CAR_Public/140813.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 13, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 160

                             Headlines


AGORIANI INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages
ALIPHCOM: "Fitness Tracker" Does Not Work, California Suit Claims
AMERICAN INSURANCE: Court Refused to Certify Shareholder Class
AMI TRADING: Moved "Pineda" Suit to Southern District of Florida
ARIZONA: Court Refused to Dismiss Prisoners Suit

BARNES & NOBLE: Misclassified Salaried Workers, Cal. Suit Claims
BASS PRO SHOPS: $6MM Deal in Suit Over Illegal Phone Calls Okayed
CANON USA: "Robertson" Suit Transferred From Texas to New York
CONAGRA FOODS: Removed "Center" Suit to Arkansas District Court
CONAGRA FOODS: Removed "Scott" Suit to Arkansas District Court

DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Suit Alleges Harassment Due to Skin Color
DELTA AIRLINES: Accused of Failing to Abide to Best Fare Promise
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Another Suit Over Bar Exam Software
FUHU INC: Removed "Miller" Suit to Central District of California
GENERAL MOTORS: Removed "California" Suit to C.D. California

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Rollins" Suit Over Defective Ignition
GIORGIO ARMANI: Class Suit to Recover to Unpaid Minimum Wages
HSBC USA: Loan Officers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HSS SYSTEMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Florida Suit Says
KING BUFFET: Refused to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says

LONDON SILVER: Centralization of Antitrust Class Suits Sought
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sheriff Baca Wants Immunity in Warrants Fiasco
LVNV FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
MCDONALD'S CORP: Sued Over Accessibility Barriers at Properties
MILWAUKEE, WI: Accused of Reneging on Deal With Public Workers

MOORE CAPITAL: Nov. 7 Futures Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MOORE CAPITAL: Nov. 7 Physical Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Overturns Limits on Athletes' Income
NEW YORK CITY: African-American Lawyer Sues Over Racial Bias
PACIFIC COAST OIL: Removed "Welch" Suit to Calif. District Court

PACWEST BANCORP: Sued Over Monthly Fees in Prepaid Debit Cards
PALISADES ACQUISITION: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
PARKVIEW COMMUNITY: Removed "Bart" Class Suit to C.D. California
PGA MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
ROYAL BANK: October 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

SAFEWAY INC: Sued Over Alleged Baseless Claims on Milk Products
SIMPSON CHIROPRACTIC: Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages and Damages
SONY COMPUTER: Has Misled Killzone Consumers, Class Suit Claims
SOUTHERN WINGS: Accused of Racial Discrimination in N.D. Alabama
SOUTHERN WINGS: Faces "Clay" Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination

TECHNO PRINT: Never Paid Extra Half Time Overtime Rate, Suit Says
US STEEL: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $58 Million
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Sued Over Sale of DHA-Fortified Milk Products
WHOLE FOODS: Faces "Markley" Product Liability Suit in Florida
YELP INC: Top Execs Overhyped Stock, Shareholders Claim in Cal.

YELP INC: Online Reviewers Seek to Recover Wages and Expenses


                            *********


AGORIANI INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Bello, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Agoriani Inc. d/b/a Bagel Cafe Ray's Pizza, Efthymios
Papadopoulos, and Paul Pappas, Case No. 1:14-cv-06184-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, is entitled to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Agoriani Inc., doing business as Bagel Cafe Ray's Pizza is a New
York corporation with a principal place of business located in New
York City.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


ALIPHCOM: "Fitness Tracker" Does Not Work, California Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Frenzel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aliphcom d/b/a Jawbone, Case No. 3:14-cv-03587-LB
(N.D. Cal., August 7, 2014) is brought under the Truth in Lending
Act.

In another story, Courthouse News Service reports that Aliphcom
dba Jawbone's "fitness tracker" does not work, a class action
claims in California Federal Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julia A. Luster, Esq.
          Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: jluster@bursor.com
                  apersinger@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com


AMERICAN INSURANCE: Court Refused to Certify Shareholder Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action against AIG for devaluing 78 million
equity units cannot proceed in either state or federal court as a
class action, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service,
citing a D.C. Circuit ruling.

In 2008, American Insurance Group (AIG) issued 78.4 million
"Equity Units," a type of security that includes a stock purchase
contract, requiring holders to purchase AIG common stock.

Plaintiff Kathryn Campbell filed a class action against the
insurance giant, alleging that AIG unjustly enriched itself by
reducing the value the number of common shares each Equity Unit
holder received, thereby reducing the value of the securities.

However, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA)
of 1998, enacted to curbed the abuses of class action litigation,
bars bringing certain securities fraud claims as class actions
under state law, including allegations that "defendant used or
employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in
connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security."

To avoid this restriction, Campbell attempted to get a federal
district court to hear her state law claims, asserting that the
SLUSA conferred federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Her argument relies on a section of the Act that states,
"Notwithstanding subsection (b) or (c), a covered class action
described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph that is based upon
the statutory or common law of the State in which the issuer is
incorporated (in the case of a corporation) or organized (in the
case of any other entity) may be maintained in a State or Federal
court by a private party."  (Emphasis in judgment.)

But in a per curiam decision, the D.C. Circuit said, "There is no
indication that Congress intended subsection (d)(1)(A) to go
substantially further, so as to create federal jurisdiction over a
category of state-law securities class actions."

Rather, reading the statute as whole shows that Congress intended
no class action to maintained in either state or federal court if
it is precluded by the Act.

"Subsection (d)(1)(A)'s use of the term 'preserve[],' meaning 'to
keep (something) in its original state,' manifests Congress's
intent to retain the state-law claims falling within the Delaware
carve-out in their pre-SLUSA state - not to inject those claims
into federal court for the first time," the court concluded.


AMI TRADING: Moved "Pineda" Suit to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pineda v. AMI Trading (USA) Inc.,
et al., Case No. 13-2014-CA-018129, was removed from the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-22875-FAM to the proceeding.

The Complaint states four causes of action by Plaintiff pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging unpaid overtime wages and
retaliatory discharge.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
          1600 Ponce DeLeon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark J. Neuberger, Esq.
          Larry S. Perlman, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          One Biscayne Tower
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131-2132
          Telephone: (305) 482-8400
          Facsimile: (305) 482-8600
          E-mail: mneuberger@foley.com
                  lperlman@foley.com

               - and -

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


ARIZONA: Court Refused to Dismiss Prisoners Suit
------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on August 7, 2014, denied the Arizona Department
of Correction's motion for summary judgment in a class action
accusing it of providing inadequate medical and mental health care
and abusively using solitary confinement in the state's 10
prisons, which hold 33,000 prisoners, according to Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiff Victor Antonio Parsons filed the complaint in 2012
against lead defendant Charles L. Ryan, the director of Arizona
prisons.  A federal judge in Phoenix certified it as a class
action in March 2013, and the 9th Circuit affirmed the
certification.

U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake denied the state's request for
summary judgment on August 7, 2014.

Trial is expected to begin in October.

The case is Victor Antonio Parsons, et al. v. Charles L. Ryan, et
al., Case No. CV-12-00601-PHX-NVW, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona.


BARNES & NOBLE: Misclassified Salaried Workers, Cal. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble misclassifies salaried employees to falsely exempt
them from overtime pay and other labor laws, a class action claims
in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange, reports Courthouse News Service.


BASS PRO SHOPS: $6MM Deal in Suit Over Illegal Phone Calls Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that Bass Pro
Shops will pay $6 million to settle class claims that it illegally
recorded phone calls to and from California, a federal judge
ruled, approving the deal.

The California Invasion of Privacy Act bans companies from
recording phone calls with consumers without first disclosing the
call may be recorded.

Lead plaintiff Geoffrey McDonald sued the Missouri-based Bass Pro
Outdoor World and several affiliates in San Diego Superior Court.
Bass Pro then removed the case to federal court.

Following more than a year of litigation, and mediation led by
retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas, the parties signed
settlement documents on May 22.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant granted preliminary approval
of the deal on August 1, 2014.

The class includes "[a]ll natural persons who, while present in
California and using a telephone with a California area code,
participated in at least one recorded telephone call to Bass Pro
between March 14, 2012 and March 27, 2013 or at least one recorded
telephone call from Bass Pro between March 14, 2012 and April 3,
2013," according to the proposed settlement.

Bass Pro changed its policy two weeks after the lawsuit was filed
and stopped recording calls from California without first giving
notice the call could be recorded.

Bass Pro also ceased recording calls to California on April 4,
2013.

Using Bass Pro's records, the parties identified 30,400 potential
class members in discovery and determined that each one would get
$197.49 under the settlement.

But as Judge Bashant noted in her order, that figure does not
consider $1.8 million in attorney's fees, equal to one-third of
the settlement, $150,000 in court costs and an up to $20,000
"service payment" to the lead plaintiff.

"Taking into account these deductions, the amount available for
distribution to the class members could be as low as $4,030,000,
which turns out to produce a $132.57 payment to each potential
class member.  That said, the payout could also be higher
depending on the final size of the participating class," Bashant
wrote in the 22-page order.

Bashant ordered a claims administrator to mail potential class
members notice of the settlement to their last-known address, and
publish info about the deal twice in the Los Angeles Times, San
Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sacramento Bee and
Fresno Bee.

Bashant also told the administrator to set up a website, post all
the relevant court documents there and direct all potential class
members to the site in the newspaper notices and mailings.

Class members have the option of filing claims, opting out or
objecting to the settlement, the judge explained.

Since the parties still have to establish the class members,
Bashant's order only grants preliminary settlement approval.  She
set the final approval hearing for Dec. 15, 2014 at her courtroom
in San Diego.


CANON USA: "Robertson" Suit Transferred From Texas to New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Robertson v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00607, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).  The New
York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-04676-LDW-SIL
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher D. Sileo, Esq.
          SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, L.L.P.
          600 Congress Ave., Suite 1500
          Austin, TX 78701-2589
          Telephone: (512) 495-6300
          Facsimile: (512) 474-0731
          E-mail: csileo@scottdoug.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Removed "Center" Suit to Arkansas District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Center v. Conagra Foods, Inc.,
Case No. CV-2014-1118-5, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Washington County to the U. S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas (Fayetteville).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-05248-TLB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          Facsimile: (479) 845-2198
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com
                  tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin A. Crass, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          2000 Regions Center
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3493
          Telephone: (501) 376-2011
          Facsimile: (501) 376-2147
          E-mail: crass@fridayfirm.com

               - and -

          Roger Christopher Lawson, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          3425 N. Futrall, Suite 103
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 695-1103
          Facsimile: (479) 695-2147
          E-mail: lawson@fridayfirm.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Removed "Scott" Suit to Arkansas District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Scott v. Conagra Foods, Inc., Case
No. CV-14-1119-7, was removed from the Circuit Court of Washington
County to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas (Fayetteville).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:14-cv-05247-PKH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          Facsimile: (479) 845-2198
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com
                  tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Roger Christopher Lawson, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          3425 N. Futrall, Suite 103
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 695-1103
          Facsimile: (479) 695-2147
          E-mail: lawson@fridayfirm.com


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Suit Alleges Harassment Due to Skin Color
------------------------------------------------------------
Donya R. Armstrong v. Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc., d/b/a
"Davita Dialisys," DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a "Davita
Dialisys," Case No. 2:14-cv-13045-GER-DRG (E.D. Mich., August 6,
2014) alleges that the Plaintiff's co-workers harassed her on
almost a daily basis because she comes from a bi-racial background
and because she is light-skinned.

Ms. Armstrong is a bi-racial African-American/Caucasian female and
her coworkers are African-American females.

DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc., doing business as "DaVita
Dialysis," is a foreign profit corporation conducting business
throughout southeast Michigan.  DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc., doing
business as "DaVita Dialysis," is a foreign profit corporation
conducting business throughout southeast Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DELTA AIRLINES: Accused of Failing to Abide to Best Fare Promise
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darla Opper, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00962-WCG (E.D.
Wisc., August 7, 2014) arises from Delta's alleged failure to
abide by its express "Best Fare Guarantee" promise to consumers,
who book flights on delta.com.

Ms. Opper alleges that on flight routings that feature a
connecting city, Delta does not always provide travelers with the
lowest available fare class and corresponding fare, even though
those fare classes are verifiably available for each segment of a
journey, according to Delta's own data.  Delta, therefore,
extracts higher fares for the exact same seats on the exact same
flights -- despite its express promise of a "Best Fare" for
consumers on its Web Site, she asserts.

Delta Airlines, Inc., is a major American air carrier that offers
service to 333 destinations in 64 countries.  Delta's corporate
offices and headquarters are located in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          735 North Water Street, Suite 1222
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 226-9900
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L Street, N. W., Suite 808
          Washington D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Another Suit Over Bar Exam Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that law
students who took the bar in July demand a refund, claiming the
software that handles online bar exam submissions for multiple
states suffered a technical meltdown and left them unable to
timely submit the written portion of their exams.

Michael Casner, Stanley Constantine and Sean Whatley sued ExamSoft
Worldwide on August 5, 2014, in Cook County Court.

The plaintiffs sat for the bar exam in July.  The first day of the
exam, July 29, consisted of a series of essay questions that take
approximately six hours.

To type the essays with a computer, rather than writing them
longhand, test takers must pay a $100-$150 fee for ExamSoft's
test-taking software.

The software allows test-takers to use their own laptops by
turning off all other features of the computer, such as the
ability to access notes or use the Internet.  At the end of the
testing period, it requires test takers to upload their essays to
a server without any further changes.

But "ExamSoft was inexplicably unprepared for the volume of bar
exams being uploaded to its servers following the first day of the
July 2014 test," according to the complaint.  "As a result, it
could not confirm that test-takers' typed exams had been properly
and timely submitted.  This on the eve of the second day of the
bar exam (the multistate exam).  Instead of relaxing, doing a last
minute review, or going to bed early, many bar applicants were
stuck dealing with ExamSoft's technical glitch on the night before
the second day of the most important exam of their lives," the
lawsuit states.

Many people who tried to upload their exam were met with the error
message, "Attention! Your answer file(s) did not upload," and
spent the whole night frantically trying to contact ExamSoft's
customer service, only to be met with a busy signal.

"In light of the foregoing problems, many test-takers requested
refunds of the $100 to $150 they paid to ExamSoft to use its
software.

"To date, however, ExamSoft has refused to provide any test-takers
with a refund.  A representative message sent to one test taker
from ExamSoft's customer service team stated the following: 'Thank
you for contacting ExamSoft.  We deeply apologize for the
inconvenience had happened on August 5, 2014 night.  However, when
paying and registering Softest on your computer you agreed to a
disclaimer which indicated that there are no refunds.  Again, I am
really sorry.  Please let me know if you have any further
questions,'" according to the complaint.

Seventeen state bar associations announced deadline extensions so
that people who could not submit their exams on July 29 would not
be penalized, Pepperdine Law School Professor Paul Caron wrote on
his TaxProf Blog.

The test-takers seek punitive damages for fraud, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

A similar class action was filed on August 5, 2014, in Spokane,
Wash. Federal Court.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: lfanning@millerlawllc.com


FUHU INC: Removed "Miller" Suit to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Scott Miller v. Fuhu Inc., et al.,
Case No. BC550858, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
06119-CAS-AS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Joshua Gutride, Esq.
          Marie Ann McCrary, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Todd Kennedy, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 336-6545
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  todd@gutridesafier.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua David Mendelsohn, Esq.
          Keith A Sipprelle, Esq.
          Mark K. Suzumoto, Esq.
          VAN ETTEN SUZUMOTO AND SIPPRELLE LLP
          2801 Townsgate Road Suite 210
          Westlake Village, CA 91631
          Telephone: (805) 719-4900
          Facsimile: (805) 719-4950
          E-mail: JMendelsohn@VSSLawyers.com
                  ksipprelle@vsslawyers.com
                  msuzumoto@vsslawyers.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Removed "California" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned People of the State of California, acting by
and through Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas v.
General Motors LLC, Case No. 30-2014-00731038-CU-BT-CXC, was
removed from the Superior Court of Orange County, California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-
cv-06143 to the proceeding.

The action involves claims related to the design, manufacture,
supply, and subsequent recall of vehicles allegedly containing an
alleged "ignition switch defect" and 34 other "known defects,"
including vehicles manufactured and sold by General Motors
Corporation before it filed for bankruptcy on June 1, 2009.  The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's alleged "systematic
concealment" of these alleged defects violated California law.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Darin T. Beffa, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 S. Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: darin.beffa@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Rollins" Suit Over Defective Ignition
------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Rollins, Earl Golston, and Mary Greene, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated persons v. General Motors, LLC;
and Delphi Automotive, PLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-13051-RHC-RSW (E.D.
Mich., August 6, 2014) arises from GM's alleged active
concealment, for over a decade, of its knowledge of a dangerously
defective ignition switch installed at least 8.2 million GM
vehicles.

Specifically, as a result of having a defective ignition switch,
the vehicles at issue are at risk of shutting down during normal
driving conditions -- shutting down the engine and losing power to
major electrical systems responsible for critical safety features
such as airbags, power steering, and antilock brakes -- thus,
creating an extreme and unreasonable risk of accident, serious
bodily harm, and death, Ms. Rollins argues.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
in Detroit, Michigan.  GM manufactured, marketed and sold motor
vehicles under the brands Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, Saturn,
Pontiac and Hummer.  General Motors LLC is the successor-in-
interest to the General Motors Corporation.

DPH-DAS LLC, formerly known as Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC is a
corporation with its headquarters in Troy, Michigan.  Delphi began
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Old GM, until it was launched as
an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Thompson, Esq.
          Lance Y. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  lyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3579
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  mlk@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com


GIORGIO ARMANI: Class Suit to Recover to Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Figuccio, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by Giorgio Armani Corporation
or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Giorgio
Armani Corporation v. Giorgio Armani Corporation or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by Giorgio Armani
Corporation, Case No. 157761/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.,
August 6, 2014) is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law and
the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations to recover unpaid
minimum wages owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated
persons.

Giorgio Armani Corporation is a New York business corporation
headquartered in New York City.  The Company is engaged in the
fashion and apparel industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -


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


HSBC USA: Loan Officers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Long, Dylan Randall, and Eric Vaughn, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. HSBC USA Inc. and
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-06233 (S.D.N.Y., August 6,
2014) seeks to recover overtime compensation for the Plaintiffs
and their similarly situated co-workers, who have been employed by
the Defendants in the United States.

The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated worked for HSBC as
Retail Mortgage Consultants, Premium Mortgage Consultants, Premier
Mortgage Consultants, or in similar positions, however variously
titled, at its branch locations or central loan offices
nationwide.  The primary duty of the Loan Officers is sales.

HSBC USA Inc. is a Maryland foreign business corporation with its
corporate headquarters in New York City.  HSBC USA Inc. is an
indirectly-held, wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC North America
Holdings Inc.  HSBC Bank USA, N.A., is a Maryland foreign business
corporation with its corporate headquarters in New York City.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., is the principal subsidiary of HSBC USA Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333

               - and -

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com

               - and -

          Gregg Shavitz, Esq.
          Susan Stern, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP P A
          1515 S Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-7451
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  sstern@shavitzlaw.com


HSS SYSTEMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Florida Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Diakos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HSS Systems, LLC d/b/a Parallon Business Performance
Group and Bacen & Jordan, P.A., Case No. 0:14-cv-61784-RNS (S.D.
Fla., August 5, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Daniel Walrath, Esq.
          MEDICAL BILL CLINIC, P.A.
          777 Brickell Ave., Suite 160
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 455-4330
          Facsimile: (305) 455-4331
          E-mail: mwalrath@medicalbillclinic.com

               - and -

          Jordan Matthew Lewis, Esq.
          KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
          700 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 300
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 522-6601
          Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
          E-mail: jml@kulaw.com


KING BUFFET: Refused to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Castellanos v. Sauigang Guo and King Buffet & Mongolian
Grill, Case No. 4:14-cv-03157 (D. Neb., August 5, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants failed and otherwise refused to pay the
Plaintiff the statutorily required minimum wage for all hours he
worked and failed to pay him time and one-half for all hours
worked over 40 in a week.

Sauigang Guo is the owner and operator of numerous unincorporated
restaurants operating within the state of Nebraska, including the
King Buffet & Mongolian Grill in North Platte, Nebraska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen M. Neary, Esq.
          VINCENT M. POWERS & ASSOCIATES
          411 South 13th Street, Suite 300
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: (402) 474-8000
          E-mail: kathleen@vpowerslaw.com

               - and -

          Brock Wurl, Esq.
          NORMAN PALOUCEK & HERMAN
          225 McNell Lane
          North Platte, NE
          Telephone: (308) 534-9892
          E-mail: brock@nphlawoffices.com


LONDON SILVER: Centralization of Antitrust Class Suits Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Eric Nalven asked the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for centralization of the London Silver
Fixing Antitrust and Commodities Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York before The Honorable
Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon.

In his lawsuit against The London Silver Market Fixing, Ltd., et
al., Mr. Nalven alleges a conspiracy to restrain trade in, and
manipulate the prices of, physical silver and silver futures in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Commodity Exchange
Act.  He asserts that there is one other related action pending in
another District Court.  He expects that other actions will be
filed in the near term.

The actions on file are:

   (1) Nalven v. The London Silver Market Fixing, Ltd., et al.,
       1:14-cv-04591 (E.D.N.Y.) (Amon, C.J.); and

   (2) Nicholson v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al.,
       1:14-cv-05682 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.).

Mr. Nalven contends that the Related Actions should be centralized
because they allege substantially similar antitrust and
commodities manipulation claims as class actions under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  He notes that the London
Silver Litigation involves anticompetitive conduct by
multinational banks in London.  He adds that a considerable
portion of the evidence on the claims against the Defendants will
involve testimony and documents likely to be found in New York and
London, from which the Eastern District of New York, with its two
international airports, is far more accessible than anywhere else
in the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Peter A. Barile, III, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com
                  pbarile@gelaw.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sheriff Baca Wants Immunity in Warrants Fiasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for Los Angeles Sheriff Leroy Baca on August 7, 2014,
urged the 9th Circuit to grant immunity to the sheriff in a
federal class action that claims thousands of people have been
falsely arrested on warrants for other people, reports Matt
Reynolds at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Reginald Lenard Smith in 2011 sued Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department, Baca and the LAPD, for failure to
train officers how to access unique identifying numbers on
computer systems to determine the subjects of arrest warrants.

California's unique identifiers are called CII numbers, while Los
Angeles County uses LA Main numbers.  The numbers match biometric
identifiers to fingerprints.  Like fingerprints, no two people
have the same biometric identifier.

Smith claimed that in 2007 he found himself shipped off to the Los
Angeles County jail after he was stopped by police in Antioch,
Tenn., for a minor traffic violation and mistaken for a different
Reggie Smith.

Smith's namesake had an outstanding arrest warrant for failing to
appear in court to face sexual battery charges.  Smith shared the
same name and birthday as the subject of the warrant.  Both men
are black.

Authorities sent Smith to the Los Angeles County jail, where he
was held for 13 days before a state court judge ordered his
release on Aug. 28, 2007.  Though the Superior Court reissued the
warrant, officials did not make clear that Smith was not the
subject of the warrant, Smith said.  Nor did officials include
Smith's biometric numbers on the warrant.

In early 2011, Smith was arrested on the same warrant.  That year,
the federal government denied his passport application, believing
that he was the warrant's subject.

Once an arrest is made, Smith said, the warrant is often removed
from information systems used to check for outstanding warrants.

"So if the wrong person is arrested on the warrant, the warrant's
intended subject will no longer face arrest on the warrant.  In
other words, because of defendants' indifference criminals get a
free pass," the lawsuit states.

Smith estimated that thousands of people were affected.  An
average of two people a day are released from county custody
because of defective warrants, he claims in the lawsuit.

He asked the court to order county officials exclude people from
warrants after they have been cleared.  He also sought an order
requiring the county to train its personnel to include identifiers
from other agencies, record aliases for the subject of the
warrant, and include the names, birthdates, and fingerprint
identifiers of those who are cleared.

U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess ruled on Sept. 11, 2012, that
Smith had failed to make clear that the warrants are invalid under
the Fourth Amendment.  But he also found that Smith's civil rights
under the 14th Amendment may been violated because he was unable
to secure a U.S. passport.

The judge therefore denied Sheriff Baca's request for qualified
immunity.

On August 7, 2014 morning at the 9th Circuit courthouse, Baca's
attorney Scott Caron, with Glendale firm Lawrence Beach Allen &
Choi, asked the court to reverse.

In an opening brief to the court, Caron had argued that Feess'
ruling "sets a higher standard" on what information should be
listed on an arrest warrant under the particularity requirement of
the Fourth Amendment.

"The Fourth Amendment particularity requirement would become a
dead letter, and take a perpetual back seat to Fourteenth
Amendment procedural due process," Caron argued in his brief.

But the three-judge panel was troubled that a misidentified person
could face arrest on the same warrant multiple times.

Judge Conseulo Maria Callahan said it didn't make sense that a
person could be arrested "ad infinitum" and that Baca could "hide
behind qualified immunity."

"If you get the wrong person 10 times, then that warrant is still
good, even though this poor mope, who is not that guy, gets
arrested 10 times?" Judge Callahan asked Caron.

Caron said that under the Fourth Amendment the warrant is
sufficient because it rules out "most people as potential subjects
of the warrant."

Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw was incredulous.

"Are you seriously arguing that the L.A. Sheriff's Department,
aware of this problem, has no plans to change it because you're
going to hide behind this prevailing law?" Wardlaw asked.

Caron said the sheriff's department policy was to update
exoneration information on warrants.

"Well, Mr. Smith's warrant wasn't updated," Wardlaw shot back.

The court should still grant immunity to Baca because it was the
U.S. government, a third party, that denied Smith a passport, and
he can appeal the decision, Caron argued in the brief.

Smith's attorney Donald Cook argued that the Fourth and 14th
Amendment claims are "intertwined," and urged the court to find
Baca liable for not updating arrest warrants to avoid
misidentification.

Judge Callahan wondered how Cook could persuasively argue that
"every bad thing that happens to somebody is because there's
something faulty in that system."  Though not specifically citing
Smith's passport application, she said that third parties may have
"due process in place" to handle challenges.

Cook said he didn't know the in and outs of administrative
procedures.  But "what we do know is that at the very first door
of this process the system is set up to cut things off at the
path," he said.

"You have to have procedures in place to prevent this kind of
wrongful identification," Cook said.  "Because, again, we all know
it can have many collateral consequences.  The most obvious one,
of course, is incarceration.  But that's not the only one.

"This is not just a case of, 'Gee, he didn't get a passport.'
This is a case of not using a simple, costless procedure.

"What it's about is not utilizing this system -- basically,
operating like you're still in the 19th and 18th century, even
though you've got 20th and 21st century technology there.  It's
really frustrating."

"There's a lot of things that are frustrating about the sheriff's
department," Judge Wardlaw interjected.

Cook and Caron in April argued before the appeals court in a
related case, dealing with lack of biometric identifiers on arrest
warrants.

In that case, Cook represents Smith and additional plaintiffs
Kelvin Gant and Jose Ventura in a class action against Los Angeles
and Chino, and LA and San Bernardino counties, and their police
and sheriff departments.

Gant claimed he was arrested several times on a warrant meant for
his fraternal twin brother. Ventura claimed he was arrested under
a warrant for another person after a traffic stop.

In Gant, Cook urged the court to reverse U.S. District Judge Gary
Feess' 2011 order, granting the defendants summary judgment.

During his reserve time on August 7, 2014, Caron said the court
should wait and see how the 9th Circuit rules in Gant before
deciding the Fourth Amendment issue in Smith's case, noting that
Smith had brought a particularity claim under the same warrant in
both cases.

Judge Milan Smith joined Wardlaw and Callahan on the panel.

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Paul B. Beach, Esq.
          Scott E. Caron, Esq.
          LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, P.C.
          100 West Broadway, Suite 1200
          Glendale, CA 91210
          Telephone: (818) 545-1925
          Facsimile: (818) 545-1937
          E-mail: pbeach@lbaclaw.com
                  scaron@lbaclaw.com

The appellate case is Reginald Lenard Smith Lee Baca and County of
Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Case No. 12-
56690, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The lower court case is Reginald Lenard Smith Lee Baca
and County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, Case No. CV 11-10666 GAF (PJWx), in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.


LVNV FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Souto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Eltman, Eltman, & Cooper, P.C., and
Erika Rubin Schor, Case No. 2:14-cv-04688-DRH-GRB (E.D.N.Y.,
August 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Mauro, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
          306 McCall Avenue
          West Islip, NY 11795
          Telephone: (631) 669-0921
          Facsimile: (631) 669-5071
          E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: Sued Over Accessibility Barriers at Properties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's Restaurants of
Pennsylvania, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01049-NBF (W.D. Pa.,
August 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act in connection with accessibility barriers at
various properties owned and managed by the Defendants.

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

McDonald's Corporation is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in
Oak Brook, Illinois.  McDonald's Restaurants of Pennsylvania is a
Pennsylvania Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MILWAUKEE, WI: Accused of Reneging on Deal With Public Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
after encouraging employees to buy years of service credit before
they retired, Milwaukee County reneged on its deal, a public
worker claims in a class action.

Ruben Angeles and his wife Pamela sued Milwaukee County and the
Employees' Retirement System of the County of Milwaukee on
August 4, in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.

Angeles was a part-time county employee from 1982 to 1993, when he
became a full-time employee.  He worked for the county until April
this year.

Angeles claims the county accepted his $30,500 check to buy back
benefits for his part-time years -- an offer the county proposed -
- then stiffed him when he retired.

"Since 1950 Milwaukee County has instituted and administered a
Reinstatement of Prior Service Credits program, aka 'buyback'
program, which it promoted to its employees who at one time had
been part-time employees of Milwaukee County and became full time
employees of Milwaukee County, whereby if that employees made or
had made on his/her behalf a payment to Milwaukee County,
Milwaukee County would add years of full time service credit to
the employment of the employee for retirement benefit purposes,"
Angeles says in the complaint.

He claims the county pushed the program though it knew it violated
the IRS tax code and Milwaukee County ordinances.

Milwaukee County "advised the plaintiff that if he were to
participate in the Reinstatement Program and pay Milwaukee County
$30,513.06, he would receive 6.16134 additional years of service
credit and, assuming full time employment with Milwaukee County,
his . . . retirement eligibility date would be April 1, 2014," the
complaint states.

Angeles says he paid the county the money in 2005, and received
confirmation of the payment, and a receipt crediting him with the
service time.

The county recognized him for his 25 years of service in 2011, and
even gave him a watch, Angeles says.  In April 2013, it began
sending him notices of his impending retirement date in 2014 and
his expected pension benefits.

Despite a March 27, 2014 letter from the county congratulating him
on his retirement, Angeles says: "On April 9, 2014 Marian
Ninneman, the manager of Milwaukee County's Employee Retirement
System, telephoned plaintiff and advised him that she had decided
on behalf of Milwaukee County and its ERS [Employees' Retirement
System] that he could not retire on April 17, 2014 and refused to
tell the plaintiff why."

Several days later, Angeles received a letter telling him that "he
could not retire from Milwaukee County with a benefit from
Milwaukee County and its ERS because 'your purchase of service
credit is not allowed under the Ordinance.'"

Angeles seeks class certification, costs and damages for due
process violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Elliott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. ELLIOTT
          735 N. Water St., Suite 1212
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 225 9000
          Facsimile: (414) 921 9783
          E-mail: rle@attorneyelliott.com


MOORE CAPITAL: Nov. 7 Futures Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU PURCHASED OR SOLD A NYMEX PLATINUM FUTURES CONTRACT OR
NYMEX PALLADIUM FUTURES CONTRACT BETWEEN JUNE 1, 2006
AND APRIL 29, 2010, INCLUSIVE, THEN YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A BENEFIT

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a Settlement with
defendants Moore Capital Management, LP; Moore Capital
Management, LLC; Moore Capital Advisors, LLC; Moore Advisors,
Ltd.; Moore Macro Fund, LP; Moore Global Fixed Income Master
Fund, LP; Christopher Pia; Louis Bacon; Eugene Burger (together
the "Moore Defendants"); and Joseph Welsh ("Welsh" and together
with the Moore Defendants, the "Settling Defendants") in the class
action In re: Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litig.
(Platinum/Palladium Futures Action), 10-cv-3617 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.)
("Futures Action"), pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The Court has scheduled a public
Fairness Hearing on November 7, 2014, 11:00 a.m. at the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY, Courtroom 20B.

In order to resolve the claims against them, the Moore Defendants
have agreed to pay $48,400,000 for the benefit of the Futures
Class. Defendant Welsh has agreed to assign certain claims to the
Futures Class. See the Settlement Agreement available at
www.PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com

The Settling Defendants have consistently and vigorously denied
the Futures Plaintiffs' claims.  By entering into the Settlement
Agreement with the Futures Plaintiffs, the Settling Defendants do
not admit and instead continue to deny that they engaged in any
unlawful conduct, and that any member of the Futures Class
suffered compensable damages.  The District Court previously
dismissed the Futures Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice,
additional motions to dismiss were filed and contemplated, and the
Court has never rendered a final ruling on the factual or legal
sufficiency of the Futures Plaintiffs' claims.  Absent a
settlement, the defendants would continue to vigorously oppose
each and every aspect of the Futures Plaintiffs' claims and
alleged damages.

Defendant MF Global, Inc. is not part of this Settlement. Also,
there is a separate settlement involving certain transactions in
physical platinum and physical palladium.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the formal Settlement Notice,
Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and Request For
Exclusion forms, and other important documents are available on
the Settlement website at
www.PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com

For additional information, you may also contact the Settlement
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at 888-206-5360 or at the address
below:

PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM LITIGATION SETTLEMENT -- FUTURES ACTION
c/o A.B. DATA, LTD.
PO BOX 170500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53217-8091
info@PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Futures Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim that
is received by the Settlement Administrator on or before
January 21, 2015.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the
Settlement website referenced above.  If you are a member of the
Futures Class but do not file a Proof of Claim, you will still be
bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the
Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreement.  All
objections must be made in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the formal Settlement Notice and must be filed with the
Court and served on the Parties' counsel by October 15, 2014.  All
requests to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the formal
Settlement Notice, and must be received by the Settlement
Administrator no later than October 3, 2014.  You may obtain a
Request for Exclusion form on the Settlement website referenced
above.


MOORE CAPITAL: Nov. 7 Physical Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU PURCHASED, INVESTED IN, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AN INTEREST
IN PLATINUM OR PALLADIUM METAL OR BULLION IN THE UNITED STATES
PHYSICAL OR "SPOT" MARKET CONFORMING TO NYMEX "GOOD DELIVERY"
REQUIREMENTS, OR PURCHASED PLATINUM OR PALLADIUM BULLION OF AT
LEAST 99.95% PURITY, DURING THE PERIOD OF JUNE 1, 2006 THROUGH
APRIL 29, 2010, INCLUSIVE, THEN YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND
YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A BENEFIT

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a Settlement with
defendants Moore Capital Management, LP; Moore Capital
Management, LLC; Moore Capital Advisors, LLC; Moore Advisors,
Ltd.; Moore Macro Fund, LP; Moore Global Fixed Income Master
Fund, LP; Christopher Pia; Louis Bacon; Eugene Burger (together
the "Moore Defendants"); and Joseph Welsh ("Welsh" and together
with the Moore Defendants, the "Settling Defendants") in the class
action In re: Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litig.
(Platinum/Palladium Futures Action), 10-cv-3617 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.)
("Physical Action"), pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The Court has scheduled a public
Fairness Hearing on November 7, 2014, 11:00 a.m. at the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY, Courtroom 20B.

In order to resolve the claims against them, the Moore Defendants
have agreed to pay $9,355,000 for the Physical Class's benefit.
Defendant Welsh has agreed to assign certain claims to the
Physical Class. See the Settlement Agreement available at
www.PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

The Settling Defendants have consistently and vigorously denied
the Physical Plaintiffs' claims.  By entering into the Settlement
Agreement with the Physical Plaintiffs, the Settling Defendants do
not admit and instead continue to deny that they engaged in any
unlawful conduct, and that any member of the Physical Class
suffered compensable damages.  The District Court previously
dismissed the Physical Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice,
additional motions to dismiss were filed and contemplated, and the
Court has never rendered a final ruling on the factual or legal
sufficiency of the Futures Plaintiffs' claims.  Absent a
settlement, the defendants would continue to vigorously oppose
each and every aspect of the Physical Plaintiffs' claims and
alleged damages.

Defendant MF Global, Inc. is not part of this Settlement. Also,
there is a separate settlement involving certain transactions in
platinum and palladium future contracts during the same time
period.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the formal Settlement Notice,
Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and Request For
Exclusion forms, and other important documents are available on
the Settlement website at
www.PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

For additional information, you may also contact the Settlement
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at 888-918-9014 or at the address
below:

PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM LITIGATION SETTLEMENT-PHYSICAL ACTION
c/o A.B. DATA, LTD.
PO BOX 170500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53217-8091
info@PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Physical Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim that
is received by the Settlement Administrator on or before
January 21, 2015.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the
Settlement website referenced above.  If you are a member of the
Physical Class but do not file a Proof of Claim, you will still be
bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the
Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreement.  All
objections must be made in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the formal Settlement Notice and must be filed with the
Court and served on the Parties' counsel by October 15, 2014.  All
requests to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the formal
Settlement Notice, and must be received by the Settlement
Administrator no later than October 3, 2014.  You may obtain a
Request for Exclusion form on the Settlement website referenced
above.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Overturns Limits on Athletes' Income
---------------------------------------------------------------
NCAA rules prohibiting student athletes from being paid for the
use of their names, images and likeness "unreasonably restrain
trade in the market for educational athletic opportunities for
Division I colleges and universities," a federal judge ruled
August 8, 2014, reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken enjoined the NCAA "from
enforcing any rules or bylaws that would prohibit its member
schools and conferences from offering their FBS [Football Bowl
Subdivision] football or Division I basketball recruits a limited
share of the revenues generated from the use of their names,
images, and likenesses in addition to a full grant-in-aid."

Led by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, 20 student athletes sued the
governing body for college athletics in a 2009 class action for
the right to a share in the television broadcast revenue for their
names, images and likenesses.  A two-week bench trial was held in
June.

In a 99-page opinion on August 8, 2014, Wilken found that the
class had shown an injury to competition "only in the college
education market or the market for recruits' athletic services and
licensing rights."

Wilken found that acting in concert through the NCAA and its
conferences, FBS Football and Division 1 basketball schools hold
all the power to fix the price of the educational and athletic
opportunities they offer to recruits.

"They have chosen to exercise this power by forming an agreement
to charge every recruit the same price for the bundle of
educational and athletic opportunities that they offer: to wit,
the recruit's athletic services along with the use of his name,
image, and likeness while he is in school," Wilken wrote.  "If any
school seeks to lower this fixed price -- by offering any recruit
a cash rebate, deferred payment, or other form of direct
compensation -- that school may be subject to sanctions by the
NCAA.  This price-fixing agreement constitutes a restraint of
trade."

Wilken added: "Indeed, the NCAA's own expert, Dr. [Daniel]
Rubinfeld, acknowledged that the NCAA operates as a cartel that
imposes a restraint on trade in this market."

Wilken, citing high salaries for coaches and extravagant training
facilities, said that schools should be able to afford to pay
athletes.

"The high coaches' salaries and rapidly increasing spending on
training facilities at many schools suggest that these schools
would, in fact, be able to afford to offer their student-athletes
a limited share of the licensing revenue generated from their use
of the student-athletes' own names, images, and likenesses,"
Wilken wrote.

Wilken's ruling shot down the NCAA's primary justifications for
not paying college athletes: amateurism, competitive balance and
the integration of athletics and academics.

"The historical record that the NCAA cites as evidence of its
longstanding commitment to amateurism is unpersuasive. This record
reveals that the NCAA has revised its rules governing student-
athlete compensation numerous times over the years, sometimes in
significant and contradictory ways.  Rather than evincing the
association's adherence to a set of core principles, this history
documents how malleable the NCAA's definition of amateurism has
been since its founding," Wilken wrote.

She rejected the NCAA's argument that fans of college football and
men's basketball watch or attend games because they know the
players aren't paid, and will stop watching if they are, noting
NCAA President Mark Emmert testified that the popularity of
college sports are driven by school or regional loyalty.

"Dr. Emmert himself noted that much of the popularity of the
NCAA's annual men's basketball tournament stems from the fact that
schools from all over the country participate 'so the fan base has
an opportunity to cheer for someone from their region of the
country," Wilken wrote.  She added: "This evidence demonstrates
that the NCAA's restrictions on student-athlete pay is not the
driving force behind consumer interest in FBS football and
Division I basketball.  Thus, while consumer preferences might
justify certain limited restraints on student-athlete
compensation, they do not justify the rigid restrictions
challenged in this case."

Wilken also found the NCAA's compensation restrictions do not
promote competitive balance, as the NCAA argued at trial.

"The academic consensus on this issue is not surprising given that
many of the NCAA's other rules and practices suggest that the
association is unconcerned with achieving competitive balance.
Several witnesses testified that the restrictions on student-
athlete compensation lead many schools simply to spend larger
portions of their athletic budgets on coaching, recruiting, and
training facilities.

Wilken wrote at length on the issue, noting that a head football
coach for a major conference can make more than $1.5 million a
year.

"The fact that high-revenue schools are able to spend freely in
these other areas cancels out whatever leveling effect the
restrictions on student-athlete pay might otherwise have.  The
NCAA does not do anything to rein in spending by the high-revenue
schools or minimize existing disparities in revenue and
recruiting," the judge wrote.

Wilken said that the NCAA does nothing to interfere with
advantaged universities' lavish spending.

"This same sentiment underlies the NCAA's unequal revenue
distribution formula, which rewards the schools and conferences
that already have the largest athletic budgets.  Revenues
generated from the NCAA's annual Division I men's basketball
tournament are distributed to the conferences based on how their
member schools performed in the tournament in recent years.  As a
result, the major conferences -- and the highest revenue schools -
- typically receive the greatest payouts, which hinders, rather
than promotes, competitive balance."

The judge disagreed with the NCAA's contention that its anti-
compensation rules are necessary to promote the integration of
academics and athletics, and that paying student-athletes large
sums could "create a wedge" between the student athletes and other
students on campus.

"It is not clear that any of the potential problems identified by
the NCAA's witnesses would be unique to student-athletes," Wilken
wrote, citing testimony from Emmert that wealthy students raise
the same problems.

"It is also not clear why paying student-athletes would be any
more problematic for campus relations than paying other students
who provide services to the university, such as members of the
student government or school newspaper," Wilken added.

Attorneys for both sides were unavailable for comment.

NCAA Chief Legal Officer Donald Remy issued a statement late on
August 8, 2014, saying, "We disagree with the court's decision
that NCAA rules violate antitrust laws.  We note that the court's
decision sets limits on compensation, but are reviewing the full
decision and will provide further comment later."

The NCAA said it would appeal.

As for relief, Wilken's opinion says she favors a stipend for
college athletes, as well as a share of the licensing revenue to
be held in trust until they graduate.

Wilken rejected the plaintiffs' proposal that college athletes
should be paid for endorsements, saying it could lead to
commercial exploitation of student athletes.

The injunction prohibits the NCAA from preventing its member
schools from "offering to deposit a limited share of licensing
revenue in trust for their FBS football and Division I basketball
recruits, payable when they leave school or their eligibility
expires."

It adds: "To ensure that the NCAA may achieve its goal of
integrating academics and athletics, the injunction will not
preclude the NCAA from enforcing its existing rules -- or enacting
new rules -- to prevent student athletes from using the money held
in trust for their benefit to obtain other financial benefits
while they are still in school."

The case is Edward O'Bannon, et al. v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association; Electronic Arts Inc.; and Collegiate
Licensing Company, Case No. 4:09-cv-03329-CW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


NEW YORK CITY: African-American Lawyer Sues Over Racial Bias
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Gordon, Esq. v. The City Of New York, Marc Andes, Mark
Palomino, Gayle Sanders, Fay Leoussis, Michael A. Cardozo, David
Santoro, John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) (names currently unknown)
each in his/her official and individual capacities, Case No. 1:14-
cv-06115 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014) alleges that New York City
attorneys discriminated, retaliated and conspired to deprive the
Plaintiff of his civil rights.

Robert W. Gordon, Esq., is a black, African-American male, born in
the state of New York in February 1970.  He is a resident of
Westchester County, is an attorney admitted to practice law in New
York State and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District
of New York.  He is employed by The City of New York, in the New
York City Law Department, currently assigned to the Bronx Tort
Unit.  The Tort Division is one of 17 legal divisions of the Law
Department and the Special Litigation Unit is one of four special
units of the Tort Division.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation that manages and
finances The New York City Law Department, and is the ultimate
employer of Mr. Gordon.

Michael A. Cardozo, a Caucasian male, was the Corporation Counsel
of the City of New York and the head of the Law Department from
2002 until his departure in 2013.  The Individual Defendants are
officers, supervisors or department heads of the New York City Law
Department.  The Doe Defendants are individuals, whose identities
are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit:

          Robert W. Gordon, Esq.
          31 Tomahawk Drive
          White Plains, NY 10603
          Telephone: (914) 671-4181
          E-mail: rwg215@nyu.edu


PACIFIC COAST OIL: Removed "Welch" Suit to Calif. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Thomas Welch v. Pacific Coast
Oil Trust, et al., Case No. BC550418, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-06170-GHK-JPR to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of securities laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP
          4771 Cromwell Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (213) 985-1274
          Facsimile: (213) 985-1278
          E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com
                  jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Amber L. Eck, Esq.
          ZELDES HAEGGQUIST AND ECK LLP
          625 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
          E-mail: ambere@zhlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian T. Glennon, Esq.
          James H. Moon, Esq.
          Miles N. Ruthberg, Esq.
          Robert W. Perrin, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
          Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
          E-mail: brian.glennon@lw.com
                  james.moon@lw.com
                  miles.ruthberg@lw.com
                  robert.perrin@lw.com


PACWEST BANCORP: Sued Over Monthly Fees in Prepaid Debit Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lynore Levenhagen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PacWest Bancorp, as successor-in-interest to
First California Bank, Case No. 2:14-cv-06140-SVW-CW (C.D. Cal.,
August 5, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of
deducting monthly fees from reloadable prepaid debit cards that
have never been activated.

Although the Defendant represents that a monthly fee commences
upon activation of the card, in practice, the Defendant begins
deducting a monthly fee commencing at the time the card is
purchased and loaded, prior to its activation by the purchaser or
recipient, the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff adds that the
only purpose for this practice is to deceptively and unlawfully
increase the profits that the Defendant generates from the sale of
the prepaid cards.

PacWest Bancorp is a bank holding company incorporated in Delaware
with its headquarters in Los Angeles, California.  In 2013,
PacWest Bancorp acquired First California Financial Group.  As
part of the acquisition, First California Bank, a wholly owned
subsidiary of First California Financial Group, merged with and
into PacWest's wholly owned banking subsidiary, Pacific Western
Bank.  As successor-in-interest, PacWest Bancorp is responsible
for the debts and liabilities of First California Bank, according
to the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Theodore Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  tgivens@forthepeople.com


PALISADES ACQUISITION: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Nava, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, and Fulton, Friedman &
Gullace, LLP, Case No. 2:14-cv-04687-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y.,
August 6, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Mauro, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
          306 McCall Avenue
          West Islip, NY 11795
          Telephone: (631) 669-0921
          Facsimile: (631) 669-5071
          E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


PARKVIEW COMMUNITY: Removed "Bart" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Amber Bart v. Parkview Community
Hospital Medical Center, et al., Case No. RIC1406044, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Riverside).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:14-cv-01614-JGB-DTB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Greenberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. GREENBERG
          6100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1170
          Los Angeles, CA 90048-5116
          Telephone: (323) 782-0500
          Facsimile: (323) 782-0543
          E-mail: Dgreenberg@caltrialpros.com

               - and -

          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: lander@kbarnes.com
                  barnes@kbarnes.com

               - and -

          Janelle Christine Carney, Esq.
          Jason T. Hatcher, Esq.
          Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
          14758 Pipeline Avenue, Suite E 2nd Floor
          Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025
          Telephone: (909) 393-0223
          Facsimile: (909) 393-0471
          E-mail: jcarney@antonellilaw.com
                  jhatcher@antonellilaw.com
                  jantonelli@antonellilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Claudia Mourad, Esq.
          David M. Hershorin, Esq.
          Jean C. Wilcox, Esq.
          HERSHORIN AND HENRY LLP
          27422 Portola Parkway, Suite 360
          Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
          Telephone: (949) 859-5600
          Facsimile: (949) 859-5680
          E-mail: claudiam@hhlawgroup.com
                  davidh@hhlawgroup.com
                  jeanw@hhlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Stephanie Reynolds, Esq.
          Timothy G. Williams, Esq.
          POPE BERGER AND WILLIAMS LLP
          3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 234-1222
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9677
          E-mail: reynolds@popeberger.com
                  williams@popeberger.com


PGA MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Beech Reed and Joseph Reed v. PGA Management Services,
Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-81017-DTKH (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2014) is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

PGA Management Services, Inc. is a Florida corporation doing
business in Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary A. Isaacs, Esq.
          GARY A ISAACS, P.A.
          712 U.S. Highway One, Suite 400
          North Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 844-3600
          Facsimile: (561) 842-4104
          E-mail: gaisaacs@bellsouth.net


ROYAL BANK: October 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------

NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP, PLC, ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS.

CIV. NO. 08-5093-LAP

SUMMARY NOTICE:

TO: ALL PERSONS OR 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.

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

Steven J. Toll
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 United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York


SAFEWAY INC: Sued Over Alleged Baseless Claims on Milk Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Safeway, Vons et al. push
"Silk" and "Horizon Organic" milk products with baseless claims
that they support "brain health," a class action claims in San
Diego County Court.


SIMPSON CHIROPRACTIC: Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paola Libreros v. Simpson Chiropractic Pain and Wellness Center,
P.A., a Florida corporation, and Charles A. Simpson, individually,
Case No. 2:14-cv-14307-KAM (S.D. Fla., August 6, 2014) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, damages for retaliation, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs from the
Defendants.

Simpson Chiropractic Pain and Wellness Center, P.A., is a Florida
corporation.  Charles A. Simpson owned and operated Simpson
Chiropractic.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Militzok, Esq
          MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
          The Yankee Clipper Law Center
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
          E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


SONY COMPUTER: Has Misled Killzone Consumers, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that Sony Computer
Entertainment misled consumers by claiming that its "Killzone:
Shadow Fall" has higher-resolution graphics than it actually does,
a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Douglas Ladore claims that Sony pitched Killzone as
"a crowning achievement in the video game industry" and "a
graphically striking game set in a dystopian future that took full
advantage of the PS4's advanced processing power."

When Sony rolled out its Playstation 4 console in November 2013,
"the success of 'Killzone' was imperative to Sony and the ultimate
success of the PS4," as "only days after the PS4's release,
Microsoft planned to release its Xbox One," Ladore says in the
complaint.

He adds: "Microsoft stands as Sony's main competitor in the gaming
industry, and the release of the Xbox One triggered a 'console
war,' with both companies vying for consumer purchases. . . .

"The focus of the 'console battle' rested squarely on the
consoles' respective performance.  Amongst gamers and video game
critics, a metric known in the industry as 'resolution' is a
leading indicator of video game and console performance.

"Resolution is as a measure of a digital image's clarity. A
digital image is composed of many points of color (i.e., pixels),
with more pixels generally corresponding to increased clarity.
Image 'resolution' refers to the number of lines of pixels in the
vertical direction by the number of lines of pixels in the
horizontal direction.

"By far, most modern televisions use the industry-standard '1080p'
format.  Under that standard, the '1080' refers to the number of
lines of pixels in the horizontal direction (1,920 by 1,080).  The
'p' in '1080p' refers to the standard's 'progressive scanning'
technology."

Sony claimed that the game and console had "razor-sharp 1080p
native resolution (1920 x 1080)," but "gamers quickly noticed and
complained that Killzone's multiplayer graphics were blurry to the
point of distraction," the complaint states.

It adds: "The cause of this blurriness went unknown until a well-
respected video game website reported that Killzone's multiplayer
did not actually provide '1080p' graphics as advertised."

Sony then issued a statement and "admitted that it did not in fact
design Killzone to display multiplayer graphics in 1080p, but
instead used a technological shortcut that was supposed to provide
'subjectively similar' results," the lawsuit states.

"Sony's marketing culminated in on-the-box representations that
Killzone would provide 1080p multiplayer graphics," but "none of
these promises were true," Ladore claims

Sony declined to comment, telling Courthouse News it has a
"company policy of not addressing pending litigation."

Ladore seeks class certification and damages for fraud, breach of
contract, false advertising, unfair competition and unjust
enrichment.

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


SOUTHERN WINGS: Accused of Racial Discrimination in N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Alford v. Southern Wings Five LLC d/b/a Buffalo Wild
Wings, Case No. 7:14-cv-01524-RDP (N.D. Ala., August 5, 2014)
seeks to secure the protection of and to redress the alleged
deprivation of rights secured by Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
which provides for relief against discrimination in employment on
the basis of race, on the basis of religion, on the basis of
gender, and retaliation.

The Plaintiff is an African-American citizen of the United States
and a former employee of the Defendant.

Southern Wings Five, LLC, doing business as Buffalo Wild Wings, is
a corporation doing business in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Temple D. Trueblood, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, L.L.C.
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: ttrueblood@wigginschilds.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashton Lauren Thompson, Esq.
          E. Britton Monroe, Esq.
          Taffi S. Stewart, Esq.
          LLOYD GRAY WHITEHEAD & MONROE PC
          2501 20th Place South, Suite 300
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: (205) 967-8822
          Facsimile: (205) 967-2380
          E-mail: asartin@lgwmlaw.com
                  bmonroe@lgwmlaw.com
                  tstewart@lgwmlaw.com


SOUTHERN WINGS: Faces "Clay" Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Clay, Jr. v. Southern Wings Five, LLC, d/b/a Buffalo Wild
Wings, Case No. 7:14-cv-01525-RDP (N.D. Ala., August 5, 2014)
seeks to secure the protection of and to redress the alleged
deprivation of rights secured by Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
which provides for relief against discrimination in employment on
the basis of race, on the basis of religion, on the basis of
gender, and retaliation.

The Plaintiff is an African-American citizen of the United States
and a former employee of the Defendant.

Southern Wings Five, LLC, doing business as Buffalo Wild Wings, is
a corporation doing business in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Temple D. Trueblood, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, L.L.C.
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: ttrueblood@wigginschilds.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashton Lauren Thompson, Esq.
          E. Britton Monroe, Esq.
          Taffi S. Stewart, Esq.
          LLOYD GRAY WHITEHEAD & MONROE PC
          2501 20th Place South, Suite 300
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: (205) 967-8822
          Facsimile: (205) 967-2380
          E-mail: asartin@lgwmlaw.com
                  bmonroe@lgwmlaw.com
                  tstewart@lgwmlaw.com


TECHNO PRINT: Never Paid Extra Half Time Overtime Rate, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Franco Saponaro Di Babbo and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Techno Print and Marketing Corp, and Henry
Medina, Case No. 1:14-cv-22902-KMW (S.D. Fla., August 6, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours a week
for the Defendants but was never paid the extra half time rate for
any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Techno Print And Marketing Corp is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.  The Company is the
successor corporation to Techno-Print Inc.  Henry Medina is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


US STEEL: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $58 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
If you bought Steel Products from one or more Defendants between
April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007, you may be affected by a
Class Action Settlement.

What is the Settlement about?

Eight steel manufacturers, ArcelorMittal S.A. and ArcelorMittal
USA, LLC, Nucor Corporation, United States Steel Corporation,
Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, AK Steel Holding Corporation, Steel
Dynamics, Inc., SSAB Swedish Steel Corporation and Commercial
Metals Company were sued by several businesses who allege that the
Defendants conspired, in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws, to
restrict their output and thereby raise or "fix" the prices for
certain steel products sold for delivery in the United States
between April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007.

A settlement has been reached with U.S. Steel, which has agreed
to pay $58 million into a Settlement Fund.  This is in addition to
$105.9 million in settlements (pending court approval) that were
achieved with Commercial Metals Company, AK Steel Holding
Corporation, and Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation earlier this year.
Proposed settlements in the case to date now total $163.9 million.

U.S. Steel denies the allegations.  The litigation is
continuing against the three non-settling Defendants.

Who is a Settlement Class Member?

You are a Settlement Class Member if you Purchased certain Steel
Products directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries
or controlled affiliates at any time between April 1, 2005 and
December 31, 2007 for delivery in the United States.

In general, "Steel Products" include carbon steel slabs, plates,
sheet and coil products, galvanized and other coated sheet
products; billets, blooms, rebar, merchant bar, beams and other
structural shapes; and other steel products derived from raw
carbon steel and sold by Defendants.  The terms "Steel Products"
and "Purchased" are more specifically defined in the full Notice
and the Settlement Agreement.

Will I get a payment?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will
be eligible to file a claim at a later date to receive money from
the Settlement.

What are my rights?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will
release certain legal rights against U.S. Steel, as set forth
in the full Notice and in the Settlement Agreement with
U.S. Steel.  If you do not want to take part in the
the U.S. Steel Settlement, you have the right to opt out.  To opt
out of the Settlement, you must do so by September 10, 2014.
Settlement Class Members have the right to object to the
Settlement.  If you want to object, you must do so by
September 10, 2014.  Information on how to opt out or object to
the Settlement is contained in the full Notice and at
www.SteelAntitrustSettlement.com

You may speak to your own attorney at your expense for help.

When is the Approval Hearing?

A Final Approval Hearing to consider approval of the U.S. Steel
Settlement is scheduled to be held in Courtroom 2503, Everett
McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn
Street, Chicago, IL 60604, on October 17, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.  At
that time, the Court will also consider Plaintiffs' Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement of litigation
expenses.  You may appear at the hearing, but your attendance is
not required.  The date and location for this hearing may be
changed on further Order of the Court.

This is a Summary, where can I get more information?

You can get complete settlement information, including a copy of
the full Notice and the U.S. Steel Settlement Agreement, by
visiting www.SteelAntitrustSettlement.com


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Sued Over Sale of DHA-Fortified Milk Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcy Krinsk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Whitewave Foods Company; The Vons Companies, Inc.;
Safeway Inc.; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2014-
00026075-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., August 5,
2014) is brought on behalf of California consumers, who have
purchased the Defendants' five milk products: Horizon Organic
Whole Milk plus DHA Omega-3; Horizon Organic Reduced Fat Milk plus
DHA Omega-3; Horizon Organic Fat-Free Milk plus DHA Omega-3;
Horizon Organic Chocolate Milk plus DHA Omega-3; and Silk DHA
Omega-3 & Calcium All Natural Soy Milk.

The lawsuit is brought to halt the dissemination of the alleged
false, misleading and deceptive advertising message of the
Defendants relating to the sale of the Products, correct the false
and misleading perception that has been created in the minds of
California consumers, and obtain redress for those who have
purchased the DHA-fortified milk products.

Broomfield, Colorado-based Whitewave Foods Company is a Delaware
company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dean Foods Company.  WFC
manufactures, distributes, markets and sells nationwide five milk
products fortified with highly processed fermented algae known as
"DHA."  Safeway Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Pleasanton, California.  The Vons Companies, Inc., is a Michigan
corporation also headquartered in Pleasanton, California.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3579
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com


WHOLE FOODS: Faces "Markley" Product Liability Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Markley, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-
01892-CEH-MAP (M.D. Fla., August 6, 2014) asserts product
liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, PA
          5400 S University Dr., Suite 413
          1920 N Commerce Pkwy
          Davie, FL 33328-5313
          Telephone: (954) 634-4355
          Facsimile: (954) 634-4342
          E-mail: JEggnatz@Eggnatzlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
          SAXON, GILMORE, CARRAWAY & GIBBONS, PA
          201 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (386) 848-4194
          E-mail: frasermt83@gmail.com


YELP INC: Top Execs Overhyped Stock, Shareholders Claim in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The three top executives of Yelp sold more than $20 million of
their own shares at prices inflated by false and misleading
statements, and the stock price cratered by one-third when the
truth came out, shareholders claim in a California federal class
action.

Lead plaintiff Joseph Curry sued Yelp, its CEO Jeremy Stoppelman,
CFO Robert J. Krolik, and COO Geoffrey Donaker, on August 6, 2014,
in Federal Court. Yelp is an online business review site that
makes money from advertising on its website and mobile app.

Curry claims the defendants made false and misleading statements
about the company's finances, pushing it to "artificially inflated
prices of over $98 per share on March 4, 2014," only to see it
fall to $65.76 at the end of the class period, which is March 13
this year.

Curry claims the defendants represented Yelp's financial outlook
as rosy, without "a reasonable basis," and that "between
November 11, 2013 and March 10, 2014, company insiders, including
the individual defendants, sold 1,160,910 shares of Yelp stock at
prices as high as $98.99 per share for insider trading proceeds of
more than $81.5 million."

The "materially false and misleading statements concerning the
company's true business and financial condition, include(ed) but
[were] not limited to the true nature of the so-called 'firsthand'
experiences and reviews appearing on the Company's website, the
robustness of its processes and algorithms purportedly designed to
screen unreliable reviews, and the company's forecasted financial
growth prospects and the extent to which they were reliant upon
undisclosed business practices, including but not limited to
requiring business customers to pay to suppress negative reviews,"
according to the lawsuit.

Curry adds: "Reviews, including anonymous reviews, appearing on
the company's website were not all authentic 'firsthand' reviews,
but instead included fraudulent reviews by reviewers who did not
have first-hand experience with the business being reviewed;

"Algorithms purportedly designed to screen unreliable reviews did
not comprehensively do so, and instead, the company allowed such
unreliable reviews to remain prominent while the company tried to
sell services designed to suppress negative reviews or make them
go away; and

"In light of the above facts, the representations concerning the
company's current and future financial condition and prospects,
and the extent to which they were reliant upon undisclosed
business practices, did not have a reasonable basis."

When the company's business practices were "revealed to the
market," the share price sank from more than $98 to $65.76, the
complaint states.

Curry claims that during the class period -- Oct. 29, 2013 to
April 13, 2104 -- CEO Stoppelman sold 132,350 shares of Yelp for
$8,493,479; CFO Krolik sold 35,000 shares for $2,556,917; and COO
Donaker sold 117,640 shares for $9,877,471.

(Total sales of the three execs in that time, then averaged $73.43
a share.)

Curry seeks class certification and damages for securities
violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com


YELP INC: Online Reviewers Seek to Recover Wages and Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewers sued Yelp in a federal class action, claiming the online
review service owes them wages and expenses for doing "the exact
same work" that Yelp's paid employees do, reports Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiff Lily Jeung claims that she and the putative class
"perform the exact same work" posting reviews as many of Yelp's
paid workers perform, but they aren't paid a dime for it.

"This is a lawsuit merely to provide the wages to all writers of
Yelp and not just the ones which Yelp, Inc. chooses to pay in
wages," the complaint states.

It's the second class action complaint against Yelp within the
week in California courts.  On August 6, 2014, shareholders
accused its top three executives of dumping more than $20 million
of their own shares at prices inflated by false and misleading
statements.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Bernath, Esq.
          10335 SW Hoodview Dr.
          Tigard, OR 97224


                              *********

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  * * *