CAR_Public/140827.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 170

                             Headlines


ADVANCE AUTO: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
AIR PRODUCTS: Removed "Chavez" Suit to C.D. California
ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AMBIT ENERGY: Accused of Scamming Millions Out of Consumers
AMERICAN MUNICIPAL: Removed "Sallis" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma

AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
ANNING-JOHNSON INC: Removed "Martinez" Suit to C.D. California
APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Mapping Application
BALTIMORE: 4th Cir. Remands Suit vs. Mayor, et al.
BANANA REPUBLIC: Stipulation on Discovery in "Perez" Suit Okayed

BATAVIA, IL: Faces Class Action Over Prairie State Investment
BROTHERS PETROLEUM: Equitable Tolling Bid in "Mejia" Case Denied
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeding in "Marchese" Action
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Sept. 30 Expert Discovery Completion Date
CANADA: Federal Court Approves RCMP LTD Class Action Settlement

CANADA: Two Class Actions Over G20 Summit Detentions Can Proceed
CARNIVAL CORP: Mariners Can't Pursue Suit in Fla. Federal Court
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Court Issued Final Approval of Settlement
CENTERSTATE BANKS: Suit Over First Southern Merger Withdrawn
CLARFIELD OKON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

CLEANSOURCE INC: Court Tosses Bid to Remand "Rodriguez" Case
CNO FINANCIAL: CLIC Dismissed From "Burnett" Class Action
COCA-COLA CO: Products Marketing MDL Conference Set for Sept. 26
COCA-COLA CO: "Sowizrol" Suit Included in Products Marketing MDL
COMPASS ONE: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Alverson" Suit Arising From Data Breach
COMSCORE INC: Company & Insurers to Contribute to Settlement Fund
CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Class Certification Denied in Derailment Suit
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Dismisses Amended "Espinoza" Complaint
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Dill" Suit Over Pinnacle Hip Products
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Hearing in "Scranton" Class Action on Aug. 29
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces 3 Actions Over High Frequency Trading
ELATIONS COMPANY: Court Dismisses Murray Case With Leave to Amend
ENTEGRIS INC: ATMI Files Bid to Strike "Pace" 2nd Amended Suit

F.A. BARTLETT: Faces Class Suit in Eastern District of New York
FACEBOOK INC: Plaintiffs Invoke Yahoo Privacy Suit Ruling
FACEBOOK INC: 60,000 People Sign Up to EU Privacy Class Action
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Faces Antitrust Class Suit in E.D. Louisiana
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: 200 Individuals Join in FLSA Class Action

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Air Emissions
GAF MATERIALS: Six Actions Consolidated in Product Liability MDL
GARLOCK SEALING: Claimants Seek to Block Access to Evidence
GENERAL MOTORS: Texas Lawyer Gets Co-Lead Counsel Role in MDL
GREEN TREE: Class Certification Bid in "Rapp" Case Denied

GRUBHUB INC: Settles Junk Fax Class Action for $2 Million
HOECHST CELANESE: Motions to Dismiss in "Easler" Case Rejected
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
INDECOMM HOLDINGS: "Dantes" Suit Moved From Tennessee to N.J.
ITALIAN BOUTIQUE: Removed "Sanchez" FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida

KEY ENERGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
KMART CORP: Court OKs Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Fischer" Suit
LOWES HOME: Accused of Racial & Age Discrimination in Connecticut
MACY'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Customer Info
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Settles Claims for De Minimis Amount

MAPCO EXPRESS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
MARSHALLS INC: Faces Class Action Over Mandatory Security Checks
MEDCURE INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Class Cert. Bid in Sandusky Suit Denied
MERCEDES-BENZ: Bid to Enforce "Dugas" Case Scheduling Order Nixed

MERCHANDISING TECHNOLOGIES: Violates Disabilities Act, Suit Says
MORGAN STANLEY: OT Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Thompson" Suit Added to Grant-In-Aid MDL
NORDSTROM INC: Plaintiff May Amend Case to Assert PAGA Claims
NVR INC: Removed "Thomason" Suit to District of South Carolina

PATH INC: Appealed Denial of Summary Judgment in "Sterk" Suit
PEOPLE MAGAZINE: Accused of Discrimination by Ex-Senior Editor
PHC INC: 1st Cir. Vacates Lower Court Ruling in Shareholder Suit
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Removed "Savetsky" Class Suit to N.D. California

PRODUCE JUNCTION: Sued Over Improper Parking and Loading Zones
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Menkes" Case
RED ROBIN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Michigan
REGIONS FIN'L: 11th Cir. Upholds Ruling in "Local 703" Case
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says

RETAIL PROPERTIES: Court Dismissed 5 Class Actions in June
RIVER CITY INTERNET: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper OT Rate
SATINSKY GROUP: Class Action Over "699" Car Scheme Can't Proceed
SUNOCO INC: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in Pennsylvania
SUPERVALU INC: Faces Suit Arising From Breach of Security System

TD AMERITRADE: Motions to Dismiss "Ross" Action Still Pending
TELSTRA: CEO Welcomes Debate Over Late Fees Class Action
TELULAR CORP: Removed "Controllable" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Motor Vehicle Owners' Case in Discovery
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Motion to Compel Arbitration Still Pending

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: No Discovery Yet in Blue Cross Litigation
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Settlement Approval in "Hawthorne" Case Pending
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: No Significant Activity in 2 Spokane Class Suits
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Filed
UNITED SERVICES: Removed "Johnston" Suit to W.D. Washington

VIVENDI SA: Fights Investor Claims Process in Securities Suit
WASHINGTON: Workers Get Favorable Ruling in Health Benefits Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Faces $5-Mil. Class Action Over Homeopathic Products
WYETH LLC: May Face Liability Over Generic Drug Defects
YELP INC: Illegally Contacted Class Members' Phones, Suit Claims

ZZIM USA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages


                            *********


ADVANCE AUTO: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01088-CRE
(W.D. Pa., August 8, 2014) is brought pursuant to The Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIR PRODUCTS: Removed "Chavez" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ted Chavez, Jr. v. Air Products
and Chemicals Inc., et al., Case No. BC551354, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
06360-BRO-PJW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP APC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  npoper@mahoney-law.net
                  sblakely@mahoney-law.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Donna Mo, Esq.
          John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: dmo@morganlewis.com
                  jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com


ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Haber, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Allied International Credit Corp. and
Correction Officers John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:14-cv-04920-SJ-RML
(E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: arimarcus2@gmail.com


AMBIT ENERGY: Accused of Scamming Millions Out of Consumers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Urbino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ambit Energy, L.P., Ambit Texas, LLC, and Ambit
Northeast d/b/a Ambit Energy, Case No. 3:14-cv-05184-MAS-DEA
(D.N.J., August 19, 2014) seeks to redress the alleged deceptive
marketing and billing practices of Ambit Energy, which have
resulted in thousands of consumers across the nation to pay
substantially more for their electricity than they should have
paid in the absence of the Defendants' unlawful and misleading
scheme.

Ambit Energy has taken advantage of the deregulation of the retail
electricity market in New Jersey and other states by luring
consumers into switching energy suppliers based on offers of
"life-changing rewards," including "free travel, cruises and
getaways" and "free energy" for convincing other unsuspecting
consumers into enrolling in the Ambit Energy program and by
falsely promising to charge competitive rates reflective of
prevailing market conditions, Mr. Urbino contends.  He asserts
that consumers in New Jersey and across the nation are essentially
being scammed out of millions of dollars in exorbitant charges for
electricity.

Ambit Energy, L.P. is a Texas limited partnership headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.  Ambit Energy is a residential and commercial
retail energy provider.  Ambit Texas, LLC is a Texas limited
liability company, whose sole member is Ambit Energy, L.P., and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Princeton, New Jersey-based Ambit
Northeast, LLC, doing business as Ambit Energy, is a corporation
registered with the Secretary of state of New Jersey and is listed
by the state of New Jersey Board of Public Utilities as an
alternative energy supplier to PSE&G.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Minkove, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Friscia, Esq.
          FRISCIA & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          45 Academy Street, Suite 401
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 500-8024
          Facsimile: (888) 809-3747
          E-mail: jon.minkove@friscialaw.com
                  lawrence.friscia@friscialaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Bonnie Prober, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (240) 483-4292
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  bprober@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker Boulevard, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com


AMERICAN MUNICIPAL: Removed "Sallis" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sallis v. American Municipal
Services Corporation, et al., Case No. CJ-2013-6013, was removed
from the Oklahoma County District Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City).  The
Oklahoma District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00876-F to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth R. Massey, Esq.
          Kermit M. Milburn, Esq.
          KERMIT M. MILBURN PLLC
          1509 N Shawnee
          Shawnee, OK 74804
          Telephone: (405) 275-2551
          Facsimile: (405) 273-8130
          E-mail: kenmass@hotmail.com
                  kermit@milburn-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael E. Smith, Esq.
          HALL ESTILL-OKC
          100 N Broadway Ave., Suite 2900
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 553-2828
          Facsimile: (405) 553-2855
          E-mail: mesmith@hallestill.com


AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Public Education, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a
putative class action styled Tabatha Vickery, Bryan Lynn, on
behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class v. Hondros
College, Inc. and John G. Hondros, was filed on November 18, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, case no. CV
13 817299.

National Education Seminars, Inc., or Hondros College of Nursing,
or HCON, was not named in the lawsuit, but a then member of HCON's
board of directors, John Hondros, was named in the lawsuit, and
the allegations made in the Complaint relate to HCON's operations
and not the operations of the entity named in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit asserts claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied-in-fact contract,
promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act, for, among other things, the alleged
provision of false or misleading information to the named
plaintiffs and other putative class members in 2011 and 2012
regarding the status of accreditation by National League for
Nursing Accrediting Commission of HCON's Associate Degree in
Nursing, or ADN, program offered at its Independence, Ohio campus.

The plaintiffs allege that the putative class consists of more
than 60 former students who in the summer or fall quarters of 2011
enrolled in the ADN or the licensed practical nursing, or LPN,
program at the Independence campus with the intention of pursuing
a degree in nursing, but who withdrew from the ADN or LPN program.

On February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint, which removed Hondros College, Inc. as a defendant and
added HCON as a defendant.  On February 24, 2014, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint.

On April 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss.  On April 10, 2014, the defendants filed their
reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss.

The Company is currently unable to estimate the likelihood or
range of reasonably probable loss, if any, for this matter.  The
Company does not believe, based on currently available
information, that the outcome of this proceeding, if adverse to
HCON, would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition.

American Public Education, Inc., or APEI, provides online and on-
campus postsecondary education to approximately 112,000 students
through two subsidiaries.


ANNING-JOHNSON INC: Removed "Martinez" Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Santos A. Martinez, et al. v.
Anning-Johnson, Inc., et al., Case No. BC459734, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
06325-MMM-E to the proceeding.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege employment
discrimination.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM APC
          19360 Rinaldi Street, Box 647
          Porter Ranch, CA 91326
          Telephone: (818) 360-2529
          Facsimile: (866) 794-5741
          E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Theresa C. Tate, Esq.
          CRAWFORD & BANGS LLP
          1290 Center Court Drive
          Covina, CA 91724
          Telephone: (626) 858-4203
          Facsimile: (626) 332-5604
          E-mail: ttate@builderslaw.com


APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Mapping Application
-------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Aug. 20 threw out a proposed class action brought
against Apple Inc. over its "clearly defective" mapping
application and misleading advertisements, saying the plaintiff
provided no specific examples of Apple Maps errors and didn't even
claim that she was led astray by them.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila granted Apple's motion to
dismiss, in which the iPhone maker argued that plaintiff Nancy
Romine Minkler failed to state a claim for any of her causes of
action.  Ms. Minkler's dissatisfaction wasn't a legal claim
because Apple never promised anyone that its Maps app would
operate without fail, the company said.

The judge held on Aug. 20 that, because Ms. Minkler failed to
identify her fraud claims with particularity, she failed to meet
the pleading standards for claims against Apple under California's
False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and more.

"Here, while plaintiff specifies the date, speaker, and statement,
plaintiff has failed to identify any specific statement by Apple
that expressly indicates that Apple Maps would always work
flawlessly and without error," Judge Davila wrote in the 13-page
order of dismissal that also granted leave to amend.  "In
addition, plaintiff has not identified with particularity the
actual defect she experienced.  Instead, plaintiff only alleges
that Apple Maps led her to incorrect locations."

The judge's Aug. 20 order means a tentative end to the lawsuit
brought against Apple alleging a number of so-called failures but
emphasizing those involving Apple Maps.  Normal use of the
product, as advertised by Apple, would result in dissemination of
"potentially dangerous information," the suit said.

In June 2012, Apple announced the launch of its Maps program,
which could run on any device running iOS 6.  Apple released Apple
Maps and the new mobile operating system in September of that
year, but the app was "underdeveloped and lacking the amount of
data necessary," court records said.

After a number of consumers complained about mislabeled landmarks
and streets, Apple CEO Tim Short apologized for the app's
shortfalls.  Apple issued a statement saying that the company was
"continuously improving" Maps and "appreciates all the customer
feedback," according to court documents.

Ms. Minkler filed suit in November on behalf of herself and
others, saying Apple Maps gave shoddy directions and that she
bought her phone based on the company's representations about it.
If she had known that Apple Maps was "defective," she wouldn't
have purchased her iPhone 5, according to the suit.

The plaintiff brought seven causes of action against Apple,
including breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, FAL, UCL and CLRA.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gregory D. Wolflick --
greg@wolfsim.com -- of Wolflick & Simpson and Donald W. Stewart --
donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com -- and J. Paul Lynn --
plynn@stewartandstewart.net -- of Stewart & Stewart PC.

Apple is represented by Joseph Collins --
joseph.collins@dlapiper.com -- Paul J. Hall --
paul.hall@dlapiper.com -- and Alec Cierny --
alec.cierny@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper LLP US.

The case is Nancy Romine Minkler v. Apple Inc., case number 5:13-
cv-05332, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


BALTIMORE: 4th Cir. Remands Suit vs. Mayor, et al.
--------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit vacated a
district court judgment entered in the case captioned ROBERT F.
CHERRY, JR.; ROBERT J. SLEDGESKI; JOHN LEWANDOWSKI; CHARLES
WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated; BALTIMORE CITY FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE #3,
INC.; BALTIMORE CITY FIREFIGHTERS' IAFF, LOCAL 734, on behalf of
their members, Plaintiffs-Appellees, BALTIMORE FIRE OFFICERS
UNION, LOCAL 964, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS,
Intervenor/Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, a municipal corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FIRE AND POLICE
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, a body
politic and corporate; EDWARD J. GALLAGHER, in his capacity as
Director, Department of Finance; THOMAS P. TANEYHILL, in his
capacity as Executive Director, Fire and Police Employees'
Retirement System of the City of Baltimore, Defendants.
ROBERT F. CHERRY, JR.; ROBERT J. SLEDGESKI; JOHN LEWANDOWSKI;
CHARLES WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated; BALTIMORE CITY FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
LODGE #3, INC.; BALTIMORE CITY FIREFIGHTERS' IAFF, LOCAL 734, on
behalf of their members, Plaintiffs, and BALTIMORE FIRE OFFICERS
UNION, LOCAL 964, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS,
Intervenor/Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, a municipal corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FIRE AND POLICE
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, a body
politic and corporate; EDWARD J. GALLAGHER, in his capacity as
Director, Department of Finance; THOMAS P. TANEYHILL, in his
capacity as Executive Director, Fire and Police Employees'
Retirement System of the City of Baltimore, Defendants.
ROBERT F. CHERRY, JR.; ROBERT J. SLEDGESKI; JOHN LEWANDOWSKI;
CHARLES WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated; BALTIMORE CITY FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
LODGE #3, INC.; BALTIMORE CITY FIREFIGHTERS' IAFF, LOCAL 734, on
behalf of their members, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and BALTIMORE FIRE
OFFICERS UNION, LOCAL 964, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, Intervenor/Plaintiff,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, a municipal corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FIRE AND POLICE
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, a body
politic and corporate; EDWARD J. GALLAGHER, in his capacity as
Director, Department of Finance; THOMAS P. TANEYHILL, in his
capacity as Executive Director, Fire and Police Employees'
Retirement System of the City of Baltimore, Defendants, NOS. 13-
1007, 13-1115, 13-1116.

In this appeal, the Fourth Circuit considered certain
constitutional challenges related to a public pension plan
sponsored by the City of Baltimore (the City). The plaintiffs are
active and retired Baltimore police officers and firefighters who
participate in the plan (the members), as well as the unions that
represent them. The plaintiffs primarily challenged the City's
decision changing the manner in which annual increases to pension
benefits are calculated, claiming that the substitution of a cost-
of-living adjustment for a "variable benefit" violates the
members' rights under the Contract Clause and the Takings Clause
of the federal Constitution.

After considering extensive evidence, the district court concluded
that the elimination of the variable benefit constituted a
substantial impairment of certain members' contract rights, and
that the impairment was not reasonable and necessary to serve an
important public purpose. The court therefore held that the City
had violated the Contract Clause, and dismissed the Takings Clause
claim as moot.

Upon review, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the members' rights
under the Contract Clause were not impaired, because the members
retained a state law remedy for breach of contract. Therefore, the
Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court with
respect to the City's elimination of the variable benefit. It also
affirmed the court's decision upholding the remaining portions of
the ordinance at issue, and vacated the court's order dismissing
the Takings Clause claim.

The Fourth Circuit remands the case for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion.

A copy of the Fourth Circuit's August 6, 2014 opinion is available
at http://is.gd/xGnIUxfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: James Patrick Ulwick -- julwick@kg-law.com -- KRAMON &
GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Charles Owen Monk, II -- cmonk@saul.com -- SAUL EWING LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland; Robert David Klausner --
bob@robertdklausner.com -- KLAUSNER & KAUFMAN, PA, Plantation,
Florida, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

ON BRIEF: Kevin F. Arthur -- karthur@kg-law.com -- Jean E. Lewis
-- jlewis@kg-law.com -- KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore,
Maryland;

George Nilson, Matthew W. Nayden, BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Devin J. Doolan, Jr. -- ddoolan@saul.com -- Geoffrey M. Gamble --
ggamble@saul.com -- Baltimore Maryland, Paul M. Heylman --
pheylman@saul.com -- SAUL EWING LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.


BANANA REPUBLIC: Stipulation on Discovery in "Perez" Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero approved on August 4, 2014,
a stipulation regarding discovery in the case captioned NICK
PEREZ; individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01132-JCS, (N.D. Cal.).

The court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/jQjiyufrom Leagle.com, provides that:

1. Documents, Testimony, Evidence and Information produced in the
class action complaint filed by Erick J. Guzman for damages on
July 12, 2012 in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
case number BC488069 that is relevant to the allegations in the
Perez action may be used in the prosecution or defense of the
Perez action.

2. Documents, Testimony, and Information that have been designated
as "confidential" by any party in the Guzman action may be used in
the prosecution or defense of the Perez action, but shall retain
their "confidential" designation and be subject to the Stipulated
Protective Order in the Perez action.

3. The parties do not waive their rights to object to the
competence, authenticity, relevance, materiality, propriety,
admissibility and any and all other objections and grounds which
would or could require or permit the exclusion of any Documents,
Testimony or Information produced in the Guzman action.

4. Nothing contained in the stipulation will be construed as a
waiver of Defendant's argument that prosecution of the Perez
action and Guzman action simultaneously is improper.

EDWIN AIWAZIAN, ARBY AIWAZIAN, JILL J. PARKER, LAWYERS for
JUSTICE, PC, Glendale, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff, NICK
PEREZ.

JESSICA R. PERRY -- jperry@orrick.com -- JULIA C. RIECHERT --
jriechert@orrick.com -- ALLISON RIECHERT GIESE --
agiese@orrick.com -- ALEXANDRA PAVLIDAKIS --
apavlidakis@orrick.com -- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP,
Menlo Park, California, Attorneys for Defendant. BANANA REPUBLIC,
LLC.


BATAVIA, IL: Faces Class Action Over Prairie State Investment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Schory, writing for Kane County Chronicle, reports that
nearly 100 people turned out on Aug. 21 to a meeting called by
Batavia businessman Joe Marconi, seeking plaintiffs for a class
action lawsuit over the city's investment in downstate Prairie
State Energy Campus.

Mr. Marconi filed suit in Kane County Circuit Court.  But he and
attorneys Michael Childress and Michael Duffy and other advocates
encouraged Batavia ratepayers to consider signing onto the suit so
a judge will be encouraged to certify it as a class.

Being a class means relief can be sought for all the city's
ratepayers, attorneys said.

Batavia resident Sylvia Keppel said when the city signed on for
electricity and part ownership with Prairie State in 2007,
ratepayers were promised cheap, clean reliable energy.

"None of this has been realized," Ms. Keppel said.  "As our
electric bills increased and complaints were brought to the city,
the city's response has been, 'Our attorneys have looked into it.
It's an ironclad contract.  There is nothing more we can do.'

"That was not good enough for Joe Marconi," Ms. Keppel said.  "Joe
does not have 30 years to wait for things to get better. . . . We
were in a big mess and what we needed was class action lawsuit."

Mr. Duffy said the 37-page lawsuit is aimed at consultants that
Batavia officials relied on to tell them what power would cost.

"Promises that were not kept.  Promises that were not delivered,"
Mr. Duffy said.  "Not only in terms of development but also in the
way things were constructed and the way power was delivered."

Consultants named in the lawsuit are the ones from whom money
damages are being sought on behalf of Batavia ratepayers in terms
of what they have overpaid so far, and what they will be
calculated to overpay over the next 28 years, Mr. Duffy said.
Batavia is not named as a defendant but as respondents in
discovery, Duffy said, explaining in a civil case, he has six
months to decide whether the city would be added as a defendant.

"We are not seeking money damages [from Batavia] but what we are
seeking is the truth," Mr. Duffy said.  "We intend to ask for
agreements, contracts, correspondence, emails. . . . We understand
that there are a lot of confidential agreements between and among
a lot of entities as this was developed and came to pass.  We'd
like to see what all that's about."

With 400 or so people signing on, a local judge would be inclined
to certify it as a class, Mr. Childress said.  Signing on to a
class action does not put anyone at risk and the attorneys only
get paid if there is a judgment in their favor.

"There is strength in numbers and numbers speak," Mr. Childress
said.

Betsy Zinser of Batavia, an activist credited with providing
lawyers with her research on Prairie State, said she was signing
on and encouraged others to do so, as well.

"If businesses leave Batavia, those power costs have to be split
among all of us," Ms. Zinser said.  "Our burden is not just what
we carry today, but ramifications of when companies leave."

A copy of the suit is posted at
www.prairiestateenergycampusclassaction.com


BROTHERS PETROLEUM: Equitable Tolling Bid in "Mejia" Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Helen G. Berrigan denied a motion for equitable
tolling filed by plaintiffs in the case captioned DANIA GISSELL
CRUZ MEJIA, et al. v. BROTHERS PETROLEUM, LLC, et al., Section: C
(3), CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2842, (E.D. La.).

Judge Berrigan found that the plaintiffs offered no evidence to
explain why similarly situated opt-in plaintiffs were unaware of
their rights and deserve equitable tolling of their claims.

A copy of Judge Berrigan's August 4, 2014 order and reasons is
available at http://is.gd/eT6Dh0from Leagle.com

Dania Gissell Cruz Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester
Jackson, Jackson & Jackson, Carolyn H Cottrell, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah &
Carr, LLC, David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC,
Joseph C. Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Mary
Bubbett Jackson, Jackson+Jackson, Peter B. Schneider, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP & Ryan R.C. Hicks, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP.

Maria Elisa Bueso Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester
Jackson, Jackson & Jackson, Carolyn H Cottrell, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah &
Carr, LLC, David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC,
Joseph C. Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Mary
Bubbett Jackson, JacksonJackson, Peter B. Schneider, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP & Ryan R.C. Hicks, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP.

Martha L. Martinez Balleza, Plaintiff, represented by Jody
Forester Jackson, Jackson & Jackson, Carolyn H Cottrell, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca
Abdullah & Carr, LLC, David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah &
Carr, LLC, Joseph C. Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC,
Mary Bubbett Jackson, JacksonJackson, Peter B. Schneider,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP & Ryan R.C. Hicks,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP.

Esther Sanchez Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester
Jackson, Jackson & Jackson, Carolyn H Cottrell, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah &
Carr, LLC, David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC,
Joseph C. Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Mary
Bubbett Jackson, JacksonJackson, Peter B. Schneider, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP & Ryan R.C. Hicks, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP.

Claudia Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson, Carolyn H Cottrell, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC,
David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Joseph C.
Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Mary Bubbett Jackson,
JacksonJackson, Peter B. Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP & Ryan R.C. Hicks, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
LLP.

Dora Pimeda, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson, Carolyn H Cottrell, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC,
David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Joseph C.
Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Mary Bubbett Jackson,
JacksonJackson, Peter B. Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP & Ryan R.C. Hicks, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
LLP.

Dora Pineda, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson, Carolyn H Cottrell, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC,
David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Joseph C.
Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Mary Bubbett Jackson,
JacksonJackson & Ryan R.C. Hicks, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP.

Melvin A. Medrano, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester
Jackson, Jackson & Jackson, Carolyn H Cottrell, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah &
Carr, LLC, David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC,
Joseph C. Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Mary
Bubbett Jackson, JacksonJackson & Ryan R.C. Hicks, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP.

Jose A. Jovel, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson, Carolyn H Cottrell, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC,
David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Joseph C.
Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC, Mary Bubbett Jackson,
JacksonJackson & Ryan R.C. Hicks, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP.

Venancio Nunez Nunez, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester
Jackson, Jackson & Jackson, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah
& Carr, LLC, David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC,
Joseph C. Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC & Mary
Bubbett Jackson, JacksonJackson.

Elida Antonia Medrando Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Jody
Forester Jackson, Jackson & Jackson, Daniel J. Carr, Peiffer Rosca
Abdullah & Carr, LLC, David M Abdullah, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah &
Carr, LLC, Joseph C. Peiffer, Peiffer Rosca Abdullah & Carr, LLC &
Mary Bubbett Jackson, JacksonJackson.

Brothers Petroleum, L.L.C., doing business as Brothers Food Mart,
Defendant, represented by Joseph Vincent DiRosa, Jr., Joseph
Vincent DiRosa,,Jr., Attorney at Law, Jessica C. Huffman, Phelps
Dunbar, LLP & Thomas Harry Kiggans, Phelps Dunbar, LLP.

Brothers Food Mart, Defendant, represented by Joseph Vincent
DiRosa, Jr., Joseph Vincent DiRosa,,Jr., Attorney at Law, Jessica
C. Huffman, Phelps Dunbar, LLP & Thomas Harry Kiggans, Phelps
Dunbar, LLP.

Imad F. Hamdan, Defendant, represented by Joseph Vincent DiRosa,
Jr., Joseph Vincent DiRosa,,Jr., Attorney at Law, Jessica C.
Huffman, Phelps Dunbar, LLP & Thomas Harry Kiggans, Phelps Dunbar,
LLP.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeding in "Marchese" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014, that the Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several
present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf
of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and
New York.  The case is Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems
Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC.

After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without
prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third
amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying
the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television
packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by
Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision
compatible set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble
monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief.

On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the District Court
issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2
monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and
related state common law claims to proceed.

Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on
February 13, 2012.  Discovery is proceeding.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss.

Cablevision Systems Corporation, its wholly-owned subsidiary CSC
Holdings, LLC and their subsidiaries own and operate cable
television systems and own companies that provide regional news,
local programming and advertising sales services for the cable
television industry, provide Ethernet-based data, Internet, voice
and video transport and managed services to the business market,
and operate a newspaper publishing business.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Sept. 30 Expert Discovery Completion Date
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014, that following expiration of the affiliation agreements
for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks
on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the
programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations
and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television
systems.  On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an
agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and
networks, and carriage was restored.

Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on
behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of
Fox programming.  Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action
before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on
February 22, 2011.  Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking
unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed.

On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract.  The
Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012.  On October 10, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December
13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment.

On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment.  On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert
discovery proceed with a completion date of September 30, 2014.

On May 30, 2014, the parties submitted to the Court a proposed
form of class notice, which the Court approved on June 4, 2014.

Plaintiffs must next seek court approval of a class notice
distribution plan.

The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.

Cablevision Systems Corporation, its wholly-owned subsidiary CSC
Holdings, LLC and their subsidiaries own and operate cable
television systems and own companies that provide regional news,
local programming and advertising sales services for the cable
television industry, provide Ethernet-based data, Internet, voice
and video transport and managed services to the business market,
and operate a newspaper publishing business.


CANADA: Federal Court Approves RCMP LTD Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
McInnes Cooper on Aug. 21 disclosed that on August 5, 2014, the
Federal Court of Canada approved the settlement between the
Government of Canada and the members of the White class action
regarding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Long-Term Disability
Insurance Plan.

The settlement provides fairness and equity to all affected
members.  Going forward, RCMP members on Long-Term Disability
(LTD) will no longer have their benefits reduced under the
provisions of the Pension Act.  In addition, members of the class
action will be entitled to retroactive payments based on the terms
and conditions of the settlement.

Quick Facts

As of 2012, there were an estimated 904 individuals affected by
the Pension Act offset under the RCMP LTD insurance plan, at an
estimated cost of $75 million.

Class action members currently receiving or who formerly received
disability benefits under the plan, and whose benefits were
reduced by the Pension Act offset, may be entitled to a
pre-determined retroactive settlement payment.

Affected members should direct all settlement questions to the
plaintiffs' legal counsel at the following email: RCMP-
LTDclassaction@mcinnescooper.com

Quotes

"This negotiated settlement reconfirms the Government of Canada's
commitment to the care and well-being of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police personnel.  This settlement is in the best interest
of RCMP members and Canadian taxpayers."

- The Honourable Tony Clement, President of the Treasury Board

"We are pleased that this litigation has been brought to a
successful resolution.  We hope that this settlement will bring
some comfort and assistance to this large class of RCMP veterans.
We thank David White and the late Gerard Buote for their
commendable representation of the class."

- Class Counsel Peter Driscoll, Ward Branch and Dan Wallace


CANADA: Two Class Actions Over G20 Summit Detentions Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that two class-action lawsuits by
hundreds of people detained during the G20 summit in Toronto four
years ago are headed for another round of legal wrangling.

Earlier this month the Divisional Court allowed the proceedings to
move ahead, overturning a previous court ruling that declined to
certify it as a class action.  The Divisional Court decided the
case should be two separate, but related, class-action lawsuits --
one for hundreds of people who were abruptly detained by police at
five locations across Toronto, and another to deal with the
treatment of those who were held at a detention centre set up
during the summit.  The court said it is important the allegations
of police mistreatment be heard in court.

The Toronto Police Services Board now wants to appeal that
decision, filing a notice of motion with Ontario's Appeal Court,
seeking leave to appeal.

Sherry Good, the lead plaintiff in one of the class actions,
issued a statement calling the police decision "very
disappointing."


CARNIVAL CORP: Mariners Can't Pursue Suit in Fla. Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Law.com, reports that a putative
class action of mariners took a "gamble" they would be entitled to
more extensive rest and recuperation under American maritime law
if they sued Carnival Corporation & PLC, a dual-listed company
composed of a Panamanian corporation headquartered in Miami and a
British corporation headquartered in Southampton, England, a
federal appeals court said.

But they lost the bet when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit ruled that that there is not jurisdiction over
the dual-listed company in Florida federal court.

Judge R. David Proctor of the Northern District of Alabama,
sitting by designation on the appeals court, said the sailors
could have sued the parent company of their employer but made a
"tactical decision to pursue potentially broader claims against
Carnival Corporation & PLC.  The seafarers rolled the dice in
targeting Carnival Corporation & PLC exclusively in this case;
unfortunately for them, that roll did not pay off."

Under their United Kingdom-based contracts with Cunard Celtic
Hotel Services, Ltd., the three proposed class representatives
were entitled to three months of wages and two months of medical
expenses while they recuperated from back injuries they suffered
while on board.  But the mariners sought to access the more
extensive land-based "maintenance and cure" provided under
American law.

Cunard is one of the companies that operates under the Carnival
Corporation & PLC, which operates a unified economic enterprise
with its two member corporations kept legally separate so Carnival
Corporation can trade on the New York Stock Exchange and so
Carnival PLC can trade on the London Stock Exchange and avoid
"divestment from British institutional investors" restricted from
holding shares in foreign-owned firms, according to the opinion.

Carnival Corporation & PLC can't be sued from the outset because
it is not incorporated, which is the "fundamental act of corporate
creation and the dividing line between corporations and non-
corporations," Judge Proctor said.

Carnival Corporation & PLC can't be estopped from denying that it
is a corporation, Judge Proctor said.  The mariners did not allege
they thought they were contracting with Carnival Corporation & PLC
and that the dual-listed company was legally capable of being
sued.

The dual listed company also is not a joint venture, Judge Proctor
said.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Court Issued Final Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Five plaintiffs filed on August 17, 2007, a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including subsidiaries of Carriage Services,
Inc. that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February
2001, on behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and
burial goods and services at Grandview Cemetery.  The case is
Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case
No. 4:07-cv-137.

Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and claim that the
cemetery owners performed burials negligently, breached
Plaintiffs' contracts and made misrepresentations regarding the
cemetery. The Plaintiffs also allege that the claims occurred
prior, during and after we owned the cemetery.

On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana. On
April 24, 2009, shortly before the Defendants had been scheduled
to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add
new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to
abandon other claims.

The Company, as well as several other Defendants, opposed
Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and add parties.

In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs'
counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this action.

On June 30, 2010, the court granted Defendants' motion to
disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel.

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus
with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the
trial court's order of disqualification of counsel. On May 19,
2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus.

On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition
for writ of mandamus.  Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order,
Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain
new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf.

Plaintiffs retained new counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel moved for
leave to amend both the class representatives and the allegations
stated within the complaint. Defendants filed oppositions to such
amendments.

The court issued an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed
with amending the class representatives and a portion of their
claims; however, certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been
dismissed.

Carriage Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the parties reached a
proposed class settlement and the court granted its preliminary
approval of such settlement by order dated March 19, 2014. Notice
of the class settlement was provided pursuant to the Preliminary
Order Approving Class Action Settlement and no settlement class
members opted out of the class nor objected to the terms of the
settlement. The court issued its final approval of the settlement
on June 23, 2014. The parties will now administer the settlement
in accordance with its terms.

Carriage Services operates two types of businesses: funeral homes,
which account for approximately 75% of revenues, and cemeteries,
which account for approximately 25% of revenues.


CENTERSTATE BANKS: Suit Over First Southern Merger Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
Centerstate Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that as disclosed in Form
10-Q filed on May 6, 2014, a class action complaint was filed on
April 24, 2014 in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit
in and for Palm Beach County, Florida against First Southern
Bancorp, Inc. ("First Southern"), its directors and CenterState
challenging the merger of First Southern with CenterState. The
complaint was subsequently withdrawn.

CenterState Banks, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary bank,
CenterState Bank of Florida, N.A. and non bank subsidiary, R4ALL,
Inc.  The subsidiary bank operates through 68 full service banking
locations in 21 counties throughout Florida, providing traditional
deposit and lending products and services to its commercial and
retail customers. Ten of the 68 branches are scheduled to be
closed in September 2014. The deposits from 6 and the real estate
from 5 have been sold to an unrelated commercial bank. The
remaining 4 will be consolidated into existing CenterState
branches. R4ALL, Inc. is a separate non bank subsidiary of CSFL.
Its purpose is to purchase troubled loans from the subsidiary bank
and manage their eventual disposition.


CLARFIELD OKON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rita K. Battles, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Clarfield, Okon, Salomone & Pincus, P.L., a
professional association, and National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2005-3, a Delaware Statutory Trust, Case No. 6:14-cv-01337-
GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., August 20, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          N. James Turner, Esq.
          N. JAMES TURNER, LLC
          37 N Orange Ave., Suite 500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (888) 877-5103
          E-mail: njtlaw@gmail.com


CLEANSOURCE INC: Court Tosses Bid to Remand "Rodriguez" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge M. James Lorenz denied a motion to remand the case
captioned MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ and JOSE DE SANTOS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. CLEANSOURCE, INC., INTERLINE
BRANDS, INC., and DOES 2-100, Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-0789-
L(DHB), (S.D. Cal.).

"[W]hen establishing whether the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold under CAFA, other courts have used the
25% benchmark when calculating attorneys' fees," wrote Judge
Lorenz in his order dated August 4, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/uRzhBpfrom Leagle.com.  "In light of
the foregoing, the Court finds that using this benchmark is the
most appropriate way to calculate attorneys' fees in order to
establish the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes."

"25% of $4,274,189.42, $1,068,547.36, which, when added to the
previous figure, produces a total amount in controversy of
$5,342,736.78. This exceeds the jurisdictional threshold for CAFA.
Therefore, IBI is correct that "it is `more likely than not' that,
aggregated, the [drivers] seek an amount in excess of $5,000,000,
as required by [Section] 1332(d)(2)," Judge Lorenz added.

Michael Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, represented by William D. Turley --
bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC.

Jose De Santos, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by William D. Turley, The Turley Law Firm, APLC.
CleanSource, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel P. Glaser --
jglaser@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.

Interline Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Charles
Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Sabrina A.
Beldner -- sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, Sean
Matthew Sullivan -- ssullivan@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods
LLP & Sylvia Jihae Kim -- skim@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods
LLP.


CNO FINANCIAL: CLIC Dismissed From "Burnett" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported nationwide
class action was filed on October 25, 2012, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, captioned
William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp v. Conseco Life Insurance
Company, CNO Financial Group, Inc., CDOC, Inc. and CNO Services,
LLC, Case No. EDCV12-01715VAPSPX. The plaintiffs bring this action
under Rule 23(B)(3) on behalf of various Lifetrend policyholders
who since October 2008 have surrendered their policies or had them
lapse. Additionally, plaintiffs seek certification of a subclass
of various Lifetrend policyholders who accepted optional benefits
and signed a release pursuant to a regulatory settlement. The
plaintiffs allege breach of contract and seek declaratory relief,
compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs.

On November 30, 2012, CLIC and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint. On November 18, 2013, the court granted
the dismissal, with leave to amend, of CNO Financial Group, Inc.,
CDOC, Inc. and CNO Services, LLC, and denied the motion to dismiss
CLIC.

"With the completion of the sale of CLIC on July 1, 2014, our
consolidated financial statements will no longer include CLIC's
liability related to this litigation in future periods," CNO said.

