sierra Research Group, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability
company; GNC Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:14-
cv-03457 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2014) is brought on behalf of
similarly situated consumers, who have purchased Growth Factor-9,
to halt the dissemination of the Defendants' alleged false,
misleading and deceptive advertising of their products.

Novex Biotech, LLC is an entity organized and existing under the
laws of Utah with its principal place of business in Salt Lake
City, Utah.  Sierra Research Group, LLC is a Utah limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Salt
Lake City, Utah.  GNC Corporation is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell and distribute Growth
Factor-9, an over-the-counter amino acid supplement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com
                  lgomez-gray@bffb.com

               - and -

          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          STEWART M. WELTMAN, LLC
          53 W. Jackson Suite 364
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 588-5033
          E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Yet for Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has yet been set in In re OmniVision Technologies,
Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-5235, according to the company's
June 30, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2014.

On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and three of
the company's executives, one of whom is a director. All of the
complaints alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making misleading statements or omissions
regarding the company's business and financial results, in
particular regarding the use of the company's imaging sensors in
Apple Inc.'s iPhone. These actions have been consolidated as In re
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-5235
(RMW) (the "Securities Case"). On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a consolidated complaint on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock between August 27, 2010
and November 6, 2011, seeking unspecified damages. On March 29,
2013, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. No trial
date has been set.


PACESETTER PERSONNEL: "Vaughn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Iris Vaughn v. Pacesetter Personnel Service  of Florida, Inc.
Kenneth Joekel, and Tampa Service Company, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
00351 (N.D. Fla., July 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory
penalties, attorney's fees and costs, and damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Pacesetter Personnel Service of Florida, Inc. is a for-profit
corporation duly licensed and organized under the laws of the
State of Florida and is engaged in the business of providing
general labor and skilled personnel services to clients across the
United States inclusive of this District.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremiah Joseph Talbott, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT PA
      245 E Intendencia St.
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Telephone: (850) 437-9600
      Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
      E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com


PORCAO GRILL: "Palomares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Palomares, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Porcao Grill Miami, LLC., d/b/a Porcao, a Florida limited
liability company, GRIMPA, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Porcao Manager, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Grimpa
Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Christophe L.
Difalco, an individual, seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operates a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com


RJ REYNOLDS: 3rd Circuit Upholds $10MM Jury Award in Tobacco Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noreen Marcus, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that the
Third District Court of Appeal on July 30 upheld a $10 million
jury award to a man who started smoking when he was 7.  The
defendant in the products liability case is R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co.

The appeals court issued a brief opinion that doesn't explain its
reasoning.

William Crawford, 79, of Stuart has no voice box and breathes
through a tube.  The defense claimed his laryngeal cancer could
have been caused by gastric reflux or social drinking.

In September 2013, a Miami-Dade Circuit Court jury found nicotine
addiction and smoking caused the cancer.  It also found
Mr. Crawford relied on Reynolds' misrepresentations about the
effects of smoking and the company agreed with other cigarette
makers to conceal damning information about smoking.

Reynolds' options to avoid or forestall paying the $10 million are
limited, according to Crawford's lead trial lawyer Alex Alvarez.
The company could seek a rarely granted rehearing.

Reynolds also could try appealing, but "it's highly, highly,
highly unlikely that they'll take this case with no opinion
attached to it," Mr. Alvarez said.

The lead appellate attorney for Crawford was Celene Humphries --
chumphries@bhappeals.com -- of Brannock & Humphries in Tampa.

Reynolds was represented by lawyers from Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt in Florida and Jones Day in Washington.


ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHOCOLATE: Tenn. Judgment Claimants' Suit Stands
---------------------------------------------------------------
No material activity has occurred since March 2010 in the case
filed against a director of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc.
alleging that claimants in a suit over diminution in value of real
property were unable to collect what they were due from a court
judgment, according to the company's June 30, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Feb. 28, 2014.

On March 29, 1994, a class action was filed in the Circuit Court
for the 21st Judicial District, Centerville, Hickman County,
Tennessee against National Development Company, Inc. ("NDI") and
Sunstates Corporation ("Sunstates") for breach of contract by a
class of purchasers (the "Plaintiffs") of real property in a
recreational development developed and marketed by NDI. The
Plaintiffs brought the class action to recover for the diminution
in value of their properties caused by the failure of NDI to
complete the primary lake in the development. On January 19, 1999,
Mr. Engle, one of the company's directors, was added as a
defendant to the class action, alleging that Mr. Engle operated
the two defendant corporations as his alter ego. On January 24,
2000, the court found defendant NDI liable for over $2.5 million
to the plaintiffs for the diminution in value of their real
property based on a failure to build an adjacent lake as promised.
On August 30, 2005, a judgment was entered against Mr. Engle,
personally, for the amount of the original judgment plus statutory
interest (the "Tennessee Judgment").

