CAR_Public/140812.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 12, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 159

                             Headlines


850 TONY'S PIZZA: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AARP: Sued in D.C. Court for Collecting Members' Info
ADVANTAGE PEST: Faces "Baltierra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AMERICAN WATER: Court OKs Bid to Defer Conference in "Good" Suit
APPLE INC: Suits Over iPods and iTunes Store Content Pending

APPLE INC: Nov. 21 Fairness Hearing in E-Books Antitrust Case Deal
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Dismisses "Corcia" Suit in its Entirety
BALANS L.C.: "Gavilan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Russo" Class Action
BAY SHORE: Faces "Awan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BLUE LINE: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CARDINAL HEALTH: Judge Tosses Conspiracy, Monopoly Claims
CHILDREN'S REHAB: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CHURCHILL BENEFIT: Illegally Deducts Paychecks, "Short" Suit Says
CLC RESORTS: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Wagner" Case

COCA-COLA: Court Tosses Motion for Class Action Authorization
COCA-COLA: Sued Over Orange Juice Deceptive Advertising
FERRELLGAS L.P.: Sued Over Illegal Reduction of Propane Levels
FERRELLGAS L.P.: Sued in D. Kansas Over Price-Fixing of Propane
FIRST SERVICE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Silva" Suit Says

GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Over Fin'l Report
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Nevada
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces $10-Bil. Class Action Over Recalls
GOLUB CORPORATION: Faces "Davine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GOODRICH CORP: Bid to Remand "Rodriguez" Suit Gets Court Approval

HEALTH CARE: Sued Over Exclusion of Mental Illness Coverage
HEAVENLY SPIRITS: Faces "Ghalemi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LACHINE HOSPITAL: Bariatric Patients Mull Class Action
LEROS POINT: "Gonqueh" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MERKURY CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

MICHIGAN: Bid for Protective Order in Suit vs. MDOC Denied
MIDWEST IRRIGATION: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
NATE'S AUTO: Faces "Yunio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Zelle Hofmann Files Head Injury Class Action
NEUSTAR INC: Faces Securities Lawsuit by Pension System in Va.

NEW FOOD: Faces "De Los Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NEW JERSEY: Labor Dept Accused of Harassing Laid-Off Workers
NEW YORK CITY: DOT Fails to Construct Accessible Ramps, Suit Says
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharges
OMNICARE INC: Faces TCPA Violation Suit in California Court

OMNICARE INC: Dismissal of Ky. Securities Suit Under Appeal
OMNICARE INC: Appeals Reversal of Order Junking Securities Suit
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Court OKs Stipulation in "Kress" Case
QR ENERGY: Faces "Hoefgen" Suit Over Illegal Sale of Partnership
RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

RIVERBAY CORP: Court Certifies Subclasses in "Ramirez" Case
RONAN, MT: Insurance to Cover Class Action v. Police Department
ROSBOROUGH PARTNERS: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND: October 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SECURITY LIFE: Court Dismisses "Ackley" Class Action

SEI INVESTMENTS: Bares Updates on Suits Related to Stanford Trust
SHERIDAN LABS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Deceptive Billing Practices
SISTERS OF CHARITY: Sued in D. Kansas Over Violation of ERISA
SOGRO INC: Motion to Dismiss "Velasco" Class Action Denied
SONY COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over Blurry Graphics of Killzone Game

STAPLES INC: Illegally Procure Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Sued in La. Over Sale of Defective Drywall
TARSADIA HOTEL: Court Awards Atty. Fees in Investors' Suit
TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Zenebe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRANSNET: High Court Reserves Judgment in Pensioners' Class Action

TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Court Allows "Roppo" to File Amended Case
TRI TECH HOLDING: Faces Amended Securities Complaint in N.Y.
TRULAND SYSTEMS: Union Workers Mull Class Action Over Back Wages
UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Dismisses Tomz From Securities Suit
UNILEVER NV: Deal Reached in Keratin Smoothing Kit Class Suit

UNITIL CORP: Fitchburg Customers Appeal Denial of Certification
VALIANT INSURANCE: Obtains Summary Judgment in "Bowman" Case
VALLEY FORGE: Judge Allows Shareholder Class Action to Proceed
WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Suit Over Background Screening Policy
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Accused Unlawful Background Check Policy

WATTS WATER: Settlement of Suit Over Toilet Connectors Approved
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Embraco Antitrust Settlement Gets Court Approval


                            *********


850 TONY'S PIZZA: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeronimo Perez Ramirez and Raul Rico Hernandez, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 850 Tony's Pizza,
Inc. and Ernesto Buonincontri, Case No. 1:14-cv-04557 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 30, 2014), seeks to recover overtime premium pay and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

850 Tony's Pizza, Inc. operates a restaurant called Tony's Pizza
at 850 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lizabeth Schalet, Esq.
      Robert D. Lipman, Esq.
      David A. Robins, Esq.
      LIPMAN & PLESUR
      500 North Broadway, Suite 105
      Jericho, NY 11753
      Telephone: (516) 931-0050
      Facsimile: (516) 931-0030
      E-mail: schalet@lipmanplesur.com
              robins@lipmanplesur.com
              lipman@lipmanplesur.com


AARP: Sued in D.C. Court for Collecting Members' Info
-----------------------------------------------------
Ethel Austin-Spearman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AARP, a District of Columbia corporation,
and AARP Services Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01288 (D.D.C., July 29, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
routinely allows third party data analytics companies to collect
its members' personally identifiable information -- including at
least their name, race, email address, state of residence, and
employment information -- along with the precise materials that
they're viewing on the AARP website.

AARP is one of largest organizations in the United States for
people aged 50 years and over. It also purports to provide its
members with a number of benefits, including discounts on
shopping, dining, and travel as well as financial and insurance-
related products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maria Christina Simon, Esq.
      MCCARRON & DIESE
      4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 301
      Washington, DC 20016
      Telephone: (703) 652-4365
      E-mail: msimon@thegellerlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
      Alicia E. Hwang, 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
              bthomassen@edelson.com
              ahwang@edelson.com


ADVANTAGE PEST: Faces "Baltierra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guzmaro Baltierra, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Advantage Pest Control Co., Inc, Pest Management Inc.,
jointly d/b/a Advantage Tony Ortiz and John Does #1-10, Case No.
1:14-cv-05917 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours premiums, unlawful
deductions, unlawful kickbacks and statutory penalties for notice
and record-keeping violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Advantage Pest Control Co. Inc. offers pests control services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene Gerald Eisner, Esq.
      EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      113 University Place
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 473-8700
      Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
      E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com


AMERICAN WATER: Court OKs Bid to Defer Conference in "Good" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In CRYSTAL GOOD, individually and as parent and next friend of
minor children M.T.S., N.T.K. and A.M.S. and MELISSA JOHNSON,
individually and as parent of her unborn child, MARY LACY and JOAN
GREEN and JAMILA AISHA OLIVER, WENDY RENEE RUIZ and KIMBERLY OGIER
and ROY J. McNEAL and GEORGIA HAMRA and MADDIE FIELDS and BRENDA
BAISDEN, d/b/a FRIENDLY FACES DAYCARE, and ALADDIN RESTAURANT,
INC., and R. G. GUNNOE FARMS LLC, and DUNBAR PLAZA, INC., d/b/a
DUNBAR PLAZA HOTEL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY,
INC., and AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC., and EASTMAN
CHEMICAL COMPANY and WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, d/b/a
WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN WATER, and GARY SOUTHERN and DENNIS P.
FARRELL and CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
INC., and TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. and CAST & BAKER CORPORATION,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-01374, (S.D. W.Va.), pending are
the motions by defendants American Water Works Company, Inc.,
American Water Works Service Company, Inc., and West Virginia
American Water Company (collectively "WVAWC") seeking deferral of
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference and any
subsequent discovery until such time as the discovery planning
process can be completed efficiently and effectively, filed June
18, 2014, and WVAWC's motion to strike the Rule 26(f) report of
planning meeting, filed July 8, 2014.

District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., in a memorandum opinion
and order dated July 31, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/2mkKssfrom Leagle.com, granted the motion to defer,
and denied the motion to strike.

"The court appreciates the plaintiffs' desire to move forward with
the discovery process. Little is gained, however, by attempting to
structure that process piecemeal when all parties with a stake in
the matter are not present and permitted an opportunity to be
heard," Judge Copenhaver held. "Additionally, while plaintiffs'
unilateral Rule 26(f) filing is arguably a fugitive document, and
is thus not accorded Rule 26(f) status, it may aid the parties'
impending discussions respecting case management."

The Court further ordered that these dates be fixed as the time by
or on which certain events must occur:

08/19/2014  Motions under F.R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with
            supporting briefs, memoranda, affidavits, or other
            supporting matter. (All motions unsupported by
            memoranda will be denied without prejudice pursuant to
            L.R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a)).

08/29/2014  Last day for Rule 26(f) meeting.

09/03/2014  Last day to file Report of Parties Planning Meeting.

09/05/2014  Scheduling conference at 9:30 a.m. at the Robert C.
            Byrd United States Courthouse in Charleston, before
            the undersigned, unless canceled. Lead counsel
            directed to appear.

09/12/2014  Entry of scheduling order.

09/19/2014  Last day to serve F.R. Civ. P 26(a)(1) disclosures.

"The court has additionally considered the suitability of staying
further action in this case pending the disposition of any Rule
12(b)(6) motions filed in this case or the matter of remand in
Desimone Hospitality Services v. West Virginia American Water
Company, 2:14-14845," held Judge Copenhaver.  "A stay is deemed
inappropriate at this time."

The Court directed the Clerk to forward copies of the written
opinion and order to all counsel of record and to the individuals
designated as liaison counsel in the consolidated action styled
Desimone Hospitality Services, LLC v. West Virginia American Water
Co., 2:14-14845 (S.D. W. Va.).

Anthony J. Majestro Scott E. Schuster Guy Bucci William F. Dobbs,
Jr. Benjamin L. Bailey

Crystal Good, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin
W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P.
Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy,
SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH
STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

M.T.S., Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON
BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G. Stag, SMITH
STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean
Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart H.
Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN &
BALINT.

N.T.K., and, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr.,
THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G.
Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY
JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG,
Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN
FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

A.M.S., Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON
BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G. Stag, SMITH
STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean
Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart H.
Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN &
BALINT.

Melissa Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr.,
THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G.
Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY
JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG,
Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN
FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

Aladdin Restaurant, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David R.
Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY,
Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P.
RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH
STAG, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN
FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

Georgia Hamra, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr.,
THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G.
Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY
JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG,
Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN
FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

Brenda Baisden, 2:14-cv-11011, Plaintiff, represented by John
Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, M. Timothy
Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES & David
R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY.

Mary Lacy, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

Joan Green, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

Jamila Aisha Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D.
McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John
Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W.
Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice,
CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P.
Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy,
SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon,
CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN
FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

Wendy Renee Ruiz, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D.
McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John
Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W.
Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice,
CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P.
Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy,
SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon,
CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN
FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

Kimberly Ogier, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

Roy J. McNeal, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

Maddie Fields, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin,
THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,
David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON
BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR
LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE &
LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE
OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow,
SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith,
SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van
Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

R.G. Gunnoe Farms LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D.
McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John
Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W.
Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice,
CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P.
Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy,
SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon,
CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN
FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

Dunbar Plaza, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D.
McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John
Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W.
Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood,
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice,
CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P.
Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy,
SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon,
CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN
FRIEDMAN & BALINT.

American Water Works Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY, Alton
Kent Mayo, BAKER BOTTS, Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, Chase
Orion Holcomb, JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY,
Robert O. Passmore, JACKSON KELLY, Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS,
Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., JACKSON KELLY & L. Jill McIntyre, JACKSON
KELLY.

American Water Works Service Company, Inc., a New Jersey
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON
KELLY, Alton Kent Mayo, BAKER BOTTS, Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON
KELLY, Chase Orion Holcomb, JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller,
JACKSON KELLY, Robert O. Passmore, JACKSON KELLY, Steven L.
Leifer, BAKER BOTTS, Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., JACKSON KELLY & L.
Jill McIntyre, JACKSON KELLY.

Eastman Chemical Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Lance D. Leisure, BLANK ROME, Marc E. Williams,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Melissa Foster Bird, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Robert L. Massie, NELSON MULLINS
RILEY & SCARBOROUGH & Robert Scott, BLANK ROME.

Gary Southern, 2:14-cv-11011, a Florida resident, Defendant,
represented by Erin J. Webb, KAY CASTO & CHANEY, Luci R. Wellborn,
KAY CASTO & CHANEY, Pamela C. Deem, KAY CASTO & CHANEY & Robert B.
Allen, KAY CASTO & CHANEY.

West Virginia-American Water Company, 2:14-cv-11011, Defendant,
represented by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY, Alton Kent Mayo,
BAKER BOTTS, Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, Chase Orion Holcomb,
JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY, Robert O.
Passmore, JACKSON KELLY & Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS.
Dennis P. Farrell, Defendant, represented by David R. Pogue, CAREY
SCOTT DOUGLAS & KESSLER & Michael W. Carey, CAREY SCOTT DOUGLAS &
KESSLER.

Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Brandon J. Verdream, CLARK HILL, Mark F. Nowak,
CLARK HILL & Vincent M. Roskovensky, CLARK HILL.

Triad Engineering, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alex Manuel
Greenberg, HUDDLESTON BOLEN, Kevin A. Nelson, HUDDLESTON BOLEN &
Patrick T. White, HUDDLESTON BOLEN.

Cast & Baker Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael P.
Markins, MANNION & GRAY.


APPLE INC: Suits Over iPods and iTunes Store Content Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The cases Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly
Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer,
Inc.) are currently pending, according to the company's June 24,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2014.

These related cases were filed on January 3, 2005 and July 21,
2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of a purported class of direct purchasers
of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various claims
including alleged unlawful tying of music and video purchased on
the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and unlawful
acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California
monopolization law. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class, treble damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys fees. Plaintiffs are also seeking digital rights
management free versions of any songs downloaded from iTunes or an
order requiring the Company to license its digital rights
management to all competing music players. The cases are currently
pending.


APPLE INC: Nov. 21 Fairness Hearing in E-Books Antitrust Case Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise Cote entered on August 1, 2014, a memorandum
opinion & order in IN RE ELECTRONIC BOOKS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA)
INC., et al., Defendants, NOS. 11MD2293 (DLC), 12CV3394 (DLC),
(S.D. N.Y.).

The plaintiffs in this certified class action and this parens
patriae action on July 16, 2014, moved for preliminary approval of
a settlement with Apple Inc. These actions were filed on August 9,
2011, and April 11, 2012, respectively. A liability trial was held
in June of 2013, in which the States and the United States as the
plaintiff in related litigation succeeded in proving that Apple
had conspired with five book publishers (the Publisher Defendants)
to raise e-book prices, whether examined as a per se violation of
the antitrust laws or under the rule of reason. Apple's appeal of
that liability decision is pending before the Court of Appeals.

On June 3, 2014, a damages trial was scheduled to be held in the
class action and parens patriae action for August 25, 2014. On
June 16, the Court was advised that the parties had executed a
binding agreement in principle to resolve damages issues. With
their July 16 motion seeking preliminary approval of the
Settlement, the parties sought to delay notice to consumers of the
Settlement until after the final resolution of Apple's appeal. A
July 17 Order required the parties to assume immediate
distribution of the notice.

On July 23, the parties jointly submitted notice and distribution
plans, which the parties amended through submissions on July 30.

In his memorandum, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/leGU74from Leagle.com, Judge Cote granted
preliminary approval of the Settlement, and approved the notice
plan, as revised on July 30.

Judge Cote held that the proposed settlement class is identical to
the class certified on March 28, 2014.  "For the reasons set forth
in that Opinion, the settlement class meets all of the
requirements for certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3)," he said.

The Court's choice of lead plaintiffs Anthony Petru, Thomas
Friedman, and Shane S. Davis, and class counsel Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PPLC are
confirmed.

Judge Cote directed that the Proposed Settlement Notice Plan be in
place by September 15, 2014, and the Proposed Amended Direct
Notice be sent out on or before September 15, 2014.

Kinsella Communications and Rust Consulting will serve as the
Notice and Claims Administrators for purposes of implementing the
Settlement Agreement.

Eligible consumers have until October 31, 2014 to opt out of the
Settlement or object to it.

Plaintiffs must file a Motion for Final Approval of Settlement on
or before November 14, 2014.

The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on November 21, 2014
at 2 p.m. at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York,
Courtroom 15B.

Shilpa Grover, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Don Allen Resnikoff,
Finkelstein Thompson, L.L.P., Douglas G. Thompson,
Finkelstein,Thompson & Loughran, Eugene J. Benick, Finkelstein
Thompson LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP & Michael Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson LLP.
Fredric A. Press, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Don Allen Resnikoff,
Finkelstein Thompson, L.L.P., Douglas G. Thompson,
Finkelstein,Thompson & Loughran, Eugene J. Benick, Finkelstein
Thompson LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP & Michael Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Anthony Petru, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC.

Jeffrey Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobnson LLP, Douglas G. Thompson,
Finkelstein,Thompson & Loughran, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Keith Essenmacher, Lovell, Steward,
Halebian L.L.P. & Michael Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson
LLP.

Clarissa Weiss, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobnson LLP, Douglas G. Thompson,
Finkelstein,Thompson & Loughran, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Keith Essenmacher, Lovell, Steward,
Halebian L.L.P. & Michael Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson
LLP.