On March 2, 2014, CNO entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement with
Wilton Reassurance Company, pursuant to which CNO agreed to sell
to Wilton Re all of the issued and outstanding shares of Conseco
Life Insurance Company, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
CNO. The transaction, which closed on July 1, 2014, was subject to
receipt of insurance regulatory approvals and satisfaction of
other customary closing conditions. The transaction resulted in
net proceeds of approximately $216 million based upon an estimated
balance sheet of CLIC as of June 30, 2014 and after anticipated
transaction costs and intercompany transactions completed in
connection with the closing.

CNO Financial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("CNO"), is a
holding company for a group of insurance companies operating
throughout the United States that develop, market and administer
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.


COCA-COLA CO: Products Marketing MDL Conference Set for Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case management statement in the multidistrict litigation
known as In Re: Coca-Cola Products Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 4:14-md-02555-JSW, is due by
September 19, 2014.  The case management conference is set for
September 26, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.

The litigation, which is currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, concerns the
alleged deceptive labeling of the Coca-Cola soft drink, and that
the Defendants marketed Coca-Cola in a manner that is allegedly
misleading to consumers.  In particular, this litigation will
involve questions as to whether phosphoric acid was properly
identified on Coca-Cola beverage labels (including whether it
should have been identified as an artificial flavoring or chemical
preservative) and whether the Defendants' marketing that included
representations like "no artificial flavors.  no preservatives
added.  since 1886" was misleading.

Plaintiffs George Engurasoff, Joshua Ogden, Yocheved Lazaroff and
Rachel Dube are represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          Bradley F. Silverman, Esq.
          Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
          FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM
          565 Fifth Ave., 7th Floor, APT A7
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 880-9567
          Facsimile: (917) 591-5245
          E-mail: bsilverman@fleischmanlawfirm.com
                  keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Plotz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. PLOTZ
          565 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 543-1812
          Facsimile: (646) 626-6418
          E-mail: law@plotz.com

Plaintiffs Julia Hughes and Ayanna Nobles are represented by:

          Sydney Jay Hall, Esq.
          1308 Bayshore Hwy., Suite 220
          Burlingame, Ca 94010
          Telephone: (650) 342-1830
          E-mail: sydneyhalllawoffice@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Reginald Von Terrell, Esq.
          THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
          Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148
          Oakland, CA 94661
          Telephone: (510) 237-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 237-4616
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com

Plaintiff Paul Merritt is represented by:

          Mark Leland Knutson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN AND KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3593
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com

Plaintiff Bristol I. Aumiller is represented by:

          Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
          Lucas Lanasa, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2120 Killareny Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298-4455
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com
                  luke@lanasalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Tammy Beth Webb, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: tbwebb@shb.com

Plaintiff Ronald Sowizrol is represented by:

          Kristofer Scott Riddle, Esq.
          Robert Anthony Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: ksr@cliffordlaw.com
                  rac@cliffordlaw.com
                  smm@cliffordlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          George R. Dougherty, Esq.
          GRIPPO & ELDEN LLC
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-7700
          E-mail: gdougherty@grippoelden.com

               - and -

          David Stephen Johnson, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 2900
          Tampa, FL 33602-5810
          Telephone: (813) 202-7100
          E-mail: ddjohnson@shb.com

               - and -

          Ina Doung-May Chang, Esq.
          Tammy B. Webb, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: ichang@shb.com
                  tbwebb@shb.com

               - and -

          Jane M. Metcalf, Esq.
          Sarah E. Zgliniec, Esq.
          Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
          Travis J. Tu, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB AND TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2152
          E-mail: jmetcalf@pbwt.com
                  sezgliniec@pbwt.com
                  sazalesin@pbwt.com
                  tjtu@pbwt.com


COCA-COLA CO: "Sowizrol" Suit Included in Products Marketing MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Sowizrol v. Coca Cola Company,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01914, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the California Northern District (Oakland).
The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-
03774-JSW to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In Re: Coca-Cola Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
(No. II), MDL No. 4:14-md-02555-JSW.  The litigation arises from
alleged deceptive labeling and marketing of Coca-Cola soft drinks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristofer Scott Riddle, Esq.
          Robert Anthony Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: ksr@cliffordlaw.com
                  rac@cliffordlaw.com
                  smm@cliffordlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          George Robert Dougherty, Esq.
          GRIPPO & ELDEN
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-7700
          E-mail: docket@grippoelden.com

               - and -

          Steven Alan Zalesin, Esq.
          PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2110
          Facsimile: (212) 336-2111
          E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com


COMPASS ONE: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burns v. Compass One, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-01945-EAK-TGW
(M.D. Fla., August 12, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff, and other
similarly situated employees, were unlawfully denied overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
          TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
          2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone No: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile No: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Alverson" Suit Arising From Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise B. Alverson, Janet F. Bearden, Bobbie Jean Richard, Dallas
W. Richard and Robert Cadle, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Community Health Systems Inc., a
Delaware Corporation; Community Health Systems Professional
Services Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Riverview Regional
Medical Center LLC, a Delaware Company; Gadsden Regional Medical
Center LLC, a Delaware Company; Foley Hospital Corporation, an
Alabama corporation; and Anniston HMA LLC, an Alabama company,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01620-KOB (N.D. Ala., August 20, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to Top Class Actions, the Plaintiffs accuse the
Defendants of not properly protecting patient data.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald W. Stewart, Esq.
          STEWART & STEWART PC
          1000 Quintard Avenue, Sutie 500
          P O Box 2274
          Anniston, AL 36202
          Telephone: (256) 237-9311
          Facsimile: (256) 237-0713
          E-mail: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Greg William Foster, Esq.
          T. Dylan Reeves, Esq.
          STEWART AND STEWART PC
          The Realty Building, Suite 300
          1826 3rd Avenue North
          PO Box 721 (35021)
          Bessemer, AL 35020
          Telephone: (205) 425-1166
          Facsimile: (205) 425-5959
          E-mail: greg@stewartandstewart.net
                  dreeves@csattorneys.com


COMSCORE INC: Company & Insurers to Contribute to Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. on August 23, 2011, received notice that Mike
Harris and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against comScore
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other things,
violations by comScore of the Stored Communications Act, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act as
well as unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, including statutory damages per violation and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees of the
plaintiffs.

In October 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which,
among other things, removed the claim relating to alleged
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act.

On April 2, 2013, the District Court issued an order certifying a
class for only three of the four claims, refusing to certify a
class for unjust enrichment.

comScore said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that, "On May 30, 2014, we and the
plaintiffs in such litigation proposed a tentative settlement
subject to approval by the District Court. Pursuant to the
proposed terms, we will be required to establish a $14 million
settlement fund from which class member claims, attorneys' fees
and incentive awards, costs, and administrative expenses would be
paid. We and our insurers are expected to contribute to the fund."

"If approved, the proposed settlement would also require us to
alter certain portions of our privacy policy and implement certain
additional protocols to ensure that our privacy practices remain
consistent with its disclosures to consumers," the Company said.

comScore provides digital media analytics that enable customers to
make well-informed, data-driven decisions to effectively manage
their business, build successful digital strategies and tactics,
and optimize their marketing and advertising investments.


CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Class Certification Denied in Derailment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
residents and business owners in Paulsboro, N.J., seeking
recompense for expenses and lost business resulting from the
November 2012 freight-train derailment and chemical spill in the
borough won't be able to proceed as a class following a New Jersey
federal judge's ruling.

U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler of the District of New Jersey on
Aug. 20 denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
In re Paulsboro Derailment Cases, a consolidated matter made up of
cases against Consolidated Rail Corp., Norfolk Southern Railway
Co. and CSX Transportation.

Judge Kugler said the proposed subclasses failed to meet the
requisite factors, including numerosity.

The named plaintiffs, some of whom already were reimbursed
directly by the defendants, "have not offered any suggestion or
estimate as to how many of the . . . evacuees who have not settled
or instituted their own action meet the subclass definition on the
basis of having unreimbursed nonmedical expenses."

He added: "Given the apparently well-publicized efforts of
defendants to reach early settlements, it is entirely possible
that virtually every person who suffered income loss either opted
to pursue an individual claim or settled with defendants."

The litigation stems from the Nov. 30, 2012, derailment of seven
freight cars on a bridge over the Mantua Creek.  More than 23,000
gallons of vinyl chloride leaked from one of the cars into the air
and water, and about 700 nearby residents were evacuated or
ordered to remain sheltered in their homes for several days.

The plaintiffs claim that Conrail, owner of the rail system,
failed to maintain the bridge, which swivels to allow boats on the
creek to pass and has had several past malfunctions.  The suits
also claim the train proceeded against a red signal.  Norfolk
Southern and CSX, operators of the freight train, are also
defendants.

Separate, individual suits claim that residents sustained property
damage and experienced respiratory maladies in the wake of the
accident.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated case sought certification of
two subclasses: one consisting of those who incurred expenses,
such as hotel costs, as a result of being evacuated; the second
consisting of individuals and businesses in Paulsboro and nearby
West Deptford, N.J., that lost income.

According to the opinion, the defendants have reached settlements
with 486 of the 680 evacuees; 3,638 of the roughly 8,300 area
residents who were ordered to stay in their homes; and 28 of the
381 businesses located in the affected area.

In April, Judge Kugler, sitting in Camden, N.J., denied the
defendants' bid to strike the class allegations, rejecting the
argument that determining the plaintiffs' residences for the
purpose of ascertaining the class would require separate proof
hearings.

But the defendants prevailed in Judge Kugler's latest ruling, in
which he declined to certify either of the putative subclasses.
Judge Kugler allowed that individual members of the proposed
subclasses would be ascertainable given the "well-defined
geographical boundaries" of the evacuation and shelter zones, as
well as the ability to document expenses, but he said determining
which businesses sustained losses would require "significant
individualized fact-finding."

The "existence of injury must be established by an
administratively feasible means, and plaintiffs have not shown how
this would occur," Judge Kugler said.

While it's "intuitive" that the class representative, a
barbershop, must be open to receive customers, it's "not so clear
that all 381 businesses with mailing addresses in the shelter-in-
place zone have a similar business model," Judge Kugler added.
Some business may be seasonal and not operating in November and
December, he noted.

Judge Kugler rejected a plaintiffs' expert report stating that the
necessary information could be gathered during the claims
administration process. "Under the recent line of Third Circuit
cases, a plaintiff must show that the class is 'currently and
readily ascertainable based on the objective criteria,'" he said.
Judge Kugler also found that the proposed subclasses don't meet
the numerosity requirement.  The 486 evacuees who have already
settled, along with the 45 who have filed individual actions,
can't be part of a subclass, he said.

And "evidence exists suggesting that some remaining residents
would not be class members," Judge Kugler said.  According to the
opinion, the defendants set up an assistance center in Paulsboro
after the accident, where evacuees were reimbursed for expenses
and given gift cards for future expenses.  Two named plaintiffs
"availed themselves of this process" and were paid a combined
$6,000 in reimbursements and gift cards, Judge Kugler noted.

It's not clear which of the remaining 149 evacuees have unrepaid
expenses, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit "has
rejected an approach to numerosity where a larger population is
identified, of which the proposed class makes up some uncertain
portion of that larger population," Judge Kugler said.

The residents ordered to shelter in place also fall short of the
numerosity requirement, the judge said, noting that many of this
group, too, settled directly with the defendants, while another
400 filed individual actions.

The plaintiffs "have set forth no evidence that even one resident
of the shelter-in-place zone has incurred unreimbursed expenses,"
Judge Kugler said.

Also, the commonality requirement, not an issue for the individual
plaintiffs, presents a problem to business class members, who
would have to prove that any income loss was related to the
accident, Judge Kugler said.

According to the opinion, 260 more litigants joined separate
lawsuits during briefing in this case, and there are another 1,330
potential plaintiffs based on attorney letters of representation
sent to the companies.

In the decision, Judge Kugler also granted the defendants'
unopposed motion to seal certain documents, including those
representation letters, which he said might identify minors.

Neither plaintiffs counsel James Pettit of the Locks Law Firm in
Cherry Hill, N.J., nor defense counsel Brian Pagano --
bdpagano@burnswhite.com -- of Burns White in Cherry Hill, N.J.,
returned a call for comment.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Dismisses Amended "Espinoza" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE E. ESPINOZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING, L.P., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-20756-CIV-
ALTONAGA/O'SULLIVAN, (S.D. Fla.) is before the Court on
Defendants' motion to dismiss a second amended complaint (SAC) and
strike irrelevant/inflammatory allegations.

The SAC contains seven counts: Count I, seeking a declaratory
judgment the Note is unenforceable due to the expiration of the
limitations period; Count II, a claim for injunctive relief to
prevent attempts to collect on the Note; Count III, seeking a
declaratory judgment the Mortgage cannot be foreclosed on due to
the expiration of the limitations period; Count IV, a claim for
injunctive relief to prevent attempts to collect on or reinstate
the Mortgage; Count V, seeking to quiet title to the subject
property; Count VI, seeking a declaratory judgment defaulted
payments more than five years old cannot be collected and
Defendants' collection and reporting practices are improper; and
Count VII, a claim for injunctive relief to prevent Defendants
from continuing to report or trying to collect defaulted payments
more than five years old. Plaintiffs also seek class action status
in the SAC.

The Defendants seek dismissal of all seven counts of the SAC. They
argue a mortgagee is not barred from filing a new foreclosure
action based on a mortgagor's different default, even if it
brought and dismissed a foreclosure action on an earlier default.
(See id. 2). They challenge the quiet title action on the ground
Plaintiffs do not allege an invalid cloud on their title and
Defendants' mortgage lien is valid. (See id. 3). They assert
Counts VI and VII do not allege any facts in support of the
claims. (See id.) And they argue Counts II and IV for injunctive
relief fail because Plaintiffs do not allege the four
prerequisites for the grant of an injunction.

District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga granted the request in an order
dated August 5, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/NAkwuGfrom Leagle.com.

The Court dismisses the SAC and directed the Clerk to close the
case. Any pending motions are denied as moot, Judge Altonaga
added.

Jorge E. Espinoza, Plaintiff, represented by Alejandro Alvarez,
John Hasan Ruiz, Law Offices of La Ley con John H. Ruiz, Phillip
Edward Holden, The Alvarez Law Firm & Karen Jill Barnet-Backer, La
Ley Con John H. Ruiz, P.A..

Silvia Espinoza, Plaintiff, represented by Alejandro Alvarez, John
Hasan Ruiz, Law Offices of La Ley con John H. Ruiz, Phillip Edward
Holden, The Alvarez Law Firm & Karen Jill Barnet-Backer, La Ley
Con John H. Ruiz, P.A..

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., Defendant, represented by
James Randolph Liebler, Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo PA & Dora
Faye Kaufman, Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, P.A..

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendant,
represented by James Randolph Liebler, Liebler Gonzalez &
Portuondo PA & Dora Faye Kaufman, Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo,
P.A..

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by James Randolph
Liebler, Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo PA, Jed P. White, Bryan
Cave, LLP, Jennifer Jackson, Bryan Cave, LLP, Robert E. Boone,
III, Bryan Cave, LLP & Dora Faye Kaufman, Liebler, Gonzalez &
Portuondo, P.A..

Fannie Mae, Defendant, represented by James Randolph Liebler,
Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo PA & Dora Faye Kaufman, Liebler,
Gonzalez & Portuondo, P.A..

Fannie Mae, Counter Claimant, represented by James Randolph
Liebler, Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo PA & Dora Faye Kaufman,
Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, P.A..

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., Counter Claimant,
represented by James Randolph Liebler, Liebler Gonzalez &
Portuondo PA & Dora Faye Kaufman, Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo,
P.A..

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Counter Claimant,
represented by James Randolph Liebler, Liebler Gonzalez &
Portuondo PA & Dora Faye Kaufman, Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo,
P.A..

Bank of America, N.A., Counter Claimant, represented by James
Randolph Liebler, Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo PA, Jed P. White,
Bryan Cave, LLP, Jennifer Jackson, Bryan Cave, LLP, Robert E.
Boone, III, Bryan Cave, LLP & Dora Faye Kaufman, Liebler, Gonzalez
& Portuondo, P.A..

Jorge E. Espinoza, Counter Defendant, represented by Alejandro
Alvarez, John Hasan Ruiz, Law Offices of La Ley con John H. Ruiz,
Phillip Edward Holden, The Alvarez Law Firm & Karen Jill Barnet-
Backer, La Ley Con John H. Ruiz, P.A..

Silvia Espinoza, Counter Defendant, represented by Alejandro
Alvarez, John Hasan Ruiz, Law Offices of La Ley con John H. Ruiz,
Phillip Edward Holden, The Alvarez Law Firm & Karen Jill Barnet-
Backer, La Ley Con John H. Ruiz, P.A..

Bank of America, N.A., Counter Claimant, represented by James
Randolph Liebler, Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo PA, Jed P. White,
Bryan Cave, LLP, Jennifer Jackson, Bryan Cave, LLP, Robert E.
Boone, III, Bryan Cave, LLP & Dora Faye Kaufman, Liebler, Gonzalez
& Portuondo, P.A..

Jorge E. Espinoza, Counter Defendant, represented by Alejandro
Alvarez, John Hasan Ruiz, Law Offices of La Ley con John H. Ruiz,
Phillip Edward Holden, The Alvarez Law Firm & Karen Jill Barnet-
Backer, La Ley Con John H. Ruiz, P.A..

Silvia Espinoza, Counter Defendant, represented by Alejandro
Alvarez, John Hasan Ruiz, Law Offices of La Ley con John H. Ruiz,
Phillip Edward Holden, The Alvarez Law Firm & Karen Jill Barnet-
Backer, La Ley Con John H. Ruiz, P.A..


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dahan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Credit Management, LP., and John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:14-cv-04893-WFK-CLP (E.D.N.Y., August 18, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: arimarcus2@gmail.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Dill" Suit Over Pinnacle Hip Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Dill v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson and Johnson
Services, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-02983-K
(N.D. Tex., August 20, 2014) arises from alleged defective hip
replacement products, manufactured and supplied by the Defendants.

Ms. Dill, a resident of Decatur, Macon County, Illinois, is 59
years old.  In December 2009, she had a total left hip replacement
and received a DePuy Pinnacle Cup with a metal-on-metal liner and
other DePuy products.  She contends that subsequent to the
implantation, she began experiencing pain, including hip and joint
pain, difficulty walking, sleeping and suffers from constant
aching.

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is an Indiana corporation headquartered
in Warsaw, Indiana.  DePuy operates as a subsidiary of Johnson and
Johnson.  Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., is a New Jersey
corporation headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  Johnson
and Johnson Services, Inc., operate as a subsidiary of Johnson and
Johnson.  Johnson and Johnson is a New Jersey corporation
headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Hearing in "Scranton" Class Action on Aug. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class
action was filed on April 30, 2013, by John Scranton, on behalf of
himself and a class of persons similarly situated, against E*TRADE
Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities LLC in the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, pursuant to the
California procedures for a private Attorney General action.

The Complaint alleged that the Company misrepresented through its
website that it would always automatically exercise options that
were in-the-money by $0.01 or more on expiration date. Plaintiffs
allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumer Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the
California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was
held on September 13, 2013.

The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint were
granted by order dated December 20, 2013.

The Court granted leave to amend the complaint.  A second amended
complaint was filed on January 31, 2014.

On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer
to the second amended complaint.

A hearing on these motions is now scheduled for August 29, 2014.