In a related case filed on October 29, 2007 in the Circuit Court
for the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii, the Plaintiffs pursued a
class action against Mr. Engle and others to set aside fraudulent
transfers, for declaratory and injunctive relief and for damages.
In that complaint, the Plaintiffs claimed they were unable to
collect on the Tennessee Judgment and alleged that Mr. Engle
engaged in a scheme to aggressively and fraudulently transfer
assets and earnings to his wife to hinder, delay and defraud his
creditors. Following a trial, a jury verdict was entered against
Mr. Engle on March 3, 2010, whereby he was found to have
fraudulently transferred shares of stock valued at $10,768,450 and
the jury awarded punitive damages to the Plaintiffs in the amount
of $43,073,800. Several post-trial motions were filed after the
jury verdict, but no material activity has occurred in this case
since March 2010.


SAFEWAY INC: Court Vacates Hearing Dates, Stays "Romaneck" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White signed a stipulation in the
class action captioned LAWRENCE ROMANECK, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY,
INC., ROBERT EDWARDS, JANET E. GROVE, MOHAN GYANI, FRANK C.
HERRINGER, GEORGE J. MARROW, KENNETH W. ODER, T. GARY ROGERS, ARUN
SARIN, WILLIAM Y. TAUSCHER, CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT L.P., AB
ACQUISITION LLC, ALBERSTON'S HOLDINGS LLC, ALBERTSON'S LLC, and
SATURN ACQUISITION MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-
02015-JSW, (N.D. Cal.).

The court-approved stipulation provides that:

     1. All briefing deadlines and hearing dates set by the Court
and currently pending in this action are vacated;

     2. The action is stayed in its entirety pending final
resolution of action currently pending before the Delaware Court
of Chancery entitled In re Safeway Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 9445-VCL (the Delaware Action); and

     3. The parties will promptly notify the Court of the
resolution of the Delaware Action.

The parties to the Delaware Action have reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the Action and signed a Memorandum of
Understanding on June 13, 2014.  The Plaintiff has reviewed the
terms of the Delaware Settlement and agrees that the results
obtained are beneficial to the proposed class of Safeway
shareholders.  The Plaintiff has further reached an agreement with
the plaintiffs in Delaware whereby the Plaintiff will participate
in the Delaware Settlement and submit the question of the fees to
which they may be entitled to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Delaware Chancery Court, under the Stipulation of Settlement
submitted therein.

A copy of July 8, 2014 court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/gjoQZefrom Leagle.com.

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, PATRICK E. GIBBS -- patrick.gibbs@lw.com --
ALLISON S. DAVIDSON -- allison.davidson@lw.com -- CARA A. GRAY --
cara.gray@lw.com -- Menlo Park, California, Counsel for defendants
Safeway Inc., Robert L. Edwards, T. Gary Rogers, William Y.
Tauscher, Mohan Gyani, Arun Sarin, Janet E. Grove, Frank C.
Herringer, Kenneth W. Oder, and George J. Morrow.

DECHERT LLP, MATTHEW L. LARRABEE -- matthew.larrabee@dechert.com
-- JOSHUA D. N. HESS -- joshua.hess@dechert.com -- MARK P. DIPERNA
-- mark.diperna@dechert.com BRIAN C. RAPHEL --
brian.raphel@dechert.com -- San Francisco, CA, Counsel for
defendants AB Acquisition LLC, Albertson's Holdings LLC,
Albertson's LLC, and Saturn Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc.

FOLGER LEVIN LLP, ROGER B. MEAD -- rmead@folgerlevin.com -- San
Francisco, CA, Counsel for defendant Cerberus Capital Management
L.P.

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP, LIONEL Z. GLANCY --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- MICHAEL GOLDBERG --
mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- LOUIS N. GOLDBERG, Los Angeles, CA,
Counsel for Plaintiff Lawrence Romaneck.


SPAIN INN: Faces "Garcia" Suit over Violation of FLSA & NJSWHL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calixto Garcia v. Spain Inn, Inc., Luis Rodriguez, individually,
and Jose Rodriguez, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-04663 (D.N.J.,
July 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and
Hour Law.

Spain Inn, Inc. owns an establishment in New Jersey where meals
are prepared and served to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


SQUILLACE STEEL: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Soto v. Squillace Steel Fabricators, LLC., and Richard
Squillace, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-04661 (D.N.J., July 25,
2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Squillace Steel Fabricators, LLC owns and maintains buildings
throughout the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


STANFORD INT'L: Stockbrokers' Motions to Compel Arbitration Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that U.S. District
Judge David Godbey of Dallas has ruled that the receiver he
appointed to recover millions of dollars taken in R. Allen
Stanford "massive Ponzi scheme" cannot be compelled into
arbitration to collect funds the now-imprisoned Houston financier
paid stockbrokers who worked for his companies.

To do otherwise, Judge Godbey ruled in a July 30 order in the
highly litigated Ralph S. Janvey v. James R. Alguire, "would
frustrate a central purpose of federal equity receiverships."

Judge Godbey has presided over litigation involving the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's civil receivership action
over Stanford-related entities for more than five years.  Stanford
is currently serving a 110-year prison sentence after a Houston
federal jury convicted him of fraud for running the Ponzi scheme.
Stanford has appealed.

Early in the receivership action, Judge Godbey appointed Ralph S.
Janvey -- rjanvey@kjllp.com -- a partner in Dallas' Krage &
Janvey, to serve as receiver over the Stanford entities to trace
any assets owned by the receivership estate.  Mr. Janvey then sued
numerous former employees of the Stanford entities to recover the
funds, but more than 100 stockbrokers filed motions to compel
arbitration in the case, pointing to agreements they signed with
Stanford.

The issue concerning the stockbrokers' motions to compel
arbitration has resulted in two separate trips to the Fifth
Circuit and three Fifth Circuit opinions.  Ultimately, the Fifth
Circuit decided that Mr. Janvey had standing to assert only claims
of the entities in receivership and sent the case back to Judge
Godbey for further rulings.

"There is no dispute that this issue has been back and forth an
unprecedented amount of times. It's remarkable," Mr. Sadler said.

About Judge Godbey, Mr. Sadler said, "He's not defying the Fifth
Circuit.  He's deciding the issue for a third time based on a new
set of standards that the Fifth Circuit came up with the last time
they [the Fifth Circuit] addressed the issue"

Mr. Janvey petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in January to address
the Fifth Circuit's standing ruling, but the high court denied his
petition for writ of certiorari on June 30.  The issue concerned
Judge Godbey's denial of the stockbrokers' motions to compel
arbitration.

The consequences of enforcing the stockbrokers' numerous
arbitration agreements "are many," Judge Godbey wrote in the 49-
page order. He noted that federal equity receiverships have been
around in the United States since the late 1800s.

"This would produce a multitude of arbitrations, which would
result in significant fees per arbitration," Judge Godbey wrote.
"These arbitrations could also occur in multiple venues, which
would once again increase expenses.  Furthermore, multiple
arbitrations in multiple venues greatly increases the likelihood
of inconsistent results. . . .

"Large numbers of separate arbitrations would be disastrous to the
Stanford receivership, and would ultimately further hurt the
victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme.  The court therefore uses
its discretion to deny these motions to compel arbitration."

Kevin Sadler -- kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com -- a partner in the
Palo Alto office of Baker Botts, represents Mr. Janvey.  He's
pleased with the decision -- one he's certain will end up back at
the Fifth Circuit.

"This is the third time I have won this issue," Mr. Sadler said.
"Arbitration undermines the whole purpose of what we're trying to
do here.  We're going to go back to the Fifth Circuit for a third
time, but it's obviously a very important decision by this judge,"
Mr. Sadler said of Judge Godbey.

"The arbitration agreement is the contract the schemer had with
his salesmen.  We have long said that it makes absolutely no sense
for the receiver to be bound by contracts signed by the
fraudster," Mr. Sadler said.  "It doesn't make any sense.  And the
judge ruled for the first time that it doesn't make any sense to
have the receiver bound by the contracts signed by the schemer
that he had with his sales force."

