CAR_Public/140820.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 20, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 165

                             Headlines


AC1 SUPPLY: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
AMERICAN REALTY: Settlement Mulled in ARCT III Litigation
AMERICAN REALTY: Provides Update on CapLease Litigation
AMERICAN REALTY: Bid to Dismiss Claims in "Poling" Action Pending
AMERICAN REALTY: Cole Merger Lawsuits in Arizona Stayed

AMERICAN REALTY: Says "Wunsch" Suit Over Cole Merger Has No Merit
AMERICAN REALTY: MoU Reached in Realistic Partners Suit
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Accused of Illegal Propane Price-Fixing
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces "Bourbonnais" Suit Over Sale of Funds
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Tentative Settlement Funded by Insurers

APOTEX INC: Recalls Organ-Rejection Drug Due to Labeling Error
APPLE INC: e-Store Customers' Suits Fail to Win Class Status
APPLE INC: Judge Tosses $324.5-Mil. No-Poach Settlement
ARIZONA: October 20 Trial Set for Prison Health Care Class Action
ASSOCIATED GROCERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Settles Workers' Class Action for $40MM
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Calif. Jurisdiction Upheld in Plavix Suits
CALIFORNIA: Dec. 5 Fairness Hearing on Accord in Suit vs. CDCR
CARGILL INC: October 27 Settlement Final Fairness Hearing Set
CASH AMERICA: Paid $18.6MM in Connection With "Strong" Case

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Circuit Tosses Securities Class Action
CHICAGO PRINTING: Faces "Chagolla" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CIBER INC: Court Approves Settlement in "Weston" Class Action
COCA COLA: Request for More Discovery in Orange Juice Suit Tossed
COCA COLA: Settles Vitaminwater Deceptive Marketing Class Actions

CRACKER BARREL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pursuant to FLSA
DOW CHEMICAL: Oral Arguments Heard in Urethane Antitrust Appeal
DOW CHEMICAL: Quebec Case Stayed Pending Outcome of Ontario Suit
DOZEN BAGELS: "Villareal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Roffe 401K Plan Sues Over False Reports

EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces "Smith" Suit Over SoftTest Problems
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Action Over Software Malfunction
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Petition for Certiorari Filed With Supreme Court
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Dist. Court Ruling in "Picard" Case Upheld
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification Order

FORD MOTOR: Court Denies Special Motion to Strike "Durkee" Suit
GENERAL INFORMATION: Settles Background Check Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Ordered to Share Docs to Defect Suit Plaintiffs
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Nixes Motion to Dismiss Ignition Defect Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: 76 Pending Lawsuits Related to Hydroxycut at June 30

GNC HOLDINGS: 20 Pending Suits Related to DMAA/Aegeline at June 30
GNC HOLDINGS: Calif. Wage & Break Claims of 86 Plaintiffs Remain
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Charles Brewer" Class Action
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Elizabeth Naranjo" Class Action
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Vargas" and "Hickok" Class Action

H & S RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Nichols" Suit
HF3 CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Crump" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOUSTON, TX: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Fontenot" Case
INDIANA INSURANCE: Mass. Court Dismisses CE's Appeal as Moot

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Plaintiffs Dismissed Suit in May 2014
J.B. HUNT: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment to 9th Circuit Court
JBS: Liddle & Dubin Mulls Class Action Over Odor at Plant
JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces "Brunner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces "Kubelskas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

KUM & GO: Faces Class Action Over Blended Gasoline
LA CARAVANA: "Anzurez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Jansky" Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Ann Baker Pepe" Suit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against Sandusky Wellness Suit

LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against Bohlander & Andres Suits
LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against Rabanes & Varsam Suits
LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Dickerson" Suit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Legg, et al." Suit
LIVWELL INC: Faces Class Action Over "Pot Pavillion" Chocolate Bar

LUSTER LEAF: "Rogers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LYFT INC: Judge Tosses Drivers' Wage-and-Class Action
MARRAKESH & MARIACHI: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
MCCORMICK: Recalls Ground Oregano Due to Salmonella Contamination
MEDALLION CONTAINER: Faces "Rivero" Suit Over Violation of FLSA

MEDALLION CONTAINER: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
MEDTRONIC INC: Judge to Decide on Infuse Bone-Graft Device Suits
MI CASITA: Faces "Monterrosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Does Not Pay Athletes Properly, Action Says
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Athletes Get Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Suit

OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Faces "Jha" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
OPTUMINSIGHT INC: Sued Over Unlawful Assertion of Liens
OWENS & MINOR: Obtains $5.3MM Recovery From Class Action Accord
PFIZER INC: Faces Wave of Lawsuits Over Lipitor Side Effects
PORTLAND GENERAL: Awaits Decision of Oregon Appeals Court

PRIDE COMMS: Dec. 5 Final Approval Hearing of "Kiser" Suit Deal
PROGRESSIVE INTEREST: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Settles Vets Death Benefits Class Action
REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.J.
RHODES ENTERPRISES: Faces "Mack" Suit Over Violation of FLSA

RIDDELL INC: Seeks Dismissal of Helmet Class Action
RPM MANAGEMENT: Faces "McCoy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SALVATION ARMY: Faces "Sisson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Washer Design
SECOND CHANCE: Cops Get Refund for Defective Bulletproof Vests

SFBSC MANAGEMENT: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Layoff Warning
STAAR SURGICAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
SUNSHINE BOTTLING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
TD BANK: Sued Over Failure to Implement Breastfeeding Policies

TOTAL PERFORMANCE: Does Not Pay OT Properly, "Lopez" Suit Says
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Must Defend Medical Records Class Action
TRENDCO COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in S.D. Fla. Over Violation of FLSA
UNILEVER US INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Health Benefits
UNITED STATES: GSA Seeks Dismissal of Disabilities Class Action

VERISK ANALYTICS: Settlement Approved in Intellicorp & iiX Actions
VERISK ANALYTICS: Provides Update on Interthinx Litigation
VERISK ANALYTICS: Updates on Insurance Services Office Litigation
WASTE MANAGEMENT: To Defend Against Actions in Florida & Alabama
WILD WEST GAS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Jeter" Class Suit

YELP INC: Suffers Several Legal Setbacks Over Review Process
YORKVILLE MANSION: Does Not Pay Minimum Hourly Wage, Suit Says


                            *********


AC1 SUPPLY: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Raul Chiu Padron and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. AC1 Supply, Inc. and Carlos J. Moratinos Ruiz,
Case No. 1:14-cv-22904 (S.D. Fla., August 7, 2014) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages.

AC1 Supply, Inc. is a construction company that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN REALTY: Settlement Mulled in ARCT III Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that after
the announcement of the Agreement and Plan of Merger with American
Realty Capital Trust III, Inc. on December 17, 2012, Randell Quaal
filed a putative class action lawsuit filed on January 30, 2013
against the Company; ARC Properties Operating Partnership, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership (the "OP"); ARCT III's operating
partnership ("ARCT III OP"); the members of the board of directors
of ARCT III and certain subsidiaries of the Company in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York.   The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the board of ARCT III breached its fiduciary
duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the
ARCT III Merger Agreement.

In February 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III stockholders.  In
connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of
understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein
will be dismissed, subject to court approval.

The proposed settlement terms required ARCT III to make certain
additional disclosures related to the ARCT III Merger, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by ARCT III with
the SEC on February 21, 2013.  The memorandum of understanding
also added that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to ARCT III's stockholders.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, therefore any losses that may be incurred to settle
this matter are not determinable.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. (the "Company" or "ARCP")
is a self-managed Maryland corporation incorporated on December 2,
2010 that qualified as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for
U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning in the taxable year
ended December 31, 2011.  On September 6, 2011, the Company
completed its initial public offering (the "IPO"). The Company's
common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market ("NASDAQ")
under the symbol "ARCP."  The Company operates through two
business segments, Real Estate Investment ("REI") and private
capital management, Cole Capital ("Cole Capital").


AMERICAN REALTY: Provides Update on CapLease Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that since
the announcement of the Agreement and Plan of Merger with
CapLease, Inc., on May 28, 2013, the following lawsuits have been
filed:

On May 28, 2013, Jacquelyn Mizani filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York against the
Company, ARC Properties Operating Partnership, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership (the "OP"); Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease,
CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the
CapLease board of directors (the "Mizani Action"). The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the merger agreement at issue
was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease
directors because the proposed merger transaction (the "CapLease
Transaction") purportedly does not provide for full and fair value
for the CapLease shareholders, the CapLease Transaction allegedly
was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the merger
agreement allegedly contains coercive deal protection measures and
the merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction purportedly were
approved as a result of improper self-dealing by certain
defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that CapLease, the
Company, the OP; and Safari Acquisition LLC aided and abetted the
CapLease directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On July 3, 2013, Fred Carach filed a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York
against the Company, the OP, Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease,
CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the
CapLease board of directors (the "Carach Action"). The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the merger agreement was the
product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors
because the merger purportedly does not provide for full and fair
value for the CapLease shareholders, the CapLease Transaction
allegedly was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the
merger agreement allegedly contains coercive deal protection
measures and the merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction
purportedly were approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that with respect to
the Registration Statement and draft joint proxy statement issued
in connection with the proposed CapLease Transaction on July 2,
2013, that disclosures made therein were insufficient or otherwise
improper. The complaint also alleges that CapLease LP, CLF OP
General Partner, LLC, the Company, the OP and Safari Acquisition
LLC aided and abetted the CapLease directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On June 25, 2013, Dewey Tarver filed a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against
the Company, the OP, Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease, CapLease
LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the CapLease
board of directors (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the merger agreement was the product of
breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors because the
CapLease Transaction purportedly does not provide for full and
fair value for the CapLease shareholders, the CapLease Transaction
allegedly was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the
merger agreement allegedly contains coercive deal protection
measures and the merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction
purportedly were approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that CapLease,
CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC, the Company, the OP and
Safari Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted the CapLease directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Counsel who filed each of these three cases reached an agreement
with each other as to who will serve as lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiffs' counsel in the cases and where they will be
prosecuted. Thus, on August 9, 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action
filed a motion for stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the
court that they had agreed to join and participate in the
prosecution of the Mizani and Carach Actions in the New York
Court. The Defendants consented to the stay of the Tarver Action
in the Baltimore Court, and on September 5, 2013, Judge Pamela J.
White issued an order granting that stay. Consequently, there has
been no subsequent activity in the Baltimore Court in the Tarver
Action.

Also on August 9, 2013, all counsel involved in the Mizani and
Carach Actions filed a joint stipulation in the New York Court,
reflecting agreement among all parties that the Mizani and Carach
Actions should be consolidated (jointly, "the Consolidated
Actions") and setting out a schedule for early motion practice in
response to the complaints filed (the "Consolidation
Stipulation"). Pursuant to the Consolidation Stipulation, an
amended complaint was also filed in the New York court on August
9, 2013 and was designated as the operative complaint in the
Consolidated Actions ("Operative Complaint"). Pursuant to the
Consolidation Stipulation, all Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims asserted in the Operative Complaint on
September 23, 2013. Plaintiffs' response was due on or before
November 7, 2013.

On November 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
file a second amended complaint, which the Defendants have
opposed. On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel in the
Consolidated Actions dismissed those claims without prejudice.
Consequently, only the Tarver Action currently remains pending
among these cases, although it remains stayed.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. (the "Company" or "ARCP")
is a self-managed Maryland corporation incorporated on December 2,
2010 that qualified as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for
U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning in the taxable year
ended December 31, 2011.  On September 6, 2011, the Company
completed its initial public offering (the "IPO"). The Company's
common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market ("NASDAQ")
under the symbol "ARCP."  The Company operates through two
business segments, Real Estate Investment ("REI") and private
capital management, Cole Capital ("Cole Capital").


AMERICAN REALTY: Bid to Dismiss Claims in "Poling" Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on
October 8, 2013, John Poling filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, ARC
Properties Operating Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership (the "OP"); Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease, CapLease
LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the CapLease
board of directors (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleges
that the merger agreement breaches the terms of the CapLease'
8.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B")
and the terms of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock ("Series C") and is in violation of the Series B
Articles Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary.
The Complaint alleges claims for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty against the CapLease entities and the CapLease
board of directors. The complaint also alleges that the Company,
the OP and Safari Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted CapLease and
the CapLease directors' alleged breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty.

On November 13, 2013, all counsel involved in the Poling Action
filed a joint stipulation, reflecting agreement among all parties
concerning a schedule for early motion practice in response to the
complaint filed (the "Scheduling Stipulation"). Pursuant to the
Scheduling Stipulation, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
all claims asserted in the Operative Complaint on December 20,
2013. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to that motion, which
remains pending.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. (the "Company" or "ARCP")
is a self-managed Maryland corporation incorporated on December 2,
2010 that qualified as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for
U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning in the taxable year
ended December 31, 2011.  On September 6, 2011, the Company
completed its initial public offering (the "IPO"). The Company's
common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market ("NASDAQ")
under the symbol "ARCP."  The Company operates through two
business segments, Real Estate Investment ("REI") and private
capital management, Cole Capital ("Cole Capital").


AMERICAN REALTY: Cole Merger Lawsuits in Arizona Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that three
putative class action and/or derivative lawsuits, which were filed
in March and April 2013, assert claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and other claims relating to
the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc. and Cole Holdings Corporation, pursuant to which
Cole became a self-managed REIT.  On October 22, 2013, the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City granted all defendants' motion to dismiss
with prejudice the action pending before the court, but the
plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal. The other two lawsuits,
which also purport to assert shareholder class action claims under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), are
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss both complaints on
January 10, 2014. Subsequently, both of those lawsuits have been
stayed by the Court pursuant to a joint request made by all
parties pending final approval of the consolidated Baltimore Cole
Merger Actions.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. (the "Company" or "ARCP")
is a self-managed Maryland corporation incorporated on December 2,
2010 that qualified as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for
U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning in the taxable year
ended December 31, 2011.  On September 6, 2011, the Company
completed its initial public offering (the "IPO"). The Company's
common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market ("NASDAQ")
under the symbol "ARCP."  The Company operates through two
business segments, Real Estate Investment ("REI") and private
capital management, Cole Capital ("Cole Capital").


AMERICAN REALTY: Says "Wunsch" Suit Over Cole Merger Has No Merit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that 11
lawsuits have been filed in connection with the agreement and plan
of merger with Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc.  Two of these
suits -- Wunsch v. Cole, et al ("Wunsch"), No. 13-CV-2186, and
Sobon v. Cole, et al ("Sobon") -- were filed as putative class
actions on October 25, 2013 and November 18, 2013, respectively,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Between
October 30, 2013 and November 14, 2013, eight other putative
stockholder class action or derivative lawsuits were filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned as: (i)
Operman v. Cole, et al ("Operman"); (ii) Branham v. Cole, et al
("Branham"); (iii) Wilfong v. Cole, et al. ("Wilfong"); (iv)
Polage v. Cole, et al. ("Polage"); (v) Corwin v. Cole, et al
("Corwin"); (vi) Green v. Cole, et al ("Green"); (vii) Flynn v.
Cole, et al ("Flynn") and (viii) Morgan v. Cole, et al.
("Morgan").

All of these lawsuits name the Company, Cole and Cole's board of
directors as defendants; Wunsch, Sobon, Branham, Wilfong, Flynn,
Green, Morgan and Polage also name CREInvestments, LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Cole, as a defendant. All of the named plaintiffs claim to be Cole
stockholders and purport to represent all holders of Cole's stock.
Each complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff and the other public
stockholders of Cole in connection with the Cole Merger, and that
certain entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches. The
breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted include claims that the
Cole Merger does not provide for full and fair value for the Cole
shareholders, that the Cole Merger was the product of an
"inadequate sale process," that the Cole Merger Agreement contains
coercive deal protection measures and the Cole Merger Agreement
and that the Cole Merger were approved as a result of or in a
manner which facilitates improper self-dealing by certain
defendants. In addition, the Flynn, Corwin, Green, Wilfong, Polage
and Branham lawsuits claim that the individual defendants breached
their duty of candor to shareholders and the Branham and Polage
lawsuits assert claims derivatively against the individual
defendants for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to
Cole. The Polage lawsuit also asserts derivative claims for waste
of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The Wunsch and Sobon
lawsuits also assert claims against Cole and the individual
defendants under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), based on allegations that
the proxy materials omitted to disclose allegedly material
information, and a claim against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on the same allegations.
Among other remedies, the complaints seek unspecified money
damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

In January 2014, the parties to the eight lawsuits filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland ("the consolidated
Baltimore Cole Merger Actions") entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of Cole stockholders. In connection
with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of
understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein
will be dismissed, subject to court approval. The proposed
settlement terms required Cole to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Cole with the SEC on January
14, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which
will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory
discovery and court approval following notice to Cole's
stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding, therefore any losses that may be
incurred to settle this matter are not determinable.

The Sobon lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on February 3, 2014.

The Company believes that the Wunsch lawsuit in connection with
the Cole Merger is without merit and that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. (the "Company" or "ARCP")
is a self-managed Maryland corporation incorporated on December 2,
2010 that qualified as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for
U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning in the taxable year
ended December 31, 2011.  On September 6, 2011, the Company
completed its initial public offering (the "IPO"). The Company's
common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market ("NASDAQ")
under the symbol "ARCP."  The Company operates through two
business segments, Real Estate Investment ("REI") and private
capital management, Cole Capital ("Cole Capital").


AMERICAN REALTY: MoU Reached in Realistic Partners Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on
December 27, 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company and the members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York.  Cole
Real Estate Investments, Inc. was later added as a defendant also.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement and that
Cole aided and abetted those breaches. In January 2014, the
parties entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class
of the Company's stockholders. In connection with the settlement
contemplated by that memorandum of understanding, the class action
and all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to
court approval. The proposed settlement terms required the Company
to make certain additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger,
which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the
Company with the SEC on January 17, 2014. The memorandum of
understanding also contemplated that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary
conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval
following notice to the Company's stockholders. If the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, therefore any losses that may be incurred to settle
this matter are not determinable.

The Company maintains directors and officers liability insurance,
which the Company believes should provide coverage to the Company
and its officers and directors for most or all of any costs,
settlements or judgments resulting from the lawsuits.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. (the "Company" or "ARCP")
is a self-managed Maryland corporation incorporated on December 2,
2010 that qualified as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for
U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning in the taxable year
ended December 31, 2011.  On September 6, 2011, the Company
completed its initial public offering (the "IPO"). The Company's
common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market ("NASDAQ")
under the symbol "ARCP."  The Company operates through two
business segments, Real Estate Investment ("REI") and private
capital management, Cole Capital ("Cole Capital").


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Accused of Illegal Propane Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Dunmore Oil Co., Inc., JoJo Oil Co., Inc. d/b/a Airline Petroleum
Company on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. AmeriGas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane, LP, AmeriGas Propane,
Inc., UGI Corporation, Ferrellgas Partners, LP, Ferrellgas, LP,
and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02393 (D. Kan., August 7,
2014), alleges that the Defendants unlawfully conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price of propane exchange tanks
by reducing their fill levels.

The Defendants are in the business of distribution and sale of
exchangeable portable steel tanks containing propane gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
      SHARP MCQUEEN PA
      6900 College Blvd., Suite #285
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 661-9931
      Facsimile: (913) 661-9935
      E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com

         - and -

      Patrick Howard, Esq.
      Simon Paris, Esq.
      SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRET & BENDESKY, P.C.
      One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor, 1650 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-8282
      Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
      E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
              sparis@smbb.com


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces "Bourbonnais" Suit Over Sale of Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Bourbonnais and Thomas and Donna Tesch, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ameriprise
Financial Services, Inc., SII Investments, Inc., and Paul Renard,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00966 (E.D. Wis., August 8, 2014), alleges that
the Defendants sell unsuitable non-traditional leveraged and
inverse exchange-traded funds to the Plaintiffs and the Class.

Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. is a Delaware financial
services corporation with its principal place of business at 707
2nd Ave. So., Minneapolis, Minnesota.

SII Investments, Inc. does substantial business in Wisconsin and
Brown County and is registered to do business, including the
selling of securities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean M. Sweeney, Esq.
      HALLING & CAYO SC
      320 E Buffalo St-Ste 700
      Milwaukee, WI 53202-5837
      Telephone: (414) 271-3400
      Facsimile: (414) 271-3841
      E-mail: sms@hallingcayo.com

         - and -

      Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
      Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
      HANSEN REYNOLDS DICKINSON CRUEGER LLC
      316 N. Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
      Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
      Telephone:  (414) 455-7676
      Facsimile:  (414) 273-8476
      E-mail:  ccrueger@hrdclaw.com
               edickinson@hrdclaw.com


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Tentative Settlement Funded by Insurers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two separate class-action complaints were filed in June and August
2010, in the New York District Court on behalf of purported
purchasers of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation's stock between June
9, 2009, and June 12, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its
officers. The consolidated action was subsequently transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas -
Houston Division (Texas District Court). The complaints allege
causes of action arising pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 for purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among
other things, the Company's liability related to the Deepwater
Horizon events. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as
litigation fees and costs.