The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this
matter.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
provides brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE Financial."
The Company also provides investor-focused banking products,
primarily sweep deposits and savings products, to retail
investors.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces 3 Actions Over High Frequency Trading
--------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class
action was filed on April 18, 2014, by the City of Providence,
Rhode Island against forty-one high frequency trading firms, stock
exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-dealers, including the
Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The Complaint alleges that the high frequency trading
firms, certain broker-dealers managing dark pools, and the
exchanges manipulated the U.S. Securities markets, and that
numerous market-makers and broker-dealers participated in that
manipulation by doing business with the high frequency traders. As
to the Company, the Complaint alleges violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 2, 2014, a similar putative class action was filed by
American European Insurance Company against forty-two high
frequency trading firms, stock exchanges, market-makers, and other
broker-dealers, including the Company, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The action filed by
American European Insurance Company made allegations substantially
similar to the allegations in the City of Providence complaint.

On June 13, 2014, a putative class action was filed by James J.
Flynn and Dominic Morelli against twenty-six firms including the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The Flynn Complaint made allegations
substantially similar to the allegations in the City of Providence
Complaint.

While there can be no assurances, the Company's legal counsel
believes the claims against it have no merit, and that the Company
will ultimately prevail. The Company will defend itself vigorously
in these matters.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
provides brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE Financial."
The Company also provides investor-focused banking products,
primarily sweep deposits and savings products, to retail
investors.


ELATIONS COMPANY: Court Dismisses Murray Case With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Murray Jr. commenced on October 1, 2013, a class action
captioned WILLIAM MURRAY, JR., Plaintiff, v. THE ELATIONS COMPANY,
LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-02357-BAS(WVG), (S.D.
Cal.) arising out of the advertising and sales of a glucosamine-
and chondroitin-based health supplement.  The complaint alleges
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Sections 1750 et seq. (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. (UCL), and breach of
express warranty.  The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and
12(b)(6).

District Judge Cynthia Bashant, in an order dated August 4, 2014,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/96gLg8from
Leagle.com, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave
to amend.

"Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the representations on
Elations label and packaging are false or misleading. Accordingly,
the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to plausibly plead a breach
of warranty claim," Judge Bashant held.

William Murray, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by James Richard
Patterson -- jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law Group, APC
& Todd D. Carpenter -- todd@carpenterlawyers.com -- Carpenter Law
Group.

The Elations Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul Lyman
Seeley -- pseeley@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter
& Hampton LLP & Sascha vonMende Henry -- shenry@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton.

Beverages Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul Lyman
Seeley, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP & Sascha vonMende
Henry, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton.


ENTEGRIS INC: ATMI Files Bid to Strike "Pace" 2nd Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Entegris, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that on or about February 7
and 28, 2014, two putative class action complaints challenging the
merger between the Company and ATMI, Inc. were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Danbury, captioned Andrew Pace v. ATMI, Inc., et al. and Dolores
Carter v. ATMI, Inc., et al., respectively.  The complaints were
filed on behalf of the public shareholders of ATMI, Inc. and name
as defendants ATMI, Inc., the members of the Board of Directors of
ATMI, Inc., the Company and the Company's subsidiary, Atomic
Merger Corporation.

The complaints generally alleged that ATMI, Inc.'s directors
breached their fiduciary duties to ATMI, Inc.'s shareholders by
agreeing to sell ATMI, Inc. for inadequate and unfair
consideration and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair process,
and that ATMI, Inc., the Company and Atomic Merger Corporation
aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

The complaint in the Carter action and the second amended
complaint in the Pace action also allege purported disclosure
deficiencies in the preliminary and definitive proxy statements
for the merger that ATMI, Inc. filed with the SEC. The complaints
sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger. The merger was
approved by ATMI, Inc.'s shareholders on April 15, 2014 and was
closed on April 30, 2014.

The case captioned Dolores Carter v. ATMI, Inc., et al. was
subsequently dismissed by the plaintiff.

The case captioned Andrew Pace v. ATMI, Inc., et al. continues to
be pending and has been transferred to the Complex Litigation
Docket.

On July 21, 2014, ATMI, Inc. and the Company each filed a motion
to strike the plaintiff's second amended complaint; that motion is
pending before the court. The Company continues to believe that
this case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend this
case.

Entegris, Inc. is a provider of a wide range of products and
services for purifying, protecting and transporting critical
materials used in processing and manufacturing in the
microelectronics and other high-technology industries. The
Company's customers consist primarily of semiconductor
manufacturers, semiconductor equipment and materials suppliers as
well as thin film transistor-liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) and
hard disk manufacturers, which are served through direct sales
efforts, as well as sales and distribution relationships, in the
United States, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.


F.A. BARTLETT: Faces Class Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benedicto Rivera, On behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., Whitney Lewis and
Isaac Taylor, Case No. 2:14-cv-04917-ADS-GRB (E.D.N.Y.,
August 19, 2014) asserts Civil Rights claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eliot F. Bloom, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ELIOT F. BLOOM, PC
          1551 Kellum Place
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 739-5300
          Facsimile: (516) 739-3202
          E-mail: eb.efbesq@gmail.com


FACEBOOK INC: Plaintiffs Invoke Yahoo Privacy Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
suing Facebook over its alleged practice of scanning direct
messages are invoking a recent ruling from U.S. District Judge
Lucy Koh clearing the way for a similar case against Yahoo Inc.

In her recent ruling, Judge Koh allowed plaintiffs to move forward
with privacy claims under the Stored Communications Act and
California's Invasion of Privacy Act, finding plaintiffs put forth
sufficient facts to allege Yahoo had illegally shared the contents
of emails with third parties.

"Yahoo's own FAQ page admits that Yahoo shares email content with
third parties," Judge Koh wrote.

Though not a complete win for plaintiffs -- Judge Koh also knocked
out allegations under the federal Wiretap Act and the California
Constitution -- lawyers with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
Pomerantz and Carney Bates & Pulliam seem to think the Yahoo
ruling will help their case against Facebook.  The team submitted
notice of the ruling to U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who
is presiding over the case, on Aug. 19.

The suit alleges Facebook intercepted users' private messages and
scanned them for links, which the social networking company then
used to add "likes" to Facebook pages associated with those links.

The Lieff Cabraser team pointed out Judge Koh refused to decide
whether Yahoo scanned the emails in question while they were in
transit to its users, or while they were stored on Yahoo's
servers.  Yahoo had argued the emails were in storage when they
were scanned, a defense to claims under the Wiretap Act and
California's Invasion of Privacy Act.

"The court must defer resolution of whether Yahoo accessed the
emails only after the emails were on Yahoo's servers until after
discovery makes clear where and how Yahoo's scanning technology
intercepted the emails," Judge Koh wrote.

Facebook's lawyers with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher made the same
argument in their June motion to dismiss -- claiming plaintiffs'
Wiretap Act claim falls flat because the messages in question were
stored on Facebook's servers when they were scanned.  A hearing on
that motion is scheduled for September.

Judge Koh also sidestepped another hot-button privacy issue in the
Yahoo case -- whether the company is covered by an exemption in
the Wiretap Act for practices conducted by email providers in the
ordinary course of business.  Last year, Judge Koh refused to
apply that exemption to Google in a similar case over its handling
of Gmail, but the position has not been consistently adopted in
the district.

Judge Koh punted that question in the Yahoo case after dismissing
plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claims on other grounds.

The suit was brought in February by a class of non-Yahoo users who
allege they did not consent to Yahoo screening their messages.
Yahoo's terms stipulate it will scan emails sent to and received
by its users, in order to provide more specifically targeted
advertisements.  The company says it's up to Yahoo account holders
to inform acquaintances without accounts of this policy.

Yahoo is represented by a team from Morrison & Foerster's San
Francisco office and ZwillGen's Washington, D.C. office.
Plaintiffs are represented by Girard Gibbs and Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer.

Judge Koh dismissed a claim under the Wiretap Act, which requires
that only one party to the communication consent to interception.
Yahoo's terms of service agreement "explicitly acknowledges that
Yahoo scans and analyzes users' email for various purposes,"
Judge Koh wrote.


FACEBOOK INC: 60,000 People Sign Up to EU Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ingrid Lunden, writing for TechCrunch, reports that some
developments around the class action suit filed against Facebook
in Europe earlier this month over alleged privacy violations: the
Austria-based Europe vs Facebook group organizing the suit says
that the Vienna Regional Court, where the suit was filed, has
reviewed the case and has now given Facebook Ireland four weeks to
respond.  Ireland is the HQ for Facebook's international
operations, which cover over 80% of its users,

The news comes as some 60,000 people have now signed up to the
suit, 25,000 of which have assigned their claims to join the class
action, and 35,000 of which have registered to assign their claims
when and if the suit widens to cover more users.

At the current 25,000 limit and the EUR500 per user claim that
Europe vs Facebook has set for the suit, Facebook could
potentially have to pay out $16,577,438, and considerably more if
the suit is expanded. Even so, it's a relatively small amount of
money for the world's largest social network. The loss of a suit,
however, would be more damaging to Facebook's public image.

The 25,000 registered now are users largely in Europe with German-
speaking countries representing the majority of responses -- a
double unsurprise, considering that Germany has been particularly
vocal against companies like Facebook and Google and potential
privacy violations; and that the group, led by law student
Max Schrems originally hails from this region and has been going
after Facebook and its data policies for years.

The other countries strongly represented include the Netherlands,
Finland and the UK.  Those from the U.S. and Canada are not
permitted to register.  The reason for this, Mr. Schrems tells me,
is because of how Facebook assigns its terms and conditions.  "For
legal reasons we cannot extend it to U.S./Canadian users," he
says.  "The class action was filed against Facebook Ireland, the
international branch with about 82% of Facebook's worldwide
customers.  Users in the U.S. and Canada have a contract with
Facebook U.S., another legal entity. They cannot join a class
action against an entity that they don't have any contract with."

There may be a period of up to eight weeks before we get a legal
response from Facebook:

"The Vienna Regional Court has reviewed the class action against
Facebook Ireland," Mr. Schrems wrote in a statement.  "After the
'a limine' review was passed, the Court now ordered Facebook
Ireland to respond within four weeks.  The order is very likely on
the way to Facebook.  The first step in the legal procedure is
hereby taken.  Facebook Ireland may be able to get an extension of
this time limit of additional four weeks."

And, there could be a chance that Facebook may decide not to
respond at all. "If Facebook Ireland would refuse to submit a
counterstatement the court would be able to make a judgment in
absence based on the lawsuit," the statement continues.

The suit currently covers a range of allegations over data usage
and privacy:

   -- Data use policy which is invalid under EU law

   -- The absence of effective consent to many types of data use

   -- Support of the NSA's 'PRISM' surveillance program
      Tracking of Internet users on external websites (e.g.
      through 'Like buttons')

   -- Monitoring and analysis of users through 'big data' systems

   -- Unlawful introduction of 'Graph Search'

   -- Unauthorized passing on of user data to external
      applications

In the past, Europe v Facebook has gone after Facebook over how
the company lets users access their data on the network, and over
how Facebook uses that data, with varying amounts of progress
made.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Faces Antitrust Class Suit in E.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Birdie's, Inc. dba Birdies Food & Fuel No. 1; and Tuban Paul
Maillard LLC dba Birdies Food and Fuel No. 7, individually and on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas
Partners, L.P., a limited partnership; AmeriGas Partners, L.P. dba
AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange, a limited partnership; UGI
Corporation; and Ferrellgas LP dba Blue Rhino, a limited
partnership, Case No. 2:14-cv-01821-EEF-DEK (E.D. La., August 11,
2014) asserts violations of antitrust laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
          Irma L. Netting, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM (HAHNVILLE)
          15058 River Rd.
          P. O. Box 904
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: (985) 783-6789
          Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
                  irma@lemmonlawfirm.com


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: 200 Individuals Join in FLSA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in January 2014,
one current and three former employees filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee. The case is styled Lykins, et al. v.
First Acceptance Corporation, et al. The suit alleges the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying its
insurance agents as exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid
wages, overtime, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company answered
the plaintiffs' Complaint and denied all of the allegations
contained therein.

In April 2014, the case was conditionally certified as a class
action, and a notice regarding the case was sent to all potential
class members. Approximately 200 individuals chose to participate
in the case during the opt-in period which closed on July 15,
2014.

The Company strongly disagrees with the allegations and will put
forth a vigorous defense. The case is still in its early stages,
and discovery has not yet begun. This litigation could have a
lengthy duration. Therefore, based on these reasons, an estimate
of the ultimate impact of this litigation on the Company, if any,
cannot be made at this time.

First Acceptance Corporation is principally a retailer, servicer
and underwriter of non-standard personal automobile insurance.  It
also owns two tracts of land in San Antonio, Texas that are held
for sale.  Non-standard personal automobile insurance is made
available to individuals because of their inability or
unwillingness to obtain standard insurance coverage due to various
factors, including payment history, payment preference, failure in
the past to maintain continuous insurance coverage, driving record
and/or vehicle type.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Air Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. and FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that
in July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs
were filed against FirstEnergy Generation, LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of FES, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions
from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant.  Two of these
complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from
operating except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and proper
manner." One complaint was filed on behalf of twenty-one
individuals and the other is a class action complaint seeking
certification as a class with the eight named plaintiffs as the
class representatives.

FG believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against the allegations made in these complaints,
but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter
or estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

FirstEnergy holds a large and diverse mix of assets, featuring an
electric distribution service area and transmission footprint that
are among the largest in the nation, as well as a significant
competitive generation fleet and competitive sales business.


GAF MATERIALS: Six Actions Consolidated in Product Liability MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ken Burger asked, and received, from the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation an order transferring
six actions, as well as all subsequently filed actions, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The litigation is captioned In Re: Building Materials Corporation
of America d/b/a Gaf Materials Corporation Product Liability
Litigation, MDL No 2577.

The six actions are:

   (1) Ken Burger v. Building Materials Corporation of America
       d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-513, in
       the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
       (Judge William O. Bertelsman);

   (2) Dorothy Kaiser v. Building Materials Corporation of
       America d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation,
       Case No. 1:14-cv-2229, in the U.S. District Court for the
       District of Colorado (Judge William J. Martinez);

   (3) John Stidham v. Building Materials Corporation of America
       d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-247, in
       the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
       Indiana (Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson);

   (4) Frederick C. Robertie; and Veronica B. Robertie v. GAF
       Building Materials Corp., Case No. 7:14-cv-165, in the
       U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
       Carolina (Judge Louise Wood Flanagan);

   (5) Jeff Ernst v. Building Materials Corporation of America
       d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-50182,
       in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
       Illinois (Judge Frederick J. Kapala); and

   (6) Chad Sheridan v. Building Materials Corporation of America
       d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00325,
       in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
       Iowa (Judge John A. Jarvey).

The litigation arises out of the design, manufacture, and sale of
defective GAF Elk Cross Timbers decking by Defendant Building
Materials Corporation of America, doing business as GAF Materials
Corporation.  The six putative class actions have been filed in
six different jurisdictions challenging the same conduct.

GAF is a corporation with its headquarters in Wayne, New Jersey.
GAF manufactures, markets, advertise and sells GAF Elk Cross
Timbers decking throughout the United States.  In conjunction with
each sale, GAF warranted, marketed and advertised that its decking
was fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods were used
and were free from defects in materials and workmanship.

Plaintiff Ken Burger is represented by:

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
                  drew@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Frank M. Petosa, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          600 North Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3018
          E-mail: fpetosa@forthepeople.com


GARLOCK SEALING: Claimants Seek to Block Access to Evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Legal Times, reports that a
group of asbestos claimants have filed an emergency motion to
seeking to block a gasket-maker going through bankruptcy from
releasing information subpoenaed by Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of
North Carolina has set up a process through which the public can
review evidence in the case after interested parties first get a
chance to object.

The official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants say
that Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and related debtors "intend
to release sealed information that is subject to the public-access
protocol prior to any affected person having an opportunity to
seal it as contemplated by that order," Trevor Swett III, James
Wehner -- jwehner@capdale.com -- and Elihu Inselbuch --
einselbuch@capdale.com -- of Caplin & Drysdale and Travis Moon of
Moon Wright & Houston wrote.

The information that could be released to Imperial Tobacco
includes a database of asbestos personal-injury claims made prior
to Garlock's bankruptcy petition and ballots cast by creditors in
dozens of asbestos bankruptcies.

Judge Hodges estimated that Garlock likely owes $125 million to
asbestos plaintiffs, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that
Garlock's liability is around $1 billion to $1.3 billion.  He made
that estimate after finding evidence of misrepresentation by
plaintiffs' lawyers in several cases that Garlock settled in the
past or in which Garlock lost jury verdicts.

When Judge Hodges sealed the evidence, U.S. District Judge Max
Cogburn Jr. of the Western District of North Carolina reversed and
ordered fact-finding about the public's right of access because of
the common law or because of the First Amendment and to consider
on a case-by-case basis whether evidence needs to be kept sealed.
On remand, Judge Hodges "granted a procedural right to thousands
of asbestos claimants and other entities to be heard on whether
this court should maintain a seal on confidential materials and
information submitted of record in the estimation proceeding," the
plaintiffs attorneys said.  "The notice of that order, which
Garlock recently served on thousands of persons, as directly by
this court, specifically assured them of an opportunity to move to
seal provisionally protected information within 30 days."

The information in the database and about the ballots may not
necessarily remain sealed, the committee said, but the unsealing
protocol should be followed in the interim.

A hearing was scheduled on the motion for Aug. 22.


GENERAL MOTORS: Texas Lawyer Gets Co-Lead Counsel Role in MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that "A beauty
contest" is how Robert Hilliard described the proceedings held one
week ago in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York in the multidistrict litigation in the General Motors
litigation about allegedly defective ignitions.

Spoiler alert: Hilliard, a partner in Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in
Corpus Christi, won the role he sought at that contest as one of
three court-appointed co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the
MDL.

The only Texan among the appointed colead counsel, Hilliard shares
the role with Elizabeth Cabraser, a partner in the
San Francisco office of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and
Steve W. Berman, the managing partner in Seattle's Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro.

At the Aug. 11 hearing, Hilliard said the competition appeared
stiff to him.  Notably, he had to beat out high-profile candidates
like David Boies, the Armonk, N.Y.-based chairman of Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, who was appointed as one of the 10 executive
committee members for plaintiffs counsel, who will report to the
coleads.

"This was a chance to appear in front of a judge with some of the
40 best plaintiffs lawyers in the country and have them tell him
why they think they are the best guy," Hilliard said.  Some
lawyers used the opportunity to underscore odd distinctions, such
as the word "automotive" in their firm's name, Mr. Hilliard said.
Others seized the chance to explain why rivals shouldn't get
picked, he said.  "But for the most part, you were listening to
the upper-echelon" of the plaintiffs bar, Mr. Hilliard said.

How did Hilliard win? The Corpus Christi lawyer, who has some 600
clients with claims against GM related to allegedly defective
ignitions, said he used a two-pronged approach.  Before the judge
focused on the applications for colead and executive committee
plaintiff counsel positions, the court turned at the same hearing
to an evidence preservation question.  Hilliard said he used the
opportunity to jump in and show his ability to provide creative
solutions: He proposed to allow plaintiffs to receive written
confirmation of their right to request to have any ignitions they
have kept preserved as evidence, even though GM has said it has a
statistically significant sample of such ignitions.