Rhonda Burstein, Plaintiff, represented by Jay W. Eisenhofer,
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., John D. Radice, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA &
Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A..

Juan Sotomayor, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Pearsall
Goodwin, Berger & Montague, P.C., David Howard Leventhal, Law
Office of David H. Leventhal, David Francis Sorensen, Berger &
Montague, P.C, Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., Jan R.
Bartelli, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Kendall S. Zylstra, Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP & Stephen E. Connolly, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Robert Cheatham, Plaintiff, represented by Jay L. Himes, Labaton &
Sucharow LLP & Gregory Scott Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP.

John T. Meyer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge,
Grindal, Nauen, P.L.L.P. & W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge, Grindal,
Nauen & Holstein, P.L.L.P..

Paul Meyer, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobnson LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge,
Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Keith Essenmacher, Lovell, Steward,
Halebian L.L.P. & W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen &
Holstein, P.L.L.P..

Paul J. Meyer, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobnson LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen
P.L.L.P., Keith Essenmacher, Lovell, Steward, Halebian L.L.P.,
Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, P.L.L.P. & W.
Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, P.L.L.P..

Liana Lingofelt, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobnson LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Keith Essenmacher, Lovell, Steward,
Halebian L.L.P., Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen,
P.L.L.P. & W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen &
Holstein, P.L.L.P..

Marcia Greene, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emmy L Levens, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, George Farah, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, John
Douglas Richards, Pomerantz LLP, Kit A. Pierson, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC & Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C..

Aubrie Ann Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emmy L Levens, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, George Farah, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, John
Douglas Richards, Pomerantz LLP, Kit A. Pierson, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC & Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C..

David Yastrab, on behalf of himself and all others similiarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Darren J. Robbins, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Cyrus Joubin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP &
Peter George Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, LLP.

Brian Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Douglas Penny, Goldman
Scarlato & Karon, P.C..

Harrison Goldman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Morris Buchman, Motley
Rice LLC.

Kevin Rader-Rhodenbaugh, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume, Kirby
McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP & Gary E. Mason,
The Mason Law Firm, P.C..

Brian McGee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brett H Cebulash, Taus,
Cebulash & Landau, LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Dianne M. Nast, Roda & Nast, P.C., Erin C Burns, RodaNast P.C. &
Kevin Sylvan Landau, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP.

Carol Ness, Plaintiff, represented by Brett H Cebulash, Taus,
Cebulash & Landau, LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Dianne M. Nast, Roda & Nast, P.C., Erin C Burns, RodaNast P.C. &
Kevin Sylvan Landau, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP.

Katrina Key, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Peter Guglielmo,
Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Daniel Jay Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm P.C.,
Max Raphael Schwartz, Scott Scott, L.L.P. & Richard S. Frankowski,
Burnham Brown.

Patsy Diamond, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eugene A. Spector, Spector,
Roseman & Kodroff Willis, P.C., Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Spector,
Roseman & Kodroff Willis, P.C., Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector
Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Jonathan M. Jagher, Spector
Roseman Kodroff & Willis PC & Michael Francis Ram, Ram, Olson,
Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Marcus Mathis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The
Paynter Law Firm PLLC.

Eugenia Ruane-Gonzales, Eugenia Ruane-Gonzales, Plaintiff,
represented by Harry Shulman, Shulman Law.

Steven Rivers, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Marie Zeman, Girrard
Gibbs LLP.

Christian Gilstrap, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Cynthia J. Tyler, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Thomas Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Jeremy Sheppeck, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Aloysius J. Brown, Iii, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett &
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Anne M. Rinaldi, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Laura J. Warner, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Barbara Heath, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Kathleen Linda Pitlock, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett &
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Kathleen Weiss, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Matthew A. Hosking, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Diane Urbanec, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Ed Macauley, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Ronna Hamelin, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

James L. Nesmith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Lauren Albert, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Sue Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Shane S. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Sue Ellen Gordon, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Charles Leonard Pelton, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett &
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Kimberly Whiteside Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett &
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Steven D. Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Jessica Moyer, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Andreas Albeck, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Farley Keller,
Keller Grover LLP, Gregory Alan Frank, Murray Frank LLP & Jade
Erin Butman, Keller Grover LLP.

Rebecca L. Rossman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg,
Goldenberg Schneider, Lpa, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The
Paynter Law Firm PLLC & Todd B. Naylor, Goldenberg Schneider &
Groh, LPA.

Miriam Cummings, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg,
Goldenberg Schneider, Lpa, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The
Paynter Law Firm PLLC & Todd B. Naylor, Goldenberg Schneider &
Groh, LPA.

Carole C. Kehl, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg
Schneider, Lpa, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm
PLLC & Todd B. Naylor, Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, LPA.

Kamal Sonti, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg
Schneider, Lpa, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm
PLLC & Todd B. Naylor, Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, LPA.

Gretchen Ulbee, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana Eve Scarlett.

Eugenia Ruane-Gonzales, Plaintiff, represented by Harry Shulman,
Shulman Law, Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC &
William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

Katrina Key, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke, Scott
+ Scott, LLP, Daniel Jay Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm P.C., Kristen
M. Anderson, Scott + Scott, LLP, Richard S. Frankowski, Burnham
Brown & Walter W. Noss, Scott+Scott LLP.

Chad Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Dina Elizabeth Micheletti,
Fazio & Micheletti LLP, Jeffrey Louis Fazio, Fazio & Micheletti
LLP, Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & Vincent J.
Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C..

Grace Hoke, Plaintiff, represented by Dina Elizabeth Micheletti,
Fazio & Micheletti LLP, Jeffrey Louis Fazio, Fazio & Micheletti
LLP, Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & Vincent J.
Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C..

Steven Rivers, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Marie Zeman, Girrard
Gibbs LLP, Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Girard Gibbs LLP & Eric H.
Gibbs, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo.

Susan Horowitz, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Bryan Lee Clobes, Cafferty Faucher LLP,
Christopher B. Sanchez, Cafferty Faucher LLP, Daniel Herrera,
Cafferty Faucher LLP, Ellen Meriwether, Miller Faucher & Cafferty,
LLP, Kelly Tucker, Caferty Faucher LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve
W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Amy D. Nolan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of
Joseph M. Patane & Lauren Clare Russell, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP.

Elvira Monzon, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Joesph Greenfogel,
Lite Depalma Greenberg, LLC.

United States Of America, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
McCuaig, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Div, Mary Beth
McGee, United States Litigation III Section, Nathan P. Sutton,
United States Litigation III Section, Owen M Kendler, United
States Litigation III Section, Stephen Thayer Fairchild, U.S.
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division & William H. Jones, II,
U.S. Department of Justice.

The State of Texas, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Lipman, Office
of The Attorney General, State of Texas, David M. Ashton, Texas
Attorney General's Office & Rebecca Fisher, Senior Assistant
Attorney General.

The State of Connecticut, Plaintiff, represented by Gary M.
Becker, Connecticut Office of the Attorney General, Michael E.
Cole, Attorney General & W. Joseph Nielsen, State of Connecticut
Office of The Attorney General.

The State of Alaska, Plaintiff, represented by Clyde E. Sniffen,
Jr., Senoir Assistant Attorney General.

The State of Arizona, Plaintiff, represented by Devin M. Laiho,
Assistant Attorney General, Nancy M. Bonnell, Attorney General of
Arizona & Susan V. Myers, Assistant Attorney General.

The State of Illinois, Plaintiff, represented by Chadwick O.
Brooker, Assistant Attorney General & Robert W. Pratt, Office of
the Illinois Attorney General Antitrust Bureau.

The State of Colorado, Plaintiff, represented by Devin M. Laiho,
Assistant Attorney General.

The State of Iowa, Plaintiff, represented by Layne M. Lindebak,
Iowa Department of Justice.

The State of Maryland, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen S. Cooper,
Office of the Attorney General, John R. Tennis, State of Maryland
& Schonette Walker, Assistant Attorney General.

The State of Missouri, Plaintiff, represented by Anne E.
Schneider, Office of the Attorney General & Brianna Lynne Lennon,
Assistant Attorney General.

The State of Ohio, Plaintiff, represented by Doreen C. Johnson,
Office of the Attorney General, Edward J. Olszewski, Assistant
Attorney General, Jessica I. Oldham, Office of the Attorney
General & Mitchell L. Gentile, Office of the Ohio Attorney
General.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff, represented by James
A. Donahue, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Jennifer J. Kirk,
Deputy Attorney General & Joseph S. Betsko, Pennsylvania Office of
Attorney General.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Plaintiff, represented by Jose M.
Tous Cardona, Office of the Attorney General & Jose G. Diaz-
Tejera, Chief Deputy Attorney General.

The State of South Dakota, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey P.
Hallem, S.D. Office of Attorney General.

the State of Tennessee, Plaintiff, represented by Victor John
Domen, Jr., Office of the Tennessee Attorney General.

The State of Vermont, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Kriger,
Assistant Attorney General.

The State of West Virginia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas L.
Davis, Assisant Attorney General.

The State of Arkansas, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Wells,
Arkansas Attorney General's Office & Nancy M. Bonnell, Attorney
General of Arizona.

The District of Columbia, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Anne
Jackson, Attorney General's Office For The District of Columbia.

The State of Florida, Plaintiff, represented by Lizabeth Ann
Brady, Fl Office of The Attorney General.

The State of Idaho, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Talmage
DeLange, Idaho Attorney General's Office.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Plaintiff, represented by
Michael Paul Franck, Massachusetts Office of The Attorney General.
The State of Michigan, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Robert
Evans, Michigan Department of Attorney General.

The State of Nebraska, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory John
Walklin, Nebraska Attorney General's Office & Melissa R. Vincent,
Nebraska Attorney General's Office.

The State of New Hampshire, Plaintiff, represented by David A.
Rienzo, New Hampshire Department of Justice.

The State of New Mexico, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew E.
Jackson, New Mexico Attorney General's Office.

The State Of New York, Plaintiff, represented by Geralyn Jeanette
Trujillo, State of New York Office of the Attorney General, Linda
J. Gargiulo, New York State Attorney General & Robert L. Hubbard,
New York Attorney General's Office, Antitrust Bureau.

The State of North Carolina, Plaintiff, represented by K. D.
Sturgis, North Caroilna Department of Justice.

The State of Rhode Island, Plaintiff, represented by Edmund F.
Murray, Attorney General of Rhode Island.

The State of South Carolina, Plaintiff, represented by C. Harvid
Jones, Jr., Attorney General of South Carolina & Jenny Draffin
Smith, South Carolina Office of The Attorney General.

The State of Utah, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald J. Ockey,
Attorney General of Utah.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, Plaintiff, represented by Sarah
Oxenham Allen, Office of The Attorney General.

The State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, represented by Gwendolyn Jean
Cooley, Wisonsin Department of Justice.

The State of Alabama, Consolidated Plaintiff, Pro Se.

The State of Delaware, Consolidated Plaintiff, Pro Se.

The State of Indiana, Consolidated Plaintiff, Pro Se.

The State of Nebraska, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Gregory John Walklin, Nebraska Attorney General's Office.

The State of New York, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Eric
Jonathan Stock, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The State of Wisconsin, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Gwendolyn Jean Cooley, Wisonsin Department of Justice.

Class Plaintiffs, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey
Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Katrina Key, Movant, represented by Christopher M. Burke, Scott +
Scott, LLP & Richard S. Frankowski, Burnham Brown.

MacMillian, Inc, Defendant, represented by Alexandra Shear, Sidley
Austin LLP & Joel M. Mitnick, Sidley Austin LLP.

Harpercollins Publishers, Defendant, represented by Clifford Hank
Aronson, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Madison
Eckles, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Raoul Dion
Kennedy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard Stephen
Horvath, Jr., Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP & Shepard
Goldfein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Penguin Group USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison Sheedy,
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Daniel F. McInnis, Thompson
Hine LLP, David A. Donohoe, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld,
Gregory J. Granitto, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Mollie
Mcgowan Lemberg, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Reginald
David Steer, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

Random House Inc., Defendant, represented by Saul P Morgenstern,
Kaye Scholer LLP.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Christine Louise Demana,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Daniel S. Floyd, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Daniel G. Swanson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Gail
Lees, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Hane Lee Kim, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Jay Srinivasan, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Lawrence Jay Zweifach, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Lisa Heather
Rubin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Orin Snyder, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP & Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP.

Hachette Book Group, Defendant, represented by Samuel Joseph
Rubin, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Timothy P. Harkness,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP & Walter B. Stuart, IV,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

Amazon.Com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Ross Wang,
Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, Michael Edward Kipling,
Kipling Law Group PLLC & Robert David Kaplan, Friedman, Kaplan,
Seiler and Adelman.

Barnes & Noble Inc., Defendant, represented by David Boies, II,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Julia Carolyn Hamilton, Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP.

Harpercollins publishers, inc.;, Defendant, represented by Raoul
Dion Kennedy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Paul Madison
Eckles, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Richard Stephen
Horvath, Jr., Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.

Macmillan Publishers, Inc.., Defendant, represented by Joel M.
Mitnick, Sidley Austin LLP & Alexandra Shear, Sidley Austin LLP.
Hachette Digital, Inc., Defendant, represented by Walter B.
Stuart, IV, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Hiram Robert
Andrews, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Richard Sutton
Snyder, Sr., Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Us LLP & Samuel Joseph
Rubin, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

Hachette Livre SA, Defendant, represented by Walter B. Stuart, IV,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Hiram Robert Andrews,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Richard Sutton Snyder, Sr.,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Us LLP & Samuel Joseph Rubin,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joel M.
Mitnick, Sidley Austin LLP, Alexandra Shear, Sidley Austin LLP &
John J. Lavelle, Sidley Austin LLP.

Hachette Book Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Walter B.
Stuart, IV, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Hiram Robert
Andrews, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Richard Sutton
Snyder, Sr., Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Us LLP, Samuel Joseph
Rubin, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP & Timothy P. Harkness,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Matthew
Michael Martino, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP &
Shepard Goldfein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.
Hachette Digital, Inc., Defendant, represented by Walter B.
Stuart, IV, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Hiram Robert
Andrews, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Richard Sutton
Snyder, Sr., Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Us LLP & Timothy P.
Harkness, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC, Doing business as Macmillan,
Defendant, represented by John J. Lavelle, Sidley Austin LLP.
Penguin Group (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel F.
McInnis, Thompson Hine LLP, Allison Sheedy, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld, LLP & Gregory J. Granitto, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld, LLP.

Hachette Book Group, Inc, Defendant, represented by Walter B.
Stuart, IV, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP & Bryan Lewis
Bloom, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP.

Simon & Schuster, Inc., Defendant, represented by Yehudah Lev
Buchweitz, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Eric Stephen Wolfish, Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP, James W. Quinn, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP &
Jeffrey Leonard White, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC, ADR Provider, represented by Joel M.
Mitnick, Sidley Austin LLP, Alexandra Shear, Sidley Austin LLP &
John J. Lavelle, Sidley Austin LLP.

Bob Kohn, Objector, represented by Steven Brower, Buchalter Nemer.
Rebecca L. Rossman, Interested Party, represented by Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Jeffrey Scott
Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, Lpa.

Baker & Taylor, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Evan
Glassman, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP & Michael Jarrett Allan, Steptoe
& Johnson, LLP.

Anthony Petru, et al., All Plaintiffs, represented by Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Jeffrey Benjamin
Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

Class Plaintiffs, All Plaintiffs, represented by Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Dismisses "Corcia" Suit in its Entirety
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chana Corcia brought a putative class action on behalf of herself
and other individuals similarly situated, alleging that Asset
Acceptance, LLC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. Sections 1692 et seq. The Plaintiffs' claims concern two
sentences in a letter she received from Asset, dated June 19,
2013: "We may report information about your account to credit
bureaus. Correspondence concerning inaccuracies and disputes
relating to your credit report should be sent to: P.O. Box 1630
Warren, MI 48090-1630." The Plaintiff contended that this
statement was false, deceptive, or misleading, in violation of
15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. Asset moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that none of the disputed language is
false, misleading, or deceptive.

District Judge Joseph F. Bianco granted Asset Acceptance's motion
to dismiss in its entirety in a memorandum and order dated July
22, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/m7L77jfrom
Leagle.com.

The plaintiff's request for leave to amend to file a third amended
complaint is denied, Judge Bianco held.  "Any amendment would be
futile because, as a matter of law, the debt collection letter
that Asset sent to plaintiff was not false, deceptive, or
misleading to the least sophisticated consumer," he concluded.

The case is CHANA CORCIA, Plaintiff, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
Defendant, NO. 13-CV-6404 (JFB)(GRB), (E.D. N.Y.).

Plaintiff is represented by Shimshon Wexler The Law Offices of
Shimshon Wexler, PC, Atlanta, GA.

Defendant is represented by Jill M. Wheaton --
jwheaton@dykerna.com -- of Dykema Gossett PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, and
Richard D. Lane, Jr. -- rdlane@mdwcg.com -- of Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin, New York, NY.


