CAR_Public/140811.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 11, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 158

                             Headlines


A&E STORES: Removed "Marville" Class Suit to S.D. New York
ACCOKEEK FENCE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ABILITY RECOVERY: Accused of Violating CARD Act in Pennsylvania
AMERICAN INT'L: Has Agreed to Pay $960MM to End Shareholder Suit
AUTOZONE INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Pennsylvania Suit Says

BANKERS LIFE: Sued for Contacting "Do Not Call Registry" Numbers
BOB EVANS: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Violations of Disabilities Act
CBE GROUP: Accused of Violating Telecommunications Act in Iowa
CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CONTINENTAL USA: Fails to Pay Proper OT Under FLSA, Suit Says

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Removed "Palkovic" Suit to N.D. West Virginia
CR BARD: Judge Narrows Strict Liability Claims in Mesh Suit
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued Over Defective Pinnacle Hip Replacement
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act
DOOR LINE: Sued on Behalf of Repair Workers Over FLSA Violations

ELIMELECH MEISELS: Sued in Chicago for Sexually Assaulting Girls
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Collapse of Bar Exam Software
FORD MOTOR: Judge Upholds Admissibility of Two Defense Experts
GENERAL MOTORS: Providence Mulls Suit Over Ignition Switch Defects
GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Eye Key Roles in Ignition-Switch Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers to Consider Compensation Plan
GIBSON BRANDS: Accused of Violating Equal Pay Act in New York
GOLD'S GYM: Faces "Tate" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ERISA
GREAT AMERICAN MARKETING: Recalls 475 Lbs of Ready-to-Eat Items
HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Removed "Cavazos" Suit to C.D. California

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Printer Class Action Settlement Challenged
HITACHI LTD: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Electronic Capacitors
HUESTON MCNULTY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
KODIAK OIL: Being Sold to Whiting for Too Little, Suit Claims
LINK SNACKS: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Class Claims

MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces "Winsouth" Class Suit in M.D. Tennessee
MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Patent Claims Prompt Derivative Suits
MCCALLA RAYMER: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Demand Letter
MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Weaver" Suit to Tennessee District Court

MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Harris" Infuse Suit to W.D. Tennessee
MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NEBRASKA: Health Department Sued Over Untimely Food Stamps
NEW ENGLAND GREENS: Recalls Green Vibrance and Rainbow Vibrance
NORTH CHEROKEE: Sued for Not Having Accurate Record of Work Hours

OASIS BRANDS: Recalls Quesito Casero 12oz Due to Health Risk
OBERTO'S BRANDS: Recalls 57,578 lbs Chicken Strip Products
ONEWEST BANK: "Meyer" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
ORTHO MOLECULAR: Recalls Lifecore Choco & Lifecore Complete Choco
PEP BOYS-MANNY: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa.

PFIZER INC: Oregon to Get $1.2 Mil. in Rapamune Drug Settlement
PFIZER INC: South Dakota to Get $419,000 in Rapamune Settlement
PROGRESO LLC: Accused of Not Paying Proper OT Wages Under FLSA
PROGRESSIVE PAINTING: Fails to Pay Painters' Overtime, Suit Says
PURITAN FOODS: Misbranding Prompts Boneless Turkey Breast Recall

REGENECA WORLDWIDE: Recalls RegeneSlim Appetite Control Capsules
ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
SEOUL SHIK POOM: Recalls Choripdong Choco Almond Richmond Ice Bar
SCOUT W.H. CHICAGO: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Claims
SILVERADO SENIOR: Removed "Pichardo" Suit to C.D. California

STAPLES INC: Accused of Violating Americans with Disabilities Act
SUNBURST SUPERFOODS: Recalls Organic Raw Carob Powder
TARGET CORP: Removed "Rojas" Employment Suit to C.D. California
TOTAL SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Law Violations
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Removed "Chau" Class Suit to C.D. California

UNITED STATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Labor Suit Over Shutdown
USABLE MUTUAL: Removed "Wroten" Insurance Suit to E.D. Arkansas
YORK COUNTY, SC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Ex-Detention Officer Says
ZEMCO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Sausages Due to Misbranding & Allergen

* Advocacy Group Says Some Recalled Products Still in Homes


                            *********


A&E STORES: Removed "Marville" Class Suit to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Marville v. A&E Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 152719/2014, was removed from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05962-RA to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought the class action as a representative of a
class of Black, Hispanic and non-White customers who, identified
as persons of color by their physical appearance, as a result of
alleged racial and national origin profiling, have been or will be
unlawfully stopped, detained, interrogated or searched by A&E
Stores, Inc., doing business as Pay Half Stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeanne Christensen, Esq.
          IMBESI CHRISTENSEN
          450 Seventh Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 736-5588
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
          E-mail: jchristensen@lawicm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph B. Fiorenzo, Esq.
          Matthew Jason Cowan, Esq.
          SOKOL, BEHOT & FIORENZO
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite #2527
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 661-2523
          Facsimile: (201) 488-2460
          E-mail: jbfiorenzo@sbflawfirm.com
                  mjcowan@sbflawfirm.com


ACCOKEEK FENCE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Paul Quiroz, Eliab Crisostumo, Juan Francisco Diaz and Juan
Carlos Sorto Barahona, 836 Bonifant Street, Silver Spring,
Maryland 20910, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Accokeek Fence Company, Inc., 5410 Vine Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22310, Case No. 1:14-cv-00979-TSE-JFA (E.D.
Va., July 31, 2014) seeks to recover damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act relating to alleged unpaid overtime wages.

Accokeek Fence Company, Inc., is a Virginia corporation with its
principal business in Alexandria, Virginia.  Accokeek has been in
fence building services and related construction in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, District of Columbia, and state of
Maryland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          836 Bonifant Street
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


ABILITY RECOVERY: Accused of Violating CARD Act in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Yinger, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ability Recovery Services, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01514-WWC (M.D. Pa., August 1, 2014) alleges violations of the
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility & Disclosure Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC.
          1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19046
          Telephone: (888) 529-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com


AMERICAN INT'L: Has Agreed to Pay $960MM to End Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group has reportedly agreed to pay $960
million to resolve a shareholder lawsuit stemming from the
collapse of the company's value in the wake of its bailout by the
federal government in 2008, according to Courthouse News Service.

The settlement was disclosed during a conference call with
reporters in which AIG officials disclosed the company's earnings
for the second quarter of 2014.  The deal to end the class action
filed in 2008 was first reported by the Financial Times of London.

The plaintiff shareholders, led by the state of Michigan claimed
they'd invested in the company based on false and misleading
statements made by various executives, company directors,
underwriters and an outside auditor concerning the AIG's financial
health and business operations.

After the onset of the global financial crisis in September 2008,
was collateral calls from a number of lenders, including Goldman
Sachs, led to the AIG's seeking a $180 billion bailout from the
U.S. Treasury.

The plaintiffs in the case been demanding upwards of $100 billion
in compensation, the FT said.

In a statement released after the conference call, AIG said, "We
are pleased to resolve this longstanding dispute.  The resolution
of this and other legacy financial crisis related matters better
enables us to focus on AIG's future."

The settlement is just the latest in a series of moves AIG has
been making in advance of Peter Hancock succeeding Bob Benmosche
as company CEO in September.

In mid-July the company announced that he had reached a resolution
of its residential mortgage related disputes with Bank of America.
The resolution includes its claims pending in New York and
California federal courts related to the creation, offering, and
sale of RMBS from which AIG and its subsidiaries suffered losses
either directly on their own account or in connection with their
participation in AIG's securities lending program.

The resolution also covers AIG's objections to the $8.5 billion
settlement of Countrywide's mortgage repurchase obligations to
various investors, as well as disputes concerning the issuance of
mortgage guaranty insurance by AIG's United Guaranty subsidiaries
to Bank of America and Countrywide.


AUTOZONE INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Pennsylvania Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Autozone, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01032-DSC
(W.D. Pa., August 1, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANKERS LIFE: Sued for Contacting "Do Not Call Registry" Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Biringer, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00407-WS-CAS (N.D. Fla., August 4, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by:

   (a) initiating telephone solicitations to persons and entities
       whose telephone numbers were listed on the Do Not Call
       Registry, or

   (b) by the fact that others made those calls on its behalf.

Bankers Life and Casualty Company, is a company headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois, that offers a variety of insurance products and
financial services.  Bankers Life has more than 250 offices in the
country and over 4,800 agents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tim Howard, J.D., Ph.D., Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298-4455
          Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          125 Summer St., Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


BOB EVANS: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Violations of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
01036-AJS (W.D. Pa., August 4, 2014) alleges violations of The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


CBE GROUP: Accused of Violating Telecommunications Act in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Mack, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, and
Israel Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. CBE Group, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-02048-LRR (N.D. Iowa,
July 31, 2014) alleges violations of the Telecommunications Act of
1996.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. D. Haas, Esq.
          JD HAAS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          10564 France Avenue S
          Bloomington, MN 55431
          Telephone: (952) 345-1025
          E-mail: jdhaas@jdhaas.com

               - and -

          James Lee Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON, PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Berkovitz, individually and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Client Services Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04579-ERK-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


CONTINENTAL USA: Fails to Pay Proper OT Under FLSA, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Tagre, On behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated
v. Continental USA Kitchens & Baths, Inc., Continental Surfaces,
LLC, and Peter Komorowski, Case No. 8:14-cv-02467-DKC (D. Md.,
August 4, 2014) alleges that from August 2013, the Defendants
consistently failed to pay the Plaintiff at the overtime rate
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Continental USA Kitchens and Baths, Inc. is a foreign corporation
formed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia with a
principal place of business in Landover, Maryland.  Continental
Surfaces, LLC is a Maryland limited liability company with its
principal office in Landover, Maryland.  The Corporate Defendants
and connected and inter-related entities operated continuously in
the state of Maryland and surrounding states performing
residential construction, installation, and remodeling services.
Peter Komorowski is the registered agent and owner of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Gonzalez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD GONZALEZ, PC
          24051 Street, NW, Suite I.A
          Washington, D.C. 20037
          Telephone: (202)822-4970
          Facsimile: (202) 822-4972
          E-mail: eg@money.law.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          509 N Jefferson St.
          Arlington, VA 22205
          Telephone: (703)665-9529
          Facsimile: (888) 958-1366
          E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Removed "Palkovic" Suit to N.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Palkovic, et al. v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-C-184, was removed from the
Ohio County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia (Wheeling).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00102-JPB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James G. Bordas, Jr., Esq.
          Jason E. Causey, Esq.
          BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
          1358 National Rd.
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 242-8410
          Facsimile: (304) 242-3936
          E-mail: jbordas@bordaslaw.com
                  jason@bordaslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James F. Neale, Esq.
          Meghan Mitchell Cloud, Esq.
          McGuire Woods LLP - Charlottesville
          PO Box 1288
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (434) 977-2582
          Facsimile: (434) 980-2263
          E-mail: jneale@mcguirewoods.com
                  mcloud@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Nicholas P. Mooney, II, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE PLLC
          300 Kanawha Blvd. E
          P. O. Box 273
          Charleston, WV 25321-0273
          Telephone: (304) 340-3860
          Facsimile: (304) 340-3801
          E-mail: nmooney@spilmanlaw.com


CR BARD: Judge Narrows Strict Liability Claims in Mesh Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that Pennsylvania's bar on strict liability claims for
prescription drugs shaved two claims from a woman's case against a
mesh manufacturer in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania looked to both state and federal courts' treatment of
that standard -- which have not always ruled in concert -- in
deciding that it would extend to Gayle Terrell's claims for strict
liability based on an alleged manufacturing defect and for breach
of implied warranty of merchantability of the Marlex mesh that was
surgically implanted to treat a hernia and had to be removed
almost 20 years later after years of medical complications.