After showing his persuasion skills with that issue, Hilliard said
he had four minutes -- like the others seeking the positions -- to
present his colead counsel application.  During that short time,
Hilliard said he "stayed away from" disparaging his rivals, or
"talking about anyone else's peccadillos."  Instead, he told the
judge he had tried 15-20 design defect cases against "the very
lawyers" in the courtroom who were representing GM, specifically
Kyle Dreyer -- kdreyer@hdbdlaw.com -- a partner in Dallas'
Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer.  Mr. Dreyer declined to comment for
this story, and referred to GM's public relations office, which
did not respond to an email inquiry and had no immediately
available telephone contact.

A complete list of the lawyers appointed to the executive
committee for plaintiffs counsel is available at:

          http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tx/chart_PDF.pdf


GREEN TREE: Class Certification Bid in "Rapp" Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz denied a motion for class
certification in the case captioned JARED RAPP, individually and
on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
and GREEN TREE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a Minnesota corporation,
Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-2496 (PJS/FLN), (D. Minn.).

Mr. Rapp moved for certification of a nationwide class of
borrowers who have entered into mortgage contracts with defendant
Green Tree Servicing, LLC over the past decade and who have been
required to pay for force-placed insurance. Mr. Rapp sought
certification of two claims. First, Mr. Rapp alleged that Green
Tree breached its mortgage contracts with the putative class
members by charging them an amount in excess of the actual cost of
the force-placed insurance that Green Tree purchased on their
behalf. Second, Mr. Rapp alleged that defendant Green Tree
Insurance Agency, Inc. (GTIA) was unjustly enriched as a result of
Green Tree's breach of the mortgage contracts.

Because Rapp cannot show that questions of law or fact common to
the class predominate over questions affecting only individual
class members, his motion for class certification is denied, Judge
Schiltz wrote in his order dated August 5, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/uMsk5Ufrom Leagle.com.

J. Gordon Rudd, Jr. -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- Hart L.
Robinovitch -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- and David M.
Cialkowski -- david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED,
PLLP; Caleb L.H. Marker -- c.marker@rlollp.com -- and David A.
McKay -- d.mckay@rlollp.com -- RIDOUT & LYON LLP, for plaintiff.

Mark D. Lonergan -- mdl@severson.com -- Erik Kemp --
ek@severson.com -- John B. Sullivan -- jbs@severson.com -- and
Mary Kate Kamka -- mkk@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON; Alan H.
Maclin -- amaclin@briggs.com -- and Mark G. Schroeder --
mschroeder@briggs.com -- BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A., for defendants.


GRUBHUB INC: Settles Junk Fax Class Action for $2 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that GrubHub Inc. has
agreed to pay $2 million to settle a class action alleging it sent
unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, according to documents filed on Aug. 20
in Illinois federal court.

The food delivery company said it would pay class members who
submit claims $50 each and put nearly $2.03 million in a
settlement fund in order to resolve the suit which alleges that it
didn't provide sufficient opt-out notices to consumers who were
sent fax advertisements, according to the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.

"The settlement allows class members to receive monetary and
prospective relief," the motion said.  "While plaintiff believes
that its claim for maximum statutory damages under the TCPA is
strong, plaintiff is also aware of the inherent risks and costs of
continuing with complex litigation of this nature."

The suit was filed by lead plaintiff Illinois Nut & Candy Home of
Fantasia Confections LLC on Feb. 11 alleging the faxes were sent
to consumers who did not have an existing business relationship
with GrubHub.  The complaint asked for statutory and actual
damages in addition to injunctive relief.

The proposed settlement comes after nearly four months of
negotiations, the plaintiffs said.  Under the agreement, all
individuals in the U.S. who received unsolicited fax
advertisements or faxes that did not contain the appropriate
opt-out language are entitled to their share of the settlement.

In addition, 20 percent of the settlement fund, around $405,000,
will go to the class counsel for their fees and expenses,
according to the motion.

GrubHub continues to deny liability in the litigation, arguing
that the faxes were not "unsolicited advertisements" and the faxes
were not received on a device that qualifies as a "telephone
facsimile machine" under the TCPA definition, so the plaintiffs
argue the settlement is the quickest and most efficient way to
resolve the litigation.

"One of the factors to be considered as to the fairness of a class
action settlement is GrubHub's willingness and ability to mount
just such a vigorous defense," the motion said.

Joseph Siprut, counsel for the plaintiffs, told Law360 he is
pleased with the settlement, which represents a strong recovery
for the class.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph J. Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Gregg M. Barbakoff -- gbarbakoff@siprut.com
-- and Ismael T. Salam -- isalam@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC.

GrubHub is represented by Henry Pietrkowski --
hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Illinois Nut & Candy Home of Fantasia Confections LLC
v. GrubHub Inc., case number 1:14-cv-00949, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


HOECHST CELANESE: Motions to Dismiss in "Easler" Case Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Easler, individually and as class representative of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation,
HNA Holdings, Inc., CNA Holdings, Inc., Hercules, Inc., Ashland,
Inc., Hystron Fibers, Inc., Messer Greishiem, Inc., Arteva
Specialties S.a.r.l. d/b/a "KoSo," Johns Manville Corporation,
INVISTA S.a.r.l. d/b/a "Invista," Teijin Monofilament U.S., Inc.,
Teijin Holdings USA, Inc., Auriga Polymers Inc., Indorama Ventures
USA, Inc., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:14-00048-TMC, (D. S.C.)
alleges violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. Section 6972, private nuisance, public nuisance,
and negligence.

The majority of the defendants have moved to dismiss Easler's
complaint, raising various grounds. Hoechst has moved to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). In its motion, Hoechst asserts that the court should
dismiss (1) Easler's RCRA claims because (a) Easler has failed to
properly plead imminent and substantial danger to health or the
environment and (b) medical monitoring is not available as a
remedy under RCRA and (2) Easler's state law claims because (a)
Easler has not pled damages to or interference with his property
and (b) those claims are barred by South Carolina's statute of
limitations. Hoechst also raises a question as to Easler's
standing to bring this suit and, specifically, whether he has
suffered an injury in fact. Hercules, Invista, Arteva, Auriga,
Indorama, and Johns Manville have joined in Hoechst's motion.

In addition to joining in Hoechst's motion, Hercules and Johns
Manville have asserted independent grounds for dismissal. Both
Hercules and Johns Manville contend that Easler has not alleged
enough facts regarding their conduct or contribution to the
alleged contamination to state claims under RCRA or state law.
Johns Manville also asserts that Easler did not provide sufficient
notice under 42 U.S.C. Section 6972.

District Judge Timothy M. Cain, in an order dated August 5, 2014,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/mizlBefrom
Leagle.com, denied the motions to dismiss.

Jay Easler, Plaintiff, represented by Richard A Harpootlian,
Richard A. Harpootlian Law Office, Graham Lee Newman, Chappell
Smith and Arden, Herbert W Louthian, Louthian and Louthian &
Herbert W Louthian, Jr, Louthian and Louthian.

Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian
Thomas Stansbury, Akerman LLP, Scott Andrew McMillin, Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, Weston Adams, III, McAngus Goudelock and Courie &
Grenville Delorme Morgan, Jr, McAngus Goudelock and Courie.

HNA Holdings Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian Thomas
Stansbury, Akerman LLP, Scott Andrew McMillin, Kirkland and Ellis
LLP, Weston Adams, III, McAngus Goudelock and Courie & Grenville
Delorme Morgan, Jr, McAngus Goudelock and Courie.

CNA Holdings Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian Thomas
Stansbury, Akerman LLP, Scott Andrew McMillin, Kirkland and Ellis
LLP, Weston Adams, III, McAngus Goudelock and Courie & Grenville
Delorme Morgan, Jr, McAngus Goudelock and Courie.

Hercules Inc, Defendant, represented by Benjamin A Johnson,
Robinson Bradshaw and Hinson, Christopher David Smith, Thompson
and Knight LLP, Jonathan Burton Shoebotham, Thompson and Knight
LLP & Ricky Anthony Raven, Thompson and Knight LLP.

Arteva Specialties SARL, Defendant, represented by Kevin A Dunlap,
Parker Poe Adams and Bernstein, Stephen Andrew Swedlow, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan & Steven D Weber, Parker Poe Adams
and Bernstein.

Johns Manville Corporation, Defendant, represented by G Mark
Phillips, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, Newman Jackson
Smith, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Wendy Wilkie Parker,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough.

INVISTA SarL, Defendant, represented by Kevin A Dunlap, Parker Poe
Adams and Bernstein, Stephen Andrew Swedlow, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan & Steven D Weber, Parker Poe Adams and
Bernstein.

Auriga Polymers Inc, Defendant, represented by Ben A Hagood, Jr,
Moore and Van Allen.

Indorama Ventures USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Ben A Hagood,
Jr, Moore and Van Allen.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises L.P. and Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014, that an action was filed on March 28, 2012 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York (the "Court"),
entitled Silsby v. Icahn et. al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn
and two officers of Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") and certain of its
directors.

As initially filed, the action purports to be brought as a class
action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares
between September 2011 and March 2012.  The complaint alleges
violations of the federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly
making false and misleading statements in securities filings which
statements artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The
individual defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons
of Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount.

Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for
bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of
Reorganization. Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has
filed an amended complaint that purports to be a class action on
behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities
between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012.

The Company said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses to
the claims and filed a motion to dismiss on July 19, 2013."

On April 30, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
and the case was dismissed with prejudice.  On May 30, 2014, the
Plaintiff filed an appeal, which is currently pending.

Icahn Enterprises is a diversified holding company owning
subsidiaries currently engaged in the following continuing
operating businesses: Investment, Automotive, Energy, Metals,
Railcar, Gaming, Food Packaging, Real Estate and Home Fashion.


INDECOMM HOLDINGS: "Dantes" Suit Moved From Tennessee to N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lisa Dantes, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated v. Indecomm Holdings, Inc., d/b/a
Indecomm Global Services, Case No. 1:13-CV-1290-JDB-egb, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Newark).  The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-05197-JLL-JAD to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff
overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


ITALIAN BOUTIQUE: Removed "Sanchez" FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sanchez v. Italian Boutique
Restaurants, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-018308 CA 01, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-23020-JAL to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff was not paid at the proper
overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, 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: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Curt David Obront, Esq.
          CURT OBRONT, ESQ., P.A.
          Wachovia Financial Center
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2940
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 373-1040
          Facsimile: (305) 373-2040
          E-mail: Curt@obrontlaw.com


KEY ENERGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 21 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Key Energy Services, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, and docketed under 14-cv-02403,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Key Energy securities between July 25, 2013 and July 17,
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 Key Energy securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 14, 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.

Key Energy Services, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiaries and its
controlled subsidiaries provide a full range of well services to
major oil companies, foreign national oil companies and
independent oil and natural gas production companies.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
revenues from its largest customer, Pemex (defined below), were
overstated due to fraudulent overbilling; (2) the Company's
production from Pemex was in decline; (3) the Company conducted
certain business activities in its Russian operations in violation
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"); (4) goodwill and
other assets related to the Company's Russian operations were
overstated; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On January 6, 2014, the Company disclosed that it was being
audited by Petroleos Mexicanos ("Pemex"), a customer with
aggregate billings of $372 million under contract.  As a result,
the Company disclosed that it expected to take a charge of between
$2 million and $3 million in the fourth quarter 2013.  On this
news, Key Energy Services securities declined $0.28 per share or
nearly 3.6%, to close at $7.554 per share on January 7, 2014.
In a  May 6, 2014 Form 10-Q, Key Energy Services disclosed that
"[t]he U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has advised us that
it is investigating possible violations of the U.S. Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act involving business activities of Key's
operations in Russia."  On this news, the Company's shares fell
$0.54, or more than 6%, to close at $8.40 on May 8, 2014 on heavy
trading volume.

On July 17, 2014, the Company announced that it expects to report
a second quarter loss in the range of 35 cents to 38 cents per
share based on a $30 million to $35 million pre-tax charge for
goodwill and other asset impairments related to its operations in
Russia, and that pre-tax expenses of $5 million were incurred in
connection with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigations.
On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.34, or more than 16%,
to close at $7.03 on July 18, 2014 on heavy trading volume.

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.


KMART CORP: Court OKs Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Fischer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy FISCHER and Morrison OMORUYI, Individually and on Behalf of
All other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KMART
CORPORATION, Defendant, CIV. NO. 13-4116, (D. N.J.) is before the
Court upon two separate motions: (1) the motion of Defendant Kmart
Corporation to Compel Arbitration and Strike the Consents of
Plaintiffs Corynn Galliano, Lon Savini, and Kelliann Roselan (the
Opt-In Plaintiffs) to join the present action; and (2) the motion
of Plaintiffs Amy Fischer and others for Conditional Certification
and Notice.

In an opinion dated August 4, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/aEif9qfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Anne E.
Thompson granted Kmart's motion to compel arbitration and strike
the consent to join of each of the opt-in plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs' motion for Conditional Certification and Notice was
granted in part and denied in part.

The Court granted the motion for conditional certification with
respect to current and former Assistant Store Managers who are not
bound by the Agreement, and the Court denied the motion for
conditional certification with respect to the current and former
Assistant Store Managers, including Opt-In Plaintiffs, who are
bound.

AMY FISCHER, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER --
seth@klafterolsen.com -- KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP,
MARK JUSTIN GOTTESFELD -- mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com -- THE
WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC & R. ANDREW SANTILLO --
asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC.

MORRISON OMORUYI, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER,
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP, MARK JUSTIN GOTTESFELD, THE WINEBRAKE
LAW FIRM LLC & R. ANDREW SANTILLO, WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC.

MELYSSA FLYTHE, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER
OLSEN & LESSER, LLP & R. ANDREW SANTILLO, WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO,
LLC.

Ty M Pham, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN
& LESSER, LLP & R. ANDREW SANTILLO, WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC.
Buckner Daniel, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER
OLSEN & LESSER, LLP & R. ANDREW SANTILLO, WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO,
LLC.

Darryl Tardy, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER
OLSEN & LESSER, LLP.

Atley St.John, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER
OLSEN & LESSER, LLP.

George Whalen, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER
OLSEN & LESSER, LLP.

KMART CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by COLLEEN MARY DUFFY --
CDUFFY@MDMC-LAW.COM -- MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER,
LLP, SHAIRA SITHIAN -- shairasithian@paulhastings.com -- PAUL
HASTINGS & STEVEN P. DEL MAURO -- SDELMAURO@MDMC-LAW.COM --
MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP.


LOWES HOME: Accused of Racial & Age Discrimination in Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivian Percoco v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01122-
VLB (D. Conn., August 4, 2014) alleges racial and age
discrimination under the Civil Rights Act and The Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

Lowes Home Centers, LLC, is a North Carolina limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in
Mooresville, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James V. Sabatini, Esq.
          SABATINI AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
          One Market Square
          Newington, CT 06111
          Telephone: (860) 667-0839
          Facsimile: (860) 667-0867
          E-mail: jsabatini@sabatinilaw.com


MACY'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Customer Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles and Jessica Corso, writing for Law360, report
that Macy's Inc. moved on Aug. 20 to extinguish a proposed class
action alleging the clothing retailer violated a California law by
illegally collecting consumers' personal information at the
checkout counter, arguing the plaintiff's failure to allege his
information was written down by a Macy's employee dooms the
lawsuit.

Macy's filed a motion in California federal court seeking to
dismiss a lawsuit filed last month by named plaintiff
Justin Maghen.  Mr. Maghen alleges a Macy's employee requested his
phone number and an identification card at checkout, a violation
of California's Song Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971.

In the company's motion, Macy's says that although the lawsuit
asserts that Mr. Maghen told a store associate his phone number
verbally, it fails to allege that the employee actually recorded
that information.  Recording customers' personal information "is a
necessary statutory element under Song-Beverly," Macy's said.

"Mr. Maghen's complaint is confusing and uncertain, and it fails
to allege a necessary statutory element," the company said.  "His
complaint is fatally infirm."

The motion includes portions of the Song-Beverly Act, a statute
that has lead to numerous class actions against California
retailers over the years.  Macy's was sued on the same day as
sports apparel retailer Foot Locker Inc. which is accused of a
similar violation of the law.

In the company's motion to dismiss, Macy's bolds certain parts of
the statute specifying that a customer's personal information must
be written down by a sales associate.

"The multiple references to writing and recording contained in
section 1747.08 make clear that there is nothing more factually
material to a Song-Beverly claim than the specifics surrounding
the requesting and recording of personal identification
information," Macy's said.  "Merely alleging that Macy's asked for
an identification card or telephone number, without making a fact-
based allegation of recording, is insufficient to state a Song-
Beverly violation."

Mr. Maghen visited a Macy's store in Pico Rivera on July 18 and
selected a watch, according to the complaint.  He claims that the
employee's request for his personal information and telephone
number at the checkout counter is part of a "uniform policy" at
Macy's.

Mr. Maghen estimates that Macy's potential liability for the
alleged Song-Beverly Act violations is more than $5 million, the
lawsuit said.

Mr. Maghen is represented by Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law
Group APC, by Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart and by Sina
Rezvanpour of RKR Legal.

Macy's is represented by Dana J. Dunwoody --
ddunwoody@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

The case is Maghen v. Macy's Corporate Services Inc., case number
2:14-cv-05874, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.


MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Settles Claims for De Minimis Amount
--------------------------------------------------------
In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P., ARCO Midcon L.L.C. and WilTel
Communications, L.L.C. ("WilTel").  The case is Glenn A. Henke, et
al. v. Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P., et al.  The complaint
alleged that the property owned by plaintiffs and those similarly
situated was damaged by the existence of hazardous chemicals
migrating from a pipeline easement onto the plaintiffs' property
and seeks recovery for such damages.

Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that, "We
acquired the pipeline from ARCO Pipeline ("APL") in 1994 as part
of a larger transaction and subsequently transferred the property
to WilTel. We are required to indemnify and defend WilTel pursuant
to the transfer agreement. Prior to our acquisition of the
pipeline property from APL, the pipeline was purged of product.
Neither we nor WilTel ever transported hazardous materials through
the pipeline."

A hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was
held in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri in December 2012. In March 2014, the U.S. District Court
denied plaintiff's motion for Class Certification. In June 2014,
the remaining individual claims against the Company and WilTel
were settled for a de minimis amount.

Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. is principally engaged in the
transportation, storage and distribution of refined petroleum
products and crude oil.


MAPCO EXPRESS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mandi Phillips, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly
situated v. Mapco Express, Inc., Owned and Operated by Delek US
Holdings, Inc.; and Delek US Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
01710 (M.D. Tenn., August 20, 2014) is brought under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, HAUDEK, BLOCK, GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100


MARSHALLS INC: Faces Class Action Over Mandatory Security Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, David McAfee and Ben James, writing for Law360,
report that an hourly worker at retailer Marshalls Inc. has filed
a proposed class action against the company, alleging employees
have not been compensated for the time they spend waiting for
mandatory security checks.

Named plaintiff Leslie Colin says in her suit, filed on Aug. 18,
that employees are required to remain at Marshalls after they
clock out so store managers can check workers' bags and personal
belongings.  Ms. Colin says when she worked overnight shifts,
employees also had to wait in the store after they finished
working until after a manger disarmed the store alarm and unlocked
the doors to allow workers to leave.

"Defendants failed to permit plaintiff and other nonexempt hourly
employees to leave the store after clocking out," the lawsuit
said.  "Employees were required to clock out and remain in the
store under the control of the employer while the manager checked
their bags and/or personal belongings for security purposes and
later allowed them to leave."

Ms. Colin is seeking to represent a class of Marshalls employees
who worked at one of the company's California stores.  The
aggregate monetary value of the claims of potential class members
is under $5 million, according to the lawsuit.

It's not clear whether or not Colin still works for Marshalls.
The lawsuit says Colin has worked as an hourly employee
"throughout the statutory period until the defendants discharged
her on or about Oct. 4, 2014."
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to consider whether employees
should be compensated for the time they spend during security
screenings under federal labor law.  That case was brought by
former workers at Amazon.com Inc. warehouses.  Justices are
expected to consider whether time spent waiting for security
screenings is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have
suggested that requiring companies to pay employees for the time
they spend during security checks could result in significant
financial liability for thousands of employers.

Ms. Colin is represented by Michael D. Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- and Kimberly Neilson -- kneilson@ckslaw.com
-- of Cohelan Khoury & Singer and by Sahag Majarian II and the Law
Offices of Sahag Majarian II.

Leslie Colin v. Marshalls of CA LLC, case number BC555231, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.


MEDCURE INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Trammell, an individual v. Medcure, Inc., a Nevada
foreign corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01364 (D. Nev., August 20,
2014) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime to the
Plaintiff.

Medcure, Inc., is a Nevada foreign corporation with an office in
Henderson, Nevada.  Medcure is engaged in the business of selling
tissues, limbs, organs and other matters from human cadavers to
medical research and educational facilities and organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanlaw.com
                  Josh@thiermanlaw.com

               - and -

          Jill S. Schwartz, Esq.
          David H. Spalter, Esq.
          Christopher A. Pace, Esq.
          JILL S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          655 W. Morse Blvd., Suite 212
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 647-8911
          Facsimile: (407) 628-4994
          E-mail: jschwartz@schwartzlawfirm.net
                  dspalter@schwartzlawfirm.net
                  cpace@schwartzlawfirm.net


MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Class Cert. Bid in Sandusky Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David S. Doty denied a motion for class
certification in the case captioned Sandusky Wellness Center LLC,
a Ohio limited liability company, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. Medtox Scientific, Inc., Medtox Laboratories, Inc.
and John Does 1-10, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 12-2066(DSD/SER), (D.
Minn.).

This is putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) which arose from an unsolicited facsimile
advertisement sent to Sandusky by Medtox on February 21, 2012.

The court denied the motion for class certification and granted
Medtox's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.

A copy of Judge Doty's August 5, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/Qb87fefrom Leagle.com

George Lang, Esq. -- glang@andersonwanca.com -- and Anderson +
Wanca, 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008;
Brant D. Penney -- b.penney@rwblawfirm.com -- and Reinhardt,
Wendorf & Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E-1250, St.
Paul, MN 55101, counsel for plaintiff.

Jeffrey R. Mulder, Esq. -- jmulder@bassford.com -- and Bassford
Remele, PA, 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3800, Minneapolis, MN
55402 and Geoffrey W. Castello, Esq. -- gcastello@kelleydrye.com
-- Robert I. Steiner, Esq. -- rsteiner@kelleydrye.com -- and
Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP, 101 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10178,
counsel for defendants.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Bid to Enforce "Dugas" Case Scheduling Order Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Currently pending before the court in MARIE DUGAS and KRYSTAL
DORSEY, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-
CV-02885, (W.D. La.) are two motions to compel, which were filed
by the plaintiffs, Marie Dugas and Krystal Dorsey, and a motion to
enforce the scheduling order, which was filed by defendant
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA).

This is a class action lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs seek to
represent persons who purchased Mercedes-Benz vehicles containing
either of two allegedly defective engines. The plaintiffs sued
both MBUSA and Moss Motors. Moss Motors was previously dismissed
from the suit. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a
class, but that motion has not yet been ruled upon.

Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna, in an opinion dated August 5,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/i70qxkfrom
Leagle.com, ruled that the  motion to enforce the scheduling order
will be denied, and both motions to compel will be granted.


Magistrate Judge Hanna ordered MBUSA to designate a corporate
representative to be deposed with regard to Item (A) on the
corporate deposition notice, at a time and place to be agreed upon
by the parties, and at the cost and expense of MBUSA.

MBUSA will, within 14 days after the date of the order, produce
any and all documents responsive to the requests for production
set forth in the corporate deposition notice regardless of whether
the documents are in its possession or in the possession of its
parent company, Daimler AG.

MBUSA will reimburse the plaintiffs for the reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion to compel and the
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs
for attending the additional corporate deposition.

To the extent that MBUSA's opposition to the motion to compel may
be construed as including a motion for reimbursement of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs "for having to file an opposition", that
motion is denied, ruled Magistrate Judge Hanna.

The Court ordered MBUSA to respond to the relevant discovery
requests not later than fourteen days after the date of the order.

MBUSA will reimburse the plaintiffs for the reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion to compel.

The fact discovery cut-off date set forth in the scheduling order
is vacated, with all other dates and deadlines set forth in the
scheduling order remaining the same.

Marie Dugas, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin R Duck, Duck Law
Firm, John R Whaley, Whaley Law Firm & Richard C Dalton, Law
Office of Richard C Dalton.

Krystal Dorsey, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin R Duck, Duck Law
Firm, John R Whaley, Whaley Law Firm & Richard C Dalton, Law
Office of Richard C Dalton.

Mercedes-Benz U S A L L C, Defendant, represented by Chad A
Stegeman -- cstegeman@cbmlaw.com -- Carroll Burdick & McDonough,
Colvin G Norwood, Jr -- wnorwood@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford, Gabriel A Crowson -- gcrowson@mcglinchey.com --
McGlinchey Stafford, Gary G Hebert -- ghebert@mcglinchey.com --
McGlinchey Stafford, Matthew J Kemner -- mkemner@cbmlaw.com --
Carroll Burdick & McDonough & Troy M Yoshino --
tyoshino@cbmlaw.com -- Carroll Burdick & McDonough.


MERCHANDISING TECHNOLOGIES: Violates Disabilities Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alana Barakat v. Merchandising Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-
cv-01262-BR (D. Or., August 6, 2014) is brought under the Family
Medical Leave Act of 1993, The Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 and the Fair Labor Standards Act, to correct alleged unlawful
employment practices of the Defendant.

Merchandising Technologies, Inc., is an Oregon corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kerry M. L. Smith, Esq.
          SMITH & FJELSTAD
          722 North Main Ave.
          Gresham, OR 97030
          Telephone: (503) 669-2242
          Facsimile: (503) 669-2249
          E-mail: smithandfjelstad@frontier.com


MORGAN STANLEY: OT Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Zanki and Alissa Wickham, writing for Law360, report that a
New York federal judge on Aug. 21 preliminarily approved the $4.2
million settlement Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC has agreed to pay to
end a collective action accusing the financial services company of
failing to pay overtime to client services associates.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan said the settlement the
parties submitted Aug. 13 "falls within the range of reasonable,
and therefore, meets the requirement for preliminary approval."  A
fairness hearing is scheduled for Dec. 19 to hear objections and
make a final judgment.

The parties came to agreement more than three years after former
client services associate Phillips Amador filed suit accusing
New York-based Morgan Stanley of failing to provide associates
with overtime, in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act
and state labor law.

The plaintiffs claimed that even though Morgan Stanley classified
the CSAs as nonexempt from overtime requirements, the financial
services giant told the associates to not record the overtime
hours they worked, according to an amended complaint filed in
February 2012.  Morgan Stanley denied the charges.

After Judge Sullivan conditionally certified the FLSA collective
action in 2013 for all persons who worked as CSAs for Morgan
Stanley in the prior three years -- except in California -- notice
was mailed to 8,300 members.  About 11 percent joined the class
action.

This case now involves the claims of 865 current or former Morgan
Stanley CSAs who are asserting they were not paid for all overtime
wages owed, not counting individuals associated with the New York
state class claim.

According to the agreement, the deal covers two settlement
classes: the FLSA class pertaining to CSAs who consented to join
the action, and workers who were employed in New York from
July 29, 2005, to October 2014 or whenever the settlement is
preliminarily approved.

Under the terms of the deal, each class member will receive a
payment determined by how many weeks he or she was employed by
Morgan Stanley as a CSA, with an average payment of $1,100,
according to the agreement.  The named plaintiffs in the suit will
also receive an additional $10,000 each.

Garden City Group Inc. was named claims administrator for the
case.

Morgan Stanley did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on Aug. 21.  The company earlier said the outcome was "not
a complete victory for either side" but puts an end to "protracted
and expensive litigation" distracting the company's business.
Morgan Stanley maintained that it provides robust polices assuring
nonexempt employees are paid for all hours worked.

The plaintiffs are represented by Seth R. Lesser and Fran L.
Rudich of Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP; and Gregg I. Shavitz and
Susan H. Stern of Shavitz Law Group PA for settlement purposes.

Morgan Stanley is represented by Thomas A. Linthorst --
tlinthorst@morganlewis.com -- Christopher K. Ramsey --
cramsey@morganlewis.com -- and Stephanie R. Reiss --
sreiss@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Amador et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC et al., case
number 1:11-cv-04326, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Thompson" Suit Added to Grant-In-Aid MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Thompson v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-03129, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the California Northern
District (Oakland).  The California District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 4:14-cv-03751-CW to the proceeding.

The case is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re:
National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant-In-Aid Cap
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2541.

The actions in the MDL involve antitrust challenges to the
National Collegiate Athletic Association's bylaws that limit
athletic grants-in-aid, also known as athletic scholarships) to
tuition and fees, room and board, and required course-related
books.  The Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that these athletic
grants-in-aid do not cover the full cost of attending school.

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


NORDSTROM INC: Plaintiff May Amend Case to Assert PAGA Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken issued an order on August 5, 2014,
addressing the Ninth Circuit's opinion on appeal and setting
deadline for action by plaintiff in the case captioned FAINE
DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. NORDSTROM, INC., Defendants, NO. C 11-3956
CW, (N.D. Cal.).

Faine Davis filed this case on behalf of herself and a putative
class of salaried Department Managers employed by Nordstrom
alleging that Nordstrom failed to provide overtime compensation,
meal and rest periods, accurate itemized wage statements, and
timely distribution of wages upon termination. Nordstrom moved to
compel arbitration based on a provision of the employment
contract. On September 27, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied that motion. Nordstrom
appealed. On June 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court's
decision and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit
issued its mandate on July 16, 2014.

Nordstrom changed its employee handbook to require arbitration of
disputes on an individual basis and bar employees from bringing
most class action lawsuits. The District Court ruled that
Nordstrom's purported policy change was not valid because it did
not comply with the requirement that the employer provide a
thirty-day notice and grace period to its employees, instead
making the new policy immediately applicable. The Ninth Circuit
disagreed, holding that while Nordstrom's "communications with its
employees were not the model of clarity," it satisfied the minimum
requirements under California law by informing its employees of
the modification and not seeking to enforce the arbitration
provision during the thirty-day notice period.

According to Judge Wilken, in the present case, Ms. Davis' claims
. . . seek to vindicate her and other class members' individual
rights for overtime pay, missed meal and rest periods, and other
penalties. These claims cannot be litigated in the district court
because they are subject to Nordstrom's arbitration provision,
which the Ninth Circuit found to be properly noticed and adopted,
she said. The Court cannot find the arbitration provision
unenforceable as unconscionable regarding these claims because
such a request would be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA), Judge Wilken added.

"Davis could, however, amend her complaint to vindicate the
alleged violations by Nordstrom pursuant to [the Private Attorney
General Act of 2004 (PAGA)]," Judge Wilken ruled.  "Accordingly,
Davis has twenty-eight days from the issuance of this order to
file an amended complaint to assert claims under PAGA, if she
wishes to do so. Otherwise, the Court will order arbitration and
dismiss the case, retaining jurisdiction only to enforce the
award."

A copy of Judge Wilken's order is available at http://is.gd/Nt3ifD
from Leagle.com

Faine Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Roland Bainer --
mbainer@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC & Hannah R
Salassi -- HSalassi@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole and Associates, APC.

Nordstrom, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dominic John Messiha --
dmessiha@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Lara Katyana Strauss --
lstrauss@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,  Matthew James
Sharbaugh, Littler Mendelson P.C., Michael Gerald Leggieri --
mleggieri@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Tomomi
Katherine Glover -- tglover@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


NVR INC: Removed "Thomason" Suit to District of South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Thomason, et al. v. NVR Inc., et
al., Case No. 2014-CP-46-856, was removed from the York County
Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina (Rock Hill).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 0:14-cv-03348-JFA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael S. Seekings, Esq.
          William Jefferson Leath, Jr., Esq.
          LEATH BOUCH AND SEEKINGS
          PO Box 59
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Telephone: (843) 937-8811
          E-mail: mseekings@leathbouchlaw.com
                  jl@leathbouchlaw.com

Defendant NVR Inc. is represented by:

          Ryan Lee Beaver, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
          100 N Tryon Street, Suite 2690
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 338-6000
          E-mail: rbeaver@babc.com


PATH INC: Appealed Denial of Summary Judgment in "Sterk" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant-Petitioner Path, Inc. petitions the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for permission to appeal the
May 30, 2014 order of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, which denied Path's motion for
summary judgment and granted Plaintiff-Respondent Kevin Sterk's
motion for partial summary judgment.

On August 8, 2014, the District Court certified the May 30 Order
for immediate appeal.  The question presented for appeal is
whether equipment qualifies as an "automatic telephone dialing
system" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act if it lacks
the capacity to generate random or sequential phone numbers.

Path is a free, mobile-based social networking service.  A Path
user named Elizabeth Howell used the Path application to send a
text message inviting the Plaintiff -- whose phone number was
already in her cell phone's address book -- to join her on Path.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Path equipment through which the
Howell Invitation was sent qualifies as an ATDS, that he did not
consent to receiving the text and, thus, the message violated the
TCPA.

Plaintiff-Respondent Kevin Sterk is represented by:

          Ari Jonathan Scharg, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin Harris Richman, Esq.
          Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq.
          David Ira Mindell, Esq.
          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          John C. Ochoa, Esq.
          Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 239-3362
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com
                  dmindell@edelson.com
                  jedelson@kamberedelson.com
                  jochoa@edelson.com
                  meisen@edelson.com

Defendant-Petitioner Path, Inc., is represented by:

          David H. Kramer, Esq.
          David J. Strandness, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          E-mail: dkramer@wsgr.com
                  dstrandness@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Tonia Ouellette Klausner, Esq.
          Brian M. Willen, Esq.
          Tonia O. Klausner, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10019-6022
          Telephone: (212) 999-5800
          Facsimile: (212) 999-5899
          E-mail: tklausner@wsgr.com
                  bwillen@wsgr.com
                  tklausner@wsgr.com

               - and -

          John David Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          Steven P. Mandell, Esq.
          MANDELL MENKES LLC
          One North Franklin, Suite 3600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 251-1000
          E-mail: jfitzpatrick@mandellmenkes.com
                  smandell@mandellmenkes.com

The appellate case is Path, Inc. v. Kevin Sterk, Case No. 14-8020,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  The
District Court case is Kevin Sterk v. Path, Inc., Case No. 1:13-
cv-02330, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.


PEOPLE MAGAZINE: Accused of Discrimination by Ex-Senior Editor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tatsha Robertson v. People Magazine; Time, Inc. d/b/a People
Magazine, and Betsy Gleick, in her professional and personal
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-06759 (S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2014)
seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as
monetary damages, to redress the Defendants' alleged unlawful
conduct including unlawful discrimination against the Plaintiff,
in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the New York
City Human Rights Law.

Ms. Robertson, who is African-American, worked as a Senior Editor
for People Magazine for approximately five years and for the
parent company, Time, Inc. for approximately eight years.  During
her tenure at People Magazine, she was the sole African-American
editor, and she is the only Black Senior Editor the magazine has
ever had.

People Magazine and Time Inc., doing business as People Magazine,
are foreign business corporations with a principal place of
business in Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257-6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
          E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
                  mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com


PHC INC: 1st Cir. Vacates Lower Court Ruling in Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit vacated a
district court judgment entered in IN RE: PHC, INC. SHAREHOLDER
LITIGATION. MAZ PARTNERS LP, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; PETER BLAKESLEE, individually and on behalf of
all others situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. PHC, INC.; BRUCE
A. SHEAR; DONALD E. ROBAR; DOUGLAS J. SMITH; HOWARD W. PHILLIPS;
WILLIAM F. GRIECO; DAVID E. DANGERFIELD; ACADIA HEALTHCARE
COMPANY, INC.; and ACADIA MERGER SUB, LLC, Defendants, Appellees,
NO. 13-2273.

This is a stockholders' class action suit challenging the fairness
of a corporate merger.  The Appeal raises the issue of whether the
district court precipitately granted summary judgment in light of
plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Affidavit outlining the discovery they needed to respond to a
dispositive motion.

According to the First Circuit's August 6, 2014 opinion, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/pXRoFJfrom Leagle.com,
Plaintiffs timely sought discovery from defendants relevant to the
issues presented in the motion for summary judgment. Despite
plaintiffs' perseverant efforts, minimal discovery in the
conventional sense took place. Plaintiffs survived several
dispositive legal motions only to be faulted by a summary judgment
motion for lacking evidence. Under these circumstances, the
district court's disregard of plaintiffs' detailed, plausible, and
comprehensive Rule 56 Affidavit was plainly wrong and an abuse of
discretion.

The First Circuit remanded the matter for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion.

Chet B. Waldman -- cwaldman@wolfpopper.com -- with whom Patricia
I. Avery -- pavery@wolfpopper.com -- Natalie Mackiel --
nmackiel@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP, David A.P. Brower --
brower@browerpiven.com -- Brian C. Kerr -- kerr@browerpiven.com --
Brower Pivin PC, Norman Berman -- nberman@bermandevalerio.com --
Nathaniel L. Orenstein -- norenstein@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio, Patrick J. Sheehan -- psheehan@whatleykallas.com -- and
Whatley Kallas LLP were on brief, for appellants.

James H. Hulme -- james.hulme@arentfox.com -- with whom Matthew
Wright -- matthew.wright@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox LLP, Richard M.
Zielinski -- rzielinski@goulstonstorrs.com -- Leonard H. Freiman
-- lfreiman@goulstonstorrs.com -- and Goulston & Storrs were on
brief, for PHC Director defendants/appellees.


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy A. Armbruster and Greg Armbruster, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd., Case No. 0:14-cv-03196-DWF-FLN (D. Minn.,
August 18, 2014) is brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael G. Phillips, Esq.
          PHILLIPS LAW, PLLC
          1155 East Grain Exchange Building
          412 South Fourth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 677-8345
          Facsimile: (612) 344-1579
          E-mail: mike@phillipslawmn.com


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Removed "Savetsky" Class Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Michael Savetsky v. Pre-Paid Legal
Services, Inc., Case No. RG14731588, was removed from the Alameda
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03514-SC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Nathan Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, PC
          1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (443) 739-5758
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com

               - and -

          Julian Ari Hammond, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, PC
          1180 S. Beverly Dr., Suite 601
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2835
          E-mail: JHammond@hammondlawpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
          E-mail: spetersen@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Lai Lam Yip, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 774-3147
          E-mail: Lyip@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Thomas Blanchard Snyder, Esq.
          CROWE DUNLEVY
          Braniff Building
          324 North Robinson, Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, Ok 73102
          Telephone: (405) 234-3254
          Facsimile: (405) 272-5271
          E-mail: thomas.snyder@crowedunlevy.com


PRODUCE JUNCTION: Sued Over Improper Parking and Loading Zones
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Lasky and Advocates for Disabled Americans v. Albert
Gentile and/or Produce Junction Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04847-JHR-
KMW (D.N.J., August 1, 2014) alleges that there is improper
parking and passenger loading zones for the disabled and improper
routes to the Defendants' store.

Mr. Lasky is disabled and uses a wheelchair.  Advocates for
Disabled Americans is a civil rights organization, whose goal in
part is to enforce the civil rights of the disabled with an office
in Cherry Hill, Camden County.

The Defendants are owners/operators of a retail property, which
store is located in Maple Shade, Burlington County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Brady, Jr., Esq.
          1 Rose Avenue
          P O Box 129
          Maple Shade, NJ 08052
          Telephone: (856) 662-5234
          E-mail: ladbrady@gmail.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Menkes" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In ALEXANDER L. MENKES; STEPHEN WOLFE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. PRUDENTIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Jersey corporation; QINETIQ
NORTH AMERICA OPERATIONS, LLC, a Delaware corporation; QINETIQ
NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; WESTAR AEROSPACE &
DEFENSE GROUP, INC, a Nevada corporation; DOES 1-100, presently
known individuals, partnerships, companies and/or other entities,
inclusive, NO. 13-1408, Messrs. Menkes and Wolfe appealed the
District Court's dismissal of their complaint for failure to state
a claim.

The appeal requires the United States Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, to determine whether certain supplemental insurance
coverage is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq.

In an opinion dated August 6, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/EuI20Ofrom Leagle.com, the Third Circuit
concluded that in the circumstances presented, the supplemental
insurance coverage is governed by ERISA, and that it cannot be
unbundled from the plaintiffs' broader employer-provided ERISA
benefits plan. It further ruled that ERISA preempts the various
state law claims that the plaintiffs asserted.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the order of the District
Court dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a
claim and denying leave to file an amended complaint.

Andrew P. Bell, Esq. -- abell@lockslaw.com -- Michael A. Galpern,
Esq. -- mgalpern@lockslaw.com -- Locks Law Firm, LLC, 457
Haddonfield Road, Suite 500, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002, Counsel for
Appellants.

Hillary Richard, Esq. -- hrichard@bruneandrichard.com -- MaryAnn
Sung, Esq. -- msung@bruneandrichard.com -- Brune & Richard LLP,
One Battery Park Plaza, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10004.

Melissa A. Herbert, Esq. -- mherbert@nfclegal.com -- Robin H.
Rome, Esq. -- rrome@nfclegal.com -- Kristine V. Ryan, Esq. --
kryan@nfclegal.com -- Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, P.C., 26 Main Street,
Suite 301, Chatham, NJ 07928, Counsel for Appellee Prudential
Insurance Co., of America.

Kimberly B. Martin, Esq. -- kmartin@babc.com -- Scott B. Smith,
Esq. -- ssmith@babc.com -- Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings LLP,
200 Clinton Avenue West, Suite 900, Huntsville, AL 35801.

Edmund S. Sauer, Esq. -- esauer@babc.com -- Bradley, Arant, Boult,
Cummings LLP, 1600 Division Street, Suite 700, Nashville, TN
32703.

Diane A. Bettino, Esq. -- dbettino@reedsmith.com -- Kellie A.
Lavery, Esq. -- klavery@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Princeton
Forrestal Village, 136 Main Street, Suite 250, Princeton, NJ
08540, Counsel for Appellees Qinetiq N.A. Operations, LLC,
Qinetiq, N.A., Inc., & Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc.


RED ROBIN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Petros, Individually v. Red Robin International, Inc., A
Foreign Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-13009-SFC-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
August 1, 2014) is brought for injunctive relief, and attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and for damages pursuant to the Michigan
Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Macomb County, suffers from polio,
uses a wheelchair and was a patron at the Red Robin restaurant
located in Madison Heights, Michigan.

Red Robin International, Inc., a foreign corporation, is the owner
and operator of Red Robin restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pete M. Monismith, Esq.
          PETE M. MONISMITH, PC
          3945 Forbes Ave., #175
          Pittsburgh, PA 15213
          Telephone: (724) 610-1881
          Facsimile: (412) 258-1309
          E-mail: Pete@monismithlaw.com


REGIONS FIN'L: 11th Cir. Upholds Ruling in "Local 703" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
In LOCAL 703, I.B. OF T. GROCERY & FOOD EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Lead
Plaintiff, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, PLAINTIFFS' LIAISON
COUNSEL, Plaintiff, v. REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, C. DOWD
RITTER, et al., Defendants-Appellants, NO. 12-14168, Regions
Financial and the individual defendants appealed from a district
court decision certifying the class action based on alleged
misrepresentations about Regions' financial health before and
during the recent economic recession. Regions argued that the
District Court should not have certified the class, and that the
class period is not justified.

The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, in an
opinion dated August 6, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/tkVD2afrom Leagle.com, affirmed "the District
Court's well-reasoned order in nearly all respects."

The Eleventh Circuit vacate and remand for further proceedings in
light of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton
II), ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2398 (2014), to allow consideration
of Regions's evidence of price impact and for the District Court
to review the duration of the class period.


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Lick, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Resurgent Capital Services LP and LVNV Funding LLC,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01847-DKD (D. Ariz., August 19, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 265-3332
          Facsimile: (602) 230-4482
          E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com


RETAIL PROPERTIES: Court Dismissed 5 Class Actions in June
----------------------------------------------------------
Retail Properties of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that certain
shareholders of the Company filed in 2012 putative class action
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

On June 10, 2014, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District
of Illinois (the Court) dismissed four of the five lawsuits with
prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the Company and its
officers and directors. The plaintiffs did not file a timely
appeal in these four cases and, consequently, they are now closed.

The Court dismissed the fifth lawsuit without prejudice and
granted the plaintiff in that case permission to file an amended
complaint. The amended complaint does not name the Company or its
officers and directors as defendants.

Retail Properties of America, Inc. is a REIT and is one of the
largest owners and operators of high quality, strategically
located shopping centers in the United States. As of June 30,
2014, the Company owned 224 retail operating properties
representing 31,828,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA).
The retail operating portfolio primarily includes power centers,
neighborhood and community centers and lifestyle centers, as well
as single-user retail properties.


RIVER CITY INTERNET: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper OT Rate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Patrick v. Rivercity Internet Group, L.L.C., a Missouri
limited liability company, Case No. 4:14-cv-01431 (E.D. Mo.,
August 18, 2014) alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate
the Plaintiff for overtime hours worked and in failing to pay him
overtime compensation at the statutorily prescribed rate of one-
and-one-half times the regular rate of pay.

Rivercity Internet Group, L.L.C., is a Missouri limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in St. Louis,
Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          Laura Spencer Garth, Esq.
          Jason M. Finkes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
          2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314)645-4100
          Facsimile: (314)736-6216
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com
                  laura.garth@dolleylaw.com
                  jason.finkes@dolleylaw.com

               - and -

          Cyrus Dashtaki, Esq.
          DASHTAKI LAW FIRM, LLC
          5201 Hampton Avenue
          St. Louis, MO 63109
          Telephone: (314) 832-9600
          Facsimile: (314) 353-0181
          E-mail: cyrus@dashtaki.com


SATINSKY GROUP: Class Action Over "699" Car Scheme Can't Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Knowler, writing for IOL Motoring, reports that there will
be no "699" class action.  On Aug. 21 Port Elizabeth High Court
Judge Dayalin Chetty dismissed, with costs, attorney Duncan
Heuer's application to have the R699 vehicle owners certified as a
class.  This was so they could bring a class action against the
Satinsky Group -- the company behind the now-collapsed "Drive a
New Car from R699 per month" deal -- and the three banks which
chose to finance those deals.

About 24 000 people across the country are affected, most of whom
are battling to afford their monthly installments since they
stopped getting advertising fees in return for doing relatively
high mileage with those stickers on their cars.

Mr. Heuer, of Port Elizabeth law firm Pieterse, Cary, Finlaison
Inc., chose local resident Johannes Ignatius Bartosch, a contract
worker with a motor manufacturer, as "the 699 man" to represent
all the others.

                        Reckless Lending

The ultimate aim was to have the credit agreements with the
banks -- Nedbank's MFC, Absa and Standard -- declared to be
reckless lending in terms of the National Credit Act, thus
declared null and void and cancelling the consumers' rights and
obligations.  The banks would then have to take back the cars.

In responding affidavits, all three banks said Mr. Heuer's claims
were based on hearsay and speculation; that the Satinsky clients'
experiences varied too greatly to satisfy the requirements of a
class action, and that the Port Elizabeth High Court had no
jurisdiction to decide on the matter.

"The entire case is predicated upon extravagant assertions."

Judge Chetty agreed with the jurisdiction issue, saying
Mr. Heuer's papers were "based entirely on conjecture and
assertions".

Assertions such as that the banks did not conduct proper
affordability assessments, and the consumers didn't understand or
appreciate the risks, costs and obligations of the contracts they
signed.

He said Mr. Heuer had "dismally failed to disclose any cause of
action whatsoever".

The attorney's persistence in urging those affected to participate
in the litigation by registering their details via SMS -- despite
the banks' "cogent and valid" opposition -- was, the judge said,
"to my mind a matter of aggrandisement pursued for self-interest,
and not in the public interest".

He dismissed the application with costs, to be paid de bonis
propriis, which is an expression of a court's disdain at an
attorney's conduct.

Those 699-ers who wish to pursue their reckless-lending claims
against their banks will now have to do so individually.

All three banks welcomed the ruling on Aug. 21.  Nedbank said MFC,
which has about 14 000 Satinsky clients, had a dedicated process
in place to help the affected clients "and remains committed to
working with all clients to explore viable solutions in line with
the National Credit Act".

"We believe that this is the correct application of the law to the
facts of the case," said Absa, which has 6500 Satinsky clients.

"Absa has and will continue to assist clients who are under
financial stress," it added.

And Standard Bank, which, with 3600 Satinsky clients, is the least
exposed, said it granted loans only if "all the credit and
affordability criteria have been met".

"We would look at assisting customers rescheduling their loans, as
is the normal collection practice for accounts in arrears," the
bank said.

According to The Citizen, Mr. Heuer said his firm planned to
appeal the cost order.

"We respect the judgment handed down . . . not to certify the
consumers affected by the R699 car scheme as a class.

"We have, however, after careful consideration . . . taken a
decision as a firm to file a notice of intention to seek leave to
appeal the cost order made against the firm."


SUNOCO INC: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sunoco, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01077-RCM (W.D. Pa.,
August 13, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPERVALU INC: Faces Suit Arising From Breach of Security System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve McPeak, Katherin Murray, Timothy Roldan and Darla Young v.
SuperValu, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00899-
DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill., August 18, 2014) is brought as a result of an
alleged breach of the security system of SuperValu governing
electronic transactions, resulting in compromised security of the
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personal financial information.

SuperValu, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 2440
          St. Louis, IL 63102
          Telephone: (314) 932-3232
          Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
          E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com


TD AMERITRADE: Motions to Dismiss "Ross" Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in
November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund.

On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor, certain of its
affiliates and the Company and certain of its directors, officers
and shareholders as alleged control persons. The complaint alleges
claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other
claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements
and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund
prospectuses and in other statements regarding the fund. The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary damages
and equitable relief.

On January 19, 2010, the defendants submitted motions to dismiss
the complaint. The motions are pending.


TELSTRA: CEO Welcomes Debate Over Late Fees Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Josh Taylor, writing for ZDNet, reports that Telstra CEO David
Thodey has welcomed debate over the late fees Telstra charges its
customers, as ACA Lawyers prepares a class action suit against the
company.

The call for class action participants from ACA follows a similar
case lodged against ANZ, Citibank, and Westpac over credit card
late fees earlier this month, after the Federal Court ruled in
February that ANZ's late credit card fees were a penalty and did
not reflect the actual cost to the bank.

ACA Lawyers said at the time that Telstra had collected AU$272
million in the last year in late fees, but had no right to do so.

Speaking on ABC radio on Aug. 22, Mr. Thodey indicated Telstra was
keen to take up the fight, and show that the fees were justified.

"I am happy to have this discussion, and I am looking forward to
it because I think it is a very different issue to what has been
raised by the banks," he said.

"I'd love to never have to charge late fees ever because people
pay bills on time.  This is when people have used our service,
have had 30 days to pay their bill, and if it is over $70, then we
do charge a late fee."

He said that people who didn't pay their fees cost the company
AU$250 million every year.

"Every year $250 million we write off as bad debt . . . of people
who don't pay their bills," he said.

"We would prefer never to charge a late fee, but if people don't
pay their bills, we need to have some incentive for them to take
action, because it is a very big issue.

"I do not want to penalize an individual for someone else not
paying their fee but we do run a business."

ACA lawyers indicated that Optus and Vodafone would also be
targeted in future class actions, but Vodafone CEO Inaki Berroeta
said that Vodafone's late fees reflected the cost incurred to the
company for customers who fail to pay their bills on time.


TELULAR CORP: Removed "Controllable" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Controllable On-Site Protection
Security Systems Inc. v. Telular Corporation, Case No. 63CV-14-
311-3, was removed from the Saline County Circuit Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little
Rock).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00487-
JM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts contract product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq.
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          The Rozelle-Murphy House
          1301 Scott Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
          E-mail: cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com
                  scott@emersonpoynter.com
                  wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin D. Jackson, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688-8800
          E-mail: bjackson@mwlaw.com


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Motor Vehicle Owners' Case in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on August 19, 2011,
plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor vehicle owners, filed an
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico Joint Underwriting Association
("JUA") and 18 other defendants, including Triple-S Propiedad,
Inc. ("TSP"), alleging violations under the Puerto Rico Insurance
Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code, the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and the local statute against
organized crime and money laundering.

JUA is a private association created by law to administer a
compulsory public liability insurance program for motor vehicles
in Puerto Rico ("CLI"). As required by its enabling act, JUA is
composed of all the insurers that underwrite private motor vehicle
insurance in Puerto Rico and exceed the minimum underwriting
percentage established in such act. TSP is a member of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noemi Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code. Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants did not incur acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums. Plaintiffs also
claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406,600,000 treble damages under RICO, and equitable relief,
including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment barring
defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along with
costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2011, TSP and other insurance companies filed a
joint motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that
plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine, inasmuch
a suit cannot be brought, even under RICO, to amend the compulsory
liability insurance rates that were approved by the Puerto Rico
Legislature and the Commissioner of Insurance of Puerto Rico.

On February 17, 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition. On April
4, 2012, TSP filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss,
which was denied by the court.

On October 2, 2012, the court issued an order certifying the
class.

On October 12, 2012, several defendants, including TSP, filed an
appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First District,
requesting the court to vacate the District Court's certification
order.  The First Circuit denied the authorization to file the
writ of appeals.

Discovery is ongoing.

Triple-S Management Corporation is one of the most significant
players in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico and has over
50 years of experience in this industry.  It offers a broad
portfolio of managed care and related products in the Commercial
and Medicare (including Medicare Advantage and the Part D stand-
alone prescription drug plan ("PDP")) markets.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Motion to Compel Arbitration Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Puerto Rico
Dentists Association ("Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto
Rico," in Spanish) filed a complaint on February 11, 2009, in the
Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating in
Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage. The Company and two
of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc. ("TCI"), were included
as defendants. This litigation purports to be a class action filed
on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render. The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150,000,000. In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.
There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this claim.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Company,
opposed. On February 8, 2011, the federal district court in Puerto
Rico decided to retain jurisdiction. The defendants filed a joint
motion to dismiss the case on the merits. On August 31, 2011, the
District Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims except for its
breach of contract claim, and ordered the parties to brief the
issue of whether the court still has federal jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").

Plaintiffs moved the court to reconsider its August 31, 2011
decision and the defendants did the same, arguing that the breach
of contract claim failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. On May 2, 2012, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion.
On May 31, 2012, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
dismissal of their complaint and the denial of plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. On September 25, 2012 the District Court
denied without prejudice the defendants' motion for
reconsideration.

On October 10, 2012 the parties filed their briefs with respect to
class certification.  On March 13, 2013, the district court denied
plaintiffs' request for class certification and ordered the
parties to brief the court on whether jurisdiction still exists
under CAFA following such denial.

On April 24, 2013, all parties briefed the court on this issue.
On September 6, 2013, the District Court dismissed the Dentist
Association for lack of associational standing, leaving only the
individual dentists as plaintiffs.  The court also granted
plaintiffs' leave to amend, on or before September 23, 2013, their
complaint to address mediation or settlement negotiations and, to
cure deficiencies pertaining to the breach-of-contract claims.

On December 23, 2013, five plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC") seeking damages in the amount of $30,000 in
which the dentists alleged that defendants altered the coding of
the claims billed by the dentist, resulting in a lower payment.
Only one of the five plaintiffs presented a claim against the
Company.

On January 31, 2014, the Company answered the complaint.  On April
11, 2014, TSS filed a motion to compel arbitration, as provided by
the claimant's provider contract.  Court's decision on this motion
is still pending.

On April 24, 2014, the Company and the claimant filed a voluntary
dismissal with prejudice, TSS and TCI continuing as defendants.
On June 4, 2014, TSS, TCI, and the remaining plaintiff filed a
joint notice of settlement and a request for dismissal.

On June 6, 2014 the court dismissed the claim as requested by the
parties.  On June 26, 2014, the court entered an amended judgment
to indicate that dismissal of the case was with prejudice.

Triple-S Management Corporation is one of the most significant
players in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico and has over
50 years of experience in this industry.  It offers a broad
portfolio of managed care and related products in the Commercial
and Medicare (including Medicare Advantage and the Part D stand-
alone prescription drug plan ("PDP")) markets.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: No Discovery Yet in Blue Cross Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that TSS is a co-
defendant with multiple Blue Plans and the BCBSA in a multi-
district class action litigation filed on July 24, 2012 that
alleges that the exclusive service area ("ESA") requirements of
the Primary License Agreements with Plans violate antitrust law,
and the plaintiffs in these suits seek monetary awards and in some
instances, injunctive relief barring ESAs. Those cases have been
centralized in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama.  Prior to centralization, motions have been
filed to dismiss some of the cases and are pending the court's
decision.  Plaintiffs opposed TSS' motion to dismiss.

On April 9, 2014, the court held an argumentative hearing to
discuss the motions to dismiss.  During the hearing, the Court did
not issue a ruling on the motions to dismiss thus, decision on
said motions are still pending.

On June 18, 2014, the court denied TSS' motion to dismiss.

Discovery has not yet commenced. The Company has joined BCBSA in
vigorously contesting these claims.

Triple-S Management Corporation is one of the most significant
players in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico and has over
50 years of experience in this industry.  It offers a broad
portfolio of managed care and related products in the Commercial
and Medicare (including Medicare Advantage and the Part D stand-
alone prescription drug plan ("PDP")) markets.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Settlement Approval in "Hawthorne" Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that, "In our Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2011, we initially reported on
a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Bank by Amber
Hawthorne relating to overdraft fees and the posting order of
point of sale and ACH items.  In March 2014, the parties reached
an agreement to settle the case and have executed a comprehensive
written settlement agreement. Court approval of the settlement
terms is currently pending. Settlement of this matter on the
agreed terms will have no material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Umpqua Holdings Corporation, an Oregon corporation, is a financial
holding company with two principal operating subsidiaries, Umpqua
Bank (the "Bank") and Umpqua Investments, Inc. ("Umpqua
Investments").


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: No Significant Activity in 2 Spokane Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that, "In our Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2013, we initially reported on
two separate class action lawsuits filed in Spokane County,
Washington, Superior Court against the Company and other
defendants arising from the proposed Merger. The court
consolidated the cases before a single judge for further
administration. The consolidated litigation generally alleges that
directors of Sterling breached their duties to the Sterling
shareholders by approving the Merger, failing to take steps to
maximize shareholder value, engaging in a flawed sales process,
and agreeing to deal protection provisions in the Merger agreement
that are alleged to unduly favor the Company. The Company is
alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged breaches of duty."

"The consolidated litigation also alleges that the disclosures
approved by the Sterling board in connection with the Merger and
the vote thereon are false and misleading in various respects. As
relief, the complaints sought to enjoin the Merger and seek, among
other things, damages in an unspecified amount and payment of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants believe that
the lawsuits are without merit.

"On January 16, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") that contains the essential terms of a
settlement and dismissal of the consolidated cases. The MOU does
not call for the payment of any money damages, but required the
defendants to make certain additional disclosures relating to the
Merger and to pay the attorney fees, costs, and expenses of
plaintiffs' counsel incurred in connection with the action. The
agreed additional disclosures were made and included in the joint
proxy statement/prospectus filed January 22, 2014. The MOU further
provides that if the parties cannot agree on the amount of fees,
costs, and expenses to be paid by the defendants to plaintiffs'
counsel, such amount shall be decided by the court.

"There has been no significant activity in the cases since the MOU
was executed."

Umpqua Holdings Corporation, an Oregon corporation, is a financial
holding company with two principal operating subsidiaries, Umpqua
Bank (the "Bank") and Umpqua Investments, Inc. ("Umpqua
Investments").


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that, a putative
securities class action complaint, captioned City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.,
No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was on December 11, 2009, filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
against Sterling and certain of its current and former officers.
The court appointed City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System
as lead plaintiff on March 9, 2010.

On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements concerning our business and
financial results.

The consolidated complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Sterling's
stock during the period from July 23, 2008 to October 15, 2009.
The consolidated complaint alleged that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
failing to disclose the extent of Sterling's delinquent commercial
real estate, construction and land development loans, properly
record losses for impaired loans, and properly reserve for loan
losses, thereby causing Sterling's stock price to be artificially
inflated during the purported class period. Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint.

On March 2, 2011, after complete briefing, the court held a
hearing on the motion to dismiss. On August 5, 2013, the court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice.

On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint. The amended consolidated complaint names
the same defendants, specifies the same class period, alleges the
same violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks the same relief. The amended
consolidated complaint contains similar allegations of improper
disclosure regarding Sterling's lending practices, status of loans
and reserving and accounting for loans.

On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, and a hearing on that motion was scheduled
to occur on August 13, 2014.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and continues to
vigorously defend against it.

"Failure by the Company to obtain a favorable resolution of the
claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations and financial
condition. Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not
considered probable or reasonably estimable in amount," the
Company said.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation, an Oregon corporation, is a financial
holding company with two principal operating subsidiaries, Umpqua
Bank (the "Bank") and Umpqua Investments, Inc. ("Umpqua
Investments").


UNITED SERVICES: Removed "Johnston" Suit to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Johnston v. United Services
Automobile Association, Case No. 14-2-10507-5, was removed from
the Pierce County Superior Court to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-05660 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN
          1703A Dock Street
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Moore, Esq.
          Sarah E. Tilstra, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE
          1001 4th Ave., Suite 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154-1051
          Telephone: (206) 625-8600
          Facsimile: (206) 625-0900
          E-mail: mmoore@corrcronin.com
                  stilstra@corrcronin.com

                           *     *     *

Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, reports that United Services
Automobile Association on Aug. 20 removed a proposed class action
accusing the automobile insurer of cheating policyholders out of
diminished-value payments to Washington federal court over the
plaintiff's contention that the amount in controversy is
insufficient for federal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff Edmond J. Johnson filed the proposed class action in
state court on behalf of USAA's Washington policyholders alleging
that the insurer was underpaying for diminished value to their
cars as a result of accidents and misleading policyholders about
their rights to such payments, thereby breaching the policy
contracts and violating the Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act.

The complaint alleges that damages for the class would at most be
just under $3.98 million, eliminating federal diversity
jurisdiction because the potential damages are below the $5
million threshold for the "amount in controversy" for federal
class actions.

But USAA, which is based in Texas, removed the case to federal
court on Aug. 20 alleging that class damages, including attorneys'
fees and possible treble damages, could exceed the $5 million
threshold for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act, or CAFA.

"Defendant disputes that the plaintiff has stated any viable
claims, and also disputes that the plaintiff and the putative
class members are entitled to any relief," the notice of removal
says.  "Nevertheless, it is evident from the allegations of the
complaint and the nature of the plaintiff's claims that the amount
in controversy exceeds CAFA's jurisdictional threshold of
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs."

USAA alleges that damages could include potential attorneys' fees
for the class action, which could be as much as $1.9 million,
available statutory treble damages of at least $5.9 million and
other damages, according to the notice of removal.

The complaint does not allege treble damages, but USAA argues that
that "is irrelevant for purposes of determining the amount in
controversy" because they are available under the Insurance Fair
Conduct Act.

The plaintiff's attorney, Stephen Hansen, told Law360 on Aug. 21
that they are not seeking treble damages and are still considering
whether to dispute federal court jurisdiction.

The plaintiff filed the complaint after his 2011 Toyota Prius,
with 37,300 miles on it, was rear-ended by an uninsured driver
resulting in close to $3,000 in repair work, according to the
complaint.

"Due to the nature of the damage and the state of aftermarket body
shop repair techniques, plaintiff's vehicle was tangibly and
identifiably different after the accident and repairs," the
complaint says.  "These differences are detectible [sic] in any
later inspection, and the vehicle's market value has therefore
been diminished."

He alleges that under his USAA policy and Washington law he is
entitled to coverage for the "diminished value" of his vehicle but
that USAA misled him about his rights to the coverage and then
used an improper calculation method that undervalued his loss.

The class action says USAA treated others with similar policies
the same way.

"In its quest for uniformity, the USAA has chosen to evaluate
diminished value claims using a method that uniformly undervalues
the loss in USAA's favor," the complaint alleges.  "The
information supplied by USAA about diminished value is misleading
because it causes the insured to believe wrongly that USAA's
method is the only approved method of calculating a loss in fair
market value."

The plaintiff is represented by Stephen M. Hansen of the Law
Offices of Stephen M. Hansen.

USAA is represented by Michael A. Moore -- mmoore@corrcronin.com
-- and Sarah E. Tilstra -- stilstra@corrcronin.com -- of Corr
Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece LLP.

The case is Johnston v. United Services Automobile Association,
case number 3:14-cv-05660, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington at Tacoma.


VIVENDI SA: Fights Investor Claims Process in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
four-and-a-half years ago, when a jury socked Vivendi SA with an
estimated $9.3 billion securities fraud verdict, it was easy to
second-guess the company's bold decision to let the class action
go to trial.  But the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v.
National Australia Bank helped Vivendi dodge a vast portion of the
verdict -- and now the company's lawyers are busy trying to bury
what's left of the spoils.

In a series of letters filed in the case over the past several
weeks, Vivendi counsel James Quinn -- james.quinn@weil.com -- of
Weil, Gotshal & Manges argues that sophisticated investors
shouldn't share in what remains of the verdict because they didn't
rely on the misstatements identified by the jury.  If Vivendi can
succeed in blocking those investors' claims, Mr. Quinn predicts,
the company's remaining liability may be measured in the mere
millions.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin scheduled a status conference
for Aug. 21 to resolve various discovery issues relating to
Vivendi's reliance arguments.  The law firm representing the
class, Abbey Spanier, has protested that there is "substantial
disagreement" over the sorts of documents and testimony Vivendi
should be able to seek.

Federal jurors in Manhattan returned a verdict in January 2010
that Paris-based Vivendi misled shareholders about its financial
condition.  A year later, however, now-retired U.S. District Judge
Richard Holwell dismissed most of the claims in the case based on
Morrison, which made it much much harder for foreign investors to
avail themselves of U.S. securities laws.  Judge Holwell's
decision, which restricted the case to claims by certain holders
of Vivendi American Depository Shares, trimmed Vivendi's exposure
by an estimated 90 percent.

Now the lawyers are fighting over the claims process, in which
Vivendi shareholders applied to share in the remaining pool of
money.  In an Aug. 15 letter to Judge Scheindlin, who inherited
the case from Judge Holwell, Vivendi's lawyers at Weil indicated
that they plan to argue that hundreds of sophisticated investors
that filed claims shouldn't recover a cent because they didn't
actually rely on Vivendi's misstatements.  These large investors
account for a fraction of the number of claimants, but they're in
line to collect the lion's share of the damages.

By knocking out these investors on reliance grounds, Weil's Quinn
told The Litigation Daily that he and his cocounsel at Cravath,
Swaine & Moore could reduce Vivendi's remaining exposure by
approximately 98 percent.

Vivendi successfully field-tested its tactic of litigating
individual investors' reliance in a prior dispute with GAMCO
Investors Inc.  GAMCO opted out of the class action and brought an
identical securities fraud case against Vivendi, alleging $3.5
million in damages.  It was able to coast through the pleadings
stage by invoking the fraud-on-the-market doctrine, a bedrock
feature of securities class actions that creates a presumption
that investors relied on a company's public misstatements.

While the fraud-on-the-market presumption can be rebutted, it's
nearly impossible to do so in practice.  Vivendi pulled it off in
March 2013, however, by pointing out that Gamco decided to invest
in Vivendi based on its own sophisticated internal evidence about
the company's share value.  Cravath Swaine & Moore's Paul Saunders
-- psaunder@cravath.com -- and Timothy Cameron --
tcameron@cravath.com -- represented Vivendi in that case, and
Saunders hinted last year that the GAMCO ruling would come back to
bite the class action plaintiffs.

There's a bit of precedent for Vivendi's strategy of trying to
bounce investors from the claims process on reliance grounds.
Household International Inc. launched a similar strategy after it
lost a verdict now valued at $2.46 billion in 2009.  Household's
objections to the claimants are on hold pending appeal.

Still, postverdict claims disputes in investor class actions are
rare, largely because there have only been a handful of jury
trials in the history of securities class action litigation.

"We're breaking some new ground here," Mr. Quinn said.

While Vivendi has used Morrison to great advantage, it's had less
success capitalizing on Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, in
which the Supreme Court grappled with the fraud-on-the-market
presumption directly and ultimately upheld the doctrine in June.

In a short order issued on Aug. 18, Judge Scheindlin denied
Vivendi permission to file a new motion for judgment as a matter
of law based on Halliburton.  Vivendi had argued that Halliburton
established that plaintiffs must show that misrepresentations
actually caused stock price inflation, and that this burden wasn't
met at trial.  Judge Scheindlin ruled that Judge Holwell
adequately addressed the issue in a prior ruling years earlier and
that Vivendi's route forward is to appeal that ruling.

Plaintiffs counsel Arthur Abbey -- aabbey@abbeyspanier.com -- of
Abbey Spanier didn't return a call seeking comment.


WASHINGTON: Workers Get Favorable Ruling in Health Benefits Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel La Corte, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the state Supreme Court on Aug. 21 unanimously upheld a lower
court's ruling that says damages to be paid to part-time state
employees who were wrongfully denied health benefits must take
into account more than actual out-of-pocket costs.

The high court's ruling sided with a class-action group's stance
on such damages, and it rejected the Washington Health Care
Authority's argument that the state should only pay for actual
costs paid by class members during the time they were denied
benefits.

"People without health benefits are less likely to seek and obtain
medical treatment, especially preventive care," the opinion,
written by Justice Susan Owens, reads.  "The State would use this
fact as a reason to use a lower estimate of the damage it caused
to the employees to whom it improperly denied health benefits.
But those lower short-term medical costs have significant
long-term consequences, both medical and financial, to uninsured
individuals."

The employees proposed three options to measure the damages due to
them: what the state should have paid in health benefits per
employee as part of overall compensation; the amount the state
saved by failing to provide benefits to the employees; and the
amount the state would have paid in health care costs for
employees as a group had they been covered.

The King County Superior Court ruling found in favor of the
plaintiffs in December 2012, but the court held off on ruling on
an award because of questions that remained, including about the
size of the class.  The case now heads back to King County.

The high court noted that while it affirmed the King County
court's decision to reject the state's method to measure damages,
it was not prescribing a means to determine the value of health
benefits.


WHOLE FOODS: Faces $5-Mil. Class Action Over Homeopathic Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Dan Packel and Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, report
that Whole Foods Market Inc. was hit with a $5 million putative
class action on Aug. 21 in Florida federal court for allegedly
misleading hundreds of thousands of purchasers into believing
their products effectively treat the flu as well as coughing and
other symptoms in adults and children, when the products are
actually "worthless."

The complaint claims consumers unwittingly spend millions of
dollars annually on products containing ingredients, some of them
toxic, that are so diluted they have no biological effect on the
human body.  The products at issue include Cough Ease for Kids,
Cough Ease, Flu Ease and Arnica Montana 30C, which one of the
plaintiffs allegedly bought to help with pain, swelling and
stiffness from a bruise.

"Whole Foods' homeopathic products are worthless, and Whole Foods
unfairly, deceptively and unjustly enriches itself on the backs of
consumers in order to turn a corporate profit," the suit alleges.

The proposed class action further states that homeopathic drugs
aren't held to the standards of nonhomeopathic, over-the-counter
drugs, which require approval by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration after a detailed drug application with evidence of
clinical trials by experts.

Rather, homeopathic drugs such as the ones at issue in the Aug. 21
suit aren't evaluated by the FDA, allegedly leading to confusion.
Because Whole Foods' packaging and advertising only mentions
"homeopathic medicine" in fine print, "this confusion crosses the
line into deception," according to the suit.

"Whole Foods is not only taking advantage of consumers' desire for
natural medicine, but also deceiving consumers into believing that
Whole Foods' products are effective, regulated drugs that are held
to the same standards as true medical drugs and nonhomeopathic OTC
drugs," plaintiffs claim.

The Aug. 21 proposed class action comes the same week that Whole
Foods was hit with a putative class action suit in Pennsylvania
court alleging that the company misrepresented the amount of sugar
in its store-brand Greek yogurt, which has been reported to
contain more than five times the amount listed.

Another proposed class action -- also filed this month, in
Massachusetts federal court -- accused the grocery chain of
falsely marketing its 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt
product as containing only 2 grams of sugar per serving when it
actually contains six times the labeled amount.

The suit alleges that homeopathic drugs haven't been shown to be
effective at treating any ailments and are used under the belief
that diseases can be treated by small doses of substances,
producing similar effects as in larger doses.

Studies by the Swiss government in 2005 showed that homeopathic
drugs had no effect, while the American Medical Association and
National Health Service have stated that there is no scientific
evidence supporting homeopathic treatments, according to the
proposed class action.

The named plaintiffs, four Whole Foods shoppers who live in
Florida and New York, allege that Whole Foods engaged in unjust
enrichment by receiving monetary profits after making
misrepresentations over the homeopathic products.

They also say the grocery store violated the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, which prohibits unfair methods of
competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in conduct of any trade or commerce.

Lastly, the proposed class action alleges negligent
misrepresentation for the listings on packaging, advertising and
marketing materials for the products at issue.

Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas P. O'Connell of Thomas P.
O'Connell PA.

The case is Mario Herazo et al. v. Whole Foods Market Inc., case
number not yet assigned, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.


WYETH LLC: May Face Liability Over Generic Drug Defects
-------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Legal Times, reports that a
divided Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that brand-name drug
manufacturers can be held liable harm to patients who take generic
versions of their drugs.

The 6-3 ruling places Alabama in a minority of jurisdictions.
"A brand-name manufacturer could reasonably foresee that a
physician prescribing a brand-name drug (or a generic drug) to a
patient would rely on the warning drafted by the brand-name
manufacturer even if the patient ultimately consumed the generic
version of the drug," Justice Michael Bolin wrote for the majority
on Aug. 15.

The court reheard the case but reaffirmed a ruling it handed down
in 2013.

The majority did not say that brand-name manufacturers can be held
liable for manufacturing defects in drugs made by generic
drugmakers -- only for "fraudulent statements on the warning label
related to that medication" or for omitting warning on the label.

The court rejected an argument that the court was creating a new
tort of innovator liability.  Brand-name manufacturers have a duty
not to make false representations about their warning labels when
they continue to control the labels, Bolin said, and they have a
duty to update those labels when side effects become apparent
after their drugs have been on the market.

Plaintiffs Danny Weeks and his wife, Vicki Weeks, allege that he
suffered a neurological movement disorder after taking the generic
version of Reglan.  But the plaintiffs allege that the brand-name
manufacturers, Wyeth LLC, Pfizer Inc. and Schwarz Pharma Inc. were
liable to Weeks for allegedly misrepresenting the long-term risks
of using Reglan and failing to warn his physician about those
risks.

The legal issue in the case of Wyeth Inc. v. Weeks was certified
to the Supreme Court by the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama.

In dissent, Chief Justice Roy Moore said the court should not have
accepted the question.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that generic drugmakers aren't
liable for failing to warn of the risks of their products because
brand-name manufacturers have the exclusive authority to control
the labels for their products and generic pharmaceutical companies
must match the brand-name labels exactly.

In dissent, Justice Tom Parker said the U.S. Supreme Court's
rulings in Pliva Inc. v. Mensing and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v.
Bartlett "have made clear that such a consumer is left without a
remedy absent a legislative change by Congress."

In dissent, Justice Glenn Murdock said that the Weeks ruling
leaves the Alabama Supreme Court standing "alone as the only
appellate court in the country to hold that a brand-name
manufacturer may be responsible for injuries caused to a party who
ingests a generic drug that the brand-name manufacturer did not
manufacture or sell."

The Iowa Supreme Court recently ruled that brand-name
manufacturers cannot be held liable for versions of their drugs
made by generic drugmakers.


YELP INC: Illegally Contacted Class Members' Phones, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irestore Repair and Wireless, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Yelp, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-61899-
WJZ (S.D. Fla., August 19, 2014) arises from the alleged illegal
actions of Yelp in contacting the Plaintiff on its cellular
telephone in an attempt to sell advertising or other services in
direct contravention to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Yelp Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California.  Yelp is a business listing and consumer
review Web site.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.
          664 W. Hallandale Beach Blvd.
          Hallandale, FL 33009
          Telephone: 954-589-0588
          Facsimile: 954-337-0666
          E-mail: Scott@ScottDOwens.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF BRET LUSSKIN, ESQ.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Timothy Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com


ZZIM USA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hai Shu Jin, 383 Closter Dock Road, Closter, New Jersey, 07624,
and all other similarly situated employees v. Zzim USA, Inc.,
Doing business as and also known as Spa World, 13830 Braddock
Road, Unit A-10, Centreville, VA 20121; and Sang K. Lee, 13830
Braddock Road, Unit A-10, Centreville, VA 20121, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01051-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va., August 19, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiff and the class are entitled to unpaid regular wages and
unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not receive
overtime premium pay, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Zzim USA, Inc., doing business as Spa World, is a Virginia
Corporation headquartered in Centreville, Virginia.  The Company
is engaged in the business of Korean style spa, also called as
"Zzim Zil Bang."  Sang K. Lee is the president and chief executive
officer of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaoming Cheng, Esq.
          CHEN YUN & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          6072 Deer Ridge Trail
          Springfield, VA 22150
          Telephone: (703) 921-2588
          Facsimile: (703) 924-7191
          E-mail: chengyunlaw@gmail.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  * * *