Brad Foster -- bradfoster@andrewskurth.com -- a partner in Andrews
Kurth in Dallas, represents 115 stockbrokers who were employed by
the Stanford entities and who have filed motions to compel
arbitration in the case.  Mr. Foster wrote in an email that he
would appeal Judge Godbey's order to the Fifth Circuit.

"The district court's ruling is unprecedented and contrary to
established law," Mr. Foster wrote.  "We intend to file an
immediate appeal."


SUPER NICE: "Calogne" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc A. Calonge v. Super Nice STS, Inc., a Florida corporation,
and Eloy Martinez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22763 (S.D.
Fla., July 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fee and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Super Nice STS, Inc. is a Florida corporation and engaged in para-
transit business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 727-8570
      Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


SUPERVALU HOLDINGS: Sued Over Accessibility Barriers at Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Supervalu Holdings - PA, LLC d/b/a Shop 'N Save, Case
No. 2:14-cv-01023-CRE (W.D. Pa., July 30, 2014) alleges violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, in connection with
accessibility barriers at various properties owned and managed by
the Defendant.

Mr. Zipf has a mobility disability and is dependent upon a
wheelchair for mobility.

Supervalu Holdings - PA, LLC, doing business as Shop 'n Save, is a
Pennsylvania limited liability company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TDS INC: Faces "Dowden" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aubrey Dowden, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated
v. TDS, Inc. d/b/a Technical Drilling Services, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00313 (S.D. Tex., July 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

TDS, Inc. d/b/a Technical Drilling Services is an Oklahoma
corporation with offices in Oklahoma and Texas. It provides
providing mud logging and consulting services

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TJX COS: Recalls Ecoato Sweet Paprika Powder Over Salmonella Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RTT News reports that The TJX Companies Inc. is recalling "ecoato"
brand Sweet Paprika Powder from store shelves due to potential
contamination with Salmonella bacteria.  Investigation is being
carried out to identify the source of the contamination.

The recall was initiated after spot testing by the FDA revealed
the presence of Salmonella in some samples of the product.
Packaged in a 160 gram, light green tin, the recalled product
bears the lot number 8147 and an expiration date of October 2015.

The company estimates that roughly 150 units of the recalled lot
were sold between June 2014 and July 2014 at its T.J. Maxx,
Marshalls and HomeGoods stores in Alabama, Maryland, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, South Carolina, District of Columbia,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, Georgia,
New York, Virginia, Illinois, North Carolina, Louisiana and Puerto
Rico.

Apart from initiating the recall, the company has suspended
further sale of the product.

Consumers who have purchased a product under the recalled lot of
"ecoato" Sweet Paprika Powder are requested to return it to any
T.J. Maxx, Marshalls or HomeGoods store for a full refund.


TMI REALTY: Faces "Zelaya" Suit Over Alleged Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Zelaya v. TMI Realty, LLC., and John Garcia, individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-04494 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

TMI Realty, LLC, is in the commercial property management
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Building 2, Suite 220, 168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


TONI'S SUSHI: Accused of Racial Discrimination in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Rodriguez v. Toni's Sushi, Inc., and Hiroshi Shintako, Case
No. 1:14-cv-22817-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants have intentionally engaged in unlawful employment
practices and discrimination by treating the Plaintiff differently
from similarly situated employees because of his race and
ethnicity.

Toni's Sushi, Inc. is a U.S.-based corporation authorized to
conduct business in Dade County, Florida.  Hiroshi Shintako is
owner, partner, principal and Head Kitchen Chef of Toni's Sushi.
Toni's Sushi is a Japanese-sushi restaurant located in Miami
Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Personal Injury Claims Settlement Process Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The judges overseeing the federal and California consolidated
actions against Toyota Motor Corporation over alleged defects in
Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles have approved an Intensive
Settlement Process ("ISP") for the product liability personal
injury claims in those actions, according to the company's June
24, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2014.

Approximately 200 putative class actions and more than 500
individual product liability personal injury cases have been filed
since November 2009 alleging that certain Toyota, Lexus and Scion
vehicles contain defects that lead to unintended acceleration. All
of the class actions and many of the product liability personal
injury, warranty and lemon law cases were consolidated either in a
consolidated action in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California or in a consolidated action in
California state court.