Anadarko Petroleum 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 the parties reached a
tentative settlement in this matter in March 2014, subject to
approval by the Texas District Court. In June 2014, the Texas
District Court issued a preliminary approval of the settlement and
has scheduled a final hearing for August 2014.  The tentative
settlement was directly funded by the Company's insurers into the
plaintiffs' settlement escrow account in June 2014.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is engaged in the exploration,
development, production, and marketing of natural gas, crude oil,
condensate, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and anticipated production
of liquefied natural gas (LNG). In addition, the Company engages
in the gathering, processing, treating, and transporting of
natural gas, crude oil, and NGLs. The Company also participates in
the hard-minerals business through royalty arrangements.


APOTEX INC: Recalls Organ-Rejection Drug Due to Labeling Error
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss, writing for Reuters, reports that
privately-held Canadian drug company Apotex Inc is recalling one
lot of organ-rejection drug Apo-Mycophenolic Acid due to a
labeling error, according to a statement from Health Canada
released on Aug. 16.

The product is used to prevent organ rejection in patients
receiving a kidney transplant and is sold only in Canada.
Apotex's recall of the drug was done in consultation with Health
Canada, a Canadian federal agency, the statement said.

The French-language statement on the outer carton of the drug
indicated that each tablet contains 180 milligrams of the
medicine, but the actual strength of the tablets in the package is
360 mg, it said.  The rest of the carton, the leaflets, the
blister labels, and the dosing instructions all provided the
correct dosage, the statement said.

A too-high dose of the drug could result in over-suppression of
the immune system and lead to increased risk of infection, which
in the worst case scenario could cause death, it said.  Other
symptoms of an over-dose include blood abnormalities and stomach
problems, the statement said.

As of August 15, no adverse reactions had been reported to either
Apotex or to Health Canada, however.

The statement did not make clear how many dosages of the drug were
in one lot, and both Apotex and Health Canada were not available
to comment.


APPLE INC: e-Store Customers' Suits Fail to Win Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh denied a motion for class certification
filed in the cases captioned ROBERT HERSKOWITZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE,
INC., Defendant. PHOEBE JUEL, individually and on behalf of all)
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant,
CASE NO. 12-CV-02131-LHK, NO. 12-CV-03124-LHK, (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of Judge Koh's August 7, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/4lVl0Mfrom Leagle.com.

In this consolidated litigation, Plaintiffs Robert Herskowitz and
Phoebe Juel allege that Apple, Inc. routinely and unlawfully
charges its "e-Store" customers more than once for the same
products in violation of the consumer agreements governing those
transactions and state law. The Plaintiffs have sought a Motion
for Class Certification, in which Plaintiffs moved to certify
three classes.

Judge Koh said, "given that the Plaintiffs have failed to show
that Apple "has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply
generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the
class as a whole," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), the Court denies
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of the Active e-Stores
Account Class under Rule 23(b)(2)."

Robert Herskowitz, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Tabacco,
Jr. -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio,
Christopher T. Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com
-- Berman DeValerio, Jay Douglas Dean, Axelrod & Dean LLP,
Judd Benjamin Grossman -- jgrossman@grossmanllp.com -- Grossman
LLP, Robert J. Axelrod, Axelrod & Dean LLP, Stanley M. Grossman --
sgrossman@grossmanllp.com -- Pomerantz, Haudek, Block, Grossman &
Anthony David Phillips -- aphillips@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio.

Phoebe Juel, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony David Phillips,
Berman DeValerio, Christopher Land, Law Offices of John A. Kithas,
Frank A. Bartela, John Andrew Kithas, Law Offices of John A.
Kithas, Michael Robert Rudick -- mrudick@dworkenlaw.com -- Nicole
T. Fiorelli -- nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken and
Bernstein Co., L.P.A. & Patrick J. Perotti.

Apple, Inc, Defendant, represented by Sylvia Rivera --
srivera@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Penelope Athene
Preovolos -- ppreovolos@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Suzanna Pacht Brickman -- sbrickman@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP.


APPLE INC: Judge Tosses $324.5-Mil. No-Poach Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh has rejected the controversial $324.5
million settlement in the Silicon Valley "no-poach" case, echoing
arguments by a named plaintiff and other critics that the dollar
amount ought to be higher.

Judge Koh wants $50 million more for plaintiffs who claimed their
wages were driven down by agreements between Google Inc., Apple
Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and Intel Corp. not to recruit each
other's employees.

"This court has lived with this case for nearly three years,"
Judge Koh wrote, "and during that time, the court has reviewed a
significant number of documents in adjudicating not only the
substantive motions, but also the voluminous sealing requests.

Having done so, the court cannot conclude that the instant
settlement falls within the range of reasonableness."

Judge Koh wants to bring the settlement in line with the value
reflected in a $20 million settlement reached in 2013 with smaller
defendants Pixar Animation Studios Inc., Lucasfilm and Intuit Inc.

The four larger defendants paid out 95 percent of the compensation
given employees during the class period, and therefore should
collectively pay about 19 times more than the three who settled
last year, Judge Koh wrote.  That works out to about $380 million.

Judge Koh's order is exactly what named plaintiff Michael Devine
was hoping for when he defected from class counsel Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm and filed an
opposition to the settlement.  Mr. Devine's new attorney, Girard
Gibbs partner Daniel Girard, said he and Devine are weighing their
next move.

"[Koh] obviously devoted a great deal of thought to the issues he
raised, and Michael is happy that his decision to oppose the
settlement will hopefully result in a more favorable outcome for
class members," Mr. Girard said.

Lawyers who drafted the deal argued in a June hearing the
settlement value should reflect the percentage of the class
employed by the different defendants, not the percentage of
compensation they paid.  That would result in a $230 million
settlement.  Judge Koh rejected that calculation as an irrelevant
benchmark never before used during the case.

Nor did she buy the argument that the size of this settlement is
so much larger than the earlier one that it would be inappropriate
to base one on the other.

"This argument is premised on the idea that defendants who caused
more damage to the class and who benefited more by suppressing a
greater portion of class compensation should have to pay less than
defendants who caused less damage and who benefited less from the
allegedly wrongful conduct," she wrote.  "This argument is
unpersuasive."

That means the widely watched case could make it to trial after
all, allowing damning evidence against Apple's Steve Jobs,
Google's Eric Schmidt and Intel's Paul Otellini, among others, to
be paraded before a jury.  The two sides reached a deal a month
before the scheduled trial date, but not before the court unsealed
pages of incriminating emails in which top executives discussed
the alleged no-recruit agreements.

Judge Koh devoted 15 pages of her 32-page order to discussion of
that evidence, which, during class certification, she had called
"substantial" and "extensive."  She highlighted several examples
already well-publicized by the media: when Google fired a
recruiter who went against Mr. Jobs' orders not to recruit Apple
employees; and when Mr. Schmidt sent an email saying he'd prefer
to speak orally about the do-not-call list because, "I don't want
to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later."

Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said the company hasn't made a
decision concerning its next step in the litigation.

"We are disappointed that the court has rejected preliminary
approval of an agreement that was negotiated at arm's length over
many months," he said in an email.

Intel is represented by Munger, Tolles & Olson in the suit.
Google is represented by Keker & Van Nest and Mayer Brown; Apple
is represented by O'Melveny & Myers; and Adobe is represented by
Jones Day.

Plaintiffs attorneys Kelly Dermody with Lieff Cabraser and Joseph
Saveri with the Joseph Saveri Law Firm didn't respond to phone
messages or emails on Aug. 8.

Judge Koh also pointed out plaintiffs had a much stronger case
when negotiating with Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe than they did
when they settled with the first three defendants.  When the first
deal was proposed, the court had recently denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

When plaintiffs lawyers negotiated the second settlement, they had
class certification under their belts.  The court also had denied
five defense motions for summary judgment.

"This shift in the procedural posture," Judge Koh wrote, "which
the court would expect to have increased plaintiffs' bargaining
power, makes the more recent settlements for a proportionally
lower amount even more troubling."

Judge Koh has scheduled the next case management conference for
Sept. 10.


ARIZONA: October 20 Trial Set for Prison Health Care Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Goldstein, writing for KJZZ, reports that a federal judge
has denied the Arizona Department of Corrections' motion for
summary judgment in a class-action lawsuit over the quality of
health care in the state's prisons.

The suit seeks adequate medical, mental health and dental care for
prisoners and challenges the use of use of solitary confinement in
Arizona's prison system.

Corrections officials had argued that the plaintiffs, in their
words "received constitutionally adequate" medical and dental care
and "any deficiencies in the provision of medical care are not
system-wide."

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake in Phoenix sets
the stage for an Oct. 20 trial on behalf of 33,000 prisoners in
the state's 10 prisons.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Arizona and the Prison
Law Office filed the federal lawsuit in 2012.

Wake certified the case as a class action in March 2013.  The
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a lower
court ruling in June.


ASSOCIATED GROCERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Baptiste, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Associated Grocers Of Florida, Inc., and Calvin J. Miller, Case
No. 1:14-cv-22916 (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc. is a retailers' cooperative
that distributes full lines of groceries and general merchandise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Settles Workers' Class Action for $40MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Robinson-Jacobs, writing for Dallas News, reports that
Dallas-based Brinker International, which ended its 2014 fiscal
year June 25, said putting aside nearly $40 million to settle a
long-playing class-action suit lowered its fourth-quarter profit
nearly 40 percent.

Brinker profit was $28.8 million, or 43 cents a share, down from
$46.4 million, or 64 cents a share a year earlier.

The class-action case was filed by California workers in August
2004 regarding breaks and meal periods.  A preliminary settlement
reached on Aug. 6 "seeks to resolve all claims in exchange for a
maximum settlement payment not to exceed $56.5 million," the
company, which also owns Maggiano's Little Italy, said in a
prepared statement.

The agreement is subject to court approval.

Not counting one-time events, profit was 85 cents a share.
Analysts were expecting 87 cents a share.

Revenue for the quarter was $758.7 million, up 4 percent from a
year ago.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Calif. Jurisdiction Upheld in Plavix Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that California courts have jurisdiction over 575 out-of-
state plaintiffs suing Bristol-Myers Squibb for alleged defects in
Plavix, the California First District Court of Appeal has ruled.

Plavix cases involving 84 California plaintiffs and the out-of-
state plaintiffs have been coordinated in the San Francisco
Superior Court. BMS is headquartered in New York.

This was the second time the intermediate appellate court
considered the issue of jurisdiction in the coordinated Plavix
cases. The California Supreme Court returned the case to the Court
of Appeal to consider the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman on general jurisdiction.

On remand, the intermediate appellate court found that California
does not have general all-purpose jurisdiction over the out-of-
state plaintiffs, according to the opinion from Judge Steven A.
Brick, an Alameda County Superior Court judge assigned to the
Court of Appeal.

General jurisdiction should only be asserted when the evidence
indicates the defendant is "essentially at home" in the state, and
the plaintiffs did not generate discovery to establish that BMS is
incorporated, has its principal place of business or has its
headquarters in California, the court said.

However, the court said that the California judiciary has specific
jurisdiction over the drugmaker.

Under the flexible specific jurisdiction test from the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
Brick opined that "BMS has engaged in substantial, continuous
economic activity in California, including the sale of more than a
billion dollars of Plavix to Californians.  That activity is
substantially connected to the [plaintiffs'] claims, which are
based on the same alleged wrongs as those alleged by the
California resident plaintiffs," the court said.

According to the opinion, the Californian Supreme Court has set
out a specific jurisdiction test concerning a substantial
connection between a defendant's activity in the sate and the
plaintiffs' claims.

The substantial connection between the out-of-state plaintiffs'
claims and BMS' contacts with California include its distribution
of Plavix in many states, including in California, the Court of
Appeal said.

BMS also has hundreds of employees in California and five offices
and facilities, the court added.

The issue may be one of first impression, according to the panel,
since "no California or federal case has been cited to us, and we
have found none, in which this type of relationship between a non-
resident corporate defendant, its very extensive California
contacts, and the plaintiffs' claims has been examined."
McKesson Corporation, which is headquartered in San Francisco,
also is a named defendant in the case.

All of the plaintiffs allege both defendants marketed Plavix as
providing greater cardiovascular benefits and being easier on
people's digestive systems than aspirin.  But, according to the
plaintiffs, Plavix has increased risks of heart attacks, strokes,
internal bleeding, blood disorders and death.


CALIFORNIA: Dec. 5 Fairness Hearing on Accord in Suit vs. CDCR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton granted preliminary
approval of a class action settlement in ROBERT HECKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:05-CV-02441 LKK-
DAD, (E.D. Cal.).

The Court certified, for settlement purposes only, under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) & (b)(2), an injunctive relief
settlement class defined as: all present and future CDCR inmates
with psychiatric conditions that are disabilities as defined by
the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act and
who are allegedly excluded and/or screened out from any prison
program, service, or activity on the basis of their assignment to
or participation in the MHSDS [Mental Health Service Delivery
System] program, including the CCCMS [Correctional Clinical Case
Management System] and EOP [Enhanced Outpatient Program].

The Court appointed Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP and the ACLU
Foundation of Northern California as Class Counsel to represent
the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement.

A Final Fairness Hearing will take place at 10:00 a.m. on Friday,
December 5, 2014 at the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, United States Courthouse, 501 I
St., Sacramento CA 95814, in Courtroom 3, to determine whether the
proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions
provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be finally approved by the Court.

The status conference set for August 8, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. was
dropped from the calendar.

A copy of Judge Karlton's August 7, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/5zlAkBfrom Leagle.com.

CLAUDIA CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
DISABILITY RIGHTS PROGRAM, San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL W. BIEN -- mbien@rbgg.com -- ERNEST GALVAN --
egalvan@rbgg.com BLAKE THOMPSON -- bthompson@rbgg.com --
ROSEN BIEN, GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP, San Francisco, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, JAY C. RUSSELL,
Supervising Deputy Attorney General, MICHAEL J. Quinn, Deputy
Attorney General, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for
Defendants.


CARGILL INC: October 27 Settlement Final Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dahl Administration, LLC on Aug. 7 disclosed that if you purchased
Truvia(R) Natural Sweetener products, you could receive
compensation from a class action settlement.

A settlement has been reached in class action lawsuits against
Cargill, Incorporated, the manufacturer of Truvia Natural
Sweetener.  The lawsuits claim that Cargill mislabeled its Truvia
Natural Sweetener products by describing the products and their
ingredients as "natural." Cargill denies the allegations in the
suits, asserts it has not violated any laws, and believes that it
has accurately described the products and their ingredients as
natural.  To avoid further litigation, the Parties have reached a
class action settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii on
July 24, 2014.

Under the terms of the settlement, you may be entitled to
compensation if you purchased Truvia Natural Sweetener in the U.S.
from July 1, 2008, through July 24, 2014, for individual or
household use.  Excluded from the Class are Cargill and its board
members, officers, and attorneys; governmental entities; the Court
presiding over the settlement; and those persons who timely and
validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class.

What Does The Settlement Provide? Settlement Class Members may
submit a properly completed Claim Form and be eligible to receive
a cash refund of up to $45 or Vouchers valued at up to $90 that
can be exchanged for certain Truvia Natural Sweetener products.
Cargill has also agreed to make certain changes to Truvia Natural
Sweetener product labels and to modify the www.Truvia.com website
to further describe how the products and their ingredients are
manufactured.

How Do You Submit A Claim? To qualify for payment, you must submit
a Claim Form by December 5, 2014.  Claim Forms can be obtained
from and returned by mail to Truvia Settlement Administrator, P.O.
Box 3614, Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614, or can be obtained and
submitted online at www.TruviaSweetenerLawsuit.com
Claim Forms can also be obtained by calling 1-888-512-0492.

What Are Your Other Options? If you don't want to be legally bound
by the settlement, you must exclude yourself ("opt-out") by
September 26, 2014. The detailed notice available at
www.TruviaSweetenerLawsuit.com or by calling 1-888-512-0492
explains how to exclude yourself from the settlement.  If you
exclude yourself, you will not get any settlement payment and you
cannot object to the settlement.  You also will not be bound by
the settlement and may be able to sue (or continue to sue) Cargill
regarding the claims in this lawsuit.

If you're a Class Member, you may object to any part of the
settlement you don't like, and the Court will consider your views.
Your objection must be timely, in writing and must provide
evidence of your membership in the Class.  Procedures for
submitting objections are set out in the detailed notice available
at www.TruviaSweetenerLawsuit.com or by calling 1-888-512-0492.

The Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing at 9:45 a.m. on
October 27, 2014, in Honolulu, Hawaii.  At this hearing, the Court
will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and whether to approve the Class Representatives'
incentive awards up to $2,000 each and attorneys' fees and
expenses up to $1,830,000.  You may attend the hearing, and you
may hire your own lawyer, but you are not required to do either.
The Court will consider timely written objections and will listen
to people who have made a prior written request to speak at the
hearing.  After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to
approve the settlement.

What To Do If You Have Questions. This Notice is just a summary.
Detailed notice, as well as the Settlement Agreement and other
documents filed in these lawsuits, can be found online at
www.TruviaSweetenerLawsuit.com

For more information, you may call or write to the Truvia
Settlement Administrator at 1-888-512-0492, P.O. Box 3614,
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614 or mail@TruviaSweetenerLawsuit.com
QUESTIONS?  CALL 1-888-512-0492 or VISIT
www.TruviaSweetenerLawsuit.com


CASH AMERICA: Paid $18.6MM in Connection With "Strong" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
James E. Strong on August 6, 2004, filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia
Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together
with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"), Daniel R. Feehan
(the Company's chief executive officer), and several unnamed
officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America. In
August 2006, James H. Greene and Mennie Johnson were permitted to
join the lawsuit as named plaintiffs, and in June 2009, the court
agreed to the removal of James E. Strong as a named plaintiff. The
lawsuit alleged many different causes of action, among the most
significant of which is that Cash America made illegal short-term
loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia
Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. First National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota
("FNB"), and Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota
("CSB"), for some time made loans to Georgia residents through
Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The complaint in this
lawsuit claimed that Cash America was the true lender with respect
to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB's
involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this
claim, the suit alleged that Cash America was the "de facto"
lender and was illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint
sought unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive
damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. In November
2009, the case was certified as a class action lawsuit.

This case was scheduled to go to trial in November 2013, but on
October 9, 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of
understanding (the "Settlement Memorandum"). Pursuant to the
Settlement Memorandum, the parties filed a joint motion containing
the full terms of the settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") with
the trial court for approval on October 24, 2013, and the trial
court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on November
4, 2013. On January 16, 2014, the trial court issued its final
approval of the settlement and entered the Final Order and
Judgment. The Settlement Agreement required a minimum payment by
the Company of $18.0 million and a maximum payment of $36.0
million to cover class claims (including honorarium payments to
the named plaintiffs) and the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
costs (including the costs of claims administration) (the "Class
Claims and Costs"), all of which will count towards the aggregate
payment for purposes of determining whether the minimum payment
has been made or the maximum payment has been reached. The Company
denies all of the material allegations of the lawsuit and denies
any and all liability or wrongdoing in connection with the conduct
described in the lawsuit, but the Company agreed to the settlement
to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of
further litigation.

In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company recognized
a liability in 2013 in the amount of $18.0 million. The liability
was recorded in "Accounts payable and accrued liabilities" in the
consolidated balance sheets and "Operations and administration
expense" in the consolidated statements of income for the year
ended December 31, 2013. The Class Claims and Costs have been
finalized, and the Company paid $18.6 million in connection with
the Class Claims and Costs and recognized an additional $0.6
million of expenses, during the six months ended June 30, 2014,
Cash America International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company provides specialty financial services to individuals
through retail services locations and e-commerce activities.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Circuit Tosses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Beeson, writing for Law360, reports that the Tenth Circuit on
Aug. 8 quashed a securities class action against Chesapeake Energy
Corp., when it upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss claims
against the company and its former CEO Aubrey McClendon.

The case against Chesapeake, one of the largest U.S. producers of
natural gas, alleged that the company and its executives had
failed to disclose or misrepresented risks it faced during a
secondary stock offering in July 2008, around which time the
company's shares were riding at an all-time high.  But a few
months later, a perfect storm hit and the company's stock tanked
under the weight of both the financial crisis and the plunge of
natural gas prices.

Plaintiffs, led by the United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union, sued Chesapeake and several current and
former officials, including Ms. McClendon, accusing them of
disclosure failures around a risky gas price hedging strategy the
company was engaged in.

They also charged the company with failing to alert investors that
Ms. McClendon had pledged most of his holdings of Chesapeake stock
in margin accounts that served as collateral for hundreds of
millions of dollars of loans, and that he lacked the resources to
meet the margin calls that forced him sell nearly all of his
holdings at the height of the financial meltdown.

But the Tenth Circuit on Aug. 8 roundly rejected the plaintiffs.
With respect to Ms. McClendon, the appeals panel said the company
more than adequately met the requirements around his stock
holdings.

"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," Circuit Judge
Harris Hartz wrote in the decision.

The panel also tossed claims that Chesapeake had a duty to
disclose that Ms. McClendon would have trouble meeting margin
calls. Among other things, the panel points to the fact that the
margin calls came at a time of unprecedented turmoil.

"The risk of margin calls and the consequent need of the owner of
the stock to sell shares is obvious," Judge Hartz wrote.  "Even
the wealthiest investor could lack readily available liquid assets
to cover a large margin call, particularly when, as here, the call
comes when financial markets are frozen (meaning very few assets
are truly liquid).

"No purpose would have been served by 'disclosing' that McClendon
might have to sell a large portion of the margined stock if the
bottom dropped out of the market," he added.

The panel also knocked down the complaint that the company's gas-
price hedging strategy and its risks were not properly disclosed.
Although the company did not discuss its use of so-called knockout
swaps in its registration statement, it did discuss these in other
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the panel wrote.

The circuit panel also panned the plaintiffs' reading of case law
when presenting its arguments that the company's hedging
disclosures were improper.  "The authorities relied on by
plaintiff do not support its contention that Chesapeake's
disclosures were misleading," Judge Hartz wrote.

Robert Varian -- rvarian@orrick.com -- an Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP partner who represented the defendants, said he was
pleased with the outcome.

"It was a big win in an important case. It's good to get it behind
the company," he said.

He added that he was especially gratified to see the appeals panel
had vindicated the disclosures his client made around
Ms. McClendon's stock holdings, which had become the subject of
both sharp media scrutiny and a now-dropped SEC probe.

"That disclosure was everything it needed to be and more," Varian
said.

Judges Harris Hartz, David Ebel and Neil Gorsuch sat on the panel
for the Tenth Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steven F. Hubachek, Eric Alan
Isaacson -- erici@rgrdlaw.com -- and James I. Jaconette --
jamesj@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Chesapeake and its executives are represented by Robert P. Varian,
Kenneth Herzinger, M. Todd Scott, Christin J. Hill --
chill@orrick.com -- and Alexander K. Talarides --
atalarides@orrick.com -- of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.


CHICAGO PRINTING: Faces "Chagolla" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chagolla, Vidalia Funes, and Escolastico Hernandez,
individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated,
v. Chicago Printing and Embroidery, Inc. and Yousuf Razzak,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06086 (N.D. Ill., August 7, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Chicago Printing and Embroidery, Inc. provides custom printing on
T-shirts and apparel and maintains a principal place of business
at 777 Factory Road, Addison, IL 60101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N. Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


CIBER INC: Court Approves Settlement in "Weston" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ciber, Inc., said in its 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 October 2011, a
putative securities class action lawsuit, Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against Ciber and several of its current and
former officers.

"In November 2013, we entered into a settlement among the lead
plaintiff and the defendants that involved funds paid by our
insurers being placed into a settlement fund for the benefit of
the class. We have not made any admission of liability or
wrongdoing by entering into this settlement. The Court issued
final approval of the settlement in April 2014, dismissing the
claims of the class with prejudice, and terminating the
litigation," the Company said.

Ciber is a global information technology ("IT") company founded in
1974 with 40 years of proven IT experience, world-class
credentials and a wide range of technology expertise. With
operations in 15 countries across four continents, Ciber has the
infrastructure and expertise to deliver IT services to almost any
organization.


COCA COLA: Request for More Discovery in Orange Juice Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a Missouri federal judge has ruled against the
request for additional discovery into The Coca Cola Co.'s orange
juice products.

The plaintiffs in a federal multidistrict litigation in the
Western District of Missouri allege that the signature taste of
Simply Orange orange juice and Minute Maid orange juice is
achieved through synthetic ingredients.

U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr. said the issue is ripe
for summary judgment and no further discovery is necessary.
Coca-Cola argued in court papers earlier this year that "discovery
has only confirmed what Coca-Cola has said from the very start of
this case: plaintiffs' allegations that Coca-Cola's orange juice
products violate the U.S. FDA's orange juice regulations have no
basis in fact."

The judge noted the defense argument that the Food and Drug
Administration authorizes manufacturers to add orange oil to
orange juice without disclosing the additive to consumers.

The plaintiffs also had wanted more discovery from third-party
vendors and flavor houses Firmenich and Givaudan.  The two flavor
houses provide "natural certificates" stating that the add-back in
the juice is created from a natural source.

The "plaintiffs' mere speculation that synthetic ingredients might
be present in components purchased from third-party vendors cannot
support further discovery, in the face of defendants' product
specifications and the third-party vendors' certifications to the
contrary," the judge said.


COCA COLA: Settles Vitaminwater Deceptive Marketing Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that plaintiffs lawyers have agreed to settle a class
action case alleging Glaceau Vitaminwater was deceptively
marketed.

The putative class actions from Florida, Illinois, Ohio and the
Virgin Islands are pending in federal multidistrict litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
"Plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel believe that the injunctive
relief obtained by this settlement is an excellent result and are
satisfied that the proposed settlement is within the range of what
might be found fair, reasonable and adequate," the attorneys for
the classes wrote in court papers.  Defendants Coca Cola Company
and Energy Brands, Inc. joined in the motion.

If the settlement gets court approval, the defendants have agreed
to state the amount of calories per bottle of Vitaminwater on the
principal display panel.  The defendants also would no longer
state in marketing that "vitamins + water = what's in your hand,"
"vitamins + water = all you need," Vitaminwater is "specially
formulated to support optimal metabolic function with antioxidants
that may reduce the risk of chronic disease and vitamins necessary
for the generation and utilization of energy from food," and seven
other statements.

As part of the settlement approval, class representatives and
class counsel for Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio and the Virgin
Islands would have to be approved.

According to the plaintiffs, the settlement is adequate because
there is no conflict among the plaintiffs and the class, and the
plaintiffs' lawyers are qualified and experienced.

Settlement negotiations took place over a six-month period, the
plaintiffs' lawyers said.  "Only after class counsel was satisfied
that the best recovery had been negotiated for the class --
indeed, almost all of the relief initially sought by the class --
did the parties negotiate payment of attorney's fees and costs,"
court records said.

A separate class action on behalf of all consumers in Ohio,
Illinois, Florida, Missouri and the Virgin Islands was filed in
the Eastern District and is still pending.


CRACKER BARREL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pursuant to FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Hernandez and Willie Hill, on their own behalf and others
similarly situated v.  Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.,
a Tennessee Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-01902 (M.D. Fla., August
7, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. owns and operates retail
stores in more than approximately 620 locations throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      Suite 404, 1515 S Federal Hwy
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              kstern@shavitzlaw.com


DOW CHEMICAL: Oral Arguments Heard in Urethane Antitrust Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company, among others, was named in 2005 as a
defendant in multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a
conspiracy to fix the price of various urethane chemical products,
namely the products that were the subject of Department of Justice
antitrust investigation.  These lawsuits were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District
Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court
certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year
period from 1999 through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of
"opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers;
these cases are substantively identical to the class action
lawsuit, but expanded the time period to include 1994 through
1998. In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in
the District Court with the Company as the sole remaining
defendant, the other defendants having previously settled.

On February 20, 2013, the jury in the matter returned a damages
verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which
ultimately was trebled by the District Court under applicable
antitrust laws -- less offsets from other settling defendants --
resulting in a judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of
$1.06 billion.  The Company is appealing this judgment on numerous
grounds. The Company's appeal is currently pending with the U.S.
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Court of Appeals") which heard
oral argument on the matter on May 14, 2014.

Dow Chemical said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that there is no known
timing for a decision from the Court of Appeals, although based on
historical experience, the Company believes it is reasonable to
expect that a decision will be issued in the second half of 2014.
The decision from the Court of Appeals potentially ranges from
judgment in favor of the Company, vacation of the District Court
judgment with the case being remanded for further proceedings in
light of guidance provided in the decision, to an affirmation of
the District Court judgment. In the event of an unfavorable
decision from the Court of Appeals, the Company anticipates that
it will pursue additional appellate rights up to and including a
petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
seeking judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Company has consistently denied plaintiffs' allegations of
price fixing and the Company will continue to vigorously defend
this litigation. As part of the Company's review of the jury
verdict and resulting judgment currently under appeal, the Company
assessed the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the
trial record and the applicable law. Based on this review, the
Company believes the judgment is not appropriate. As a result, the
Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur
and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to
these matters. While the Company believes it is not probable a
loss will occur, the existence of the jury verdict and the
pendency of the appeal indicate that it is reasonably possible
that a loss could occur. The estimate of the possible range of
loss to Dow is zero to the $1.06 billion judgment (excluding post-
judgment interest and possible award of class attorney fees).


DOW CHEMICAL: Quebec Case Stayed Pending Outcome of Ontario Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 29, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that there are two
separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada.
In March 2014, the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario,
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Dow filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in March 2014.
The Quebec case has been stayed pending the outcome of the Ontario
case. The Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss
will occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with
respect to these matters.


DOZEN BAGELS: "Villareal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilio Villareal, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Dozen Bagels Co. Inc. d/b/a Bagel Cafe, Shlomo Bador,
and Avi Bador, Case No. 1:14-cv-06241 (S.D.N.Y., August 7, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid and
misappropriated tips, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest; and  attorneys' fees and costs.

Dozen Bagels Co. Inc. is a restaurant known as Bagel Cafe, located
at 429 Third Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      Cilenti & Cooper, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Roffe 401K Plan Sues Over False Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Roffe 401K Plan 002 UAD 1/01/2012, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DreamWorks Animation
SKG, Inc., Jeffrey Katzenberg, Lewis W. Coleman and Richard
E. Sullivan, Case No. 2:14-cv-06201 (C.D. Cal., August 7, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made material false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial and business,
operations

DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. headquartered in Glendale,
California, creates entertainment, including CG animated feature
films, television specials and series, and live entertainment
properties, for audiences around the world.

The Individual Defendants ran DreamWorks as hands-on managers
overseeing DreamWorks' operations and finances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-3301
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
              darrenr@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: mblasy@rgrdlaw.com


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces "Smith" Suit Over SoftTest Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maya Dillard Smith, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Examsoft Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-
03590 (N.D. Cal., August 7, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to disclose that SoftTest and its supporting
systems had fundamental flaws that caused downloading and
uploading problems.

SoftTest software is a platform that will allow bar examiners to
administer bar exams in a more secure way, by shutting down all
other programs on a test taker's computer.

Examsoft Worldwide, Inc. is in the business of distributing,
and selling software throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Havila C. Unrein, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, California 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: hunrein@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel Mensher, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, Washington 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile:  (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Action Over Software Malfunction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Zilberman, writing for The Recorder, reports that in the
latest filing by an incensed student, a UC-Hastings College of the
Law graduate has filed a proposed class action against the company
whose software plagued bar exam takers nationwide late last month.

Maya Dillard Smith filed her claim on Aug. 7 against ExamSoft
Worldwide Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  She is represented by attorneys from
Keller Rohrback in Santa Barbara and Seattle and is seeking more
than $5 million for testees.

The suit comes on the heels of similar filings submitted earlier
last week in federal courts in Northern Illinois and Eastern
Washington.

Bar exam takers who use a computer must purchase ExamSoft software
to complete their tests, then connect to the Internet and upload
the files.  The controversy at the center of the complaint
occurred on July 29, when would-be attorneys faced hourslong
delays uploading exams.  Some states extended filing deadlines
because of the software malfunction.

"When students buy a product that is meant to be beneficial to
them and to make the ordeal of taking the bar exam easier, and
instead it amplifies the stress level to a point that's off the
charts, it's unreasonable to expect students to weather that
storm," said Gretchen Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- a
partner at Keller Rohrback.

The company has refused to give refunds for the $125 to $150
software, claiming a "very strict no refund policy," the complaint
states.

According to the suit, Ms. Smith experienced delays but was
ultimately able to upload her July 29 essays the following day.
However, her software-induced problems continued on the third day
of testing, when the program deleted more than 1,500 words of her
essays.

"It was as if Pac Man had been unleashed on her exam, eating each
word, one after the next, slowly consuming the answers for which
she had spent years preparing to write," the complaint says.

Ms. Smith ultimately re-created as much of her work by hand as
possible in the time that remained and did not attempt to upload
that day's answers to ExamSoft.  However, according to the
complaint, when Ms. Smith connected to the Internet three days
later, the software "inexplicably connected to the ExamSoft
servers and uploaded her essay that was missing the 1500-plus
words."

Though a company representative told Smith that "there might be
earlier versions of her essays that could be retrieved," she was
later told that company policies prevented ExamSoft from making
those earlier versions available.

"Today, Ms. Smith has no idea whether the essays she wrote on the
third day of the exam exist, and if they do, what they might
contain," the filing says.  "She has no idea if she may fail to
pass the bar exam because of ExamSoft's extraordinary failure."

ExamSoft's response to the situation will be "a business school
case study in crisis mismanagement," Ms. Cappio said, noting that
the attorneys are "calling on ExamSoft to own up to its mistakes
and make this right."

Smith is a public member of the state Commission on Judicial
Performance, having served on the panel that disciplines judges
since the state Senate appointed her in 2007.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Petition for Certiorari Filed With Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company provided in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, updates on the
case Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Case
No.021327) (filed December 12, 2002).

The complaint was filed against Express Scripts Inc., NextRX LLC
f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC, Medco Health Solutions
and several other pharmacy benefit management companies by several
California pharmacies as a putative class action, alleging rights
to sue as a private attorney general under California law.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to comply with statutory
obligations under California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide
California clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of
retail drug prices.

On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice on the
grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action.
On June 2, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on standing and
remanded the case to the district court. The district court's
denial of defendants' motion to dismiss on first amendment
constitutionality grounds was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, but that motion
has not been briefed pending the appeal.

On July 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
denial of defendants' motion to dismiss. On August 16, 2011,
defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc requesting the
Ninth Circuit reconsider its ruling on defendants' motion to
dismiss, which was granted on October 31, 2011.

On June 6, 2012, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a decision certifying the question of
constitutionality of California Civil Code Section 2527 to the
California Supreme Court, requesting the state's highest court to
consider the issue and make a ruling. On July 18, 2012, the
California Supreme Court granted the certification request and, on
December 19, 2013, held that California Civil Code Section 2527
does not infringe upon state constitutional free speech
protections.

On January 29, 2014, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel issued a
ruling vacating the prior panel opinion and remanded the case to
the original Ninth Circuit three-judge panel to either consider
the federal constitutional issues or remand the case to the
district court. On March 19, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals entered an order lifting the stay and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

On July 17, 2014, defendants filed a joint petition for certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court.

On April 2, 2012, Express Scripts, Inc. consummated a merger with
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and both ESI and Medco became wholly-
owned subsidiaries of Express Scripts Holding Company.  As the
largest full-service pharmacy benefit management  company in the
United States, Express Scripts offers a full range of services to
our clients, which include managed care organizations, health
insurers, third-party administrators, employers, union-sponsored
benefit plans, workers' compensation plans and government health
programs.


FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Dist. Court Ruling in "Picard" Case Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irving H. Picard, trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) and of the bankruptcy estate of
Bernard L. Madoff, initiated adversary proceedings seeking to
block the settlement of three lawsuits, none of which involved
BLMIS or the Madoff estate as a party. The suits in question were
brought by and on behalf of investors in so-called "feeder funds"
-- funds that channeled investments to Madoff's Ponzi scheme --
against the funds themselves and other persons and entities
affiliated with them. The Trustee asserts that the settlements in
these cases would hinder his ability to recoup fraudulent
transfers he alleges BLMIS made to the settling defendants. In two
separate proceedings, which were reviewed in tandem on appeal, the
district court (Victor Marrero and Jed S. Rakoff, Judges)
dismissed the Trustee's claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief.

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in an opinion
dated August 8, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/UQy8wffrom Leagle.com, concluded that the Trustee is
not entitled to declaratory relief and that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying his requests for injunctive
relief. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirms the District Court
ruling.

The case is Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Appellant, v.
Fairfield Greenwich Limited, et al., Defendants-Appellees,
Securities & Investment Co. Bahrain, Harel Insurance Co., Ltd.,
AXA Private Management, St. Stephen's School, Pacific West Health
Medical Center, Inc. Employee's Retirement Trust, Lead Plaintiffs-
Appellees. Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively
Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC and the Estate of Bernard L. Madoff, Appellant,
Securities Investor Protection Corporation, Intervenor, v. Eric T.
Schneiderman, Bart M. Schwartz, Ralph C. Dawson, J. Ezra Merkin,
and Gabriel Capital Corporation, Appellees, DOCKET NO. 13-1289,
CONSOLIDATED WITH 13-1392, DOCKET NO. 13-1785.

DAVID J. SHEEHAN, Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York, NY (Deborah H.
Renner, Tracy L. Cole, Keith R. Murphy, Baker & Hostetler LLP, New
York, NY; David B. Rivkin, Jr., Lee A. Casey, Mark W. DeLaquil,
Andrew M. Grossman, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC, of
counsel), for Appellant Irving H. Picard.

STUART H. SINGER, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale,
FL (David A. Barrett, Howard L. Vickery, II, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, New York, NY; Robert C. Finkel, Wolf Popper LLP, New
York, NY; Victor E. Stewart, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP,
New York, NY, of counsel), for Lead Plaintiffs-Appellees
Representative Anwar Plaintiffs.

MARC G. CUNHA, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY (Peter
E. Kazanoff, Jeffrey L. Roether, Jeffrey E. Baldwin, Nicholas S.
Davis, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees Fairfield Greenwich
Limited, et al.

BRIAN SUTHERLAND, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of
the State of New York, New York, NY (James C. McCarroll, Jordan W.
Siev, Michael J. Venditto, Reed Smith LLP, New York, NY; Judith A.
Archer, David L. Barrack, Jami Mills Vibbert, Fulbright & Jaworski
LLP, New York, NY, of counsel), for Appellees Eric T.
Schneiderman, Bart M. Schwartz, Ralph C. Dawson.

ANDREW J. LEVANDER, Dechert LLP, New York, NY (Neil A. Steiner, of
counsel), for Defendants-Appellees J. Ezra Merkin and Gabriel
Capital Corporation.

NATHANAEL S. KELLY, Washington, DC (Josephine Wang, Kevin H. Bell,
of counsel), for Intervenor Securities Investor Protection
Corporation.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
A unanimous three-judge panel of the First District Illinois
Appellate Court issued its opinion on June 25, 2014, reversing a
class certification order of the trial court in the Hearing Loss
Litigation involving Federal Signal Corporation, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

Federal Signal has been sued by firefighters seeking damages
claiming that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective.  There were
33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago.  In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.  During 2013, another case
was filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The
Company appealed this verdict.

On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this
appeal.

The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the
Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013.
The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave
to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013.

On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs,
which has resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling.  On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition.

On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing
with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a
class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion,
the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012.  Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company in
this trial.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous.  Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013.  The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.  On April 23, 2013, the Illinois Appellate
Court granted the Company's petition for review.  Briefing on this
appeal was completed during July 2013.  Pursuant to Illinois law,
all class proceedings in the trial court were stayed pending a
final decision from the Illinois Appellate Court on this issue.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class.

During March 2014, an action also was brought in the Court of
Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 61
firefighters.  This case likewise involves various defendants in
addition to the Company.

Federal Signal was founded in 1901 and was reincorporated as a
Delaware corporation in 1969.  Products manufactured and services
rendered by the Company are divided into three major operating
segments: Environmental Solutions, Safety and Security Systems,
and Fire Rescue. The individual operating businesses are organized
under each segment because they share certain characteristics,
including technology, marketing, distribution, and product
application, which create long-term synergies.


FORD MOTOR: Court Denies Special Motion to Strike "Durkee" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied a special motion to
strike the complaint captioned MICHAEL DURKEE, Plaintiff, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, NO. C 14-0617 PJH, (N.D. Cal.).

The Defendant's special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to
California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. P. Code Section 425.16
came on for hearing before the court on July 30, 2014.

Plaintiff filed this action on February 10, 2014, alleging
violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly
Act"), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790, et seq.; unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent business practices, in violation of Business &
Professions Code Section 17200; violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; and a
claim for declaratory relief. The complaint was filed as a
proposed class action, and plaintiff asserts diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Judge Hamilton emphasized that its ruling that Ford's anti-SLAPP
motion is not viable should not be considered the equivalent of
finding that Ford cannot attempt to settle Lemon Law claims. "The
court takes no position with regard to whether Ford or any
manufacturer can settle a Lemon Law suit for less than what the
Song-Beverly Act may require," held Judge Hamilton.

"In the court's view, the anti-SLAPP statute simply should not be
construed as immunizing automobile manufacturers such as Ford from
the requirements of the Song-Beverly Act simply because a consumer
makes a Lemon Law claim. Taken to its logical extension, any
manufacturer's response to a consumer complaint or request for
repair would be construed as a protected activity, thereby
immunizing that manufacturer from suit should the consumer later
file a lawsuit over the product. Such a theory would, if accepted,
encourage consumers to file suit without first submitting a claim
for relief under the Lemon Law," she added.

A copy of Judge Hamilton's August 7, 2014 ruling is available
http://is.gd/UQy8wfat from Leagle.com.

Leslie Durkee, Individual, Plaintiff, represented by Steve
Borislav Mikhov --  asksteve@omlawllp.com -- O'Connor & Mikhov
LLP, Richard Michael Wirtz -- rwirtz@wirtzlaw.com -- Wirtz Law APC
& Mark D O'Connor -- admin@omlawllp.com -- O'Connor Mikhov, LLP.

Michael Durkee, Individual, Plaintiff, represented by Steve
Borislav Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP, Richard Michael Wirtz,
Wirtz Law APC & Mark D O'Connor, O'Connor Mikhov, LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Amir M Nassihi --
anassihi@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Michael Kevin
Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.


GENERAL INFORMATION: Settles Background Check Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Karina Basso, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that General
Information Services Inc. (GIS) has reached a class action lawsuit
settlement over allegations it violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act when providing information for consumer background check
reports.  If you were the subject of a criminal background check
report that contained information furnished by GIS, you may be
eligible to claim approximately $40 or $1,500 from the class
action settlement.

The GIS class action settlement resolves allegations that the
background screening company provided reports that contained
expunged criminal records (the "1681e Settlement Class") or did
not mail notices to consumers that GIS had reported public record
information likely to have an adverse effect upon the consumer's
employment on the same day that GIS furnished the report to the
end-user (the "1681k Settlement Class").

The GIS background screening class action lawsuit claims that GIS
violated the FCRA by allegedly, "a.) Failing to notify consumer
contemporaneously of the fact that adverse criminal record
information is being provided to employers or prospective
employers; and b.) Failing to maintain strict procedures to insure
that the adverse information being reported is complete and up to
date."

GIS has denied liability, but according the background screening
class action lawsuit, "nevertheless desires to settle the
Plaintiff's and Settlement Class Member's claims solely for the
purposes of avoiding the burden, expense, risk, and uncertainty of
continuing the Litigation[.]"

The GIS class action settlement potentially affects anyone who
applied for employment within the last two years and were
knowingly or unknowingly subjected to a GIS consumer report.

Who's Eligible

You are a Class Member of the GIS background check class action
settlement if:

1) You applied for a job position where GIS provided your
prospective employer with a background report containing an
expunged criminal record between Dec. 22, 2009 and March 1, 2014,
or if

2) You applied for a job where GIS provided a potential employer
with a background check that contained information from public
records, but you were not informed by GIS through a mailed notice
on the same day, or not informed at all, that GIS provided an
employer with the report between Dec. 22, 2009 and March 1, 2014.

Potential Award

$40 or $1,500

Proof of Purchase

N/A. Unless they voluntarily exclude themselves, eligible Class
Members will automatically receive a GIS settlement check in the
mail.

Claim Form Deadline

N/A Class Members will automatically receive benefits if the GIS
class action settlement is approved, unless they exclude
themselves by Sept. 4, 2014

Case Name

Robinson v. General Information Services Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-
07782-PBT, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Final Hearing
11/03/2014

Settlement Website
www.GISSettlementInfo.com

Claims Administrator
Robinson v. General Information Services, Inc.
Settlement Administrator
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 9349
Dublin, OH 43017-4249
1 (855) 382-6406

Class Counsel

James A. Francis
FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC

Defense Counsel

Cindy D. Hanson
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
E-mail: Chanson@kilpatricktownsend.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Ordered to Share Docs to Defect Suit Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has tentatively ordered General Motors Co. to
share documents it provided to Congress and government agencies
with plaintiffs lawyers suing over its ignition-switch recalls.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, overseeing more than 100
lawsuits coordinated for pretrial purposes in the Southern
District of New York, gave the green light to limited discovery on
Aug. 7, despite a pending decision on motions GM filed to bar most
of the cases in light of its 2009 bankruptcy.

Judge Furman, who took up discovery and other matters during a
hearing on Aug. 11, also allowed plaintiffs attorneys to file a
consolidated complaint in the economic class actions.

Under Judge Furman's order, GM will turn over documents it already
has provided to Congress, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration or other government agencies.  The company also
must deliver documents given to Jenner & Block chairman
Anton Valukas during his internal investigation into why it took
GM more than a decade to identify the defect that prompted recalls
of 2.6 million vehicles this year.  The defect could shut down
engines, disabling airbags and power steering.

"In the court's current view, allowing for such limited discovery
would serve to streamline and advance this litigation and would
facilitate any settlement discussions at the appropriate time,
without unduly burdening defendants or interfering with the
proceedings before the bankruptcy court," Judge Furman wrote.  He
noted that some cases -- those filed over accidents that occurred
after 2009, for instance -- would survive any bankruptcy ruling.

During the Aug. 11 hearing, Judge Furman also heard from
plaintiffs lawyers seeking a leadership role in the litigation.

Both sides had agreed to stay discovery pending an order by U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber on GM's motions.

On Aug. 8, they submitted in bankruptcy court a set of facts about
which they agreed.  But there were several points of disagreement,
including statements attributed to the Valukas report that GM said
were incomplete or subject to attorney-client privilege.

Plaintiffs bankruptcy attorney Jonathan Flaxer wrote in a letter
that discovery was necessary to find out what GM's lawyers and
other senior executives knew about the defect.  In particular, he
suggested deposing the senior lawyers GM fired over the defect.
"New GM generally declined to stipulate to proposed facts unless
they were based on information in a deposition transcript, already
in the public record created by the government investigations or
stated in the Valukas report," wrote Mr. Flaxer, a partner at New
York's Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe.

But the Valukas report, while saying that GM general counsel
Michael Millikin knew nothing about the defect until this year,
also says "nothing about the knowledge possessed by the people who
served as GM's general counsel or general counsel of GM North
America at the time of GM's bankruptcy," Mr. Flaxer wrote.
GM attorney Arthur Steinberg, a partner in King & Spalding's New
York office, opposed the discovery request.

A hearing was scheduled for Aug. 18.


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Nixes Motion to Dismiss Ignition Defect Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that Cobb
County State Court Judge Kathryn Tanksley said no on Aug. 9 to
General Motors' motion to dismiss a lawsuit accusing the company
of covering up a deadly ignition switch defect.

The lawsuit before the court in the unusual Aug. 9 session -- set
to accommodate scheduling conflicts of GM lawyers -- was filed by
Kenneth and Mary Elizabeth Melton over the 2010 death of their
daughter, Brooke, a 29-year-old nurse.  The Meltons allege that
their daughter died because of a defective ignition switch in her
2005 Cobalt that suddenly shut off the car's power in traffic,
leading to a crash and a rollover.  The investigation leading up
to the lawsuit discovered the defect now at issue in hundreds of
other product liability cases and in GM recalls that now cover
approximately 19 million cars.

The Meltons settled with GM in 2013 for an amount that GM later
disclosed in an internal investigation report as $5 million.  But
the Meltons have attempted to rescind their settlement following
congressional hearings April 1 and 2 that they say revealed a GM
chief engineer lied in a deposition when he said he didn't know
about the defective ignition switch and had not ordered that it be
replaced.

GM refused the Meltons' offer to return the settlement money.  The
Meltons sued again, adding accusations of fraud.

The judge gave an indication of how she would rule before
arguments began in the 10:00 a.m. hearing on GM's motion to
dismiss.  She set a trial date for April 11, 2016, saying she
would try it sooner if possible. She set a pre-trial motions
hearing, too.

Robert Ingram -- ringram@mijs.com -- of Moore Ingram Johnson &
Steele in Marietta opened for GM.  In his 10 minute argument, Mr.
Ingram said the settlement agreement should be enforced. "An order
dismissing a case with prejudice is a final order," Mr. Ingram
said.  "Dismissal is required by law."

Mr. Ingram quoted law addressing the finality of "judgments" by
courts.

The Meltons' attorney, Lance Cooper of the Cooper Firm in
Marietta, characterized the resolution of the case last year as a
private settlement, not a judgment from the court.  He also played
the video deposition of the GM engineer saying he did not order
the ignition switch in question to be changed in later models.
Evidence presented to Congress showed that testimony was false,
Cooper argued.

Georgia law allows a party to rescind a settlement for fraud, he
said.  "We've proven fraud," Mr. Cooper said.  "The rescission is
to put us back to where we were before."

Arguing for GM in rebuttal, Brian Sieve --
brian.sieve@kirkland.com  -- of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago
attempted to convince the judge she'd be undermining herself if
she allowed the Meltons to rescind their settlement. "We have to
respect your authority," Mr. Sieve said.

Sieve told the court that allowing the Meltons to rescind would
set dangerous precedent and encourage other parties to allege
fraud and call off settlements.  "If that were the law, court
judgments in Georgia would have no effect at all."

The judge answered Sieve's point.  "That's correct," Judge
Tanksley said.  "Every party in Georgia could claim fraud and
rescind.  I think the reason they don't is they don't have fraud.
They're happy with their deal."

"We're plowing new ground here," Judge Tanksley added,
acknowledging the novel nature of the case.  "I understand that."

Sensing GM had lost, Mr. Ingram rose again and asked to appeal
Judge Tanksley's ruling to a higher court.  "Since we are plowing
new ground, would your honor consent to a certificate of immediate
review?"

Judge Tanksley answered, "Respectfully, no."

Mr. Sieve continued with protests of the plaintiffs' discovery
requests, saying they would require production of millions of
documents.  He asked for the requests to be put on hold until a
federal judge decides what documents must be produced in related
multi district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Judge Tanksley said no.  He asked
for more time.

"It's a Herculean task getting all this stuff prepared," Mr. Sieve
said.

But Mr. Cooper argued that all he wanted were documents GM already
produced for Congress and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration in April.

"You've had since April," Mr. Tanksley said.  "Have you been
working? I've been working."

Mr. Sieve insisted he had been "working very hard" but reiterated
he needed more time.

The judge set deadlines for GM to produce written discovery
responses by Aug. 26 and documents by Sept. 26.

The plaintiffs' attorneys said afterward that they were pleased
with the judge's denial of the motion to dismiss.

A spokesman for GM released the following statement:
"GM is disappointed in the court's decision.  We continue to
believe that the parties reached a good faith settlement last year
and that the court's prior order dismissing all claims against GM
with prejudice after that settlement prevents plaintiffs from
pursuing the same claims a second time.  GM will review the
court's order once it is entered and will evaluate its options."

The judge took note of the presence of "a lot of lawyers" in the
courtroom on Aug. 9.  For GM, Messrs. Sieve and Ingram were
accompanied by Moore Ingram partner Jeffrey Daxe and associate
Ryan Ingram.  Also present were attorneys for co-defendant
Thornton Chevrolet, including John Hall Jr. and Walter Bibbins Jr.
of Hall Booth Smith.

Mr. Cooper was flanked by associate Drew Ashby and of counsel
Patrick Dawson from his firm, plus a team from Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Ala., including firm
founder Jere Beasley and partners Greg Allen --
greg.allen@beasleyallen.com -- and Benjamin Baker --
ben.baker@beasleyallen.com

Kenneth Bernard Jr. -- kbernard@sherrodandbernard.com -- of
Sherrod & Bernard in Douglasville also appeared as part of the
plaintiffs' team.

As the hearing concluded at 11:30 a.m. and the lawyers rose for
the judge to exit, Mr. Tanksley paused to look back at the all
male line up that stretched across her courtroom and suggested an
addition she said could be helpful.

"You're all smart guys," the judge said.  "But I think you're
missing a lady or two."

The case is Melton v. GM, 14A 1197-4.


GNC HOLDINGS: 76 Pending Lawsuits Related to Hydroxycut at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration on May 1, 2009, issued a warning
on several Hydroxycut-branded products manufactured by Iovate
Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc. ("Iovate") based on 23 reports of
liver injuries from consumers who claimed to have used the
products between 2002 and 2009. As a result, Iovate voluntarily
recalled 14 Hydroxycut-branded products.

Following the recall, GNC Holdings, Inc., was named, among other
defendants, in multiple lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-branded
products in several states. Iovate previously accepted the
Company's tender request for defense and indemnification under its
purchasing agreement with the Company in these matters. The
Company's ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any claims
against the Company in connection with products manufactured by
Iovate under the indemnity is dependent on Iovate's insurance
coverage, the creditworthiness of its insurer, and the absence of
significant defenses by such insurer. To the extent the Company is
not fully compensated by Iovate's insurer, it can seek recovery
directly from Iovate. The Company's ability to fully recover such
amounts may be limited by the creditworthiness of Iovate.

GNC Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that as of June 30, 2014,
there were 76 pending lawsuits related to Hydroxycut in which the
Company had been named: 70 individual, largely personal injury
claims and six putative class action cases, generally inclusive of
claims of consumer fraud, misrepresentation, strict liability and
breach of warranty.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated pretrial proceedings of many of the pending actions
in the Southern District of California (In re: Hydroxycut
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2087).

In May 2013, the parties to the individual personal injury cases
signed a Master Settlement Agreement, under which the Company is
not required to make any payments. Settlement payments will be
made exclusively by Iovate and dismissals are expected to be
entered in these actions in the near term.

The parties in the consolidated class actions reached a
settlement, but the Court denied final approval of that settlement
in December 2013. The parties have since reached a revised
settlement, which remains subject to Court approval. The Company
is not required to make any payments under the current settlement
agreement. Following the resolution of the individual personal
injury cases and the settlement of the consolidated class action
suits, all of the Hydroxycut claims currently pending against the
Company will be resolved without any payment by the Company.

GNC is a global specialty retailer of health and wellness
products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


GNC HOLDINGS: 20 Pending Suits Related to DMAA/Aegeline at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to December 2013, GNC Holdings, Inc., sold products
manufactured by third parties that contained derivatives from
geranium known as 1.3-dimethylpentylamine/ dimethylamylamine/13-
dimethylamylamine, or "DMAA," which were recalled from its stores
in November 2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael
trees.

GNC Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that as of June 30, 2014,
the Company was named in 20 lawsuits involving products containing
DMAA and/or Aegeline, including 17 personal injury cases and three
putative class action cases.  The proceedings associated with
these cases, which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are
in the early stages, and any liabilities that may arise from these
matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. The
Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by its third-
party vendor with regard to these matters, although the Company's
ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims
against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the vendor
and/or its insurance coverage and the absence of any significant
defenses available to its insurer.

Personal Injury Claims:

     * Susan Straub, individual, and as Administratrix of the
Estate of Shane Straub v. USPLabs LLC ("USPLabs") and General
Nutrition Holdings, Inc., Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County (Case No. 14-0502403), filed May 20, 2014

     * Shirley Davila Trustee Ad Litem for the Estate of Jessica
Davila v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and USPLabs, Court of
the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA (Case No.12-0602113),
filed June 18, 2012

     * Leanne Sparling and Michael Sparling on behalf of Michael
Sparling, deceased v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al. Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 2013-00034663-
CU-PL-CTL), filed February 13, 2013

     * Justin Carolyne, et al.  v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et
al. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
BC508212), filed May 22, 2013

     * Walid Nassar v. Manar Hanna MD., et al, USP Labs, General
Nutrition Corporation  Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth Law
Division (Case No. MONL319313), filed September 26, 2013

     * Everine Van Huoten vs. USPLabs and GNC Holdings, United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 13 CV
00635 LEK KSC), filed November 19, 2013

     * Jeremy Reed, Timothy Anderson, Dan Anderson, Nadia Black,
et al. v. USPLabs, et al., GNC, Superior Court for California,
County of San Diego  (Case No. 37-2013-00074052-CU-PL-CTL), filed
November 1, 2013

     * Kenneth Waikiki v. USPLabs, Doyle, Geissler, USP Labs
OxyElite, LLC, et al. and GNC Corporation, et al., United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 3-00639 DMK),
filed November 21, 2013

     * Nicholas Akau v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al., United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-
00029), filed January 23, 2014

     * Malissa Igafo v.  USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al., United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-
00030), filed January 23, 2013

     * Calvin Ishihara v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al., United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-
00031), filed January 23, 2014

     * Gaye Anne Mattson v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al.,
United States District for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-
00032), filed January 23, 2014

     * Dominic Little vs. USPLabs, Jonathan Vincent Doyle (an
individual), Jacob Geissler (an individual), USPLabs Jack3d, LLC,
USPLabs OxyElite, LLC, GNC Corporation, the Vitamin Shoppe,
Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc., Bally Total Fitness Corporation,
Natural Alternatives International, Inc., S.K. Laboratories, Inc.,
Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC534065), filed January 23,
2014

     * Jamie Franco v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al., United
States District Court for the Central District of California (Case
No. CV-14-00592), filed January 24, 2014

     * Roel Vista v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al. United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
(Case No. CV-14-0037), filed January 24, 2014

     * Karina Lujan, individually and as next friend of Kalysa
Rosa, Michael Lujan, Jimmy Eddy Lujan and Gabriel Lujan v.
USPLabs, GNC Holdings et al., District Court, 298th Judicial
District, Dallas County, Texas (Case No. DC-13-05677-M), filed
March 14, 2014

     * Thomas Park v. USPLabs, et al., California Superior Court,
San Diego County (Case No. 37-2014-00010924-CU-PL-CTL), filed
April 10, 2014

Putative Class Action Claims:

     * Michael Campos, Jennifer Southwick, and others v. USPLabs
and GNC Corp., United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (Case No. 13CV2891 DMS BLM), filed December
5, 2013

     * Christopher Lutkus v. USPLabs and GNC Corp., United States
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Case No.
4:13-cv-00627-RH-CAS), filed November 13, 2013

     * Sandeep Barot v. USPLabs and General Nutrition Center
Holdings, Inc.,  United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey (Case No. 14-cv-00562), filed February 3, 2014

The Company said, "The proceedings associated with these cases,
which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early
stages, and any liabilities that may arise from these matters are
not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. We are
contractually entitled to indemnification by our third-party
vendor with regard to these matters, although our ability to
obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against us is
dependent upon the creditworthiness of our vendor and/or its
insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses
available to its insurer."

GNC is a global specialty retailer of health and wellness
products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


GNC HOLDINGS: Calif. Wage & Break Claims of 86 Plaintiffs Remain
----------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on November 4, 2008, 98
plaintiffs filed individual claims against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange, which was removed to the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California on February 17, 2009.

Each of the plaintiffs had previously been a member of a purported
class in a lawsuit filed against the Company in 2007 and resolved
in September 2009. The plaintiffs allege that they were not
provided all of the rest and meal periods to which they were
entitled under California law, and further allege that the Company
failed to pay them split shift and overtime compensation to which
they were entitled under California law.  The plaintiffs also
allege derivative claims for inaccurate wage statements, failure
to pay wages due at termination, and penalty claims under the
California Labor Code.

In June 2013, a trial was conducted with respect to the claims of
seven of the plaintiffs.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of
the Company on all claims submitted to the jury, and the Court
entered an order in favor of the Company on the one claim
submitted to the Court.

According to the Company, the claims of five other plaintiffs have
been resolved and the claims of 86 plaintiffs remain, with respect
to which discovery is ongoing.

As any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not
probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has
been accrued in the accompanying financial statements, the Company
said.

GNC is a global specialty retailer of health and wellness
products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Charles Brewer" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 21, 2011,
Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal court,
alleging state and federal wage and hour claims (U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 11CV3587). On
October 7, 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint
alleging, inter alia, meal, rest break and overtime violations. On
October 21, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and on December 14, 2011 the court dismissed count six
(the federal overtime claim) giving plaintiffs an opportunity to
amend the complaint within thirty days.  On January 13, 2012,
plaintiff filed a Second Amended complaint.  On September 18,
2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification and
on January 7, 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor
Standards Act class with respect to one of Plaintiff's claims. As
any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable
or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been
accrued in the accompanying financial statements.

GNC is a global specialty retailer of health and wellness
products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Elizabeth Naranjo" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on February 29, 2012,
former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated sued General Nutrition
Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Alameda (Case No. RG 12619626).  The complaint
contains eight causes of action, alleging, inter alia, meal, rest
break, and overtime violations. As any liabilities that may arise
from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at
this time, no liability has been accrued in the accompanying
financial statements.

GNC is a global specialty retailer of health and wellness
products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Vargas" and "Hickok" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on June 29, 2010,
Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation and
the Company in federal court (U.S. District Court, Western
District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:5-mc-2025). The two-count
complaint alleges, generally, that plaintiffs were required to
perform work on an uncompensated basis and that the Company failed
to pay overtime for such work. The second count of the complaint
alleges the Company retaliated against plaintiffs when they
complained about the overtime policy. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss count II of the Complaint and on January 6, 2011 the
court granted the motion. In fall, 2011, plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Class Certification. On August 16, 2012, the Court
ruled on the motion, granting in part and denying in part, the
motion.  Class notice was mailed to putative class members in
November 2012 and discovery regarding opt-in plaintiffs is
ongoing. As of June 30, 2014, an immaterial liability has been
accrued in the accompanying financial statements.

GNC is a global specialty retailer of health and wellness
products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


H & S RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Ramos Valdez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v.  H & S Restaurant Operations, Inc. d/b/a/
El Mio Cid, and Julio Hugo in his individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-04701 (E.D.N.Y., August 7, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime compensation, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

H & S Restaurant Operations, Inc. runs a restaurant which
maintained and maintains its principal place of business at 50
Starr Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11221.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Gastman, Esq.
      BORRELLI AND ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: alg@employmentlawyernewyork.com


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Nichols" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company has been
named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several
individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.

According to the Company, "The plaintiffs allege that we, some of
our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for
discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the
Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion
to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010. During a hearing on
February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel indicated his intent to
dismiss certain claims against us. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the
plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional
securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former
officers to the lawsuit. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
further amended their complaint to request certification as a
class action. One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted
to remove the case to federal district court, most recently on
December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case
back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013,
the federal court remanded the case back to state court. We intend
to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on the stage of
litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we
understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results
of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the
defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse
judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also
not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of
possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or
settlement of this case."

HealthSouth Corporation, incorporated in Delaware in 1984,
including its subsidiaries, is the largest owner and operator of
inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in the United States in terms
of patients treated and discharged, revenues, and number of
hospitals. HealthSouth operates inpatient rehabilitation hospitals
and provide specialized rehabilitative treatment on both an
inpatient and outpatient basis.


HF3 CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Crump" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Crump, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. HF3 Construction, Inc., DHF Associates, Herbert Fletcher Sr.,
Herbert Fletcher II, Case No. 2:14-cv-04671 (E.D. Pa., August 8,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

HF3 Construction, Inc. and DHF Associates own and operate a
construction company located at 715 Twining Road, Suite 213
Dresher, PA 19025.

Herbert Fletcher Sr. and Herbert Fletcher II are the owners of
HF3 Construction, Inc. and DHF Associates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      Swartz Swidler LLC
      1878 Marlton Pike E, Suite 10
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com


HOUSTON, TX: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Fontenot" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In BERTHA M. FONTENOT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, et
al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-3503, (S.D. Tex.),
pending before the Court are the motions of defendants City of
Houston and Charlotte Booker seeking summary judgment pursuant to
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs were all convicted of violating Section 521.025 of
the Texas Transportation Code, which provides that drivers in the
State must "have in the person's possession while operating a
motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the
type of vehicle operated."  The plaintiffs bring this class
action, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, because their failure to
display convictions were reported to the State as No DL
convictions, and they were assessed a surcharge as a result. The
plaintiffs allege that by misreporting their convictions, the City
and Booker deprived them of their constitutional right to due
process.

In an August 7, 2014 memorandum opinion and order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/EMXijSfrom Leagle.com, District
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt granted the defendants' motions for summary
judgment in their entirety.  The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was denied as moot.

Bertha M Fontenot, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Frank Sullo,
Sullo Sullo LLP, Justin Joseph Presnal, Fisher Boyd Johnson
Huguenard LLP, Ronald Martin Weber, Jr, Crowley Norman LLP, Thomas
K Brown, The Brown Law Firm, LLLP & Richard Eugene Norman, Crowley
Norman LLP.

David Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Eugene Norman,
Crowley Norman LLP & Ronald Martin Weber, Jr, Crowley Norman LLP.
Santa Zamarron, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Eugene Norman,
Crowley Norman LLP & Ronald Martin Weber, Jr, Crowley Norman LLP.

City Of Houston, Defendant, represented by Mary Elizabeth
Stevenson, City of Houston Legal Dept, Darah Lyn Eckert, City of
Houston & Henry Neef Carnaby, City of Houston Attorney.

Courtview Justice Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew M Edison, Edison, McDowell & Hetherington, LLP.

Steve McCraw, in his official capacity as Director of the Texas
Department of Public, Defendant, represented by Angela V
Colmenero, Texas Office Of The Attorney General, Bill Davis,
Office of the Attorney General of Texas & Amy K Penn, Office of
the Attorney General.

Susan Combs, in her official capacity as Texas Comptroller of
Public Accounts, Defendant, represented by Angela V Colmenero,
Texas Office Of The Attorney General, Bill Davis, Office of the
Attorney General of Texas & Amy K Penn, Office of the Attorney
General.

Gila LLC, doing business as Municipal Services Bureau, Defendant,
represented by Alton Lee Rigby, Smith Robertson Elliott & Douglas
LLP.

Bruce A Cummings, in his capacity as Manager of Gila LLC,
Defendant, represented by Alton Lee Rigby, Smith Robertson Elliott
& Douglas LLP.

Clerk of Court Charlotte Booker, Defendant, represented by Darah
Lyn Eckert, City of Houston & Mary Elizabeth Stevenson, City of
Houston Legal Dept.


INDIANA INSURANCE: Mass. Court Dismisses CE's Appeal as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
CE Design, Ltd. filed a complaint on December 7, 2011, in Superior
Court seeking a declaration that Indiana Insurance Company
(Indiana) has a duty to defend and indemnify Matrix LS, Inc.
(Matrix), in an underlying class action.  Indiana moved to dismiss
based on several grounds, including that issue preclusion bars
relitigating CE's standing and that CE's claim was not ripe. The
Superior Court judge agreed that relitigation was barred and
dismissed the case. An appeal followed.

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, in a memorandum and order
dated August 8, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/x56O9Jfrom Leagle.com, said the parties informed the
Court at oral argument that Indiana had filed a new United States
District Court complaint in Illinois against CE, seeking a
declaration that Indiana does not have a duty to defend or
indemnify Matrix and that the parties had submitted cross-motions
for summary judgment. During the pendency of the appeal, the
United States District Court motion judge ordered partial summary
judgment for CE declaring that Indiana has a duty to defend Matrix
in the underlying action. The judge also concluded that "it would
be premature to rule" on indemnity when the underlying action is
ongoing and Matrix's liability has not been established.

As a result, said the Mass. Appeals Court, CE has already received
in United States District Court the relief sought: further
proceedings on its claim that Indiana has a duty to defend and
indemnify and a declaration that Indiana has a duty to defend.

Accordingly, the judgment is vacated and a new judgment will be
entered dismissing the action not on the merits but because it is
moot, ruled the Mass. Appeals Court.

The case is CE DESIGN, LTD. vs. INDIANA INSURANCE COMPANY, NO. 13-
P-443.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Plaintiffs Dismissed Suit in May 2014
-------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
related to International Business Machines Corporation's third-
quarter 2013 financial results disclosure.  On May 2, 2014,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.


J.B. HUNT: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment to 9th Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., is a defendant in certain
class-action lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are current and
former California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid
wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items.

"During the second quarter of 2014, the Court in the lead class-
action granted Judgment in our favor with regard to all claims.
The plaintiffs have appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals and we are currently awaiting the appointment of a
panel of judges. The overlapping claims in the remaining two
actions have been stayed pending a decision in the lead class-
action case. We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these
lawsuits," the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company is one of the largest surface transportation,
delivery, and logistics companies in North America.


JBS: Liddle & Dubin Mulls Class Action Over Odor at Plant
---------------------------------------------------------
James Bruggers, writing for Courier Journal, reports that as JBS
plans to test new odor controls, Detroit-based lawyers with a
history of suing Louisville companies are advertising for
potential class-action clients to take on the pork-processing
plant on Story Avenue.

The law firm, Liddle & Dubin, has sent letters to Louisville
residents, asking if they have noticed odors from the
slaughterhouse, and if so, to describe them.  The letters also ask
residents to "summarize how the odors affect your ability to use
and/or enjoy your home," and when they first experienced them.

"The data sheets are part of an initial investigation," said Nick
Coulson, a lawyer with Liddle & Dubin.  It's a way to help
determine the level of interest in the community, he said.

Mr. Coulson said he is not sure how many letters were mailed.  But
he said typically the firm sends them to addresses within one to
three miles of an industrial facility it is investigating.  They
were identified as advertising.

No decision has been made to file a lawsuit against JBS, he said.
The letters say the Michigan firm is working with Louisville
attorney Adrienne Kim -- AKim@grayandwhitelaw.com -- who is with
the Gray & White law firm.

JBS plant manager John Cliff said he could not discuss the
potential for a lawsuit against his company.  But he said JBS,
known locally as Swift, is making progress on two projects to
reduce odors.

The company is enclosing the area where hogs are unloaded so odors
can be trapped and treated, Mr. Cliff said.  And last week, the
company was expected to test a new ozone-based scrubber system for
reducing odors from pork rendering.  He said ozone gas is better
at reducing odors than chlorine, which is currently used.

The plant has a history of enforcement actions by the Louisville
Metro Air Pollution Control District.  It's had district fines
totaling $157,000 since 2003, according to district records.  In
March, the district cited JBS for new alleged violations of odor,
record-keeping and permit rules, and assessed a $98,750 fine.
District spokesman Tom Nord said the company and the district have
not yet resolved that matter.

Mr. Nord also said the district is still evaluating the company's
new scrubber plans to determine whether they will work.

Butchertown Neighborhood Association President Andy Cornelius said
he had not seen the letter from the Michigan law firm.  The
association also has not had a chance to discuss a potential
response, he said.

Earlier Louisville lawsuits from the Detroit lawyers were led by
attorney Peter Macuga -- PMacuga@mldclassaction.com -- with
Macuga, the law firm filed class-action and other lawsuits over
industrial emissions against several Rubbertown chemical plants,
LG&E and Louisville Paving, winning some settlements.

In 2007, for example, families living in Riverside Gardens who
participated in a suit against the Hexion (now Momentive) chemical
plant on Campground road were to receive about $2,500, attorneys
who worked on the case said at the time.

Later lawsuits produced much smaller payments but included
scholarship funds or money for local schools, while attorneys
collected hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Some of the
settlements included provisions that the companies reduce
emissions.

The companies, in turn, received agreements that limit their
plants' neighbors' ability to sue them in the future.  In some of
those settlements, even people who lived within a certain distance
of a plant and did not file a claim lost some legal rights, if
they failed to specifically opt out.

The small payments and opt-out requirements made for controversy.

"My advice would be . . . to use another law firm and research
them thoroughly," said Eboni Cochran, who was once the lead
plaintiff in a class-action suit against Zeon Chemicals.  She left
that lawsuit and fought it in court with Louisville attorney Tom
FitzGerald and his Kentucky Resources Council.

"The residents over on this side of town are still living with the
pollution and many have lost their right to sue in the future,"
she said.


JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces "Brunner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karolis Kubelskas and Emily Brunner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly  situated v. Jimmy John's Enterprises, Inc.
and JS Fort Group, Inc. Case No. 1:14-cv-06134 (N.D. Ill., August
8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages.

Jimmy John's Enterprises, Inc. is a privately owned fast food
restaurant giant, specializing in the sale of sub sandwiches.

JS Fort Group, Inc. is a franchisee of Jimmy John's Enterprises,
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert M. Foote, Esq.
      Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
      Peter L. Currie, Esq.
      FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC
      10 West State Street, #200
      Geneva, IL 60134
      Telephone: (630) 232-7450
      Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
      E-mail: nrmf@fmcolaw.com


JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces "Kubelskas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karolis Kubelskas and Emily Brunner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly  situated v. Jimmy John's Enterprises, Inc.
and JS Fort Group, Inc. Case 1:14-cv-06136 (N.D. Ill., August 8,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
and overtime wages.

Jimmy John's Enterprises, Inc. is a privately owned fast food
restaurant giant, specializing in the sale of sub sandwiches.

JS Fort Group, Inc. is a franchisee of Jimmy John's Enterprises,
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert M. Foote, Esq.
      Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
      Peter L. Currie, Esq.
      FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC
      10 West State Street, #200
      Geneva, IL 60134
      Telephone: (630) 232-7450
      Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
      E-mail: nrmf@fmcolaw.com


KUM & GO: Faces Class Action Over Blended Gasoline
--------------------------------------------------
Brandie Piper, writing for KSDK, reports that a gas station chain
in southwest Missouri is facing a class-action lawsuit after
customers may have put a blend of diesel and unleaded gasoline in
their cars.

The incident happened at a Kum & Go station in Springfield, and
caused cars to sputter and have difficulties starting.

Officials with Kum & Go are apologizing for the error they're
blaming on equipment failure.


LA CARAVANA: "Anzurez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Anzurez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. La Caravana 4 LLC d/b/a La Caravana Restaurant, Case
No. 3:14-cv-04976 (D.N.J., August 7, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages and
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

La Caravana 4 LLC owns La Caravana Restaurant, a food and beverage
establishment located at 71 Broadway, Passaic, NJ 07055.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Jansky" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company on June 7, 2012, was served with a putative class action
lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et
al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants
committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and violated
various other state laws by changing screening codes to diagnostic
codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in customers
being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The lawsuit
seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as
recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Ann Baker Pepe" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company on June 7, 2012, was served with a putative class action
lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants failed to preserve DNA samples
allegedly entrusted to the Defendants and thereby breached a
written agreement with Plaintiff and violated state laws. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual, double and treble
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal
expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against Sandusky Wellness Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company on August 24, 2012, was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the Defendants violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The
lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005
million for each violation, subject to trebling under TCPA, and
injunctive relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against Bohlander & Andres Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action
lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al., related to overtime pay.

After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the
Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit, and
the consolidated lawsuit is now pending in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles. In the consolidated
lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated
phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay
overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed
other violations of the California Labor Code.

On March 24, 2014, the Court granted the Company's Motion to
Dismiss due to technical deficiencies in the pleading of the
Plaintiffs' claims, but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to cure
the defects. Plaintiffs have subsequently filed an amended
complaint. The complaint seeks monetary damages, civil penalties,
costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against Rabanes & Varsam Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company is a defendant in the lawsuit Rachel Rabanes v. California
Laboratory Sciences, LLC, et al., which was filed in April 2014 in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles,
and the lawsuit Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America
DBA LabCorp, which was filed in June 2014 in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego. In these lawsuits, the
Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated employees that
the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and
rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California
Labor Code. The complaints seek monetary damages, civil penalties,
costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will
vigorously defend these lawsuits.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Dickerson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company on June 17, 2014, was served with a putative class action
lawsuit, Michael Dickerson v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by
placing non-emergency telephone calls to cellular telephones
without the recipients' prior consent or permission. The lawsuit
seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 million
for each violation, subject to trebling under TCPA, and injunctive
relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Legg, et al." Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company on July 9, 2014, was served with a putative class action
lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the
Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA") by allegedly providing credit card expiration date
information on an electronically printed credit card receipt. The
lawsuit seeks statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.


LIVWELL INC: Faces Class Action Over "Pot Pavillion" Chocolate Bar
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for Law.com, reports that a Colorado county
fairgoer, who alleges he became ill from marijuana-laced chocolate
samples, has filed a proposed class action against the company
that handed them out at the fair's "Pot Pavilion."

Longmont, Colo., resident Jordan Coombs accuses a fair vendor,
medical marijuana firm LivWell Inc., of giving him and others free
Full Melt chocolate bars spiked with marijuana's active chemical
THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, even though the entire Denver County
Fairgrounds, including the Pot Pavilion, was supposed to be drug
free.

Mr. Coombs, who attended the fair on Aug. 3 with his family, said
the vendor told him that the chocolate bars did not contain any
marijuana ingredients, after he specifically asked if they did.
He alleges that he became ill shortly after he ate several pieces
of the candy and vomited uncontrollably.  At an emergency room,
doctors said he had overdosed and blood tests showed the presence
of THC in his system.

At least two other fairgoers also became ill, according to local
media reports.  Mr. Coombs filed Coombs v. Beyond Broadway on
Aug. 7 in Colorado district court, Denver County, against Beyond
Broadway LLC, which does business as LivWell and Full Melt
Chocolate.

Mr. Coombs' complaint alleges LivWell engaged in breach of
warranty, negligence, failure to warn and negligent
misrepresentation, and asks for a judgment to at least cover the
costs he incurred.

Marijuana use by adults is legal in Colorado, where businesses
catering to pot-related trades are proliferating.  According to
Mr. Coombs' complaint, the fair's pavilion devoted to the state's
newest industry featured "speed rolling" and Dorito eating
competitions, live music, Grateful Dead karaoke, a laser light
show and marijuana-related merchandise.

Mr. Coombs' attorney is Corey Zurbuch, of Frascona, Joiner,
Goodman & Greenstein, P.C.


LUSTER LEAF: "Rogers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Rogers, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Luster Leaf Products,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06084 (N.D. Ill., August 7, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Luster Leaf Products, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that
provides gardening products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              msalas@flsalaw.com


LYFT INC: Judge Tosses Drivers' Wage-and-Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling and Kat Greene, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on Aug. 7 tossed out a putative wage-and-
hour class action brought by a Lyft Inc. driver against the
transportation company, ruling that California labor laws only
apply to employees who work in the state and therefore claims
brought under the law can't apply to a nationwide class.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said that the driver's class
claims -- which alleged that the company violated California labor
laws when it misclassified full-time drivers as independent
contractors, took some of their tips and refused to reimburse them
for mileage -- can't survive even if the drivers work for a
California-based company that makes all employment-related
decisions in the state.

"The plaintiffs propose to represent class members who are
residents of other states, who drive for Lyft exclusively in those
states and who apparently never set foot in California in
furtherance of their work with the company," Judge Chhabria said.
"The California wage and hour laws at issue here do not create a
cause of action."

A spokeswoman for Lyft told Law360 in a statement on Aug. 8 that
the court's ruling is "well-reasoned and thoughtful."

In September, driver Patrick Cotter brought the suit against Lyft,
known for its cars adorned with pink mustaches.  He said that
because the company treats its drivers as full-fledged employees,
it violates California labor laws when it skims 20 percent off
drivers' tips as an "administrative fee."

Lyft styles itself as the maker of an app that organizes a
rideshare program -- that is, it does not directly employ drivers,
but rather arranges rides between passengers and drivers, who use
their own vehicles and equipment.

In December, Mr. Cotter amended the complaint to add an additional
lead plaintiff, driver Alejandra Maciel.  In May, Judge Chhabria
issued an order to show cause as to why they could bring claims
under California's wage-and-hour laws on behalf of drivers in
other states.

Mr. Cotter and Ms. Maciel argued that they can bring the claims
because Lyft is headquartered in California and makes its
employment decisions there -- including the decision to classify
the drivers as independent contractors.

They said they may bring the claims under California law unless
Lyft demonstrated that another state has a greater interest in
applying its own law, contending that California has the most
protective worker laws.

Judge Chhabria said that other states, including Washington and
Oregon, have more worker-friendly laws than California and as
such, drivers in those states could be at a disadvantage in this
case.

Beyond that, though, the main problem is that when Cotter and
Ms. Maciel jumped to a conflict of laws analysis, they skipped
over a major issue -- California labor laws only apply to
California residents who work in the state, Judge Chhabria said.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that an employee in the
context of the state laws is "a wage earner in California," and
therefore subject to the state's wage orders if the employee
resides in the state, receives pay in the state and works either
exclusively or principally in the state, Judge Chhabria said.

The proposal also flirts with Commerce Clause violations, he said.

"The compensation of nonresidents who work exclusively outside the
state would seem to constitute commerce that takes place wholly
outside of [California's] borders," Judge Chabira said.  "Whether
California may constitutionally regulate this compensation is
therefore, at best, a difficult question."

Judge Chhabria also rejected the drivers' argument that a choice
of law provision in the drivers' contract creates a cause of
action under California labor laws.  He said that at the most it
would create a cause to sue under contract law in a given state.

Lyft could have set up conditions that comply with California
labor laws within the contract, but even that would only
constitute a contractual obligation and not a statutory one, he
said.

The drivers' were given leave to amend their complaint, according
to the order.

Mr. Cotter is represented by Matthew D. Carlson of Carlson Legal
Services and Shannon Liss-Riordan and John Earl Duke of Lichten &
Liss-Riordan PC.

Lyft is represented by Alex Santana, Christopher M. Ahearn --
christopher.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Thomas Michael
McInerney -- tmm@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart P.C.

The case is Patrick Cotter et al. v. Lyft Inc. et al., case number
3:13-cv-04065, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


MARRAKESH & MARIACHI: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Manuel Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Marrakesh & Mariachi Corp. d/b/a Marrakesh
Restaurant, Abdelghani Ahardane and Omar "Doe", Jointly and
Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06256 (S.D.N.Y., August 7, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed to him
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Marrakesh & Mariachi Corp. owns and operates Marrakesh Restaurant,
located at 235 East 53rd Street, New York, New York, 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor Bell Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10000
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com


MCCORMICK: Recalls Ground Oregano Due to Salmonella Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gitte Laasby, writing for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports that
McCormick has issued a voluntary recall of ground oregano in 0.75
ounce bottles because it may be contaminated with salmonella.  The
oregano was shipped between April 4 and Aug. 5, 2014, to stores
throughout the country.

The only product affected by the recall is McCormick ground
oregano with a UPC code of 0-523561-6 and a best by date of Aug.
21 16 H and Aug. 22 16 H.

No other McCormick ground, whole or oregano leaves are affected.

Salmonella can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, elderly people and others with weakened immune
systems.

Salmonella symptoms in healthy people include fever, diarrhea,
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare cases, a salmonella
infection can get into the blood stream and produce more severe
illnesses, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

McCormick said in its recall notice that no illnesses had been
reported as of Aug. 13 as a result of consumers eating the
product.

"Consumers do not need to return the product to the store where it
was purchased.  Instead, consumers are urged to dispose of the
recalled product and its container," McCormick said in its recall
notice.

Consumers can contact McCormick for a replacement or refund at
(800) 632-5847 on weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Central
time.  Representatives on the hotline can also answer general
questions.

The company found out about the potential risk through routine
testing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  The recall
affects 1,032 cases of oregano.

McCormick said it has alerted customers and grocery outlets to
remove the product with the affected codes from store shelves and
distribution centers and destroy it.

The recalled oregano was shipped overseas and to Alabama, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North
Carolina, North Danoka, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington,
West Virginia and Wisconsin.


MEDALLION CONTAINER: Faces "Rivero" Suit Over Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Rivero, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Medallion Container Nurseries, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-22914 (S.D. Fla., August 7,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Medallion Container Nurseries is a wholesaler and distributor of
agricultural commodities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monica Espino, Esq.
      ESPINO LAW
      2100 Coral Way, Suite 300
      Miami, FL 33145
      Telephone: (305) 704-3172
      Facsimile: (305) 722-7378
      E-mail: me@espino-law.com


MEDALLION CONTAINER: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilian Orellana, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Medallion Container Nurseries, LLC, Medallion Companies,
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-22915 (S.D. Fla., August 7, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Medallion Container Nurseries, LLC and Medallion Companies, LLC,
are wholesaler and distributor of agricultural commodities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monica Espino, Esq.
      ESPINO LAW
      2100 Coral Way, Suite 300
      Miami, FL 33145
      Telephone: (305) 704-3172
      Facsimile: (305) 722-7378
      E-mail: me@espino-law.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Judge to Decide on Infuse Bone-Graft Device Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
in California is set to decide whether to dismiss 21 products
liability lawsuits filed against Medtronic Inc. alleging off-label
use of its Infuse bone-graft device.

Infuse, a bioengineered bone-growth protein used in spinal
surgeries, has spawned at least 750 lawsuits and potentially 2,600
additional unfiled claims against Medtronic, according to the
company's June 20 annual report.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of the Central District of
California, who originally had been scheduled to hear arguments on
Aug. 11, instead said he would decide whether to dismiss 21
lawsuits based on court documents.

The plaintiffs allege that their doctors had used Infuse in ways
that were not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
such as surgically implanting the device through their backs
rather than their abdomens.

The plaintiffs lawyer in each of the cases, Lowell Finson, an
attorney in the El Segundo, Calif., office of Seattle's Phillips
Law Firm, did not return a call for comment.

Medtronic, represented by Michael Brown -- mkbrown@reedsmith.com
-- a partner in the Los Angeles office of Reed Smith, has argued
in motions to dismiss that the cases are preempted by the U.S.
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008
decision in Riegel v. Medtronic.

Mr. Brown did not respond to a request for comment.

Medtronic spokeswoman Cindy Resman said in an email: "We believe
our motions should be granted but will not comment further while
they remain under consideration."

On May 7, Medtronic agreed to pay $22 million to settle 950 claims
-- filed and unfiled -- involving Infuse. Medtronic took a fourth-
quarter charge of up to $140 million to potentially resolve all
the litigation.

"The company continues to stand behind Infuse Bone Graft, which
has been utilized in more than 1 million patients since it was
approved more than 10 years ago, and will vigorously defend the
product and company actions in the remaining cases," Medtronic
said at the time.


MI CASITA: Faces "Monterrosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Enot Velasquez Monterrosa, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mi Casita Restaurants, a.k.a. Mi
Casita Restaurante Mexicano; JM Macias, Inc.; JFC LLC; Macias LLC;
Macias Enterprise LLC; MC Management LLC; Mexican Foods Express,
Inc.; Piramide Mexican Foods, Inc.; Via 216 NC LLC; Jesus Macias;
and Juan Macias, Case No. 5:14-cv-00448 (E.D.N.C., August 8,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, and related
penalties and damages.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant within the
State of North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
      315 S. Salem St., Suite 310
      Apex, NC 27502
      Telephone: (919) 741-0981
      E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Does Not Pay Athletes Properly, Action Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Thompson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, The Big Ten
Conference, Inc., Pacific 12 Conference, The Big Twelve
Conference, Inc., Southeastern Conference, Atlantic Coast
Conference, The American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, Mid-
American Conference, Mountain West Conference, and Sun Belt
Conference, Case No. 0:14-cv-03129 (D. Minn., August 8, 2014),
seeks to rectify decades of unlawful, anticompetitive restrictions
that have deprived athletes across the country of their right to
fair compensation for extraordinary revenue generated on behalf of
their universities, athletic conferences, and the National
Collegiate Athletic Association.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is the premier amateur
sports association in the United States governing top-tier
football programs.

The Conference Defendants run the FBS football programs engaged in
by their members throughout the United States, including selling
the broadcast rights of their members' games for distribution
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      1100 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com
              brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Athletes Get Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that top college
football and basketball players must be paid the full cost of
their education, plus up to $5,000 a year in broadcast and video
game licensing, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern
District of California ruled on Aug. 8.

The ruling brings to a close a hard-fought antitrust class action
against the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and seems
likely to change the face of college athletics though only
slightly.

"The court finds that the NCAA has the power and exercises that
power to fix prices and restrain competition in the college
education market that plaintiffs have identified," wrote Judge
Wilken, who presided over a bench trial in June of a case brought
by current and former student-athletes.

Judge Wilken entered an injunction ordering the NCAA to increase
men's football and basketball scholarships at the largest colleges
to the full cost of attending school -- about $3,000 a year more
than the value of a scholarship now.  She also ordered the NCAA to
permit schools to pay those athletes up to $5,000 in licensing
revenue from television and video game contracts, while requiring
that players on each team be compensated equally.  The money will
be held in trust until after students graduate.

"Schools may offer lower amounts of deferred compensation if they
choose but may not unlawfully conspire with each []other in
setting these amounts," Judge Wilken wrote.

She also turned down the athletes' request that they be allowed to
earn endorsement money during their college careers.

Some 33 law firms, led by Michael Hausfeld of Washington, D.C.'s
Hausfeld, entered appearances in the 5-year-old case.  The class
was led by former UCLA basketball star Edward O'Bannon Jr. and
included professional legends Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell.

They challenged rules that prevent student-athletes from receiving
a share of the revenue that the NCAA and its member schools earn
from the sale of their names, images and likenesses.  The NCAA
settled a similar claim -- that player likenesses were broadcast
without their consent -- for $20 million just before trial.

Electronic Arts Inc. previously settled its portion of both cases
for $40 million.

The NCAA was represented by firms that included Munger, Tolles &
Olson and Schiff Hardin.  It argued that the rules were reasonably
related to preserving its tradition of amateur competition and
maintaining competitive balance, among other things.

Judeg Wilken found those arguments unpersuasive, in part because
the NCAA allows for professional earnings in other sports, such as
tennis.  Rather than promote balance, its bylaws favor schools
with the largest budgets for athletics, she concluded.

Restrictions on student compensation "lead many schools simply to
spend larger portions of their athletic budgets on coaching,
recruiting, and training facilities," Judge Wilken wrote.


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Faces "Jha" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Siddhartha Jha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of OCH-ZIFF Capital
Management Group LLC v. Daniel Och, David Windreich, Joel Frank,
Allen Bufferd, J. Barry Griswell, Jerome Kenney and Georgeanne
Proctor and OCH-ZIFF Capital Management Group LLC,, Case No. 1:14-
cv-06332 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
made materially misleading financial statements.

The Defendants provide investment advisory services for its
clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, L.L.C.
      240 Mineola Blvd.
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-4977
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0626
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


OPTUMINSIGHT INC: Sued Over Unlawful Assertion of Liens
-------------------------------------------------------
John MacNeill and Keila M. Rivera, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v.  OptumInsight, Inc. and United
Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04730 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 8, 2014), seeks to redress unlawful assertion of liens,
rights of subrogation or reimbursement from settled cases or
claims covered by New York's General Obligations Law.

OptumInsight, Inc. is a debt collector working for the healthcare
industry.

United Healthcare Services, Inc. is a health maintenance
organization management corporation that provides health insurance
plans for individuals and families in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
      Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq.
      Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
              jfrei-pearson@FBFGLaw.com
              tgarber@fbfglaw.com

          - and -

      Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
      Michael Aaron Rose, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 213-8311
      Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
      E-mail: FSchirripa@hrsclaw.com
              fp@hachroselaw.com


OWENS & MINOR: Obtains $5.3MM Recovery From Class Action Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens & Minor, Inc. reported in a press release on July 28, 2014,
that year-to-date results include the first-quarter recovery of
$5.3 million, resulting from the settlement of a direct purchaser
anti-trust class action lawsuit, which was included in other
operating income.

The Company said that for the six months ended June 30, 2014,
consolidated revenues were $4.56 billion, increased approximately
$79.8 million, or 1.8%, when compared to the first six months of
2013. Net income for the first half of 2014 was $45.4 million, or
$0.72 per diluted share. For the year-to-date period, adjusted net
income (non-GAAP), which excludes after-tax charges of $3.0
million for acquisition-related and $4.3 million for exit and
realignment activities, was $52.7 million, or $0.84 per diluted
share. Year-to-date results include the first-quarter recovery of
$5.3 million, resulting from the settlement of a direct purchaser
anti-trust class action lawsuit, which was included in other
operating income.

The Company also said consolidated operating earnings for the
year-to-date period of 2014 were $83.4 million, or 1.83% of
revenues, compared to operating earnings of $97.9 million for the
same period of 2013. Adjusted consolidated operating earnings for
the year-to-date period were $94.2 million, or 2.07% of revenues,
a decline of 17 basis points versus the first six months of 2013.

Owens & Minor, Inc. (NYSE: OMI) is a leading healthcare logistics
company dedicated to Connecting the World of Medical Products to
the Point of CareTM by providing vital supply chain services to
healthcare providers and manufacturers of healthcare products.
Owens & Minor provides logistics services across the spectrum of
medical products from disposable medical supplies to devices and
implants. With logistics platforms strategically located in the
United States and Europe, Owens & Minor serves markets where three
quarters of global healthcare spending occurs. Owens & Minor's
customers span the healthcare market from independent hospitals to
large integrated healthcare networks, as well as group purchasing
organizations, healthcare products manufacturers, and the federal
government. A FORTUNE 500 company, Owens & Minor is headquartered
in Richmond, Virginia, and has annualized revenues exceeding $9
billion. For more information about Owens & Minor, visit the
company website at www.owens-minor.com.


PFIZER INC: Faces Wave of Lawsuits Over Lipitor Side Effects
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that pharmaceutical
giant Pfizer is facing a mounting wave of lawsuits by women who
allege that the company knew about possible serious side effects
of its blockbuster anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor but never
properly warned the public.

In the past five months, a Reuters review of federal court filings
shows, lawsuits by U.S. women who say that taking Lipitor gave
them type-2 diabetes have shot up from 56 to almost 1,000.

Lawsuits began to be filed not long after the Food and Drug
Administration in 2012 warned that Lipitor and other statins had
been linked to incidents of memory loss and a "small increased
risk" of diabetes.  According to plaintiffs' lawyers, women face a
higher risk than men of developing diabetes from using Lipitor,
and gain fewer benefits.

The recent spike in lawsuits followed a decision by a federal
judicial panel to consolidate all Lipitor diabetes lawsuits from
around the country into a single Federal courtroom in Charleston,
South Carolina.  Pfizer opposed the consolidation, arguing it
would prompt copycat filings.  The first case is scheduled to be
tried next July.

Pfizer said in a statement that it denied liability and would
fight the lawsuits.

It is not uncommon for a drugmaker to get hit with thousands of
lawsuits over its products after the FDA orders a label change
alerting users to newly found risks.  Takeda Pharmaceutical, for
instance, is facing more than 3,500 federal lawsuits since 2011
when the FDA ordered it to update the label on its diabetes drug
Actos to warn about bladder cancer.  Takeda has denied liability.

But several factors set the Lipitor diabetes cases apart from
those against other drug companies.  For one, Lipitor is the
best-selling prescription drug of all time, racking up global
sales of more than $130 billion since it went on the market in
1996.  More than 29 million patients in the United States have
been prescribed the drug, suggesting there is a vast pool of
potential plaintiffs.

On the other hand, potentially complicating matters for
plaintiffs, the FDA emphasized the benefits of statins even as it
warned of the risks.

When the labeling change was released in 2012, a top FDA official
underscored that the agency still stood behind the drugs:
"Clearly, we think that the heart benefit of statins outweighs
this small increased risk (for diabetes)," Amy Egan, a deputy
director for safety at the agency's Division of Metabolism and
Endocrinology, said in a statement at the time.

Statins are a class of drugs that block the liver's production of
cholesterol to reduce the risk of heart disease.  Type 2 diabetes,
once known as adult-onset or noninsulin-dependent diabetes, is a
chronic condition that affects the way the body metabolizes
glucose.

                      Risks and Benefits

The seemingly mixed message from the FDA suggests that litigation
will focus on two questions: how big a diabetes risk do women
using Lipitor face, and whether that risk is mitigated by the
drug's cardiovascular benefits.

H. Blair Hahn of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, the lead lawyer
appointed to represent Lipitor plaintiffs in federal court, said
the plaintiffs contracted diabetes as a consequence of taking
Lipitor, and that women with diabetes see the length and quality
of their lives reduced.

"We will ask a jury to decide what it's worth to take five years
of someone's life," Mr. Hahn said.  He said the nearly 1,000 cases
filed so far represent 4,000 women, and that the number of cases
could ultimately reach 10,000 or more.

Pfizer said it believes Lipitor did not cause the plaintiffs'
diabetes.  Women who are prescribed Lipitor to control cholesterol
may share other risk factors that make them vulnerable to the
disease, such as high blood pressure or obesity, the company said.

The Pfizer statement said there is an "overwhelming consensus" in
the medical community about statins' benefits.

                       Bellwether Trials

The first Lipitor trial, scheduled for next July before U.S.
District Judge Richard Gergel, will be one of several so-called
"bellwethers" used to gauge the strength of other cases. If Pfizer
prevails, it could persuade plaintiffs to accept smaller
settlements or drop cases.

Pfizer could also opt to settle before a single case is tried to
avoid possible negative exposure or to prevent potentially
damaging information from coming to light.

If past settlements are any guide, Pfizer's potential exposure
could be substantial. Bayer, the maker of one-time rival statin
Baycol, paid $1 billion in 2005 to settle about 3,000 cases
alleging the drug caused rhabdomyolysis, a disease that breaks
down muscle tissue.  Baycol was pulled from the market in 2001
after being linked to 31 deaths.

In 2011 AstraZeneca said it would pay $647 million to resolve most
of the 28,000 lawsuits it faced alleging its antipsychotic
Seroquel caused diabetes and other injuries.

Pfizer has not indicated that it has set aside any money
specifically to cover potential future Lipitor judgments,
according to its most recent quarterly filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Michael Green, an expert in mass torts at the Wake Forest
University School of Law, said he did not expect Pfizer to settle
at this stage, especially given the major obstacle plaintiffs
still face.

"(They) have to show they were actually harmed by this agent," he
said.  "That might be hard."


PORTLAND GENERAL: Awaits Decision of Oregon Appeals Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in a Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 29,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in two
separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion County
Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes of
electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek damages
totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's
inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its
investment in the Trojan nuclear power plant.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the
abatement of the class action proceedings until the Public Utility
Commission of Oregon (OPUC) responded to the 2002 Order.  The
Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary
jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy can be offered to
PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount
of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in
prices.

In 2002, the OPUC issued an order (2002 Order) denying all of the
Utility Reform Project's (URP) challenges.

The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC
determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then
the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part.
The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that
it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to
play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs
retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded
OPUC proceedings.  The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently
abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon
Supreme Court.

The OPUC issued an order in 2008 (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds, including interest from September 30, 2000, to
customers who received service from the Company during the period
from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001.

The URP and the plaintiffs in the class actions separately
appealed the 2008 Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals. On
February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion
that upheld the 2008 Order. On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals
denied the appellants' request for reconsideration of the
decision. On October 18, 2013, the Oregon Supreme Court granted
plaintiffs' petition seeking review of the February 6, 2013 Oregon
Court of Appeals decision.  Oral argument occurred in March 2014
and the parties now await a Court decision.

Because the Oregon Supreme Court has granted the plaintiffs'
petition seeking review of that decision, and the class actions
remain pending, management believes that it is reasonably possible
that the regulatory proceedings and class actions could result in
a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously
recorded. Because these matters involve unsettled legal theories
and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient
information is currently not available to determine PGE's
potential liability, if any, or to estimate a range of potential
loss.

Portland General Electric Company (PGE or the Company) is a
single, vertically integrated electric utility engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of
electricity in the state of Oregon. The Company also participates
in the wholesale market by purchasing and selling electricity and
natural gas in an effort to obtain reasonably-priced power for its
retail customers. PGE operates as a single segment, with revenues
and costs related to its business activities maintained and
analyzed on a total electric operations basis. PGE's corporate
headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon and its approximately
4,000 square mile, state-approved service area allocation is
located entirely within the state of Oregon, encompassing 52
incorporated cities, of which Portland and Salem are the largest.
As of June 30, 2014, PGE served 841,930 retail customers with a
service area population of approximately 1.7 million, comprising
approximately 44% of the state's population.


PRIDE COMMS: Dec. 5 Final Approval Hearing of "Kiser" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James C. Mahan granted preliminary approval of a
proposed settlement in the class action captioned ANTHONY KISER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS INC. and CRAIG LUSK,
Defendants, NO. 11-CV-00165-JCM-VCF, (D. Nev.).  A copy of Judge
Mahan's August 7, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/DOUkmgfrom
Leagle.com.

The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the Settlement
appears to be fair, adequate and reasonable, falls within the
range of reasonableness, and therefore meets the requirements for
preliminary approval.

The Court preliminarily certifies the Class defined as: All
individuals who are listed on Exhibit "2" of the Stipulation, in
respect to any of the claims asserted in the plaintiff's complaint
and arising from such persons' employment by the defendants from
December 22, 2007 to February 20, 2013, and in the event any such
persons are deceased or legally adjudicated incompetents, their
legal representatives or heirs at law.

The Court appoints named plaintiff Anthony Kiser and FLSA consent
joinder plaintiff Brian Izumi as Class Representatives for the
Class.

The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Christian Gabroy
of the Gabroy Law Office and Leon Greenberg and Dana Sniegocki of
Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation as counsel for the Class.

The Court appoints Rust Consulting as the Settlement Administrator
and preliminarily finds that the estimated Administration Costs of
$8,000, as set forth in the Stipulation, are fair and reasonable.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held on December 5, 2014, at
10:00 a.m.

Leon Greenberg, Esq. -- wagelaw@hotmail.com -- Leon Greenberg
Professional Corporation Las Vegas, Nevada, CHRISTIAN GABROY, ESQ.
-- christian@gabroy.com -- Gabroy Law Offices, Henderson Nevada,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.


PROGRESSIVE INTEREST: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruno Palencia v. Progressive Interest, Inc. d/b/a Progressive
Electric and Anthony J. Hepburn, Case No. 4:14-cv-02276 (S.D.
Tex., August 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
      1201 Prince Street
      Houston, TX 77008
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Settles Vets Death Benefits Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Prudential Insurance Co. has agreed to donate more than $20
million to veterans' charities, and pay $8 million to survivors of
veterans and service members who died, to settle a class action
that alleged the insurance giant profited by not paying lump sum
death benefits to the families.

On Aug. 5, U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor of the District of
Massachusetts approved the preliminary settlement in the hotly
contested consolidated case In Re: Prudential, which also includes
awards of about $10 million for plaintiffs' attorneys and $10,000
each for 10 class representatives.  Each primary beneficiary would
receive about $125, the order estimates.

At issue were "Alliance Accounts," called retained asset accounts
by the insurance industry, which Prudential encouraged the
beneficiaries of Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) and
Veterans Group Life Insurance (VGLI) policies to use to park the
tax-free, six-figure benefits most of the families receive.

Instead of a lump sum, Prudential gave survivors a checkbook that
could be used to draw down the funds from the interest-bearing
account at any time.  Prudential contends the accounts -- which
are not federally insured, but may be by state guaranty funds --
give the survivors breathing space while making decisions on what
to do with the money.

But plaintiffs see a more malign motive: Prudential can invest the
money for a higher return than the company pays in interest for
the cash in the accounts.  The families contend in their complaint
that the alliance accounts earned about 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent
interest, while Prudential has reaped as much as 6 percent, for a
total of $850 million or more profit by playing the spread.

The complaint, which counts more than 60,000 military life
insurance beneficiaries as potential class members, alleges
Prudential engaged in fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.  Originally filed in 2011, it seeks restitution of
foregone interest, monetary damages and a piece of Prudential's
profits.

Prudential contends not only that its conduct was lawful and
authorized by the Department of Veterans Affairs, but also that
the beneficiaries suffered no damages because they always had full
access to their funds and thus were not harmed in any way.

Judge Ponsor agreed.  In a Nov. 22, 2013 order, he announced his
intention to grant most of Prudential's motion for summary
judgment, finding the plaintiffs had suffered no actual injury and
were not entitled to recover monetary damages.  That ruling
spurred settlement discussions.

In his Aug. 5 order, the judge let the class members know they
would be lucky to get the $125 award, which pales next to the
millions the deal would provide for charities and plaintiffs'
counsel.

"Cash relief of $125 per beneficiary is undeniably an excellent
result in a case in which the court itself questioned whether the
SGLI beneficiaries sustained any damages at all," Judge Ponsor
wrote.

Goodwin Procter LLP, Choate Hall & Stewart LLP and Debevoise &
Plimpton represent Prudential.  The plaintiffs are represented by
The Daniel D. King Law Firm, PLLC; Law Offices Of Cristobal
Bonifaz; Bonnett Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.; Scott & Scott
LLP; Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP; and Archuleta, Alsaffar & Higginbotham.


REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Regado Biosciences, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, and docketed under 14-cv-04345-JAP-
DEA, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased Regado securities between August 22, 2013 and
July 9, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Regado securities during
the Class Period, you have until September 8, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Regado is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
discovery and development of antithrombotic drug systems for acute
and sub-acute cardiovascular and other indications.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or materially misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) the danger and frequency of
allergic reactions experienced by subjects in the REG1 Phase 3
trial were significant enough to derail the trial; (ii) the
allergic reactions were of such a serious nature and/or frequency
that the Data Safety Monitoring Board ("DSMB") and FDA would
ultimately be required to place the clinical trial on hold; and
(iii) and as a result of the above, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On July 3, 2014, the Company announced that the DSMB overseeing
the REG1 clinical trial commenced an "unplanned review" to
determine the "safety and treatment benefit-risk ratio" of all the
3,234 patients who had been enrolled in the study to date.  As a
result, Regado ceased enrolling patients in the study and
announced that it would suspend the trial until the review was
complete.

On this news, Regado stock fell $3.95, or over 58%, on unusually
heavy volume, to close at $2.81 on July 3, 2014.

On July 9, 2014, after the market closed, the Company announced
that, further to their decision to voluntarily pause enrollment in
the REG1 study, the FDA informed the Company that a clinical hold
has been placed on all patient enrollment and dosing in the
ongoing Phase 3 trial.

On this news, Regado stock fell $0.20, or over 7%, on unusually
heavy volume, in intraday trading on July 10.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


RHODES ENTERPRISES: Faces "Mack" Suit Over Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Mack, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees
v. Rhodes Enterprises, Inc. and Stephen Lee, Case No. 2:14-cv-
04649 (E.D. Pa., August 7, 2014) is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate the International House of Pancakes
restaurant located at 481 Old York Road, Jenkintown, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center, Suite 211, 715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


RIDDELL INC: Seeks Dismissal of Helmet Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
calling the proposed class action they face "a press release in
search of a claim," football helmet maker Riddell Inc. and six
subsidiaries are asking a federal judge to toss the consumers'
suit alleging the companies falsely represented that their helmets
reduce the likelihood of concussions.

In an Aug. 1 motion to dismiss Thiel v. Riddell, the company
portrays the consolidated suit filed by plaintiff Norma Thiel and
five other consumers in U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey as a shell of sensational allegations devoid of
substance.

The plaintiffs present no specifics to back up their claims that
Riddell falsely advertised or marketed its Revolution line of
helmets as safer than others, the dismissal motion argues, and
"barely alleges any facts relating to the individually named
plaintiffs or the nationwide classes."

The consumers' complaint is one flank in a litigation blitz
Riddell faces from former professional and college football
players, actions that center on alleged defects in the helmets and
Riddell's failure to warn about the risk of concussions.

The focus of Thiel's suit is Riddell's allegedly false and
deceptive references in its marketing to its helmets as being
constructed with "concussion reduction technology," and its citing
of a 2003 University of Pittsburgh study that found the wearing of
a Riddell helmet reduced the risk of concussion by 31 percent.
The study has been discredited, at least partly because one of the
study's authors was a Riddell employee and because the company
helped pay for it.

Riddell counters that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
investigated the company's marketing claims and closed its probe
in 2013, informing the company the agency would "not recommend
enforcement at this time."  Riddell also cites an entirely
independent 2011 study by Virginia Tech and Wake Forest
universities that found the Riddell 360 helmet performed better
than any other helmet, according to the motion.

Representing Riddell and its subsidiaries are Michael Innes --
minnes@kelleydrye.com -- and Joseph Boyle -- jboyle@kelleydrye.com
-- of Kelley Drye & Warren.  Plaintiffs' counsel is James Cecchi
of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello.


RPM MANAGEMENT: Faces "McCoy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler McCoy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RPM Management Group, Inc., RPM James Island, Inc.,
RPM Summerville, Inc., 337 King, LLC; Center Street Restaurant,
LLC, 1179 Sam Rittenberg, LLC, Center Street Management, LLC,
David R. Miller, individually; William G. "Chip" Roberts, III,
individually; and Bobby Perry, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-
03171 (D.S.C., August 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant, within the
Charleston-Berkeley-Dorchester Tri-County area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E MILLER LAW OFFICE
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Telephone: (843) 579-7373
      E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


SALVATION ARMY: Faces "Sisson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Sisson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Salvation Army, Case No. 6:14-cv-06090 (W.D. Ark.,
August 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Salvation Army is a Christian denominational church and
international charitable organization structured in a quasi-
military fashion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Stephen Rauls, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      One Financial Center
      650 So. Shackleford, Ste 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 993-7857
      E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Washer Design
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Kennedy and David Foster on behalf of themselves and all
other person similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America,
Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-04987 (D.N.J., August 7, 2014), arises from
the design and use of a flimsy plastic housing covering the drain
pump which breaks and pulls the poorly connected drain hose off
the Washer machine resulting in the flooding of homes, and causing
electrical malfunctioning.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. designs, manufactures, warrants,
markets, advertises and sells several product lines of washers and
other appliances throughout United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
      Randee M. Nagel, Esq.
      NAGEL RICE, LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 201
      ROSELAND, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 618-0400
      Facsimile: (973) 618-9194
      E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
              rmtloff@nagelrice.com


SECOND CHANCE: Cops Get Refund for Defective Bulletproof Vests
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Eisenberg, writing for The Jersey Journal, reports that the
Hoboken and Stevens Institute of Technology police departments
will receive a total of $6,936 from the New Jersey Division of
Consumer Affairs and the Division of Law to compensate them for
the purchase of defective bulletproof vests.

The funds are part of nearly $173,779 that will be distributed to
63 law enforcement agencies within the state.

The New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission received the largest
award -- $53,002.

"Police officers put their lives on the line each day to protect
and serve us, and we need to do everything in our power to ensure
that they are properly equipped for their jobs," said Acting
Attorney General John J. Hoffman.  "We are not going to leave
these agencies to foot the bill for defective body armor that put
their officers at risk of injury or even death in the line of
duty."

Manufacturer Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., filed for bankruptcy
in 2004 after it was discovered that the vests' protective armor
failed and deteriorated over time.

Stevens Tech Police Chief Tim Griffin said on Aug. 13 that the
roughly 15 vests the department purchased form the company more
than a decade ago cost about $9,000.

The chief of the department, now composed of 18 sworn officers,
said regular police vests used daily by officers currently cost
$400 to $500.  Heavier, tactical vests, which can stop a rifle
round, cost about $1,500.

Mr. Griffin said the department recently bought five tactical
vests.

"We are looking forward to the funding to apply it to buying more
tactical vests," he said.  "This is good news for us."

Although no state officers are known to have sustained injuries
due to Second Chance Body Armor's defective vests, two incidents
in California and Pennsylvania resulted in serious injuries; the
California officer died.

"We have finally reached a successful conclusion to a matter the
state has been pursuing since we first learned that these so-
called bulletproof vests were placing police officers at potential
risk," Division of Consumer Affairs Acting Director Steve Lee
said.

The state has pursued restitution against the Michigan-based
company before they filed for bankruptcy, and has been waiting on
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court over the past decade.

New Jersey received an order for the distribution of funds in
August 2013, and recently received the payment that is in the
process of being distributed on a pro-rated basis.

Stevens Institute of Technology Police Department will receive
$2,860.72, while the Hoboken Police Department will receive
$4,075.35.


SFBSC MANAGEMENT: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Roe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. SFBSC Management, LLC; and DOES 1-200, Case No. 3:14-cv-03616
(N.D. Cal., August 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages and other benefits under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

SFBSC Management, LLC maintains ownership, recruitment, and
operational interests in various nightclubs featuring nude or
semi-nude dancing in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Gregory Tidrick, Esq.
      THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
      2039 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 308
      Berkeley, CA 94704
      Telephone: (510) 788-5100
      Facsimile: (510) 291-3226
      E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com


SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Layoff Warning
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter B. de Selding, writing for SpaceNews reports that at least
two former employees of Space Exploration Technologies Corp. have
sued the company for compensation following what they say were
"mass layoffs" carried out by SpaceX starting in late July that
were conducted without providing 60 days' notice as required under
California labor law.

The lawsuit, filed Aug. 4 in the California Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles, appears to hinge on whether SpaceX's
dismissal of several hundred employees is viewed by the court as a
"layoff."

The lawsuit says that under California law, a "layoff" is defined
as "a separation from a position for lack of funds or lack of
work."

Hawthorne, California-based SpaceX described the terminations as
having nothing to do with a lack of work or funds, but rather with
the performance of the individuals dismissed as part of an annual
review.  The company said that for the whole of 2014, it will be
hiring far more people than the number affected by the dismissals
in question.

The two employees bringing the lawsuit have hired the law firm of
Feldman, Browne Olivares APC of Los Angeles.  The law firm did not
respond to requests for comment about the lawsuit on Aug. 7 and
Aug. 8.

Another issue before the court is whether the legal challenge,
which is being made by two former SpaceX structural engineers --
they are asking for 60 days' pay plus interest -- will be taken up
by other employees given notice during the same time.

The 22-page lawsuit said others dismissed at the same time would
be contacted by the two employees' lawyers and informed that a
class-action lawsuit was underway.  The lawsuit says the lawyers
will need to obtain the list of these employees from SpaceX.

The lawsuit also says it is not unusual in class-action cases for
plaintiffs to retain anonymity for fear of reprisal from other,
future employers.  "Class actions provide the class members who
are not named in the complaint with a type of anonymity that
allows for vindication of their rights," the lawsuit says.


STAAR SURGICAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against STAAR Surgical Company and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Central District of California, and docketed under
14-cv-05263, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased STAAR securities between February 27, 2013
and June 30, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased STAAR securities during the
Class Period, you have until September 8, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

STAAR designs, develops, manufactures and sells implantable lenses
for the eye and delivery systems used to deliver lenses into the
eye.  The Company purports to be the leading maker of lenses used
worldwide in corrective or "refractive" surgery, and also makes
lenses for use in surgery that treats cataracts.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that the Company's Monrovia Facility:  (i) lacked adequate
methodologies and facilities for the manufacture, packing, storage
and installation of the Company's implantable lenses; (ii) lacked
adequate procedures for documenting complaints, sterility testing,
and maintaining required records; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, the Monrovia Facility was not in conformity with
current good manufacturing practice requirements at all relevant
times.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
publicly released a Warning Letter, dated May 21, 2014, concerning
an inspection of STAAR's Monrovia Facility which took place from
February 10, 2014 to March 21, 2014.  The FDA letter noted several
regulatory violations at the facility and stated that, among other
things, "the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used
for" manufacture, packing, storage or installation of the
Company's implantable lenses are "not in conformity with the
current good manufacturing practice requirements."  The FDA
further advised STAAR that "failure to promptly correct these
violations may result in regulatory action being initiated by the
FDA without further notice."

On this news, STAAR shares declined $1.89, or nearly 11.25%, to
close at $14.91 on July 1, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


SUNSHINE BOTTLING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Capaz Noa and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Sunshine Bottling, Co., Carlos R. Blanco, Case
No. 1:14-cv-22920 (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TD BANK: Sued Over Failure to Implement Breastfeeding Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aida Lico, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TD Bank, N.A., Richard Catalano, Robert Bullock and
Cassandra Bardoo, Case No. 1:14-cv-04729 (E.D.N.Y., August 8,
2014) is brought against the Defendant for failure to implement
breastfeeding and lactation policies which conform to The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act amendments to the Fair Labor
Standards Act,

TD Bank, N.A. is a national association with corporate offices
located at 2 Portland Square, Portland, Maine 04112-9540 and 2035
Limestone Road, Wilmington, Delaware, 19808.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOTAL PERFORMANCE: Does Not Pay OT Properly, "Lopez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federico Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Total Performance, Inc. Case No. 5:14-cv-00138 (N.D.
Tex., August 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay and properly calculate overtime compensation as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Total Performance, Inc. is a trailer manufacturing company in
Northern Texas that specializes in manufacturing and customizing
trailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
              rachael@youngfirm.com


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Must Defend Medical Records Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that a Virginia federal
judge ruled on Aug. 7 that Travelers Indemnity Co. of America must
defend Portal Healthcare Solutions LLC against class allegations
that it posted confidential medical records online, finding that
the Travelers policy covered electronic publication of private
information.

U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee granted Portal's motion for
summary judgment and ruled that Portal published, and therefore
disclosed, confidential information, which falls under the terms
of its policy with Travelers, according to the order.

"The court holds that the insurance policies do cover the conduct
alleged because exposing confidential medical records to online
searching is 'publication' giving 'unreasonable publicity'  to, or
'disclosing' information about, a person's private life," the
order said. "Thus, Travelers has a duty to defend Portal against
the underlying class action."

The underlying class action was filed in April 2013 in New York
state court, alleging that Portal posted confidential material
regarding patients at Glen Falls Hospital on the Internet.  When
the patients searched for themselves on the Internet, they
discovered that their medical records were publicly accessible.
The suit alleged negligence, breach of warranty and breach of
contract, the order said.

Portal held two policies with Travelers covering electronic
publication of certain materials from January 2012 to January
2014, according to the order.

Analyzing the terms of the policies, the court found that the
underlying claims are covered, and Travelers has a duty to defend
Portal.  Making confidential medical materials public falls under
the "publication" term of the policy, the order said.

"Any member of the public could retrieve the records of a Glen
Falls patient, whether he or she was actively seeking those
records or searching a patient's name for other purposes, like a
background check," the order said.  "Because medical records were
placed before the public, the court finds that Portal's conduct
falls within the plain meaning of 'publication.'"

The court rejected Travelers arguments that because it did not
intend to publish the medical information and because no third
parties viewed the information, the policy does not cover the
allegations.

"Publication occurs when information is 'placed before the
public,' not when a member of the public reads the information
placed before it," the order said.

Anyone with Internet access would have seen the medical records
which concerned the patients' private lives, so Travelers'
arguments do not stand, Judge Lee said.

Portal is represented by John J. Rasmussen of Insurance Recovery
Law Group PLC.

Travelers is represented by Kathryn E. Kasper -- kkasper@hdjn.com
-- and John B. Mumford Jr. -- jmumford@hdjn.com -- of Hancock
Daniel Johnson & Nagle PC.

The case is the Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Portal
Healthcare Solutions LLC, case number 1:13-cv-00917, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.


TRENDCO COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in S.D. Fla. Over Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nakayia Montgomery, Sonya Murray, Kimberlee Braxton, Angelo Padin,
Alex Guevara, Yamilet Flores-Marin and other similarly situated
individuals v. Trendco Communications, Inc., a
Florida Corporation, and Danielle Williamson, individually, Case
No. 0:14-cv-61811 (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNILEVER US INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Health Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Virgil Fleming, Richard Gawlik, Roy Wesson, and Carl F. Woodall,
on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO/CLC, and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC LOCAL 6-0507 v. Unilever United
States, Inc., a Delaware corporation registered as a foreign
corporation qualified to do business in Illinois, Conopco, Inc., a
New York corporation, Health and Welfare Plan for Hourly Retirees
of Unilever, and Unilever Union Retiree Reimbursement Account
(RRA) Plan, Case No. 1:14-cv-06117 (N.D. Ill., August 8, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants unilaterally eliminated the retiree
health care benefits it provided to Class Members who had attained
age 65, replacing these benefits with limited funds provided
through Retiree Reimbursement Accounts.

Unilever United States, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 700 Sylvan Avenue,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 07632. It is the world's third-
largest consumer goods company.

Conopco, Inc. is the principal operating subsidiary of Unilever US
and manufactures and distributes personal care, food and
refreshment products in the United States.

Health and Welfare Plan for Hourly Retirees of Unilever is an
employee benefit plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William T. Payne, Esq.
      Pamina Ewing, Esq.
      Stephen M. Pincus, Esq.
      Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Pittsburgh North Office, 12 Eastern Avenue, Suite 203
      Pittsburgh, PA 15215
      Telephone: (412) 492-8797
      Email: wpayne@fdpklaw.com
             pewing@fdpklaw.com
             spincus@fdpklaw.com
             jhurt@fdpklaw.com


UNITED STATES: GSA Seeks Dismissal of Disabilities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. General Services Administration has asked a federal judge
to dismiss a proposed class action filed by blind contractors who
allege the agency's website is effectively unusable by people with
vision disabilities.

In an Aug. 8 motion to ditch the lawsuit brought by the American
Council of the Blind and three blind plaintiffs, the GSA said its
own testing by a blind technician showed the site is accessible to
the visually impaired.

The agency also argued that private citizens have no right to sue
the federal government under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a
landmark measure that prohibits discrimination on the basis of
disability and mandates equal opportunity for all who are eligible
to, in this case, participate fully in government contracting.
The only remedy available to the plaintiffs is through an
administrative complaint, which the agency contends the three
contractors did not follow.

In American Council of the Blind v. Tangherlini, filed on April 22
in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the
plaintiffs contend that a key GSA website on which all federal
contractors are required to register and annually renew their
contracts, and which serves as a resource for researching
contracts, is effectively unusable by people with vision
disabilities.

The site, SAM.gov -- shorthand for the System for Award Management
database -- lacks compatibility with "screen reader" software,
which translates into speech all the facets of website navigation,
according to the class complaint.

Millions of blind users rely upon such software; without it, the
buttons, checkboxes, dropdown menus, search functions, site
registrations and other functions are unintelligible.  And
SAM.gov's help desk, with technical staff lacking knowledge to
help disabled users, is little help, the complaint said.

But GSA contends that a test of the site in May and June showed
that, by using the Job Access With Speech, or JAWS, screen reader,
all areas of the site were fully accessible to those with vision
disabilities.  The agency said the plaintiffs provided
insufficient details to sustain the claim about the help desk.

Plaintiffs' attorneys include Lewis Wiener --
lewis.wiener@sutherland.com -- of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan in
Washington and Matthew Handley of the Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.  GSA's counsel is
Nathan Swinton, a civil division trial attorney in the U.S.
Department of Justice.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Settlement Approved in Intellicorp & iiX Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014, Verisk Analytics, Inc., provided updates on the
Intellicorp Records, Inc. Litigation and iiX Litigation.

On April 20, 2012, the Company was served with a class action
complaint filed in Alameda County Superior Court in California
naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.
("Intellicorp") titled Jane Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. The
complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and claimed that Intellicorp failed to implement
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
adverse information contained in the background reports, failed to
maintain strict procedures to ensure that criminal record
information provided to employers is complete and up to date, and
failed to notify class members contemporaneously of the fact that
criminal record information was being provided to their employers
and prospective employers. Intellicorp removed the case to the
United States District Court of the Northern District of
California. The California Court later granted Intellicorp's
motion to transfer the case, which is now pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On October 24, 2012, plaintiffs served their First Amended
Complaint (the "Roe Complaint") alleging a nationwide putative
class action on behalf of all persons who were the subject of a
Criminal SuperSearch or other "instant" consumer background report
furnished to a third party by Intellicorp for employment purposes,
and whose report contained any negative public record of criminal
arrest, charge, or conviction without also disclosing the final
disposition of the charges during the 5 years preceding the filing
of this action through the date class certification is granted.
The Roe Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an
amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one
thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On February 4, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend
the Roe Complaint to eliminate the named plaintiff's individual
claim for compensatory damages. This amendment did not change the
breadth or scope of the request for relief sought on behalf of the
proposed class. Plaintiffs later amended their class definition in
their motion for class certification to include only those
consumers whose (1) Criminal SuperSearch returned results, but
Single County search returned no result; (2) Criminal SuperSearch
returned one or more criminal charges without a disposition, but
the Single County search returned a disposition other than
"conviction" or "guilty"; and (3) Criminal SuperSearch returned a
higher level of offense (felony or misdemeanor) for one or more
criminal charges than the Single County search (misdemeanor or
infraction). This amendment reduces the size of the potential
class, but does not alter the time period for which the plaintiffs
seek to certify a class or the scope of the request for relief
sought on behalf of the proposed class. Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was fully submitted on March 18, 2013 and oral
argument was heard by Judge Gwin on June 27, 2013.

On November 1, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.
titled Michael R. Thomas v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. On January
7, 2013 plaintiff served its First Amended Complaint (the "Thomas
Complaint") to add Mark A. Johnson (the plaintiff in the Johnson
v. iiX matter) as a named plaintiff.  The Thomas Complaint alleges
a nationwide putative class action for violations of FCRA on
behalf of "[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States (a)
who were the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third
party, (b) that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that
contained at least one public record of a criminal conviction or
arrest, civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five
years next preceding the filing of this action and during its
pendency, and (e) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United
States mail postage-prepaid, on the day it furnished any part of
the report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject
report and containing the name of the person that was to receive
the report."

The Thomas Complaint proposes an alternative subclass as follows:
"[a]ll natural persons residing in Ohio or Tennessee (a) who were
the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third party, (b)
that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that contained
at least one public record of a criminal conviction or arrest,
civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five years
next preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency,
(e) when a mutual review of the record would reveal that the
identity associated with the public record does not match the
identity of the class member about whom the report was furnished,
and (f) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United States
mail postage pre-paid, on the day it furnished any part of the
report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject report
and containing the name of the person that was to receive the
report."

Similar to the Roe action, the Thomas Complaint alleges that
Intellicorp violated the FCRA, asserting that Intellicorp violated
section 1681k(a)(1) of the FCRA because it failed to provide
notice to the plaintiffs "at the time" the adverse public record
information was reported. The named plaintiffs also allege
individual claims under section 1681e(b) claiming that Intellicorp
failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy in the preparation of the consumer report it furnished
pertaining to plaintiffs. The Thomas Complaint seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation,
punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the named
plaintiffs.

On January 3, 2013, the Company received service of a complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary Insurance
Information Exchange ("iiX") titled Mark A. Johnson v. Insurance
Information Exchange, LLC (the "Johnson Complaint"). The Johnson
Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action on behalf of
"[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States who were the
subject of a consumer report prepared by iiX for employment
purposes within five (5) years prior to the filing of this
Complaint and to whom iiX did not provide notice of the fact that
public record information which is likely to have an adverse
effect upon the consumer's ability to obtain employment, is being
reported by iiX, together with the name and address of the person
to whom such information is being reported at the time such public
record information is reported to the user of such consumer
report."

Similar to the Thomas matter, the Johnson Complaint alleges
violations of section 1681k(a) of the FCRA claiming that iiX
failed to notify customers contemporaneously that criminal record
information was provided to a prospective employer and failed to
maintain strict procedures to ensure that the information reported
is complete and up to date. The Johnson Complaint seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation,
punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 18, 2013, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
resolving the Roe, Thomas and Johnson matters. The Court entered
an Order of Preliminary Approval of the Stipulation of Settlement
on November 25, 2013 subject to a hearing on Final Approval. After
a hearing on May 23, 2014, Judge Gwin issued his Final Judgment
and Order granting approval of the Settlement on June 5, 2014. The
Settlement provides for a payment of $18,600, all of which is to
be provided by insurance. These matters were resolved without a
material adverse effect on the Company.

Verisk Analytics organizes its business in two segments: Risk
Assessment and Decision Analytics.  The Risk Assessment segment
provides statistical, actuarial and underwriting data for the U.S.
P&C insurance industry.  The Decision Analytics segment provides
solutions to customers within four vertical market-related
groupings of insurance, financial services, healthcare, and
specialized markets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Provides Update on Interthinx Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014, Verisk Analytics, Inc., provided updates on the
Interthinx, Inc. Litigation.

On May 13, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Celeste Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc., Verisk Analytics,
Inc. and Jeffrey Moyer. The plaintiff is a current employee of the
Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. based in Colorado,
who filed the class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of all fraud detection
employees who have worked for Interthinx for the last three years
nationwide and who were classified as exempt employees. The class
complaint claims that the fraud detection employees were
misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied
certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they
were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads three
causes of action against defendants: (1) Collective Action under
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under
the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for unpaid overtime and (3) a
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under the Colorado Wage Act for
unpaid commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses (Colorado class). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, declaratory and injunctive
relief interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On July 2, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc. and
Verisk Analytics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The plaintiff, Shabnam Shelia
Dehdashtian, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former
subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the class action
on behalf of all persons who have been employed by Interthinx as
auditors, mortgage compliance underwriters and mortgage auditors
nationwide at any time (i) within 3 years prior to the filing of
this action until trial for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
class and (ii) within 4 years prior to the filing of the initial
complaint until trial for the California collective action. The
class complaint claims that the defendants failed to pay overtime
compensation, to provide rest and meal periods, waiting time
penalties and to provide accurate wage statements to the
plaintiffs as required by federal and California law. It pleads
seven causes of action against defendants: (1) failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 and IWC
Wage Order No. 4; (3) failure to pay waiting time penalties in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 201-203; (4) failure to
provide itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
section 226 and IWC Order No. 4; (5) failure to provide and or
authorize meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
section 226.7 and IWC Order No. 4; (6) violation of California
Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq; and (7) a
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Public enforcement
claim, Cal. Lab. Code section 2699 (California class). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, equitable and injunctive
relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 14, 2013, the Company received notice of a claim titled
Dejan Nagl v. Interthinx Services, Inc. filed in the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The claimant, Dejan Nagl,
a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former subsidiary
Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the claim on behalf of
himself and all current and former individuals employed in
California as auditors by Interthinx, Inc. for violations of the
California Labor Code and Wage Order. The claimant alleges on
behalf of himself and other auditors the following causes of
action: (1) failure to provide rest breaks and meal periods in
violation of Lab. Code sections 226.7, 514 and 1198; (2) failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of Lab. Code sections 510 and
1194; (3) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation
of Lab. Code section 226; (4) Failure to timely pay wages in
violation of Lab. Code section 204; and (5) Failures to timely pay
wages for violations of Lab. Code sections 201- 203. The claim
seeks compensatory damages and penalties that are associated with
the various statutes, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx.  Pursuant to the terms of the sale agreement, the
Company is responsible for the resolution of these matters.
At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to these matters.

Verisk Analytics organizes its business in two segments: Risk
Assessment and Decision Analytics.  The Risk Assessment segment
provides statistical, actuarial and underwriting data for the U.S.
P&C insurance industry.  The Decision Analytics segment provides
solutions to customers within four vertical market-related
groupings of insurance, financial services, healthcare, and
specialized markets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Updates on Insurance Services Office Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014, Verisk Analytics, Inc., provided updates on the
Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation.

In October 2013, the Company was served with a summons and
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in an action titled Laurence J.
Skelly and Ellen Burke v. Insurance Services Office, Inc. and the
Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations.

According to the Company, "The plaintiffs, former employees of our
subsidiary Insurance Services Office, Inc., or ISO, bring the
action on their own behalf as participants in the Pension Plan for
Insurance Organizations and on the behalf of similarly situated
participants of the pension plan and ask the court to declare that
a certain amendment to the pension plan as of December 31, 2001,
which terminated their right to calculate and define the value of
their retirement benefit under the pension plan based on their
compensation levels as of immediately prior to their "retirement"
(the "Unlawful Amendment"), violated the anti-cutback provisions
and equitable principles of ERISA. The First Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") alleges that (1) the Unlawful
Amendment of the pension plan violated Section 502(a)(1)(B) of
ERISA as well as the anti-cutback rules of ERISA Section 204(g)
and Section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) ISO's
failure to provide an ERISA 204(h) notice in a manner calculated
to be understood by the average pension plan participant was a
violation of Sections 204(h) and 102(a) of ERISA; and (3) the
Living Pension Right was a contract right under ERISA common law
and that by terminating that right through the Unlawful Amendment
ISO violated plaintiffs' common law contract rights under ERISA.
The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory, equitable and injunctive
relief enjoining the enforcement of the Unlawful Amendment and
ordering the pension plan and ISO retroactive to the date of the
Unlawful Amendment to recalculate the accrued benefits of all
class members, indemnification from ISO to the pension plan for
costs and contribution requirements related to voiding the
Unlawful Amendment, bonuses to the class representatives, costs
and attorney's fees."

"At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter,"
the Company said.

Verisk Analytics organizes its business in two segments: Risk
Assessment and Decision Analytics.  The Risk Assessment segment
provides statistical, actuarial and underwriting data for the U.S.
P&C insurance industry.  The Decision Analytics segment provides
solutions to customers within four vertical market-related
groupings of insurance, financial services, healthcare, and
specialized markets.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: To Defend Against Actions in Florida & Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2011 and January 2012, Waste Management, Inc., was
named as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit
Court of Sarasota County, Florida and the Circuit Court of
Lawrence County, Alabama, respectively.

Waste Management, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that, "These cases primarily
pertain to our fuel and environmental charges included on our
invoices, generally alleging that such charges were not properly
disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the customer service
contracts. The law firm that filed these lawsuits had filed a
purported class action in 2008 against subsidiaries of WM in
Bullock County, Alabama, making similar allegations. The prior
Alabama suit was removed to federal court, where the federal court
ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' national class action claims.
The plaintiffs then elected to dismiss the case without
prejudice."

The Company said, "We will vigorously defend against these pending
lawsuits. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any
potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the
outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss
cannot currently be estimated."

Waste Management is North America's leading provider of
comprehensive waste management environmental services.


WILD WEST GAS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Jeter" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Terence Kern denied a motion to dismiss the case
captioned KEVIN JETER, JOE A. JETER, BARBARA LUCAS, JAMES H.,
MILLER, SHARON RIGSBY MILLER, LARRY SMITH, and JANICE SUE PARKER,
individually and as Class Representatives on Behalf of All
Similarly-Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, v. WILD WEST GAS, LLC,
WILD WEST GAS, INC., BULLSEYE ENERGY INC., FOUNTAINHEAD, LLC, and
KRS&K, an Oklahoma General Partnership, Defendants, CASE NO. 12-
CV-411-TCK-PJC, (N.D. Ok.).

Defendants Wild West Gas, LLC, Wild West Gas, Inc., Bullseye
Energy Inc., and KRS&K filed the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
first amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

According to Judge Kern's opinion and order dated August 7, 2014,
a copy of which is available http://is.gd/6OyzPhat from
Leagle.com, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proving
that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction under
either the home state exception, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(B),
or the interest of justice exception, id. Section 1332(d)(3).
Specifically, Defendants have failed to present reliable evidence
permitting the Court to make a reasonable estimate of the
percentage of putative class members that are Oklahoma citizens.

"The stay entered by the Court on December 23, 2013, is lifted,
and the parties are ordered to submit a Joint Status Report no
later than fourteen days from the date of this Order," ruled Judge
Kern.

Kevin L Jeter, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Christopher Taylor,
Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis, Ira Leonard Edwards, Jr,
Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis, Charles Robert Burton,
IV, Burton Law Firm PC, Donald Mitchell Bingham, Riggs Abney Neal
Turpen Orbison & Lewis & Kevin Duane Adams, Kevin D Adams PLLC.

Joe A Jeter, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Christopher Taylor,
Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis, Ira Leonard Edwards, Jr,
Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis, Charles Robert Burton,
IV, Burton Law Firm PC, Donald Mitchell Bingham, Riggs Abney Neal
Turpen Orbison & Lewis & Kevin Duane Adams, Kevin D Adams PLLC.

Barbara Lucas, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Christopher Taylor,
Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis, Ira Leonard Edwards, Jr,
Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis, Charles Robert Burton,
IV, Burton Law Firm PC, Donald Mitchell Bingham, Riggs Abney Neal
Turpen Orbison & Lewis & Kevin Duane Adams, Kevin D Adams PLLC.

James H Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Christopher Taylor,
Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis, Ira Leonard Edwards, Jr,
Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis, Charles Robert Burton,
IV, Burton Law Firm PC, Donald Mitchell Bingham, Riggs Abney Neal
Turpen Orbison & Lewis & Kevin Duane Adams, Kevin D Adams PLLC.

Sharon Rigsby Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Christopher
Taylor, Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis, Ira Leonard
Edwards, Jr, Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis, Charles
Robert Burton, IV, Burton Law Firm PC, Donald Mitchell Bingham,
Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis & Kevin Duane Adams, Kevin
D Adams PLLC.

Larry Smith, Individually and as Class Representatives on Behalf
of All Similarly-Situated Persons, Plaintiff, represented by Chad
Christopher Taylor, Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis,
Charles Robert Burton, IV, Burton Law Firm PC, Donald Mitchell
Bingham, Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis & Kevin Duane
Adams, Kevin D Adams PLLC.

Janice Sue Parker, Individually and as Class Representatives on
Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Persons, Plaintiff, represented
by Chad Christopher Taylor, Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison &
Lewis, Charles Robert Burton, IV, Burton Law Firm PC, Donald
Mitchell Bingham, Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison & Lewis & Kevin
Duane Adams, Kevin D Adams PLLC.

Wild West Gas, LLC, Defendant, represented by Briana Jayne
Clifton, Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson, Bruce Wayne
Robinett, Brewer Worten Robinett et al, J Kevin Hayes, Hall Estill
Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson & Pamela S Anderson, Hall Estill
Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson.

Wild West Gas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Briana Jayne
Clifton, Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson, Bruce Wayne
Robinett, Brewer Worten Robinett et al, J Kevin Hayes, Hall Estill
Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson & Pamela S Anderson, Hall Estill
Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson.

Bullseye Energy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Briana Jayne
Clifton, Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson, Bruce Wayne
Robinett, Brewer Worten Robinett et al, J Kevin Hayes, Hall Estill
Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson & Pamela S Anderson, Hall Estill
Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson.

Fountainhead, LLC, Defendant, represented by James Wiley Rusher,
Albright Rusher & Hardcastle PC.

KRS&K, an Oklahoma General Partnership, Defendant, represented by
Briana Jayne Clifton, Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson,
Bruce Wayne Robinett, Brewer Worten Robinett et al, J Kevin Hayes,
Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson & Pamela S Anderson,
Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson.


YELP INC: Suffers Several Legal Setbacks Over Review Process
------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Yelp has
suffered some poor reviews in court this year.  For a company used
to getting its way with judges, that could be a bad sign.

Despite persistent complaints from small businesses, the review
website for years has fended off litigation over its user-
generated content.  Suits contending the company fails to remove
fraudulent reviews or requires businesses to buy advertising to
rid themselves of negative posts have gone nowhere.

But that may be changing.  Yelp Inc. has suffered several legal
setbacks this year as plaintiffs have found creative ways around
the company's traditional lines of defense.

In January, a Virginia appellate panel ordered Yelp to identify
its anonymous reviewers to the court, siding with an Alexandria
carpet-cleaning business that claimed people posting negative
reviews about its services weren't customers.

In July, California's Second District Court of Appeal revived a
false-advertising suit against Yelp that contends its review
filter doesn't work as promised.  And this month, plaintiffs
attorneys with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Johnson & Weaver
hit Yelp with a securities class action, claiming the company
misled investors about its review process in order to artificially
inflate share prices.

Those suits could give Yelp cause for worry, said Eric Goldman,
codirector of Santa Clara University's High Tech Law Institute.
"To the extent plaintiffs can make any progress in either case
against Yelp," he said in an email, "I anticipate plaintiffs will
be emboldened to bring more false advertising-style cases against
Yelp as well as other user-generated content websites."

So far Yelp has been able to repel attacks on its review model by
relying on the California anti-SLAPP law and Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act.  The anti-SLAPP law lets publishers
move aggressively to dismiss suits aimed at stifling speech and
Section 230 gives the publisher of online forums immunity from
suits filed over content posted by third parties.

Yelp's six-person in-house legal team, led by general counsel
Laurence Wilson, has leaned heavily on the two statutes and
counsel at Cooley; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Durie Tangri.
Yelp's defense has frustrated many plaintiffs attorneys who think
Yelp takes online speech protection too far.

"They are hiding behind the Communications Decency Act," said San
Diego bankruptcy attorney Julian McMillan, whose suit based on his
advertising contract with the company has been forced into
arbitration.

Add to that Yelp's deeper pockets, and the mom-and-pop shops
affected by Yelp reviews stand no chance, Mr. McMillan said.

A Yelp spokesman downplayed the effect of Yelp's publisher
immunity in its legal victories.

"Lawsuits targeting Yelp with false allegations that Yelp promises
to skew reviews to favor advertisers have all failed for the
simple fact that Yelp does not engage in such practices,"
spokesman Vince Sollitto said in a statement.  "We don't expect
any current lawsuit to fare any better than the previous ones
because there are no facts to support the bombastic claims they
make."

Four years ago, Yelp enlisted Mark Goldowitz, founder and director
of the California Anti-SLAPP Project, to defend it in a defamation
suit filed by a dentist unhappy with "slanderous complaints" on
the site.  The Sixth District Court of Appeal, reversing a trial
court, ruled the reviews were protected as statements made in a
public forum and relating to issues of public interest.

Another attack on Yelp's review process is on appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In Levitt v. Yelp,
San Francisco plaintiffs lawyer Lawrence Murray asserted that Yelp
engaged in extortion by allegedly requiring businesses to pay to
have negative reviews removed.  The company beat back the case in
the trial court by arguing that the CDA protects it from lawsuits
when it exercises its discretion in choosing to remove user-
generated content.

"Simply put," Cooley partner Michael Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com
-- wrote in 2011, "even if it were true, as alleged, that Yelp
threatened to manipulate reviews to sponsors' benefit and non-
sponsors detriment, there would be no claim for extortion, because
Yelp had the legal right to do so."

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of
California agreed, though the argument gave him pause.  "The court
is sympathetic to the ethical underpinning of plaintiffs'
argument," he wrote. Nevertheless, "determining what motives are
permissible and what are not could prove problematic."

In appealing Judge Chen's order, Mr. Murray is arguing that Yelp
isn't entitled to the CDA's protections when it creates content by
manipulating user reviews and assigning its own ratings.  "The
SLAPP statutes and the Communications Decency Act were written to
protect free speech, not extortion," Mr. Murray said in an email.
"In fact, the CDA and SLAPP both exclude from protection criminal
acts.  Extortion is a crime and never meant by the Legislature to
be protected under either statute."

Gibson Dunn partner Gail Lees -- glees@gibsondunn.com -- has taken
over Yelp's defense at the Ninth Circuit.

Yelp's legal team also has gone on the offensive.  Last year the
company enlisted Daralyn Durie -- ddurie@durietangri.com -- of
Durie Tangri to sue the San Diego-based McMillan Law Group,
accusing the firm's staff and friends of writing fake reviews to
promote its bankruptcy practice.  The law group's owner had sued
Yelp in small-claims court over his advertising contract with the
company.

Mr. McMillan turned the tables on Yelp in April by using one of
the company's favorite defenses against it: he filed an anti-SLAPP
motion.

"We're essentially looking to SLAPP them back," he said gleefully.
The motion is scheduled for a hearing in November in San Diego
County Superior Court.
Since Yelp's immunity under Section 230 of the CDA is well
established, plaintiffs attorneys have to get creative.  In both
the false-advertising suit revived last month in the Second
District and the securities suit filed this month by Robbins
Geller, attorneys attacked the company's reviews through a back
door.

A Los Angeles County judge had dismissed the false-advertising
case as a SLAPP.  What saved the suit on appeal is that the
plaintiffs targeted not the protected reviews, but Yelp's
statements vouching for the reliability of those reviews.  The
appellate panel ruled what constituted commercial speech that
isn't protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.  The Robbins Geller
suit, meanwhile, wrapped old accusations -- that Yelp makes
companies pay to suppress negative reviews -- in the cloak of a
securities lawsuit.

"Defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the
company's true business and financial condition," the attorneys
wrote.  They said information hidden from shareholders included:

"The true nature of the so-called 'firsthand' experiences and
reviews appearing on the company's website" and the extent the
company's forecasted financial growth relied on "undisclosed
business practices."

Yelp executives hid the truth about the reviews that appear,
plaintiffs attorneys argued, to artificially inflate stock prices
so executives could cash out for more than $81 million.

A defense attorney hasn't yet made an appearance in that case, and
the company still hadn't been served on Aug. 8.

"The allegations you describe are without merit," Yelp spokeswoman
Katrina Hafford said in a statement, "and, assuming we are served,
we will vigorously contest them."


YORKVILLE MANSION: Does Not Pay Minimum Hourly Wage, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Manuel Zuniga Lopez, Eduardo Lopez, and Andres Munoz v.
Yorkville Mansion, Inc. d/b/a "The Mansion Restaurant", Philip
Philips, and John Philips, Case No. 1:14-cv-06331 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay the minimum hourly wage in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Yorkville Mansion, Inc. owns and operates The Mansion Restaurant
located at 1634 York Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger Joel Bernstein, Esq.
      ROGER J. BERNSTEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 748-4800
      Facsimile: (646) 964-6633
      E-mail: rbernstein@rjblaw.com


                              *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *