CAR_Public/140819.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 19, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 164

                             Headlines


19TH STREET FOOD: Removed "Barrett" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
ABAXIS INC: Shareholders Counsel Awarded $579,429 in Fees & Costs
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces "Pelz" Class Suit in C.D. California
ACURIAN INC: Faces "Lawson" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
ALPHA MANAGEMENT: October 7 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set

ALSON AUTO: Removed "Perez" Suit to Southern District of Florida
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Drivers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
APPLE INC: Court Refused to Certify ITunes Double-Billing Class
ASSURANT INC: Faces Action Over Lender-Place Insurance Program
AVIS BUDGET: Loses Bid to Dismiss Reward Program Class Action

BERNARD MADOFF: Dismissal of Trustee's Claims vs. Deals Affirmed
BEST BUY: Judge Certifies Investors' Securities Class Action
BEYOND BROADWAY: Sued Over Marijuana-Infused Chocolate Bars
BLUE SHIELD: Class Not Certified for Failing to Show Commonality
CANADA: Court Panel Allows G20 Summit Class Actions to Proceed

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Omissions Were Not Misleading, 10th Cir. Ruled
CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DOLGENCORP LLC: Removed "Vincino" Suit to Florida District Court
DOLLAR TREE: Violates Americans with Disabilities Act, Suit Says

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Calif.
E-TELEQUOTE & CASUALTY: Faces "Charvat" Class Suit in Florida
EBAY INC: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Listing Fee Refunds
EL PASO PIPELINE: Dismissal of Unitholders' Suit on Appeal
FACEBOOK INC: 25,000 Users Sign on to Privacy Class Action

FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
FORD MOTOR: Tailgate Complaint Must Be Amended Again, Court Ruled
GAF BUILDING: Sold Defective Elk Cross Timbers Decking, Suit Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Antifreeze Leakage in Chevrolet Cruze
GENJI LLC: Obtains Initial Approval of "Thio" Suit Settlement

GLOBAL MARKETING: Faces "Walsh" Suit in Florida District Court
GOOGLE INC: Consumer Advocacy Group Objects to $8.5-Mil. Deal
GOOGLE INC: Privacy Suit Complaint Must Be Amended, Court Ruled
GREATBANC TRUST: Money Manager Cherry-Picks Trades, Investors Say
HARBOR FREIGHT: Accused of Violating Song-Beverly Credit Card Act

HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Sued Over Unsolicited Advertising Calls
HENRY MAYO: Removed "Vasserman" Suit to C.D. California
HERTZ CORP: Managers Sue in Cal. Over Improperly Paid Bonuses
HOECHST CELANESE: Judge Allows Pollution Class Action to Proceed
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Sued Over Quality Control at Taiwan Facility

IMPERIAL METALS: Faces Class Action Over Mount Polley Tailings
JAG INDUSTRIAL: Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
JUDY'S HOMES: Fails to Provide Itemized Wage Reports, Suit Claims
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Complaint Over Toilet Paper Must Be Amended

LONDON SILVER: Accused of Violating Antitrust Laws in New York
LYFT INC: Drivers Must Amend Wage and Hour Complaint, Court Ruled
MARK BOLAND: Faces Class Action Over Hepatitis, HIV Tests
MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Former Intern Files Wage Class Action
MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Hattel" Suit to Tennessee District Court

MONSTER BEVERAGE: "Marshall" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
MONTEBELLO, CA: Bus Drivers File Class Action Over Meal Breaks
MRS BPO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Parties Seek Clarification of Court Order
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Court Says Antitrust Immunity Excludes TV Rights

NEW YORK CITY, NY: Falsely Arrested Innocent Vendor, Suit Claims
NIKON CORP: Settles D600 Class Action Over Sensor Spec Issue
OCEAN POWER: Faces Securities Class Actions in New Jersey
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for License Class Action
PEPCO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Biz Sale to Exelon

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Unconstitutionally Seizes Property, Suit Claims
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Property Owners' Class Action Appeal Dismissed
PLACE ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says
PRO EXCAVATING: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
QUAKER OATS: Settles Transfat Labeling Class Action for $1.4MM

RECOLOGY INC: Bid to Remand "Coria" Wage and Hour Case Denied
RED BULL: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $13 Mil.
REGIONS FIN'L: Lower Court to Review Price Impact in Class Action
RESTAURANT OPERATOR TWO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 8 Tobacco Cases Served v. RJR in Q2 2014

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4,800 Engle Progeny Cases Pending at June 30
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Paid $186MM in 24 Engle Progeny Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 67 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial by June 2015
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 5 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in 2014 Q2
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing in W.Va. Appeals Court Now Complete

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. 2014 Trial Set in "Sateriale" Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision in Philip Morris' Appeal Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: August 20 Status Conference in "Turner" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Howard" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb 2015 Status Conference in "Collora" Action

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2015 Status Conference in "Black" Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit v. American Tobacco Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit v. A C & S Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Jones" Suit v American Tobacco
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: British Columbia Case Being Actively Pursued

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Kansas Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment
SANIMAX: Warshafsky Teams Up with Liddle & Dublin in Class Action
SATINSKY GROUP: Court Reserves Judgment in R699 Car Scheme Suit
SCHWAN'S HOME: Must Refund Staff for Using Own Phones, Court Says
SHIRE US: Seeks Dismissal of Adderall Antitrust Class Action

SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Mass Layoff
STATE FARM: "Indiana" Suit Added to Auto Body Shop Antitrust MDL
SUBURBAN RADIOLOGIC: Mag. Judge Report Adopted in "Hartley" Suit
SUNRISE PROPANE: Judge Approves C$23-Mil. Class Action Settlement
SWISHER HYGIENE: Wins Final OK of $5.5MM Securities Suit Deal

T-MOBILE USA: Faces Suit Over Botched 911 Call Resulting in Death
TENG SOUTH: Removed "Lopez" Suit to Southern District of Florida
TEXAS GILA: Obtains Summary Judgment Ruling in TCPA Class Action
THINKDIRECT MARKETING: Removed "Scali" Suit to M.D. Florida
TRADER JOE'S: Court Suspended Trial in Mislabeling Class Suit

TREASURY WINE: Seeks Transfer of Suit to Victoria High Court
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Price-Fixing Suits by Vehicle Purchasers
UNITED STATES: Tried to Remove Info From NSA Surveillance Case
WELLS FARGO: Dist. Court Dismisses "Fiorilli" Case
WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Understating Sugar Amount in Greek Yogurt

YELP INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in California
YELP INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California


                            *********


19TH STREET FOOD: Removed "Barrett" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Barrett v. 19th Street Food Stop,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CACE-003081, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 0:14-cv-61813-KMW to the proceeding.

In her complaint, Plaintiff Kerryann Barrett alleges that she was
not paid overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week.

19th Street Food Stop, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation
having its main place of business in Broward County, Florida,
where the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant.  Joyce Raines is a
corporate officer of, and exercised operational control over the
activities of, the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter T. Mavrick, Esq.
          Victor M. Velarde, Esq.
          MAVRICK LAW FIRM
          1620 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311
          Telephone: (954) 564-2246
          E-mail: peter@mavricklaw.com
                  vvelarde@mavricklaw.com


ABAXIS INC: Shareholders Counsel Awarded $579,429 in Fees & Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
after settling a class action accusing it of issuing too many
company shares to its executives, Abaxis must pay the attorneys
for its shareholders more than a half million dollars.

The St. Louis Retirement System led the 2012 federal class action,
which accused the Abaxis board of directors of violating the
company's 2005 Equity Incentive Plan in issuing more than 2
million restricted shares to company officers and other workers
without shareholder approval.

Though its plan limits the number of shares to only 500,000,
shareholders cited the company's filings with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission in alleging that the board approved far
more.

In a Jan. 16, 2014, stipulation of settlement, Abaxis officials
agreed to implement "corporate governance measures" relating to
officer and director compensation and "equity award-granting
procedures.  The settlement also required Abaxis to pay up to $2
million in attorneys' fees and legal costs as determined by the
federal court.

After receiving approval of the deal in April, the St. Louis
Retirement System sought $1.65 million in fees.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Abaxis on
August 11, 2014, to pay $579,429.53 as a partial award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

"The court agrees that many of the claimed expenses here are
excessive or inadequately supported," Rogers wrote.  "The travel
expenses for multiple attorneys to attend the mediation will not
be allowed.  However, the expenses for two attorneys to attend the
hearings here were reasonable."

The court used the lodestar method to determine the final amount
for Abaxis to reimburse to St. Louis Police Retirement System.

"In this case, since the settlement did not create a common fund,
the court utilizes the lodestar method to determine reasonable
attorneys' fees," Rogers said.  "There is a strong presumption
that the lodestar figure represents a reasonable fee."

The shareholders' original complaint alleged that the company's
annual SEC filing showed NASDAQ had sent a letter outlining how
the company did not abide by its published equity compensation
plan requiring stockholder approval before changing its terms.
Instead, company officials made misleading statements during its
September 2012 annual meeting of shareholders, according to the
shareholder suit.

During a 2012 shareholder meeting, company officials left
shareholders "uninformed or misinformed" when they issued a proxy
that omitted explaining "the basis for the compensation
committee's decision to eliminate the Restricted Stock Limit --
e.g., that the grantor defendants had already violated the 2005
Plan by dramatically exceeding the restricted stock limit," the
complaint said.

St. Louis Police Retirement System is represented by:

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          79 Woodland Ave.
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          E-mail: rabadou@gmail.com

               - and -

          Eric Zagar, Esq.
          James Miller, Esq.
          Matthew Goldstein, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: ezagar@ktmc.com
                  jmiller@ktmc.com
                  mgoldstein@ktmc.com

The case is St. Louis Police Retirement System v. Abaxis, Inc.,
Clinton H. Severson, et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-05086-YGR, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces "Pelz" Class Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Pelz, an individual, and Jessica Valiente Chavarria, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc. dba Abercrombie &
Fitch Stores, Inc., an Ohio corporation; and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06327-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal., August 12,
2014) arises from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW APC
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          Prescott Littlefield, Esq.
          Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile: (213) 473-1919
          E-mail: pwl@kearneylittlefield.com
                  tak@kearneylittlefield.com


ACURIAN INC: Faces "Lawson" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Tavia Lawson, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Acurian Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06232-DDP-FFM (C.D.
Cal., August 8, 2014) alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

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


ALPHA MANAGEMENT: October 7 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT
MIDDLESEX COUNTY
13-0560

PAUL RENIERE and

WILLIAM LUCAS

v.

ALPHA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND URBAN HILLSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FINAL
HEARING

TO: ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO, AS OF APRIL 2012, WERE TENANTS AT:

17-19 WASHINGTON STREET, MALDEN,
86-96 MAPLE STREET, MALDEN
40 CEDAR STREET, MALDEN, OR
349 PLEASANT STREET, MALDEN

A Class Action Lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Management
Corporation and Urban Hillside Properties, LLC ("Defendants") on
behalf of a class of tenants at the above-named properties who
paid a "Key and Cleaning Deposit."  The Plaintiffs contend that
the Defendants mishandled the deposits.

A proposed settlement has been reached that includes payment of
approximately $105 to each class member.  The Court has ordered
the publication of this notice.  If you resided at one of the
addresses above as of April 2012 you may be a member of the class
and may be entitled to payment.  If you believe you may be a class
member and you have not received a formal notice of class
settlement in the mail (the "Mail Notice") you must first obtain a
copy of the Mail Notice in order to receive payment or object to
the settlement.  You may obtain a Mail Notice by contacting Class
Counsel:

Josh Gardner

Gardner and Rosenberg, P.C.
33 Mount Vernon St.
Boston, MA 02108
(857) 225-2743
josh@gardnerrosenberg.com

If you wish to file a claim, you must request a Mail Notice from
Class Counsel, and fill out and return such Mail Notice to Class
Counsel before October 7, 2014.  If you wish to object to the
settlement, you must request a Mail Notice from Class Counsel,
which describes the process that must be followed to file an
objection.  All objections must be received by October 7, 2014.

DO NOT ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE TO THE CLERK OF THE
COURT OR TO THE JUDGE.


ALSON AUTO: Removed "Perez" Suit to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Perez v. Alson Auto, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 14-15341-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-22953-RNS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Mitchell Goodz, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          4901 Northwest 17th Way, Suite 505
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone: (954) 717-4500
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jgoodz@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          York Milligan Flik, Esq.
          ALLEN NORTON & BLUE
          121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-7801
          Facsimile: 442-1578
          E-mail: yflik@anblaw.com


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Drivers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Hill, an individual; and Joe Correa, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Anheuser-
Busch Inbev Worldwide Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:14-
cv-06289 (C.D. Cal., August 11, 2014) alleges that the Company
never paid any overtime to its drivers, including the Plaintiffs.

Anheuser-Busch Inbev Worldwide Inc. is a Delaware corporation
doing business in the county of Los Angeles, California.  INBEV is
a distributor of alcoholic beverages, primarily under the
Anheuser-Bush name.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
          Megan E. Ross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-9171
          Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
          E-mail: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com
                  mross@michaeltracylaw.com

               - and -

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          9861 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 208-3400
          Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
          E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com


APPLE INC: Court Refused to Certify ITunes Double-Billing Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple need not face a class action for charging more than once for
multiple iTunes downloads, a federal judge ruled, finding that
each customer's particular allegations vary too much, reports
Chris Marshall, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Robert Herskowitz and Phoebe Juel hoped to represent a class of
customers who made repeated downloads of the same song from
iTunes, only to discover that Apple charged them every time.

Juel said Apple charged her when she downloaded a song from Apple
that she had already downloaded but could not locate on her
computer.  Herskowitz alleged he was charged more than once for
the same product.

A federal judge consolidated their cases, which allege breach of
contract, bad faith, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, fraud and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint in
May 2013 and moved to certify three classes in February 2014.  The
first class would include customers who were charged for a second
download within 15 minutes of the first download, the second class
would include those charged for a product they allegedly received
in an improper format, and the third class would include members
from the first two groups who also have an active e-Stores
account.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh found August 7, 2014, that particular
questions about each plaintiff in each class foreclose class
certification.

She noted that it varies from customer to customer, for example,
as to whether each plaintiff in the "15 Minute" class intended to
buy the product a second time.  Since their "breach of contract
claim hinges on a question that can be resolved only on an
individual basis, the court finds that common questions do not
predominate," Koh wrote.

In asking the court to presume that a customer who downloaded two
copies of the same product within 15 minutes did not buy the
second product in a valid manner, the plaintiffs said "it is
unreasonable to conclude that class members gave their assent to
purchase and pay for multiple copies of the same product."

In addition to finding that the argument lacked any authority, Koh
deemed the underlying presumption flawed to boot.

"The court, observes, however, that there are several reasons why
a customer might want to make two purchases of the same product in
a short span of time," the 32-page ruling states.  "For example,
the customer may have bought the product twice on separate
devices, lacking the time, ability or desire to copy the first
purchase from one device to the other.  Alternatively, the
customer might have deleted or otherwise lost the first purchase
after the file downloaded."

Koh further noted that the proposed class would not exclude those
who bought a product twice through two different e-Store accounts
nor would it exclude those who bought songs for themselves and
then again as a gift for someone else.  In all these scenarios
there is no question the customer wanted the second purchase.

Furthermore, "even if the court were to accept plaintiffs'
proposed presumption, individualized inquiries would still be
required," the opinion states.

Similar logic undermines the bid to certify other classes and for
other claims, Koh said, noting, for example, that "the resolution
of CLRA claims in this case will likely involve numerous
individual questions that will overwhelm the common issues."

"This is because there is no evidence that Apple has a common, let
alone uniform, or 'blanket,' practice of denying refunds to
customers who are charged twice for a single product," Koh added.

Plaintiff Phoebe Juel is represented by:

          Christopher Land, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. KITHAS
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1020
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-8100
          Facsimile: (415) 788-8001

Plaintiff Robert Herskowitz is represented by:

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com

Defendant Apple Inc. is represented by:

          Penelope Preovolos, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: ppreovolos@mofo.com

The cases are:

   (1) Robert Herskowitz, individually and on behalf of all
       others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc.,
       Case No. 12-CV-02131-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for
       the Northern District of California, San Jose Division;
       and

   (2) Phoebe Juel, individually and on behalf of all others
       similarly situated v. Apple, Inc.,
       Case No. 12-CV-03124-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for
       the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


ASSURANT INC: Faces Action Over Lender-Place Insurance Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc., is a defendant in class actions in a number of
jurisdictions regarding its lender-placed insurance programs.
These cases allege a variety of claims under a number of legal
theories. The plaintiffs seek premium refunds and other relief.
The Company continues to defend itself vigorously in these class
actions. The Company has accrued an estimated loss for this
litigation according to its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014 with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

"We have participated and may participate in settlements on terms
that we consider reasonable given the strength of our defenses.
However, the possible loss or range of loss resulting from such
litigation and regulatory proceedings, if any, in excess of the
amounts accrued is inherently unpredictable and involves
significant uncertainty. Consequently, no estimate can be made of
any possible loss or range of loss in excess of the above-
mentioned accrual," according to the company.


AVIS BUDGET: Loses Bid to Dismiss Reward Program Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe, Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Cara Salvatore, writing for
Law360, report that a federal judge on Aug. 6 rejected car-rental
giant Avis Budget Group Inc.'s bid to toss a class action accusing
it of imposing a hidden surcharge on its travel reward program
participants, saying the plaintiff has standing to pursue the
suit.

U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares spurned Avis' argument that
lead plaintiff Edward Schwartz lacks Article III standing because
his employer paid his credit card bill and the fees in question.

"Plaintiff was led to believe that he would be able to accrue
frequent flyer miles for free.  Instead, Defendant included a
hidden fee in Plaintiff's total rental cost, charging Plaintiff
for his ability to accrue those frequent flyer miles.  This is
sufficient to show that he has standing to sue for claims arising
out of this contractual dispute," the order said.

Additionally, although the plaintiff is not required to prove
economic harm, Mr. Schwartz has shown he's out of cash because of
the rental company's Travel Partners Program, Judge Linares said.

"The $0.75 surcharge, though not a personal car rental cost, is
not a valid business travel expense.  Thus, assuming that the
[fee] is contrary to New Jersey law, [Shwartz's employer] deserves
to be reimbursed for that expense," the judge concluded.  "This
sufficiently satisfies the elements of 'ascertainable loss' and
'damages' of Plaintiff's claims."

The class action, originally filed in 2011, alleges violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, injunctive relief
under New Jersey law and declaratory relief pursuant to the
Declaratory Judgment Act.

"We're very pleased with the decision by Judge Linares to deny
summary judgment," Schwartz's attorney Bruce Greenberg of Lite
DePalma Greenberg LLC told Law360 on Aug. 7.  "Under the law, Mr.
Schwartz plainly had standing to proceed, and he demonstrated an
ascertainable loss under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act."

The Aug. 6 victory is not the first for Mr. Schwartz.  In 2012,
the suit survived a motion to dismiss when Judge Linares rejected
Avis' assertion that he had not adequately pled his claims under
the NJCFA.

Now that the court has resolved the summary judgment motion, it
can turn to the question of class certification.

In July, Avis said certification should be denied because the
renters could plausibly have known of the surcharge, and most
would have rented anyway. Customer expectations are individual,
not class, issues, it said.

Mr. Schwartz is represented by Bruce D. Greenberg, Jeffrey Shooman
and Susana Cruz Hodge of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Daniel R.
Karon -- karon@gskplaw.com -- and Laura K. Mummert of Goldman
Scarlato Karon & Penny PC and Jay R. Faeges -- Faeges@MGFL-law.com
-- of Miller Goler Faeges Lapine LLP.

Avis is represented by Philip R. Sellinger --
sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- Todd L. Schleifstein
-- schleifsteint@gtlaw.com -- and Aaron Van Nostrand --
vannostranda@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Schwartz v. Avis Rent A Car System LLC, case number
2:11-cv-04052, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


BERNARD MADOFF: Dismissal of Trustee's Claims vs. Deals Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of Bernard Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme can collect on a
$410 million settlement despite obstruction from Madoff's
bankruptcy trustee, reports Nick Divito at Courthouse News
Service, citing a 2nd Circuit ruling.

Irving Picard, as trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities and Madoff's bankruptcy estate, launched
"adversary proceedings" to block the settlement of three lawsuits
on behalf of investors in "feeder funds" that funneled cash to
perpetuate the scheme.  Picard claimed that the settlements on
those three cases would "hinder" his ability to recoup fraudulent
transfers.

Such concerns failed on August 8, 2014, however, to sway the 2nd
Circuit on August 8.

"The injuries alleged by the plaintiffs in both actions are
alleged to have been caused directly by the non-debtor defendants
-- not by Madoff or BLMIS," Judge Robert Sack wrote for a three-
judge panel, abbreviating the name of Madoff's firm.  "That
renders them 'particularized' and outside the Trustee's purview.
The actions are therefore not voided by, and the settlements are
not subject to, the automatic stay."

A group of investors brought one of the class actions at issue
here in December 2008 on behalf of those who invested in four
feeder funds run by Fairfield Greenwich Group, which invested
their money in Madoff's company.  A second, consolidated and
amended complaint was filed in September 2009, citing securities
violations.

Separate federal judges shot down Picard's motions to dismiss the
lawsuits.

Settlement talks in 2010 led to a $50.2 million deal for the
plaintiffs, with another $30 million escrow fund set up for future
settlements or judgments.

But the night before the courts were set to approve the proposal,
Picard filed papers in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan to block
the settlement, arguing that it injured his own efforts to recover
victims' money.

"Pursuing a parallel strategy," Picard then asked the court to
intervene directly.

The courts declined, however, and New York's Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman then sued in April 2009, claiming Ezra Merkin and his
investment company, Gabriel Capital Corp., lied to several hundred
investors in several feeder funds to take in $2 billion, "while
turning all, or a substantial portion, of [investors'] funds over
to Madoff and others."

In September 2010, Bart Schwartz also filed suit against Merkin as
a receiver of two Merkin funds, Ariel Fund Ltd. and Gabriel
Capital.

Schneiderman and Schwartz settled in June 2012 for $410 million as
part of a joint settlement. Merkin agreed to pay $405 million over
a three-year period, and $5 million to the state to cover fees and
costs.

Schneiderman's office said it was the first settlement stemming
from a government's lawsuit against Merkin.

Picard again sought to block the settlement, arguing that he had
priority over Merkin's assets, and that distribution should await
resolution of his separate claims against Merkin.  In each case,
the courts rejected his arguments.  His appeal brought the case
before the 2nd Circuit.

Schneiderman hailed the circuit's decision on August 8, 2014,
calling it a victory for "justice and accountability"

"Many New Yorkers entrusted their investments to Mr. Merkin, who
then steered money to Madoff and received millions of dollars in
management and incentive fees," Schneiderman said in a statement.

Victims "should begin receiving the money in the coming months,"
the AG added.

Certain eligible investors, he said, can expect to recover 40
percent of their losses.

Appellant Irving H. Picard is represented by:

          David J. Sheehan, Esq.
          Deborah H. Renner, Esq.
          Tracy L. Cole, Esq.
          Keith R. Murphy, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111-0100
          Telephone: (212) 589-4200
          Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
          E-mail: dsheehan@bakerlaw.com
                  drenner@bakerlaw.com
                  tcole@bakerlaw.com
                  kmurphy@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          David B. Rivkin, Jr., Esq.
          Lee A. Casey, Esq.
          Mark W. DeLaquil, Esq.
          Andrew M. Grossman, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          Washington Square, Suite 1100
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20036-5304
          Telephone: (202) 861-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 861-1783
          E-mail: drivkin@bakerlaw.com
                  lcasey@bakerlaw.com
                  mdelaquil@bakerlaw.com

The Lead Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 356-0011
          Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
          E-mail: ssinger@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          David A. Barrett, Esq.
          Howard L. Vickery, II, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: dbarrett@bsfllp.com
                  hvickery@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

               - and -

          Victor E. Stewart, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900

The Defendants-Appellees Fairfield Greenwich Limited, et al., are
represented by:

          Marc G. Cunha, Esq.
          Peter E. Kazanoff, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Roether, Esq.
          Jeffrey E. Baldwin, Esq.
          Nicholas S. Davis, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
          E-mail: mcunha@stblaw.com
                  pkazanoff@stblaw.com
                  jroether@stblaw.com
                  jbaldwin@stblaw.com
                  ndavis@stblaw.com

Appellees Eric T. Schneiderman, Bart M. Schwartz and Ralph C.
Dawson are represented by:

          James C. McCarroll, Esq.
          Jordan W. Siev, Esq.
          Michael J. Venditto, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 521-5400
          Facsimile: (212) 521-5450
          E-mail: jmccarroll@reedsmith.com
                  jsiev@reedsmith.com
                  mvenditto@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Judith A. Archer, Esq.
          David L. Barrack, Esq.
          Jami Mills Vibbert, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
          666 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10103-3198
          Telephone: (212) 318-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 318-3400
          E-mail: judith.archer@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  david.barrack@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  jami.vibbert@nortonrosefulbright.com

Defendants-Appellees J. Ezra Merkin and Gabriel Capital
Corporation are represented by:

          Andrew J. Levander, Esq.
          Neil A. Steiner, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6797
          Telephone: (212) 698-3500
          Facsimile: (212) 698-3599
          E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com
                  neil.steiner@dechert.com

Intervenor Securities Investor Protection Corporation is
represented by:

          Nathanael S. Kelly, Esq.
          Josephine Wang, Esq.
          Kevin H. Bell, Esq.
          SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION
          805 15th Street, Suite 800
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371-8300
          Facsimile: (202) 371-6728
          E-mail: nkelley@sipc.org
                  jwang@sipc.org
                  kbell@sipc.org

The appellate cases are Picard v. Fairfield Greenwich, et al.,
Lead Case No. 13-1289-bk (consolidated with Case No. 13-1392-cv),
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and
Picard v. Schneiderman, et al., Case No. 13-1785, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


BEST BUY: Judge Certifies Investors' Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, reports that a Minnesota
federal judge on Aug. 6 certified a class of investors suing Best
Buy Co. Inc. and top executives, alleging the company misled
shareholders about performance and expectations resulting in
artificially inflated share prices during a three-month period in
2010.

U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank approved the class, which
includes shareholders who purchased Best Buy common stock between
10:00 a.m. Sept. 14, 2010, and Dec. 13, 2010.  The company's
shares traded artificially high during the class period based on
misstatements by Best Buy and several of its officers and
directors, the complaint said.

In his order, Judge Frank wrote that the class had successfully
proven its members were entitled to the presumption of reliance,
and had proposed a model that calculates damages caused by the
alleged fraud on a classwide basis.

The suit, filed in February 2011, alleged that Best Buy boasted a
healthy demand for its electronic products and projected that its
fiscal year 2011 earnings per share would hit $3.55-$3.70.  As a
result, Best Buy stock maxed out at $44.81 per share between
Sept. 14 and Dec. 13, 2010, the suit claimed.

When Best Buy released its third-quarter results, however, it
revealed that its product sales were falling, a trend that began
in June 2010, according to the plaintiffs.

The company told investors that its growth assessments had been
"too aggressive" and that certain new products had been slow to
take hold, the complaint alleges.  As a result, Best Buy lowered
its earnings forecast to $3.20-$3.40 per share.  When the news
dropped, Best Buy's share price sank by 14 percent, closing at
$34.52 on Dec. 14, 2010.

The plaintiffs asserted that the company and its executives made
numerous misstatements and omissions about its financial well-
being in news releases, conference calls and public meetings, and
that it acted with scienter, knowing or recklessly disregarding
the truth about Best Buy's state.

In August 2013, Judge Frank pared down the suit after finding some
statements made in September 2010 were protected by the safe
harbor provision under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

Judge Frank had originally thrown out the case with prejudice in
March 2012, finding no evidence showed that the company had
knowledge making its statements false or misleading, but revived
the suit in October, agreeing with the plaintiffs that he had
improperly treated their consolidated complaint as an amended
complaint.

In the Aug. 6 order, Judge Frank rejected the defense's
contentions that the class members had failed to establish a
presumption of reliance and that the members failed to prove
damages could be proven on a classwide basis.  The judge wrote
that the plaintiffs showed that the stocks increased after the
allegedly misleading statements were made and dropped after they
were revealed to be untrue, and found the plaintiffs successfully
proposed a model to calculate damages.

The judge agreed with Best Buy's argument that the class as
initially proposed could include some who bought the stock before
the disputed statements were made.  He narrowed the definition of
the class, excluding those who bought or acquired the stock before
the alleged false statements were made at 10 a.m. Sept. 14, 2010.

Plaintiffs' attorney Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com --
told Law360 on Aug. 6 he was pleased with the court's decision.

The plaintiffs are represented by lead counsel Shawn A. Williams,
Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Aelish M. Baig and Kenneth J. Black --
kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Best Buy is represented by Michael V. Ciresi --
mvciresi@rkmc.com -- Stephen P. Safranski, David W. Beehler --
dwbeehler@rkmc.com -- and Amy E. Slusser of Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi LLP.

The case is IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund et al. v. Best Buy Co. Inc.
et al, case number 0:11-cv-00429, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.


BEYOND BROADWAY: Sued Over Marijuana-Infused Chocolate Bars
-----------------------------------------------------------
Though a chocolatier at the Denver County Fair's Pot Pavilion
assured a visitor there was no THC in its free samples, he got so
high from them he projectile vomited on the way to a hospital, the
man claims in a class action complaint, reports Megan Gallegos at
Courthouse News Service.

Jordan Coombs sued edible marijuana chocolatier Beyond Broadway
dba Full Melt Chocolate and LivWell, in Denver County District
Court.

"This civil action is for personal injuries arising from the
defendants' negligent distribution of marijuana-infused chocolate
bars under the guise that they contained no Tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the principal psychoactive constituent (or cannabinoid) of
this cannabis plant," Coombs says in the lawsuit.

"Plaintiff complains, inter alia, that Broadway gave him several
pieces of chocolate at the Pot Pavilion at the Denver County Fair
and was expressly told by Broadway representatives that the
chocolate contained no THC.  Upon ingesting the chocolate the
plaintiff experienced and overdosed on THC causing him to become
seriously and physically ill requiring treatment and evaluation at
the emergency room."

Coombs claims that after he ate the chocolate he felt so strange
he had to leave the fair.  His wife drove him to the hospital and
"during the drive away from the Denver County Fair, the plaintiff
became so sick that he projectile vomited uncontrollably in his
car," the complaint states.  The vomit was so bad that that car
required "professional cleaning."

Coombs claims physicians in the emergency room diagnosed him as
overdosing on THC, which they detected in his blood.  Coombs seeks
class certification and damages for product liability, breach of
warranty, negligence, failure to label and negligent
misrepresentation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey Zurbuch, Esq.
          FRASCONA, JOINER, GOODMAN AND GREENSTEIN, P.C.
          4750 Table Mesa Drive
          Boulder, CO 80305
          Telephone: (303) 494-3000
          Facsimile: (303) 494-6309


BLUE SHIELD: Class Not Certified for Failing to Show Commonality
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Shield customers who were denied coverage based on policy
exclusions failed to show the commonality required for class
certification, reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

The parents of a boy described only as Geoffrey F. brought the
action in 2009, claiming Blue Shield denied coverage of Geoffrey's
residential treatment for his "disruptive behavior disorder," as
their plan didn't cover residential treatment for mental
illnesses.

Challenging the denied reimbursement under the California Mental
Health Parity Act, Geoffrey's parents also brought a claim for
breach of contract under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the plaintiffs
class certification on August 11, 2014, finding the proposed
grouping too broad and ill-defined.  "The proposed class appears
to include every beneficiary/participant in a Blue Shield ERISA
plan who was denied coverage, based on a policy exclusion, for any
form of 'residential treatment' for any form of mental illness or
behavioral disorder," Gonzalez wrote.

She added: "The only constants appear to be beneficiaries who were
insured in some capacity under a Blue Shield health insurance
policy, and who received mental health treatment in a residential
treatment facility, and who claim that Blue Shield improperly
denied coverage.  This failure to precisely define the proposed
class creates a major barrier for certification."

Whether each member's claims fall under the Parity Act would also
raise too many individual issues, Gonzalez said.  "In order to
establish that his/her claim falls under the Parity Act, each
purported class member would have to show that he/she has a Parity
Act condition, that the residential care services he/she received
were for treatment of that condition, that the services/treatment
were covered by the Parity Act, and that the services/treatment
were medically necessary (or that Blue Shield had waived that
requirement by not raising it during the administrative proceeding
when it had sufficient information in its possession to have
evaluated medical necessity)," the 26-page opinion states.  "Each
of these questions may require an individualized inquiry, which
defeats predominance."

Gonzalez said it would be difficult to manage the case, as each
class member would have to establish his own right to recovery.
"Plaintiffs have made no attempt to explain how the court could
possibly try this case as a class action given the number of
individual issues involved," she wrote.

The ruling concludes: "In light of plaintiffs' failure to
articulate a definition of an ascertainable class, and in light of
the fact that numerous individual issues predominate over any
common issues, a class action is plainly not a superior method of
adjudication of the controversy."

The case is Daniel F., et al. v. Blue Shield of California, et
al., Case No. 4:09-cv-02037-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


CANADA: Court Panel Allows G20 Summit Class Actions to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mehta, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that an
Ontario court has cleared the way for two class-action lawsuits by
hundreds of people detained during the G20 summit in Toronto four
years ago, saying it's important their allegations of police
mistreatment be heard in court.

A proposed class-action suit related to the summit was initially
stalled last year when a judge ruled it couldn't proceed because
its "broad, sweeping nature" was viewed as problematic.

But a Divisional Court panel hearing an appeal of that ruling
determined that the proceedings could move forward in two
separate, but related, class-action lawsuits.

One will deal with hundreds who were abruptly detained by police
at five locations across Toronto, and another will deal with the
treatment of those who were held at a "chaotic" detention center
set up during the summit.

"It is important to remember that the police cannot sweep up
scores of people just in the hope that one of the persons captured
is a person who they believe is engaged in criminal activity,"
Justice Ian Nordheimer wrote on behalf of the unanimous, three-
member panel.

"In essence, in this case, we have a broad class of persons who
were allegedly arbitrarily detained in each instance by the police
through the use of a single sweeping order."

More than 1,000 people were detained by police during the G20
summit in June 2010 after protesters using so-called Black Bloc
tactics broke away from a peaceful rally and ran through the
downtown, smashing windows and burning police cruisers.

The vast majority of those detained were released without charge
within 24 hours.

The class-action proceedings that will now proceed involve "a very
serious issue of access of justice," noted Justice Nordheimer,
adding that many of those involved may not be willing to put in
the time and expense required for individual legal proceedings.

"The damage was made to the liberty interests of these individuals
where the harm is, perhaps, easier to ignore and easier to
minimize," he wrote.  "It is a harm, however, that is nonetheless
real and it is harm, if proven, that should not go unremedied."
None of the allegations made in the class-action lawsuits have
been proven in court.

Critics have denounced police actions in Toronto during the
tumultuous G20 summit as one of the largest abuses of civil
liberties in Canadian history.

The Divisional Court ruling, released on Aug. 13, noted that the
allegations of mistreatment by police that would be brought
forward by the class-action proceedings were significant.

"If the appellant's central allegation is proven, the conduct of
the police violated a basic tenet of how police in a free and
democratic society are expected to conduct themselves,"
Justice Nordheimer wrote.

"If that view of the conduct in this instance is made out, an
award of damages to the individual citizens affected may be the
most telling and lasting expression that such conduct should never
be tolerated."

Sherry Good, an office administrator in her 50s who spearheaded
the original class action, said she was grateful for the
Divisional Court ruling.

"When I was boxed-in by the police in the torrential rain at Queen
and Spadina with hundreds of other ordinary citizens, I believed
that what the police were doing was very wrong," she said in a
statement.  "The class action can now move forward and hopefully
bring some measure of peace and comfort to the many people that
suffered because of the police actions that weekend."

Thomas Taylor, who is now the representative plaintiff for the
second separate class-action lawsuit dealing with those held in
the summit's sprawling makeshift detention center, also welcomed
the ruling.

"During the G20 weekend hundreds of people were arrested and taken
to the makeshift G20 detention center, where many were held for 24
hours or more in overcrowded wire cages and in freezing
temperatures without enough food or water," he said.

"All of this just because we exercised our right to speak freely.
Most Canadians that I have spoken with cannot believe that this
happened here.  It should not be allowed to happen again."


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Omissions Were Not Misleading, 10th Cir. Ruled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy cannot be sued for securities fraud because its
failed disclosure of hedging strategies to shareholders was not
material or misleading, reports David Lee at Courthouse News
Service, citing a 10th Circuit ruling.

A United Food and Commercial Workers Union pension fund filed a
proposed class action against the Oklahoma City-based company, its
officers board of directors in federal court in 2009 for
securities fraud.  The fund claimed the company's stock plummeted
after its initial public offering in July 2008 when natural gas
prices tanked and the financial crisis rocked the economy.

The fund argued the company should have disclosed that it had
expanded a "risky gas-price hedging strategy" that put it in
danger if natural gas prices fell.  It also argued that former CEO
Aubrey McClendon had pledge all of his stock as security for
margin loans and lacked the money to meet margin calls.  The trial
court later granted Chesapeake summary judgment and entered
judgment for the company in June 2013.

On August 8, 2014, a three-judge panel with the Denver-based 10th
Circuit affirmed the ruling.

Writing for the court, Judge Harris L. Hartz agreed that there was
no violation of disclosure duties.

"We doubt that the registration statement was misleading," the 27-
page opinion stated.  "Certainly, plaintiff has failed to support
its claim that Chesapeake changed its knockout hedging strategy in
the second quarter of 2008."

Hartz said that although the information on the complex knockout
swaps are absent from the registration statement, they are found
in the company's SEC filings within the registration statement.

"Of those filings, the May 10-Q -- a quarterly report with data
through March 2008 -- provided the most recent disclosures about
Chesapeake's knockout swaps," he wrote.  "It listed the volume of
knockout swaps Chesapeake had entered into that would mature in
2008, 2009, and 2010, and stated the average fixed price and the
average knockout price for the contracts."

Hartz disagreed with the fund's argument that disclosures in a
follow-up 8-K filing should not be considered because it was not
part of the offering materials.

"But the report is still relevant," he wrote.  "The claim here is
that Chesapeake failed to disclose material information, and
'[m]ateriality . . . depends on the information that already
exists in the market,'" the opinion stated.  "Undisclosed
information is material only if its disclosure would have
'significantly altered the total mix of information available' to
a reasonable investor.  Public documents are part of that total
mix if an investor interested in a particular type of information
about a company would know of the existence of the record and
could readily access it."

The appeals court also concluded the registration statement
adequately disclosed McClendon's stock, rejecting arguments that
it should have been more specific.

"All shares held in margin accounts are vulnerable to margin
calls, depending on movements in the market," the opinion stated.
"The disclosure that plaintiff insists on -- listing exactly the
number of shares serving as collateral at the moment of reporting
-- can understate risk by obscuring the fact that other shares
held in margin accounts might be needed as collateral in the
future.  Chesapeake's failure to specify how many of McClendon's
shares actively served as collateral was not a material omission
because, if anything, it provided an excessive warning of risk by
overstating the number of collateralized shares."

The union did not respond to a request for comment on August 11,
2014.  Gordon Pennoyer, Chesapeake's strategic communications
director, declined to comment on the ruling on August 12, 2014
morning.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Steven F. Hubachek, Esq.
          Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq.
          James I. Jaconette, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: shubachek@rgrdlaw.com
                  erici@rgrdlaw.com
                  jamesj@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Robert P. Varian, Esq.
          Kenneth Herzinger, Esq.
          M. Todd Scott, Esq.
          Christin J. Hill, Esq.
          Alexander K. Talarides, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          The Orrick Building
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
          Telephone: (415) 773-5700
          Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: rvarian@orrick.com
                  kherzinger@orrick.com
                  tscott@orrick.com
                  chill@orrick.com
                  atalarides@orrick.com

The appellate case is United Food and Commercial Workers Union
Local 880 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation, et al., Case
No. 13-6165, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.


CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia M. Milner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00358-ML-PAS (D.R.I., August 8, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Longo, Esq.
          CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C.
          681 Smith St., Suite 201
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 383-7550
          Facsimile: (401) 537-9185
          E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com


DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Simpson, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L., a
Florida Professional Limited Liability Company, and Dyck-O'Neal,
Inc., a Texas Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-01946-VMC-AEP (M.D.
Fla., August 12, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin Tyler Brown, Esq.
          Earl Warren Parker, Jr., Esq.
          PARKER & DUFRESNE, PA
          8777 San Jose Blvd., Suite 301
          Jacksonville, FL 32217-4226
          Telephone: (904) 733-7766
          Facsimile: (904) 733-2919
          E-mail: abrown@jaxlawcenter.com
                  parker@jaxlawcenter.com

               - and -

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753-8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  simmons@varnellandwarwick.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: Removed "Vincino" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vincino v. Dolgencorp LLC, Case
No. 2014-CA-517, was removed from the Circuit Court, Eighth
Judicial Circuit, of Levy County, Florida, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville
Division.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
00142-RS-GRJ to the proceeding.

In her complaint, Leslie Vincino asserts several individual claims
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as a handicap
discrimination claim under Florida's Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin A. Green, III, Esq.
          BLANCHARD, MERRIAM, ADEL & KIRKLAND, P.A.
          Post Office Box 1869
          Ocala, FL 34478
          Telephone: (352) 732-7181
          Email: tgreen@bmaklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul A. Donnelly, Esq.
          DONNELLY & GROSS, P.A.
          2421 Northwest 41st Street, Suite A-1
          Gainesville, FL 32606
          Telephone: (352) 374-4001
          Facsimile: (352) 374-4046
          E-mail: paul@donnellygross.com

               - and -

          Joel S. Allen, Esq.
          Melissa M. Hensley, Esq.
          Christopher L. Maberry, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 3200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 466-4000
          Facsimile: (214) 466-4001
          E-mail: joel.allen@morganlewis.com
                  melissa.hensley@morganlewis.com
                  cmaberry@morganlewis.com


DOLLAR TREE: Violates Americans with Disabilities Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Dollar Tree, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01062-
LPL (W.D. Pa., August 8, 2014) is brought pursuant to The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 7 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. common stock during the period
between October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 1, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges DreamWorks and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
DreamWorks creates entertainment, including CG animated feature
films, television specials and series, and live entertainment
properties, for audiences around the world.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period about the Company's
business, operations, prospects and performance.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that DreamWorks improperly accounted
for its animated film, Turbo, prior to recording a $13.5 million
impairment charge, improperly accounted for the impairment charge
related to the Turbo movie, and lacked adequate internal control
over financial reporting.

The complaint alleges that following its commercially successful
release of the movie The Croods in March 2013, DreamWorks released
Turbo, an animated film about a snail whose dream to become the
fastest snail in the world comes true.  In North America, on its
opening day, Turbo earned $5.8 million in 3,552 theaters, the
third lowest all-time opening for a DreamWorks computer-animated
film, and when adjusted for inflation and 3D prices, the smallest
opening weekend audience ever for a DreamWorks picture.  Turbo
ultimately grossed $83 million in North America and $199 million
in other countries, for a worldwide total of $282 million.  The
film cost $127 million to produce, but because DreamWorks spent
between $150 million and $175 million to market it, the film had
one of the lowest gross revenues in DreamWorks' history.

On February 26, 2014, the Company filed its Annual Report on Form
10-K with the SEC in which it admitted that Turbo had not
"recovered [its] production costs" and that due to Turbo's poor
performance the Company had "recorded an impairment charge
totaling $13.5 million."  On July 29, 2014, during a conference
call with analysts, DreamWorks revealed that the Company was under
investigation by the SEC for the $13.5 million impairment charge
the studio took in relation to the poor performance of the Turbo
movie.  The Company indicated that it was cooperating with the
SEC, but would not elaborate on the scope or extent of the
investigation.  On this news, shares in DreamWorks fell $2.68 per
share, or almost 12%, on extremely heavy trading volume, to close
at $19.98 per share on July 30, 2014.

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

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


E-TELEQUOTE & CASUALTY: Faces "Charvat" Class Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Charvat, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. E-Telequote & Casualty Company, Case No.
8:14-cv-01928-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla., August 11, 2014) is brought over
restrictions on use of telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip T. Howard, Esq.
          Scott Carruthers, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, PA
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298-4455
          Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


EBAY INC: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Listing Fee Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
EBay must face claims that its policies are unfairly biased
against sellers and allow dishonest buyers to defraud them,
reports Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

Lead plaintiff Maggie Campbell hopes to represent a class of
sellers suing eBay and its wholly owned payment processor, PayPal
on the grounds that the companies' buyer-is-always-right policy
exposes sellers to fraud.

In her October 2012 complaint, Campbell, who says she uses eBay to
sell bicycles and related parts, claims the site allows buyers who
dispute a transaction to keep the items they purchased and gives
them a refund through either eBay or PayPal.

Not only does this policy deprive sellers of their goods and
profits, she says, eBay also refuses to refund sellers the listing
fees for disputed items.

In its motion to dismiss, eBay claimed the class lacked standing
and did not support their case with enough facts.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed and dismissed
the complaint in September 2013 with leave to amend, directing
Campbell to address "the nature of the restrictions that are the
basis for her complaint and why those restrictions are not part of
the agreement she acceded to as part of her user agreement."

Campbell filed a third amended complaint for seven causes of
action, including breach of contract, unfair business practices,
fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty against PayPal only.

EBay again sought dismissal for failure to make viable claims and
lack of standing, arguing that its "contracts with her allow all
the conduct alleged."

Rogers's ruling on August 11, 2014, was a mixed bag, offering both
parties some relief while ultimately denying eBay's motion to
dismiss.

Since Campbell did not oppose eBay's argument that her invasion of
privacy claims against it were insufficient, and conceded that her
claims for fraud and interference with contract should be
dismissed outright, Rogers granted eBay's motions to dismiss those
claims.

Rogers ruled that Campbell's breach of contract claims against
PayPal were not sufficiently alleged.

Campbell argued that PayPal wrongfully refuses to force buyers to
return items to sellers if the buyers say the item arrived
"significantly not as described."

For example, she says, she sold $300 worth of bicycle parts to a
man in Tennessee who got to keep the items and was refunded his
money after he complained that he had "not authorized payment" for
them.

Rogers was not convinced.

"The TAC [third amended complaint] itself does not allege which
portions of the agreement were breached on account of the alleged
conduct," she wrote.  "Moreover, the sections cited by plaintiff
in opposition only undermine her claim, as they demonstrate that
sellers like plaintiff agreed to these terms. . . .  Thus, the
PayPal agreement itself notified sellers that PayPal may require
them to refund sales proceeds without requiring the buyer to
return the item sold.  In order to state a claim for breach of
contract, plaintiff would have to plead these provisions in the
PayPal agreement."

Campbell found more relief with her related claims against eBay.

She argued that eBay wrongfully refuses to credit final value fees
back to sellers when sales are rescinded, in breach of its buyer
protection policy; did not allow PayPal to accept money from
potential international buyers on several occasions; and unfairly
sides with "dishonest, deceptive" buyers during disputes rather
than investigating each matter to determine who is right.

In opposition, eBay argued that the buyer protection policy allows
it to settle disputes any way it chooses, and claimed that
Campbell signed an agreement that lets it limit acceptable payment
methods, including international transactions.

Rogers sided with Campbell on this one, stating that eBay's
"arguments miss the point of the allegations."

"Though the TAC is not a model of clarity, it states eBay's
alleged unfair conduct in the exercise of its discretion under its
agreements with plaintiff and others.  While the court agrees that
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not
'prohibit a party from doing that which is expressly permitted by
an agreement,' it does prohibit a party vested with discretion
from exercising that discretion in a manner that is 'contrary to
the contract's purposes and the parties' legitimate expectations,"
the ruling states, citing the 4th Circuit's decision in Carma
Developers Inc. v. Marathon Development California Inc.

Rogers dismissed all of Campbell's fiduciary duty allegations
against PayPal for failure to make a claim except her argument
that PayPal arbitrarily put holds on her and other sellers' funds.

Though sellers' user agreements with PayPal say it can put holds
on funds during disputes with buyers or with risky sales, it
cannot simply use its discretion to place holds on funds at
random, according to the complaint.

Campbell also prevailed on many of her claims that eBay
intentionally interfered with sellers' contracts.

Though Rogers agreed with eBay that Campbell cannot complain about
her inability to enforce a "no returns allowed" term of sale after
she signed the site's dispute resolution policy, it must face
claims that it is unfairly biased against sellers in dispute
resolution proceedings and refuses to let PayPal process
international payments, the ruling states.

Rogers dismissed Campbell's arguments that eBay arbitrarily forces
sellers to add shipping costs to sale prices, arbitrarily changed
the way it determines "top-rated sellers" to make gaining that
distinction functionally impossible, and putting allegedly unfair
restrictions on sellers' user accounts.

However, she allowed the unfair competition claims that focused on
arbitrary use of discretion to move forward, including PayPal's
alleged use of arbitrary holds and eBay's "buyer-is-always-right"
policy.

A final, fourth amended complaint that alleges only the surviving
claims is due within fourteen days of the order, and eBay and
PayPal have fourteen days to respond.  A case management
conference is set for October 27.

The case is Maggie Campbell v. EBay, Inc., and Paypal, Inc., Case
No. 13-CV-2632 YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


EL PASO PIPELINE: Dismissal of Unitholders' Suit on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., said in a Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in May 2012, a
unitholder of EPB filed a purported class action in Delaware
Chancery Court, alleging both derivative and non-derivative
claims, against El Paso, and the company's general partner and its
board.  El Paso was named in the lawsuit as both a "Class
Defendant" and a "Derivative Nominal Defendant."  The complaint
alleges a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in
connection with the March 2011 sale to El Paso of a 25% ownership
interest in Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.  On June 20,
2014, defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted,
dismissing the case in its entirety. Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal on July 28, 2014.


FACEBOOK INC: 25,000 Users Sign on to Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports that an Austrian waging a battle
against Facebook's privacy policies says 25,000 users of the
social networking giant have signed on to his class action
lawsuit.

The suit, filed by lawyer Max Schrems, claims a symbolic EUR500
per plaintiff from Facebook for several out of a "long list" of
alleged violations of the law, his advocacy group Europe-v-
Facebook said.  These include its privacy policy, Facebook's
alleged participation in the US National Security Agency's PRISM
snooping program, and tracking users' visits to other websites
with, for example, the 'Like' function.

Media-savvy Schrems, who first took on Facebook several years ago
as a student, filed the legal action in Vienna.  He had to limit
numbers signing on to it to 25,000 after some 7000 signed up every
day.

"With this number of participants we have a really excellent basis
not just to complain about Facebook in Europe but actually to do
something," Mr. Schrems said in a statement on his website.

The suit is directed against Facebook's Ireland-based subsidiary,
the US firm's headquarters for its overseas operations, and was
not open to users from the United States and Canada.

The subsidiary has to abide by EU data protection laws, which are
more stringent than those in North America.

The majority of those who signed up were from Europe, with the
biggest numbers from Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.


FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrie Zarakowski, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Focus Receivables Management, LLC, and Does
1 through 10 inclusive and each of them, Case No. 2:14-cv-06262-
FMO-JC (C.D. Cal., August 8, 2014) alleges violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
          ASAF LAW
          8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (424) 254-8870
          Facsimile: (888) 254-2651
          E-mail: asaf@lawasaf.com

               - and -

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


FORD MOTOR: Tailgate Complaint Must Be Amended Again, Court Ruled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After three amended complaints, a class must again revise claims
that tailgate panels crack on 2002-05 Ford Explorers and Mercury
Mountaineers, and on 2003-05 Lincoln Aviators, reports Courthouse
News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

The case is In Re Ford Tailgate Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-2953-
RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.


GAF BUILDING: Sold Defective Elk Cross Timbers Decking, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick C. Robertie, and Veronica B. Robertie, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GAF Building
Materials Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00145-FL (E.D.N.C., August 13,
2014) is brought on behalf of all other similarly situated persons
and entities, who currently own GAF Elk Cross Timbers decking.

The Plaintiffs allege that GAF's Cross Timbers Decking contain
defects that allow water to penetrate and leak into the interior
of structures and behind cladding, resulting in premature
deterioration of building components and other physical damage to
both the decking and the surrounding structure.

GAF Building Materials Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
its headquarters in Wayne, New Jersey.  GAF is a leading
manufacturer of residential exterior building products in North
America.  GAF designed, marketed, advertised, warranted, sold,
distributed, and delivered Cross Timbers Decking in Indiana and
throughout North Carolina and the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  scott@wbmllp.com
                  matt@wbmllp.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Antifreeze Leakage in Chevrolet Cruze
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheilah Feliciano v. General Motors Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-
06374-AT (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2014) arises from GM's alleged
practice of engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices in
connection with the merchandising and sale of the Chevrolet Cruze.

The Chevrolet Cruze has a serious mechanical defect that causes
antifreeze to leak from the radiator, Ms. Feliciano alleges.  She
contends that the Antifreeze Leakage Defect can lead to mechanical
troubles and can cause a malodorous smell in the passenger
compartment.

General Motors Company is a Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan.  GM designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells Chevrolet Cruzes in
New York and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 627-5610
          E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com


GENJI LLC: Obtains Initial Approval of "Thio" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins granted preliminary approval
of a settlement in the case captioned NEN THIO, TJU TJIN LIEM and
DENNY WIJAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENJI, LLC, GENJI RETAIL SUPPORT, INC.,
GENJI, INC. and Doe 1 through and including Doe 10, Defendants,
CASE NO. 12-CV-05756 NC, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and
conditionally certified:

* the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 comprising of
  "[a]ll individuals employed within California as a Sushi Team
  Leader or Sushi Chef at any time from November 9, 2008 through
  the date of Preliminary Approval."

* the collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA
  comprising of "[a]ll individuals employed within the United
  States as a Sushi Team Leader at any time from November 9, 2010
  through the date of Preliminary Approval."

The Court also approved appointment of Nen Thio, Tju Tjin Liem,
and Denny Wijaya as class representatives for the Rule 23 class,
and Thio and Liem as class representatives for the collective
action class; and Alan Harris and Priya Mohan, Harris & Ruble, and
David S. Harris, North Bay Law Group, as class counsel for the
settlement classes.

The $1,250,000 total settlement amount consists of two separate
funds: the California payment and the FLSA payment. The total
settlement amount will be used to pay: (1) attorneys' fees and
costs of class counsel; (2) costs of settlement administration;
(3) incentive payments to the class representatives; and (4) the
PAGA payment, all subject to approval by the Court.

The settlement agreement provides that the $150,000 FLSA payment
will be allocated pro-rata among the collective action claimants
based upon the number of hours of overtime worked as a Sushi Team
Leader between the dates of November 9, 2010 and October 27, 2013,
as compared to the total number of hours of time period.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, class counsel will
apply for incentive awards to plaintiffs of $5,000, each, for
their efforts in this case, which will be in addition to any
payment plaintiffs may otherwise receive as class members.

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on December 3, 2014,
at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, U.S. District Court, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

A copy of Judge Cousin's August 7, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/3LLQiLfrom Leagle.com.

Nen Thio, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Dale Harris --
aharris@harrisandruble.com -- Harris & Ruble & David S. Harris,
North Bay Law Group.

Tju Tjin Liem, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Dale Harris, Harris
& Ruble & David S. Harris, North Bay Law Group.

Denny Wijaya, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Dale Harris, Harris &
Ruble & David S. Harris, North Bay Law Group.

Genji, LLC, Defendant, represented by Marlene S. Muraco --
mmuraco@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Elisa Nadeau --
ENadeau@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.

Genji Retail Support, Inc, Defendant, represented by Marlene S.
Muraco, Littler Mendelson & Elisa Nadeau, Littler Mendelson, PC.

Genji, Inc, Defendant, represented by Marlene S. Muraco, Littler
Mendelson & Elisa Nadeau, Littler Mendelson, PC.


GLOBAL MARKETING: Faces "Walsh" Suit in Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Global Marketing Research Services, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, and Anthony Diana, individually, Case No. 6:14-cv-
01290-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., August 11, 2014) is brought over
restrictions on use of telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC
          201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-9827
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


GOOGLE INC: Consumer Advocacy Group Objects to $8.5-Mil. Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge should not let Google pay $8.5 million to settle
multitrillion-dollar allegations over its leak of user
information, a consumer advocacy group complained, reports
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service.

The Center for Class Action Fairness, on behalf of objectors
Melissa Holyoak and Theodore Frank, said "class members will see
not one penny" of the settlement, which calls for the money to be
donated to various nonprofits.

Paloma Gaos led the class action, which claims that Google
violated its privacy policy by sharing search queries with third
parties without the user knowing or giving permission.  The
queries were included in referrer headers, which identify the page
containing the link the user clicked on to request the webpage.
Some of the information passed on to third parties can potentially
offer clues to users' identities, the lawsuit said.

The six cy pres organizations that will receive $6 million of the
settlement are Carnegie Mellon University, World Privacy Forum,
Chicago-Kent College of Law, Stanford Law, Harvard's Berkman
Center and the AARP Foundation.

Remaining funds would cover attorneys' fees, notice and
administration costs, and incentive awards for the class
representative.

The settlement also pledges Google to disclose to users the way it
treats queries entered into Google.com so that users can make
informed choices about whether and how to use Google search.

Holyoak and Frank's objection, entered on August 8, 2014,
emphasizes that the complaint alleged "trillions of dollars in
statutory damages on behalf of a class consisting of more than 100
million people, and then settled it for $8.5 million, of which the
class members will not see one penny."

Letting class members "recover through a claims-made process
and/or a sampling lottery method" remains a practicable
alternative, the objection states.

The objectors also took issue with pre-existing relationships that
some of the proposed cy pres recipients have with class counsel
and Google.

"Class counsel are alumni of several of the cy pres recipients,"
resulting in "the appearance of divided loyalties of class
counsel," the 31-page filing states.

Furthermore, "where the defendant is already an established donor
to certain of the cy pres recipients, there is significant risk
that the value of the settlement will be less beneficial to the
class than it would appear," the objectors added.

Notice to the class of the settlement was inadequate as well, the
objectors claimed, saying that it failed to directly notify those
class members for whom Google has contact information, thus
depriving them of due process.

"The settlement makes objecting or opting out of the settlement
artificially and needlessly burdensome by requiring paper-mail
printouts from a class of internet users," the objection states.

If the settlement is approved, the objectors said the judge should
strike the unreasonable request by class counsel for $2.125
million in attorneys' fees.  Because a dollar that goes to a third
party is less valuable than a dollar that goes directly to a class
member, class counsel should not be awarded the 9th Circuit's 25
percent benchmark approach to settlements, according to the
objection.

"If this court endorses a rule that makes class counsel
financially indifferent between a settlement that awards cash
directly to class members and to a cy pres only settlement, the
parties will always agree to the cy pres arrangement and unnamed
class members will be permanently left out in the cold," the
objectors said.

The Objectors are represented by:

          Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS
          1718 M Street NW, No. 236
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (703) 203-3848
          E-mail: tfrank@gmail.com

The case is In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, Case
No. 5:10-cv-04809-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


GOOGLE INC: Privacy Suit Complaint Must Be Amended, Court Ruled
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class must amend claims that Google provided third-party vendors
with user information from its Google Wallet and Google Play apps,
a federal judge ruled, reports Courthouse News Service.

The case is Alice Svenson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Google Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
and Google Payment Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
13-cv-04080-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


GREATBANC TRUST: Money Manager Cherry-Picks Trades, Investors Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago money manager cost his clients $2 million, which he
pocketed himself, by cherry-picking securities trades after the
fact, a class action claims in Illinois Federal Court, reports
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service.

Patricia Pomeroy and Enoch Anderson sued GreatBanc Trust Company,
Capital Management Associates, Charles J. Dushek and his son,
Charles S. Dushek, on Aug. 11.

The plaintiffs were clients of Capital Management Associates,
which managed their money in held GreatBanc accounts from 2003 to
2012.

According to the lawsuit: "Charles Dushek Sr. is personal friends
with management at GreatBanc.  They would regularly attend social
events together including parties that Charles Dushek Sr. and
Marge Dushek threw at their luxury home."

Given this close relationship, Dushek had a referral system with
GreatBanc, and required his clients to deposit their money in a
GreatBanc account.  He also had at least five of his own accounts
with the bank, and made day trades for his own benefit, according
to the complaint.

It adds: "GreatBanc, through its GreatBanc Master Account,
permitted the Dusheks to make 'block' purchases without making a
payment from specific individual accounts until trade had been
allocated and settled.  Trades entered by the defendants in the
GreatBanc Master Account did not differentiate between purchases
for the Dushek family accounts and purchases for other GreatBanc
accounts. . . .

"Use of the GreatBanc Master Account by the Dusheks allowed them
to commingle client assets in unallocated trades with inadequate
record keeping of the purchases."

For almost a decade, the defendants abused this license to engage
"in a fraudulent 'cherry-picking' scheme" by assigning profitable
trades to the Dushek family accounts, and unprofitable trades to
client accounts, the complaint states.

"Instead of following industry standards and allocating trades at
the point of sale, GreatBanc knowingly allowed and actively
assisted Charles and Chas Dushek in allocating trades after
several days had passed and the profitability of the trades had
been determined," the class claims.

From 2008 to 2012, the Dusheks allegedly made $2 million in
profits using this scheme, and clients suffered a corresponding $2
million loss.

"In 2011 alone, Charles Dushek Sr. used the cherry-picking scheme
to obtain disbursements of up to ten times the amount of assets
held in his personal GreatBanc account.

"Many of the unfairly allocated trades were going through Charles
and Marge Dushek's GreatBanc accounts with returns in those
accounts being 25,000 percent or more over several years," the
complaint states.

The SEC charged Dushek with running a cherry-picking scheme in May
2013.  It claimed that Dushek used the illicit profits to make
mortgage payments on a 6,500-square-foot luxury home, to buy a
Mercedes Benz SL550, membership in a luxury vacation resort, and
vacations.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, disgorgement, and damages
for securities violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN
          17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com


HARBOR FREIGHT: Accused of Violating Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Harbor Freight will not
process sales without first entering a customer's telephone
number, violating the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, a class
claims.

The case is Menoro Tan v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange.


HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Sued Over Unsolicited Advertising Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Litchfield v. Heartland Automotive Services II, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-06228 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2014) challenges
Heartland's alleged practice of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act in furtherance of its marketing efforts by making
unsolicited and unauthorized advertising calls to cellular phones
without consent via an automatic dialing system.

Heartland is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Irving,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          John Auchter, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN P.C.
          17W220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com
                  psl@ditommasolaw.com
                  jauchter@ditommasolaw.com

               - and -

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
          55 W. Wacker Drive Suite 1400
          Chicago IL, 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209
          Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
          E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


HENRY MAYO: Removed "Vasserman" Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital, Case No. BC549185, 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-06245 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael S. Kun, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
          E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com


HERTZ CORP: Managers Sue in Cal. Over Improperly Paid Bonuses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Williams, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, Dollar-Thrifty Automotive Group, a Delaware
corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-
03661 (N.D. Cal., August 13, 2014) is brought on behalf of Hertz
and Dollar-Thrifty managers, who were allegedly not properly paid
bonuses which these managers earned and rely upon.

The Hertz Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Estero, Florida, and is engaged in business in San Francisco
County and throughout California.  Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and is
engaged in business in San Francisco County and throughout
California.  In November 2012, Hertz purchased Dollar-Thrifty.
The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          Amy T. Wootton, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
          555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
                  awootton@hamnerlaw.com


HOECHST CELANESE: Judge Allows Pollution Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Kitzmiller, writing for GoUpstate.com, reports that a
class action pollution lawsuit by the Cannon's Campground
community against Hoechst Celanese and other industrial companies
will continue after a federal court judge denied a motion to
dismiss the case.

In the order issued on Aug. 5, Judge Timothy Cain rules in favor
of plaintiff Jay Easler on several questions of law, and declines
to issue a summary judgment on others.  Judge Cain notes
defendants have a heavy burden to bear when bringing a motion to
dismiss, and while he directly refutes some statements made by
defendants, he delays a decision on others and argues they are
questions of fact to be decided later in the process.

"When considering a motion to dismiss, the court should 'accept as
true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in
a light most favorable to the plaintiff,'" Judge Cain wrote in the
order.

In February, Mr. Easler filed suit against Hoechst Celanese and
several companies that subsequently owned or operated on the same
industrial site alleging companies released a list of chemicals,
some known carcinogens, into the water system both by dumping into
waterways and by seepage into the ground water.  The suit claims
the pollution has diminished property values and caused a variety
of illnesses in residents over several decades.  The suit seeks an
injunction under federal environmental law, and damages under
state laws regarding nuisance and negligence.

Attorney Bert Louthian, whose law firm is working with the
Harpootlian Law Firm to represent Mr. Easler, said the ruling
means the case will continue, and he expects a scheduling order
with a preliminary trial date to be issued "fairly quickly."
Mr. Louthian declined to comment further, citing the pending
litigation.

A spokesman for Hoechst Celanese also declined to comment, citing
pending litigation, other than to say "We are vigorously defending
our position."

Most of the defendants joined in a motion to dismiss by attorneys
for Hoechst Celanese who argued Mr. Easler's case should be
dismissed because he hadn't suffered harm from the alleged
pollution, as required by the federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and the medical monitoring program sought in the
suit is not a permissible resolution under the law.

Judge Cain's order rules it is not necessary for Mr. Easler to
have already been harmed, but his demonstration of imminent
impending harm is sufficient to bring the case.

Judge Cain notes Mr. Easler's complaint "painstakingly details" in
58 pages "the site's history of pollution, including the exact
chemicals discharged and where those chemicals have been found in
the surrounding area . . . The clear presumption from the
complaint's allegations is that over the years, the contamination
from the site has migrated and continues to migrate toward
Cannon's Campground and Easler's property."

In the permissibility of medical monitoring under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, Cain states courts have ruled both
ways depending on the specifics of the case, and arguments for and
against the program should be heard.

"The court finds only that Easler's claim for medical monitoring
is not subject to summary dismissal," the order states.  "The
court offers no opinion at this point in the litigation as to
whether it will withstand future scrutiny or prove an appropriate
remedy . . ."

The motion to dismiss also seeks to rebuff Mr. Easler's claim
under state law by again stating no actual harm had come to
Mr. Easler's property.

"The court finds these arguments unavailing, especially at the
motion to dismiss stage," Judge Cain wrote.  ". . . As nuisance
and negligence claims are both fact-intensive inquiries, the court
is not convinced to discard these claims . . ."

Attorneys for Hoechst Celanese also argued Mr. Easler had exceeded
the three-year statute of limitations to bring state claims
because the complaint notes the community first became aware of
the problem during a 2010 series done by the local television
news.  Judge Cain, however, ruled the motion to dismiss did not
demonstrate Mr. Easler or anyone else in the community was
provided enough information by the television series to trigger
the statute of limitations, and he declined to address the issue
"at this juncture."


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Sued Over Quality Control at Taiwan Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linus Aruliah, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., Larry Hsu, G. Frederick
Wilkinson, and Bryan M. Reasons, Case No. 3:14-cv-03673 (N.D.
Cal., August 13, 2014) alleges that throughout the Class Period,
the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding quality control matters at the Company's Taiwan
production facility.

Headquartered in Hayward, California, Impax is a specialty
pharmaceutical company engaged in the development, manufacture and
marketing of bio-equivalent pharmaceutical products in addition to
the development of branded products.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  fmcconville@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312)377-1181
          Facsimile: (312)377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


IMPERIAL METALS: Faces Class Action Over Mount Polley Tailings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on Aug. 7 announced the commencement of an investor
class action against Imperial Metals Corporation and certain of
its directors, officers and related parties.  The action relates
to the circumstances surrounding the failure of the tailings
facilities at Imperial's Mount Polley gold and copper mine near
Likely, British Columbia on August 4, 2014.

The action is brought to recover losses suffered by persons who
acquired common shares or notes of Imperial between August 15,
2011 and August 4, 2014.

If you acquired shares or notes of Imperial Metals Corporation
between August 15, 2011 and August 4, 2014, please complete the
online information form at
http://www.classaction.ca/joinaction.aspx?action=impmetal

Anyone with inquiries regarding this proceeding is invited to
contact Nicole Young at Siskinds LLP at 1-800-461-6166, ex 2380 or
nicole.young@siskinds.com

                       About Siskinds LLP

Siskinds LLP -- http://siskinds.com/-- is a full-service law firm
headquartered in London, Ontario.  Its class actions team has
recovered over $450 million for investors over the last 10 years.
In each of 2010, 2011, and 2013, Siskinds has been ranked the top
Canadian firm in the SCAS 50, an annual global ranking of the
world's 50 leading securities class action law firms published by
Securities Class Action Services, a unit of Institutional
Shareholder Services (ISS).


JAG INDUSTRIAL: Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hughes v. Jag Industrial Services, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Douglas Huff, and Tim Jagielski, Case No. 3:14-cv-
02892-M (N.D. Tex., August 12, 2014) seeks damages for unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and a reasonable attorney's fee and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jag Industrial Services, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and
maintains offices in Alpharetta, Georgia; Jonesville, Michigan;
Erie, Pennsylvania; Bremerton, Washington; and Fairhope, Alabama.
Jag provides Turnkey Project Management skilled labor and quality
assurance for marine repair, shipbuilding and a wide range of
industrial manufacturing projects.  Jag provides services
throughout the United States and has supported multiple projects
abroad.  The Individual Defendants acted directly or indirectly in
the interest of Jag.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
          ROSS LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          E-mail: Charles@rosslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
          540 East Pleasant Run Road
          Desoto, TX 75115
          Telephone: (214) 716-4597
          Facsimile: (855) 867-4455


JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Journal
Communications too cheaply through an unfair process to Scripps
Media, in a stock swap, shareholders claim in a class action in
Milwaukee County Court.


JUDY'S HOMES: Fails to Provide Itemized Wage Reports, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Esman, Elsa Esman, Woodrow Esman, Aurora Salazar, Josefina
Bentulan and Rey L. Mateo v. Judy's Homes for the Elderly, Inc.,
Juvenalia Roias, Maria Roias, Michelle Roias and Mercy Roias-
Moreira, Case No. 3:14-cv-03675 (N.D. Cal., August 13, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to
provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees with
accurate, itemized wage statements in compliance with the Labor
Code.

Judy's Homes for the Elderly, Inc., is a California corporation
headquartered in San Mateo County.  The Individual Defendants are
residents of San Mateo County.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
          Huy Tran, Esq.
          Phung H. Truong, Esq.
          JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP
          84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 790
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 317-1100
          Facsimile: (408) 351-0105
          E-mail: Tomas@JAWLawGroup.com
                  Huy@JAWLawGroup.com
                  Phung@JAWLawGroup.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Complaint Over Toilet Paper Must Be Amended
-----------------------------------------------------------
A woman making a federal case out of the "flushability" of
Kimberly-Clark disposable wipes must amend her consumer fraud
claims, reports William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service, citing
a federal court ruling.

Jennifer Davidson's 2013 class action against Kimberly-Clark and
its subsidiaries is underway in the Northern District of
California after the manufacturer claimed federal jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Davidson said she bought the Scotts Naturals Flushable Moist Wipes
from a San Francisco supermarket based on her belief that they
were "specially designed to be suitable for flushing down her
toilet without causing problems in her plumbing or at the water
treatment plant."  She "began to seriously doubt that they were
truly flushable," however, after "several uses of the wipes."

Though Davidson stopped using the wipes and did not purchase
additional flushable Kimberly-Clark products, she said the company
falsely advertises four of its products -- including Cottonelle
Fresh Care wipes and cleansing cloths, Huggies Pull-Ups Flushable
Moist Wipes, U by Kotex Refresh wipes and the aforementioned
Scotts product -- as flushable, despite causing problems in septic
tank and at sewage treatment plants.

In its bid to dismiss the complaint, Kimberly Clark said
Davidson's injury is abstract since nothing bad happened to her
when she flushed the wipes.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton acknowledged on August 8,
2014, however, that at this stage of the case, Davidson
sufficiently pleaded that she paid a premium for the wipes over
normal toilet paper on the allegedly false promise that the wipes
were indeed flushable.

"Here, plaintiff has not alleged that the Scott Naturals product
did not work as promised, or that her own pipes or septic system
or her local waste water treatment plant was harmed by her use of
the wipes," Hamilton wrote.  "Plaintiff has, however, alleged that
she suffered economic harm because she would not have paid a
premium for the Scott Naturals wipes had defendants not
misrepresented the product as 'flushable.'  Whether that was in
fact a misrepresentation cannot be determined at this stage of the
case, but the court finds that plaintiff has satisfied both
Article III and statutory standing as to that one product."

Davidson needs to show that she relied on something more than the
wipes' packaging to show fraud in advertising, the ruling
continues.

"Here, plaintiff does not allege that she saw any of defendants'
advertisements or websites -- let alone that she relied on them in
deciding to make her purchase," Hamilton wrote.  "She alleges only
that she based her decision to purchase the Scott Naturals wipes
on the representation on the package that the wipes were
'flushable.'  Thus, as to the element of reliance, plaintiff has
not pled facts showing that she relied on any representation
except as to the 'flushable' designation on the Scott Naturals
packaging.  In addition, plaintiff has not alleged facts showing
how she came to believe that the Scott Naturals wipes were not
'flushable.'  She does not allege that she was unable to flush the
product down the toilet, or that the product caused any problems
with her pipes, just that after several uses of the wipes she
'began to seriously doubt that they were truly flushable.'"

The judge declined to get involved at this stage with what
"flushable" means, whether the wipes should totally disperse by
the time they arrive at the sewage-treatment facility, and if
Kimberly-Clark should put that the wipes "can be flushed even if
not suitable for flushing" on the packaging as Davidson suggested.

"That argument is based on a premise that, if not exactly faulty,
is at a minimum unsupported," Hamilton wrote.  "Strictly speaking,
something is 'flushable' if it is 'able to be flushed.'
Plaintiff's argument appears to be that the definition of
'flushable' necessarily includes what happens to the item that is
flushed, from the time it is flushed until it reaches its ultimate
destination (septic system or waste-water treatment plant).
Because of the dispute regarding the definition of 'flushable,'
the court is unable to determine whether the 'omissions' claim is
or is not viable at this stage of the litigation."

References that Davidson made to Internet articles and websites
discussing the harm caused by flushable wipes to municipal
treatment plants must be stricken as well, since Davidson never
said she relied on the articles or even read them before deciding
to stop using the wipes, the court found.

Davidson has 28 days to fix her complaint, Hamilton concluded.

The case is Jennifer Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case
No. C 14-1783 PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


LONDON SILVER: Accused of Violating Antitrust Laws in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Precious Metals Ltd. and Steven E. Summer, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. The London Silver
Market Fixing, Ltd., The Bank of Nova Scotia, Deutsche Bank AG,
HSBC Holdings PLC, John Does 1-50, HSBC Bank PLC and HSBC Bank
U.S.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-04724-DLI-MDG (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2014)
alleges violations of the antitrust laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com


LYFT INC: Drivers Must Amend Wage and Hour Complaint, Court Ruled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
California-based drivers for the ride-sharing service Lyft cannot
represent workers outside the Golden State in a labor class
action, reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

Lyft, a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco, uses
smartphone software to connect passengers with rides.  The company
operates in several states.

Lead plaintiffs Patrick Cotter and Alejandra Maciel brought a
federal class action against Lyft in Oakland, Calif., alleging the
company inappropriately classifies drivers as independent
contractors.  The misclassification, they say, allows the company
to skirt state minimum wage and wage statement laws.

"Because drivers are in fact Lyft employees, this action also
challenges Lyft's policy of taking 20 percent of gratuity payments
given by riders to Lyft's drivers, an illegal practice under
California Labor Code . . . which prohibits an employer from
taking any amount of gratuity given to an employee," a second-
amended complaint from December 2013 states.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria struck the class allegations on
August 7, 2014, however, because California law does not apply to
people working exclusively in other states.

"Because California's wage and hour provisions do not create a
cause of action for work performed exclusively outside the state,
and because parties cannot create a cause of action under the wage
and hour statutes where none exist, the plaintiffs cannot seek to
enforce those provisions on behalf of a nationwide class,"
Chhabria wrote.

A "choice of law" provision contained within the employment
agreement does not apply because "although the agreement will
likely be used as evidence to support their statutory claims,
their claims do not arise out of the contract, involve the
interpretation of any contract terms, or otherwise require there
to be a contract in the first place," the nine-page ruling states.

The plaintiffs have 21 days to amend the struck-out claims.

The case is Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No.
3:13cv04065VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


MARK BOLAND: Faces Class Action Over Hepatitis, HIV Tests
---------------------------------------------------------
David Wenner, writing for PennLive.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against a Lower Paxton Township
plastic surgeon who recently wrote to patients to recommend they
be tested for Hepatitis and HIV.

According to the lawsuit filed in Dauphin County Court of Common
Pleas, Dr. Mark Boland recently mailed the letters after the
Pennsylvania Department of Health "expressed concern" about
whether some of the practice's infection control practices were
adequate.  The lawsuit filed by McCarthy Weisberg Cummings, P.C.
of Harrisburg says the plaintiffs are aware of no one becoming
ill.

However, it seeks reimbursement for the cost of the tests.  The
law firm's Derrek Cummings said the tests cost $499.70 at the
testing facility where patients were advised to obtain them.
Boland's letter says bills will be submitted to the patient's
health insurer, and lists sources of possible financial assistance
for those without insurance.

Mr. Cummings said the plaintiffs also will seek damages for
emotional suffering, although it's too early to name an amount.
He didn't know how many people received letters.

A spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of Health said it
"is unable to provide details regarding the investigation and
there is no threat to the general public."  She said any patients
with concerns should call Dr. Boland's toll free hotline at 1-844-
420-2971.

His letter said "We have fully evaluated our procedures and
enhanced our protocols in compliance with the most current
recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention."

Mr. Cummings said it was too early to know what portion of an
award or settlement his firm would request to cover legal fees.
In personal injury cases, which are handled differently than class
action suits, lawyers typically receive between about 33 percent
and 40 percent of the award.

The letter from Dr. Boland recommends tests for Hepatitis C and B,
and for HIV, which is the virus that causes AIDs.


MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Former Intern Files Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Travis Reilly, writing for The Wrap, reports that a former intern
filed a class action lawsuit against Marvel Entertainment, LLC on
Aug. 5 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, claiming he
was "wrongfully" classified and unfairly denied "minimum wages"
while working for the company.

According to the documents obtained by TheWrap, Kenneth Jackson of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, says he worked at Marvel from August 2008
through December of 2008.  During that four-month period, Jackson
claims the company incorrectly classified him as an intern and now
owes him back pay.

Mr. Jackson's motion seeks to "recover unpaid minimum wages owed"
and extends to "all similarly situated persons who are presently
or formerly employed by Marvel Entertainment, LLC."  The documents
claim all of Marvel's New York interns were subjected to the same
faulty "employment practices, policies, and procedures" as
Jackson, and includes "in excess of 100 individuals."

The lawsuit says, "during his employment with Marvel, the Named
Plaintiff worked from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. five
days per week."

Mr. Jackson is seeking "all compensation, including minimum wages,
which [he was] deprived," as well as court costs and attorneys
fees, the documents say.  According to New York labor law, its
minimum wage structure is as follows: (1) $7.15 per hour on and
after January 1, 2007; (2) $7.25 per hour on and after July 24,
2009; (3) $8.00 per hour on and after December 31, 2013; (4) $8.75
per hour on and after December 31, 2014, according to the lawsuit.

Marvel Entertainment oversees both its Marvel Comics subsidiary
and Marvel Studios.  In 2009 the Walt Disney Company purchased the
company for $4.64 billion dollars.


MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Hattel" Suit to Tennessee District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Hattel, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al.,
Case No. CT-003447-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Shelby County, Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at
Memphis, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02625-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were injured by Plaintiff Julia
Spurlock's physician's off-label use of Medtronic and Medtronic
Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.'s Infuse(R) Bone Graft device.  Infuse is
a Class III medical device whose design, manufacturing method, and
labeling were specifically approved by the Food and Drug
Administration pursuant to the agency's Premarket Approval
process.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


MONSTER BEVERAGE: "Marshall" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Osie Marshall, et al. v. Monster
Beverage Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02203, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-06311-MMM-PLA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq.
          Alexandria Rose Kachadoorian, Esq.
          COUNSELONE, PC
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277-9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
          E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
                  alexandria@counselonegroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David F. McDowell, Esq.
          Dan Edward Marmalefsky, Esq.
          Purvi G. Patel, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshiire Boulevard, Suite 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
          Telephone: (213) 892-5200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com
                  dmarmalefsky@mofo.com
                  ppatel@mofo.com


MONTEBELLO, CA: Bus Drivers File Class Action Over Meal Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Sprague, writing for Whittier Daily News, reports that three
bus drivers have filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of an
estimated 167 drivers, claiming the city has denied them their
lawfully required meal breaks and rest breaks.

"The city has been relying on a practice of claiming that multiple
breaks that add up to 30 minutes meet the requirements under
California law," said Hunter Pyle, attorney for drivers Rachel
Burciaga, Cecilia Lopez and Ernesto Suazo, who filed the lawsuit
on July 29.

"The problem is the law is clear that the breaks have to be
uninterrupted so that people will have a meaningful opportunity to
get a break," Mr. Pyle said.

Mr. Pyle said the city typically provides 10 six-minute breaks in
an eight-hour shift, claiming the 60 minutes is more than the
30-minute meal and two 10-minute rest-breaks drivers are entitled
to have.

But you can't do much in six minutes, he said.

"You can't do anything but run off the bus, run into a store, use
the bathroom and grab a snack," Mr. Pyle said.  "That's very
different from a 30-minute break when you can relax and take care
of personal business."

The bus drivers are asking for one hour of pay for every day they
missed a meal break and the same for missing a rest break,
Mr. Pyle said.  How many days still has to be determined, he said.

Montebello City Administrator Francesca Tucker-Schuyler refused to
comment on the lawsuit.

"We -- the city -- haven't received the suit," Ms. Tucker-Schuyler
said.  "I don't know what the assertions are because we haven't
been served."

The lawsuit -- filed July 29 -- comes at a time when bus drivers
and the city are at odds over pay.

During the last year the city has paid its nontransit employees'
share of their pension costs but not for bus drivers, mechanics
and service operators.  The latter still pay what amounts to 8
percent of their pay.

Ms. Tucker-Schuyler said transit employees are paid from a
different pot of money than what provides for the rest of the
city.  The bus system receives its money from bus riders as well
as special state, federal and Los Angeles County funds.

Ms. Lopez, who is chairwoman for the Local 1701 of the Montebello
SMART United Transportation Union, said the city's policy on
breaks creates hardships for the drivers.

"Our schedule is so crunched and with traffic and other incidents,
you go without a meal for five to six hours," she said.  "You
can't get out and stretch your legs.  It causes neck, back and
kidney problems."


MRS BPO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yitzchok Stern, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-04772
(E.D.N.Y., August 11, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Parties Seek Clarification of Court Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
attorneys for a class of former college athletes joined with the
NCAA in asking Chief U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken on August 12, 2014,
to clarify her order prohibiting payments to players for the use
of their names, images and likenesses.

The injunction issued on August 8, 2014, prevents 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."

Wilken added: "the injunction does not [yet] prohibit the
application of the current NCAA rules with respect to student-
athletes who were enrolled or will enroll in college before
July 1, 2016."

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

Lawyers for the players disagree with the NCAA's belief that the
injunction is limited only to prospective student athletes who
enroll in college on or after July 1, 2016.

In a motion for clarification filed on August 12, 2014, Sathya
Gosselin with Hausfeld LLP wrote: "That exclusion of thousands of
current student-athletes (operating under one-year renewable
scholarships or multi-year scholarships) is plainly inconsistent
with the court's injunction, which twice identifies the 'licensing
or use of prospective, current, or former' student-athlete NILs,
as even the NCAA acknowledges."

"And it could lead to inadvertent disparities among teammates,
despite the court's repeated emphasis on equal sharing among
student-athletes," Gosselin added.

The injunction should begin applying to student-athletes during
the next recruiting cycle, which begins on Aug. 1, 2015, the
motion states.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com
                  sbojedla@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery St., 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  bwecker@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-5607
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON PLLC
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4605
          E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Seth A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 7th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 344-4741
          Facsimile: (202) 344-8300
          E-mail: sarosenthal@venable.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          1521 Locust Street - 7th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 519-8306
          Facsimile: (215) 569-0958
          E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

The case is Edward C. O'Bannon, Jr. on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA), et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-3329 CW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland
Division.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Court Says Antitrust Immunity Excludes TV Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Major League Baseball's and the National Hockey League's antitrust
exemptions do not extend to TV broadcast rights, a federal judge
ruled, refusing to dismiss a class action from fans who say
broadcasters' anticompetitive rules prevent them from watching, or
force them to pay more, to watch "out-of-market" games, according
to Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin found that the lawsuits,
filed in Manhattan Federal Court in 2012 and later consolidated,
have "produced sufficient evidence that a reasonable fact-finder"
could find Comcast and DirecTV to be "complicit in the alleged
conspiracy."

In a 59-page ruling on Aug. 8, Scheindlin allowed the lawsuit to
proceed despite the leagues' attempt to invoke the antitrust
exemption known as the Sports Broadcasting Act, passed by Congress
in 1961.  The Act created an antitrust exemption for certain types
of professional sports broadcasting agreements, "particularly
league-wide contracts for over-the-air broadcasts."

Scheindlin found that in Flood v. Kuhn, the U.S. Supreme Court in
1972 "expressly questioned the logic of the baseball exemption,
calling it 'at best of dubious validity' and refusing to extend it
to other professional sports.'"

She added that if the court were considering the question of
baseball "'for the first time upon a clean slate,' it would not
adopt an antitrust exemption.'"

"I therefore decline to apply the exemption to a subject that is
not central to the business of baseball, and that Congress did not
intent to exempt -- namely baseball's contracts for television
broadcast rights," Scheindlin wrote.

The consolidated lawsuits accuse the Office of the Commissioner of
Baseball and various baseball and hockey teams, several sports
networks, and specifically Comcast and DirecTV, of conspiring to
eliminate competition over the airwaves and on the Internet to
restrict programming and hang on to their regional monopolies.

The structure of the "territorial broadcasting system is largely
uncontested," Scheindlin found.  By agreement with their leagues,
each sports club licenses its games to be aired only in certain
each teams' general area, but not nationally.

What cannot be broadcast outside of a certain territory is then
blacked out, in accordance with the agreements.

Fans can watch these "out-of-market" games only when certain games
with broadcasters such as ESPN or Fox are contracted to be
broadcast nationally.

The second way to watch "out-of-market" sporting events is through
the leagues' packages for TV and the Internet, which are
purchasable through Comcast and DirecTV.

However, such purchases require the buyer to pay for an entire
slate of out-of-market games, whether they want them or not.

Such packages "do not show in-market games to avoid competition,"
Scheindlin said.  "Additionally, the territorial broadcast
restrictions allow each [broadcaster] to largely avoid competing
with out-of-market games produced by other RSNs [regional sports
networks]."

Meanwhile, Internet streaming of in-market games "remains largely
unavailable to consumers," the judge said.

The leagues tried to argue that the federal Curt Flood Act reveals
a "congressional consensus that sports broadcasting agreements are
covered by the exemption, and that using it allows for 'league
expansion, franchise location, the amateur draft and broadcast
rights.'"

But Scheindlin nor persuaded, saying a "cost estimate is not
persuasive evidence of congressional intent."

The judge said that an expert testifying on plaintiffs' behalf
attested to the fact that consumers pay more for live games but
have fewer choices available than if the restrictions were lifted.
She also seemed to agree that lifting the restrictions would drop
package-prices by half.

The leagues argued that the territorial restrictions maintain a
competitive balance.  But Scheindlin saw things both ways: "On the
one hand, the restrictions protect less popular clubs from
competition with more popular teams in their home" turfs, she
said.  "On the other hand, the system requires small market teams
to refrain from broadcasting in larger, more populous markets,
while big market teams forego only smaller, less populous markets.

"It is not immediately clear whether the restrictions help or harm
competitive balance overall," she wrote.

She refused all four of the leagues' motions for summary judgment,
and set a conference for Aug. 20 at 4:30 p.m.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward A. Diver, Esq.
          Howard I. Langer, Esq.
          Peter E. Leckman, Esq.
          LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, P.C.
          Three Logan Square, Suite 4130
          1717 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5663
          E-mail: ndiver@langergrogan.com
                  hlanger@langergrogan.com
                  pleckman@langergrogan.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          Gary E. Klein, Esq.
          KLEIN KAVANAGH COSTELLO, LLP
          85 Merrimac St., 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 357-5034
          E-mail: costello@kkcllp.com
                  klein@kkcllp.com

               - and -


          Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
          John A. Ioannou, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100

               - and -

          Alex Schmidt, Esq.
          Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com

               - and -

          Robert LaRocca, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: rlarocca@kohnswift.com


               - and -

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          Jeffrey Dubner, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: jdubner@cohenmilstein.com
                  drichards@cohenmilstein.com

Defendants Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League
Baseball Enterprises Inc., MLB Advanced Media L.P., MLB Advanced
Media, Inc., Athletics Investment Group, LLC, The Baseball Club of
Seattle, L.L.P., Chicago White Sox, Ltd., Colorado Rockies
Baseball Club, Ltd., The Phillies, Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc., and
San Francisco Baseball Associates, L.P., are represented by:

          Bradley I. Ruskin, Esq.
          Carl Clyde Forbes, Esq.
          Helene Debra Jaffe, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
          Robert Davis Forbes, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3465
          E-mail: bruskin@proskauer.com
                  CForbes@proskauer.com
                  hjaffe@proskauer.com
                  jscullion@proskauer.com

               - and -


          Thomas J. Ostertag, Esq.
          SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE
          OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL
          245 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10167
          Telephone: (212) 931-7855

Defendants National Hockey League, NHL Enterprises, L.P., NHL
Interactive Cyberenterprises, LLC, Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team,
Inc., Comcast-Spectacor, L.P., Hockey Western New York LLC,
Lemieux Group, L.P., Lincoln Hockey LLC, New Jersey Devils LLC,
New York Islanders Hockey Club, L.P. and San Jose Sharks, LLC are
represented by:

          Shepard Goldfein, Esq.
          James A. Keyte, Esq.
          Paul M. Eckles, Esq.
          Matthew M. Martino, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          E-mail: shepard.goldfein@skadden.com
                  james.keyte@skadden.com
                  peter.neckles@skadden.com
                  matthew.martino@skadden.com

Defendants DIRECTV, LLC, DIRECTV Sports Networks, LLC, DIRECTV
Sports Net Pittsburgh, LLC a/k/a Root Sports Pittsburgh, DIRECTV
Sports Net Rocky Mountain, LLC a/k/a Root Sports Rocky Mountain,
and DIRECTV Sports Net Northwest, LLC a/k/a Root Sports Northwest
are represented by:

          Andrew E. Paris, Esq.
          Joann M. Wakana, Esq.
          Louis A. Karasik, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          E-mail: drew.paris@alston.com
                  lou.karasik@alston.com

Defendants Comcast Corporation, Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia,
L.P., Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic L.P., Comcast SportsNet
California, LLC, and Comcast SportsNet Chicago, LLC, are
represented by:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
          James W. Haldin, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          E-mail: arthur.burke@davispolk.com
                  james.haldin@davispolk.com

For Yankees Entertainment and Sports Networks, LLC and New York
Yankees Partnership are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq.
          Alan Vickery, Esq.
          Christopher Duffy, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com
                  avickery@bsfllp.com
                  cduffy@bsfllp.com

Defendants The Madison Square Garden Company and New York Rangers
Hockey Club are represented by:

          Stephen R. Neuwirth, Esq.
          Richard I. Werder, Jr., Esq.
          Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER AND SULLIVAN LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com
                  rickwerder@quinnemanuel.com

The two cases are Thomas Laumann, Robert Silver, Garrett Traub,
and Da Yid Dillon, representing themselves and all other similarly
situated v. National Hockey League, et al., Case No. 12-cv-1817
(SAS), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York; and Marc Lerner, Derek Rasmussen, and Garrett Traub,
representing themselves and all other similarly situated v. Office
of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al., Case No. 12-cv-3704
(SAS), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Falsely Arrested Innocent Vendor, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ousseynou Lam v. The City of New York, Police Officer/Detective
Del La Mota Shield No. 943137, John and/or Jane Doe Numbers 1-10
and Nogaye Lo, Case No. 1:14-cv-06328-ER (S.D.N.Y., August 8,
2014) alleges that New York City failed to stop the illegal
conduct of its officers and agents in falsely arresting innocent
males for allegedly harassing and assaulting females even though
the evidence and quick and timely investigation or proper police
training would show to the contrary.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state and city of
New York.  The City, its agents, servants and employees operated,
maintained and controlled the Police Department of the City of New
York, and all police officers thereof, including the Defendant
Police Officers.

Nogaye Lo is a resident of the city and state of New York being a
licensed street Vendor.  She is a woman, who had been harassing
him for quite some time and he had a restraining order against
her, Mr. Lam tells the Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Paul Hart, Esq.
          225 Broadway, Suite 2515
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 766-1443
          Facsimile: (212) 766-0943
          E-mail: ronaldphartesq@gmail.com


NIKON CORP: Settles D600 Class Action Over Sensor Spec Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
DL Cade, writing for PetaPixel, reports that at least one of the
class action lawsuits against Nikon about the sensor spec issue
found on some D600 cameras has been settled, and settled in the
best possible way for the users participating in this suit.

According to an email posted to a fredmiranda forum, D600 users
who were part of the Zimmerman & Reed lawsuit have until
November 30, 2014 to complete a few simple steps and get a brand
new D610 completely free.


OCEAN POWER: Faces Securities Class Actions in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in a Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2014, that the Company and its
former Chief Executive Officer Charles Dunleavy on June 13, 2014,
were named as defendants in a putative securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey captioned Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG.  The complaint is brought on
behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period January 14, 2014 through
June 9, 2014.  The complaint alleges claims for violations of Sec.
10(b) and Sec. 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising out of public statements regarding an agreement between
Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd., a project-specific operating
entity owned by the Company's subsidiary, Ocean Power Technologies
(Australasia) Pty. Ltd., and the Australian Renewable Energy
Agency for the development of a wave power station (the "VWP
Project").

On June 13 and June 20, 2014, two additional putative securities
class actions captioned Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power Technologies,
Inc. et. al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815-MAS-DEA, and Konstantinidis v.
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015-
FLW-DEA, were filed in the same federal court alleging
substantially similar claims. The Chew complaint also names as a
defendant Chief Financial Officer Mark Featherstone.

On July 22, 2014, a fourth securities class action complaint was
filed against the Company, Mr. Dunleavy, and Mr. Featherstone in
federal court in New Jersey, captioned Turner v. Ocean Power
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592. The Turner
complaint is filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period January 14,
2014 to July 14, 2014 and also makes allegations relating to the
VWP Project.

All four complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. The cases are still in their preliminary stages and
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints.

On July 10, 2014, the Company received a demand letter ("Demand
Letter") from an attorney claiming to represent a shareholder
demanding that the Company's Board of Directors establish an
independent committee to investigate and remedy alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and management
relating to the VWP Project. The Board of Directors will address
the Demand Letter at their next scheduled meeting in August or
September and respond as appropriate to the allegations in the
Demand Letter.

The company is developing and seeking to commercialize proprietary
systems that generate electricity by harnessing the renewable
energy of ocean waves.


OKLAHOMA CITY, OK: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for License Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Slavin, writing for FOX25, reports that the Aug. 7 hearing
for a class action over revoked licenses has been canceled.

Lawyers for both sides have agreed that the case meets the
criteria for class action status

The next hearing is now scheduled for November 13.

Oklahoma City attorney John Hunsucker says once they have
certification and discovery, they will then contact drivers who
fall into the class action lawsuit.

A lawsuit involving drivers whose licenses were revoked because of
a faulty affidavit, was set to go before a judge on Aug. 7.

An Oklahoma county district judge will decide if the case deserves
class action status.  The suit seeks refunds for an estimated 40-
thousand drivers.  Their licenses were revoked after being cited
for alcohol-related offenses between 2003 and 2008.

Last year, a court ruled that an affidavit used by the department
of public safety did not comply with state law.  The affidavits
have since been changed, but the drivers could receive refunds of
fees related to the reinstatement of their driver's licenses.

According to the Tulsa World, the refund could total as high as
$11 million.


PEPCO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Biz Sale to Exelon
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Alan Reichbart, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. H. Russell Frisby, Jr., Patrick T. Harker,
Jack B. Dunn, IV, Terence C. Golden, Barbara J. Krumsiek, Paul M.
Barbas, Patricia A. Oelrich, Lawrence C. Nussdorf, Joseph M.
Rigby, Lester P. Silverman, Pepco Holdings Inc., Exelon
Corporation, and Purple Acquisition Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-01039
(D. Del., August 12, 2014) arises from the proposed sale of Pepco
to Exelon.

Pepco Holdings Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Washington, DC.  The Company specializes in the delivery of
electricity and natural gas energy in the Mid-Atlantic region.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Exelon Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.  Exelon is a utility services holding company
engaged in the energy generation and energy delivery businesses.
Purple Acquisition Corp. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Exelon established to facilitate the Proposed
Sale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard H. Cross, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher Page Simon, Esq.
          CROSS & SIMON, LLC
          1105 North Market Street, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-4200
          Facsimile: (302) 777-4224
          E-mail: rcross@crosslaw.com
                  csimon@crosslaw.com

               - and -

          Louis Boyarsky, Esq.
          Leanne E. Heine, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: Lboyarsky@glancylaw.com
                  lheine@glancylaw.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Unconstitutionally Seizes Property, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office unconstitutionally
seizes property without a hearing and sells it without due
process, to raise millions of dollars to pay its employee's
salaries, a class action claims in Pennsylvania Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Christos Sourovelis claims Philadelphia abuses the
process of civil asset forfeiture, in which property used in a
crime is charged with the crime and seized.

Most states have such laws.  But the Philadelphia District
Attorney's Office has used civil asset forfeiture so wantonly and
has made reclaiming the property so onerous that it outstrips the
value of property seized, the complaint states.

Philadelphia seizes an average of $5.8 million worth of assets
every year, compared to Kings County (Brooklyn) in New York and
Los Angeles County, which, while both larger than Philadelphia,
brought in $1.2 million in assets, according to the lawsuit.

Half of this money has gone to pay District Attorney's Office
salaries, the complaint says.

"In statistical terms, the amount of Philadelphia's forfeiture
revenue is almost 8 standard deviations above the mean," according
to the complaint.  "In laymen's terms, Philadelphia is as aberrant
as a 7-foot-tall woman or an 8-foot-tall man."

Sourovelis and two named co-plaintiffs claims they all had
property taken from them and were forced to navigate the DA's
labyrinthine process to get it back.

Sourovelis's house was seized by the DA after his son, identified
in the complaint as YS, was arrested for possessing drugs.  After
YS's arrest, while Sourvoelis was driving him to a drug
rehabilitation program, the DA obtained an ex parte order to take
possession of the home, the complaint states.  Sourovelis was
evicted and a lock was placed on the door.

To re-enter his home, Sourvelelis and his wife were brought to a
hearing without a judge or jury and told by an assistant district
attorney that they would have to relinquish any defense that they
were innocent owners of the property and would have to bar YS from
entering the home, the complaint states.

They have been allowed back into the home while they await another
hearing.

His two co-plaintiffs both face loss of their homes, though they
did not a commit any crime, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs claim the city systematically violates the Due
Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

They seek declaratory judgment that the way Philadelphia does this
is unconstitutional, and injunction, return of all seized property
and nominal damages of one dollar, plus attorney's fees.

Defendants include Mayor Michael Nutter, the Philadelphia District
Attorney's Office, District Attorney R. Seth Williams, and Police
Commissioner Charles Ramsey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG
          The Cast Iron Building
          718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South
          Philadelphia, PA  19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-4400
          E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Property Owners' Class Action Appeal Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Vargas, writing for Philly.com, reports that former
Philadelphia property owners who lost their homes to a sheriff's
sale must claim sale proceeds, if any, individually, Commonwealth
Court ruled, dismissing a class action suit appeal.

Joseph O'Hara and his company Finn Land Corp., the representatives
in the class in the 2011 lawsuit, sued the Philadelphia Sheriff's
Office for failure to distribute millions of dollars to former
property owners who were owed proceeds.  The lawsuit was based on
a City Controller's audit of the sheriff's office that questioned
the use of $53 million in custodial funds.  A later forensic audit
concluded that the "primary source" of $5.2 million in unclaimed
bank balances between 2006 and 2010 were undistributed excess sale
proceeds.

The complaint stated that excess proceeds remained with the
sheriff's office after the liens were paid and that, despite
numerous requests, the sheriff's office did not distribute the
monies.

"The basis of our lawsuit was distribute the money instead of
having every individual file a lawsuit," said Christy Adams, the
lawyer who represented Mr. O'Hara.  The plaintiffs were also
seeking the interest on the unclaimed funds.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court ruled against Mr. O'Hara and on
July 31 a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel released an opinion
agreeing with the lower court's ruling.

"The major issue was whether class is an appropriate way to
distribute this money," said Stephanie Kosta --
skosta@duanemorris.com -- a Duane Morris attorney who represented
the state in the matter.  The Department of Treasury intervened in
the lawsuit against the Sheriff's office, citing its
responsibility in holding the sale proceed funds once they have
gone uncollected for five years.

Commonwealth Court Judge Anne E. Covey, who wrote the opinion,
said there was already a structure in place for people to request
monies owed to them by the sheriff or state and that the classes
were not defined with "sufficient precision."

Ms. Adams said she will be appealing to state Supreme Court.

"For $500, $1,000 or $2,000 that they are owed, many don't have
resources to hire an attorney," Ms. Adams said.  "Most people just
give up."

But Pennsylvania Treasury Chief Counsel Christopher Craig said
people don't need to hire an attorney to claim money due to them
once it is in the state's possession. (The city turns over
unclaimed sheriff's sale funds to state Treasury after five
years.)

"Property held by the State Treasurer remains, in perpetuity,
available to be claimed by the lawful property owner," Craig said.
"It only requires downloading a form, completing it, and
submitting it for approval."

That form can be found at:

http://patreasury.gov/Unclaimed/Search.html


PLACE ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Riley v. Place Entertainment, LLC, Michael Redmond, Molly
Wellman, Jeffrey M. Brandt, John E. Back, Jr., and The Gadsden,
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00639-SJD (S.D. Ohio, August 11, 2014)
alleges that during her employment with the Defendants, the
Plaintiff was treated differently than similarly-situated male
employees.

Ms. Riley also contends that the Defendants failed to pay her
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Place Entertainment, LLC holds itself out as a limited liability
company, Ms. Riley says.  She notes that Place is registered as a
foreign entity with the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but, according
to the Ohio Secretary of State's Web site, is not registered to do
business in Ohio and is not an Ohio entity.  The Gadsden, LLC is a
Kentucky limited liability company, which purports to be a member
or owner of Place.  The Individual Defendants are owners or
proprietors of Place and Gadsden.  The Defendants own and operate
a group of bars and restaurants in the Cincinnati, Ohio area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Eberly, Esq.
          Theodore C. Copetas, Esq.
          EBERLY MCMAHON LLC
          2321 Kemper Lane, Suite 100
          Cincinnati, OH 45206
          Telephone: (513) 533-9898
          Facsimile: (513) 533-3554
          E-mail: deberly@emh-law.com
                  tcopetas@emh-law.com


PRO EXCAVATING: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Herrera, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Pro Excavating, Inc., and David McCallion,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06219 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to compensate
employees their earned overtime wages for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Pro Excavating, Inc., Defendant PEI is an "enterprise" that owned
and operated in Illinois by its owner, David McCallion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


QUAKER OATS: Settles Transfat Labeling Class Action for $1.4MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that The Quaker
Oats Co. has agreed to a $1.4 million settlement in a class action
lawsuit claiming it mislabeled its products as transfats free when
they weren't.

The Quaker Oats Co.'s products were allegedly labeled as having
zero transfats, when they contained partially hydrogenated oil,
which can cause heart disease, cancer and Type 2 Diabetes.

Quaker agreed to remove the partially hydrogenated oil by Dec. 31,
2015, from the Oatmeal to Go and Instant Quaker Oatmeal products
that currently contain PHOs and not to reintroduce PHOs into those
products for a period of ten years, according to the settlement
documents filed June 12 and finalized on July 29.

Quaker also agreed not to introduce PHOs for a period of 10 years
into Quaker Chewy Bars, as well as the Instant Quaker Oatmeal
products that do not currently contain PHOs.

"The estimated cost of reformulating these products is
approximately $1.4 million," the settlement document states.

Attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $760,000 will be awarded
to class counsel, according to the document.  Each of the three
settlement class representatives will receive a $750 incentive
award.

Quaker Oats "vigorously denies" the allegations and "stands by its
products and marketing," according to the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary settlement approval.  The company nonetheless agreed
to injunctive relief at a cost of approximately $1.4 million, and
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg preliminary approved the deal
Feb. 12, under which Quaker must pay up to $120,000 to cover the
cost of notifying all potential class members.

By the end of this year, the company must "cease making the
statement 'contains a dietarily insignificant amount of trans fat'
on the label of any product containing 0.2 grams or more of
artificial trans fat per serving,'" the motion states.

Judge Seeborg approved the final settlement, finding that it is
"fair, reasonable, and adequate, with terms that are within the
range of reasonableness.  The settlement agreement was entered
into at arms'-length by experienced counsel and after extensive
negotiations spanning months.  The settlement agreement is not the
result of collusion."

The lawsuit was first filed on Feb. 3, 2010, and the settlement
was preliminarily approved on Feb. 12.

Victor Guttmann, Sonya Yrene and Rebecca Yumul claimed Quaker
falsely labeled its products and caused them harm in the process.

"Quaker falsely markets its products as healthful, despite the
fact that they have dangerous levels of artificial trans fat, a
toxic food additive banned in many parts of the world," the
complaint stated.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 5:10-cv-00502


RECOLOGY INC: Bid to Remand "Coria" Wage and Hour Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In JAVIER CORIA, Plaintiff, v. RECOLOGY, INC., Defendant, CASE NO.
14-CV-01536-JD, (N.D. Cal.), before the Court was plaintiff's
motion for an order remanding the case to state court and awarding
costs and attorneys' fees to plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed this wage-and-hour class action against his
former employer, Recology, Inc., in the California Superior Court
for the County of San Francisco. Plaintiff was a truck driver for
Recology, a waste management company. Among other things,
plaintiff alleges that defendant had "a continuous policy of not
paying Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for all hours
worked.

In an order dated August 7, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/xnrajDfrom Leagle.com, District Judge James Donato
denied the motion to remand.

Javier Coria, Plaintiff, represented by David Thomas Mara --
dmara@tudeylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC & William
David Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm A
Prof Law Corp.

Recology, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rod M. Fliegel --
rfliegel@litter.com -- Littler Mendelson, Yves Nguyen --
ynguyen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Alison S. Hightower --
ahightower@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


RED BULL: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $13 Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Red Bull has
agreed to a $13 million settlement in a class action lawsuit that
came about from its allegedly false advertising of Red Bull having
more benefits than coffee.

Benjamin Careathers, David Wolf and Miguel Almaraz sued Red Bull
North America Inc., Red Bull GMbH and Red Bull Distribution
Company Inc. because they claim the defendants' labeling and
marketing has deceived consumers.

The plaintiffs claim Red Bull falsely marketed its energy drinks
as providing certain functional benefits and thereby induced
consumers into purchasing and/or paying a price "premium" for
those drinks over alternate sources of caffeine, according to the
settlement document filed July 31 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Red Bull denies all wrongdoing or liability, and is prepared to
vigorously defend its marketing claims if the litigation proceeds,
according to the document.

"Notwithstanding, following extensive, good-faith and arms' length
negotiations between experienced counsel, and under the auspices
of a respected mediator, the parties have agreed to settlement
terms that they believe will fairly resolve this action, avoid
protracted, expensive and uncertain litigation, and reasonably and
adequately provide prompt effective relief for putative class
members," the settlement document says.

The parties agree that an appropriate settlement class would be
comprised of persons who purchased at least one Red Bull beverage
dating back to Jan. 1, 2002.

All members of this settlement class who submit a valid and timely
claim will have a choice of receiving either a $10 cash
reimbursement or free Red Bull products with an approximate retail
value of $15.

Product packaging and sizing shall be determined by Red Bull at
its discretion after the final value of the product option has
been determined.

Class counsel will receive an amount not to exceed $4.75 million
for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, according to the
document.

Messrs. Careathers, Wolf and Almaraz will receive an amount not to
exceed $5,000 each.

The plaintiffs are also asking that the alleged false advertising
campaign by Red Bull be discontinued.

"Beyond monetary relief, although Red Bull denies wrongdoing and
believes that its marketing materials and advertising have always
been truthful and accurate, it has voluntarily withdrawn or
revised the marketing claims challenged by plaintiffs, and will
confirm that all future claims about the functional benefits from
consuming its products will be medically and/or scientifically
supported," the settlement document states.

Mr. Careathers filed his class action against Red Bull on Jan. 16,
2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, and Messrs. Wolf and Almaraz filed theirs on Feb. 27,
2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The cases were later consolidated.

The plaintiffs are represented by Benedict Morelli, David Ratner,
Adam Deutsch, Jeremy Alters and Matthew Moore of Morelli Alters
Ratner LLP; and Frederic Fox -- ffox@kaplanfox.com -- Justin
Farar, Laurence King and Linda Fong -- lfong@kaplanfox.com -- of
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

The defendants are represented by Kenneth Plevan --
kenneth.plevan@skadden.com -- Jordan Feirman --
jordan.feirman@skadden.com -- Jason Russell and Hillary Hamilton
of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Katherine Polk
Failla.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case
number: 1:13-cv-00369


REGIONS FIN'L: Lower Court to Review Price Impact in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Russell-Kraft and Amanda Bransford., writing for Law360,
report that in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent
Halliburton decision, the Eleventh Circuit on Aug. 13 asked a
lower court to give Regions Financial Corp. a chance to prove that
alleged misrepresentations related to its 2006 acquisition of
AmSouth Bancorp did not actually affect the price of its stock.

The appellate court vacated an Alabama district court's 2012
decision to certify a class against Regions and asked it to
consider Region's evidence that a January 2009 stock price
decrease could not be linked to an announcement that $6 billion in
so-called goodwill asset estimates from the $10 billion AmSouth
deal were seriously impaired.

Regions appealed the class certification after the Supreme Court
on June 23 unanimously declined to overturn Basic Inc. v.
Levinson, which established the fraud-on-the-market theory of
reliance, but ruled that securities defendants may rebut the
fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance before the class
certification stage by showing a lack of price impact.

"Halliburton II by no means holds that in every case in which such
evidence is presented, the presumption will always be defeated,"
Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin wrote in the opinion for the
Eleventh Circuit.  "But in any event, because the district court
is in the best position to review all the facts and conduct the
inquiry now required in the wake of Halliburton II, we vacate and
remand this case for that purpose."

According to the plaintiffs' complaint, Regions misrepresented
millions of dollars in loans to keep the value of goodwill
reflected in quarterly reports artificially high.  Regions
represented that its goodwill had been repeatedly tested during
2007 and 2008 and was properly calculated, even though the value
of its real estate investments was steadily dropping, the
shareholders claim.

On January 20, 2009, the company made a substantial corrective
disclosure, reporting $5.6 billion in losses, according to court
documents.  That day, its stock tumbled to $4.60 per share, down
from $23.33 per share the previous February.

In June 2012, an Alabama district judge certified the class for
the period from Feb. 27, 2008, to Jan. 20, 2009.

Regions argues, however, that the decline was not caused by fraud
or other misdeeds on its part, but rather by other market factors.
It also claims the market was aware Regions would be increasing
its loan loss reserves and writing down the value of its goodwill,
and so was not relying on the high numbers.

Maibeth Porter, counsel for Regions, welcomed the Eleventh
Circuit's decision on Aug. 7.

"Regions looks forward to demonstrating to the trial court the
lack of price impact on Regions' stock, both at the time of the
alleged misrepresentations and at the alleged corrective
disclosure date," she told Law360.

Circuit Judges William H. Pryor Jr. and Beverly B. Martin and
District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell sat on the panel for the
Eleventh Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph David Daley, Eric Alan
Isaacson, Matthew Isaac Alpert, Andrew Joseph Brown and Tricha L.
McCormick of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Patrick C.
Cooper and James S. Ward of Ward & Wilson LLC.

The defendants are represented by Maibeth J. Porter --
mporter@maynardcooper.com -- John Norman Bolus and Richard Jon
Davis -- rdavis@maynardcooper.com -- of Maynard Cooper & Gale PC;
Julian D. Butler -- jbutler@sirote.com -- of Sirote & Permutt PC;
and Walker Steven Stewart -- walkerstewart@hbgm.com -- of Burr &
Forman, LLP.

The case is Local 703 I.B. Of T. Grocery and Food Employees
Welfare Fund et al. v. Regions Financial Corp. et al., case number
12-14168, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.


RESTAURANT OPERATOR TWO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Garcia, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Restaurant Operator One, LLC d/b/a Latin America Cafeteria and
Restaurant, a Florida limited liability company; Restaurant
Operator Two, LLC d/b/a Latin America Cafeteria and Restaurant, a
Florida limited liability company; Renzo Renzi, an individual,
Vande Corp. d/b/a Latin America Cafeteria and Restaurant, a
Florida corporation, Pasquale Renzi, an individual, Case No. 1:14-
cv-22969-CMA (S.D. Fla., August 13, 2014) sees to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime and straight wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Restaurant Operator One, LLC, Restaurant Operator Two, LLC and
Vande Corp are Florida companies doing business as Latin America
Cafeteria and Restaurant, with their main place of business in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants as waiter/server.  The Individual Defendants are
Florida residents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 8 Tobacco Cases Served v. RJR in Q2 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that during the second quarter of 2014, eight
tobacco-related cases were served against RJR Tobacco or its
affiliates or indemnitees.

On June 30, 2014, there were 170 cases pending against RJR Tobacco
or its affiliates or indemnitees: 154 in the United States and 16
in Canada, as compared with 159 total cases on June 30, 2013. The
U.S. case number does not include the approximately 564 individual
smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a
consolidated action, 4,865 Engle Progeny cases, involving
approximately 5,973 individual plaintiffs, and 2,572 Broin II
cases, pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco or its
affiliates or indemnitees.

Of the U.S. cases pending on June 30, 2014, 16 are pending in
federal court, 137 in state court and 1 in tribal court, primarily
in the following states: Maryland (28 cases); Florida (25 cases);
Missouri (19 cases); New York (14 cases); and Louisiana (10
cases).

The Company also said that these cases against RJR Tobacco and
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., have attracted significant
attention: the Florida state court class-action case, Engle v. R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and the related Engle Progeny cases; and
the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
referred to as RICO.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4,800 Engle Progeny Cases Pending at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class action brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers
allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145
billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006,
the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively
decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury
findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed
within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include
jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that
nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes
that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed
unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly
concealed unspecified information about the health risks of
smoking.

In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were
filed in federal and state courts in Florida.  Such actions are
commonly referred to as "Engle Progeny" cases.

Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that as of June 30, 2014, 1,744 Engle Progeny
cases were pending in federal court, and 3,121 of them were
pending in state court. These cases include approximately 5,973
plaintiffs.

According to the Company, as of June 30, 2014, RJR Tobacco was
aware of 17 additional Engle Progeny cases that had been filed but
not served. Ninety-nine Engle Progeny cases have been tried in
Florida state and federal courts since 2011, and numerous state
court trials are scheduled for 2014. The number of pending cases
fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and
involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in
which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of judgment," referred to in
Florida statutes as "proposals for settlement," from RJR Tobacco
and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the
plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco's right to recover attorneys'
fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR
Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered
mediations.

In Engle Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the
proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has argued
that use of the Engle findings to establish individual elements of
progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a
violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the
Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected
that argument. In addition to this global due process argument,
RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as
appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other
things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the
Engle class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by
any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that
some or all claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation
or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the
smoker's own conduct.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Paid $186MM in 24 Engle Progeny Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that 24 Engle Progeny cases have become final
to date.  These cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR
Tobacco of $186.4 million ($140.1 million for compensatory and
punitive damages and $46.3 million for attorneys' fees and
statutory interest).

The Company said that during the second quarter of 2014, an
aggregate payment of $72.4 million ($56.1 million for compensatory
and punitive damages and $16.3 million for attorneys' fees and
statutory interest) was made in satisfaction of the adverse
judgments in the Jimmie Lee Brown, Koballa, Duke, Walker,
Kirkland, Sury, Mack, Emmon Smith and Townsend cases.  Based on
RJR Tobacco's evaluation, an accrual of $2.4 million ($780,000 for
compensatory damages and $63,000 for attorneys' fees and statutory
interest for Hiott and Starr-Blundell and $1.56 million for
attorneys' fees and statutory interest for Ward, the judgment of
which was paid in January 2014) was recorded in RAI's condensed
consolidated balance sheet (unaudited) as of June 30, 2014.

As of June 30, 2014, outstanding judgments in favor of the Engle
Progeny plaintiffs have been entered and remain outstanding
against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $120,681,200 in compensatory
damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $23,698,465,000 in
punitive damages, for a total of $23,819,146,200. Excluding the
Robinson case, where a jury awarded $16.9 million in compensatory
damages and $23.6 billion in punitive damages and where post-trial
motions are pending before the trial court, outstanding judgments
in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been entered and
remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco in the amount of
$103,781,200 in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the
amount of $98,465,000 in punitive damages, for a total of
$202,246,200. All of these verdicts are at various stages in the
appellate process. RJR Tobacco continues to believe that it has
valid defenses in these cases, including case-specific issues
beyond the due process issue discussed above. It is the policy of
RJR Tobacco and its affiliates to vigorously defend all smoking
and health claims, including in Engle Progeny cases.

Should RJR Tobacco not prevail in any particular individual Engle
Progeny case or determine that in any individual Engle Progeny
case an unfavorable outcome has become probable and the amount can
be reasonably estimated, a loss would be recognized, which could
have a material adverse effect on earnings and cash flows of RAI
in a particular quarter or year. This position on loss recognition
for Engle Progeny cases as of June 30, 2014, is consistent with
RAI's and RJR Tobacco's historic position on loss recognition for
other smoking and health litigation. It is also the policy of RJR
Tobacco to record any loss concerning litigation at such time as
an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount can be
reasonably estimated on an individual case-by-case basis.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 67 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial by June 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that there are five cases, exclusive of Engle
Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of June 30, 2014 through
June 30, 2015, for RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and indemnitees:
one non-smoking and health case, three individual smoking and
health cases and one class action.  There are 67 Engle Progeny
cases against RJR Tobacco and/or Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc., set for trial through June 30, 2015, but it is not known how
many of these cases will actually be tried.

The Company also said that from January 1, 2011 through June 30,
2014, 105 smoking and health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost
recovery cases in which RJR Tobacco or B&W were defendants were
tried, including six trials for cases where mistrials were
declared in the original proceedings.  Verdicts in favor of RJR
Tobacco, B&W and, in some cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W and other
defendants, were returned in 54 cases, including 14 mistrials,
tried in Florida (51), Missouri (1) and West Virginia (2).
Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned in 47 cases
tried in Florida and one in New York. Three cases in Florida were
dismissed during trial.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 5 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in 2014 Q2
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that in the second quarter of 2014, five
Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant were
tried:

     -- In Dupre v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., the court declared a
mistrial because the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

     -- In Burkhart v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff
to be 50% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 25% at fault, and the
remaining defendants to collectively be 25% at fault, and awarded
$5 million in compensatory damages. The jury also awarded $1.25
million in punitive damages against RJR Tobacco and $1.25 million
collectively against the remaining defendants.

      -- In Starbuck v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court
declared a mistrial because the jury was unable to reach a
unanimous verdict.

      -- In Bakst v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Juanita
Thurston, to be 25% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 75% at fault,
and awarded $6 million in compensatory damages plus $4,209 for
funeral expenses. The jury also awarded $14 million in punitive
damages.

     -- In Davis v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

In addition, since the end of the second quarter of 2014,
decisions were entered in the following Engle Progeny case:

      -- In Robinson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent,
Michael Johnson, Sr., to be 29.5% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be
70.5% at fault and awarded $16.9 million in compensatory damages
and $23.6 billion in punitive damages.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing in W.Va. Appeals Court Now Complete
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual
Personal Injury Cases began in 1999, in West Virginia state court,
as a series of roughly 1,200 individual plaintiff cases making
claims with respect to cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris,
Lorillard, RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, and The
American Tobacco Company.  The cases were consolidated for a Phase
I trial on various defense conduct issues, to be followed in Phase
II by individual trials of any claims left standing.

Over the years, approximately 600 individual plaintiff claims were
dismissed for failure to comply with the case management order,
leaving 564 individual cases pending as of April 2013.  On April
15, 2013, the Phase I jury trial began and ended with a virtually
complete defense verdict on May 15, 2013.  The jury found that
cigarettes were not defectively designed, were not defective due
to a failure to warn prior to July 1, 1969, that defendants were
not negligent, did not breach warranties and did not engage in
conduct which would warrant punitive damages.  The only claim
remaining after the verdict was the jury's finding that all
ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964
and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct.  The
defendants believe that there are only 30 plaintiffs remaining who
arguably claim to have smoked a ventilated filter cigarette during
the relevant period. The court initially entered judgment on the
verdict identifying the 30 plaintiffs remaining, but vacated those
orders as premature (leaving to a later day the task of
identifying the plaintiffs who might be able to assert a
ventilated filter failure to instruct claim during the narrow
relevant period). The court entered a new judgment in October
2013, dismissing all claims lost by the plaintiffs and purporting
to make those claims and all of the jury rulings immediately
subject to appeal.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in November 2013.  Briefing
is complete.  The defendants reserved the right to challenge the
ventilated filter claim in the event any plaintiff pursues and
succeeds on such a claim.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nov. 2014 Trial Set in "Sateriale" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that in Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a class action filed in November 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs
brought the case on behalf of all persons who tried unsuccessfully
to redeem Camel Cash certificates from 1991 through March 31,
2007, or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that in response to the defendants' action
to discontinue redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007,
customers, like the plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel
Cash for merchandise and that the defendants, however, did not
have any merchandise to exchange for Camel Cash.  The plaintiffs
allege unfair business practices, deceptive practices, breach of
contract and promissory estoppel. The plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief, actual damages, costs and expenses.

In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in February
2010.

The class definition changed to a class consisting of all persons
who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel
Cash certificates, from October 1, 2006 (six months before the
defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash
certificates as of March 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a proposed
California subclass, consisting of all California residents
meeting the same criteria.

In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively,
for failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In July 2010, RJR
Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
granted with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and RJR Tobacco
filed a motion to dismiss in September 2010.

In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to
dismiss with prejudice. Final judgment was entered by the court,
and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, in January 2011.

In July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract.

RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied
in October 2012. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
third amended complaint in December 2012.  Trial is scheduled for
November 4, 2014, the Company said.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision in Philip Morris' Appeal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that the "lights" class-action cases are
pending against RJR Tobacco or Brown & Williamson Holdings in
Illinois (2) and Missouri (2).  The classes in these cases
generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.
In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip
Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are
not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's historic regulation of
the industry. Since this decision in December 2008, a number of
the stayed cases have become active again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.  Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003.  In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip
Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond
requirement.

On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
lower court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court
with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the
trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and for
entry of final judgment. The case was dismissed with prejudice the
same day.

In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from
judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good
v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal. The
trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in February 2009. In
March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order,
concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for
relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court
dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The
appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely,
reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court. On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court
denied Philip Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In December
2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' petition for relief
from the judgment.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate
Court, Fifth Judicial District. In April 2014, the appellate court
reinstated the 2003 verdict.

In May 2014, Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to
the Illinois Supreme Court and a motion for supervisory order.
Philip Morris has requested the Illinois Supreme Court to direct
the Fifth Judicial District to vacate its April 2014 judgment and
to order the Fifth Judicial District to affirm the trial court's
denial of the plaintiff's petition for relief from the judgment,
or in the alternative, grant its petition for leave to appeal. A
decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: August 20 Status Conference in "Turner" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that in Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
a case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County,
Illinois, a judge certified a class in November 2001. In June
2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip
Morris's appeal of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case, which
the judge denied in July 2003. In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency
stay/supremacy order request. In November 2003, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the
court's final appeal decision in Price. On October 11, 2007, the
Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's
appeal of the court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order
request and remanded the case to the Circuit Court. A status
conference is scheduled for August 20, 2014.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Howard" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge
issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case mentioned above. The plaintiffs
appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August
2005. There is currently no activity in the case, Reynolds
American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
June 30, 2014.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb 2015 Status Conference in "Collora" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that a "lights" class-action case is pending
against each of RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, in
Missouri.  In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge
in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003. In April 2007,
the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and
the following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip
Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial
date of January 10, 2011 was scheduled, but it did not proceed at
that time.  A status conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2015 Status Conference in "Black" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that in Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St.
Louis, Missouri, B&W removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand, which was granted in March 2006. In April 2008,
the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10,
2011, was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status
conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit v. American Tobacco Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that in Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.,
a case filed in November 1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, the plaintiffs brought an ETS class action against U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all residents of
Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been
exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were
manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury
as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In March
2013, the court entered an order staying the case, including all
discovery, pending the implementation of the smoking cessation
program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit v. A C & S Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that in Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case
filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County, West
Virginia, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified
amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages.
The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral
Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North America and
Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong
World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to
all defendants.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Jones" Suit v American Tobacco
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that in Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.,
a case filed in December 1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County,
Missouri, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri in February 1999. The
action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by
tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly
situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use
of the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become
addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The case
was remanded to the Circuit Court in February 1999. There is
currently no activity in this case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: British Columbia Case Being Actively Pursued
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that the following seven putative Canadian
class actions were filed against various Canadian and non-Canadian
tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its
affiliates, in courts in the Provinces of Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan,
although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively pursuing only
the action pending in British Columbia at this time:

     -- In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for
Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related
entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals
who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have
brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan
court.

      -- In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of
government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused
by the use of tobacco products.

      -- In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung disease
resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, and their dependents and family members, who purchased or
smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, as well as
restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure
for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco
products.

     -- In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals,
including their estates, dependents and family members, who
purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or
distributed by the defendants for the period from January 1, 1954,
to the expiry of the opt-out period as set by the court, as well
as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government
expenditure for health-care costs allegedly caused by the use of
tobacco products.

     -- In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case
filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff,
the heir to a deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was
addicted to and suffered emphysema resulting from the use of
tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the
claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a
challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. The
plaintiff filed a motion for certification in April 2012, and
filed affidavits in support in August 2013.

     -- In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case
filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and heart disease
resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered,
or who currently suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its
affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the
British Columbia court.

     -- In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a
case filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals,
including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who
have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution
of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for
health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco
products.

In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of
rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current
or former affiliates in these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Kansas Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. reported in its Form 10-Q quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2014, that a number of tobacco wholesalers and
consumers have sued U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, in federal and state
courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers combined and
conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of antitrust
statutes and various state unfair business practices statutes. In
these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify the
lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons who purchased
cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of the
defendants.

As of June 30, 2014, all of the federal and state court cases on
behalf of indirect purchasers had been dismissed.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or
maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. In an
opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs' claims. On July
18, 2014, the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas affirmed the
granting of summary judgment.


SANIMAX: Warshafsky Teams Up with Liddle & Dublin in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Kurtz, writing for DeForest Time-Tribune, reports that two
law firms have teamed with a handful of Green Bay area residents
to file a class action lawsuit against Sanimax on claims that the
rendering plant's emissions have made life difficult for home
owners there.

The DeForest Times-Tribune first reported on June 19 that
Warshafsky Law Firm of Milwaukee and Detroit-based Liddle &
Dublin, P.C. had mailed surveys to residents in both DeForest and
Howard (northwest of Green Bay) to gauge interest in possible
legal action against Sanimax.

Filed in Dane County Circuit Court on July 31, the complaint
alleges that residential neighborhoods within two miles of
Sanimax's Howard operation have been blanketed by offensive odors
and the plaintiffs have a goal of "obtaining compensation for the
odors they have endured."

A complaint pertaining to Sanimax's DeForest operation had not
been filed as of Aug. 5.  The DeForest plant differs from Howard
in that it offers used grease recycling and biodiesel services.
"Animal rendering plants have the potential to produce some of the
strongest foul odors of any type of industrial facility," Liddle &
Dubin attorney Laura Sheets said in a release.  "This is
especially true where the facility doesn't take the proper
precautions to protect their neighbors from odor emissions."

According to Liddle & Dublin, Brown County officials received
about 50 complaints in 2012 regarding Sanimax and higher totals in
subsequent years.

"When the odor is present, you can't stand to be outside and we
can't open our windows at night without waking up and gagging from
the horrific smell," one of the plaintiffs said.  "[The odor]
makes you feel like a prisoner in your home."

Sanimax issued a response on Aug. 1 in light of the Howard lawsuit
that said the company has invested almost $3 million in odor-
reduction improvements over the years and that the lawsuit "is
being driven by out-of-state lawyers and was not even filed in
Brown County."

Sanimax also said it does not comment on pending litigation and
"intends to defend itself vigorously."


SATINSKY GROUP: Court Reserves Judgment in R699 Car Scheme Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sithandiwe Velaphi, writing for The New Age, reports that lawyers
representing three banking institutions against the controversial
R699 car scheme argued in the Port Elizabeth High Court on Aug. 7
that the action against their clients should be struck off the
roll.

This after hundreds of disgruntled consumers approached a Port
Elizabeth-based law firm, Pieterse Cary Finlaison, for relief
after their deal collapsed last month leaving Absa, Standard Bank
and Nedbank to ask for a full payment for consumers who were told
their car payments would be reduced by R699 if they drove around
pasting the advertisement on their cars.

The application has been brought to court for it to certify a
class action against banks in a bid to have thousands of contracts
declared null and void.

Senior counsel Wim Trengove, representing Absa Bank, argued that
there was no meaningful commonality between the different cases
and the matter concerned did not satisfy the requirements for a
class certification.

The judgment on the matter was on Aug. 7 reserved by the court.
An affected consumer said all he wanted was the banks to take
responsibility for the R699 deal.


SCHWAN'S HOME: Must Refund Staff for Using Own Phones, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Food-delivery giant Schwan's must reimburse staff for using their
own cellphones for work, a California appeals court ruled on
August 12, 2014, reports William Dotinga at Courthouse News
Service.

Colin Cochran filed a class action against Schwan's Home Service
Inc. -- the largest direct-to-home food delivery service in the
United States -- on behalf of other customer-service managers who
were not being reimbursed for work-related use of their own
cellphones.

The case went to the Second Appellate District after the Los
Angeles County Superior Court found that a lack of commonality
foreclosed class certification.

Judge Teresa Sanchez-Gordon had said that a class action was not
the best way to resolve the issue, noting that examination was
required to resolve the question of whether Cochran or his live-in
girlfriend paid his cellphone bill.  She predicted that similar
individual issues would exist across the 1,500-member class.

In reversing on August 12, 2014, a three-judge panel for the
Second Appellate District found that state labor law requires that
employers always reimburse their workers for reasonable expenses
related to mandatory personal cellphone use, regardless of the
situation.

"If an employee is required to make work-related calls on a
personal cell phone, then he or she is incurring an expense for
purposes of labor law," Judge Judith Ashmann-Gerst wrote for the
court.  "It does not matter whether the phone bill is paid for by
a third person, or at all.  In other words, it is no concern to
the employer that the employee may pass on the expense to a family
member or friend, or to a carrier that has to then write off a
loss.  It is irrelevant whether the employee changed plans to
accommodate worked-related cell phone usage.  Also, the details of
the employee's cell phone plan do not factor into the liability
analysis.  Not only does our interpretation prevent employers from
passing on operating expenses, it also prevents them from digging
into the private lives of their employees to unearth how they
handle their finances vis-a-vis family, friends and creditors.  To
show liability under the labor code, an employee need only show
that he or she was required to use a personal cell phone to make
work-related calls, and he or she was not reimbursed.  Damages, of
course, raise issues that are more complicated."

The trial court must reconsider certifying the class in light of
this interpretation of the labor code, as well as whether
statistical sampling will answer the commonality question,
Ashmann-Gerst concluded.

The appellate case is Colin Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service,
Inc., Case No. B247160, in the Court of Appeal of the State of
California, Second Appellate District, Division Two.  The trial
court case is Colin Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., Case
No. BC449547, in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles.


SHIRE US: Seeks Dismissal of Adderall Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham and Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, report
that Shire U.S. Inc. urged a Florida federal judge on Aug. 5 to
dismiss a putative class action accusing the company of scheming
to delay generic versions of its attention-deficit-hyperactivity
drug Adderall XR, arguing that their antitrust theory is "simply
implausible."

In its dismissal bid, the drugmaker argued that although the
consumer plaintiffs contend that Shire conspired to delay generic
competition to Adderall, they also acknowledge that the
pharmaceutical giant supplied generic versions of the Adderall to
other companies for sale in Florida beginning in 2009.

"The first amended complaint fails to set out any coherent,
plausible theory as to how this alleged conduct injured
consumers," Shire claimed in its motion.

The company further asserted that the plaintiffs' pre-April 2009
claims are blocked by the statute of limitations, and alleged that
the consumers failed to factually back up their claim that Shire's
patent suits were sham litigation meant to delay competition.

Along with its dismissal bid, Shire also sought summary judgment
on all of the plaintiffs' claims on Aug. 5, arguing they lacked
standing.  Specifically, Shire claimed that regarding the
plaintiffs' pre-April 2009 claims, the company never "forced" them
to purchase branded Adderall rather than generic versions.

"Instead, no generic company could have lawfully sold generic
Adderall prior to the April 1, 2009, launch of Shire-supplied
generic [Adderall XR] because the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had not approved any generic [Adderall XR]
products," the company argued.

As for conduct occurring after April 2, 2009, Shire alleged that
the named plaintiffs bringing the suit were not injured for
reasons the company redacted in its public version of the brief.

The consumers brought the suit in April 2013, alleging that Shire
inked so-called pay-for-delay settlements with Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Impax Laboratories Inc. to resolve
allegations that their efforts to market a generic version of
Adderall would violate Shire's patents.

According to the plaintiffs, those infringement cases were a sham
-- part of a broader scheme to first delay the entry of generic
competition, and then to restrict generic rivals by failing to
supply Teva and Impax with as much of its authorized generic
version of the drug as promised under the settlements.

The suit brought claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Practices Act, and premised several of the claims on state and
federal antitrust law.

Michael Brockmeyer -- mbrockmeyer@flhlaw.com -- an attorney with
Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP who is representing Shire, told Law360
on Aug. 6 that with respect to the dismissal motion, the
defendants believe the suit fails to state a claim consistent with
several recent rulings in Shire's favor in similar cases.  As for
the summary judgment bid, Brockmeyer said that the case should be
axed because Shire's conduct did not bar the plaintiffs from
receiving Adderall generics.

"We believe that the court should dismiss the case because none of
Shire's alleged conduct prevented the plaintiffs from receiving
generic Adderall XR and in fact it was Shire's supply of Adderall
XR AG product to Teva and Impax that enabled the plaintiffs to
obtain generic Adderall XR," Mr. Brockmeyer said.

Shire's motions in the Florida suit come roughly two months after
the Second Circuit found that company didn't block generic
competition for Adderall XR, saying a lower court was correct to
dismiss a consolidated class action because Shire's patent
licensing agreements didn't raise an antitrust issue.

The plaintiffs are represented by Brian Tse-Hua Ku and M. Ryan
Casey of Ku & Mussman PA and Alan Kanner, Conlee Whiteley, Cynthia
St. Amant, John R. Davis and Brittney N. Bullock of Kanner &
Whiteley LLC.

Shire is represented by Michael F. Brockmeyer, David A. Zwally --
dzwally@flhlaw.com -- John F. Collins and Edgar H. Haug of Frommer
Lawrence & Haug LLP and Eric C. Christu and Daniel J. Barsky --
dbarsky@shutts.com -- of Shutts & Bowen LLP.

The case is Barba et al. v. Shire U.S. Inc. et al., case number
1:13-cv-21158, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.


SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Mass Layoff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that Space Exploration
Technologies Corp. is facing a putative class action in California
court accusing it of not properly notifying its former employees
of a mass layoff of up to roughly 400 workers in the state, and
not paying them wages earned before termination.

The proposed class action, filed on Aug. 4, alleged that SpaceX
ordered the mass layoffs of between 200 and 400 workers on or
about July 21 without giving advance notice to them, in violation
of California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The putative class comprises all nonexempt employees working at
SpaceX facilities in California at any time within four years
before the filing of the initial complaint through the date notice
is mailed to a certified class who were subject to a mass layoff
and didn't receive proper notice.

A second proposed class includes employees who weren't paid wages
after their termination.

"Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees also seek
recovery of waiting time penalties as a result of defendants'
failure to pay employees all wages due and owing at the time of
their termination," the complaint says.

The Cal WARN Act requires employers to provide 60 days' written
notice to affected employees of layoffs involving 50 or more
employees in a 30-day period, according to the complaint.
Employers who fail to do so must pay the affected employees up to
60 days of average regular rate of compensation or final rate of
compensation, whichever is higher, the suit says.

Among the fired workers were plaintiffs Bobby R. Lee and Bron
Gatling, who worked as structural technicians in the company's
Hawthorne facility.  They claimed SpaceX's failure to pay the
fired employees all wages earned before termination in accordance
with the California Labor Code was willful.  They also accused
SpaceX of violating California's Unfair Competition Law through
the alleged conduct.

In addition to damages in the amount of 60 days' pay and benefits,
the suit seeks the value of the cost of any benefits to which the
employees would have been entitled had their employment continued,
either of them continuing up to 60 days or one-half the number of
days SpaceX employed plaintiffs and the Cal WARN class.

The suit also seeks pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs of the suit.

Messrs. Lee and Gatling are represented by Lee R. Feldman, Alicia
Olivares and Leonard H. Sansanowicz of Feldman Browne Olivares
APC.

The case is Bobby R. Lee et al. v. Space Exploration Technologies
Corp., case number BC552901, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


STATE FARM: "Indiana" Suit Added to Auto Body Shop Antitrust MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana Autobody Association, Inc., et al v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00507, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Orlando).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 6:14-cv-06001-GAP-TBS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In Re: Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2557, and Lead
Case No. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS.  Collectively, there are more than
80 insurers named as defendants in the actions.  The Plaintiffs
allege a conspiracy in the automobile insurance industry to
suppress the reimbursement rates for automobile collision repairs,
in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state laws.

The Plaintiffs in the "Indiana" case are represented by:

          Allison P. Fry, Esq.
          John Arthur Eaves, Jr., Esq.
          JOHN ARTHUR EAVES ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          101 North State Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 355-7961
          Facsimile: (601) 355-0530
          E-mail: allison@eaveslaw.com
                  johnjr@eaveslaw.com

               - and -

          Mark W. Sniderman, Esq.
          SNIDERMAN NGUYEN LLP
          47 S. Meridian Street, Suite 400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 361-4700
          Facsimile: (317) 464-5111
          E-mail: mark@snlawyers.com

Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, State
Farm Fire and Casualty Company and State Farm General Insurance
Company are represented by:

          Brent R. Austin, Esq.
          Michael L. McCluggage, Esq.
          EIMER STAHL LLP
          224 S Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-7684
          E-mail: baustin@eimerstahl.com
                  mmccluggage@eimerstahl.com

               - and -

          John B. Drummy, Esq.
          KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
          211 North Pennsylvania Street
          One Indiana Square, Suite 300
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 638-4521
          Facsimile: (317) 636-5917
          E-mail: jdrummy@k-glaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Kenny, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7179
          Facsimile: (404) 253-8682
          E-mail: mike.kenny@alston.com

Defendants Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive
American Insurance Company, Progressive Classic Insurance Company,
Progressive Direct Insurance Company and Progressive Max Insurance
Company are represented by:

          Michael R. Nelson, Esq.
          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          NELSON LEVINE DE LUCA & HAMILTON, LLC
          17 State Street, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 233-0130
          Facsimile: (212) 233-0172
          E-mail: mnelson@nldhlaw.com
                  kkochis@nldhlaw.com

               - and -

          Christine A. Hopkinson, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree St NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-3560
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5139
          E-mail: chopkinson@kslaw.com
                  jcashdan@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Eric C. McNamar, Esq.
          John Carl Trimble, Esq.
          LEWIS WAGNER LLP
          501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 237-0500
          Facsimile: (317) 630-2790
          E-mail: emcnamar@lewiswagner.com
                  jtrimble@lewiswagner.com

               - and -

          Kimberly E. Howard, Esq.
          SMITH FISHER MAAS & HOWARD, P.C.
          7209 N. Shadeland Ave.
          Indianapolis, IN 46250
          Telephone: (317) 578-1900
          Facsimile: (317) 578-1330
          E-mail: khoward@smithfisher.com

Defendant Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Company is represented
by:

          Brian Scott Jones, Esq.
          Curtis T. Jones, Esq.
          Joel T. Nagle, Esq.
          BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 684-5462
          Facsimile: (317) 223-0462
          E-mail: b.jones@boselaw.com
                  cjones@boselaw.com
                  jnagle@boselaw.com

Defendants Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate
Vehicle And Property Insurance Company are represented by:

          Bonnie Lau, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          525 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 882-5083
          Facsimile: (415) 882-0300
          E-mail: bonnie.lau@dentons.com

               - and -

          Richard L. Fenton, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 S Wacker Dr., Suite 7800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          Facsimile: (312) 876-7934
          E-mail: richard.fenton@dentons.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Jean Maas, Esq.
          SMITH FISHER MAAS & HOWARD
          7209 North Shadeland Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46250
          Telephone: (317) 578-1900
          Facsimile: (317) 578-1330
          E-mail: rmaas@smithfisher.com

Defendants GEICO General Insurance Company and Geico Indemnity
Company are represented by:

          Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
          Ian M. Fischer, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER, LLP
          400 E Van Buren, Suite 1900
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Telephone: (602) 382-6282
          Facsimile: (602) 382-6070
          E-mail: dgoldfine@swlaw.com
                  ifischer@swlaw.com

               - and -

          Debra H. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER & FISHER LLC
          8900 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1080
          Indianapolis, IN 46240
          Telephone: (317) 536-7577
          Facsimile: (317) 536-7579
          E-mail: miller@millerfisher.com

Defendants Shelter General Insurance Company and Shelter Mutual
Insurance Company are represented by:

          Julia E. Dimick, Esq.
          ALERDING CASTOR HEWITT LLP
          47 S. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 829-1910
          Facsimile: (317) 423-2089
          E-mail: jdimick@alerdingcastor.com

Defendants Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Nationwide
Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Nationwide Assurance
Company are represented by:

          Kathleen Ann DeLaney, Esq.
          DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
          3646 North Washington Blvd.
          Indianapolis, IN 46205
          Telephone: (317) 920-0400
          Facsimile: (317) 920-0404
          E-mail: kathleen@delaneylaw.net

               - and -

          Michael Beekhuizen, Esq.
          Michael Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP
          280 North High Street, Suite 1300
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-4100
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9145
          E-mail: beekhuizen@carpenterlipps.com
                  carpenter@carpenterlipps.com

               - and -

          Peter T. Snow, Esq.
          FARUKI, IRELAND & COX, PLL
          500 Courthouse Plaza SW
          10 N Ludlow St.
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (614) 365-4117
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9145
          E-mail: snow@carpenterlipps.com

Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company is represented
by:

          Heather Carson Perkins, Esq.
          Michael S. McCarthy, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER & DANIELS LLP
          3200 Wells Fargo Center
          1700 Lincoln Street
          Denver, CO 80203-4532
          Telephone: (303) 607-3703
          Facsimile: (303) 607-3600
          E-mail: heather.perkins@faegrebd.com
                  michael.mccarthy@faegrebd.com

               - and -

          Kathy Lynn Osborn, Esq.
          Ryan Michael Hurley, Esq.
          Sarah Jenkins, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 237-0300
          Facsimile: (317) 237-1000
          E-mail: kathy.osborn@faegrebd.com
                  ryan.hurley@FaegreBD.com
                  sarah.jenkins@FaegreBD.com

Defendants Zurich American Insurance Company and Zurich American
Insurance Company of Illinois are represented by:

          Cynthia M. Locke, Esq.
          CANTRELL STRENSKI & MEHRINGER, LLP
          150 W. Market Street, Suite 800
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 352-3500
          Facsimile: (317) 352-3501
          E-mail: clocke@csmlawfirm.com

Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is represented by:

          Dennis F. Cantrell, Esq.
          CANTRELL, STRENSKI & MEHRINGER, LLP
          150 West Market Street, Suite 800
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 352-3500
          Facsimile: (317) 352-3501
          E-mail: dcantrell@csmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ernest E. Vargo, Esq.
          Michael E. Mumford, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          3200 National City Center
          1900 E 9th St.
          Cleveland, OH 44114-3485
          Telephone: (216) 621-0200
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: evargo@bakerlaw.com
                  mmumford@bakerlaw.com


SUBURBAN RADIOLOGIC: Mag. Judge Report Adopted in "Hartley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John R. Tunheim entered an order adopting the
report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in
the case captioned KEITH HARTLEY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUBURBAN RADIOLOGIC
CONSULTANTS, LTD. And CT INC. SERVICES, and assumed name for
Colltech Inc., Defendants, CIVIL NO. 11-2664 (JRT/JJG), (D.
Minn.).

According to Judge Tunheim's August 7, 2014 order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/GUgXv2from Leagle.com, the Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees & Costs are
granted.

The Settlement Class is defined as: all persons/consumers residing
in Minnesota to whom letters/message alerts, similar to Exhibit 1,
were sent during the Class Period.

The Court awarded reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and
expenses to Class Counsel in the amount of $87,500.00.

The Court further awarded Plaintiff Keith Hartley a class
representative award of $7,000.00.

Mark L Vavreck -- mvavreck@mgvlawfirm.com -- MARTINEAU, GONKO &
VAVRECK, PLLC, 401 North Third Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN
55401, Thomas J Lyons -- tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com -- LYONS LAW
FIRM, P.A., 367 Commerce Court, Vadnais Heights, MN 55127, for
plaintiff.

Matthew R Doherty -- mdoherty@brutlaw.com -- Ryan Trucke --
rtrucke@brutlaw.com -- BRUTLAG, HARTMANN & TRUCKE, PA, 3555
Plymouth Boulevard, Suite 117m Plymouth, MN 55447, for defendants.


SUNRISE PROPANE: Judge Approves C$23-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyshah Hasham and Tara Deschamps, writing for Toronto Star,
report that a settlement in a class action over explosions at the
Sunrise Propane plant has been approved.

The early morning explosions at the Sunrise Propane plant sounded
like bombs.  The ceilings in Josephine Schieda's Downsview home
collapsed, and as dark mushroom clouds rained poisonous asbestos,
thousands were forced to evacuate the area.  Almost exactly six
years later, the compensation battle for 6,000 residents,
including Ms. Schieda, is over.

On Aug. 7, Superior Court Justice Barbara Conway approved the
C$23-million settlement in the class-action lawsuit reached during
mediation led by former Chief Justice of Ontario Warren Winkler.
The settlement was "fair, reasonable and in the best interest of
the class," ruled Justice Conway.

"We are just delighted and we know that the class will be very
grateful to know the claims procedure can start," said
Harvin Pitch, one of the lawyers representing the residents.

Ms. Schieda and her home have never been quite the same since
Aug. 10, 2008.  The house, where she and her husband have lived
since 1977 and raised their children, is still undergoing repairs.

"Yeah, that's great that they come with this settlement, but it's
not going to heal the wounds.  I will always have (emotional)
scars.  I don't want this to happen to some other poor soul in
another area," the 57-year-old told the Star through tears.  "Even
the money is not going to make everybody feel better, based on
what happened."

What she wanted -- and didn't get -- was someone taking
responsibility for what happened.

"I still haven't heard anyone say, 'Yeah, it was our fault.  Yeah,
we did it.'"

The settlement sets aside C$7,909,500 for about 6,000 residents
living in the area within Keele St., Dufferin St., Highway 401 and
Sheppard Ave.

Class members will be compensated for the number of days they were
forced to leave their homes, and for personal injuries, out-of-
pocket expenses, loss of income and damages not covered by
insurance, said lawyer Ted Charney, who also represented the
residents.

"We think the money is going to be quite good in terms of
compensating everyone for their individual losses," he said.
Residents will be able to file claims in the coming months and
should have money in their pockets within a year, Mr. Charney
said.  The settlement also gives the same amount -- C$7,909,500 --
to insurance companies and the City of Toronto.

The remainder of the settlement will go towards legal fees and
costs incurred by the several law firms representing the
residents, as well as administrative costs for processing the
claims.

Mr. Pitch noted that eight property insurance companies objected
to the legal fees outlined in the settlement and argued for more
money to be allocated to them.

"The judge said that's ridiculous," Mr. Pitch said.

Sunrise Propane, which is now defunct, contributed its maximum
insurance amount of C$9 million.  Twelve other defendants,
including hose companies and the industry's self-regulating body,
the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, contributed
unspecified sums to make up the C$23 million.

Parminder Singh Saini, a 25-year-old worker killed during the
blast, was an employee of Sunrise and therefore not eligible to be
part of the class-action lawsuit, Mr. Charney said.  The explosion
also claimed the life of off-duty firefighter Bob Leek, who died
of a heart attack while responding to the fire.

Last year, Sunrise Propane and two of its directors,
Shay Ben-Moshe and Valery Belshov, were found guilty of breaching
environmental and worker safety regulations.

The court found that the explosions occurred during an illegal
truck-to-truck propane transfer.

A sentencing hearing continues.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Wins Final OK of $5.5MM Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Graham C. Mullen entered an order and final
judgment approving the settlement in IN RE SWISHER HYGIENE, INC.
SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, DOCKET NO. 3:12-MD-2384-GCM,
(W.D. N.C.).  A copy of Judge Mullen's August 6, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/pzgSBSfrom Leagle.com.

The Court found the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of the Class.

Judge Mullen dismissed with prejudice in their entirety the
Consolidated Class Action and related Putative Securities Actions
as to Defendants and against Lead Plaintiffs and all other members
of the Class on the merits and without costs.

The Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action with prejudice,
and ordered the settlement and release of any and all claims
against the Defendants.

Plaintiffs' Counsel were awarded attorneys' fees of 25% of the
Settlement Payment and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of
$61,111.92.

In making this award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has
considered and found, among other things, that:

a. the Settlement has created a fund of $5,500,000 in cash, plus
   interest, and that numerous Class Members who submit acceptable
   Proofs of Claim will benefit from the Settlement created by
   Lead Counsel;

b. Over 35,677 copies of the Notice were disseminated to putative
   Class Members indicating that Plaintiffs' Counsel was moving
   for attorneys' fees in the amount of up to 25% of the
   Settlement Payment and for reimbursement of expenses in an
   amount of approximately $85,000 and no objections were filed
   against the terms of the proposed Settlement or the ceiling on
   the fees and expenses requested by Plaintiffs' Counsel
   contained in the Notice; and

c. Lead Counsel has devoted 1,671.05 hours, with a lodestar value
   of $859,909, to achieve the Settlement.

Norman Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Gary W. Jackson, The
Jackson Law Group, PLLC & Jeremy Allan Lieberman, Pomerantz Haudek
Grossman & Gross LLP.

Michael C. Birch, Case No. 3:12cv221, Plaintiff, represented by
Gary W. Jackson, The Jackson Law Group, PLLC.

Lisa M. Birch, Plaintiff, represented by Gary W. Jackson, The
Jackson Law Group, PLLC.

Michael B. Cohen, Plaintiff, represented by Gary W. Jackson, The
Jackson Law Group, PLLC.

Timothy J. Falk, Plaintiff, represented by Gary W. Jackson, The
Jackson Law Group, PLLC.

Bruce James, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray, Murray
Frank LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Michael
Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Robert V. Prongay, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Tom Borthwick, Plaintiff, represented by Norris Arden Adams, II.
Glen Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred J. Bennington, Jr.,
Shutts & Bowen LLP, Eric C. Christu, Shutts & Bowen LLP & Krista
Sue Kovalcin, Shutts & Bowen LLP.

Neal Rodrigue, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred J. Bennington,
Jr., Shutts & Bowen LLP, Eric C. Christu, Shutts & Bowen LLP &
Krista Sue Kovalcin, Shutts & Bowen LLP.

The Hermine Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Kera Rodrigue,
Plaintiff, represented by Alfred J. Bennington, Jr., Shutts &
Bowen LLP, Eric C. Christu, Shutts & Bowen LLP & Krista Sue
Kovalcin, Shutts & Bowen LLP.

The Robert Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Hayden Rodrigue,
Plaintiff, represented by Alfred J. Bennington, Jr., Shutts &
Bowen LLP, Eric C. Christu, Shutts & Bowen LLP & Krista Sue
Kovalcin, Shutts & Bowen LLP.

14cv2387 Miller Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred J.
Bennington, Jr., Shutts & Bowen LLP, Eric C. Christu, Shutts &
Bowen LLP & Krista Sue Kovalcin, Shutts & Bowen LLP.

Robert Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Ejola Christlieb Cook,
The Ticktin Law Group, P.A..

Swisher Hygiene, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Patrick
McLoughlin, Jr., Moore & Van Allen, Jay B. Kasner, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Jonathan Michael Watkins, Moore & Van
Allen, PLLC, Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, Scott D. Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, Stanley H. Wakshlag, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner & Valecia M. McDowell, Moore &
Van Allen.

Steven R. Berrard, Defendant, represented by David Nelson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, Stanley H. Wakshlag, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. &
Stuart Harold Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner.

Michael J. Kipp, Defendant, represented by Eric Bruce, Kobre &
Kim, LLP, Justin Sommers, Kobre & Kim, LLP & Sean Casey, Kobre &
Kim, LLP.

Clarence Arsenault, Defendant, represented by Daniel Isaac Wolf,
Brower Piven, Patrick W. Powers, Powers Taylor LLP, Peyton J.
Healey, Powers Taylor LLP & Willie Charles Briscoe, The Briscoe
Law Firm, PLLC.

H. Wayne Huizenga, Defendant, represented by Stanley H. Wakshlag,
Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. & Stuart Harold Singer, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner.

Hugh H Cooper, Defendant, represented by Cory Hohnbaum, King &
Spalding LLP, James Andrew Pratt, King & Spalding LLP, Michael R.
Smith, King & Spalding & Bradley Jason Lingo, King & Spalding LLP.

The Robert Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Kera Rodrigue,
Defendant, represented by Alfred J. Bennington, Jr., Shutts &
Bowen LLP, Eric C. Christu, Shutts & Bowen LLP & Krista Sue
Kovalcin, Shutts & Bowen LLP.

John Nobel, Movant, represented by Joseph R. Seidman, Jr.,
Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Paul Robert Dickinson, Jr, Lewis &
Roberts, PLLC & Uri Seth Ottensoser, Bernstein Liebhard LLP.

Bryan T. McMahon, Movant, represented by Joseph R. Seidman, Jr.,
Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Paul Robert Dickinson, Jr, Lewis &
Roberts, PLLC & Uri Seth Ottensoser, Bernstein Liebhard LLP.

Joseph Meives, Movant, represented by Joseph R. Seidman, Jr.,
Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Paul Robert Dickinson, Jr, Lewis &
Roberts, PLLC & Uri Seth Ottensoser, Bernstein Liebhard LLP.

James F. Caird, Movant, represented by Gary W. Jackson, The
Jackson Law Group, PLLC, Jason Mathew Leviton, Block & Leviton LLP
& Jeffrey C. Block, Block & Leviton LLP.

Harry F. Noyes, Movant, represented by Gary W. Jackson, The
Jackson Law Group, PLLC, Jason Mathew Leviton, Block & Leviton LLP
& Jeffrey C. Block, Block & Leviton LLP.

Eugene W. Stranch, Movant, represented by Gary W. Jackson, The
Jackson Law Group, PLLC, Jason Mathew Leviton, Block & Leviton LLP
& Jeffrey C. Block, Block & Leviton LLP.

Raymond D Curtin, Movant, represented by Jeremy Allan Lieberman,
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP.

Alan Rubin, Movant, represented by Jeremy Allan Lieberman,
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP.

Gus Gambatese, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller, Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC.


T-MOBILE USA: Faces Suit Over Botched 911 Call Resulting in Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vickie Cook, Individually and As Natural Mother to Deanna Cook,
N.W., a Minor, By and Through Her Grandparent and Guardian Vickie
Cook, A.W., a Minor, By and Through Her Grandparent and Guardian
Vickie Cook and Karletha Cook-Gundy, Individually and As
Representative of the Estate of Deanna Cook, Deceased v. T-Mobile
USA, Inc., MetroPCS Communications, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, The City of Dallas,
and Angelia Herod-Graham, Case No. 3:14-cv-02907-G (N.D. Tex.,
August 13, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs were intentionally
treated differently from others similarly situated.

On August 17, 2012, Deanna Cook, a person known to police to have
been involved in, and seemingly escaped, a domestically violent
relationship, cried out to the Dallas Police Department for
assistance and to save her life.  Ms. Cook died as the 9-1-1
operator and police dispatcher were unable timely to obtain her
Cook's home address, leading to a delay in responding to her life-
threatening 9-1-1 call, the Plaintiffs contend.  They allege that
this delay prohibited police and first responders from timely
providing police protection and medical attention to Ms. Cook,
thus, allowing her to die.

Vickie Cook is a resident of Dallas County, Texas, and the mother
of Deanna Cook.  Plaintiffs N.W. and A.W. are minors residing in
Dallas and bring this action by and through their
grandmother/guardian, Vickie Cook and Karletha Cook-Gundy.  Ms.
Cook-Gundy is the Independent Administrator of the Estate of
Deanna Cook.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a Washington corporation that provides
wireless voice, messaging and data services in the U.S., Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  MetroPCS is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Richardson, Texas.  MetroPCS provides
wireless voice, messaging and data services in the United States.

Samsung Electronics is a global company involved in technology
encompassing televisions, smartphones, personal computers,
printers, cameras, home appliances, LTE systems, medical devices,
semiconductors and LED solutions.  Samsung Mobile, a Dallas-based
subsidiary of Samsung Electronics, researches, develops and
markets wireless handsets, wireless infrastructure and other
telecommunications products throughout North America.

The City of Dallas is a municipality of the state of Texas.  The
City funds and operates the City of Dallas Police Department.  The
City is also responsible for ensuring that all of its facilities,
including the 9-1-1 call center, where Angelia Herod-Graham
worked, are in compliance with federal and state law, department
or agency policies, rules, and regulations, and related standards
of care.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aubrey "Nick" Pittman, Esq.
          THE PITTMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Crescent Court, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201-2112
          Telephone: (214) 459-3454
          Facsimile: (214) 853-5912
          E-mail: pittman@thepittmanlawfirm.com


TENG SOUTH: Removed "Lopez" Suit to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Lopez v. Teng South III, LLC,
Case No. 14009922, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit, in
and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-61839-CMA to the proceeding.

The Complaint includes a count for alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carmen Rodriguez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, P.A.
          Palmetto Bay Centre
          15715 South Dixie Highway, Suite 411
          Miami, FL 33157
          Telephone: (305)254-6101
          Facsimile: (305) 254-6048
          E-mail: crlaborlaw@gmail.com


TEXAS GILA: Obtains Summary Judgment Ruling in TCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action captioned Brian Ranwick, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Texas
Gila, LLC, a Texas limited liability corporation d/b/a Municipal
Services Bureau, Defendant, CIV. NO. 13-2792 (RHK/SER), (D.
Minn.), the Plaintiff alleges Texas Gila called his cellular phone
to collect a debt he owed to the Minnesota Department of Revenue
(DOR) using an automated or prerecorded voice, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA).
The first phase of discovery is complete and Texas Gila moved for
summary judgment.

District Judge Richard H. Kyle granted the motion in a memorandum
opinion and order dated August 7, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/6Gn7g0from Leagle.com.

Judge Kyle pointed out that on May 25, 2012, Mr. Ranwick contacted
the DOR regarding the fines he owed for the two parking citations.
During that phone call, he confirmed his contact information for
the DOR -- including his cell phone number. The DOR then informed
him that it had placed the debt with a collection agency, and it
gave him a number at which he could reach Texas Gila to resolve
the matter.

"As Ranwick provided his cell phone number to the DOR in
connection with the same debt about which Texas Gila called him
and Ranwick never attempted to revoke his consent or limit the
DOR's or Texas Gila's use of his cell phone number, Texas Gila did
not violate the TCPA and is entitled to summary judgment on
Ranwick's claim," Judge Kyle concluded.

The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice and Mr. Ranwick's motion
to certify a class is denied as moot.

Nicholas R. Nowicki -- nik@mcnowick.com -- Brandon T. McDonough --
brandon@mcnowick.com -- McDonough & Nowicki PLLC, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for Plaintiff.

Issa K. Moe -- Issa.Moe@lawmoss.com -- Michael S. Poncin --
Mike.Poncin@lawmoss.com -- James R. Bedell --
Jim.Bedell@lawmoss.com -- Moss & Barnett, PA, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for Defendant.


THINKDIRECT MARKETING: Removed "Scali" Suit to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Scali v. Thinkdirect Marketing
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-004693-CI, was removed from the
6th Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01919-JDW-TBM
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          Rachael Lynne Wood, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, PA
          777 Alderman Rd.
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 786-5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772-9833
          E-mail: cdg@FlorinRoebig.com
                  rwood@florinroebig.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan Wayne Oliff, Esq.
          Kevin E. Hyde, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
          1 Independent Dr., Suite 1300
          PO Box 240
          Jacksonville, FL 32201-0240
          Telephone: (904) 359-2000
          Facsimile: (904) 359-8700
          E-mail: joliff@foley.com
                  khyde@foley.com

               - and -

          Reed Russell, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP
          100 S Ashley Dr., Suite 1900
          Tampa, FL 33602-5311
          Telephone: (813) 472-7550
          Facsimile: (813) 472-7570
          E-mail: reed.russell@phelps.com


TRADER JOE'S: Court Suspended Trial in Mislabeling Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has suspended proceedings on a class action that
accuses Trader Joe's of violating food labeling regulations,
particularly in using the phrase "evaporated cane juice,"
according to Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled on Aug. 8 that claims by
Amy Gitson et al. should be stayed while the Food and Drug
Administration reviews its position on the term "evaporated cane
juice."

The plaintiffs claimed in their March 2013 lawsuit that Trader
Joe's products are misleadingly labeled.  As evidence, the
plaintiffs submitted warning letters to Trader Joes from the Food
and Drug Administration that said ingredients should be listed by
their common names -- "evaporated cane juice," for instance, is a
sweetener derived from sugar cane syrup.

Chhabria ruled that because the FDA is reviewing its guidelines on
the term for the first time since 2009, the court should withhold
judgment.  If the FDA does not make a decision or if the process
takes too long, the court will reconsider its stay.

"Because it would be a waste of judicial and party resources to
carry out this lawsuit piecemeal, the plaintiff's other claims are
also stayed," he wrote.

The judge also denied an interlocutory appeal filed in March by
Trader Joe's.  The company took issue with the plaintiffs'
decision to make claims based on foods they didn't purchase, but
are similar to ones they did.

Chhabria ruled that because the case is focused on labels, which
take a common form, establishing any of the labels as misleading
would suffice.

The plaintiffs will be allowed to continue with class allegations.

The case is Amy Gitson, et al. v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No.
3:13-cv-01333-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


TREASURY WINE: Seeks Transfer of Suit to Victoria High Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Towers, writing for The Australian, reports that Maurice
Blackburn and lawsuit funder IMF could be forced to deal with
litigation maverick Mark Elliott over the Treasury Wine Estate
class action, after the besieged global wine giant applied to have
two separate class actions against it heard together.

Treasury applied to the Federal Court to have the Sydney-based
class action being run by Maurice Blackburn transferred to the
Victorian Supreme Court, where Mr. Elliott is running a second
class action.

If successful, Maurice Blackburn and IMF, who have launched a
closed class action worth tens of millions of dollars on behalf of
619 TWE shareholders, would be forced to deal with Mr. Elliott,
who is running an open class action on behalf of all the
shareholders for an unspecified sum.

Both class actions allege that current takeover target Treasury
breached continuous disclosure laws and misled the market over
last year's profit downgrade.

Treasury, makers of Penfolds, Wolf Blass, Rosemount and Beringer,
has vowed to fight both actions that flowed from its spectacular
AUD160 million July 2013 writedown and revelations that AUD33
million of wine would have to be poured down the drain.

Mr. Elliott said it was "inevitable" the two class actions would
be brought together because they alleged the same factual
circumstances and made the same complaints.

"It seems logical that the two cases should come together and I
would welcome the big end of town in Maurice Blackburn backed by
IMF assisting my lawyers to hold Treasury accountable for their
scandalous behavior," Mr. Elliott said.

"Whether Maurice Blackburn and IMF are sitting at the bar table
next to my barrister and solicitor or whether ultimately we might
even joint venture -- it's all a positive step."

Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan said a decision had
yet to be made on whether to fight the transfer application.  "We
will assess whether a transfer to the Victorian Supreme Court is
in the interests of our clients regardless of Mr. Elliott's
perspective," she said.

The Federal Court will hear the application to have the matter
moved to the Victorian Supreme Court on September 10.

Mr. Elliott suffered a blow in the Treasury class action last
month when the Victorian Supreme Court ruled against his
controversial litigation model, where the former Minter Ellison
partner was acting as solicitor in the case and his private
company, Melbourne City Investments, was lead plaintiff.  He was
personally funding the case on a no-win, no-fee basis.


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Price-Fixing Suits by Vehicle Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. has settled, for an amount that is
immaterial to the Company, certain purported class action lawsuits
on behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors and dealers, alleging
that the Company and certain of its competitors conspired to fix
and raise prices for Occupant Safety Systems products, according
to its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 27, 2014.

These lawsuits were filed on various dates from June 2012 through
July 2013 and were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Once the court
approves the settlements, those cases will be dismissed.

Class action lawsuits filed against the Company on various dates
from June 2012 through May 2014 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of direct
purchasers and in various courts in Canada on behalf of vehicle
purchasers, lessors, dealers and direct purchasers remain pending,
which the Company intends to vigorously defend. Management
believes that the ultimate resolution of those cases will not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is among the world's largest and
most diversified suppliers of automotive systems, modules and
components to global automotive original equipment manufacturers
("OEMs") and related aftermarkets. The Company conducts
substantially all of its operations through subsidiaries.


UNITED STATES: Tried to Remove Info From NSA Surveillance Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government in June asked to secretly remove
information from a high-profile NSA spying case, prompting outrage
from privacy experts and attorneys, reports Arvin Temkar at
Courthouse News Service, citing certain unsealed court documents.

The documents recently released by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation detail a government request to remove information from
the transcript of a June 6 hearing in Jewel v. NSA, a case
fighting the NSA's surveillance of U.S. Internet and phone
records.

The documents, available on EFF's website , include a government
letter to the Northern District of California asking for
permission to change the transcript and a judge's final ruling to
make the secret proceedings public.

A week after the June 6 hearing, the government said the NSA was
worried that classified information may have been revealed in
court.

"We request that an advance copy of the transcript be provided
. . . to make a determination as to whether the transcript in fact
contains classified information," government attorney Marcia
Berman wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White.

"If it does we would then request an opportunity to remove any
classified material by revising the transcript before it is
provided to any of the parties or made publicly available."

The government wanted to make these changes privately, before the
plaintiffs or plaintiffs' attorneys with the Electronic Frontier
Foundation could look at the transcripts, court documents show.

"That's an improper request," said EFF Legal Fellow Andrew
Crocker.  "This is a transcript of a hearing that was held in open
court.  There was press there, our lawyers were there, the public
was there.  It was a serious First Amendment concern to make that
kind of request."

White decided the plaintiffs had a right to know about the
government's request and alerted EFF.  The organization responded
on June 20, contesting the government's proposal on First
Amendment grounds.

"The Supreme Court [has] repeatedly rejected attempts to prohibit
or punish the publication of confidential material when that
material was inadvertently disclosed to the public," the EFF said
in a statement.

The privacy advocates also argued that the government should not
be allowed to "remove" information without at least marking where
things have been changed, a process known as redaction.

In mid-July White granted the government 2 1/2 weeks to review the
transcript and to make a case for what, if any, information should
be removed.

On July 28, after going over the papers, the government said it
found that no classified information had accidentally been leaked.

Crocker said he could not speculate as to what specific
information the government was concerned about.  The June hearing
was about whether the NSA could destroy information it collected
related to the Jewel case.

The next week the judge granted EFF's motion to unseal the
records, after which the group posted all of the information,
including the disputed transcript, on its Web site.

"The public has the right to know what was said in these briefs,"
Crocker said.  "Part of our goal as an organization is to bring
transparency to these issues and the way these courts operate."

Jewel v. NSA was filed in 2008, long before whistleblower Edward
Snowden directed the world's attention to the government agency's
spying practices.  It stems from a 2006 revelation by another
whistleblower, former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark
Klein, who showed that AT&T was routing copies of emails, Web
browsing data and other Internet information to a secret NSA-
controlled location in San Francisco.

The class action suit filed by EFF on behalf of AT&T customers
aims to end mass surveillance techniques such as collecting
Internet content and phone records.

A breakthrough for EFF came a year ago when the court rejected the
government's attempt to invoke a "state secrets" privilege that
could have gotten the case dismissed.  White ruled that the case
should be litigated under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, which allows people who have been spied on electronically to
sue, the EFF said.

But the case was sidetracked in March, when EFF discovered that
the government may have been illegally destroying surveillance
records related to the Jewel case, Crocker said.  EFF filed an
emergency motion to force the government to preserve these
records, but the government argued it would be too burdensome and
could affect national security .

The NSA's databases are programmed to automatically delete raw
data after a certain time, the government said. Significantly
changing the databases could force a large-scale shutdown that
would affect the NSA's other intelligence operations.

On June 6 White sided with the government, allowing the
destruction of records to continue.

Crocker said the EFF hopes to prove that the government destroyed
records in the Jewel case, which could bolster the plaintiffs'
legal argument.  Meanwhile, the organization is preparing to argue
that government surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment.

"We've seen a lot of movement in the last year or so," Crocker
said.  "Polls have shown that people do care quite a bit about
this and are on our side."


WELLS FARGO: Dist. Court Dismisses "Fiorilli" Case
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action captioned as, In re Wachovia Corp."Pick-A-
Payment" Mortgage Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation, No.
5:09-md-02015, the plaintiffs attacked the defendants' "Pick-A-
Payment" mortgage loans, which allowed borrowers to choose a
minimum payment for their loan and to make those payments for a
limited amount of time and subject to specific terms.  Ultimately,
the parties to the Class Action entered into a written class
action settlement agreement (MDL-SA).

Carol A. Fiorilli alleges that she is a class member of the Class
Action, such that she and Wells Fargo are subject to the MDL-SA.
Ms. Fiorilli claims that Wells Fargo failed to follow the MDL-SA
in (1) not staffing the help line adequately, (2) inconsistently
assigning primary points of contact, (3) not issuing written
notifications, and (4) denying her application without evidence
that Defendant applied a "financial waterfall" analysis. In
addition, Mr. Fiorilli asserted that Wells Fargo made false,
deceptive, and/or misleading statements in phone conversations
with her, such as requiring a $20,000 payment from her for the
loan modification.  On February 6, 2014, Ms. Fiorilli filed the
lawsuit captioned CAROL A. FIORILLI, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Defendant, NO. C-14-CV-00557 (DMR), (N.D. Cal.),
bringing two claims: (1) breach of the MDL-SA and (2) violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e in the assessment of her loan modification application.

Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In an order dated August 7, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/ILG1YTfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu
granted Wells Fargo's motion and dismissed the case.

Judge Ryu granted with prejudice, Defendant's motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, and granted, with leave
to amend, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the FDCPA claim.

"At oral argument, Plaintiff proffered that she can amend the
complaint to add factual support for her allegation that Wells
Fargo is a "debt collector," as well as additional details
regarding the conduct by Defendant that constitutes a violation of
the FDCPA, and also falls outside the jurisdictional clause of the
MDL-SA," said Judge Ryu. "Plaintiff may file an amended complaint
to address the deficiencies in her FDCPA claim by no later than
August 14, 2014."

Carol A. Fiorilli, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Vaughn
Winchell -- andy@winchlaw.com -- Law Offices of Andy Winchell,
P.C.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Leigh Otsuka
Curran -- lcurran@afrct.com -- Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen,
Campbell & Trytten LLP.


WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Understating Sugar Amount in Greek Yogurt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market understates the amount of sugar in its house
brand Greek yogurt by 82 percent, a class action claims in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, according to Courthouse
News Service.


YELP INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 6 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Yelp Inc. common stock during the period between October 29, 2013
and April 3, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 6, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Yelp and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Yelp is an online networking platform that connects people with
local businesses.  The Company generates revenue primarily from
the sale of advertising on its website and mobile app to local
businesses of all sizes that seek to reach its growing audience of
consumers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's true business and financial condition, including but 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.
Defendants' false and misleading statements during the Class
Period caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices, reaching a high of over $98.00 per share on
March 4, 2014, and allowed Company insiders to sell more than 1.16
million shares of Yelp stock at prices as high as $98.99 per share
for insider trading proceeds of more than $81.5 million.

According to the complaint, as the true facts concerning the
Company's business practices began to be revealed to the market
through a series of articles and disclosures starting on March 31,
2014, the Company's stock price declined, falling from a close of
$80.18 per share on April 1, 2014 to a close of $65.76 per share
on April 4, 2014.

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

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


YELP INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Bishop, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Lance Duroni and Pete
Brush, writing for Law360, report that Yelp Inc. on Aug. 6 was hit
with a shareholder class action lawsuit in California federal
court by investors claiming the online business review platform
kept its stock artificially inflated by making false claims about
the authenticity of its "firsthand" reviewers.

Named plaintiff Joseph Curry says that Yelp stock was inflated
based on false claims that the "word of mouth" reviews of
businesses posted on its website were written by people with
firsthand information about the companies, and that its
algorithmic software successfully screened out unreliable reviews.

Following multiple press reports beginning in early 2014, the
investors say it became clear that many reviews were fraudulent
posts written by people without any direct experience with the
subject businesses, and the San Francisco-based company allowed
many such negative reviews to remain prominent while it tried to
sell companies services designed to suppress these disparaging
accounts.

The Los Angeles Times on March 31 published an article describing
a purported extortion scheme in which Yelp had threatened to run
negative reviews more prominently if business owners didn't pay
for advertising, according to the complaint.

Days later the U.S. Federal Trade Commission disclosed that it had
received more than 2,000 complaints about Yelp since 2008, often
from businesses targeting the anonymity of the commenters or
challenging an increase in negative reviews when they decided not
to advertise on the site.

Following these reports, Yelp's stock price dropped sharply, from
a close of $80.18 per share on April 1 to $65.76 per share on
April 4, the investors say.

"Defendants made false and misleading statements about the
strength of the company's business and prospects and engaged in a
scheme to deceive the market," the complaint says.  "This
artificially inflated Yelp's stock price and operated as a fraud
or deceit on class period purchasers of Yelp common stock."

In addition to Yelp, the suit names Yelp Chairman and CEO Jeremy
Stoppelman, Chief Financial Officer Robert J. Krolik and Chief
Operating Officer Geoff Donaker, all of whom are accused of making
millions of dollars by selling off company stock while it was
inflated.

Yelp said in a statement it hasn't been served with this lawsuit.

"The allegations you describe are without merit and, assuming we
are served, we will vigorously contest them," the company said.

Many businesses themselves have been accused of cheating the
system to attain more positive reviews. Through a method known as
astroturfing, business can illegally buy fake online praise.

After a yearlong undercover investigation, New York Attorney
General Eric T. Schneiderman in September said 19 companies such
as Amherst, N.Y.-based Mainstreethost and New York City-based
Webtools LLC agreed to pay $350,000 to settle allegations they
took money from business owners to write fake glowing reviews.

At the time, the attorney general's office noted that it had
cooperated extensively with online consumer review giants
including Yelp.

In other recent legal action for Yelp, the Virginia Supreme Court
is weighing whether to overturn a ruling forcing the site to
unmask the seven unknown posters to Hadeed Carpet Cleaning Inc.,
which claims the reviewers weren't actually customers, thereby
rendering the posts defamatory.

In July, a California appeals court revived a restaurant owner's
lawsuit alleging that Yelp's review filter, which supposedly
removes reviews of questionable legitimacy from the main business
page, doesn't work as advertised.

Plaintiff James Demetriades, who operates restaurants in Mammoth
Lakes, filed a complaint seeking an injunction under the state's
Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law to prevent Yelp
from making claims about the accuracy and efficacy of its filter.
A trial judge tossed the suit, finding the Yelp's statements at
issue were matters of public interest, but an appeals panel said a
commercial speech exemption applies.

The investors are represented by Shawn A. Williams, Darren J.
Robbins and David C. Walton of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
and Frank J. Johnson -- frankj@johnsonandweaver.com -- and
Nathan Hamler -- nathanh@johnsonandweaver.com -- of Johnson &
Weaver LLP.

The case is Joseph Curry v. Yelp Inc. et al., case number 3:14-cv-
03547, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


                              *********

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  * * *