In December 2012, Toyota and the plaintiffs announced that they
had reached an agreement to settle the economic loss claims in the
consolidated federal action. In fiscal 2013, Toyota recorded a
$1.1 billion pre-tax charge against earnings to cover the
estimated costs of this economic loss resolution and other
potential recall-related resolutions. In July 2013, the court
signed the order and judgment granting final approval of the
settlement and dismissing the economic loss cases. Various
objectors appealed the court's rulings, but all of these appeals
have been dismissed and the settlement is final.

Although the settlement does not cover product liability personal
injury claims in the consolidated federal action or pending in
various state courts in the United States, the judges overseeing
the federal and California consolidated actions have approved an
Intensive Settlement Process ("ISP") for the product liability
personal injury claims in those actions. Under the ISP, all cases
are stayed pending completion of a process to assess whether they
can be resolved on terms acceptable to the parties. Cases not
resolved after completion of the ISP will then proceed to
discovery and toward trial.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Denial of Cert. for Non-Recalled Vehicles Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ruling of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California denying a motion for class certification
for claims related to Toyota Motor Corporation vehicles that were
not recalled has been appealed, according to the company's June
24, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2014.

Beginning in February 2010, Toyota was sued in approximately 20
putative class actions alleging defects in the antilock braking
system in various hybrid vehicles that cause the vehicles to fail
to stop in a timely manner when driving in certain road
conditions. These cases were consolidated into two actions, one in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California and one in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. In
January 2013, the Court in the federal case issued an order
denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification and
granting summary judgment in favor of Toyota on the claims of the
principal named plaintiff for the cases relating to recalled
vehicles. In July 2013, the court denied the motion for class
certification for claims related to vehicles that were not
recalled, and that ruling has been appealed.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: "Humphrey" Suit Transferred to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Humphrey v. United Healthcare
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01157, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Sacramento).  The California District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-01792-JAM-DAD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark T. Lavery, Esq.
          HYSLIP & TAYLOR
          917 W. 18th Street, #200
          Chicago, IL 60608
          Telephone: (312) 508-5480
          E-mail: mark@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mitchell E. Zamoff, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          80 South Eight Street, Suite 1225
          Minneapolis, MN 55424
          Telephone: (612) 402-3030
          E-mail: mitch.zamoff@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Adam K. Levin, Esq.
          Kathryn Linde Marshall, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th Street Nw
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-6846
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5991
          E-mail: adam.levin@hoganlovells.com
                  kathryn.marshall@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Jason Patrick Stiehl, Esq.
          Jeffrey Phillip Swatzell, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: jstiehl@seyfarth.com
                  jswatzell@seyfarth.com


VITAQUEST INT'L: Falsely Marketed Immunity Products, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
J. Rafael Cosio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VitaQuest International, LLC, and Garden State
Nutritionals Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04474 (E.D.N.Y., July 25,
2014), seeks to halt the Defendants' deceptive marketing of EBOOST
Immunity Products and seeks damages for the Defendants' illegal
conduct in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and New York General Business Law.

VitaQuest International, LLC, and Garden State Nutritionals Inc.
label and package EBOOST as a "naturally flavored effervescent
vitamin supplement" that delivers energy with a "boost" of
"immunity."

VitaQuest International, LLC, and Garden State Nutritionals Inc.
are vitamin, supplement manufacturers with corporate offices
located at 8 Henderson Drive, West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
      Kim E. Richman, Esq.
      George V. Granade, Esq.
      REESE RICHMAN LLP
      875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10169
      Telephone: (212) 643-0500
      Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
      E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com
              krichman@reeserichman.com
              ggrande@reeserichman.com

         - and -

      Clayton Halunen, Esq.
      Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
      HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
      1650 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
      E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
              wolchansky@halunenlaw.com


WARD MANUFACTURING: Hasley Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett dismissed without prejudice the
case captioned RANDALL HASLEY, SR. AND JUDITH HASLEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WARD
MANUFACTURING, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. RDB-13-1607, (D.
Md.) in a memorandum opinion dated July 8, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/ALjvTOfrom Leagle.com.

The class action claim arose out of the presence of allegedly
dangerous "Wardflex(R)" piping in residential and commercial
structures in the State of Maryland. The Plaintiffs asserted
strict liability pursuant to Section 402A of the Restatement
(Second) of Torts (Count I), negligence for design defect (Count
II), and negligence for failure to warn (Count III). Defendant
filed a Motion to Dismiss.

Accoridng to Judge Bennett, the Plaintiffs have not pled facts
upon which the Court can reasonably infer that the presence of
Wardflex(R) creates a substantial risk of death or serious
physical injury.

Randall Hasley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gary E Mason, Whitfield Bryson
and Mason LLP.

Randall Halsey, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Gary E Mason --
gmason@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP.

Judith Halsey, Plaintiff, represented by Gary E Mason, Whitfield
Bryson and Mason LLP.

Ward Manufacturing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven Andrew
Luxton -- sluxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP
& Thomas J Sullivan -- tsullivan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
and Bockius LLP.


WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Metro Background Check Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that a civil rights
class action filed on July 30 accuses the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority of having a criminal background check
policy that is "unduly harsh" and discriminatory.

Pro bono lawyers from Arnold & Porter, the Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and the NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund filed the lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of
individuals who claim they were fired or denied a job because of
their criminal history.

"The policy disqualifies many job applicants and employees based
on criminal history that is not related to the job at issue or
occurred so long ago -- in some cases, 20 or 30 years in the past
-- that it is irrelevant to any fair determination of employee
honesty, reliability or safety," lawyers for the class alleged.

The complaint claims the policy is not only overbroad, but
discriminates especially against African-Americans, citing racial
disparities in local arrest and conviction rates.

A spokeswoman for Metro declined to comment, citing the pending
litigation.  However, at a hearing before the D.C. Council in
February, the transit authority's general manager and CEO, Richard
Sarles, defended the background-check policy as "balanced and
fair," according to a copy of his testimony.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer.  No
hearings have been scheduled.


WESTERN TRANSPORTATION: Class Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Warren, individually and James Warren, on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Western Transportation Inc. and Sandford Oil
Company Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00805-D (W.D. Okla., July 30, 2014)
seeks to collect unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
          Mark E. Hammons, Esq.
          HAMMONS GOWENS HURST & ASSOCIATES
          325 Dean A McGee Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-6100
          Facsimile: (405) 235-6111
          E-mail: amberh@hammonslaw.com
                  Mark@Hammonslaw.com


WESTERN UNION: Class Counsel Must Confer With Objectors
-------------------------------------------------------
JAMES P. TENNILLE, ROBERT SMET, ADELAIDA DELEON and YAMILET
RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY and WESTERN
UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-
CV-00938-JLK-KMT, CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 10-CV-00765-JLK, (
D. Col.) is nationwide class action that was the subject of a
global settlement approved on June 24, 2013. The settlement
agreement cleaved the subject of attorney fees and costs from the
settlement itself, providing simply that Class Counsel would "file
an application" for reasonable attorney fees and case expenses
within 45 days of the final approval hearing. Counsel did so,
seeking and, predictably, its "Motion for Approval of Attorney
Fees, Costs, and Expenses and for Approval of Incentive Awards"
was met with opposition. The Motion, together with Defendants'
Response and related Motion to Strike Affidavits was referred to
Magistrate Judge Tafoya.

In a written Recommendation dated December 31, 2013, the
magistrate judge rejected the Motion to Strike Affidavits and
applied the "common fund" doctrine to recommend a fee award of
$22,946,208, plus a total of $30,000 in individual class
representative incentive awards. The recommended fee was
calculated as a percentage of the combined value of the $19
million in interest recouped for the Class and $45,560,596,
representing the present value, based on expert accountant
methodologies, of the prospective injunctive relief ordered as
part of the settlement. The magistrate judge determined the
injunctive relief was a common benefit to the Class because
members were "likely to remain Western Union customers" in the
future. Given that the recommended award was less than Class
Counsel requested but more than Defendants and certain individual
class believe was warranted, objections were filed.

Senior District Judge John L. Kane, in an order dated July 8,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/eSvmOIfrom
Leagle.com, directed the Class Counsel to confer with each of the
parties who have filed an Objection to the magistrate judge's
Recommendation and to call in for a date to hold argument on their
Motion for Attorney Fees.  "If any party desires to present
evidence, Class Counsel should so state and I will accommodate the
request," he said. "I encourage the parties to think long and hard
about their options coming in to oral argument, and to be creative
in achieving the purposes laid out above without need for further
litigation."

James P. Tennille, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Seth Alan Katz,
Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, PC, Christopher Adam
Seeger, Seeger Weiss LLP, James Edward Cecchi, Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jamie Elisabeth Saltz Weiss,
Complex Litigation Group LLC, Jeffrey A. Leon, Complex Litigation
Group LLC, Jimmy Spurlock Calton, Jr., Calton Legal Services, John
M. Agnello, Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart &
Olstein, Jonathan N. Shub, Seeger Weiss LLP, Mitchell Baker, Mitch
Baker, Attorney at Law & Richard Joseph Burke, Complex Litigation
Group LLC.