BALANS L.C.: "Gavilan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Gavilan and Ramon Sanchez individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Balans, L.C., Balans Brickell, LLC,
Balans Dadeland, LLC, XYZ Entities 1-10, and Lily Adenete, and
Cristina Adams, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22791 (S.D. Fla.,
July 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Balans, L.C., Balans Brickell, LLC and Balans Dadeland, LLC are
restaurants offering a modem brasserie-cafe style menu, with five
locations in Miami-Dade County and locations in London, England.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Oscar Edgar Sanchez, Esq.
      OSCAR E. SANCHEZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      701 Brickell Key Boulevard, Suite CU-1
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 416-0060
      Facsimile: 416-9310
      E-mail: lawsanchez@gmail.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Russo" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Russo obtained a home mortgage loan from Bank of America,
N.A.  Six years later, she received from the Bank a letter
informing her that she had been approved to participate in a
"trial period plan," during which she could make reduced monthly
payments on her mortgage. If Ms. Russo completed the trial program
successfully, she would qualify for a permanent modification of
her mortgage.  Ms. Russo did obtain a permanent modification of
her mortgage; however, she alleges that Bank of America failed to
report her on-time trial payments and subsequent post-modification
payments to the credit bureaus, and thus breached both the trial-
period (TPP) and modification agreements. Ms. Russo also alleges
that, because of the Bank's breach, she lost credit opportunities
and has suffered damage to her credit rating. Bank of America
moved to dismiss Russo's breach-of-contract claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In a memorandum opinion and order entered August 1, 2014
District Judge Manish S. Shah granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss.  A copy of Judge Shah's ruling is
available at http://is.gd/IJUzk4from Leagle.com.

The motion is granted as it pertains to Russo's allegations
concerning a breach of her permanent loan modification agreement.
The motion is denied as it pertains to Russo's allegations
concerning a breach of the TPP agreement, ruled the Court.

The case is BARBARA RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, NO. 14 CV 382, (N.D. Ill.).

Barbara Russo, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg Michael Barbakoff
-- gbarbakoff@siprut.com -- Siprut Pc, Gregory Wood Jones --
gjones@siprut.com -- Siprut Pc & Joseph J Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC.

Bank of America, NA, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Steven Russell Smith -- srsmith@bryancave.com --
Bryan Cave LLP & Matthew M. Petersen --
matt.petersen@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave, Llp.


BAY SHORE: Faces "Awan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Choudry Tahir Awan on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Hamid Khan Durrani also known as: Zahid Durrani and
Bay Shore Smoke Shop, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-04562 (E.D.N.Y., July
30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
punitive damages, actual damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Bay Shore Smoke Shop Inc. owns and operates a retail store located
at 59 Bay Shore Road, Bay Shore, New York 11706.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eliot F. Bloom, Esq.
      1551 Kellum Place, Second Floor
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Telephone: (516) 739-5300
      Facsimile: (516): 739-3202
      E-mail: eb.efbesq@gmail.com


BLUE LINE: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Vizcon Ojeda and other similarly situated individuals v.
Blue Line Distribution, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and Rey
Paredes, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22797 (S.D. Fla., July 30,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Blue Line Distribution, Inc is engaged in food service
distribution business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARDINAL HEALTH: Judge Tosses Conspiracy, Monopoly Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel and Dan Packel, writing for Law360, report that a
Pennsylvania federal judge on July 30 refused to entirely throw
out a putative class action against medical supply companies
Cardinal Health Inc. and Owens & Minor Inc., keeping alive
antitrust injury claims but tossing allegations of conspiracy and
unlawful monopolization.

In a memorandum accompanying an order denying in part and granting
in part motions to dismiss filed by the two medical supply
companies, U.S. District Judge Juan R. Sanchez decided plaintiff
Schuylkill Health System, a nonprofit hospital owner, had made
sufficiently specific allegations of injury to establish standing
under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Schuylkill alleges Cardinal and Owens engaged in a monopolistic
scheme to get small hospitals to purchase sutures, stitches and
similar merchandise only from them by bundling the sale of sutures
and related products to their other wares.

"SHS has adequately pleaded that defendants' scheme injures all
direct purchasers, regardless of whether they were subject to the
contractual restraints, because the aggregate effect of the
discount program is that defendants can charge higher prices than
would be possible under competitive conditions," Judge Sanchez
wrote.  "Paying higher prices is the quintessential form of
antitrust injury."

Brent Landau -- blandau@hausfeldllp.com -- of Hausfeld LLP, who
represents SHS, told Law360 he welcomes the court's decision.

"We are pleased that the court has allowed our principal claims to
proceed and look forward to litigating the case on behalf of the
plaintiff and proposed class," Mr. Landau said.

During argument on the motions in March, John Gibson of Crowell &
Moring LLP, representing Owens & Minor, said that the two
companies developed similar bundling policies only because they
had anticipated each other's moves, calling them "independent
parallel actions."  He said that Schuylkill failed to reveal any
actual agreement between the two businesses.

But Mr. Landau, who was outnumbered six-to-one by attorneys for
the defendants, said that all the hospital needed to do was show
that the two businesses' largest competitor was being denied the
opportunity to compete in order to demonstrate that it had been
harmed.

While claims alleging increased prices were allowed to remain in
the suit, Judge Sanchez threw out SHS's conspiracy claims, saying
the nonprofit had only stated in a "conclusory fashion" that the
defendants conspired to allocate markets or employ identical
contractual terms. Judge Sanchez also said the fact the defendants
are members of a trade association that hosts annual conferences
does not alone support the conclusion their parallel conduct
amounts to a conspiracy.

"SHS does no more than describe merely parallel conduct that could
just as well be independent action," Judge Sanchez wrote.

In rejecting SHS's claims alleging Cardinal and Owens created an
unlawful monopoly, Judge Sanchez said the companies' 39 percent
and 33 percent respective market shares are not sufficient to
indicate monopoly power, and SHS had not set forth any allegations
regarding strength of competition, probable development of the
industry, or the elasticity of consumer demand.

Owens & Minor Inc. is represented by John Gibson --
jgibson@crowell.com --of Crowell & Moring LLP and Aimee Kumer --
alk@elliottgreenleaf.com -- and Mary Kohart --
mek@elliottgreenleaf.com -- of Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski
PC.

Cardinal Health is represented by Paula Render --
prender@jonesday.com -- Michael Sennett, Michelle Fischer --
mfischer@jonesday.com -- and John Iole -- jeiole@jonesday.com --
of Jones Day.

Schuylkill Health is represented by Brent Landau and Gary Smith --
gsmith@hausfeldllp.com -- of Hausfeld LLP.

The case is Schuylkill Health System v. Cardinal Health Inc. et
al, case number 2:12-cv-07065, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


CHILDREN'S REHAB: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Nguyen on her own behalf and in behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Our Children's Rehab Center Inc., a
Florida non-profit corporation, Greater Polk County Rehab Services
Inc., a Florida corporation, Heike Reeves, individually, Sharon
McManus Comkowycz, individually, Case No. 8:14-cv-01836 (M.D.
Fla., July 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide therapy and rehabilitation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Kemp Brinson, Esq.
      THE BRINSON FIRM
      PO Box 582
      Winter Haven, FL 33882
      Telephone: (863) 288-0234
      Facsimile: (863) 508-7684
      E-mail: kbrinson@brinsonfirm.com


CHURCHILL BENEFIT: Illegally Deducts Paychecks, "Short" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Short and John Volny, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Churchill Benefit Corporation dba
Yurcor; The Mill Group, Inc.; Digital Kitchen, LLC; Framestore,
Inc.; Panda Panther, Inc.; Brand New School, Inc.; Logan, Inc.;
Quietman, Inc.; The Lab, Inc.; Suspect, Inc.; and Smoke and
Mirrors, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04561 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014),
seeks to recovery wages illegally deducted from the Plaintiff's
paychecks without written authorization and otherwise in violation
of law, penalties and liquidated damages under the New York Labor
Laws.

Churchill Benefit Corporation doing business as Yurcor is a
business process outsourcing company that offers workforce
procurement platform, a solution of hosted application services
for vendor management, procurement, time and expense processing,
billing, payroll processing and reporting.

The Mill Group, Inc., Digital Kitchen, LLC, Framestore, Inc.,
Panda Panther, Inc., Brand New School, Inc., Logan, Inc.,
Quietman, Inc., The Lab, Inc., Suspect, Inc., and Smoke and
Mirrors, LLC own and operate visual effects, animation and design
studios.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
      THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM
      29 Broadway, Suite 1515
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 952-0602
      Facsimile: (212) 952-0608
      E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com

         - and -

      Stuart libicki, esq.
      SCHWARTZ, STEINSAPIR, DOHRMANN & SOMMERS LLP
      6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000
      Los Angeles, CA 90048-5268
      Telephone: (323) 655-4700
      Facsimile: (323) 655-4488
      Email: sl@ssdslaw.com

        - and -

      Arthur Grebow, Esq.
      GREBOW & RUBIN, LLP
      16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 260
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 783-1100
      Facsimile: (818) 783-1103
      Email: agrebow@grebowrubinlaw.com

        - and -

      William T. Payne, Esq.
      Pamina Ewing, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      429 Forbes Avenue, 17th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-8400
      Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
      Email: wpayne@fdpklaw.com
             pewing@fdpklaw.com


CLC RESORTS: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Wagner" Case
------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WAGNER, Plaintiff, v. CLC RESORTS AND DEVELOPMENTS, INC.,
SURREY VACATION RESORTS, INC. and PASSPORT HOLIDAYS, LLC,
Defendants, CASE NO. 6:14-CV-281-ORL-31GJK, (M.D. Fla.) is before
the Court on Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants, and the
Plaintiff's responses.

The complaint states that CLC and Surrey contracted with Passport
to assist them with marketing their resort and timeshare offers to
potential consumers. Passport would place telephone calls to
potential consumers by utilizing an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS).  In an amended complaint filed on April 17, 2014,
Mr. Wagne alleged that the Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)A(iii) and 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Defendants filed motions to
dismiss Mr. Wagner's amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to make relatively specific
allegations.

District Judge Gregory A. Presnell denied the motion to dismiss in
an order dated August 1, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Y5WdCXfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Presnell found that at the very least, Mr. Wagner's
allegations in the amended complaint meet the threshold for
asserting a class action. "Defendants' arguments are better suited
as challenges to a motion for class certification, rather than as
a basis for a motion to dismiss," he said.

Mr. Wagner had argued that a dismissal based on class action
allegations would be premature at this stage of the proceedings.
Judge Presnell agreed.

Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.

Michael Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Stefan Coleman, Law
Offices of Stefan Coleman, PLLC, Ari Jonathan Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., John C. Ochoa --
jochoa@edelson.com Edelson -- P.C. & Mark S. Eisen --
meisen@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C.

Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph C.
Sullivan -- jsullivan@taylorenglish.com -- Taylor English Duma,
LLP & Kenneth Michael Swann, Snyderburn, Rishoi & Swann, LLP.

Passport Holidays, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles David
Hood, Jr. -- dhood@daytonalaw.com -- Smith, Hood, Loucks, Stout,
Bigman & Brock, PA & Douglas A. Daniels -- doug@danielslegal.com
-- Douglas A. Daniels, PA.

CLC Fractional LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Jerry Ray Linscott --
jlinscott@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP & Julie Singer
Brady -- jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP.


COCA-COLA: Court Tosses Motion for Class Action Authorization
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stefano Mingarelli of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for
Mondaq, reports that much has been written or said about the
Supreme Court of Canada recent decisions in Infineon Technologies
and Vivendi Canada with respect to the low threshold that is
imposed on petitioners at the authorization (certification) stage
of a class proceeding in Quebec.

Yet in the last two months, the Superior Court of Quebec has
rejected two motions for authorization to bring a class action, in
part because the petitioners had not sufficiently investigated the
nature and composition of the class prior to filing their motions.

Wilkinson c. Coca-Cola Ltd, 2014 QCCS 2631

In Wilkinson, the Petitioner filed a motion for authorization
against Coca-Cola, on behalf of all residents of Canada (excluding
B.C. and Alberta) who purchased Glaceau Vitaminwater, on the basis
of allegations that Coca-Cola had misled consumers into purchasing
Vitaminewater by misrepresenting its sugar content and health
benefits, and had thus violated the Quebec Consumer Protection
Act, the Competition Act and the Civil Code of Quebec.

While the Court ultimately dismissed the motion for authorization
as the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the allegations
of fact, if proven, would lead to the conclusions sought.  Justice
Micheline Perreault nonetheless took it upon herself to note in
obiter that under art. 1003 d) C.C.P., a petitioner must have
conducted at least a minimal investigation to advance the
litigation in order to show that he will adequately represent the
interests of the class members.  According to the Court, the
transcripts of the petitioner's examination indicate that only 13
people from Quebec had registered on his lawyer's website, and
that the petitioner had not contacted any of these 13 people to
determine whether they actually had a cause of action against the
respondent.  Moreover, even in light of the fact that petitioner
filed an updated list with 45 people at the hearing on
authorization, the petitioner failed to indicate that he had made
efforts to contact any of these additional people.  The Court
concluded that the petitioner had made no investigation to
determine whether a proper class existed.

Martel v. Kia Canada Inc.2014 QCCS 3273

In Martel, the Petitioner filed a motion for authorization against
Kia Canada on behalf of all consumers who reside in Quebec and who
purchased a Kia vehicle whose maintenance program, as described by
the owner's manual, differed from the maintenance program required
by the dealer.  The petitioner alleged that Kia had violated the
Consumer Protection Act by making false representations in their
owner's manual regarding the usage of motor oil as well as their
maintenance programs.  While consumers were allegedly told to
service their vehicle at every 12,000 km or every 12 months, they
were then told by their dealers and the manufacturer that because
they lived in Quebec oil maintenance had to take place at every
8,000 or 6,000 km.

In its reasons, Justice Pierre C. Gagnon held that even though the
Petitioner's Motion satisfied article 1003 (b) considering that
the facts alleged in the claim seemed to justify the conclusion
sought, he nevertheless refused to authorize the Class Action on
the grounds that Plaintiff failed to satisfy paragraphs 1003 (a),
1003 (c) and 1003 (d) C.C.P.

The Court notes that the transcripts of the petitioner's
examination seem to suggest that the reason she decided to
represent all the consumers residing in Quebec who had purchased a
Kia vehicle in the prescribed period was because Petitioner looked
around her community to find people who had similar claims against
Kia, but because she lives in an isolated environment, and because
she did not know many people in that community or who drove a Kia,
she could not find anyone else who was interested in filing a
claim.  In support of her claim, Petitioner filed a document
outlining all the sales Kia had made in Quebec from 2009 to 2010
as suggestive of a potential class.

Justice Gagnon, however, concludes that nothing in the allegations
submitted or in the evidence filed permitted a Court to verify how
many of the consumers had actually been affected by the faulty
drafting of Kia's owner manual.  The Court reasons that it would
have been expected that the petitioner and its lawyers create a
website to gather information about potential members and their
grievances.  According to the Court, it is simply unacceptable
that Petitioner omit to undertake some kind of an investigation
prior to filing her motion simply because she had just moved to a
new community and did not know anybody.  Moreover, the Court notes
that even though the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of
Canada in Infineon and Vivendi require that the authorization
Judge be rather flexible in his analysis of a petitioner's claim,
Justice Gagnon concludes that a petitioner must nevertheless show
that there is a class of actual members whom the petitioner will
be able to represent, not just hypothetical ones.

Conclusion

While much has been written about the Supreme Court's liberalism
regarding the authorization process in Quebec, these two decisions
provide a welcome reminder that petitioners and their Counsel must
not only evaluate the merit of their claims prior to bringing
class action proceedings, but must also investigate the existence
of, and establish first contact with, potential class members, as
was underlined by the Quebec Court of Appeal in Del Guidice v.
Honda Canada.

Even if the authorization process is a filtering mechanism
designed to eliminate frivolous or unfounded claims, this does not
free Petitioners and class counsel from the obligation of showing
that a reasonable investigation was completed before the motion
for authorization was filed, and that the Petitioner can provide a
sufficiently realistic estimate of the number of class members to
enable the court properly evaluate the conditions for
authorization.


COCA-COLA: Sued Over Orange Juice Deceptive Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------
Brianne Pfannenstiel, writing for Kansas City Business Journal,
reports that another lawsuit claiming that Coca-Cola Co.'s "fresh"
juice products are anything but natural is headed to Kansas City.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
became home to the Coca-Cola orange juice litigation in 2012 after
a number of class actions were filed and consolidated there.
Those cases alleged that Coca-Cola, which makes Simply Orange
juice, fraudulently advertises that it is "100% pure squeezed"
with "no water or preservatives added."

Instead, Plaintiff Gwen Phelps claims the products "are actually
concocted via a highly-engineered and unnatural process --
anything but simple or natural."

The lawsuit describes the juice production process in detail:
Coke creates a flavor profile detailing acidity and sweetness to
have a consistent taste in its product.

Oranges are grown in Brazil, juiced and then stored in large
silos.  The juice is transported through a 1.2-mile underground
pipeline to the packaging plant, where it is flash pasteurized and
stripped of its oxygen.  That extends the life of the juice before
spoiling, but it also removes much of the flavor.

The juice is covered with a "nitrogen gas blanket" to keep the
oxygen out.  Technicians later inject "flavor packs" back into the
juice to "bring it back to life."  It says the process means the
raw juice can be kept and stored for as long as a year.

Ms. Phelps claims in the petition that she would not have bought
the juice had she known how it was made.

She claims intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, violations of the California false
advertising act and violations of state consumer protections laws.

The case was recently transferred from California into the Western
District of Missouri in Kansas City, where it was consolidated
with previously filed cases.

One phase of discovery was closed on May 7.  A motion for
additional discovery has been filed.

Olivier Taillieu and Gilbert Perez of the National Injury Law Firm
LLP in Beverly Hills, Calif., representing Phelps.

Norm Siegel -- siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- of Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP in Kansas City represents plaintiffs in the other consolidated
cases.

A number of firms represent Coca-Cola.  Locally, Adam Moore --
amoore@rwdmlaw.com -- of Rasmussen Willis Dickey & Moore LLC and
Anthony Martinez of Shook

Hardy & Bacon LLP represent the company.


FERRELLGAS L.P.: Sued Over Illegal Reduction of Propane Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Speed Stop 32, Inc., a Michigan corporation d/b/a Towns Mart
Marathon, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.,
Amerigas Propane, Inc., Amerigas Propane, L.P., Amerigas Partners,
L.P.; and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02379 (D. Kan., July
30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspire to reduce the
propane fill level to 15 pounds per tank while maintaining the
same price per "full" tank.

The Defendants are the largest distributors of propane exchange
tanks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Coykendall, Esq.
      MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHTD.
      300 N. Mead Street, Suite 200
      Wichita, KS 67202-2745
      Telephone: (316) 262-2671
      Facsimile: (316) 262-6226
      E-mail: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com

         - and -

      Barry S. Taus, Esq.
      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
              atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


FERRELLGAS L.P.: Sued in D. Kansas Over Price-Fixing of Propane
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zarco USA, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, L.P., Ferrellgas
Partners, L.P., Amerigas Propane, Inc., Amerigas Propane, L.P.,
Amerigas Partners, L.P.; and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02381 (D. Kan., July 30, 2014), arises out of a conspiracy to fix
the price of propane sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks.

The Defendants are the largest distributors of propane exchange
tanks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
      Eric D. Barton, Esq.
      WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
      4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 701-1177
      Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
      E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com
              ebarton@wcllp.com


FIRST SERVICE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Silva" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Silva and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. First Service Residential Florida, Inc. f/k/a The
Continental Group, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-61742 (S.D. Fla., July
30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

First Service Residential Florida, Inc. is a real estate company
within the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Over Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Ballesteros, individually and all others similarly
situated v. Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. James C. Czirr, Peter G.
Traber and Jack W. Callicutt, Case No. . 3:14-cv-00399 (D. Nev.,
July 30, 2014), is asserted against the Defendants who made
materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period
in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. is a development stage company engaged
in the research and development of therapies for fibrotic disease
and cancer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
      David C. Walton, 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: e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com
              davew@rgrdlaw.com

        - and -

      William M. O'Mara, Esq.
      THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, PC
      311 E. Liberty Street
      Reno, NV 89501
      Telephone: (775) 323-1321
      Facsimile: (775) 323-4082
      E-mail: bill@omaralaw.net


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 30 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of Galectin
Therapeutics Inc. publicly traded securities during the period
between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014, inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 30, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/galectin/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Galectin and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Galectin is a development stage company engaged in the research
and development of therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer.  The
Company's lead product candidates include GR-MD-02 to treat
non-alcoholic steatohepatitis or NASH, a disease that leads to
fatty buildup in the liver and can potentially lead to cirrhosis
and/or liver cancer.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements to the investing public about the Company's
business and prospects.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, Galectin's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $18.30 per
share on February 27, 2014.

On July 24, 2014, Emerging Growth Corp. disseminated a press
release through Accesswire stating that Galectin was "nipping at
[the] heels" of its competitors and "actually may be closer than
what first appears with a Phase 1 trial because of the potential
to treat fatty liver disease even once it has progressed."  Then,
on July 28, 2014, an article on SeekingAlpha.com claimed that
Galectin had "strong ties to stock promoters" engaging in a
misleading brand awareness campaign aimed at boosting its stock
price.  The same day, a separate article on TheStreet.com revealed
that Emerging Growth, through its parent company TDM Financial, a
penny-stock promotions firm, was the investor relations and
marketing company Galectin was paying for misleading promotional
campaigns to entice investors to buy its stock.  On this news,
Galectin's stock fell $8.84 per share to close at $5.70 per share
on July 29, 2014, a one-day decline of nearly 61% on volume of
nearly 7.7 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Galectin publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces $10-Bil. Class Action Over Recalls
--------------------------------------------------------
Vindy.com reports that issues continue to pile up against General
Motors with the filing of a class-action lawsuit valued at as much
as $10 billion.  The lawsuits and negative reports, however, don't
appear to be hurting sales of GM vehicles.  Projections show GM
sales up for July over July 2013.

Customer attitudes seem to be that because of the current recalls,
GM can't afford to have more problems, said Jesse Toprak, senior
analyst for Cars.com.

"Customers expect the company to be extremely vigilant now and not
repeat past mistakes," he said.

Surveys to consumers do not show much impact now in or the future
because of the recalls, Mr. Toprak said.

The Lordstown-built Chevrolet Cobalts were included in the GM
recalls.

The class-action lawsuit started with a single plaintiff, Anna
Andrews.  It was initially filed in U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California.  Since then a second plaintiff,
Ishmail Sesay, has been added, and the case was transferred to the
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit claims that because of deception, GM buyers lost
between $500 and $2,900 in vehicle resale values.


GOLUB CORPORATION: Faces "Davine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shelly J. Davine, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Golub Corporation, The Price Chopper, Inc., Price
Chopper Operating Co. of Massachusetts, Inc., Neil M. Golub, Jerel
Golub, John J. Enders, Jr., Christine C. Daniels, and Jerel T.
Golub, Case No. 3:14-cv-30136 (D. Mass., July 30, 2014) is brought
over the Defendants' failure to pay overtime premium pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate 135 supermarkets in the Northeast
United States, including over 15 stores throughout Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin K. Steffans, Esq.
      Kevin M. Kinne, Esq.
      COHEN KINNE VALICENTI & COOK LLP
      28 North Street, 3rd Floor
      Pittsfield, MA 01201
      Telephone: (413) 443-9399
      E-mail: bsteffans@cohenkinne.com
              kkinne@cohenkinne.com

         - and -

      Rachel Bien, Esq.
      Katrina Eiland, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com
              keilan@outtengolden.com


GOODRICH CORP: Bid to Remand "Rodriguez" Suit Gets Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez remands the case captioned RAPHAEL
RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GOODRICH CORPORATION, a corporation; HAMILTON
SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION, a corporation; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-01026 JAM AC, (E.D. Cal.).

This matter was removed by the Defendants to the District Court on
April 25, 2014, alleging original federal jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), based on diversity of citizenship.
Although the Plaintiff's total individual damages only amount to
$7,436.80, Defendants alleged that the amount in controversy
requirement is satisfied because "the attorneys' fees alone would
exceed $75,000."

Judge Mendez, in his ruling dated July 31, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/mc2lbsfrom Leagle.com, held that the
amount of the Plaintiff's individual damages in controversy is
$7,436.80. The Defendants have, thus, failed to establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the Plaintiff's attorneys'
fees would exceed $67,563.20. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand is granted, Judge Mendez concluded.

The Defendants' Motion to Amend is moot, and the August 20, 2014
hearing date in the case is vacated, Judge Mendez added.

Raphael Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Lavi, Lavi &
Ebrahimian, LLP & Jordan Domingo Bello, Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP.

Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Lawrence
Brophy -- jbrophy@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Leo Q. Li --
lli@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw & Jon D. Meer --
jmeer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jonathan Lawrence Brophy, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Leo Q. Li, Seyfarth
Shaw & Jon D. Meer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jonathan Lawrence Brophy, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Leo Q. Li, Seyfarth
Shaw & Jon D. Meer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


HEALTH CARE: Sued Over Exclusion of Mental Illness Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth A. Craft; and Jane Doe, a minor, by her next friend and
parent, Elizabeth A. Craft; on their own behalves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Health Care Service Corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05853 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2014), seeks to end
Defendant's discriminatory practice of excluding all
coverage for the treatment of mental illness in Residential
Treatment Centers.

Health Care Service Corporation is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois, it issues and administers health care plans in five
states through five divisions, operating, respectively, under the
names of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Montana, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma and Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Texas. HCSC is the largest customer-owned health insurer
in the United States and fourth largest overall, with nearly 14
million members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
      Caroline Elizabeth Reynolds, Esq.
      Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
      1185 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 704-9600
      Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
      E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
              creynolds@zuckerman.com
              jcowart@zuckerman.com

          - and -

      George Freeman Galland Jr., Esq.
      MINER BARNHILL & GALLAND
      14 West Erie Street
      Chicago, IL 60610
      Telephone: (312) 751-1170
      E-mail: ggalland@lawmbg.com

         - and -

      Meiram Bendat, Esq.
      PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
      8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 598-3690
      E-mail: meiram@psych-appeal.org


HEAVENLY SPIRITS: Faces "Ghalemi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ottman El Ghalemi and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Heavenly Spirits Inc. d/b/a Enso Miss Tao Buck
15 Nairi Kazumyan, Case No. 1:14-cv-22790 (S.D. Fla., July 29,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Heavenly Spirits Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located in
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LACHINE HOSPITAL: Bariatric Patients Mull Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that two women who underwent bariatric
surgery at Lachine Hospital want to file a class-action suit
against the institution.

The women are part of a group of patients who were sent letters
last February, told they'd have to undergo blood tests due to a
surgical instrument that wasn't properly cleaned.

The patients were recalled to ensure they weren't infected with
blood-borne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis.

The two women tested negative but say they suffered damages in
stress, fear, pain and loss of time as a result of the hospital's
negligence.

A judge will determine if the lawsuit will be approved.


LEROS POINT: "Gonqueh" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aken Gonqueh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Leros Point To Point, Inc., Leros Management, Inc.,
John Ny, Jeffrey Nyikos, and Christ Nyikos, Case No. 1:14-cv-05883
(S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
unlawful deductions, misappropriate service charges purported to
be gratuities, unpaid commissions and other wages.

The Defendants operate chauffer services throughout the United
States. They operate a fleet of over 200 cars in the United States
specializing in ground transportation for business and corporate
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com
              nmelito@fslawfirm.com


MERKURY CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Banegas, Juan Banegas, and Santos Vega and other
similarly-situated individuals v. Merkury Corporation, d/b/a
Merkury Development, Paul A. Tolles, and Nicholas A. Crognale,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22785 (S.D. Fla., July 29,
2014),seeks to recover  overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions
of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Merkury Corporation is a construction company doing business as
Merkury Development.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHIGAN: Bid for Protective Order in Suit vs. MDOC Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert H. Cleland denied a motion for a protective
order in JOHN DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-14356, (E.D. Mich.).
A copy of Judge Cleland's August 1, 2014 opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/ns4S3Gfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs in the case have sought a protective order
governing Defendants' interviews with putative class members and
potential prisoner witnesses. The Plaintiffs argued that
Defendants engaged in abusive practices by sending Assistant
Attorneys General ("AAGs") to interview prisoner witnesses
regarding Plaintiffs' allegations of sexual assault by adult
prisoners and Michigan Department of Corrections (MDO") personnel.

"The court is aware of the possibility that certain interviewees
may have falsely denied sexual abuse because of a lack of trust
between the interviewees and the AAGs, fear of negative
repercussions resulting from such a disclosure, or a host of
other, more personal, reasons. . . . However, this case is still
in the earliest of stages -- a scheduling order has not yet been
issued and discovery has not yet commenced in earnest. Based on
the facts currently before it, the court is not convinced that
Plaintiffs' proposed broad protective order is necessary," Judge
Cleland concluded.

JOHN DOE 1, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty,
Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel,
Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht,
Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt,
Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore,
Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah
A. LaBelle.

JOHN DOE 2, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty,
Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel,
Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht,
Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt,
Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore,
Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah
A. LaBelle.

JOHN DOE 3, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty,
Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel,
Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht,
Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt,
Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore,
Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah
A. LaBelle.

JOHN DOE 4, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty,
Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel,
Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht,
Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt,
Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore,
Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah
A. LaBelle.

JOHN DOE 5, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty,
Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel,
Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht,
Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt,
Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore,
Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah
A. LaBelle.

JOHN DOE 6, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty,
Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel,
Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht,
Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt,
Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore,
Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah
A. LaBelle.

JOHN DOE 7, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty,
Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel,
Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht,
Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt,
Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore,
Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah
A. LaBelle.

Michigan Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by
Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S.
Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly,
Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI
Dept of Attorney General.

Rick Snyder, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

Daniel H. Heyns, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

THOMAS FINCO, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

Dennis Straub, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

RANDY TREACHER, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

WILLIE SMITH, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

HEIDI WASHINGTON, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

MARY BERGHUIS, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

PAUL KLEE, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan
Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of
Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of
Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General.

JOHN PRELESNIK, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

CATHLEEN STODDARD, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

CINDI S CURTIN, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

DAVID BERGH, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

JEFFREY WOODS, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

ROBERT NAPEL, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.

KENNETH MCKEE, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi,
Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI
Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan
Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of
Attorney General.


MIDWEST IRRIGATION: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfonso Vergara Jr., and Alexander Vergara, on behalf of
themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown v. Midwest Irrigation Company, LLC, and Chris Richards,
Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05813 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Midwest Irrigation Company, LLC, provides irrigation and lighting
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. State Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org

         - and -

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


NATE'S AUTO: Faces "Yunio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Yunio Tavares, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated v. Nate's Auto, Corp., and Nader Ahmed and
Richard Morales, in their individual and professional capacities,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05914 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

Nate's Auto, Corp. is a gas station and repair shop lacated in the
Bronx at 2400 East Tremont Avenue, Bronx, New York 10461.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
       Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
       LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
       1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
       Great Neck, NY 11021
       Telephone: (516) 248-5550
       Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
       E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
               mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Zelle Hofmann Files Head Injury Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP filed a class action lawsuit on
July 29 against the National Hockey League arising from the
effects of brain injuries caused by concussive and sub-concussive
impacts suffered by former NHL players.  Jon Rohloff, who was a
defenseman for the Boston Bruins from 1994-1997, is the Plaintiff
and Class representative.

According to the lawsuit, "[f]ormer NHL players are uniting to
send one resounding message: they signed up to play hockey knowing
that they might get injured and dinged, but they did not sign up
for brain damage."

Over the course of an NHL season, a player sustains hundreds of
hits to the head.  These concussive and sub-concussive impacts,
when multiplied over the course of an NHL career, result in
impaired brain function or deadly brain disease.

The lawsuit sets forth several allegations, including:

The NHL, for decades, failed to inform, warn, or protect its
players from repetitive mild traumatic brain injuries resulting
from concussive and sub-concussive blows to the head;
The NHL refused to institute policies and protocols to protect its
players from concussive and sub-concussive injuries;
Rather than inform its players regarding the risks of head
injuries, the NHL openly encouraged severely injurious conduct
such as fighting and extreme violence as a regular part of the
game.  In fact, the NHL did not simply allow fighting and violence
-- it promoted, regulated, and profited from it; and
The NHL concealed scientific evidence about the health risks and
consequences associated with head injuries received while playing
in the NHL.

The lawsuit seeks medical monitoring, injunctive relief, and
financial compensation related to his chronic injuries, medical
costs, financial losses, and intangible losses suffered as a
result of the NHL's misconduct.

A copy of the complaint is available at http://is.gd/n2Q1qN

Further information can be provided by Michael R. Cashman --
mcashman@zelle.com  -- a senior partner at Zelle Hofmann.
Plaintiff and the Class are also represented by
Richard M. Hagstrom, a senior partner at Zelle Hofmann, as well as
Zelle Hofmann attorney Shawn Stuckey, a retired NFLer who played
with the Buccaneers, Patriots and Vikings.  The firm has a rich
tradition of caring for and protecting the rights of former pro
and college players in cases against the NFL, NCAA, and NFLPA.
Plaintiff and the class are also represented by Lew Remele, Scott
Andresen and Jeff Klobucar at the Bassford Remele law firm.

                       About Zelle Hofmann

Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP -- http://www.zelle.com-- is a
national litigation and dispute resolution law firm with offices
in Boston, Dallas, London, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and
Washington, DC.  The Firm excels at handling sports-related
disputes, insurance, antitrust and other complex litigation on
both a national and global scale.  The Firm also has an affiliate
office in Beijing, People's Republic of China.


NEUSTAR INC: Faces Securities Lawsuit by Pension System in Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NeuStar, Inc. faces a securities lawsuit by the Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria
Division), according to the company's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System (the Plaintiff), individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) against the Company and
certain of the Company's senior executive officers. The complaint
asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on
behalf of those who purchased the Company's securities between
April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014, inclusive.  The Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive relief.


NEW FOOD: Faces "De Los Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andres De Los Santos, Domingo Franco, Angel Rodriguez, Ramon
Santos, and Jose Ramon Lopez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. New Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, JCA
Food Corp. d/b/a Metfood, JJC Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, SWF Food
Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, Mother Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, Jason
Ferreira and Jose Ferreira, Case No. 2:14-cv-04541 (E.D.N.Y., July
29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are chain of supermarkets owned and operated by
Jason Ferreira and Jose Ferreira.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                           *     *     *

Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that five ex-employees of
supermarket chain Foodtown filed a putative class action in
New York federal court on July 30 alleging the company and its
affiliates faked wage statements to avoid paying overtime to
employees in five of its New York stores.

Andres de los Santos, Domingo Franco, Angel Rodriguez,
Ramon Santos and Jose Ramon Lopez claim New Food Corp. and others
didn't pay them for hours worked beyond the company's overtime
limit and that it paid some employees a straight rate for overtime
hours worked instead of the correct rate.

Plaintiffs want to represent a class including all hourly
employees who have worked at the grocery stores at any time up to
six years before the filing of the complaint.  They are seeking
damages of $100 for every work week that each violation has
occurred, up to $2,500 per employee, along with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

The defendants allegedly compensated employees for overtime and
straight wages earned beyond the minimum wage with cash payments
made off the books.

"The defendants' method of evading detection was equally simple,"
the Fair Labor Standards Act complaint states. "They fabricated
wage and hour records to feign compliance with wage and hour
laws."

The individual plaintiffs are a group of grocery clerks, dairy
department and maintenance workers, and other in-store employees,
according to court papers.  Each individual plaintiff was
allegedly required to work more than 40 hours per week during the
relevant time period.

The individual plaintiffs, who sometimes worked more than 60 hours
per week, were discharged between April 2013 and July 2014, the
suit says.

The plaintiffs lodged the claims against the Ferreira Enterprise,
consisting of five supermarkets doing business as Ferreira
Foodtown, which is owned and operated by Jason and Jose Ferreira,
according to the suit. Before summer 2013, the stores operated as
Metfood.

The defendants never gave the individual plaintiffs accurate
statements of wages with each payment, as required by New York
state laws, the complaint says; instead, they provided them with
envelopes that indicated in writing the amount of cash inside.

The FLSA and New York state laws require employers to pay overtime
at one and a half times an employee's regular rate for all hours
worked past 40 per week, according to the complaint.

The New York Labor Law requires an additional hour's pay at the
basic minimum hourly rate for any day where the spread of hours --
the interval between the start and end of an employee's work day
-- exceeds 10 hours, plaintiffs claim.

Employees may recover statutory damages of $50, up to a total of
$2,500, for each week in which they don't receive the required
wage notice, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
spread of hour pay, statutory damages under New York law for wage
statement and notice violations, certification of the state law
claims as class actions, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and court costs, and additional injunctive and
equitable relief.

Plaintiffs are represented by Steven John Moser of Steven J. Moser
PC.

The case is Andres de los Santos et al. v. New Food Corp. d/b/a
Foodtown et al., case number 1:14-cv-04541, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.


NEW JERSEY: Labor Dept Accused of Harassing Laid-Off Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey used a "deliberate strategy" to deny more than 10,000
people unemployment benefits, harasses laid-off workers who seek
legal representation, and uses "sophisticated" questions to be
able to criminally prosecute people who apply for unemployment, a
laid-off worker and his attorneys claim in a class action lawsuit.

Ranulfo Postrero and Alan H. Schorr & Associates sued the New
Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, in Camden
County Chancery Court.

Schorr & Associates, of Cherry Hill, says it is one of the few law
firms in New Jersey that specialize in unemployment law.  Its
client Postrero applied for unemployment insurance.

They claim that New Jersey has deliberately denied due process to
people who apply for unemployment benefits.  Not only that, the
plaintiffs say, New Jersey "deliberately removed from claimant
notices a statement advising that they had the right to counsel.
Yet, all employers still receive such a notice."

The complaint states: "The process of applying for and receiving
unemployment benefits has evolved into an extremely legally
complicated process.  The Department of Labor ('DOL') has many
tools at its disposal for disqualifying employees for benefits,
and has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years in terms
of asking questions that elicit responses that unwittingly
disqualify unrepresented claimants.  According to DOL statistics
provided via an OPRA [Open Public Records Act] request, during the
fiscal year of July 2012-June 2013 alone 47,560 appeals were taken
from initial unemployment decisions made by the Department of
Labor.  Over 13,000 of those initial decisions denying benefits
were found on appeal to be incorrect.  Not only does the
Department of Labor utilize testimony from initial unemployment
interviews for the purpose of disqualification, but sometimes this
testimony can be forwarded to prosecutors for criminal
prosecution.

"Against this complicated and sophisticated legal backdrop is a
deliberate strategy by the Department of Labor to deprive
unemployment claimants representation by legal counsel of their
choice.  Over the past few years, the Department of Labor has
deliberately removed from claimant notices a statement advising
that they had the right to counsel.  Yet, all employers still
receive such a notice.  Only claimants have been deprived of the
proper notice.  In addition, claims examiners routinely discourage
and harass claimants who wish to be represented by attorneys.  The
Department of Labor has turned a deaf ear on our complaints,
leaving no choice but to file this complaint seeking to compel the
Department of Labor to cease its efforts to prevent attorney
participation and to compel the Department of Labor to reinstate
its practice of properly notifying claimants of their right to
counsel."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, preservation of records,
a corrective injunction, and damages for constitutional
violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan H. Schorr, Esq.
          ALAN H. SCHORR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          5 Split Rock Drive
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 874-9090
          Facsimile: (856) 874-9080
          E-mail: SchorrLawNJ@aol.com


NEW YORK CITY: DOT Fails to Construct Accessible Ramps, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Independence Of The Disabled, New York, a nonprofit
organization; Dustin Jones, an individual; Myrna Driffin, an
individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. The City Of New York, New York City Department Of
Transportation, and Polly Trottenberg, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of the New York City Department of Transportation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05884 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to construct accessible
sidewalks, curb ramps, and neighborhoods denies persons with
mobility and vision disabilities meaning access to the City's
program of public sidewalks and pedestrian routes in these
neighborhoods in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the New York Human Rights Law.

Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York is founded in
1978, it is a consumer-based, non-profit organization, providing
services and advocacy toward independent living for individuals
with disabilities.

The City Of New York and New York City Department Of
Transportation are the public entities responsible for installing,
repairing, and maintaining all pedestrian rights-of-way along New
York City sidewalks and crosswalks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda Lauren Zablocki, Esq.
      Daniel L. Brown, Esq.
      SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
      30 Rockefeller Plaza
      New York, NY 10112
      Telephone: (212) 634-3082
      Facsimile: (212) 655-1761
      E-mail: azablocki@sheppardmullin.com
              dlbrown@sheppardmullin.com

         - and -

      Julia Miriam Pinover, Esq.
      Rebecca Juliet Rodgers, Esq.
      DISABILITIES RIGHT ADVOCATES
      40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 644-8644
      Facsimile: (212) 644-8636
      E-mail: jpinover@dralegal.org
              rrodgers@dralegal.org

         - and -

      Sherrill M. Kurland, Esq.
      NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
      100 Church Street, Room 4-114
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 356-2605
      Facsimile: (212) 356-2019
      E-mail: skurland@law.nyc.gov


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to face a consolidated
antitrust suit over fuel surcharges, according to the company's
July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
the company and other Class I railroads in various Federal
district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the
District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.  On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a
class action.  The defendant railroads appealed this
certification, and the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the
case for further consideration.  The company believes the
allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the cases.  The company does not believe the
outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on the
company's financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.
A lawsuit containing similar allegations against the company and
four other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling
agreement entered into in August 2008, and most recently extended
in August 2013.


OMNICARE INC: Faces TCPA Violation Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc. faces a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California alleging it violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, according to the company's July 23, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On June 2, 2014, a complaint captioned Charles Lee on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated  v. Omnicare, Inc., No.
14-CIV-1335 was filed against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff
brought the action individually and on behalf of a similarly
situated class of plaintiffs.   The plaintiff alleges that the
Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by
improperly calling cellular telephone numbers using an automatic
telephone dialing system.  The Company denies the allegations in
the complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself in this
action.


OMNICARE INC: Dismissal of Ky. Securities Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a securities suit pending against Omnicare Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky is
under appeal, according to the company's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v.
Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10, 2007
through August 5, 2010 against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of federal
securities laws in connection with alleged false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's compliance with federal
and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations. On October
21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Jacksonville Police &
Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al. was filed on behalf of
the same putative class of purchasers as is referenced in the
Ansfield complaint, against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky. Plaintiffs allege substantially the same
violations of federal securities law as are alleged in the
Ansfield complaint. Both complaints seek unspecified money
damages. The court has appointed lead counsel and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed on May 11, 2012. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss on July 16, 2012. On March 27, 2013, the court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims
with prejudice. On April 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
appealing the District Court's order dismissing the complaint with
prejudice. The parties completed oral argument before the Sixth
Circuit on January 30, 2014.


OMNICARE INC: Appeals Reversal of Order Junking Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare Inc. filed its brief in support of an appeal against the
reversal of an order dismissing a consolidated securities lawsuit
against in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, according to the company's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought their shares in the Company's public offering in
December 2005. The complaint contained claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5)
and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among
other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its
earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial statements)
by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper
revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and
inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual
dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely
record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, prospects, and compliance with applicable laws and
regulations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the district
court dismissed the case.

On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 21, 2009, the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally affirmed the district
court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's claims for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5. However, the appellate court reversed the
dismissal for the claim brought for violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to the district
court for further proceedings. On July 14, 2011, the district
court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended
complaint.

This complaint asserts a claim under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of Omnicare common stock
in the December 2005 public offering. The new complaint alleges
that the 2005 registration statement contained false and
misleading statements regarding Omnicare's policy of compliance
with all applicable laws and regulations with particular emphasis
on allegations of violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute
in connection with three of Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's
contracts with two of its suppliers, and its provision of
pharmacist consultant services. On August 19, 2011, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' most recent complaint
and on February 13, 2012 the district court dismissed the case and
struck the case from the docket.

On March 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 23, 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded
in part the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. On June 6,
2013, the Company petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing
en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc was denied on July 23,
2013. On October 4, 2013 the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On March 3, 2014,
the United States Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for
writ of certiorari. On June 5, 2014, the Company filed its Brief
in Support of Appeal in the United States Supreme Court.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Court OKs Stipulation in "Kress" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley signed a joint stipulation and order
on August 1, 2014, in the case captioned SAMUEL BRANDON KRESS, et
al, Plaintiffs, v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, Defendant, CASE NO.
08-CV-00965 TLN/AC, (E.D. Cal.).

Under the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/PJiMp4from Leagle.com, the Plaintiffs and
Defendant agreed to certain terms regarding the class action
administrator and Notice of Pendency of Class Action including:

1. Garden City Group will serve as the class action administrator
for the Senior Associate Class.

2. Plaintiffs will be responsible for the costs associated with
the service of notice to the Senior Associate Class by the Garden
City Group, except that Defendant will be responsible for Garden
City Group's costs of emailing the notice to the Senior Associate
Class.

3. The Notice of Pendency of Class Action Against
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Notice) and Election to be Excluded
Form ("Exclusion Form") is approved for service upon the Senior
Associate Class members.

4. The e-mail address from which the claims administrator will
send the Notice and Exclusion Form, and where completed Exclusion
Forms may be returned by email will be:
PwC_Overtime_Litigation_Class Administrator@tgcginc.com

The subject line of the email will be: "PwC Senior Associate Class
Action (2003-2013): Notice of Overtime Suit and Optional Exclusion
Form."

5. PwC agrees that it will not intentionally track or monitor the
emails from Garden City Group to the Senior Associate Class
members, and that it will not intentionally track or monitor any
emails sent from the recipient Senior Associate Class members to
Garden City Group. PwC also agrees that it will not initiate any
mass communications or postings with Senior Associate Class
members regarding the Notice itself, the fact that the Notice is
being sent, or the Senior Associate's right to remain in the class
at any point.  However, PwC personnel is not precluded from
responding to inquiries from Senior Associate Class members
regarding these subjects.

6. Senior Associate Class members who wish to opt-out of the class
must do so by timely signing and mailing or emailing the completed
Exclusion Form to Garden City Group.

MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP, William A. Baird, Esq., Agoura Hills,
California

KESSLER TOPAZ, MELTZER & CHECK LLP Peter A. Muhic --
pmuhic@ktmc.com -- PHV Monique Myatt Galloway --
mgalloway@ktmc.com -- PHV Radnor, PA.

LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER Steven Elster, Concord, CA, WYNNE LAW
FIRM, Edward Wynne -- EWynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- Greenbrae, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Norman C. Hile --
nhile@orrick.com -- Julie A. Totten -- jatotten@orrick.com --
David A. Prahl, Sacramento, CA.

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Daniel J. Thomasch --
dthomasch@gibsondunn.com -- Lauren J. Elliot --
lelliot@gibsondunn.com -- New York, New York,

Michele L. Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Irvine, Ca,

Julian W. Poon -- jpoon@gibsondunn.com -- Alexander K. Mircheff --
amircheff@gibsondunn.com -- Los Angeles, Ca, Attorneys for
Defendant.


QR ENERGY: Faces "Hoefgen" Suit Over Illegal Sale of Partnership
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel R. Hoefgen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alan Smith, John Campbell Jr., Donald Wolf,
Stephen Thorington, Donald Powell, Richard Herbert, Toby
Neugebauer, S. Wil Vanloh, Jr., QR Energy LP, and QRE GP, LLC,
Case No. 4:14-cv-02195 (S.D. Tex., July 30, 2014), is brought for
their breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to
sell the Partnership to Breitburn Energy Partners L.P., Breitburn
GP, LLC, and Boom Merger Sub, LLC  by means of an unfair process
and for an unfair price.

The Defendants own and operate an oil and natural gas production
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      The Bilek Law Firm LLP
      700 Louisiana, Ste 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-7720
      Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
      E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

        - and -

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


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Patterson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
05882 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs.

Raymours Furniture Company, Inc. is a family owned business that
operates one of the largest furniture retailers in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 564-5468
      E-mail: jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN,LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


RIVERBAY CORP: Court Certifies Subclasses in "Ramirez" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs bring the action captioned ROSALY RAMIREZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. RIVERBAY CORP., ET AL., Defendants, NO. 13 CIV.
2367 (JGK), (S.D. N.Y.) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (NYLL),
Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et seq., claiming various violations
of their right to receive a minimum wage and overtime
compensation. The plaintiffs are current and former hourly
employees of RiverBay Corp.  On December 20, 2013, the Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a
collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. The
plaintiffs now move for certification of three proposed NYLL
Subclasses pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

District Judge John G. Koeltl, in an opinion and order dated
August 1, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/EYXiVofrom Leagle.com, granted the plaintiffs'
motion for certification.

"The requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied for
Subclasses 2 and 3, and the plaintiffs' motion to certify these
Subclasses is therefore granted," he said.  "The plaintiffs should
provide a proposed order for class notice by August 15, 2014. The
defendants may provide any objections and response by August 29,
2014," Judge Koeltl added.


RONAN, MT: Insurance to Cover Class Action v. Police Department
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Strickland, writing for Valley Journal, reports that
insurance will cover the cost of a class action lawsuit filed
June 3 against the City of Ronan, Ronan Police Department, and the
town's leadership.

City Attorney Kathleen O'Rourke Mullins told city council members
in a July 21 meeting that she will relay costs for legal services
to the city's insurance provider.

The cost for Mullins' services mounted from her $1,500 regular
monthly fee to more $4,570 as the city tackled litigation.  The
City has turned future work on the lawsuit over to a Missoula law
firm.

The lawsuit was filed by Anthony Chaney, who claims he was
arrested in July 2013 by Trevor Wadsworth, an officer who was
allegedly not authorized to act as a police officer at the time.
Trevor Wadsworth's father, Dan Wadsworth, was the longtime police
chief at the time of the arrest.  A few days after the incident
Dan Wadsworth's law enforcement certifications were removed by the
Montana Public Safety Officer Standards and Training (POST)
Council for allegedly falsifying Trevor's application to the
Montana Law Enforcement Academy.

The lawsuit claims as many as 100 people may have been victim of
illegal arrest by officers who were not properly trained or
certified.  It seeks punitive damages in the case, which are
capped at $10 million.

In June questions arose about whether or not the Montana Municipal
Interlocal Authority would cover the cost of the lawsuit because
the insurance company noted in its August 2013 board meeting that
the City of Ronan had been notified that problems presented by Dan
Wadsworth might result in loss of coverage.

Though the company will cover the attorney's fees for the city,
O'Rourke Mullins noted that the City of Ronan is only defending
some of the defendants in the case.

"I answered on behalf of Kim (Aipperspach) individually because he
was the mayor and is still the mayor," O'Rourke Mullins said.  "I
had the authority to do that and from the research I've done so
far he was acting under the scope of his duties as mayor.  I did
not answer for Dan Wadsworth or Trevor Wadsworth, or appear for
them in any way because I had no authority to do that."


ROSBOROUGH PARTNERS: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cipriano Rea-Vara on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Rosborough Partners,
Inc., Philip A. Rosborough, individually and Barbara Rosborough,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05859 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Rosborough Partners, Inc. is engaged in landscaping business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. State Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org

         - and -

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


ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND: October 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
By Order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on
July 30 disclosed that a settlement has been reached in a class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit, New Jersey Carpenters
Vacation Fund, et al. v. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, et
al., Civ. No. 08-5093-LAP, asserts claims against The Royal Bank
of Scotland Group, plc, RBS Financial Products Inc. f/k/a
Greenwich Capital Financial Products, Inc., RBS Acceptance Inc.
f/k/a Greenwich Capital Acceptance, Inc., RBS Securities Inc.
f/k/a Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc. d/b/a RBS Greenwich Capital,
and RBS Holdings USA Inc. f/k/a Greenwich Capital Holdings Inc.,
Robert J. McGinnis, Carol P. Mathis, Joseph N. Walsh, III, John C.
Anderson and James M. Esposito (collectively, the "Defendants"),
relating to certain mortgage-backed securities (the "Litigation").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED (i) of the pendency of this action on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired, at any time, interest in any certificate in any of the
following Harborview Mortgage Loan Trusts: Harborview Mortgage
Loan Trust, Series ("Harborview") 2006-4, Harborview 2006-5,
Harborview 2006-6, Harborview 2006-7, Harborview 2006-8,
Harborview 2006-9, Harborview 2006-10, Harborview 2006-11,
Harborview 2006-12, Harborview 2006-14, Harborview 2007-1,
Harborview 2007-2, Harborview 2007-5 and Harborview 2007-7 (the
"Settlement Class") except for certain persons or entities who are
excluded from the Settlement Class by definition; and that a
proposed settlement has been reached in this Litigation.  A
hearing will be held with respect to the settlement on October 28,
2014, at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 12A, New York, New York.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things,
(i) whether the proposed settlement of the claims asserted in this
Litigation, pursuant to which Defendants will cause to be
deposited the sum of two hundred and seventy-five million U.S.
dollars ($275,000,000.00) into a settlement fund in exchange
(among other things) for the dismissal of the Litigation and a
release of claims against the Defendants and other related persons
and entities, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, (ii)
whether the Court should certify the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only; (iii) whether the Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice as against the Settlement Class; (iv)
whether the Court should enter a bar order prohibiting members of
the Settlement Class from pursuing or commencing any action
against the Defendants or other related persons or entities with
respect to the Released Claims; (v) whether the proposed plan of
allocation of the settlement fund is fair and reasonable and
should be approved; and (vi) whether the application of Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the Litigation is reasonable and should be
approved.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired certificates in the trusts
listed above, you may be entitled to share in the distribution of
the settlement fund if you submit a claim form postmarked no later
than November 14, 2014, establishing that you are entitled to a
recovery.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you have the right to
object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or the
request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting no later
than October 14, 2014, a written objection in accordance with the
procedures described in a more detailed notice that has been
mailed to persons or entities known to be potential members of the
Settlement Class, and that is available at
www.HarborviewMBSSettlement.com

You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class by submitting no later than September 30, 2014, a written
request for exclusion from the Settlement Class in accordance with
the procedures described in the more detailed notice.  If the
settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the
settlement and the Court's final order and judgment, including the
releases provided for in the final order and judgment, unless you
submit a request to be excluded.

This notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the
Litigation and the settlement.  A detailed notice describing the
Litigation, the proposed settlement, and the rights of members of
the Settlement Class to appear in Court at the Final Approval
Hearing, to request to be excluded from the Settlement Class
and/or to object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or
the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses has been mailed to persons or entities known to be
potential Settlement Class Members.  You may obtain a copy of this
notice, a proof of claim form, or other information by writing to
the following address or calling the following telephone number.

Harborview MBS Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 43253
Providence, RI 02940-3253
Toll Free: (866) 893-8437
info@HarborviewMBSSettlement.com

or by downloading the forms from www.HarborviewMBSSettlement.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed
notice referenced above and a proof of claim form, may be made to
plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC

Joel P. Laitman, Esq.
Christopher Lometti, Esq.
Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
88 Pine Street, 14 Fourteenth Floor
New York, N.Y. 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Email: jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com
       clometti@cohenmilstein.com
       meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

Steven J. Toll, Esq.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500, West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail:  stoll@cohenmilstein.com

By Order of the Clerk of the Court United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York


SECURITY LIFE: Court Dismisses "Ackley" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez dismissed a third amended
complaint in the class action captioned ANDREW NATHAN ACKLEY,
Plaintiff, v. SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a
Minnesota Corporation, and SECURITY AMERICAN FINANCIAL
ENTERPRISES, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, Defendants, CASE NO.
C13-432-RSM, (W.D. Wash.).

In his complaint, Mr. Ackley brings claims on behalf of himself
and other Washington residents who purchased dental insurance
plans from SLICA between 2009 and 2012. He alleges that SLICA sold
dental insurance policies that were not filed lawfully with the
Washington State Office of Insurance Commissioner (OIC), and that
the policies were not approved for sale within the state. Mr.
Ackley has filed four iterations of his complaint. He filed the
first Class Action Complaint on February 4, 2013, the First
Amended Class Action Complaint on March 26, 2013, the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint on March 26, 2013, and finally, the
Third Amended Class Action Complaint on September 30, 2013. SLICA
asked the Court to dismiss the the Third Amended Class Action
Complaint.

"Having had four opportunities to state a cognizable claim for
relief, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is
warranted," ruled Judge Martinez. "The Court has broad discretion
to refuse leave to amend where it has already given a plaintiff an
opportunity to remedy a defective complaint. . . . Neither the TAC
nor Ackley's responsive briefing indicates that a fifth
opportunity to amend would remedy the defects noted by the Court
in both the prior and current Orders."

A copy of Judge Martinez's July 31, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/DYkWfOfrom Leagle.com.

Andrew Nathan Ackley, Plaintiff, represented by Courtney K.
Ackley, ACKLEY LAW GROUP, PLLC & Thomas Charles Bierlein --
tom@bierleinlaw.com -- The Bierlein Law Office, P.S.

Security Life Insurance Company of America, Defendant, represented
by Carolyn Diana Robbs -- carolyn.bilanko@bgllp.com -- BRACEWELL &
GIULIANI LLP & Curt Roy Hineline -- curt.hineline@bgllp.com --
BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Bares Updates on Suits Related to Stanford Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company provides updates on six lawsuits filed
against it in Louisiana over role of SEI Private Trust Company in
providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company,
according to SEI's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

Five lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for
the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. One of the
five actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and
also names SPTC as a defendant and, was certified as a class in
December 2012. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a
defendant. All five actions name various defendants in addition to
SEI, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a
cause of action against SEI and SPTC under the Louisiana
Securities Act. The class action originally included a claim
against SEI and SPTC for an alleged violation of the Louisiana
Unfair Trade Practices Act. Two of the other five actions include
claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and
possibly conspiracy.

In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the
23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of
Louisiana, against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting
claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the
Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and
conspiracy. The underlying allegations in all the actions are
purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office
services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions allege that SEI
and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale
of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International
Bank.

Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge were removed to
federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. On August 31, 2011, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order
and judgment that the causes of action alleged against SEI in the
two removed actions were preempted by federal law and the court
dismissed these cases with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed this
ruling, and on March 19, 2012, a panel of the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States
District Court and remanded the actions for further proceedings.
On July 18, 2012, SEI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision by
the United States Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit to permit
the claims against SEI to proceed. SEI believes that the trial
court correctly concluded that the claims against SEI were barred
by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and
requested that the Supreme Court reinstate that dismissal. On
January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a
writ of certiorari. On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court heard
oral argument on the appeal and on February 26, 2014 the Supreme
Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The case filed in Ascension was also removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to
that complaint has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in the
remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC
an extension to respond to the filings. SEI and SPTC filed
exceptions in the class action pending in East Baton Rouge, which
the Court granted in part and dismissed the claims under the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied in part as to the
other exceptions.

SEI and SPTC filed an answer to the East Baton Rouge class action,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and SEI and
SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment against certain
named plaintiffs which the Court stated would not be set for
hearing until after the hearing on the class certification motion.
The Court in the East Baton Rouge action held a hearing on class
certification on September 20, 2012. By oral decision on December
5, 2012 and later entered in a judgment signed on December 17,
2012 that was subsequently amended, the Court in East Baton Rouge
certified a class to be composed of persons who purchased any
Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009; persons
who renewed any SIB CD in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009; or any person for whom the Stanford Trust
Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009.

On January 30, 2013, SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from
the judgments that stated SEI's and SPTC's intention to move to
stay the litigation. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
motion for Leave to File First Amended and Restated Class Action
Petition in which they ask the Court to allow them to amend the
petition in this case to add additional facts that were developed
during discovery and adding claims against certain of SEI's
insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of
the motions for appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On
February 15, 2013, SEI filed a motion for new trial, or, in the
alternative, for reconsideration of the Court's order allowing
amendment. On February 22, 2013, SEI filed a motion to stay
proceedings in view of the pending Supreme Court case. On February
28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class
Action Petition by filing an exception. On March 11, 2013, the
insurance carrier defendants filed a notice of removal removing
the case to the Middle District of Louisiana and on March 18,
2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed answers.

On March 13, 2013, SEI notified the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-
along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand, a motion for expedited briefing schedule, expedited status
conference and expedited consideration of their motion to remand,
a motion for leave to file under seal and a motion for order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(b) requiring removing defendants to
supplement federal court record with certified copy of state court
record. These motions are now fully briefed. On March 25, 2013,
SEI filed a motion that the court decline to adopt the state
court's order regarding class certification, which the court
dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of
removal jurisdiction in an April 12, 2013 order that also
dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and improper venue filed on April 9, 2013 by one of
the insurers.

On April 1, 2013, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions
(OFI) filed a motion to remand and sever claims, and a response to
that motion by the insurers and opposition to that motion by the
plaintiffs were filed on April 22, 2013. Along with the briefing
in the Middle District of Louisiana, on March 13, 2013, SEI
notified the MDL of this case as a potential tag-along action. On
March 19, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL that they had filed a
motion to remand and asked the panel to decline to issue a
conditional transfer order.

On March 29, 2013, the MDL issued a conditional transfer order
(CTO). On April 18, 2013, OFI filed a motion to vacate the CTO or,
in the alternative, stay any ruling to transfer the matter until
after the Middle District of Louisiana ruled on OFI's motion to
remand and sever. Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the CTO on
April 19, 2013. SEI's responses to those motions were filed on May
9, 2013. On June 12, 2013, the MDL Panel issued an order notifying
the parties that on July 25, 2013, it would consider, without oral
argument, Plaintiffs' and OFI's motions to vacate the CTO. On
August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel affirmed the CTO and transferred the
matter against SEI to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas; the MDL Panel also severed the claims
against OFI and remanded those claims to the Middle District of
Louisiana. On September 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion
requesting a status conference with the Court to address the
status of all pending motions. On October 4, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review the MDL Panel's
transfer Order and on February 14, 2014, the Court denied the
petition.


SHERIDAN LABS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Deceptive Billing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorri Fishman and Kristine Lowry-Deturk individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sheridan Labs, Inc. and
Phoenix Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05793 (N.D. Ill., July 29,
2014), arises from the Defendants' design and use of deceptive and
misleading marketing practices intending to trick and cause
consumers, such as Plaintiffs and the Class, to unknowingly and
automatically enroll in unauthorized membership or subscription
programs whereby Defendants charged and continued to charge
consumers' credit cards without their knowledge, information, or
consent.

Sheridan Labs, Inc. is a Nevada corporation and health and medical
product manufacturer with its principal place of business at 14953
S Heritage crest Way Ste C, Bluffdale, Utah.

Phoenix Labs Inc. is a corporation with its principal place of
business at 2551 East Ave S. Suite G100 Palmdale, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
      211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      Facsimile: (973) 877-3845
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com


SISTERS OF CHARITY: Sued in D. Kansas Over Violation of ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Geiger and Michelle Hunget v. Sisters of Charity of
Leavenworth Health System, Inc., Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth
Health System Separation Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of the
Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Separation Benefit
Plan, Prime HealthCare Services, Inc., Prime Healthcare Services -
Saint John Leavenworth, LLC; and Prime Healthcare Services -
Providence, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02378 (D. Kan., July 30, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc. is a faith-
based, nonprofit health care organization operating 11 hospitals,
four safety net clinics, one children's mental health treatment
center, and other health care facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler Peters,Esq
      James J. Cramer, Esq.
      PAYNE & JONES, CHARTERED
      11000 King Street
      Overland Park, KS 66210-1286
      Telephone: (913) 469-4100
      Facsimile: (913) 469-8182
      E-mail: tpeters@paynejones.com
              jcramer@paynejones.com


SOGRO INC: Motion to Dismiss "Velasco" Class Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge C.N. Clevert, Jr., denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned ANGELA VELASCO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOGRO, INC., d/b/a Budget
Host Diplomat Motel, Defendant, CASE NO. 08-C-0244, (E.D. Wis.)

Previously, the court denied cross-motions for summary judgment
and the case appeared ready for trial. However, the named class
representative's unwillingness to further prosecute the case has
delayed matters. Before the court were three motions related to
substitution of the initial plaintiff. Briefing on five motions in
limine was stayed pending resolution of these motions.

In his order dated July 29, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/pC3d03from Leagle.com, Judge Clevert denied Sogro's
motion to dismiss, motion for sanctions, and motion to decertify.
Sogro's motions in limine are granted as to motions 1, 2, 4, and 5
and denied as to motions 3 and 6.

A telephonic hearing on Velasco's motions in limine and to set
further proceedings is scheduled for September 3, 2014, at 3:00
p.m., Judge Celvert held.  The court will place the call.

Any reply briefs regarding remaining motions in limine must be
filed no later than August 27, 2014.

Angela Velasco, Plaintiff, represented by Allison A Krumhorn --
allison@caclawyers.com -- The Consumer Advocacy Center PC, Lance A
Raphael -- Lance@caclawyers.com -- The Consumer
Advocacy Center PC & Stacy M Bardo, The Consumer Advocacy Center
PC.

Sogro Inc, Defendant, represented by David O Yuen, Brown Udell &
Pomerantz Ltd & James K Borcia -- jborcia@tresslerllp.com --
Tressler LLP.


SONY COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over Blurry Graphics of Killzone Game
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Ladore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 3:14-cv-03530-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
August 5, 2014) arises from the alleged deceptive marketing of
Sony's Killzone: Shadow Fall video game for the PlayStation 4
video game console.

After the game's release, gamers quickly noticed and complained
that Killzone's multiplayer graphics were blurry to the point of
distraction, Mr. Ladore contends.  He adds that the cause of this
blurriness went unknown until a well-respected video game Web site
reported that Killzone's multiplayer did not actually provide
"1080p" graphics as advertised.

Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability company headquartered in Foster City, California.  Sony
Computer was founded in 1994 and has become a household name in
consumer gaming technology.  Sony Computer is a wholly owned
subsidiary of non-party Sony Corporation of America, Inc., and its
California offices serve as the headquarters for all of its
parent's North American operations, including the sale and
marketing of Sony's video game software and hardware generally,
and the Killzone video game in particular.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4100
          Facsimile: (213) 947-4251
          E-mail: meisen@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
          Amir Missaghi, 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
                  bthomassen@edelson.com
                  amissaghi@edelson.com


STAPLES INC: Illegally Procure Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Mariah Roman, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Staples, Inc., a Massachusetts
Corporation, Staples The Office Superstore, LLC. a Massachusetts
Limited Liability Company, Staples The Office Superstore East,
Inc. a Massachusetts Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61731 (S.D.
Fla., July 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide proper disclosure to job applicants and employees
regarding their procurement of consumer reports about such
applicants and employees, and fails to obtain the required
authorization to obtain such consumer reports prior to doing so.

Staples, Inc. operates more than 1,500 retail stores throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Jefferey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      E-mail: NYJG@aol.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Sued in La. Over Sale of Defective Drywall
----------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo and Carmen Amorin, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The State-Owned Assets Supervision
and Administration Commission of the State Council; Taishan Gypsum
Co., Ltd. f/k/a Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd.; Tai'an
Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd.; Beijing New Building Materials
Public Limited Co.; China National Building Material Co., Ltd.;
Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd.; China National
Building Materials Group Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01727 (E.D.
La., July 29, 2014), alleges that the Defendants took
advantage of the American marketplace by selling defective drywall
throughout the country but then walked away from responsibility
for their products after being called to task for the injuries
they caused to thousands of American property owners.

The Defendants are foreign corporations doing business in several
States, including but not limited to, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida,
Mississippi, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia. They
manufactured, sold, distributed, marketed and placed within the
stream of commerce gypsum drywall.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
      Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
      Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
      HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
      820 O'Keefe Avenue
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 581-4892
      E-mail: ldavis@hhklawfirm.com

         - and -

      Arnold Levin, Esq.
      Fred S. Longer, Esq.
      Matthew C. Gaughan, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
      E-mail: Alevin@lfsblaw.com

        - and -

      Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
      BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
      701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
      New Orleans, LA 70139
      Telephone: (504) 524-3300
      Facsimile: (504) 524-3313
      E-mail: Barrios@bkc-law.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq.
      BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
      425 W. Airline Highway, Suite B
      Laplace, LA 70068
      Telephone: (985) 536-1186
      Facsimile: (985) 536-6445
      E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com

         - and -

      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 Flagler Street, 8th Floor
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com

         - and -

      Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
      STECKLER, LLP
      12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (972) 387-4040
      Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
      E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com

         - and -

      Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq.
      COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON
      255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
      Cora Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 476-7400
      Facsimile: (305) 476-7444

         - and -

      Ben W. Gordon Jr., Esq.
      LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL
      Echsner & Proctor, P.A.
      316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Telephone: (850) 435-7000
      Facsimile: (850) 435-7020
      E-mail: bgordon@levinlaw.com

         - and -

      Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
      LAMBERT AND NELSON
      701 Magazine Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 581-1750
      Facsimile: (504) 529-2931
      E-mail: hlambert@lambertandnelson.com

         - and -

      Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
      GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & WARSHAUER, LLC
      2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street
      New Orleans, LA 70163-2800
      Telephone: (504) 522-2304
      Facsimile: (504) 528-9973
      E-mail: gmeunier@gainsben.com

         - and -

      Jerrold Seth Parker, Esq.
      PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP
      3301 Bonita Beach Road
      Bonita Springs, FL 34134
      Telephone: (239) 390-1000
      Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
      E-mail: Jerry@yourlawyer.com

         - and -

      Scott Wm. Weinstein, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      12800 University Drive, Suite 600
      Ft. Meyers, FL 33907
      Telephone: (239) 433-6880
      Facsimile: (239) 433-6836
      E-mail sweinstein@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      James Robert Reeves, Esq.
      Reeves & Mestayer, PLLC
      160 Main Street
      Biloxi, MS 39530
      Telephone: (228) 374-5151
      Facsimile: (228) 374-6630
      E-mail: jrr@attorneys4people.com

         - and -

      Christopher Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS, LLP
      77 Water Street
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
      E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

         - and -

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Telephone: (919) 600-5000
      Facsimile: (919) 600-5002
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Richard J. Serpe, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SERPE
      Crown Center, Ste. 310
      580 East Main Street
      Norfolk, VA 23510-2322
      Telephone: (757) 233-0009
      Facsimile: (757) 233-0455
      E-mail: rserpe@serpefirm.com

         - and -

      Victor M. Diaz, Jr., Esq.
      V.M. DIAZ AND PARTNERS, LLC
      119 Washington Ave, Suite 402
      Miami Beach, FL 33139
      Telephone: (305) 704-3200
      Facsimile: (305) 538-4928
      E-mail: victor@diazpartners.com

         - and -

      Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street, N.W, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
      LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
      P.O. Box 904, 15058 River Road
      Hahnville, LA 70057
      Telephone: (985) 783-6789
      Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
      E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
      IRPINO LAW FIRM
      2216 Magazine Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 525-1500
      Facsimile: (504) 525-1501
      E-mail: airpino@irpinolaw.com


TARSADIA HOTEL: Court Awards Atty. Fees in Investors' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
TAMER SALAMEH, an individual, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TARSADIA
HOTEL, a California Corporation, et. al., Defendants, CASE NO.
09CV2739-GPC(BLM), (S.D. Cal.), is a putative class action filed
by investors in the Hard Rock Hotel San Diego against Tarsadia
Defendants and others. The complaint alleges violations of federal
and state securities laws and fraud based on misrepresentation and
fraud by concealment against numerous defendants involved in the
development of the Hard Rock.

On March 25, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Tarsadia Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs; and
denied Defendant Playground Destination Properties, Inc.'s motion
for attorneys' fees.  Specifically, the Court granted Defendants
5th Rock, LLC and MKP One, LLC's motion for attorneys' fees on the
fraud causes of action based on the attorneys' fee provisions in a
Purchase Contract, and denied the remaining Tarsadia Defendants'
request for attorneys' fees on the federal and state securities
causes of action based on the so-called RMA and UMA. The Court
also denied Defendant Playground's motion for attorneys' fees
based on Section 11(e) of the Securities Act of 1933.

In the order, the Court ordered supplemental documentary evidence
to determine what part of the attorneys' fees incurred in this
case are attributable to the litigation arising out of the fraud
causes of action under the Purchase Contract between the
signatories. Defendants filed their supplemental response on April
11, 2014. Plaintiffs filed their supplemental response on April
25, 2014.

In a supplemental order dated July 31, 2014, District Judge
attorneys' fees and costs, and awarded Defendants 5th Rock and MKP
One, LLC attorneys' fees in the amount of $405,371.25 which breaks
down to $358,490.00 for work performed from December 14, 2009
through February 28, 2011, and $46,881.25 for attorneys' fees in
connection with the instant request for attorneys' fees and for
work performed in March and April 2011, November 2013 and March
2014.

A copy of Judge Curiel's ruling is available at
http://is.gd/UoQQJ7from Leagle.com.

Tamar Salameh, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

Real Estate 4 Hospitality, LLC, a California limited liability
company; individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

Mary L Wee Song, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Dolores Green, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

Mikael Havluciyan, individually and as Co-Trustee of the
Havluciyan Family Trust; individually and on behalf of a Class of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Mitchell J Pereira, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Denis B Rothe, Jr, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Sadoux Kim, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.
Kerry L Steigerwalt, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Gary A Torretta, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Therese Havluciyan, individually and as Co-Trustee of the
Havluciyan Family Trust; individually and on behalf of a Class of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Barbara L Lubin, individually and as Co-Trustee of the Lubin
Family Trust Dated March 26, 2002; individually and on behalf of a
Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP.

Jeffrey E Lubin, individually and as Co-trustee of the Lubin
Family Trust Dated March 26, 2002; individually and on behalf of a
Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP.

Aleksey Kats, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

Tazia Reyna, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

Stuart M Wolman, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Christy Jeske, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

Beth Steigerwalt, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Dale Curtis, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

Robert Alvarenga, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Diana Kats, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

David R Bushy, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

Charlene Schrufer, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Zondra Schmidt, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C
Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre &
Severson, LLP.

Cesar Mota, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

Alexis Cosio, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson,
Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson,
LLP.

Virginia Gallanosa, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J
Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and
Severson, LLP.

Joey Clement, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson,
LLP.

Kevin Henry, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson,
LLP.

Andrew Paul, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson,
LLP.

Vito Micale, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson,
LLP.

Phillip Gutirrez, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J
Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and
Severson, LLP.

Barbara Behrle, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J
Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and
Severson, LLP.

Danon Slinkard, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J
Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and
Severson, LLP.

Steven Paul, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson,
LLP.

Thomas Behrle, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson,
LLP.

Kim Henry, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson,
LLP.

Jose Gallanosa, individually and on behalf of a Class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J
Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and
Severson, LLP.

Sylvia Hoerr, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson,
LLP.

Matthew Hoerr, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre,
Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson,
LLP.

Tarsadia Hotel, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan
Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox
Castle & Nicholson.

Tushar Patel, an individual, Defendant, represented by Frederick H
Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan Saville Kitchen,
Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox Castle & Nicholson.

B.U. Patel, an individual, Defendant, represented by Frederick H
Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan Saville Kitchen,
Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox Castle & Nicholson.

Gregory Casserly, an individual, Defendant, represented by
Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan
Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox
Castle & Nicholson.

5th Rock LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP,
Jonathan Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo,
Cox Castle & Nicholson.

MPK One, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP,
Jonathan Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo,
Cox Castle & Nicholson.

Playground Destination Properties, a corporation, Defendant,
represented by Daniel M. Benjamin, Ballard Spahr, LLP & Thomas W
McNamara, Ballard Spahr LLP.

East West Bank, a California corporation, Defendant, represented
by John Nadolenco, Mayer Brown LLP & Christopher Paul Murphy,
Mayer Brown LLP.

Gaslamp Holdings, LLC, a California limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle &
Nicholson LLP, Jonathan Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson &
Lynn T Galuppo, Cox Castle & Nicholson.

Bank Of America, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Edward M. Rosenfeld, Bryan Cave LLP & Benjamin J.B. Allen, Bryan
Cave LLP.

JP Morgan Chase, Defendant, represented by Sung-Min Christopher
Yoo, AlvaradoSmith, APC.

XBR Financial Services, LLC, a California limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer A. Needs, Samuels,
Green & Steel, LLP, Philip Wilton Green, Samuels Green & Steel LLP
& Scott R. Albrecht, Samuels Green and Steel LLP.

Erskine Corp, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Gregory J. Borman, Smaha Law Group & John L Smaha, Smaha Law
Group.

Independent Bank Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Defendant,
represented by Christopher Ray Ambrose, Ambrose Law Group LLC.

Wintrust Financial Corporation, an Illinois corporation,
Defendant, represented by Christopher Craighead Bridwell, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Spyglass Partners, Inc., Third Party, ThirdParty Plaintiff, Pro
Se.


TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Zenebe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Workou Zenebe, individually and no behalf of persons similarly
situated v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-22811 (S.D.
Fla., July 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The TJX Companies, Inc. is an American apparel and home goods
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin Eric Leach, Esq.
      FEILER & LEACH
      901 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Penthouse
      Coral Gables, FL 33134-3009
      Telephone: (305) 441-8818
      Facsimile: (305) 441-8081
      E-mail: mel@flmlegal.com


TRANSNET: High Court Reserves Judgment in Pensioners' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Enca reports that the High Court in Pretoria on July 29 reserved
judgment in an application by two Transnet pensioners to sanction
the institution of a R80-billion class action against the
parastatal and their pension funds.

Judgment was expected last week after Judge Ephraim Makgoba
reserved judgment in the application by Johan Pretorius and Johan
Kruger, who want to launch a class action on behalf of Transnet's
62,000 impoverished pensioners in an attempt to recover close to
R80 billion in assets and interest.

He said it was not an easy matter to deal with, but undertook to
deliver judgment before Aug. 8.

The group has accused Transnet of stripping the Transnet Pension
Fund and Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund (TSBF) of its assets
and mismanaging them to such an extent that the funds were unable
to meet their obligations to members.  They have also accused
Transnet of attempting to dissolve the pension fund.

Increases to pensions have been limited to two percent for close
to the past decade, reducing most of the pensioners to poverty.

The court was told that numerous pensioners only received R1 per
month.

Currently 80% of them earned less than R4,000 per month and 62%
less than R2,500 per month.

Most of them were between 70 and 90 years old and could no longer
find employment.

The vast majority of them often have to beg for the most basic
means and a number of them have committed suicide as a direct
result of finding themselves unable to live with dignity.

About 30% of the Transnet pensioners are black.

In 2001, Transnet exchanged government bonds worth R7.7 billion
which earned the fund R1.2 billion in interest per year for shares
in M-Cell which earned no dividends.

The shares were sold in 2006 at a loss to TSBF of over R5.4
billion.

R800 million in surplus funds, created by the reduction of member
benefits, were also paid over to Transnet in 2000.

The pension fund, Transnet and the ministers of finance and public
enterprises have opposed the application, which they dismissed as
being bad in law, of no substance and a waste of time, effort and
money.

Counsel for the public enterprises minister argued that the board
of trustees of the funds were in a better position to claim on
behalf of its members and that the pensioners had not yet
exhausted all of their internal remedies.

Advocate Jaap Cilliers SC, who represents the pensioners, said the
"heart" of the case was that Transnet managed and controlled the
fund.

Transnet appointed four of the trustees and the chairman of the
Board while the pensioners only appointed two trustees.

"It is clear who controls this fund.  Transnet controls it and
then siphons off its assets so that it cannot meet its
obligations," he said.

The fund did not fall under the Pension Fund Act and the board of
trustees failed to vote in favor of allowing the Act to apply,
thereby excluding these poor elderly people of the privileges and
rights they would have had under the Act, he said.

"Some of their members receive R1 per month to live on after
working for Transnet for a lifetime.

"Yet instead of spending the little they have to help these poor
pensioners, they spend hundreds of thousands of rands on legal
costs to oppose the application.

"Should the court now exclude these poor elderly people from
approaching the court? If that is what the interest of justice
demands I will be surprised," Mr. Cilliers said.


TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Court Allows "Roppo" to File Amended Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edmond E. Chang dismissed a motion to dismiss the
case captioned SABRINA ROPPO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Travelers Insurance Company,
Defendant, NO. 13 C 05569, (N.D. Ill.).

The action stems from a personal-injury suit filed by Plaintiff
Sabrina Roppo, which is currently pending in Lake County,
Illinois. The alleged tortfeasor in that suit is insured by the
Defendant, Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, which is
providing a defense. In this now-federal lawsuit, Ms. Roppo
contends that Travelers intentionally concealed the alleged
tortfeasor's policy limits by failing to disclose an excess
umbrella policy for three months. Ms. Roppo sought to certify a
class of "all Illinois persons who made a personal injury motor
vehicle claims [sic] for accidents occurring after August 12, 1988
and had the Travelers Insurance Company misrepresent and conceal
the actual policy limits of tortfeasor by not disclosing the
excess or umbrella policy," asserting causes of action for (1)
fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation of the policy limits
and (2) an implied private right of action for violation of 215
ILCS 5/143.24b).  Travelers filed a Notice of Removal of this
action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, asserting
that Ms. Roppo's action was removable under the Class Action
Fairness Act.  After removing the case to federal court, Travelers
moved to dismiss Ms. Roppo's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). For her part, Ms. Roppo moved to amend her
complaint to add several local defendants (local as in they are
Illinois citizens), and moved to remand, asserting that this Court
does not properly have jurisdiction under CAFA. Ms. Roppo also
requested that if the Court determines that Travelers has met its
threshold burden for establishing subject matter jurisdiction
under CAFA, then she wants permission to amend her complaint and
to take limited discovery to resolve factual issues raised by her
motion to remand.

In his memorandum opinion and order dated August 1, 2014, a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/5Z2Cinfrom Leagle.com,
Judge Chang granted Ms. Roppo's Motion to Amend because it is
early in the litigation.  Travelers' Motion to Dismiss was
terminated as moot.

"But the Court does conclude that, even with the amended
complaint, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA,
so Roppo's Motion to Remand is denied," Judge Chang said.
"Finally, the Court does not permit Roppo additional discovery:
Roppo has failed to show that the relevant exceptions, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(3) or 1332(d)(4), to CAFA jurisdiction are
applicable, or that additional discovery is necessary to determine
whether one of those CAFA exceptions applies."

Sabrina Roppo, Plaintiff, represented by Gene K. Moskowitz, Gene
Moskowitz and Associates, Limited & Kent D. Sinson, Sinson Law
Group, LLC.

Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey P. Lennard -- jeffrey.lennard@dentons.com -- Dentons US
LLP, Mark L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP
& Tiffany L. Amlot -- tiffany.amlot@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.


TRI TECH HOLDING: Faces Amended Securities Complaint in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Tri-Tech Holding Inc. is facing an Amended Complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York for
violating the Federal Securities Laws, according to the company's
July 23, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2014.

The case of Joy Singh, Individually and on Behalf of Herself and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Tri-Tech Holding Inc., 13-CV-
9031-KMW, was filed on or about December 20, 2013, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint for violating the Federal Securities Laws in this
putative class action generally alleges that the Company made
false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's allegedly deficient
disclosure and internal controls. The Complaint alleges that, when
the market learned of the deficient disclosure and internal
controls, the price of the Company's stock fell and trading was
halted by the NASDAQ, causing substantial damage to class members.

On behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
purchased the Company's common stock between March 26, 2012 and
December 12, 2013, the Complaint claims violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The Complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount on behalf of the putative class, as well as
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
fees.

On March 14, 2014, the Court appointed two groups of plaintiffs --
the "Tri-Tech Group" and the "Baker Group" -- as Lead Plaintiffs
pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, without prejudice to the Company's right to challenge the
adequacy, typicality, or ability of Lead Plaintiffs to represent
the absent class members or the propriety of this case being
certified as a class action.  The Court appointed the Rosen Law
Firm P.A. and Gainey McKenna & Egelston as Lead Counsel for all
plaintiffs and the putative class.

On June 3, 2014, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
for violating the Federal Securities Laws.  The Amended Complaint
generally alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements in that it lacked internal controls and improperly
consolidated and included the financial results of the Company's
affiliates even though the Company allegedly did not control these
affiliates.  The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company
and ten of the Company's current or former directors and officers.

The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of
all persons and entities who purchased the Company's securities
between March 26, 2012 and December 12, 2013, and seeks
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the
putative class, as well as reasonable costs and expenses,
including legal fees and expert fees.  It asserts claims for (i)
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) "controlling person"
liability against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The deadline for the Company to move against or
answer the Amended Complaint is August 4, 2014.


TRULAND SYSTEMS: Union Workers Mull Class Action Over Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
WJLA, citing ABC7 News, reports that union workers at the now-
defunct Truland Systems have consulted lawyers about pursuing a
possible class-action lawsuit against their former employer.

The key basis for that suit is a July 18 e-mail sent from
Truland's president to employees -- just three days before the
huge electrical contractor abruptly closed its' doors -- assuring
them the company's finances were fine even though it was behind on
its' payroll.

Rob Trulan also promised in the note that "cash collections for
the coming weeks are sufficient to cover payroll."

As of July 30, some members of Local 26 of the Electrician's Union
said they still hadn't been paid for weeks of work prior to
Truland's shutdown.

Bankruptcy petitions filed involving Reston-based Truland Systems
are currently pending in D.C. federal court.


UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Dismisses Tomz From Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES J. FITZPATRICK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNI-PIXEL, INC., REED KILLION,
and JEFFREY W. TOMZ, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-1649, (S.D.
Tex.) alleges violations of 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j (b),
78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, during a proposed class period beginning on December 7,
2012, and ending on May 31, 2013. Pending before the court is
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action
Complaint, and Lead plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action complaint
which includes a request for leave to amend.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated July 25, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/CXIBLmfrom Leagle.com,
District Judge Sim Lake granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs have stated claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j (b), 78t(a) and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5,
against defendants Uni-Pixel and Reed J. Killion arising from
false and misleading forecasts regarding manufacturing capacity
and commercial release of UniBoss attributed to Killion in a Uni-
Pixel Press Release issued on February 26, 2013, and made by
Killion in response to questions posed during an analyst
conference call held on February 26, 2013, but that plaintiffs
have failed to state claims for which relief may be granted
against any defendant arising from other statements alleged to be
false and misleading.

The claims asserted against defendant Jeffrey w. Tomz are
dismissed with prejudice, Judge Sim added.

Charles J. Fitzpatrick, Plaintiff, represented by Tamar A. Weinrib
-- taweinrib@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom,
Sara E. Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A. & Sammy Ford, IV -- sford@abrahamwatkins.com -- Abraham
Watkins Nichols Sorrels Agosto & Friend.

Ravi Shapira, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Robin Bronzaft
Howald -- rhowald@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP,
Tamar A. Weinrib -- taweinrib@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman
Hufford Dahlstrom, Ronald Dean Gresham -- dean@paynemitchell.com -
- Payne Mitchell Law Group & Sammy Ford, IV --
sford@abrahamwatkins.com -- Abraham Watkins Nichols Sorrels Agosto
& Friend.

Danee Thannoo, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Lionel Z Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP, Marc I Gross
-- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom &
Gross, Patrick V Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
Grossman, Robin Bronzaft Howald -- rhowald@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Binkow Goldberg LLP, Tamar A. Weinrib -- taweinrib@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Sammy Ford, IV --
sford@abrahamwatkins.com -- Abraham Watkins Nichols Sorrels Agosto
& Friend.

Uni-Pixel, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael John Biles --
mbiles@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Paul R Bessette --
pbessette@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP & Yusuf Ahmad Bajwa --
ybajwa@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP.

Reed J. Killion, Defendant, represented by Michael John Biles,
King & Spalding LLP, Paul R Bessette, King & Spalding LLP & Yusuf
Ahmad Bajwa, King & Spalding LLP.


UNILEVER NV: Deal Reached in Keratin Smoothing Kit Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a settlement
has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Suave for its
Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit in the amount of $10.25
million.

"After more than a year and a half of arm's length and hard fought
negotiations and two separate mediation sessions conducted with
the assistance of Hon. Wayne R. Andersen (Ret.), the parties
entered into a settlement agreement on February 7, 2014," the
June 11 motion for final approval of settlement states.

In exchange for dismissal of the three pending putative class
actions and the releases, the defendants -- which include Unilever
United States Inc., LEK Inc., and Conopco Inc. -- have agreed to
provide $10.25 million to Dahl Administration LLC for the
establishment of two separate settlement funds, consisting of a
reimbursement fund of $250,000 and an injury fund of $10 million.

The reimbursement fund will be available to any member of the
settlement class who is seeking compensation, in the form of a
one-time payment of $10 per person, for the purchase of the
smoothing kit.

The injury fund will seek to compensate any member of the defined
settlement class who suffered bodily injury to his or her scalp as
a result of using the smoothing kit, and did not timely request
exclusion from the settlement class, according to the settlement.

Class members who suffered smoothing kit injuries may submit a
claim for reimbursement ranging from $40 to $25,000, depending on
the extent of their injuries and proof of their treatment
expenses.

The named plaintiff, Sidney Reid, will receive a $10,000 incentive
award and named plaintiffs Alisha Barnett, Dawn Damrow and
Fran Pennel will receive incentive awards of $7,500 each.

Class counsel has requested attorneys' fees in the amount of
one-third of the total common fund made available to class
members.

The lawsuit was first filed in August 2012 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after class members
claims the defendants' smoothing kit caused them to suffer hair
loss and/or scalp injuries.

The plaintiffs claimed Unilever made false and misleading
statements about the safety of the Suave Professionals Keratin
Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which was recalled in May 2012.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lori A. Fanning and Andrew Szot
of Miller Law LLC; Peter Safirstein and Elizabeth S. Metcalf --
emetcalf@forthepeople.com -- of Morgan & Morgan PC; Christopher S.
Polaszek -- cpolaszek@forthepeople.com -- of Morgan & Morgan PA;
and Jana Eisinger of the Law Office of Jana Eisinger PLLC.

The defendants are represented by Sondra A. Hemeryck and Paul J.
Morency of Schiff Hardin LLP.

The case was assigned to District Judge Ruben Castillo.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case
number: 1:12-cv-06058


UNITIL CORP: Fitchburg Customers Appeal Denial of Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is yet to decide whether
to allow a lawsuit against Unitil Corporation's Massachusetts
based utility, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, to
proceed as a class action, according to Unitil's July 23, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil Corporation's (the "Company") Massachusetts based utility,
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), in
Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned
Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The
Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the
cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional
and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December, 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 ice storm. On September 4, 2009, the Court
issued its order on the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint,
granting it in part and denying it in part. Following several
years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion
with the Court to certify the case as a class action. On January
7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs' motion
to certify the case as a class action. As a result of this
decision, the lawsuit would now proceed with only the twelve named
plaintiffs seeking damages; however, the plaintiffs have appealed
this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the
"SJC"). The SJC accepted the matter for review, briefs have been
submitted and oral arguments have been held. The decision of the
SJC is pending. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate
action in Massachusetts Worcester County Superior Court arising
out of the December 2008 ice storm. The parties to this action
have agreed to put this matter on hold pending the decision of the
SJC in Bellermann.


VALIANT INSURANCE: Obtains Summary Judgment in "Bowman" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, P.C. sued its malpractice
insurer, Valiant Insurance Company, claiming that it has failed to
provide coverage in a dispute involving bankruptcy litigation
pending in the Middle District of Florida. Bowman Heintz seeks
damages associated with defending itself in the Florida bankruptcy
litigation, attempting to resolve and settle the Florida
bankruptcy litigation, punitive damages for failing to defend
Bowman Heintz, as well as a declaratory judgment that Valiant is
in default under the insurance policy for a failure to defend.

Valiant responded with a counterclaim of its own, seeking a
declaratory judgment that Bowman Heintz has not incurred damages
as defined under the policy and that Bowman Heintz has not
followed the notice provisions of the Insurance Policy.

Before the Court are Bowman Heintz's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, and Valiant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

District Judge Jon E. DeGuilio denied Bowman Heintz's motion for
summary judgment, and granted Valiant's cross-motion for summary
judgment in an opinion and order dated August 1, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/gnpG5Wfrom Leagle.com.

"There is simply no evidence whatsoever that Valiant denied
coverage, knowing that it had no legitimate basis for doing so.
. . . Valiant's denial of the claim in this case was proper on two
grounds: first, because it had insufficient notice, and second,
because sanctions were explicitly excluded as damages under the
policy," ruled Judge GeGuillo. "Accordingly, Bowman Heintz has
failed to meet its burden on this claim, and summary judgment is
appropriate in favor of Valiant."

The case is BOWMAN, HEINTZ, BOSCIA & VICIAN, P.C., Plaintiff, v.
VALIANT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13 CV 0079, (N.D.
Ind.).

The matter involves six separate lawsuits, a bankruptcy, and two
separate claims for malpractice coverage. It's a dispute about
golf courses at Fiddler's Creek, a planned residential community
in Collier County, Florida.  Bowman Heintz is the named insured
under Valiant's Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance Policy,
Policy No. INV00015580, with a policy period of May 12, 2009
through May 12, 2010. Bowman Heintz is also the named insured
under the renewal of the policy, with a policy period of May 12,
2010 to May 12, 2011.  On April 22, 2010, Bowman Heintz filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Matthew Suffoletto, Raymond David,
Steven Taub, and Stephen Shulman individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, v. Aubrey J. Ferrao, Case No.: 2:10-
CV-241-FTM-36-DNF. The lawsuit alleged that Ferrao had diverted
and misappropriated escrow monies that the plaintiffs had
deposited for memberships in the Fiddler's Creek golf club.

Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician PC, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur
C Johnson -- acj@johnsonrappa.com -- Johnson Ivancevich LLP,
Michael J Rappa, Law Office of Michael J Rappa PC, Steven A
Johnson -- saj@johnsonrappa.com -- Johnson Ivancevich LLP & Robert
E Stochel -- res@reslawyer.com -- Robert E Stochel PC.

Valiant Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Christina L
Talamonti -- talamonti@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker LLP, Courtney Olivia Wylie --
courtney.wylie@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP & Joseph J Stafford PHV --
joseph.stafford@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman
& Dicker LLP.

Valiant Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
Christina L Talamonti, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
LLP, Courtney Olivia Wylie, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP & Joseph J Stafford, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP.

Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician PC, Counter Defendant, represented
by Arthur C Johnson, Johnson Ivancevich LLP, Michael J Rappa, Law
Office of Michael J Rappa PC, Steven A Johnson, Johnson Ivancevich
LLP & Robert E Stochel, Robert E Stochel PC.


VALLEY FORGE: Judge Allows Shareholder Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on July 29 declined to dismiss a proposed
shareholder class action against aerospace technology company
Valley Forge Composite Technologies Inc. over its alleged failure
to disclose illegal exports, three months after tossing a prior
complaint due to inadequate pleading.

U.S. District Judge Michael M. Anello said the shareholders had
adequately alleged specific facts to survive the motion to dismiss
stage.

"Here, the first amended complaint includes specific and repeated
allegations regarding the misrepresentation at issue," the order
said.

Lead plaintiff Robert J. Neborsky claims Covington, Kentucky-based
Valley Forge and its co-founders Louis Brothers and Larry K.
Wilhide misled investors about the company's revenue sources to
avoid detection of allegedly illegal exports.

When Valley Forge publicly divulged that federal prosecutors had
accused it of illegally exporting military semiconductors to
Hong Kong in violation of international arms trafficking law, the
company's common stock plunged in value, the complaint alleged.

Judge Anello said in an April order dismissing the case that
Mr. Neborsky's first complaint failed to allege facts backing up
the complaint.  But the court allowed Mr. Neborsky to amend his
pleading, which survived the preliminary stage on July 29.

"The court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts
demonstrating that defendants Brothers and Valley Forge issued
material misrepresentations or omissions related to the product by
which the company generated revenue and/or by failing to disclose
the illegal exportation of semiconductors," the order said.

Mr. Brothers remains in the suit after the July 29 order, but
Judge Anello dismissed the complaint against Mr. Wilhide for
failure to state a claim.

For Mr. Brothers, the court said that the amended complaint had
adequately pled that his alleged actions were committed with the
knowledge of wrongdoing, or scienter.

"The inference that Brothers acted with scienter is cogent and at
least as compelling as the opposing inference that he acted
innocently," the order said.

According to Mr. Neborsky's complaint, Brothers represented to
investors that all the company's revenues were derived from the
sale of aerospace devices known as momentum wheels, which store
energy.  In reality, the company's revenues were largely derived
from its illegal exports of semiconductors to Hong Kong, in
violation of U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the
suit said.

On Feb. 6, Valley Forge announced in a statement that the U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky was investigating
the company for the allegedly illegal sale of $37 million of
semiconductors to Hong Kong and said a company bank account
containing $1.5 million had been seized.

The day of the U.S. attorney's announcement, Valley Forge stock
dropped from 14.9 cents per share to 5.7 cents per share,
according to court documents.  A week later, Mr. Brothers resigned
as the company's president, CEO, chief financial officer and board
chairman.

Mr. Neborsky is seeking to represent a class of investors who
purchased Valley Forge stock from Jan. 1, 2009, to Feb. 6, 2013.

Mr. Neborsky is represented by Vincent D. Slavens and Eric J.
Benink of Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens LLP.

Mr. Wilhide is represented by Jeffrey M. Goldman --
goldmanj@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton LLP.  Brothers is
represented by Michael T. Gibbs of Gibbs & Fuerst LLP.

The case is Neborsky v. Valley Forge Composite Technologies Inc.
et al., case number 3:13-cv-02307, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.


WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Suit Over Background Screening Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Warmoth, writing for InTheCapital, reports that nine
plaintiffs, together with the Washington Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights, NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Arnold & Porter LLP
filed a class action lawsuit against Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority and three contractors on July 30.  Together,
they're arguing that WMATA has violated federal and local anti-
discrimination laws with its criminal background screening policy.

"While criminal background information can be a legitimate tool
for employers when screening job applicants, WMATA's policy is
unduly harsh, out of step with other jurisdictions, and limits
opportunities for qualified African American employees,"
ReNika Moore, Director of the Economic Justice Group at the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund, said in a press release.

The plaintiffs are asserting that WMATA's policy violates Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act and goes against guidelines from the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, resulting in firings and
the disqualification of applicants, a disproportionate number of
whom have been African Americans.

"I had been a longstanding seasonal landscaper and custodian
through a contractor for Metro," said Marcello Virgil, one of the
plaintiffs. "In fact, my supervisors encouraged me to apply for a
full-time job directly with Metro.  Yet, out of nowhere, I was
told that I was going to be fired because of my 15-year-old
conviction, even though I told them about that when I first
applied to work there."

Another plaintiff, Erick Little, claims that even though he passed
a written test to become a bus operator and being offered a
position, his offer was eventually withdraw because of a 27-year-
old conviction.

WMATA Public Information Officer Morgan Dye said that WMATA does
not comment on pending litigation. Metro General Manager and CEO
Richard Sarles, however, did address screening concerns at a D.C.
Council meeting February.

"I would like to clarify for the record that Metro has not
terminated the employment of any employee due to a criminal
conviction prior to their employment with us," Mr. Sarles stated
during his testimony.

Washington Lawyers' Committee Director of Litigation Matthew
Handley spoke with InTheCapital over the phone on July 30 and
clarified that the plaintiffs have a fundamental disagreement with
Mr. Sarles' assertion that Metro has not terminated employees
because of previous convictions.


WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Accused Unlawful Background Check Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erick Little, Lawrence Whitted, Timothy McClough, Gerald Tucker
Leroy Quarles, Fitzgerald Stoney, Marcello Virgil, Leon Mckenzie
and Louia Mckenzie on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority, Diamond Transportation, Executive Personnel Services,
Inc. and First Transit, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01289 (D.D.C., July
30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants' background check
policy is overly broad, unjustifiably rigid and unduly harsh. It
results in the unnecessary firing of current employees who have a
demonstrated track record of successful employment and the denial
of employment to applicants who are well-qualified to perform the
jobs at issue safely and effectively.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was created in 1967
by an interstate compact between the District of Columbia, the
State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia to develop and
operate a regional transportation system. WMATA operates the
second-largest heavy rail transit system, the sixth-largest bus
network, and the fifth-largest paratransit service in the United
States.

Diamond Transportation is a transportation company headquartered
in Northern Virginia. It has been a contractor for WMATA's
MetroAccess service, and, in such capacity, conducted business
throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

Executive Personnel Services, Inc. is a company headquartered in
Washington, D.C.  EPSI is a staffing firm with a contract under a
General Services Administration pilot program for federal
agencies, and hires contract laborers for many entities, including
WMATA.

First Transit, Inc. is a transportation company headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis A. Corkery, Esq.
      Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
      WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
        & URBAN AFFAIRS
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 319-1000
      Facsimile: (202) 319-1010
      E-mail: dennis_corkery@washlaw.org
              matthew_handley@washlaw.org

         - and -

      John Arak Freedman, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
      555 12th Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20004
      Telephone: (202) 942-5316
      Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
      E-mail: john.freedman@aporter.com

         - and -

      Sherrilyn Ifill, Esq.
      Christina A. Swarns, Esq.
      Renika C. Moore, Esq.
      Ria Tabacco Mar, Esq.
      NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
      40 Rector Street, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10006

         - and -

      Johnathan J. Smith, Esq.
      NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
      1444 I Street, NW, 10th Floor
      Washington, D.C. 20005


WATTS WATER: Settlement of Suit Over Toilet Connectors Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted final approval of the $23.0 million class settlement
reached in a lawsuit filed against Watts Water Technologies, Inc.
over toilet connectors, according to the company's July 23, 2014,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator
Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies Co., Ltd., among other
companies, were named as defendants in Trabakoolas et al., v.
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., a putative nationwide
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California seeking to recover damages and
other relief based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors.
The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified
amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On December 12, 2013, the Company reached an agreement in
principle to settle all claims. The total settlement amount is
$23.0 million, of which the Company would be responsible for $14.0
million after insurance proceeds of $9.0 million. The settlement
was subject to review by the Court at a preliminary approval
hearing held on February 12, 2014.  The Court granted preliminary
approval on February 14, 2014.  On July 18, 2014, the Court
granted final approval of the class settlement at a fairness
hearing, noting that the approval would be formalized in a
subsequent written order.  Once the written order is entered, it
will become final unless an appeal is taken within thirty days.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Embraco Antitrust Settlement Gets Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The previously-disclosed settlement agreement by Whirlpool
Corporation's compressor business headquartered in Brazil, with a
class of U.S. direct purchasers, received final court approval,
according to Whirlpool's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2014.

Beginning in February 2009, the company's compressor business
headquartered in Brazil ("Embraco") was notified of investigations
of the global compressor industry by government authorities in
various jurisdictions. In 2013, Embraco sales represented
approximately 8% of the company's global net sales.

Government authorities in Brazil, Europe, the United States, and
other jurisdictions have entered into agreements with Embraco and
concluded their investigations of the Company. In connection with
these agreements, Embraco has acknowledged violations of antitrust
law with respect to the sale of compressors at various times from
2004 through 2007 and agreed to pay fines or settlement payments.

Since the government investigations commenced in February 2009,
Embraco, and other compressor manufacturers, have been named as
defendants in related antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions
seeking damages in connection with the pricing of compressors
during certain periods beginning in 1996 or later. The company
resolved certain claims and certain claims remain pending.

Additional lawsuits could be filed.

On June 16, 2014, Embraco's previously-disclosed settlement
agreement with plaintiffs representing a settlement class of U.S.
direct purchasers received final court approval. The combination
of this settlement and other resolutions resolves all pending U.S.
claims.

In connection with the defense and resolution of the Embraco
antitrust matters, the company incurred cumulative charges of
approximately $414 million since 2009, including fines, defense
costs, and other expenses. These charges have been recorded within
interest and sundry income (expense). At June 30, 2014, $45
million remains accrued, with installment payments of $42 million,
plus interest, remaining to be made to government authorities at
various times through 2015.


                              *********

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  * * *