Referring to the applicable section of the Restatement (Second) of
Torts and the 1996 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case -- Hahn v.
Richter -- that established the bar on strict liability claims for
prescription drugs, Judge Slomsky said, "In this case, to overcome
the Section 402A bar on strict liability claims for prescription
medical devices, plaintiff contends that Hahn does not prevent
strict liability claims based on manufacturing defects.  This
court does not agree.  Although federal courts are currently split
on this issue of whether Section 402A applies to medical devices,
and some allow strict liability claims to proceed when a
manufacturing defect is alleged, the decisions of these courts
predate Lance."

That case, Lance v. Wyeth, was decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court in January and made clear that the court wouldn't allow
strict liability claims based on a defective prescription drug,
Judge Slomsky said.

While the state's high court hasn't ruled specifically on whether
the bar to strict liability for prescription drugs applies equally
to medical devices, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in its
2006 opinion in Creazzo v. Medtronic that it does.

"In accordance with Pennsylvania law, federal district courts have
held that in the case of prescription drugs and devices, strict
liability claims based on all three defective conditions,
including manufacturing defects, are barred in Pennsylvania,"
Judge Slomsky said.  He cited to half-a-dozen opinions from
various district courts in a footnote.

The judge leaned especially on a 2004 opinion from the Western
District of Pennsylvania, which referred to the comment included
in the restatement that addresses the inherent danger in some
products, particularly prescription drugs.  That opinion, in a
case called Parkinson v. Guidant, said, "While comment K precludes
strict liability, it does contain the following two caveats for
unavoidably unsafe products: 'Such a product, properly prepared,
and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not
defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.'  However, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that Section 402A strict
liability is precluded entirely for prescription drugs, and,
presumably by extension, prescription medical devices.  Instead,
the caveats in comment K are to be evaluated under negligence not
strict liability principles."

Looking again to the state Supreme Court's Lance opinion from
January, Judge Slomsky said the court "reiterated the principle
that a strict liability claim based on a defective prescription
drug is barred."

"In explaining this principle, the court did not exempt from this
bar a claim based on a manufacturing defect.  Based on the above,
this court predicts that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would
come to the same conclusion with respect to defective medical
devices," the judge said.

Judge Slomsky's treatment of the breach of implied warranty of
merchantability claim took a similar route.

"This court recognizes that just as federal district courts are
split regarding strict liability claims based on defects in the
manufacture of prescription drugs, there is also a split in
authority on the applicability of breach of implied warranty of
merchantability claims based on defects in the manufacture of
medical devices," he said.

"Needless to say, plaintiff would have this court hold that the
breach of an implied warranty of merchantability claim is a viable
cause of action under Pennsylvania law, 'to the extent [that it
is] based on a manufacturing defect,'" Judge Slomsky said.  "Once
again, this court does not agree with plaintiff's position."

He cited the Pennsylvania Superior Court's 1987 opinion in
Makripodis v. Merrell-Dow, which ruled that claims for breach of
implied warranty regarding prescription drugs should be handled
the same way as claims for strict liability.

"Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has yet to rule on the
viability of a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim
for prescription drugs or medical devices, many federal courts
have followed the approach in Makripodis and dismissed breach of
implied warranty of merchantability claims for much the same
reason that strict liability claims are precluded," Judge Slomsky
said.

The judge remarked on the uncertain status of products liability
law in Pennsylvania in a footnote, explaining that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit has several times predicted that
the state Supreme Court would adopt the Restatement (Third) of
Torts, although that court has yet to do so.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued Over Defective Pinnacle Hip Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Harris v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson and Johnson
Services, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-02779-K
(N.D. Tex., August 4, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to
disclose material facts regarding the alleged design defects and
failures of Pinnacle Hip Replacement System and the Pinnacle Cup.

In August 2012, the Plaintiff had a total right hip replacement
and she received a DePuy Summit femoral head, a Pinnacle Gription
shell, with a Pinnacle Altrx polyethylene acetabular liner and
other DePuy products.

The Defendants design, manufacture, market and sell medical
devices, including reconstructive hip implants.  The hip joint is
a ball-and-socket joint where the femur connects to the pelvis.
The ball portion (the femoral head) of the hip joint fits into the
socket (acetabulum) of the pelvis.

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is an Indiana corporation with its
principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana.  DePuy operates as
a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson.  Johnson and Johnson
Services, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its principal
place of business in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  Johnson and
Johnson Services, Inc., operate as a subsidiary of Johnson and
Johnson.  Johnson and Johnson is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Ms. Harris indicates the case is related to MDL Case No. 2244, In
re: DePuy Orthopedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products
Liability Litigation, also pending before Judge Ed Kinkeade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Keane, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
          E-mail: rkeane@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Drew Parker, Esq.
          PARKER & PARKER
          411 Hamilton Blvd, Suite 1900
          Peoria, IL 61602
          Telephone: (309) 673-0069
          Facsimile: (309) 673-8791
          E-mail: parkerparker@mtco.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dollar General Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01028-AJS
(W.D. Pa., July 31, 2014) is brought pursuant to alleged
violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in
connection with accessibility barriers at various properties owned
and managed by the Defendant.

Ms. Heinzl has a mobility disability and is dependent upon a
wheelchair for mobility.

Dollar General Corporation is a Tennessee corporation with
headquarters located in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.

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


DOOR LINE: Sued on Behalf of Repair Workers Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrade Aalam v. Door Line Services, Inc., and Jack Manookian,
individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-04788-FSH-MAH (D.N.J., July 31,
2014) is brought on behalf of the Defendants' similarly situated
non-exempt residential garage door installation/repair workers,
who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Door Line Services, Inc., is headquartered in Union, New Jersey.
Jack Manookian has been an owner, partner, officer and manager of
Door Line.  The Defendants install residential home doors
throughout the state of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Lawrence Office Park
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Bldg. 2, Suite 220
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


ELIMELECH MEISELS: Sued in Chicago for Sexually Assaulting Girls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a rabbi in charge of four Orthodox seminaries in Israel
sexually assaulted girls in his charge, and threatened to ruin
their marriage prospects if they reported him, the girls' parents
claim in a federal class action.

Gary Miller and six other named plaintiffs sued Elimelech Meisels,
Rachel Slanger, Peninim of America, Yaakov Yarmish, Tzvi Gartner
and four subsidiary Jewish seminaries in Jerusalem, on August 4,
2014, in Chicago Federal Court.

"From approximately 2004 until the present date, defendant
Elimelech Meisels engaged in a fraudulent and unlawful scheme to
induce Orthodox Jewish parents from across the United States to
send their daughters to various seminaries in Israel that he
controlled under the guise of educational and spiritual
development," the complaint states.  "In truth, defendant Meisels'
true aim was to fraudulently and unlawfully take thousands of
dollars from each of these parents and to induce these girls, by
telephone, mail, wire and other means, to travel thousands of
miles outside the United States and away from their parents for
the purpose of sexually assaulting these vulnerable young girls."

Orthodox Jewish children are traditionally sent to study the Torah
for one year after high school in Israel.  For girls, their
attendance at a seminary "profoundly shapes and influences their
marriage prospects within a quasi arranged marriage system known
as the Shidduch (translated literally as Introduction) system,"
the complaint states.

"This influence is so important that it causes Orthodox Jewish
parents to save money for years in hopes of being able to afford
the annual tuition that regularly exceeds twenty thousand dollars
($20,000)."

The defendant seminaries, part of the Bais Yaakov class of
seminaries, are classified as Ultra-Orthodox, and girls are
expected not even to physically touch a man outside of marriage.

But the parents say Meisel was not the devout rabbi he held
himself out to be.

"Defendant Meisels, like many other sexual predators, preyed on
the vulnerable.  He did this by developing mentor-mentee
relationships with girls and exploiting these relationships to
lure the girls into late night coffee meetings and other private
settings and then sexually assaulted them," the lawsuit states.

"Once the sexual assaults were complete, upon information and
belief, defendant Meisels would intimidate his victims by telling
them that no one would believe that a rabbi and author with his
reputation would have done such a thing.

"Moreover, upon information and belief, defendant Meisels would
threaten his victims that if they shared their story with anyone,
he would draw on his vast contacts within the Shidduch system to
ruin their reputations and ensure that no viable candidate would
want to take their hand in marriage.

"It was widely known within the administrative staff of the
seminaries that defendant Meisels was regularly taking students to
late night private meetings -- a fact itself that is forbidden and
known as 'yichud' according to the Orthodox Jewish law and
tradition.  However, certain still unknown co-conspirators within
the seminaries were also aware that defendant Meisels was sexually
assaulting the girls and assisted defendant Meisels by actively
and passively concealing the assaults."

In July this year, a Jewish religious court, the Chicago Bais Din,
heard testimony from several of Meisels' alleged victims, and
issued a ruling stating that it believed students at the defendant
seminaries were "at risk of harm," according to the complaint.

"News of this decision sent shockwaves to the prospective parent
bodies of the Seminaries," the complaint states.

It continues: "Defendant Meisels agreed with defendant Yarmish
that they would conduct a sham 'sale' of The Seminaries where
defendant Yarmish would claim that he now owned the Seminaries and
would claim to the class plaintiffs that these institutions were
safe for their daughters.  The conspirators hoped that this scheme
would force class plaintiffs into leaving their daughters in The
Seminaries even though that they were not safe because the
conspirators would withhold their tuition deposits."

For the last two weeks in July, according to the complaint,
Yarnish, Slanger, Gartner "and other still unidentified
coconspirators then engaged in a flurry of written correspondence
and telephone calls with the class plaintiffs to try to convince
them that the Seminaries were under new ownership and were now
safe.  The sought to draw on defendant Gartner's status as a rabbi
in Israel and the status of two other unnamed co-conspirators to
perpetuate their fraud and assure the class plaintiffs that the
Seminaries are safe. . . .

"On July 24, 25, and 29, 2014, upon information and belief,
defendant Gartner and unnamed co-conspirators had meetings in
Israel about how to best cover up the fraudulent and unlawful
scheme alleged herein and continue to deprive the class plaintiffs
of their money by perpetuating the illusion that defendant Meisels
is no longer affiliated with the seminaries," the parents say.

They seek class certification and punitive damages for
racketeering, fraud, breach of contract, emotional distress,
conspiracy and conversion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shneur Nathan, Esq.
          HALE LAW LLC
          53 W Jackson Blvd., Suite 330
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 870-6927
          E-mail: snathan@ahalelaw.com


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Collapse of Bar Exam Software
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Litchfield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05971 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2014)
arises from the total collapse of the ExamSoft upload system
(including its upload servers, Web site, and phone system)
stemming from its alleged wholly insufficient infrastructure that
was unable to process the thousands of bar exam results in real
time.

ExamSoft provides bar exam software for nearly 90% of states
nationwide.  For fees upwards of $100, ExamSoft claims that its
SofTest program helps "[t]ake some of the stress and fatigue out
of exam day."

Mr. Litchfield alleges that on the first day of the bar exam on
July 19, 2014, when applicants completed their written portion of
the exam and tried to upload their responses to the exam (as
instructed through ExamSoft's system), they were met with error
messages, contradicting confirmation/failure emails, and a
complete inability to verify whether their exams were submitted
before state mandated deadlines.

ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business located in Boca Raton, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com
                  erapp@edelson.com


FORD MOTOR: Judge Upholds Admissibility of Two Defense Experts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Law.com, reports that an Ohio
federal judge has upheld the admissibility of two defense experts
and one plaintiffs expert in multidistrict litigation over Ford
Motor Co. sparkplugs and engine products.

U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson of the Northern District of
Ohio ruled that the testimony of Paul Taylor, a mechanical
engineer, and Christine Wood, a human factors expert, could be
admitted in favor of the defense.

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs' only expert, R. Scott
King, may be admitted, too.  Mr. King is an automotive and
mechanical engineer.

Judge Pearson found admissible Mr. Taylor's proposed testimony
regarding vehicle maintenance and repair and his evaluation of the
plaintiffs' experiences with their Ford vehicles in comparison to
"peer vehicles."

Ford wants to offer Mr. Taylor in support of its theory that the
cost of sparkplugs would not be material to consumers.  If they
avoided Ford vehicles because of the sparkplug issue, they
otherwise would risk buying or leasing different vehicles with
cheaper sparkplugs that were less expensive to replace but that
would actually cost more overall to maintain and repair, the car
manufacturer says.

According to the judge's opinion, Mr. Taylor has concluded the
plaintiffs's overall maintenance and repair costs for their Ford
vehicles were "substantially less than the projected maintenance
and repair costs for other comparable vehicles."

Judge Pearson found Ms. Wood's testimony admissible to address
whether members of the putative class would have found disclosure
of the sparkplug defect material to their auto-shopping decisions
to the point they would have made different purchases.

Ms. Wood believes that, even had Ford disclosed information about
sparkplugs, it would not have been so material to the "purchase
decisions of reasonable buyers such that it would override all of
the other influences that shaped their purchase decisions."

Ms. Wood has testified 75 to 80 times since November 2008 and
mostly has been found qualified to testify, the judge noted.

The judge also found admissible Mr. King's opinion that it is not
routine for sparkplugs to break during removal; that Ford owners
with vehicles with eight-cylinder, three-valve engines pay more
for sparkplug replacement than if the defect did not exist; and
that Ford had knowledge of the defect long before the vehicles
were marketed to the public.

Mr. King estimated that replacing eight sparkplugs could cost up
to $265.

Mr. King is qualified by knowledge, skill and experience and
training to give reliable opinion testimony, and his opinion would
be relevant to the dispute, the judge said.

The plaintiffs argue that these particular multipiece spark plug
cause carbon deposits to lock the plugs in place and they often
get stuck.

The defect impacts approximately two million vehicles, the
plaintiffs say.


GENERAL MOTORS: Providence Mulls Suit Over Ignition Switch Defects
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reported
that the city of Providence plans to sue General Motors Co. for
failing to disclose ignition-switch defects in its fleet of
vehicles.  The suit would be the first brought by a government
entity against GM associated with the defect, which prompted
recalls of millions of cars and trucks.

Joseph Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- founding member of Mount
Pleasant, S.C.-based Motley Rice, revealed the city's plans in a
July 28 filing seeking a lead role in more than 100 ignition-
switch lawsuits coordinated before U.S. District Judge Jesse
Furman in the Southern District of New York.  Mr. Rice wrote that
he represents Providence in a planned lawsuit over "its fleet of
defective, diminished-in-value vehicles."

Jodi Flowers, a member of Motley Rice, said Providence intends to
file a class action on behalf of other municipalities in Rhode
Island stuck with fleets of defective GM cars that have lost
resale value.  She said that Providence has dozens of cars, some
of which are among a "second wave" of vehicles that GM has
recalled for ignition issues.

"There are a significant number of defective cars with diminished
resale vehicles," she said.  "They've got a pretty large spread of
all makes and models."

On another litigation front, GM claimed in a motion filed in U.S.
bankruptcy court on Aug. 1 that a provision of its 2009
reorganization bars lawsuits over accidents that occurred before
that date.  In a separate motion, GM asserted that its bankruptcy
barred lawsuits filed for economic damages associated with recalls
announced subsequent to the initial 2.6 million for its ignition-
switch defect. GM has said that its subsequent recalls were
unrelated to the defect, which can shut off engines, disabling
airbags and power steering.

GM previously moved to bar class actions seeking economic damages.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber has scheduled a hearing on the
new motions for Aug. 18.

GM spokesman Greg Martin wrote in an email that the motions, which
were filed on the same day that attorney Kenneth Feinberg began
accepting claims for a victim compensation fund, ask Gerber to
"continue to enforce the terms of its approved sale of Old GM's
assets."

"As we have repeatedly said, we want to do the right thing for the
families of the victims and those seriously injured because of the
faulty ignition switch," he wrote.  "This motion does not impact
Mr. Feinberg's compensation program, nor does it prevent people
from participating voluntarily in it.  Also, the implementation of
the Feinberg compensation program does not impact GM's protections
under the bankruptcy court's ruling."

Motley Rice represents Bedford Auto Wholesale Inc., a used car
dealership in Bedford, Ohio, in a nationwide class action filed
under Michigan consumer protection law.  The dealership, holding
36 of the recalled cars, claims they are "highly dangerous
vehicles whose value has greatly diminished" and that it has been
forced to pay interest on loans to keep or buy cars that don't
sell, according to a complaint filed on April 16.

Motley Rice is working with an attorney who has filed an
additional dealership suit against GM.  Nettleton Auto Sales Inc.
in Jonesboro, Ark., which owns three recalled cars, filed its
class action on May 23.  The case, brought under consumer laws in
Michigan and Arkansas, seeks to represent all car dealerships that
purchased recalled GM cars before Jan. 31.

Randall Pulliam, a partner at Little Rock's Carney Bates &
Pulliam, which filed the suit, did not respond to a request for
comment.

Motley Rice, which has an office in Providence, represented the
state of Rhode Island in a massive public nuisance lawsuit against
three lead-paint manufacturers.  The firm obtained a verdict that
held paint companies liable for $2.4 billion in cleanup costs, but
the Rhode Island Supreme Court overturned the award in 2008.
Motley Rice went on to represent 10 cities and counties in
California in a $1.15 billion lead-paint decision this year.


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Eye Key Roles in Ignition-Switch Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that more than 60 lawyers have applied for lead roles in the
litigation against General Motors Co. over ignition-switch
defects.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman is accepting applications for
coveted appointments to the plaintiffs steering committee, which
will guide strategy for more than 100 lawsuits filed against GM in
the Southern District of New York.  Many of the lawyers are
expected to argue for the posts during an Aug. 11 hearing.

Judge Furman gave the green light to create the panel, despite
uncertainty over whether a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge will deem
many of the cases barred under a provision of GM's 2009
bankruptcy.

The plaintiffs steering committee will include a lead counsel
committee comprising three attorneys who would oversee both the
class actions seeking economic damages and the personal-injury and
wrongful-death cases.  A separate executive committee of 10
members will assist them.  There are two liaison positions -- one
to work with attorneys in the bankruptcy proceeding and another to
communicate with lawyers with cases against GM in state courts
across the country.

Applications from attorneys at more than 50 firms in 18 states --
more than half of them based in California, New York, Pennsylvania
and Texas -- flooded the court before the July 28 deadline.  About
a dozen of the hopefuls were women.

The applicants included three attorneys already serving as interim
lead counsel: Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro; Mark Robinson, managing partner of Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif.; and
Elizabeth Cabraser, partner at San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein.

Many attorneys aligned themselves with the interim lead counsel,
who were to submit their own recommendations on July 25.  Many of
them worked together on the sudden-acceleration litigation against
Toyota Motor Corp.

Other applicants included Robert Hilliard, partner at Hilliard
Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, who filed a lawsuit on July 29
against GM on behalf of 658 people injured or killed in crashes
attributed to the defect.

In vying for lead counsel, Mr. Hilliard said he planned to file an
additional 248 cases in federal court and 50 lawsuits in state
courts nationwide.

Attorneys at 13 other firms claiming to represent 135 plaintiffs
in 33 states have coalesced behind Harley Tropin -- hst@kttlaw.com
-- president of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, and Peter Prieto --
pprieto@podhurst.com -- of Podhurst Orseck, both of Miami.

Some lawyers suggested specialty posts -- representing only
litigants who filed over accidents that occurred after GM's 2009
bankruptcy, for example, or just personal-injury or wrongful-death
cases.  Others noted their expertise in specific areas of law or
their firm's location, like Detroit or Washington.

In submitting for lead counsel, one lawyer -- Lance Cooper of The
Cooper Firm in Marietta, Ga., who represents the parents of Brooke
Melton, the case that first sparked the ignition-switch issue --
put it more simply: "Our law firm uncovered the GM ignition key
system defects in the first place."


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers to Consider Compensation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs' lawyers were quick to criticize General Motors
Co.'s compensation fund for victims of its ignition-switch defect.
So why are so many of the critics gearing up to file claims?

"It's a free preview," said Kenneth Feinberg, hired by GM to pay
out claims.  "Why not submit a claim? See what happens?"

The fund won't cover millions of recalled vehicles, but the
alternative -- going to court -- won't be easy, said James Rogers
of the Law Offices of James S. Rogers in Seattle, who represents
the families of two people who died in separate accidents.  "When
you take these cases, you're committed to a fight," he said.
"You're trying to overcome the obstacles of a major, large
corporation."

The fund began accepting claims on Aug. 1.  GM had announced that
it would set aside $400 million, and possibly $200 million more,
to pay claims for those who were injured or died in one of the 2.6
million cars and trucks the company recalled for the defects.
Claimants won't abandon their right to sue if they seek
compensation from GM -- only if they accept what Mr. Feinberg
offers.

"We're going to give the plan a chance," said Jere Beasley,
founding shareholder of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis &
Miles, who has criticized aspects of the GM compensation program.
"If we have a bad experience with the fund, we'll most likely go
into the courts full bore."

The hurdles to litigation are not insignificant.  Parties who
settled lawsuits against GM before disclosure of the defect will
find it difficult, although not necessarily impossible, to
persuade judges to reopen their cases, plaintiffs attorneys said.
And U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber in New York hasn't yet
ruled on whether GM's 2009 bankruptcy bars older cases.  The
Feinberg fund, by contrast, will accept claims under both
circumstances.

"The compensation fund is really quite limited. And a lot of it
hinges, too, on [GM's] bankruptcy motion," said Peter Henning, a
professor at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit who
specializes in white-collar crime and securities and is following
the GM litigation.  "If they can get the prebankruptcy claims
essentially excluded, and you can't reopen those, that makes the
compensation fund the only game in town."

And crash victims who lack evidence -- their car's "black box" is
missing, or they disposed of the wrecked vehicle -- might have a
better chance with him, Mr. Feinberg said.  "Especially for the
older cases, going through this process will be much easier and
much more accommodating than trying to reconstruct a lawsuit in
the courtroom with all the legal barriers," he said.

GETTING THROUGH THE DOOR

But not for everyone.  "If you can get in the door of Feinberg's
fund, you are going to get money," Mr. Henning said.  "The issue
is how much, and if you can get into that door."

Mr. Feinberg's firm, Feinberg Rozen in Washington, has hired
outside vendors to help him process claims.  The Garden City Group
Inc., a legal administration company in New York City, will manage
claims through a call center and will process online claims
submitted to www.GMIgnitionCompensation.com, according to the law
firm's business manager, Camille Biros.  Economic consulting firm
ARPC will help provide the estimated 20 people who will review
each claim.

The deadline to submit claims is Dec. 31.  GM will be allowed to
submit information about each claim, but Mr. Feinberg will have
final say on payments.  The fund covers only the vehicles GM
recalled in February and March for ignition defects -- not the 12
million more it has recalled since then.  In one of those later
recalls, GM had acknowledged three deaths and eight injuries.

That forces everyone else to file lawsuits.  On July 29, for
example, Robert Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus
Christi filed a lawsuit on behalf of more than 650 people who were
injured or died, many of whose claims aren't eligible for payment
under the fund.

During a July 17 subcommittee hearing, U.S. Sen. Richard
Blumenthal, D-Conn., argued the program should be expanded.  "Many
of the reasons for these recalls are defects in the same part," he
said.  "I believe strongly that your fund must be extended to
include those victims of deaths, injuries and damage in those
other recalls."

The fund draws another line: Claimants have to prove their airbags
didn't deploy.  That's because the ignition defect shuts off
electric power throughout the car, disabling airbags and power
steering.

"If the airbag went off, it's much more likely to be operator
error or something else," Mr. Henning said.  "And GM doesn't want
to turn this into a battle over the facts or causation. They're
using the airbag as a proxy."

The distinction is important, Mr. Feinberg said.  "If the airbag
didn't deploy, or you don't know whether the airbag deployed or
not, file a claim," he said.  "If the airbag deployed, do not file
a claim -- it cannot be ignition-switch failure."  Still,
plaintiffs attorneys were unclear whether their clients would
qualify.  For example, Paul Danziger of Houston's Danziger & De
Llano, who plans to file claims on behalf of 10 people, has cases
in which airbags didn't go off because the car spun around or
rolled over.  "Not every car will have a frontal impact," he said.
"The question is: Are they going to pay those or not?"

Mr. Feinberg insisted that the "great bulk" of the injuries and
deaths associated with the ignition switch could be resolved
through the claims process.  During the Senate hearing, he
acknowledged that he couldn't make everyone happy.

"I don't think there is anybody who provided us input that is
entirely satisfied with all aspects of the protocol," he said.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."


GIBSON BRANDS: Accused of Violating Equal Pay Act in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Soraya Field Fiorio v. Gibson Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
05965-LGS (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014) seeks equitable relief and
monetary damages to redress the Defendant's alleged unlawful
employment discrimination against the Plaintiff based upon her sex
and gender, in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Gibson Brands, Inc. is a foreign corporation duly organized under
the laws of Delaware, and authorized to do and doing business in
the state of New York in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Owen Sheridan, Esq.
          MARKUS & SHERIDAN, LLP
          116 Radio Circle, Suite 207
          Mount Kisco, NY 10549
          Telephone: (914) 261-6300
          Facsimile: (914) 261-6308
          E-mail: marc@mslawny.com


GOLD'S GYM: Faces "Tate" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Tate and Jeffrey Mason, On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Gold's Gym International Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00861-MJR-PMF (S.D. Ill., August 1, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher B. Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          106 Cross Creek Blvd.
          Salem, IL 62881
          Telephone: (618) 548-6500
          Facsimile: (618) 548-6573
          E-mail: chris.daniels@danielslawoffice.net


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

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

Products regulated by FSIS bear the establishment number "EST
31680" or "P-31680" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The
following FSIS-regulated products are subject to recall: [View
Labels (PDF Only)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Removed "Cavazos" Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mauricio Cavazos v. Heartland
Automotive Services Inc., et al., Case No. PSC1401759, was removed
from the Riverside County Superior Court, Palm Springs, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01584-VAP-SP to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG AND BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com
                  Kyle@bamlawlj.com
                  norm@bamlawlj.com

Defendant Heartland Automotive Services Inc. is represented by:

          Brian James Mills, Esq.
          SNELL AND WILMER LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689
          Telephone: (714) 427-7000
          Facsimile: (714) 427-7799
          E-mail: bmills@swlaw.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Printer Class Action Settlement Challenged
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the
controversial pact reached between Hewlett-Packard Co. and
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in the HP-Autonomy litigation this
summer could spell trouble for a smaller Cotchett-HP settlement
that has been in the works for more than three years.

A Washington, D.C., group is attempting to disqualify Cotchett
Pitre as plaintiffs counsel in a consumer class action targeting
HP inkjet printers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The group alleges that Joe Cotchett --
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- and his firm, unbeknownst to the court
or the class, represented the printer customers while
simultaneously negotiating to work for HP in another deal worth at
least $18 million in attorney fees.

"It just seemed especially egregious that all along they've been
disregarding their fiduciary duties to the class," said Theodore
Frank with the Center for Class Action Fairness.  "The whole
concept is just kind of jaw-dropping."

Cotchett Pitre principal Justin Berger -- jberger@cpmlegal.com --
head of the printer case, said Mr. Frank is wrong, there is no
conflict.

"It's really Mr. Frank who's got the conflict of interest here,"
Mr. Berger said, "because he seems to be more interested in doing
away with class actions than representing the real interests of
consumers and class members."

A final settlement in the printer case is pending before U.S.
District Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern District of
California.  If approved, it would grant Cotchett Pitre lawyers
$1.5 million in attorney fees and almost $600,000 in costs.  Class
members who claim they needlessly replaced ink cartridges because
of deceptive low-ink indicators would receive vouchers of between
$2 and $6 toward HP purchases.

But in a motion filed on Aug. 1 to disqualify Cotchett Pitre and
decertify the class, Mr. Frank accused the firm of colluding with
HP.  Cotchett Pitre, along with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd,
represents HP shareholders in derivative litigation filed in the
Northern District of California over the company's botched
acquisition of British software firm Autonomy Inc.  The two firms
reached a novel and controversial settlement in that case at the
end of June; they are proposing to drop the claims and join forces
with HP's attorneys to go after former Autonomy executives.  If
that deal is approved, plaintiffs attorneys will see a fixed
retainer of $18 million and will be eligible for an extra $30
million in contingency fees.

The promise of a huge return in the Autonomy case caused both
Cotchett Pitre and HP to roll over, Mr. Frank argued, and now none
of the work done on that settlement can be trusted.  For example,
HP attorneys didn't fight Cotchett Pitre's request for $2.1
million in fees and costs, he said.  They didn't file papers
objecting to the sum; their only mention of it was a one-sentence
suggestion that the court could consider a smaller number.

"We now know why HP put up only token resistance to fees: HP was
in negotiations with class counsel to resolve larger litigation,
and did not want to offend them," Mr. Frank wrote.

This isn't the first time Mr. Frank has attacked the HP printer
settlement.  The trial court first approved the deal in 2011, but
two years later Mr. Frank succeeded in reversing the settlement at
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The higher court
ruled the calculation of attorney fees was not consistent with
federal law because it did not base them on the redemption value
of the coupons awarded to HP customers.  Cotchett Pitre lawyers
returned to Judge Fogel's courtroom in May to argue once again on
behalf of the settlement.

Meanwhile, a battle is shaping up over the proposed Autonomy
acquisition settlement.

Sushovan Hussain, the former chief financial officer of Autonomy,
has filed a motion to intervene in the deal he called "collusive
and unfair."  Mr. Hussain, who HP has listed as a potential target
for follow-up litigation, is represented by John Keker and Keker &
Van Nest.

On Aug. 4, HP's attorneys with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and
Farella Braun & Martel fired back.  As someone facing a lawsuit
from HP, Hussain's interests are at odds with the company's and he
has no standing to intervene in the case, they argued.

"The notion that he should be permitted to intervene," HP's
attorneys wrote, "and challenge the substance of a settlement
designed to protect the interests of the company he defrauded is
ludicrous."

Mr. Keker declined to comment on what effect, if any, Mr. Frank's
opposition could have on the Autonomy agreement.


HITACHI LTD: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Electronic Capacitors
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that Hitachi,
Panasonic, Sanyo and a host of other electronics manufacturers
conspired to fix prices of capacitors, a Silicon Valley company
claims in a federal antitrust class action.

eIQ Energy, of San Jose, named 27 companies as defendants,
including NEC Tokin Corp., AVX Corp., Elna Co., Rubycon and TDK
Corp.

Capacitors are "passive electronic components that are used to
store electricity and release it when required" according to the
complaint.  "Capacitors are incorporated into almost every
electronic device, including audio/video equipment,
telecommunication equipment, computers and automobiles."

eIQ, a small company that makes clean energy electronic products,
claims that the capacitor market is "susceptible to collusion"
because the market is concentrated and "the five largest
defendants collectively make up more than 76 percent of the global
market for tantalum capacitors."

It adds that "pricing for capacitors is highly inelastic in large
part because there are no adequate substitutes."

After the recession that began in 2008, eIQ says, "the price gap
between Japanese-sourced aluminum capacitors and Chinese-sourced
capacitors significantly widened."  Because of this, eIQ claims,
"the defendants were able to impose supra-competitive prices for
their film capacitor products."

During this time, the defendants "made public statements
attributing price increases to market forces, including increased
raw material costs and shortages caused by natural disasters,
rather than attributing price increases to the effective
implementation of their anticompetitive agreement," eIQ says.

But eIQ says that several governments have noticed the trend, and
that as early as 2008, "the Antitrust Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice confirmed that it is conducting an
investigation into price fixing of capacitors."

eIQ claims that other investigations are under way, including ones
launched by the Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese governments, in
addition to the European Union.

eIQ claims that neither it nor other members of the proposed class
"did not discover, and could not have discovered through the
exercise of reasonable diligence, the existence of the alleged
conspiracy until approximately March 2014, when governmental
investigations about the conspiracy were publicly revealed in the
press."

eIQ accuses the defendants of "participating in meetings,
conversations, and communications to discuss the price and pricing
terms for the sale of capacitor products in the United States."

eIQ claims that violates Section I of the Sherman Act.

In 2013, "global sales of capacitors exceeded 1.3 trillion units
and global revenue for capacitors exceeded $16 billion," the
complaint states.  "By 2019, it is estimated that over 2 trillion
capacitors will be sold globally for over $22 billion."

eIQ seeks class certification, to cover "all persons that
purchased capacitor products in the United States directly from
the defendants . . . from January 2008 until the present."  It
estimates "that the class numbers in the hundreds, if not
thousands."

It seeks treble damages and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis J. Drasco, Esq.
          LUM, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 403-9000
          Facsimile: (973) 403-9021


HUESTON MCNULTY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Peterson, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Hueston McNulty, P.C. and Robert J. Hueston,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05984-SHS (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014) is an action
for damages brought by an individual consumer against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Hueston McNulty regularly collects or attempts to collect
defaulted consumer debts owed or due or alleged to be owed or due
to others.  Robert J. Hueston is a partner of Hueston McNulty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette R. Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
          E-mail: Nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


KODIAK OIL: Being Sold to Whiting for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Rogowski, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. v.
Whiting Petroleum Corporation, 1007695 B.C. Ltd., Lynn A.
Peterson, James E. Catlin, William J. Krysiak, Rodney D. Knutson
and Herrick K. Lidstone, Jr., and Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp., a
Canadian corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02136 (D. Colo.,
July 31, 2014) arises out of the Defendants' efforts to complete
the sale of the Company to Whiting Petroleum pursuant to an unfair
process and for an unfair price.

Denver, Colorado-based Kodiak is an independent energy exploration
and development company focused on exploring, developing and
producing oil and natural gas primarily in the Williston Basin in
the U.S. Rocky Mountains.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Whiting Petroleum is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Denver, Colorado.  1007695 B.C. Ltd., a company organized under
the laws of British Columbia, Canada, and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Whiting Petroleum.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
          THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
          885 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 861-3003
          Facsimile: (303) 484-4886
          E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com
                  rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
                  mackerman@brodsky-smith.com


LINK SNACKS: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Ann Truesdell and Darvin A. Heider, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated v. Link Snacks, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-00550-CRS (W.D. Ky., August 1, 2014) accuses the Company
of failing to pay overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew G. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW G. JONES
          10401 North Meridian Street, Suite 300
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 616-3671
          Toll Free: (866) 272-2071
          E-mail: ajones@andrewgjoneslaw.com


MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces "Winsouth" Class Suit in M.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
Winsouth Credit Union, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly
Situated v. Mapco Express, Inc. and Delek US Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-01573 (M.D. Tenn., July 31, 2014) alleges violations
of The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS
          227 Second Avenue, N, 4th Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: beng@branstetterlaw.com
                  gstranch@branstetterlaw.com


MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Jackson, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by Marvel Entertainment, LLC
or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Marvel
Entertainment, LLC, v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by Marvel Entertainment,
LLC, Case No. 157644/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.,
August 4, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to the
Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons, who are presently or
were formerly employed by the Defendant.

Marvel Entertainment, LLC is a New York business corporation
headquartered in New York City.  The Company is engaged in the
entertainment industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  jnewhouse@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Patent Claims Prompt Derivative Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that a $1.5 billion
patent judgment finalized against Marvell Technology Group Ltd.
this year is so juicy, plaintiffs securities lawyers can't seem to
stay away.

A Pennsylvania jury found Marvell willfully infringed two Carnegie
Mellon University patents for hard-drive technology in 2012 and
awarded the university $1.17 billion in damages.  In March, U.S.
District Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the Western District of
Pennsylvania upped the award.

Plaintiffs lawyers began filing derivative suits soon after, and
so far three are pending before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in
San Jose.  Francis Bottini Jr., a securities attorney out of La
Jolla, is leading two of the cases.  The other is led by Kip
Shuman -- kip@shumanlawfirm.com -- of The Shuman Law Firm in
Colorado.  Marvell has tapped Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
partner Harry Olivar Jr. -- harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com -- in
Los Angeles.

Patent judgments don't usually spawn shareholder derivative
litigation.  Typically, attorneys launch a derivative suit to go
after a company's executives and board members following a
securities fraud case.  But securities experts say plaintiffs'
interest in companies' patent losses, such as Marvell's, is on the
rise.  As securities fraud suits dwindle, patent and antitrust
judgments could be the next frontier for derivative litigation.

"Plaintiffs lawyers will look for opportunities to think outside
the box as a way of bringing shareholder derivative cases," said
Winston & Strawn partner Neal Marder of Los Angeles.  "And I think
this is an example of that."

The sheer size of the Marvell patent judgment, as well as the
damning evidence that came out against the company during trial,
made the case too attractive for Mr. Bottini to pass up.

"This patent that they in essence misappropriated . . . was
essential to their business, to the chips that they make.  They
made a conscious decision -- the highest-level employees -- to use
that technology that they knew was owned by Carnegie Mellon
without paying a royalty," Mr. Bottini said.  "And they obtained
over a billion dollars from sales of their chips that violated the
patent."

Witness testimony, depositions and documents presented during
trial support those allegations, Mr. Bottini said.  In particular,
plaintiffs lawyers uncovered emails in which Carnegie Mellon told
top Marvell executives about their patents and offered to sell
them a license, an offer the Marvell executives declined.

More attorneys are following Mr. Bottini's lead as it grows more
difficult to file traditional securities fraud-driven derivatives,
according to experts in the field.  Many say securities fraud
cases are no longer as numerous or as lucrative as they once were.
Since 2008, the number of federal securities cases initiated each
year has remained below a 15-year average, according to a 2014
Cornerstone Research report.  On the other hand, the number of
federal patent cases filed in 2013 grew by 25 percent compared
with the previous year, reaching a record high of 6,500, according
to a 2014 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

High-publicity megasettlements or verdicts are more likely to
spawn derivative litigation, attorneys say.  A prime example is
the widely watched "no-poach" antitrust case, in which plaintiffs
accused Silicon Valley tech companies' top CEOs of forming illegal
agreements not to recruit each others' employees.  The two sides
reached a tentative $324 million settlement earlier this year, and
the case has since inspired derivative suits against board members
of Google Inc., Apple Inc., Intel Corp. and Adobe Systems Inc.

A $1 billion patent infringement verdict against GMO company E.I.
du Pont de Nemours & Co. also has spawned derivative litigation.
A Missouri jury ruled in favor of rival Monsanto Co. over
herbicide-resistant soybeans in 2012, and DuPont shareholders took
action six months later.  The two companies made amends in 2013
and Monsanto dismissed its claims, rendering the $1 billion jury
verdict moot.  But the derivative litigation is proceeding in
Delaware federal court, pending the court's ruling on DuPont's
recent motion to dismiss.

Those cases, which break the traditional securities litigation
mold, pose challenges for plaintiffs attorneys.

"Every patent case is not a case where you can have a claim
against the board for breaching its fiduciary duty," said
James Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com -- a securities litigation
partner with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.

To be successful in a derivative case, attorneys must be able to
hold board members and executives responsible for the alleged
wrongdoing.  They must also get over the demand hurdle by proving
the board is so involved in the wrongdoing that it would be futile
to ask the company to launch its own investigation into the
problem.  That's easier in a securities fraud case, where a
company's finances are an integral part of its business and board
members are expected to keep track of gains and losses.  It's
harder to prove board members kept a close eye on their company's
patents.

Mr. Bottini and his team are fighting an uphill battle, according
to Kaufhold Gaskin partner Steven Kaufhold who serves as
cochairman of an American Bar Association securities subcommittee.

"The types of claims that they make are extremely hard to prove,
legally or factually," he said.  "I think it will be very
challenging for the plaintiffs to recover on it."

Marvell also has appealed the $1.5 billion judgment, which could
further complicate Mr. Bottini's case.  It seems premature to have
filed a derivative suit without waiting to see how the appeal will
turn out, Mr. Kaufhold said.

"To me, it would make sense to stay it," he said, "because you
don't know that the company is going to not be successful."

Marvell's legal team also cites its pending appeal in its defense
against the derivative litigation.

"Marvell believes the evidence and the law do not support the
jury's findings or judgment in that case, and that it has strong
grounds for appeal," Marvell attorney Olivar wrote in a statement.

Mr. Bottini brushed off the appeal.  Marvell's motions to set
aside the verdict have failed so far, he said, adding, "the damage
is done right now."

Despite the obstacles Mr. Bottini faces in this suit, few are
surprised he undertook the challenge.

"If a judgment of over a billion dollars was rendered against a
company," Mr. Marder said, "they should expect to get hit with
other types of cases, like securities cases or shareholder
derivative cases."

PricewaterhouseCoopers ranked the original $1.17 billion Marvell
verdict as the third-largest federal patent judgment awarded
between 1995 and 2013.  Tacking on the increased judgment, it
would rank second.  In addition, Marvell's expenses increased by
$7.9 million in 2012, primarily because of legal costs,
Mr. Bottini's complaint states.  The loss of the Carnegie Mellon
patent could result in a 25 percent reduction in the company's net
earnings going forward, he added.

Derivative suits following patent judgments are still rare, mostly
only popping up after those once-in-a-blue-moon megaverdicts,
according to Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton partner Robert Artuz,
a Silicon Valley patent litigator.  But that doesn't mean the
suits shouldn't be a worry for companies facing patent litigation.

"It's certainly something that large companies have to keep in
mind when they're dealing with high-stakes litigation," Mr. Artuz
added.


MCCALLA RAYMER: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Demand Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
McCalla Raymer's Orlando office found itself pitted against
Hialeah resident Xilena Caseres over a demand letter the firm sent
in 2012 to collect just under $270,000 on a delinquent mortgage.

But Ms. Caseres said the collection letter violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  She filed suit, demanding a jury trial
and charging the law firm with failing to correctly notify her of
her rights under the debt collection law.  She also moved to raise
a putative class made up of all Reverse Mortgage Solutions clients
who'd received similar notices.

First Contact?

Ms. Caseres' complaint said McCalla Raymer's "demand letter would
be deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer with regard to
his/her legal rights."

Her attorney, Hallandale Beach-based Scott Owens, argued the
letter was McCalla Raymer's initial contact with his client, so it
had to meet several criteria under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices law.

A key sticking point was whether McCalla flubbed a line notifying
the consumer of her right to dispute the debt.  The line should
have read the "debt collector" would assume the debt was valid if
the borrower didn't dispute it within 30 days, Owens argued.
Instead, it referenced the "creditor," and therefore violated the
law.

McCalla had five days after the initial communication to send
proper notice, but never did, according to the complaint. Instead,
it skipped right to a foreclosure suit on behalf of the lender,
Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc.

Even though the letter preceded the foreclosure, it included a
reference to the impending suit, Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc.
v. Xilena Caseres.

"As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff and the class are
entitled to an award of statutory damages," according to the
complaint in Xilena M. Caseres v. McCalla Raymer, which requested
expenses, damages, attorney's fees and other relief.

But McCalla's attorneys, Jamie Isani and Barry Davidson of Hunton
& Williams in Miami, said the law firm clearly distinguished
itself from Reverse Mortgage Solutions.

The letter reads, "This law firm represents the interest of your
lender, as named herein above, regarding an alleged unpaid debt."

Plus, McCalla's lawyers argued, there was no technical difference
between the law firm and the creditor assuming the debt's
validity.

"The plaintiff was trying to apply a hyper-technical reading of
the statute.  The letter informed the consumer that the law firm
is representing the lender, so it does not mislead the consumer,"
Isani said.  "The court didn't determine whether McCalla had to
give that notice, but did find the letter was an initial
communication.  And because it was an initial communication, it
had to comply with the statute.  But both the trial court and the
appellate court found it did comply."

McCalla Raymer escaped the class action when the case came before
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit judges Lanier
Anderson and Stanley Marcus, with Richard Goldberg of the Court of
International Trade sitting in by designation.

The judges upheld the district court's dismissal of the case, even
though they disagreed with the lower court's finding that the
letter was not an "initial communication."

"Because we hold that the letter, which was an initial
communication, would not mislead the least sophisticated consumer,
we affirm the decision of the district court," Anderson wrote in a
decision affirmed by the other judges.

More litigation

The ruling might have stopped further action by the homeowners,
but their attorney says it opens the door for future cases against
lenders.

Owens predicted more litigation would follow, after the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau issues new scheduled guidelines for
creditors and debt collectors, including a model for informing
borrowers of their right to dispute debts.

"The Caseres decision will have very little impact on either
consumers or the debt collection industry," he said in a
statement.  " . . . In the debt collection industry, the
underlying collector-creditor contracts typically specify that
debt collectors are not agents of the creditor, but are instead
independent contractors.  The 11th Circuit has now ruled
otherwise. McCalla Raymer and other debt collectors will likely
face more -- not less -- FDCPA litigation because of this aspect
of the Caseres decision, at least within the Eleventh Circuit."


MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Weaver" Suit to Tennessee District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Weaver v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-003327-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02594-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts product liability and personal injury claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Leo Maurice Bearman, Jr., Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0717
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteen and Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4296
          E-mail: FaheyS@PepperLaw.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Harris" Infuse Suit to W.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Harris v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-003328-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02597-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

In his complaint, Charles Harris alleges that he was injured by
his physician's off-label use of Medtronic and Medtronic Sofamor
Danek USA, Inc.'s Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion
Device.

Infuse is a Class III medical device whose design, manufacturing
method, and labeling were specifically approved by the Food and
Drug Administration pursuant to the agency's Premarket Approval
process.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mona Henderson, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-05990-PGG (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014) is an action for
damages brought by an individual consumer and on behalf of a class
for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive and unfair acts and practices.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a foreign business corporation
incorporated in Kansas.  Midland's principal purpose is the
collection of defaulted consumer debts owed or due or alleged to
be owed or due to others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette R. Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
          E-mail: Nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


NEBRASKA: Health Department Sued Over Untimely Food Stamps
----------------------------------------------------------
Tami Leiting-Hall, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Kerry Winterer, as Chief Executive
Officer of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services,
and Thomas Pristow, as Director of the Division of Children and
Family Services, Case No. 4:14-cv-03155 (D. Neb., August 1, 2014)
challenges the Defendants' alleged failure to timely process
initial and renewal applications for and to provide Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to eligible households, as
required by federal SNAP statutes and implementing regulations.

The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are indigent
individuals, who are seeking desperately needed benefits from the
SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, administered by the Nebraska
Department of Health and Human Services, according to the
complaint.  The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' ongoing
and persistent failure or refusal to process initial and
recertification SNAP applications and to provide timely SNAP
benefits causes hundreds of low-income Nebraskans to go hungry.

Kerry Winterer is Chief Executive Officer of the Nebraska
Department of Health and Human Services.  Thomas Pristow is
Director of the Division of Children and Families of the Nebraska
Department of Health and Human Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Molly M. McCleery, Esq.
          James A. Goddard, Esq.
          Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law
          In the Public Interest
          941 O Street, Suite 920
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: (402) 438-8853
          Facsimile: (402) 438-0263
          E-mail: mmccleery@neappleseed.org
                  jgoddard@neappleseed.org


NEW ENGLAND GREENS: Recalls Green Vibrance and Rainbow Vibrance
---------------------------------------------------------------
New England Greens of Canaan, Connecticut announced a recall of
specific lots of Green Vibrance and one lot of Rainbow Vibrance.
Due to a miscommunication, the list of lot numbers identified in
the recall notice was not a complete and accurate list. The
company is now revising the recall notice with an updated list of
the lots affected by the recall. The company is asking the public
to disregard the list provided in the previous notice and refer to
the lot numbers below.

New England Greens of Canaan, Connecticut is recalling 15 lots of
Green Vibrance and one lot of Rainbow Vibrance after a former raw
material supplier, Raw Deal of Allamuchy, NJ, recalled the Organic
Parsley Leaf Powder used to manufacture Green Vibrance and Rainbow
Vibrance because of the potential for contamination with
Salmonella. Although the possibility is slight that any amount of
Salmonella is present in any of the recalled lots of the above-
mentioned products, New England Greens is issuing the recall with
an abundance of caution for the safety of its consumers. No
illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Salmonella is a bacterial organism which may cause from mild to
severe food poisoning. In severe cases, sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems may result. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The implicated lots of Green Vibrance and Rainbow Vibrance were
distributed nationwide through both brick and mortar and online
health food and natural product retailers. The products are
packaged in white, high density polyethylene (HDPE) canister jars
ranging in size from 20 ounce to 51 ounce. One lot of Green
Vibrance capsules, 240 per bottle, are also included in the recall
as well as one lot of Green Vibrance single-serving packets, 15
packets per cardboard display box.

Recalled products and lot numbers are as follows:

     SKU                  Code           Lot #
     ---                  ----           -----
Green Vibrance Single
  Serving Display         GVSD           1040176
Green Vibrance
  Capsules, 240 count     GVC            1401078
Green Vibrance pdr,
  181.5 gm, 15-day        GV15           1041084
Green Vibrance pdr,
  363 gm, 30-day          GV30           1041083
                                         1401092
                                         1401094
Green Vibrance KILOGRAM   GVKG           1041079
                                         1041080
                                         1041081
Green Vibrance pdr,
  726 gm, 60-day          GV60           1041081
                                         1041082
                                         1041085
                                         1041086
Green Vibrance pdr,
  726 gm, 60-day          GV60           1041087
                                         1041088
                                         1041089
Rainbow Vibrance          RV19           131193

53,740 units of the above products were sold into the marketplace.

To date, Vibrant Health has received NO COMPLAINTS and there have
been NO INCIDENTS of salmonellosis related to any lot number of
Green Vibrance or Rainbow Vibrance. Organic parsley leaf comprises
just 2.07% of one serving of Green Vibrance and 3.26% of one
serving of Rainbow Vibrance. Furthermore, to date, 21 analyses
have been run on the parsley material and the finished products
containing that material. No contamination has been found.

Consumers who have purchased any of the lot numbers of Green
Vibrance or Rainbow Vibrance listed above are urged to return the
product to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-800-242-1835.


NORTH CHEROKEE: Sued for Not Having Accurate Record of Work Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Karam and Richard Schoeneman, on Behalf of themselves and
those similarly Situated v. North Cherokee Electrical Contractors,
Inc., David Jordan, and Freddie Cronan, Case No. 1:14-cv-02506-WBH
(N.D. Ga., August 4, 2014) alleges that the Defendants have failed
to keep accurate records of the hours worked by the Plaintiffs and
of the class members they represent, as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

North Cherokee Electrical Contractors, Inc., is a Georgia
corporation and is licensed to do business in the state of
Georgia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stacy Barnett, Esq.
          THE BARNETT LAW FIRM, PC
          135 Village Centre West, Suite 200
          Woodstock, GA 30188
          Telephone: (770) 400-9170
          Facsimile: (770) 400-9171
          E-mail: barnettlawfirm@gmail.com


OASIS BRANDS: Recalls Quesito Casero 12oz Due to Health Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Brands, Inc of Miami, FL is recalling Quesito Casero 12oz
with expiration date 09/27/14, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Quesito Casero 12oz was distributed in North Carolina and Virginia
through retail stores.

Product comes in plastic bags, name Quesito Casero 12oz, Brand
Lacteos Sta. Martha, Fresh Curd, Exp. Date 09/27/14

"No illnesses have been reported to date."

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
company which revealed that the fmished products contained the
bacteria. The company has ceased the production and distribution
of the product as FDA and the company continue their investigation
as to what caused the problem."

Consumers who have purchased Lacteos Sta Martha Quesito Casero
12oz are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
305.599.0225


OBERTO'S BRANDS: Recalls 57,578 lbs Chicken Strip Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Oberto's Brands, a Kent, Wa. establishment, is recalling
approximately 57,578 pounds of chicken strip products due to
company quality issues, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall includes:

    3, 5.75 and 16 oz.  film bags of "Smokey Sweet BBQ Style
Chicken Strips"

    2.75, 3, 5.75, 9 and 16 oz. film bags of "Spicy Buffalo Style
Chicken Strips"

The Smokey Sweet BBQ Style Chicken Strips were first produced on
May 14, 2014 and last packaged on July 28, 2014. The Spicy Buffalo
Style Chicken Strips were first produced on May 16, 2014 and last
packaged on August 6, 2014. The product bears the establishment
number "P4837" on the package. The product was sent to retail
establishments nationwide as well as internet sales.

The problem was discovered by the company. A sister establishment
noticed bloated packages and alerted the company to the problem.
The plant determined that the increased water activity is due to
"an undetected process deviation."  The establishment further
stated the product met all critical limits during production. The
company has determined that this a quality control issue and that
there are no food safety hazards.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Lisa
Austin, Vice President of Sales, at (253) 437-6308. Media with
questions about the recall should contact Demir Vangelov, Chief
Financial Officer, at (206) 437-6370.

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


ONEWEST BANK: "Meyer" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Meyer v. OneWest Bank F.S.B., et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02259, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
05996-RSWL-RZ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angela Mann, Esq.
          Jack Wagoner, III, Esq.
          WAGONER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1320 Brookwood, Suite D
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 663-5225
          Facsimile: (501) 660-4030
          E-mail: angela@wagonerlawfirm.com
                  jack@wagonerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Barry R. Himmelstein, Esq.
          HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1605
          Emeryville, CA 94608-1861
          Telephone: (510) 450-0782
          Facsimile: (510) 380-6147
          E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com

Defendant OneWest Bank F.S.B. is represented by:

          Elizabeth Lemond McKeen, Esq.
          Danielle Nicole Oakley, Esq.
          OMELVENY AND MYERS LLP
          610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-6429
          Telephone: (949) 823-6900
          Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
          E-mail: emckeen@omm.com
                  doakley@omm.com

Defendant American Security Insurance Company is represented by:

          Frank G. Burt, Esq.
          William Glenn Merten, Esq.
          Brian P. Perryman, Esq.
          Dawn B. Williams, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT PA
          1025 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 400 East
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8100
          Facsimile: (202) 965-8104
          E-mail: fburt@cfjblaw.com
                  gmerten@cfjblaw.com
                  bperryman@cfjblaw.com
                  dwilliams@cfjblaw.com

Intervenor Peter Maloney is represented by:

          Adam William Hansen, Esq.
          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 277-7236
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: ahansen@nka.com
                  helland@nka.com


ORTHO MOLECULAR: Recalls Lifecore Choco & Lifecore Complete Choco
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ortho Molecular Products of Stevens Point, Wisconsin is recalling
all lots of LifeCore Chocolate and LifeCore Complete Chocolate
because the flavoring may contain undeclared milk. According to
food safety standards, people who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

Products were distributed nationwide to health care practitioners
who then distribute the products to their patients as warranted.
Distribution of the product has been suspended until further
notice.

All LifeCore Chocolate and LifeCore Complete Chocolate products
distributed through August 1, 2014 are subject to the recall.
Products subject to the recall contain lots numbers beginning with
the following numbers:

73286, 73620, 74419, 75339, 73288, 73840, 74562, 75568, 73455,
73859, 74773, 75749, 73482, 73987, 74920, 75919, 73569, 74038,
75309

The lot number and expiration date can be located at the neck of
the bottle just above the label.

No adverse events have been reported to date regarding the
undeclared milk allergen.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
chocolate flavoring used in the products contains a milk allergen
which was not disclosed on the packaging of the products.

Consumers who have LifeCore Chocolate or LifeCore Complete
Chocolate are urged to contact their health care practitioner who
distributed the product to discuss returning or replacing the
product. Consumers with questions may contact the company directly
at 1-(715) 342-9881


PEP BOYS-MANNY: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Damien M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01029-CRE (W.D. Pa., July 31, 2014) alleges violations of The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PFIZER INC: Oregon to Get $1.2 Mil. in Rapamune Drug Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Oregon will receive $1.2 million
as part of a $35 million settlement with a pharmaceutical giant
over the marketing of one of its drugs.

Forty-two states are involved in the settlement with Pfizer Inc.,
the parent company of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., to resolve
allegations that Wyeth misrepresented the uses and benefits of the
drug Rapamune.

Rapamune was approved to help patients' bodies prevent the
rejection of kidney transplants.

The states alleged the company promoted the drug to doctors for
uses following other organ transplants, such as livers or hearts,
and promoted its use in unapproved drug combinations.  Oregon was
one of two lead states in the settlement.  The money will go into
the state's consumer protection and education account.


PFIZER INC: South Dakota to Get $419,000 in Rapamune Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Attorney General Marty Jackley
says South Dakota will receive $419,000 from a multistate
settlement with a drug company.

Pfizer has agreed to pay $35 million to resolve allegations by 42
states that a subsidiary illegally marketed an organ transplant
drug for unapproved uses.

Jackley says the misleading claims put consumers' health at risk.

Authorities say Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which Pfizer bought in
2009, trained sales representatives to encourage doctors to
prescribe Rapamune for uses other than preventing rejection of
transplanted kidneys.

Rapamune was approved in 1999 for use in kidney transplant
patients.  It's illegal to promote drugs for uses not cleared by
the Food and Drug Administration.

Pfizer says the alleged activity occurred before it acquired
Wyeth.  The company didn't admit any wrongdoing or liability as
part of the settlement.


PROGRESO LLC: Accused of Not Paying Proper OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Santos, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Progreso, LLC d/b/a La Michoacana Meat Market,
Progreso GP, LLC, and Progreso LMMM San Antonio #7, LLC, Case No.
5:14-cv-00702 (W.D. Tex., August 4, 2014) accuses the Defendants
of not paying their hourly employees proper overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Progreso, LLC is a foreign limited liability company.  Progreso
GP, LLC is a Texas limited liability company.  Progreso San
Antonio #7, LLC is a Texas limited liability company.  The
Defendants are in the grocery business and operate throughout the
states of Texas and Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos A. Solis, Esq.
          310 S. St. Mary's St., Suite 2600
          San Antonio, TX
          Telephone: (210) 446-5000
          Facsimile: (210) 446-5001
          E-mail: csolis@solis-law.com


PROGRESSIVE PAINTING: Fails to Pay Painters' Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jhonatan Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Progressive Painting, Inc. d/b/a Finishing by
Progressive, Inc. and Michael Sullivan, Case No. 4:14-cv-02234
(S.D. Tex., August 4, 2014) alleges that the Defendants do not pay
their hourly painters overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants, instead, improperly label these workers as
"independent contractors" and pay them "straight-time" for all
hours worked, including those hours in excess of 40 in any
workweek, Mr. Sanchez contends.

Mr. Sanchez is a resident of Harris County, Texas.  He was
employed as hourly laborer by the Defendants.

Progressive Painting, Inc., does business as Finishing By
Progressive, Inc.  Michael Sullivan owns and operates the Company.
The Defendants are in the commercial construction business. They
provide commercial painting for schools, apartments and other
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


PURITAN FOODS: Misbranding Prompts Boneless Turkey Breast Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Puritan Foods Co., Inc., a Boston, Mass., establishment, is
recalling approximately 2,476 pounds of raw boneless turkey
breasts due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced. The product contains milk, a known allergen,
which is not declared on the product label.

The following product is subject to recall:

    Raw Boneless Turkey Breasts (various weights) with pack dates
of June 11 and July 18, 2014

The product was produced on June 11, 2014, and July 18, 2014, and
bears the establishment number "P-5933" inside the USDA mark of
inspection. The product was distributed to a local distributor,
which sold the product to hotels, restaurants and institutions in
the New England area.

FSIS personnel discovered the problem while checking product
labels. The source materials typically used by the firm do not
contain milk. On the two dates in question, the source materials
used declared they were "butter basted," which was not carried
over to the finished product label. Milk is a sub-ingredient in
butter and must be noted on the label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Christopher Mendez at (617) 596-4917.

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


REGENECA WORLDWIDE: Recalls RegeneSlim Appetite Control Capsules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneca Worldwide a division of VivaCeuticals, Inc. Las Vegas, NV
is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of its RegeneSlim
appetite control dietary supplement from lot # EX0616R15814 and
lot #11414RE5516 because FDA analysis confirmed the presence of
DMAA.  DMAA is also known as 1,3-dimethylamylamine,
methylhexanamine, or geranium extract.  DMAA is commonly used as a
stimulant, pre-workout, and weight loss ingredient in dietary
supplement products.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that DMAA is
potentially dangerous to health as it can narrow blood vessels and
arteries, which can cause a rise in blood pressure or other
cardiovascular problems such as shortness of breath, arrhythmias,
tightening in the chest, and heart attack.

RegeneSlim is purchased by and distributed through a direct sales
force within the United States and Puerto Rico, and through online
sales, for both personal consumption and retail sales.

RegeneSlim is packaged in approximately 3 «" by 3" green and white
sachets that contain 2 capsules, with the name RegeneSlim
displayed prominently on the front of the sachet.

There have been no illnesses reported to date.

This voluntary recall was the result of FDA analysis confirming
the presence of DMAA in RegeneSlim and our company's sampling. The
company continues their investigation as to what caused the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased RegeneSlim with the above-mentioned
lot numbers are advised to immediately stop using the product and
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
exchange. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-
949-281-2600 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. PDT.
Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they experience any problems that may be related to taking or
using RegeneSlim.

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

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

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


ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Directors are selling Rockwood Holdings, a chemical company, too
cheaply through an unfair process to Albemarle Holdings, in a cash
and stock deal valued at $6.2 billion, shareholders claim in
Delaware Chancery Court, reports Courthouse News Service.


SEOUL SHIK POOM: Recalls Choripdong Choco Almond Richmond Ice Bar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seoul Shik Poom Inc. of Englewood, NJ is recalling Choripdong
Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice Bar (4bags/432ml) because they may
contain undeclared eggs. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The recalled Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice
Bar(4bars/432 ml) was distributed nationwide through retail
stores.

Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice Bar (4bars/432 ml) was
sold in a silver plastic cooling bag marked with code # IC1006 and
UPC CODE: 761898632925. The product has an expiration date of
03/20/2015 which is stamped on the package.

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

The recall was initiated after the issue was discovered during an
FDA inspection of the foreign manufacturer.

Consumers who have Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice
Bar(4bars/432 ml) and are allergic to eggs are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 201-567-7780 ext 140, Monday
to Friday between 9:00am to 5:00pm (Eastern Time Zone).


SCOUT W.H. CHICAGO: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Balleza, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals v. The Scout W.H. Chicago, Inc. d/b/a The Scout, Case
No. 1:14-cv-05966 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2014) arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay minimum wages for all hours
worked and to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff.

The Scout W.H. Chicago, Inc. is an Illinois corporation doing
business under the name "The Scout."  The Defendant operates a
sports bar -- "The Scout" -- located in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
          Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq.
          BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
          332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1020
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 957-9005
          Facsimile: (773) 890-7780
          E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com
                  pgonzalez@law-rb.com


SILVERADO SENIOR: Removed "Pichardo" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jennifer Pichardo v. Silverado
Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case No. BC541042, was removed from
the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Central District, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
06125-ODW-AS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Diane Marie O'Malley, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
          E-mail: domalley@hansonbridgett.com


STAPLES INC: Accused of Violating Americans with Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Staples, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01038-NBF
(W.D. Pa., August 4, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNBURST SUPERFOODS: Recalls Organic Raw Carob Powder
-----------------------------------------------------
Sunburst Superfoods of Tuckahoe, NY, is recalling Sunburst
SUPERFOODS Organic Raw Carob Powder sold from March 12, 2014
through July 28th, 2014, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

Sunburst SUPERFOODS Organic Raw Carob Powder was distributed
throughout the United States to consumers through online sales.

Sunburst SUPERFOODS Organic Raw Carob Powder was sold in One Pound
and Five Pound bags with no coding. The product is packaged in re-
sealable, all-natural brown paper bags with a thin metal and thin
plastic lining on the interior of the bags.

No illnesses associated with this product have been reported to
date.

Our supplier initiated a recall of the bulk Organic Raw Carob
Powder after learning that one of its customers received a
positive test for Salmonella from their original lot. While
sampling conducted by the manufacturer did not indicate the
presence of Salmonella, we are recalling this product out of an
abundance of caution.

Consumers who have purchased Sunburst SUPERFOODS Organic Raw Carob
Powder are urged not to consume the product and to return it to us
as soon as possible for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-800-228-4436, Monday - Friday, 9 am -
4 pm, ET or by e-mail to customerservice@sunburstsuperfoods.com


TARGET CORP: Removed "Rojas" Employment Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rojas, et al. v. Target
Corporation, Case No. 30-2014-00728254-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from
the Superior Court of Orange County to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District Of California (Santa Ana).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01229 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert labor-related claims.

The Defendant is represented by:

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


TOTAL SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Cerrone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Total Systems Control, Inc. and Jordan Enterprises of
Pittsburgh, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01025-NBF (W.D. Pa., July 31,
2014) is a collective action filed on behalf of similarly situated
persons, who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants'
alleged violations of federal wage and hour laws.

Total Systems Control, Inc. and Jordan Enterprises of Pittsburgh,
Inc. are Pennsylvania corporations with their principal places of
business located in Clairton, Pennsylvania.  The Defendants
provide services to hospitality businesses and residential
customers, including the installation of draft beer systems, draft
beer cleaning, maintenance and repair, and basic business
consultation.  The Defendants provide services to customers
located in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, the
panhandle of Maryland, and North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Sunshine R. Fellows, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  sfellows@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Removed "Chau" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Trang Ho Chau v. Transamerica Life
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. BC548572, was removed from the
Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-06109 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold D. Hernandez, Esq.
          PENNEY AND ASSOCIATES
          1201 Dove Street, Suite 560
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 955-3566
          Facsimile: (866) 620-4757
          E-mail: arnold@arnoldhernandez.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Marc Paley, Esq.
          Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq.
          Casey J.T. McCoy, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: apaley@seyfarth.com
                  sskibbe@seyfarth.com
                  cjtmccoy@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Brian T. Ashe, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: bashe@seyfarth.com


UNITED STATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Labor Suit Over Shutdown
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that the federal
government violated labor laws by requiring certain employees to
work without pay during last year's government shutdown, even
though they were paid later on, a federal judge has ruled.

Chief Judge Patricia Campbell-Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims on July 31 denied the government's effort to dismiss the
lawsuit, which was filed in November by a group of federal
employees who worked during the shutdown.

The shutdown began on Oct. 1, after Congress failed to pass a
budget.  The impasse ended on Oct. 16.  During the shutdown,
federal workers deemed "essential" were required to keep working,
but they weren't paid in full until the shutdown ended.

The plaintiffs claimed that although they were eventually paid
their full wages, the government violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay them on their normal pay schedule.
Campbell-Smith agreed.

"The FLSA requires -- and the Supreme Court has recognized
approvingly -- that an employee receive on time payment for work
performed," she wrote.  "The court understands such timeliness to
mean that an employer pays an employee on the regularly scheduled
payday."

The federal workers are represented by Mehri & Skalet.  Partner
Heidi Burakiewicz said in a statement on Aug. 4 that the ruling
represented the "first step" to relief for her clients. "All
federal employees -- especially those being paid low wages --
should get the compensation they need to help make up for
hardships caused by the government's own dysfunction and outright
violation of the law," she said.

A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman was not immediately
reached for comment.

Judge Campbell-Smith didn't decide whether the federal employees
were entitled to any damages.  The government will still have an
opportunity to prove federal officials acted in "good faith" and
had a "reasonable basis" for thinking they were complying with
labor laws amid the unusual circumstances of the shutdown.

The plaintiffs have asked the judge to certify the case as a
collective action, which would raise the stakes for the government
if it is ultimately required to pay damages.  The Justice
Department has until Sept. 2 to file a response on that issue.


USABLE MUTUAL: Removed "Wroten" Insurance Suit to E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wroten, et al. v. USAble Mutual
Insurance Company, et al., was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00462-SWW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
          Tiffany M. Wyatt Oldham, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 315-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  toldham@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          William G. Horton, Esq.
          NOLAN, CADDELL & REYNOLDS, P.A.
          Post Office Box 184
          Fort Smith, AR 72902-0184
          Telephone: (479) 464-8269
          E-mail: bhorton@justicetoday.com

Defendant USAble Mutual Insurance Company, doing business as
Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, is represented by:

          Chet A. Roberts, Esq.
          ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
          Post Office Box 2181
          Little Rock, AR 72203-2181
          Telephone: (501) 378-2374
          E-mail: cxroberts@arkbluecross.com

               - and -

          Gordon S. Rather, Jr., Esq.
          Kathryn A. Pryor, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 371-0808
          E-mail: grather@wlj.com
                  kpryor@wlj.com


YORK COUNTY, SC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Ex-Detention Officer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Billioni v. Sheriff Bruce Bryant, York County, York County
Detention Center, and York County Sheriff's Office, Case No. 0:14-
cv-03060-JFA (D.S.C., July 31, 2014) is brought on behalf of
similarly situated employees, who suffered damages as a result of
the Defendants' alleged violations of the overtime compensation
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Billioni is a resident of York County, South
Carolina.  He was employed as a detention officer at the York
County Detention Center from November 8, 2010, until he was
terminated on October 25, 2013.

York County provides governmental services for the citizens of the
County.  York County Sheriff's Office is responsible for law
enforcement, corrections, and court services within the County.
The Sheriff, who is an elected official, oversees and directs the
daily operations.  The York County Detention Center houses persons
arrested in York County by local law enforcement. The Detention
Center houses individuals for short periods, particularly people
awaiting trial or sentence.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          321 Wingo Way, Suite # 201
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (800) 385-8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

               - and -

          Jennifer Munter Stark, Esq.
          210 Wingo Way #300
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 972-0004
          Facsimile: (843) 972-0006
          E-mail: jmunterstarklaw@gmail.com


ZEMCO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Sausages Due to Misbranding & Allergen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zemco Industries Inc., a Buffalo, NY, establishment, is recalling
approximately 106,800 pounds of smoked sausage due to misbranding
and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The product
contains soy, a known allergen that is not declared on the label
of the product.

The product subject to recall includes: [View Labels (PDF Only)]

    2.5 lb. packages of "CAVANAUGH SMOKED SAUSAGE"

The products were produced on June 11, 2014; June 13, 2014; June
19, 2014; July 10, 2014; July 19, 2014; and Aug. 1, 2014. The
recalled product has Use By dates of Sept. 9, 2014; Sept. 11,
2014; Sept. 17, 2014; Oct. 8, 2014; Oct. 17, 2014; and Oct. 30,
2014. The product bears the establishment number "Est. 5222" on
the package. The product was sent to distribution centers for
resale as well as retail establishments nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the company. The problem occurred
when the company reformulated the product and updated packaging
and labeling but the employees utilized the old formulation
containing soy that was not declared on the updated packaging and
labels. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Consumer
Relations at (866) 328-3156. Media with questions about the recall
should contact Worth Sparkman, Public Relations Manager, at (479)
290-6358.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The
toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-
674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached
from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.
Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


* Advocacy Group Says Some Recalled Products Still in Homes
-----------------------------------------------------------
WCPO reports that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
recalls hundreds of products every year -- several of which have
caused deaths or started fires.

But despite warnings, many of these dangerous products are still
in homes around the country because consumers either ignored the
warning or weren't aware of it, experts say.

"We know most recalled products, no matter how dangerous, remain
in homes," Nancy Cowles, executive director for the safety
advocacy group Kids in Danger, told Dailyfinance.com.

Here are seven recalled products that are believed to be in
millions of homes across the country:

1. Dehumidifiers

More than 2.5 million dehumidifiers  (all made in China by Gree
Electric Applicances) were recalled in 2013 and 2014 because they
can start fires.  Gree is arranging for refunds ($110 to $400) for
anyone who bought one.

2. Nap Nanny

The Nap Nanny infant recliner, designed for babies to sleep in,
has been connected to at least six deaths by government
investigators.  Consumers who have Nap Nanny products are urged to
stop using them.

3. Blair chenille robes

After a recall of hundreds of thousands of chenille robes sold by
catalog retailer Blair over concerns about their flammability, the
CPSC learned that at least nine women had died wearing robes that
had ignited.

4. Maclaren strollers

After the CPSC received reports of children's fingertips being
chopped off by exposed hinges in Maclaren strollers, it recalled
about a million sold from 1999 to 2009.

5. Buckyballs and Buckycubes

Magnetic Buckyballs and Buckycubes were recalled after dozens of
kids swallowed the toys and required medical treatment.  The high-
powered magnets can twist inside the intestines of anyone who
swallows them, posing a risk of death or serious injury.

6. Lane cedar chests

Lane cedar chests were first recalled in 1996 after at least a
half-dozen children died from suffocation after being trapped
inside the chests.  More deaths were reported since the recall,
including two more this year.

7. Simplicity cribs and bassinets

More than a dozen babies died in Simplicity cribs and bassinets.


                              *********

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  * * *