Adelaida DeLeon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Edward Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jamie
Elisabeth Saltz Weiss, Complex Litigation Group LLC, Jeffrey A.
Leon, Complex Litigation Group LLC, Jimmy Spurlock Calton, Jr.,
Calton Legal Services, John M. Agnello, Carella, Byrne, Bain,
Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein, Jonathan N. Shub, Seeger
Weiss LLP, Mitchell Baker, Mitch Baker, Attorney at Law, Richard
Joseph Burke, Complex Litigation Group LLC & Seth Alan Katz, Burg,
Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, PC.

Yamilet Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Edward Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jamie
Elisabeth Saltz Weiss, Complex Litigation Group LLC, Jeffrey A.
Leon, Complex Litigation Group LLC, Jimmy Spurlock Calton, Jr.,
Calton Legal Services, John M. Agnello, Carella, Byrne, Bain,
Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein, Jonathan N. Shub, Seeger
Weiss LLP, Mitchell Baker, Mitch Baker, Attorney at Law, Richard
Joseph Burke, Complex Litigation Group LLC & Seth Alan Katz, Burg,
Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, PC.

Robert P. Smet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Adam
Seeger, Seeger Weiss LLP, Jamie Elisabeth Saltz Weiss, Complex
Litigation Group LLC, Jeffrey A. Leon, Complex Litigation Group
LLC, Jonathan N. Shub, Seeger Weiss LLP, Mitchell Baker, Mitch
Baker, Attorney at Law, Richard Joseph Burke, Complex Litigation
Group LLC & Seth Alan Katz, Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh &
Jardine, PC.

Western Union Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Geraldine Mary Alexis, Perkins Coie LLP, Jason A.
Yurasek, Perkins Coie LLP, Laura Lisa Sandoval, Steptoe & Johnson,
LLP, Leonard H. MacPhee, Perkins Coie LLP & Thomas Milton Barba,
Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

Western Union Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Geraldine Mary Alexis, Perkins Coie LLP, Jason A. Yurasek, Perkins
Coie LLP, Laura Lisa Sandoval, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Leonard H.
MacPhee, Perkins Coie LLP & Thomas Milton Barba, Steptoe & Johnson
LLP.

Sikora Nelson, Objector, represented by Theodore James Westbrook,
Drew Cooper & Anding.

Paul Dorsey, Objector, Pro Se.

N Albert Albert Bacharach, Objector, represented by N. Albert
Bacharach, Jr., N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., P.A..

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Interested Party, represented by
Gillian R. Feiner, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office.


WHITING PETROLEUM: Sued in Colo. Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard T. Wilkinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of Kodiak Oil & Gas
Corp. v. William J. Krysiak, Rodney D. Knutson, Herrick K.
Lidstone, JR., Lynn A. Peterson, James E. Catlin, Whiting
Petroleum Corporation, and 1007695 B.C. Ltd., and Kodiak Oil & Gas
Corp., a Canadian Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02074 (D. Colo.,
July 25, 2014), alleges that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with Whiting Petroleum
Corporation's proposed acquisition, via 1007695 B.C. LTD., of all
the outstanding stock of Kodiak Oil.

Whiting Petroleum Corporation is an independent oil and gas
company that acquires, explores, develops, and produces crude oil,
natural gas liquids, and natural gas in the United States.

Kodiak Oil Gas Corp. is an independent energy company focused on
the exploration, exploitation, acquisition, and production of
crude oil and natural gas primarily in the Williston Basin of
North Dakota in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
      DYER & BERENS LLP
      303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 810
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 861-1764
      Facsimile: (303) 395-0393
      E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com

         - and -

      Shane T. Rowely, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510


WORLD WRESTLING: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc., Vincent K. McMahon, and George A. Barrios, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01070 (D. Conn., July 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is an integrated media and
entertainment company that was founded in Stamford, Connecticut in
1980 and focuses on the wrestling entertainment business
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary-Kate Smith, Esq.
      WOFSEY, ROSEN, KWESKIN & KURIANSKY
      600 Summer St.
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (203) 327-2300
      Facsimile: (203) 967-9273
      E-mail: msmith@wrkk.com


                              *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *