CAR_Public/140828.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 28, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 171

                             Headlines


9032-1076 QUEBEC: Recalls Patisserie Cream Mille Feuilles
ACROPOLIS LTD: Does Not Pay OT Properly, "Rodea" Suit Says
ADVANCED MICRO: $5.4-Mil. Settlement Gets Final Approval
ALIMENTS GENESIS: Recalls Genesis Food Organic Brown Flax
ALLIED CONCRETE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

AT&T MOBILITY: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action for $5 Million
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces Class Action Over TotalPay Debit Card Fees
BARRACO'S PIZZA: Faces "Salois" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls Franklin & Ben Mason Convertible Cribs
BIRRIERIA OCOTLAN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BLUE BIRD: Recalls 13 All American Non-School Buses
BLUE BIRD: Recalls 44 All American School Buses
BLUE CROSS: Accused of Cheating by Four SoCal Medical Centers
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Providio to Administer Pradaxa Settlement
BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued in Ill. for Concealing Product Defects

BUSINESS TO BUSINESS: Unsolicited Fax Class Action Can Proceed
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: "Huddy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CARE SPECIALISTS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CLIC ROYAL: Recalls "Seven Spices" Due to Undeclared Sesame
COMENITY LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lewis" Suit Claims

CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Recalls Multiple Tire Models
COURIER EXPRESS: Removed "Salzone" Suit to S.D. Florida
DOLLARAMA: Recalls Child's Plastic Patio Chairs
EZCORP INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Violates FDCPA, New York Class Suit Says

FISKARS CANADA: Recalls "Pink" Pigment Ink Cartridge (291C)
FLORIDA TURNPIKE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Escape & Focus Due to Wiring Splice Defects
GAF BUILDING: Faces "Robertie" Suit for Concealing Product Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Podhurst Orseck Named to MDL Executive Committee

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
GOLDEN ARTIST: Recalls QoR Synthetic Ox Gall
GOOGLE INC: Says Class Claims vs. AdSense a "Legal Jujitsu"
GREAT-WEST LIFE: "Teets" ERISA Suit Moved From Cal. to Colorado
HARRISON HOTEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Huembes" Suit Says

HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 50,000 Civic, Civic Hybrid, CSX & Fit Cars
HURRICANE LOUNGE: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
IL GUSTO: "Saracho" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
INTERLOGIX: Recalls Security System Smoke Detectors
INTERNATIONAL AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Undelivered Vehicles

INTERTEK: Recalls Heating Pad Due to Counterfeit Cert. Mark
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Judge Trims Claims in Securities Class Action
KENT HERITAGE: Recalls Chicken Burgers Due to Undeclared Egg
KOOMA INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Shan Pickle Products

LIFE TIME FITNESS: Faces "Chrispens" Suit Over Deduction of Wages
LIONS GATE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
LOUISIANA LIQUID: Fails to Pay Drivers Overtime, Action Claims
LOWE'S HOME: Settles HR Managers' OT Class Action for $9.5 Million
M&T BANK: "Schaefer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Compensation

MAGANA ASSOCIATION: Florida Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MARANATHA: Peanut Butter Products Recalled Due to Salmonella
MAXIMUM TITLE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Parker" Suit Claims
MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Engine Design Defect
MODERN FURNITURE: Faces "Aponte" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Has Appealed Injunction in "O'Bannon" Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Protesters Suit Affirmed
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
OEUF: Recalls Sparrow Cribs Due to Fall Hazard
ONEWEST BANK: 9th Cir. Remanded "Doyle" Suit to C.D. California

PACIFIC BELL: Removed "Lefevre" Class Suit to N.D. California
PAN ASIA: Recalls Wang Korepab Seaweed Crackers
PELLA CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Window Defects
PFIZER INC: 300 Canadian Women to Join Premplus Class Action
PIONEER CORPORATION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over ODD Price

PIZZA HUT: Franchisees File Class Action Over Price War
RAMA AUTOMOTIVE: "Shaw" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RELIANT CAPITAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ROY POPE: Recalls Belleisle Farms Cole Slaw Due to Listeria
SALEM BROTHERS: Recalls Kaak Crispy Baked Bread

SOLARWORLD: Recalls Solar Systems With Copper Grounding Lugs
SCOOP CAFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
SCOTT SPORTS: Recalls Bicycles with SR Suntour Front Forks
SON-KWAN GROCERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
STRICK CORP: Recalls Trailer Model Due to Rear Impact Guards

SURVEY SAMPLING: Faces Suit Brought Under Telecommunications Act
SUTTON PLACE: "Mourabity" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TD AMERITRADE: Violated Promises and Took Kickbacks, Class Claims
TD BANK: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
TD BANK: Settles Store Managers' OT Class Action for $9.9 Million

TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles with SR Suntour Front Forks
TYSON FOODS: 10th Cir. Affirmed $4-Mil. Verdict and Counsel Fees
UNITED STATES: Denied Due Process to Refugees, D.C. Suit Claims
VISA INC: MDL Panel Agrees to Sever Claims in Data Breach Suit
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Short" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

WEISS-ROHLIG: "Pereira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
YAHYA TRADING: "Rivas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

* Two Rulings Limit Scope of Stay on Discovery in Securities Suit


                            *********


9032-1076 QUEBEC: Recalls Patisserie Cream Mille Feuilles
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           9032-1076 Quebec Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9161

Affected products: 300 g. Patisserie Les Fantaisies Cream Mille
Feuilles


ACROPOLIS LTD: Does Not Pay OT Properly, "Rodea" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Lucia Rodea and Ariadna Valenzuela, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Acropolis, Ltd. d/b/a Best
Western Medical Center Inn and Dinesh Patel, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00178 (N.D. Tex., August 19, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for their failure to pay and properly calculate
overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Acropolis, Ltd. owns and operates a hotel located in Amarillo,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Timothy D. Newsom, Esq.
      LOVELL LOVELL NEWSOM & ISERN
      Eagle Centre Bldg, 112 W 8th Ave, Suite 1000
      Amarillo, TX 79101-2314
      Telephone: (806) 373-1515
      Facsimile: (806) 379-7176
      E-mail: tim@lovell-law.net


ADVANCED MICRO: $5.4-Mil. Settlement Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that a
California judge granted final approval on Aug. 22 to a $5.4
million deal between Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and a class of
employees who said AMD violated state labor code by failing to pay
them for sabbaticals they had earned but not yet used when they
left their jobs.

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan approved the
settlement during a hearing on Aug. 22, putting the lid on lead
plaintiff Eric Paton's long-running case that was revived by a
California appeals court in 2011.  Under the deal, plaintiffs'
attorneys will receive $1.7 million and Paton will receive
$10,000, according to the ruling.

Judge Kirwan said in his ruling that all aspects of the deal
appeared fair and reasonable, noting "the case has been vigorously
litigated over the course of many years, with significant
discovery, law and motion practice, and appellate work."

Plaintiffs' attorney Chris Banys of Banys PC celebrated the
resolution of the case.

"This was a tough, seven-year battle, and we are very proud of the
result we were able to achieve for these high-tech California
workers," he told Law360 on Aug. 22.

More than 1,800 potential class members received notice of the
settlement, and none objected to the proposed deal, according to
Judge Kirwan's ruling.

Mr. Paton sued AMD in April of 2007.  He worked at the computer
graphics card maker from June 1997 to July 2005, working as a
senior process development engineer for much of that time.  When
he left, he said AMD refused to cash out an eight-week sabbatical
he had earned but hadn't taken, according to the ruling.

Mr. Paton claimed that AMD's sabbatical program was really just
extra vacation time, so AMD couldn't require him to forfeit it.
Pursuant to AMD policy, salaried employees who worked for the
company for seven years earned a fully paid eight-week sabbatical,
but lost it if they didn't take advantage of it before their
employment ended.

Mr. Paton's complaint listed six "class-related" causes of action
in addition to one independent claim. All the class claims depend
on the first cause of action -- for nonpayment of wages under
Section 227.3 -- and the assertion that the sabbatical is in fact
vacation time that can't be forfeited.  Mr. Paton's individual
claim was for breach of contract.

In 2008, the Santa Clara Superior Court certified a class of more
than 1,400 AMD workers who were terminated after April 27, 2003,
who didn't sign a release, and who weren't paid for unused
sabbatical time. In 2009, the court later granted AMD summary
adjudication on most of Paton's claims, which he appealed.

In a published opinion in 2011, a three-judge appellate panel
reversed a trial court decision that had granted AMD's bid for
summary adjudication and found that the sabbatical program at
issue offered a "true sabbatical" that wasn't subject to Section
227.3 of the California Labor Code, which says that a terminated
worker must be paid for all vested vacation time.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher Banys, Eric
Sidebotham, Richard Lin and Jennifer Gilbert of Banys PC and by
Edward M. Gergosian, Robert J. Gralewski Jr. of Gergosian &
Gralewski.

AMD is represented by Lynne Hermle -- lchermle@orrick.com -- and
Julia Reichert -- jriechert@orrick.com -- of Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Paton v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., case number
107CV084838, in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Santa Clara.


ALIMENTS GENESIS: Recalls Genesis Food Organic Brown Flax
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 8, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Aliments Genesis
Distribution:             British Columbia, Manitoba, New
                          Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Warehouse
CFIA reference number:    9122

Affected products: 50 Pound Genesis Food Organic Brown Flax


ALLIED CONCRETE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trinidad Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Allied Concrete Industries Inc., Allied Concrete
Structures, Inc., Americo Magalhaes and Manuel Magalhaes, Case No.
2:14-cv-04771 (E.D.N.Y., August 11, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay proper overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Allied Concrete Industries Inc. is a concrete work contractor in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Wolinetz, Esq.
      SCOTT A. WOLINETZ, P.C.
      233 Broadway, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 962-1133
      Facsimile: (212) 962-1144
      E-mail: swol@verizon.net


AT&T MOBILITY: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action for $5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that AT&T Mobility LLC
has agreed to pay $5 million to resolve a putative class action
brought by employees at the company's retail stores who alleged
they were shortchanged on overtime and other wages, according to a
filing on Aug. 21 in California federal court.

Andrew Prizler, who sued AT&T on behalf of a putative class of
employees in California, asked a judge to grant final approval to
a settlement that would resolve wage and hour allegations leveled
against the mobile phone company.  Under the agreement, which
secured preliminary court approval in March, AT&T would pay $5
million that would go toward costs, attorneys fees and payouts to
more than 2,600 employees, according to the filing.

"The settlement provides the class members with prompt relief,
whereas continued litigation would both increase costs and drag
the possibility of recovery into the distant future," the
employees said in a memorandum arguing for final approval of the
deal.  "The certain and monetary benefits provided by the
settlement warrant its final approval."

The settlement, if approved, would put to rest a case first
brought against AT&T in June 2012.  The suit was initially filed
in California state court, but later removed to federal court.

In the case, Mr. Prizler alleged on behalf of a proposed class
that AT&T violated the California Private Attorney General Act and
other portions of the state's labor code on several fronts.
Specifically, the suit alleged that AT&T failed to pay the full
minimum and overtime wages owed to employees, and failed to pay
wages owed to employees once their employment was terminated,
according to court filings.

Though Mr. Prizler at first sought to represent a class that would
include workers for AT&T retail stores starting in 2008, the two
sides later agreed to limit the case to claims starting in October
2010, the Aug. 21 settlement filing said.

The two sides began settlement talks a few months after the suit
was filed, first attending a mediation session in December 2012.
After about six months of negotiations, the two sides reached a
deal, and in December 2013 presented the settlement to the court
for preliminary approval, which was granted in March.

The $5 million AT&T agreed to pay includes $1.25 million that
would go toward attorneys fees, a $10,000 award to Mr. Prizler for
serving as the named plaintiff in the suit, and other costs.  The
remainder -- about $3.7 million -- would be distributed to
participating class members if the agreement receives final
approval, the Aug. 21 settlement filing said.

The settlement class would include all AT&T retail sales
consultants who worked for the company between Oct. 19, 2010, and
Oct. 27, 2012.  The class would be limited to those employees who
worked overtime during any given week, and earned commissions as
part of their pay that week, the settlement filing said.

The Aug. 21 filing estimates that the approximately 2,600
employees participating in the settlement would receive an average
payout about $1,400 under the terms of the agreement.

AT&T is represented by Matthew C. Kane, Michael D. Mandel, Sabrina
A. Beldner -- sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com -- and Christopher A.
Killens -- ckillens@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP.

The employees are represented by Matthew Righetti, John Glugoski
and Michael Righetti of Righetti Glugoski PC.

The case is Prizler v. AT&T Mobility Services Inc. et al., case
number 2:12-cv-06016, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces Class Action Over TotalPay Debit Card Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that Payroll processing
giant Automatic Data Processing Inc. was slapped with a putative
class action in Pennsylvania federal court on Aug. 22 alleging
that it deducted illegal fees from debit cards issued to its
clients' employees in lieu of paychecks.

The suit accuses New Jersey-based ADP of charging fees in
violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection Law to
workers who were issued so-called TotalPay cards by employers who
had contracted with the company.

"Employees who are paid waves via the ADP TotalPay card, including
plaintiff and the class, are charged, among other things, an
enrollment fee, account maintenance fees, automatic teller machine
withdrawal fees, balance inquiry fees, point of sale purchase
fees, and an account closure fee," the complaint said.

"Deduction of these unavoidable fees results in employees,
including plaintiff and the class, receiving less than the full
amount of wages owed to them and constitutes an unauthorized
deduction from wages in violation of the WPCL," it added.

The suit was filed on behalf of Joshua Silfee, a former employee
of ERG Staffing Service LLC. According to the complaint, ERG
contracted with ADP to pay its employees with the Visa-branded
TotalPay cards.

While the cards would be loaded each pay period with the
employee's net earnings, the complaint alleges that workers were
faced with fees when they went to withdraw money or to make direct
purchases with the card.

The complaint claims that ADP could be named as a defendant in the
suit due to its work as an agent of ERG responsible for crafting
policy and making decisions on how wages would be distributed
through the TotalPay system.

The complaint says that while the WPCL and the state's Department
of Labor & Industry outlined deductions that employers are
authorized to take from their workers' paychecks and allowed
workers to authorize other deductions deemed permissible by the
state, there was no evidence that regulators had ever signed off
on the type of fees included in the TotalPay cards.

"On information and belief, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor &
Industry has never evaluated and authorized ADP's TotalPay Card
fee deduction as in conformity with the intent and purpose of the
WPCL," the complaint said.  "ADP's failure to pay the full amount
of wages due, as required by Pennsylvania law, represents a
violation of their unwritten agreement with plaintiff and the
members of the proposed class."

The complaint says that Mr. Silfee was unsure the exact amount
that had been illegally deducted from his paychecks but that the
figure would be determined during the course of discovery.

Mr. Silfee is represented by Gary Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com
-- of Carlson Lynch LTD.

The case is Silfee v. Automatic Data Processing Inc., case number
2:14-cv-04908, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.


BARRACO'S PIZZA: Faces "Salois" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Salois, Joshua Chapan and Henry Kobiela, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barraco's Pizza, Inc.,
Salvatore Barraco, Nicholas Barraco, Vincent Barraco, Sr.,
Francesca M. Barraco, Vito Barraco, Nick Baracco, Francesca P.
Barraco, Vincent Barraco, Jr. and Daniela Barraco, Case No. 1:14-
cv-06362 (N.D. Ill., August 18, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pizzeria within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
      Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
              rstephen@stephanzouras.com
              aficzko@stephanzouras.com
              tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls Franklin & Ben Mason Convertible Cribs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 19, 2014
Posting date:             August 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41057

Affected products: Franklin & Ben Mason 4-in-1 Convertible Cribs

The recall includes Franklin & Ben Mason style 4-in-1 style cribs
model number 5601 that were manufactured from January 2012 through
August 2012.  The model number and the date of manufacture are
printed on a label on the inside of a side panel of the crib.
Listed on the label as a "serial number," the following purchase
order numbers are included in the recall: H004522, H004546,
H004548 or H004777.

The cribs have solid wood sideboards and wood rails on the front
and back of the crib in varying heights and can convert to a
daybed, toddler bed or full-sized bed.  There is a storage drawer
at the base of the crib with two metal knobs.  The recalled cribs
were sold in weathered grey and rustic brown, and measure 145
centimetres (57 inches) long by 84 centimetres (33 inches) wide by
130 centimetres (51 inches) high.

The crib front can separate from the side panels and create a
hazardous gap that can allow a child to fall out or become
entrapped between the front and side panels.

Franklin & Ben has received 14 reports in the United States of the
front separating from the side panels of the crib.  No reports of
incidents have been received from Canada.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products.

For more information on crib safety, visit the Healthy Canadians
cribs, cradles and bassinets page.

Approximately 103 of the recalled cribs were sold in Canada and
1,000 in the United States.

The recalled cribs were manufactured in Taiwan and sold from
Jan. 2012 to June 2014 in Canada and the United States at various
retailers.

Companies:

   Distributor     Bexco Enterprises, Inc.
                   Montebello
                   California
                   United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact Franklin & Ben for a free repair kit.  In the meantime,
parents are urged to find an alternate, safe sleeping environment
for the child.


BIRRIERIA OCOTLAN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Noe Acuna-Mederos, Elvia Susana Gomez-Zavala, individually and on
behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Birrieria Ocotlan,
Inc. dba Birrieria Reyes de Ocotlan, and Ramon Reyes,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06379 (N.D. Ill., August 18, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Birrieria Ocotlan, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant within the
State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (877) 509-6422
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


BLUE BIRD: Recalls 13 All American Non-School Buses
---------------------------------------------------
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           13
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014351
TC ID number:             2014351
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R14XCM-C

On certain vehicles equipped with Cummins ISB and ISL engines, the
fuel filter shell and nut plate could separate, causing a fuel
leak and also causing the engine to stall. Stalling would result
in a loss of motive power, increasing the risk of a crash
resulting in injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replace the fuel filter.

Affected products:

   Maker       Model                        Model year(s) affected
   -----       -----                        ----------------------
   BLUE BIRD   ALL AMERICAN NON-SCHOOL BUS     2014, 2015
   BLUE BIRD   VISION NON-SCHOOL BUS           2014, 2015


BLUE BIRD: Recalls 44 All American School Buses
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              School Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           44
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014350
TC ID number:             2014350
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R14XM-C

On certain vehicles equipped with Cummins ISB and ISL engines, the
fuel filter shell and nut plate could separate, causing a fuel
leak and also causing the engine to stall.  Stalling would result
in a loss of motive power, increasing the risk of a crash
resulting in injury and/or damage to property.  Dealers will
replace the fuel filter.

Affected products:

   Maker           Model                    Model year(s) affected
   -----           -----                    ----------------------
   BLUE BIRD       ALL AMERICAN SCHOOL BUS     2014, 2015
   BLUE BIRD       VISION SCHOOL BUS           2014, 2015


BLUE CROSS: Accused of Cheating by Four SoCal Medical Centers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four Southern California medical centers sued Anthem Blue Cross on
August 20, 2014, claiming the giant insurer refuses to pay for
medical care it pre-authorized, and underpays "out-of-network"
providers when it does pay, reports Courthouse News Service.

Orthopedic Specialists of Southern California, Integrated Surgery
Center Number 101, San Diego Advanced Orthopedic Center and Inland
Valley Surgery Center sued Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health
Insurance Co. dba Blue Cross of California, in Superior Court.

"This complaint arises out of the failure of Blue Cross to pay
orthopedic specialists in the amounts required by law to be paid
for services rendered by orthopedic specialists; in the amounts
promised to be paid by Blue Cross during conversations and
interactions with orthopedic specialists; in the amounts required
to be paid to orthopedic specialists as set forth in the
applicable written agreements with Blue Cross' members and
insureds; and in the amounts historically, ordinarily, customarily
and routinely paid to out-of network providers such as orthopedic
specialists for surgical care, treatments and procedures provided
to numerous patients, all of whom were insureds, members,
policyholders, certificate-holders or were otherwise covered for
health, hospitalization and major medical insurance through
policies or certificates of insurance issued and underwritten by
defendant Blue Cross," the medical centers say in the 29-page
lawsuit.

Anthem Blue Cross has been sued repeatedly on similar charges.

The medical centers claim that Blue Cross "pre-authorized" the
medical procedures, which the medical centers' doctors performed,
after which anthem Blue Cross stiffed them.

"In recent years, Anthem's contracted rates for in-network
providers have been so meager, one-sided and onerous, that many
providers like orthopedic specialists have determined that they
cannot afford to enter into in-network contracts with Blue Cross,"
the complaint states.  "As a result, a growing number of medical
providers have become non-contracted or out-of-network providers,
refusing to contract with Blue Cross.

"For non-contracted, out-of-plan, or out-of-network providers,
Blue Cross has unlawfully underpaid these providers for the
medically necessary and appropriate services they have rendered to
insureds of Blue Cross.  Blue Cross has used flawed databases and
systems to unilaterally determine what amounts it pays to medical
providers and has colluded with other insurers to artificially
underpay, decrease, limit and minimize the reimbursement rates
paid for services rendered by non-contracted providers.  This
issue has been investigated by the U.S. Congress and New York
Attorney General and has been the source of numerous lawsuits and
class action suits filed in connection with the databases utilized
by Blue Cross."

The medical centers claim that "Among other flaws, Blue Cross:

   "a. Does not determine the numbers or types of providers in
       any geographic area;

   "b. Does not determine the actual types of procedures
       performed within a geographic area;

   "c. Collects charge data which is not representative of the
       actual number of procedures performed within a geographic
       area;

   "d. Does not collect sufficient data to enable its users to
       determine whether the data reflects the charges of
       providers with any particular degree of expertise or
       specialization;

   "e. Does not collect sufficient provider-specific data to
       enable its users to determine whether the charges are from
       one provider, from several providers, or from only a
       minority subset of the providers in a geographic area;

   "f. Fails to compare providers of the same or similar training
       and experience level and, instead, combines and averages
       all provider charges by procedure code without separating
       the charges of physicians and non-physicians;

   "g. Does not collect patient-specific information such as age
       or medical history or condition;

   "h. Does not ascertain the most common charge for the same
       service or comparable service or supply;

   "i. Does not determine the place of service or type of
       facility rendering services;

   "j. Does not collect sufficient data to enable it or its users
       to determine an appropriate medical market for comparing
       like charges;

   "k. Combines ZIP codes inappropriately, and uses ZIP code
       prefixes instead of appropriate medical markets;

   "l. Fails to compare procedures that use the same or similar
       resources (and other costs) to the provider, but rather,
       indiscriminately combines all provider charges by
       procedure code without regard to such factors;

   "m. Fails to compare procedures of the same or similar
       complexity by, among other things, failing to record of
       account for CPT code modifiers;

   "n. Does not use an appropriate statistical methodology;

   "o. Does not properly consider charging protocols and billing
       practices generally accepted by the medical community or
       specialty groups;

   "p. Does not properly consider medical costs in setting
       geographic areas;

   "q. Lacks quality control, such as basic auditing, to ensure
       the validity, completeness, representativeness, and
       authenticity of the data submitted;

   "r. Is subject to pre-editing by data contributors;

   "s. Reports charges that are systematically skewed downward;

   "t. Uses relative values and conversion factors to derive
       inappropriate usual, customary and reasonable amounts;

   "u. Uses a methodology that does not comply with Blue Cross'
       contractual definition of usual, customary and reasonable;

   "v. Calculates rates based upon Medicare and/or MediCal
       payments and/or computes rates based upon amount paid to
       preferred providers; and

   "w. Purports to be confidential and/or proprietary, which
       prevents access too, and scrutiny of, the data by members
       or their employers.

"These and other flaws render defendants' use of its data system
invalid and unlawful for determining usual, customary and
reasonable rates.  By systematically and typically making usual,
customary and reasonable rate determination without compliant and
valid data to substantiate its determinations, defendants have
breached their obligation to reimburse orthopedic specialists for
out-of-network services.  Accordingly, all past usual, customary
and reasonable rate determinations based on Blue Cross' data
system should be overturned."

The plaintiffs seek payment for services rendered and damages for
breach of implied contract, breach of oral contract, legal
violations, negligence and other charges.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary L. Tysch, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES GARY L. TYSCH
          16133 Ventura Blvd.
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 995-9555


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Providio to Administer Pradaxa Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that Providio MediSolutions LLC has been appointed to
administer the $650 million settlement fund Boehringer Ingelheim
GmbH agreed to over its blood-thinner Pradaxa.

U.S. Chief District Judge David R. Herndon ordered $561 million of
the settlement funds be segregated for the first phase of
payments, and $50 million be segregated as the second phase
supplemental payments.

The presiding judge also ordered that $26 million be set aside to
pay legal fees and $13 million for costs related to the work
undertaken for the common benefit of the entire multidistrict
litigation.  Pradaxa is alleged to have caused bleed-out deaths
among patients.

In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
upheld an almost $1 million sanction Herndon issued because he
found Boehringer's litigation hold was grossly inadequate.  The
total monetary sanction was $931,500.

But the Seventh Circuit ruled that the drugmaker should not have
been ordered to produce German-based employees for depositions in
the United States as a discovery sanction.

In February, Judge Herndon expressed further dismay with
Boehringer's problems in abiding by discovery rules.

Despite being ordered to produce some files by Feb.14, "defendants
in the course of trying to download 6 TB (2,000,000 files) of data
have found themselves having to purchase hard drives located some
six hours from the headquarters," Judge Herndon said in a recent
order.

As of July 15, there were 2,481 Pradaxa lawsuits pending in the
federal multidistrict litigation, according to court statistics.


BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued in Ill. for Concealing Product Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Ernst, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Corporation of America d/b/a/ GAF Materials
Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-50182 (N.D. Ill., August 19, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants conceals that the Cross Timbers
Decking contain defects that allow water to penetrate and leak
into the interior of structures and behind cladding, resulting in
premature deterioration of building components and other physical
damage to both the decking and the surrounding structure.

Building Materials Corporation of America is a manufacturer of
residential exterior building products in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael W. Duffy, Esq.
      Edward Eshoo Jr., Esq.
      CHILDRESS DUFFY, LTD.
      500 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1200
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 494-0200
      Facsimile: (312) 494-0202
      E-mail: mduffy@childresslawyers.com
              eeshoo@childresslawyers.com


BUSINESS TO BUSINESS: Unsolicited Fax Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Convey, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that the
state Appeals Court ruled on Aug. 22 that plaintiffs suing a
company that sent thousands of unsolicited faxes to Massachusetts
recipients in 2006 can proceed with their case as a class action
suit.

Federal law entitles each recipient of an unsolicited fax to $500
in damages.  Plaintiffs found 2,325 alleged violations by Business
to Business Solutions of New York and wanted to bring their claims
as a class.  The faxes advertised a Super Bowl party at sea being
put on by a Florida company called Around the World Travel Inc.

A lower court judge found that the individuals and businesses
suing the fax-marking company had met most of the requirements to
bring a class action suit, but had failed to demonstrate that the
matter was handled more appropriately as a class-action case than
in small claims court.

Specifically, the judge found that the size of a class action case
award against the fax company would be excessive.  "Violations
would range from a minimum of over $1.1 million to over $3.4
million," the Appeals Court justices wrote.

Despite the number, the Appeals Court found against Business to
Business and ordered that the lower court certify the class.


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: "Huddy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Huddy and Kenneth Klems, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., a
Delaware Corporation and Rock Ohio Caesars Cincinnati, LLC d/b/a
Horsehoe Casino Cincinnati, Case No. 1:14-cv-00666 (S.D. Ohio,
August 19, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties
and damages.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of legalized gambling
and, in connection with such business, engaged in interstate
commerce by drawing patrons from outside the State of Ohio, and by
purchasing gambling equipment from outside the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Claire W. Bushorn, Esq.
      Clement Tsao, Esq.
      David Marvin Cook, Esq.
      COOK & LOGOTHETIS, LLC
      22 West 9th Street
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 287-6992
      Facsimile: (513) 721-1178
      E-mail: cbushorn@econjustice.com
              ctsao@econjustice.com
              dcook@econjustice.com

         - and -

      Daniel K. Touhy, Esq.
      TOUHY, TOUHY, BUEHLER & WILLIAMS
      55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
      E-mail: dtouhy@touhylaw.com


CARE SPECIALISTS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Bolender, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Care Specialists, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06416 (N.D. Ill., August 19, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Care Specialists, Inc. is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in
the production of goods for commerce

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLIC ROYAL: Recalls "Seven Spices" Due to Undeclared Sesame
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           AGT Clic Foods Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9156

Affected products: 100 g. Clic Royal Seven Spices with 0 58504
41440 3 UPC


COMENITY LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lewis" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charissa Lewis, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. Comenity, LLC and Comenity Bank, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01934 (S.D. Cal., August 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
made an unsolicited telephone call to the Plaintiff's wireless
telephone, for which the Plaintiff provided no consent to call, in
attempt to collect an alleged debt owed.

Comenity, LLC provides customer service, billing, and collection
services in the area of credit card receivables.

Comenity Bank is a creditor and subsidiary of Comenity,
LLC and maintains it principal place of business in Columbus,
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald Marron, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

         - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      DAN SHAY, LAW
      409 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7429
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
      E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Recalls Multiple Tire Models
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Tire
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Tires
Units affected:           0
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014347
TC ID number:             2014347

On some motorcycle tires, the tire tread and/or belts may separate
from the tire carcass, which could lead to a rapid loss of air
pressure.  Tire failure could cause the driver to lose vehicle
control, which may result in a crash causing injury and/or
property damage.

Dealers will replace affected tires.

Affected products:

   Maker        Model                       Model year(s) affected
   -----        -----                       ----------------------
CONTINENTAL   CONTIATTACK SM 120/70R17         2011, 2012, 2013,
                                               2014
CONTINENTAL   CONTISPORTATTACK 120/70ZR17      2008, 2009, 2010,
                                               2011, 2012, 2013,
                                               2014
CONTINENTAL   CONTISPORTATTACK 2 120/70ZR17    2011, 2012, 2013,
                                               2014
CONTINENTAL   CONTIRACEATTACK 120/70R17        2007, 2008, 2009,
                                               2010, 2011, 2012,
                                               2013, 2014
CONTINENTAL   CONTIROADATTACK 2 GTZ 120/70ZR17   2013, 2014


COURIER EXPRESS: Removed "Salzone" Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Salzone v. Courier
Express/Orlando, Inc., Case No. CACE 14-013946, was removed
from the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Ft. Lauderdale).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:14-cv-61919-UU to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Pedro Albert Blanco, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER A. BLANCO, PA
          7700 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 306
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 271-6963
          Facsimile: (305) 271-6966
          E-mail: pab@pablawpa.com


DOLLARAMA: Recalls Child's Plastic Patio Chairs
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 21, 2014
Posting date:             August 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41181

Affected products: child's plastic patio chairs

The recall involves child's plastic patio chairs in a variety of
colours, model number 3006952.  The model number appears on the
product label on the back of the chair.

The chair legs may collapse under the weight of the child, causing
a fall and injuries.  Tests performed by Dollarama indicate that
these products do not comply with the requirements of the ASTM F
1838-98 Standard Performance Requirements for Child's Plastic
Chairs for Outdoor Use.

Two incident reports involving four chairs were reported to Health
Canada and Dollarama.

Approximately 967,660 chairs were sold in Canada.

The recalled chairs were manufactured in China and sold from
Feb. 2009 to June 2014 in Dollarama stores across Canada.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Star Glory Ltd.
                    Hong Kong
                    China

   Distributor      Dollarama L.P/S.E.C.
                    Montreal
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and return it
to the store to obtain a refund. You may contact Dollarama online
by clicking on "Contact Us" or by calling 1-888-755-1006,
extension 1000, at any time.


EZCORP INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of EZCORP,
Inc., on Aug. 22 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of
the Company's securities between April 30, 2013 and July 18, 2014,
inclusive.

Please contact Casey Sadler or Lesley Portnoy at (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this
matter.  If you inquire by email, please include your mailing
address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

EZCORP offers customers multiple ways to access instant cash,
including pawn loans and consumer loans in the United States,
Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom.  The Company offers these
products through four primary channels: in-store, online, at the
worksite, and through a mobile platform.  The Complaint alleges
that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the implementation of certain
strategic and growth initiatives was less successful than
represented; (ii) certain of the Company's business units and
investments were not performing as well as represented; and (iii)
as a result of the above, the Company's statements about its
business and operations were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On July 18, 2014, MS Pawn Corporation, the voting shareholder of
EZCORP's Class B voting common stock, announced the removal from
EZCORP of Paul Rothamel as director, President and Chief Executive
Officer, William Love as Chairman of the Board of Directors, and
Joseph Beal as director.  Following this news, shares of EZCORP
declined more than 12 percent on July 21, 2014.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Notice,
to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal
requirements.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish
to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, or
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com
If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Violates FDCPA, New York Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Reifer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04991
(E.D.N.Y., August 21, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FISKARS CANADA: Recalls "Pink" Pigment Ink Cartridge (291C)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 19, 2014
Posting date:             August 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41095

Affected products: Fiskars Pigment Ink Cartridge - Pink (291C)

The recall involves the Fiskars Pigment Ink Cartridge - Pink
(291C) used in the Continuous Stamp Wheel products.  Only the pink
cartridge is affected and not the stamping wheel.  This does not
affect any of Fiskars other ink cartridge colours.

The cartridge is labelled with FISKARS Pink / Rose on one side and
cartridge insertion instructions (Snap in place and remove lid and
Rotate towards wheel) with pictorials on the other side.  The
Fiskars Model number is 01-005697 and the UPC is 020335037908.
The Walmart Item number is 30333538.

Health Canada and Fiskars Canada have established that this
chemical product is not packaged in a child-resistant container
and is also missing hazard labelling.  Under Canadian law, this
product must be packaged and labelled appropriately as it is
classified as both toxic and corrosive.  The lack of child-
resistant packaging and labelling could result in unintentional
exposure to the product and lead to serious illnesses, injuries,
or death.

Neither Health Canada, nor Fiskars Canada have received any
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this
product.

Approximately 1,500 of the recalled product were sold in Canada.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold from May,
2012 to June, 2014 in Canada.

Companies:

   Distributor     Fiskars Canada Inc.
                   Markham
                   Ontario
                   Canada

   Retailer        Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
                   Mississauga
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled color ink
cartridge and return it to Wal-Mart for exchange of a different
Fiskars colour ink cartridge or reimbursement.


FLORIDA TURNPIKE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rainier Cortes, Felix Perez Jr., Ronald Alegria, Sergio Bello,
Conrad Garcia, Paul Vreones, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Florida Turnpike Services LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-23062 (S.D. Fla., August 19, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Florida Turnpike Services LLC owns and operates a convenient store
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      3191 Grand Ave., #1531
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 458-1282
      Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
      E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Escape & Focus Due to Wiring Splice Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           25,382
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014349
TC ID number:             2014349
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14S17

On certain vehicles, defective engine wiring harness splices could
affect engine function, causing reduced engine power and/or
hesitation, and also cause the engine to stall.  Stalling would
result in a loss of motive power, increasing the risk of a crash
resulting in injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replace affected wiring splices.

Affected products:

   Maker     Model        Model year(s) affected
   -----     -----        ----------------------
   FORD      FOCUS        2013, 2014
   FORD      ESCAPE       2013


GAF BUILDING: Faces "Robertie" Suit for Concealing Product Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick C. Robertie and Veronica B. Robertie, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GAF Building
Materials Corp., Case No. 7:14-cv-00165 (E.D.N.C., August 13,
2014), alleges that the Defendant conceals that the Cross Timbers
Decking contain defects that allow water to penetrate and leak
into the interior of structures and behind cladding, resulting in
premature deterioration of building components and other physical
damage to both the decking and the surrounding structure.

GAF Building Materials Corp. is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and sells Cross Timbers Decking, with its
headquarters in Wayne, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Podhurst Orseck Named to MDL Executive Committee
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Pacenti, Daily Business Review, reports that attorney
Peter Prieto, a partner at Podhurst Orseck in Miami, has been
named to the executive committee in the multidistrict litigation
involving General Motors Corp.'s ignition switches.

Mr. Prieto is the only Florida attorney on the national committee.
More than 50 attorneys across the nation applied, and 10 were
chosen, including such prominent litigators as Davis Boies,
chairman at Boies, Schiller & Flexner in New York.

Pretrial issues in lawsuits over the ignition switch are being
handled in the MDL by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in
New York.

"I'm honored to have been selected by Judge Furman to be a part of
the plaintiffs' leadership team and will work hard to ensure that
those who bought defective vehicles from GM are compensated
appropriately," Mr. Prieto said.

Mr. Prieto has been involved in other high-profile MDL cases,
including bank overdraft, forced-place insurance and Chinese
drywall litigation.

The ignition switch lawsuits claim a defect caused the vehicle to
shut off, disabling the steering, brakes and airbags.  The owners
claim the problem has decreased the values of their automobiles.
Others have brought wrongful death claims.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Esguerra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc., Thomas J.
Mcinerney, and Martin P. Klein, Case No. 1:14-cv-06639 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Genworth Financial, Inc. offers life insurance, long term care
insurance services through financial intermediaries, advisors,
independent distributors and sales specialists.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ira M. Press, Esq.
      KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      Facsimile: (212) 751-2540

         - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


GOLDEN ARTIST: Recalls QoR Synthetic Ox Gall
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 19, 2014
Posting date:             August 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Chemical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41105

Affected products: QoR Synthetic Ox Gall watercolour paint medium

The recall involves QoR Synthetic Ox Gall which is designed to be
used with artists' watercolour paints in small amounts to improve
the flow and wetting.

QoR Synthetic Ox Gall is clear with low viscosity and packaged in
a 59 ml clear glass jar with a dropper lid.  Product code of
7001000-2 appears on the label.  The recall is isolated to product
with one of the following lot numbers found on the bottom of the
jar: 365254, 366319, 366405 or 366626.

The product contains an excess of the preservative MIT
(methylisothiazolinone) which can cause skin rash or blistering.

Neither Health Canada nor Golden Artist Colours have received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product.

Approximately 91 units were sold in Canada at fine art supply
stores.  Approximately 470 units were sold in the United States at
fine art supply stores.

The affected products were manufactured in the United States and
sold from June 1 - July 21, 2014 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Golden Artist Colors, Inc.
                    New Berlin
                    New York
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled QoR Synthetic
Ox Gall and return it to Golden Artist Colors, Inc. for
replacement.  For more information, consumers may contact Golden
Artist Colors Customer Service at 1-800-959-6543 from 8:30 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit QoR's website.


GOOGLE INC: Says Class Claims vs. AdSense a "Legal Jujitsu"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Slamming a class action as "legal jujitsu," Google urged a federal
judge to nix claims that it routinely cancels AdSense accounts to
avoid paying revenues, reports Mike Heuer at Courthouse News
Service.

Google AdSense pays Web site owners and publishers a percentage of
revenues from ads that appear while people are browsing their
sites.  When visitors view the ads or click on them, Google is
supposed to pay the Web site owners a portion of revenues from
those ads.

Free Range Content claimed in a May 2014 federal complaint,
however, that Google purposely runs the program in way that Web
site owners are paid nothing.

Hoping to represent a class, the company said Google intentionally
closes AdSense accounts to deny full payment to Web site owners.
Account terminations can cost Web site owners and publishers
anywhere from a couple hundred dollars to tens of thousands of
dollars each year in lost revenues, according to the complaint.

In a motion to dismiss filed on August 20, 2014, Google said it
had every right to close Free Range's AdSense account and that the
company's complaint would "turn contract law on its head."

"After enjoying the benefits of participating in the AdSense
program for a year-and-a-half, plaintiff, by its own admission,
breached several explicit terms of that contract," Google said
through its attorney Jeffrey Gutkin with Cooley LLP.  "Google then
did exactly what it said it would do in the contract -- it: closed
plaintiff's AdSense account, did not make a payment to plaintiff
that, pursuant to numerous contract provisions, plaintiff had no
right to receive, and refunded the withheld payment (along with
Google's revenue share) to advertisers."  (Parentheses in
original.)

Google urged U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman to throw out the
lawsuit.

"This attempt legal jujitsu, in which a breaching party brings a
suit for breach against the party that followed their agreement to
the letter, must fail as a matter of law," attorney Gutkin wrote.

Judge Freeman will hear the motion on or after Dec. 11 in San
Jose.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Esq.
          Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  jgutkin@cooley.com
                  kwong@cooley.com


GREAT-WEST LIFE: "Teets" ERISA Suit Moved From Cal. to Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled John Teets v. Great-West Life &
Annuity Insurance Company, Case No. 14-cv-01360, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
(Denver).  The Colorado District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-02330-BNB to the proceeding.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Teets alleges that Great-West breached its
fiduciary duties, and engaged in transactions prohibited under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, by unilaterally
setting its own compensation and by charging excessive fees
incident to administering certain contracts.

Great-West operates the Great-West Key Guaranteed Portfolio Fund.
Retirement plans in which the Plaintiff and the proposed class are
participants and beneficiaries invest in the Fund pursuant to a
Guaranteed Investment Contract that governs the relationship
between the plans and Great-West.  The Contract enables Great-West
to set its own compensation as a service provider to the plans.
The Plaintiff alleges that Great-West has exercised its
discretionary authority to retain large profits rather than
crediting the participants and beneficiaries of the plans with
appropriate returns.

Great-West is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Great-West
Lifeco, Inc.  Great-West is headquartered in Greenwood Village,
Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd F. Jackson, Esq.
          Nina Wasow, Esq.
          Julie Wilensky, Esq.
          LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON P.C.
          476 9th Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 839-6824
          Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
          E-mail: tjackson@lewisfeinberg.com
                  nwasow@lewisfeinberg.com
                  jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com

               - and -

          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          Michael McKay, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253
          Telephone: (480) 428-0145
          Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
          E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
                  mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd Schneider, Esq.
          Mark Johnson, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORP
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com


HARRISON HOTEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Huembes" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo O. Huembes and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Harrison Hotel, Inc. and Michael Kadosh, Case No.
1:14-cv-23060 (S.D. Fla., August 19, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel located in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 50,000 Civic, Civic Hybrid, CSX & Fit Cars
---------------------------------------------------------------
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           50,000
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014345
TC ID number:             2014345

On certain vehicles, a fault in the Electric Power Steering (EPS)
system could result in an immediate loss of power steering assist
without warning to the driver.  This would unexpectedly increase
the steering effort force necessary to steer the vehicle at lower
vehicle speeds, which could increase the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property.

Vehicles will receive a special extended warranty coverage of 10
years/240,000 km from first registration.  Under this special
coverage program, vehicles which experience this condition will
have the electric power steering module replaced.

Affected products:

   Maker     Model            Model Year(s) Affected
   -----     -----            ----------------------
   HONDA     CIVIC            2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
   HONDA     CIVIC HYBRID     2006, 2007
   ACURA     CSX              2009
   HONDA     FIT              2007, 2008


HURRICANE LOUNGE: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Robbins, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Hurricane Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Hurricane Seafood Restaurant, Case
No. 8:14-cv-02019 (M.D. Fla., August 19, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hurricane Lounge, Inc. engaged in food and beverage services
business under the trade name Hurricane Seafood Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      Morgan & Morgan, PA
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      William John Gadd, Esq.
      W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      Suite 250, 2727 Ulmerton Rd
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      Facsimile: (727) 524-6330
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


IL GUSTO: "Saracho" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Saracho, and other similarly situated individuals v. IL
Gusto Italiano, LLC, Italian Food Marketing, Inc. d/b/a Il Gusto
Italian Cafe and Mauro Megna, individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61863
(S.D. Fla., August 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
straight wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Gusto Italian Cafe in Miami-Dade,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERLOGIX: Recalls Security System Smoke Detectors
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 13, 2014
Posting date:             August 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41065

Affected products:

ESL and Interlogix branded 400 and 500 series smoke detectors for
professionally installed fire and security systems in commercial
and residential buildings
Product description

The recall involves the 2-wire and 4-wire models of the 400 and
500 series ESL Interlogix smoke detectors with manufacturing date
codes 13084 (March 25, 2013) to 14059 (February 28, 2014).  The
initials ESL, the date code and the model number are printed on
the back of the detector's cover and on the product's packaging.

The affected model numbers are:

400 Series: 429AT, 429C, 429CAD, 429CRT, 429CST, 429CT, 429CTAD,
449AT, 449C, 449CRT, 449CSRH, 449CSRT, 449CST, 449CSTE, 449CT and
449CTE.

500 Series: 511C, 518C, 521B, 521BXT, 521B-10PKDMP, 521B-10PKG,
521BXT-10PKG, 521BXT-DMP-10PKG, 528B, 528CRXT, 541C, 541C-10PKG,
541CXT, 541-CXT-10PK, 548C, C2M-PD, C2M-PD1, C2M-PDC, C2M-PDHC and
C2M-PDHRC.

Since the product is found as part of an integrated security
system, the model numbers and date codes are unlikely to be
accessible to consumers.  If consumers have detectors that they
believe may be subject to this recall notice, they should contact
their security system provider to obtain more information about
the detectors used in their system.

Radio frequency interference can cause the smoke detectors to
become non-responsive to smoke.

Neither Health Canada, nor Interlogix nor Chubb Edwards has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries with these
products.

There were about 13,000 products sold in Canada, and about 141,000
units sold in the United States.

These products were manufactured in China and sold to professional
fire and security contractors and installers from March 2013 to
February 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Fyrnetics Ltd.
                    China

These products were sold through Chubb Edwards and by various
other alarm system, security equipment and electrical equipment
distributors, dealers and installers throughout Canada.

Consumers should contact Interlogix, Chubb Edwards or their
professional security system provider for information about the
detectors in their system, and to replace affected smoke detectors
free of charge.  Consumers should not remove or disable the units
themselves.


INTERNATIONAL AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Undelivered Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capt. John McQuilliams, Capt. Jason Smith, MSgt. Patrick McKimmie,
Nancy Swenson, Capt. Michael Cleveland and Debra Gilbertson,
Individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
International Auto Logistics, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00124-LGW-JEG
(S.D. Ga., August 21, 2014) asserts claim for breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Dorian Britt, Esq.
          TATE LAW GROUP, LLC
          P.O. Box 9060
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Telephone: (912) 234-3030
          Facsimile: (912) 234-9700
          E-mail: dbritt@tatelawgroup.com

               - and -

          Nathan T. Williams, Esq.
          THE WILLIAMS LITIGATION GROUP
          P.O. 279
          Brunswick, GA 31520
          Telephone: (912) 264-0848
          Facsimile: (912) 264-6299
          E-mail: nathan@williamslg.com

                           *     *     *

Adam L. Mathis, writing for Stars and Stripes, reports that former
and current Defense Department employees who have not seen their
personal vehicles in more than two months have filed a class-
action lawsuit against the government's vehicle shipping
contractor.

Williams Litigation Group and Tate Law Group filed the suit
against International Auto Logistics on Aug. 21 in Georgia on
behalf of Air Force Capt. Jason Smith, at Joint Base San Antonio;
Air Force Master Sgt. Patrick McKimmie, Fort Sam Houston, Texas;
Nancy Swenson, recently retired from the Defense Department; Army
Capt. Michael Cleveland; and Debra Gilbertson.

The six claim that International took possession of their vehicles
between June 1 and June 12 for shipping, but has failed to deliver
them and has not provided accurate information about the vehicles'
whereabouts, according to the complaint filed with the court and
given to Stars and Stripes by one of their attorneys, Nathan T.
Williams.

If the court certifies that these six represent a group and they
win their case, the award would go to anyone who fit the criteria
for remuneration, Williams said.  The damages are estimated at
more than $5 million.

Smith, one of the litigants, declined to be interviewed pending
approval from his superior, but he posted on Facebook that he was
participating in the lawsuit because International did not respond
to his reimbursement claim and because he wants to hold the
company accountable.

The lawsuit was filed on the same day information was posted
online indicating International was not meeting the 98 percent
on-time delivery rate required in the government contract. A
Facebook user posted an email from U.S. Army Command Sgt. Maj.
James K. Sims, with U.S. Army Materiel Command, that said
International, as of Aug. 19, had processed "27,358 vehicles:
14,154 vehicles are currently in transit with approximately 70
percent late in meeting the required delivery date."

A spokesman for Sims confirmed the email was authentic.

International assumed responsibility in May for the more than
$957.5 million contract to ship Defense Department employees'
personally owned vehicles when they change duty stations.  U.S.
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, which oversees
vehicle shipping, estimates that 68,000 vehicles are shipped each
year.

The Defense Department has received hundreds of complaints about
International, and more than 3,000 people have joined
"International Auto Logistics: Reviews, Complaints, and
Inconveniences," a Facebook group. Many of the stories posted to
the group's page complain of vehicles delivered late and
inaccurate location information.

"We shipped our vehicle on May 15 from Graf to Baltimore," one
person posted on Aug. 15, referring to Grafenwoehr, Germany.  She
was told her vehicle "was in Norfolk, then Savannah.  But the
truth is, we have no idea where our car is and it has been 90 days
since we sent it to sail on the boat to nowhere."

Earlier this month, DOD officials investigated the situation and
found that International was not properly documenting the transfer
of vehicles from trucks to container ships.

A spokesman for U.S. Transportation Command said he had not seen
the lawsuit and did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Amanda Nunez, a spokeswoman for International, and a spokesman for
U.S. Transportation Command did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on the lawsuit.


INTERTEK: Recalls Heating Pad Due to Counterfeit Cert. Mark
-----------------------------------------------------------
Posting date:             August 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41183

Affected products: Heating pad

The recall involves a heating pad manufactured by Ningbo Jinchun
Electric Appliances Co. Ltd. identified by model F1494.

The heating pad was manufactured in China has a counterfeit cETLus
Certification Mark and has not been evaluated by Intertek.  It is
unknown if this product is in compliance with the applicable
safety standard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.

The number of units sold is unknown but it was sold at CVS stores
in the United States and other retail and secondary market
outlets.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Ningbo Jinchun Electric Appliance Co. Ltd.
                    China

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled heating pads
and dispose of them following municipal waste guidelines.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Judge Trims Claims in Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on Aug. 21 trimmed claims alleging Intuitive Surgical Inc.
made false financial reports amid a defect in its robotic surgical
equipment, ruling such forward-looking statements are typically
included in securities filings while preserving other claims
alleging securities fraud.

In an order partially granting Intuitive Surgical's motion to
dismiss, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila said the State of
Hawaii Employees' Retirement System failed to claim why statements
in the company's accounting reports were inaccurate or actionable.

The plaintiff claimed that the reports were misleading because
Intuitive Surgical didn't disclose information that may have
warned investors about the defect, which allegedly caused patients
undergoing surgery to be electrocuted and spurred company stock to
tumble.

But Judge Davila found that the defendant's accounting reports
hadn't provided inaccurate data over the company's financial
performance.

"In essence plaintiff argues that these historical statements are
misleading because they do not account for or otherwise disclaim
the potential forward-looking implications presented by the MDRs
and product liability lawsuits," the Aug. 21 order said.  "But
because defendants' statements are literally true backward-looking
financial reports, the type of which are typically included in SEC
filings."

The da Vinci line of robotic surgical systems for minimally
invasive surgeries features monopolar scissors used to cut
normally and to cauterize tissue through the application of
monopolar electricity via an electrode, according to court papers.
The defective devices were prone to tiny cracks, allowing
electricity to enter into the patient's body and thus damaging
tissue and internal organs, court filings said.

The plaintiff alleged that Intuitive found out about the defect
through medical device reports that it had received from hospitals
treating injured patients.  The company allegedly responded by
issuing secret recalls, unbeknownst to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, and misclassified or failed to file the MDRs.

After the FDA allegedly met with Intuitive to discuss the
misclassified or unfiled MDRs, the company reported a 40 percent
higher number of MDRs, resulting in an FDA safety probe in January
2013 that caused company stock to drop 11 percent on Feb. 28,
2013, and 3 percent on Mar. 4 of that year.

The plaintiff alleged that Intuitive didn't properly file the MDRs
to investors, misleading them into believing the company's
forecast was strong despite the da Vinci defect.

While Judge Davila on Aug. 21 tossed some claims in the securities
class action, he said the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that
statements the company made over the safety and efficacy of the
surgical equipment -- while it was allegedly suppressing the
MDRs -- were misleading.

"Taking Plaintiff's contentions as true, the court concludes that
it is plausible that the reasonable investor would find the
existence of these numerous unreported MDRs to significantly alter
the total mix of information available and that defendants'
statements created an impression of da Vinci's safety that
materially differed from reality," the judge held.

Judge Davila dismissed the plaintiff claims with leave to amend to
the extent that they are premised on statements made by Intuitive
over financial data, risk factors disclosures and FDA compliance
procedures.

Serena P. Hallowell -- shallowell@labaton.com -- of Labaton
Sucharow LLP, which is representing Employees' Retirement System
of the State of Hawaii, told Law360 on Aug. 22, "On behalf of the
class, we are pleased with the result and look forward to
proceeding quickly to discovery and trial."

The State of Hawaii Employees' Retirement System is represented by
Eric J. Belfi -- ebelfi@labaton.com -- Jonathan M. Plasse and
Serena P. Hallowell of Labaton Sucharow LLP and liaison counsel
Arthur C. Leahy -- artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Danielle S. Myers, Susannah
Conn and Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Intuitive is represented by Michael D. Celio -- mcelio@kvn.com --
Jo W. Golub and Cody S. Harris -- charris@kvn.com -- of Keker &
Van Nest LLP.

The case is In re: Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, case
number 5:13-cv-01920, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


KENT HERITAGE: Recalls Chicken Burgers Due to Undeclared Egg
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kent Heritage Farms
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Consumer
CFIA reference number:    9157

Affected products: 2.27 kg. chicken burgers with all codes where
egg is not declared on the label.


KOOMA INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Mackereth, Jonathan Young, and Alyssa Wetzel, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kooma, Inc. d/b/a
Kooma, Kooma Viet Inc., Kooma Riverfront, Kooma II, LLC;
Scott Kim, Jang Moon, Yung H. Kwun, Jin Y. Kim; and Doe Defendants
1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-04824 (E.D. Pa., August 18, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant under the trade name
Kooma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              dbraynin@kalraylaw.com

         - and -

      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      Robert J. Gray, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      Email: gwells@cwg-law.com
             rgray@cwg-law.com


LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Shan Pickle Products
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Les Aliments Nutrifresh Ltee
Distribution:             Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
                          Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9160


LIFE TIME FITNESS: Faces "Chrispens" Suit Over Deduction of Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Chrispens, Gregory Gentile, and Mai Henry individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Life Time Fitness,
Inc., a Minnesota corporation, LFT Club Management Company, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 8:14-cv-01280 (C.D. Cal., August 12, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for unlawful deduction of wages, nonpayment
of minimum and overtime wages, non provision of meal and rest
breaks and forfeiture of vacation wages.

The Defendants own and operate 106 fitness centers throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Branigan Robertson, Esq.
      BRANIGAN ROBERTSON LLP
      9891 Irvine Center Drive Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 667-3025
      Facsimile: (949) 242-9853
      E-mail: branigan@brobertsonlaw.com

         - and -

      Brian D. Chase, Esq.
      Jerusalem F Beligan, Esq.
      BISNAR CHASE LLP
      1301 Dove Street Suite 120
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 752-2999
      Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
      E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
              jbeligan@bisnarchase.com


LIONS GATE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 22 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-5477, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Lions Gate securities between February 11,
2013 and March 13, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lions Gate securities
during the Class Period, you have until September 9, 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.

Lions Gate, an entertainment company, is engaged in motion picture
production and distribution, television programming and
syndication, home entertainment, family entertainment, digital
distribution, new channel platforms, and international
distribution and sales activities.

The Complaint alleges that by the start of the Class Period, Lions
Gate was under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for making false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning a series of transactions designed to prevent
a takeover of the Company by Carl Icahn and his affiliates.
During the Class Period, however, Lions Gate and the other
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the existence
of the SEC investigation, the prospect of legal proceedings
associated with the misconduct under investigation, and the
Company's exposure to loss in connection therewith.

In March 2010, Carl Icahn commenced a series of tender offers
intended to facilitate his takeover of the Company by increasing
his ownership interest in Lions Gate and allowing him to designate
his chosen representatives to the Company's Board of Directors.
Threatened by the possibility of losing control of the Company or
being replaced, Lions Gate's management and the Board sought to
block Icahn's plans.

On July 20, 2010, the Board -- with management's assistance --
approved and facilitated the Transactions, which resulted in
placing over 16 million shares of common stock in the hands of
director Mark Rachesky and/or entities he controlled while
diluting the interests of other Lions Gate shareholders, including
Icahn.  Mr. Rachesky was a staunch supporter of Lions Gate
management and the Board.

Thereafter, Lions Gate publicly represented that the Transactions
were "a key part of the Company's previously announced plan to
reduce its total debt, as well as its nearer term maturities."  In
fact, the SEC found, Lions Gate had not announced any such debt-
reduction plan.  Moreover, Lions Gate failed to adequately
disclose the true purpose of the Transactions: to stifle Icahn's
takeover attempts.  Following the public announcement of the
Transactions, Lions Gate continued to misrepresent their true
purpose to investors.

On March 13, 2014, the SEC issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-
Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-
Desist Order, which memorialized the resolution of the
investigation and charges against Lions Gate for making false and
misleading disclosures regarding the Transactions.  As detailed in
the Order, Lions Gate settled the investigation by, among other
things, agreeing to pay $7.5 million in fines and acknowledging
that it had violated the federal securities laws.

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.


LOUISIANA LIQUID: Fails to Pay Drivers Overtime, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Jaime Rodriguez, Armando Arellano, Jose Juan Arredondo, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Louisiana Liquid Services, LLC and Louisiana Crane & Construction,
LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00739 (W.D. Tex., August 19, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants did not pay their liquid disposal truck
drivers proper overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Louisiana Liquid Services, LLC and Louisiana Crane & Construction,
LLC provide industrial construction and oilfield maintenance
services in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael M. Guerra, Esq.
      Michael K. Burke, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA
      3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
      McAllen, TX 78501
      Telephone: (956) 682-5999
      Facsimile: (888) 317-8802
      E-mail: mike@mmguerra.com
              mburke@mmguerra.com


LOWE'S HOME: Settles HR Managers' OT Class Action for $9.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, Kurt Orzeck and Abigail Rubenstein, writing for
Law360, report that Lowe's Home Centers Inc. on Aug. 22 agreed to
pay $9.5 million to end human resources managers' class action
allegations that they were not actually managers and that Lowe's
misclassified them as exempt from overtime pay requirements,
according to documents filed in Florida federal court.

In their motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement,
the plaintiffs said they expected Lowe's to argue they were
properly classified because the HR managers interviewed potential
hires, along with 20 other job roles.

"The jury would have been presented with a very complex case where
some employees apparently worked contrary to standard procedures,
and will claim to have spent substantial amount of their work
hours involved with many routine and repetitive, typical nonexempt
job duties, while spending unknown percentages of time engaged in
the alleged primary job duties," the motion said.

The settlement fund includes up to $3.2 million in legal fees,
with class members dividing the remaining fund amount between
them.  The method for the proportional allocation has not yet been
determined, according to the settlement.

A trial had been scheduled for June 2015.

Lead plaintiff Lizeth Lytle's suit, initially lodged in August
2012, asserted that the company classified its human resources
managers as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime
requirements, but that their duties were not as sophisticated as
their title suggested and they should not be classified as exempt.

Although given the title of manager, Lowe's human resources
managers, who number as many as 1,745, lack discretion to make
meaningful decisions and do not supervise employees, the
plaintiffs alleged.

The managers maintained that the employees' duties actually
include menial tasks such as operating cash registers, cleaning
bathrooms, greeting customers and sweeping floors.

The plaintiffs also said on Aug. 22 they expect Lowe's to contest
that the HR managers were similarly situated and would attempt to
decertify the class.

"Many plaintiffs as well will move, and become unavailable, as has
happened, some even withdrawing, such that the risks inherent in
this case strongly support settlement at this stage of
litigation," the motion said.

In January, U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington
conditionally certified the suit as a collective action, for the
purposes of the FLSA claims.  In April, the judge trimmed the
suit, ruling the plaintiffs did not, and could not, bring Employee
Retirement Income Security Act claims.

Judge Covington ruled the company did not violate ERISA by keeping
improper records because contributions are based on the salary,
wages, overtime premium pay, bonuses and commissions that are
actually paid to employees, not the number of hours they worked.

Ms. Lytle alleged that because Lowe's did not account for all
hours that managers worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
being paid overtime, the company failed to keep records that she
and the prospective ERISA class members could use to determine
their plan benefits.

But Judge Covington decided that the number of hours worked was
relevant only to determine whether an employee was correctly
classified as exempt or nonexempt for purposes of receiving
overtime compensation, thus siding with the defendants, which also
include Lowe's retirement plan administrator and others.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mitchell L. Feldman of Feldman
Morgado PA.

Lowe's is represented by Juan C. Enjamio of Hunton & Williams LLP.

The case is Lytle et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers Inc., case number
8:12-cv-01848, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.


M&T BANK: "Schaefer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Schaefer Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. M&T Bank Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-06622
(S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2014), seeks to recover overtime wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

M&T Bank Corporation is a New York business corporation located at
One M&T Plaza, 12th Fl, Buffalo, New York, 14203-2399.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South,
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375

         - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, Texas 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788


MAGANA ASSOCIATION: Florida Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis A. Milian, and other similarly situated individuals v. Magana
Association, Inc. d/b/a Pedrito's Cafe Restaurant and Angel
Magana, individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61866 (S.D. Fla., August
18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Magana Association, Inc. and Angel Magana own and operate
Pedrito's Cafe Restaurant in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARANATHA: Peanut Butter Products Recalled Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Industry is recalling MaraNatha and Trader Joe's brands almond
butters and peanut butters from the marketplace due to possible
Salmonella contamination.  Consumers should not consume the
recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick.  Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections.  Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea.  Long-term complications
may include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products in Canada.

The recall was triggered by a recall in another country.  The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


MAXIMUM TITLE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Parker" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle L. Parker, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Maximum Title Loans, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01828 (D.
Ariz., August 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendant places non-
emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers
using an automatic telephone dialing system, without the prior
express consent of the consumers.

Maximum Title Loans, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company
with its principal office located at 2701 W. Northern Avenue,
#102, Phoenix, AZ 85051 which provides loan application services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Lee Davidson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
      5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com


MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Engine Design Defect
---------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a putative class action filed in federal court in Trenton, N.J.,
claims Mazda fits certain vehicles with shoddy engines, then
refuses to foot the bill for necessary repairs, even if under
warranty.  The suit, filed Aug. 21 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, claims the continuous variable valve
timing engine, included in numerous models and model-year
vehicles, was defectively designed.

"Despite Mazda being aware of the . . . defect and devising its
first repair procedure in 2007, [it] did not warn owners," and
instead "restricted dissemination of this knowledge to its
authorized dealer service departments," the suit claims.

It alleges that the company "had a rational reason for not sharing
with owners Mazda's knowledge of the . . . defect: repair of the
defect is expensive."

According to the complaint, the "L-series" engines have since 2001
been fitted to various models: CX-7, Mazdaspeed 3, Mazdaspeed 6,
Mazda 6, Mazda3, Mazda5 and MX-5.  The suit claims an engine
component fails prematurely, causing the timing chain to stretch
or break, which can result in total engine failure -- which
allegedly has occurred as early as one year and with as few as
20,000 miles on the vehicle.

The suit claims Mazda knew about the defect at least as early as
November 2007, when the company issued a technical service
bulletin to dealers warning of an engine tick.  The bulletin was
updated seven times, most recently in February 2011, throughout
which the warning was expanded to include more models and model
years.

Mazda also had knowledge of the problem through customer
complaints, according to the suit, which cites incident reports
documenting engine failure.  Mazda tried to address the problem by
re-engineering the defective component four times, but was
unsuccessful, according to the suit.

The suit alleges Mazda kept owners in the dark about the problem,
even after the original repair parts were also found to be
inadequate.  The company did ultimately send a letter in January
2012 warning of an engine tick, though the suit says the letter
"seeks to dispel any sense of urgency[.]"

The "misleading description of the . . . defect as a 'noise
concern' is part of Mazda's policy of denying repairs to owners,"
and the company's "intent is that owners will delay presenting
their vehicle for repairs until after the purported conclusion of
the warranty period," the suit alleges.

The suit also alleges that Mazda denies warranty coverage if full
oil-change records aren't provided, and for other reasons, and
that company personnel make subjective judgments on whether a
vehicle has been properly maintained by the owner.  Repairs
typically cost "hundreds of dollars" and three hours of labor,
while some owners were forced to pay upward of $8,000 for engine
replacements, the suit alleges.

The named plaintiff, James Stevenson of Bedminster, N.J., claims
he bought a new 2008 Mazda CX-7 that was equipped with the engine
at issue and received a letter in January 2012 informing him that
the warranty on the troublesome components would be extended to
seven years or 70,000 miles, whichever came first.

In November 2013, at less than 64,000 miles, his engine failed,
and Mazda declined warranty coverage, Stevenson claims in the
suit.  He allegedly incurred repair and rental car costs of about
$4,300.

The suit alleges violation of the state Consumer Fraud Act and the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and common-law counts of
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and
fraudulent concealment.

It seeks class certification for those who bought or leased
vehicles equipped with the allegedly defective engine, as well as
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and other
relief.

The matter was assigned to U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson of
the District of New Jersey.

One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Mitchell Breit --
mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons Hanly Conroy in New York,
also did not return a call.


MODERN FURNITURE: Faces "Aponte" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Aponte and Segundo Lazzo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Modern Furniture Manufacturing
Company, LLC, William Kearny and Anthony Solicito, Case No. 2:14-
cv-04813 (E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Modern Furniture Manufacturing Company, LLC owns and operates a
furniture store and maintains a place of business in Deer Park,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin M. Reilly, Esq.
      Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES
      900 Merchant Concourse, Suite 314
      Westbury, NY 11590
      Telephone: (516) 228-5100
      Facsimile: (516) 228-5106
      E-mail: justin@nhglaw.com
              ngreenberg@nhglaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Has Appealed Injunction in "O'Bannon" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The NCAA on August 20, 2014, appealed a federal judge's injunction
in the O'Bannon case, prohibiting the governing body for college
athletics from enforcing rules against student-athletes being paid
for the use of their names, images and likenesses, reports Maria
Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service.

The appeal to the 9th Circuit, filed late on August 20, was
expected after the NCAA announced its intention to appeal after
Wilken's ruling was released on August 8.

"As previously stated, we will appeal the court's decision because
we do not believe the NCAA has violated any antitrust laws," NCAA
Chief Legal Officer Donald Remy said in a statement on August 20.
He said the NCAA continues "to evolve our rules and processes to
better serve student-athletes."

In the injunction, Chief U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken found
that the NCAA's rules on paying student-athletes "unreasonably
restrain trade in the market for educational athletic
opportunities for Division I colleges and universities."

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

Wilken's 99-page ruling slammed the NCAA's primary justifications
for not paying college athletes: amateurism, competitive balance
and the integration of athletics and academics.

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

Her injunction blocks the NCAA "from enforcing any rules or bylaws
that would prohibit its member schools and conferences from
offering their FBS [Football Bowl Subdivision] football or
Division I basketball recruits a limited share of the revenues
generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses in
addition to a full grant-in-aid."  She ordered it to take effect
on August 1, 2015.

The NCAA is represented by:

          Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
          Kelly M. Klaus, Esq.
          Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, Esq.
          Rohit K. Singla, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512-4000
          Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
          E-mail: glenn.pomerantz@mto.com
                  kelly.klaus@mto.com
                  carolyn.luedtke@mto.com
                  rohit.singla@mto.com

               - and -

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Robert J. Wierenga, Esq.
          Kimberly K. Kefalas, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 Main St., Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1500
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  rwierenga@schiffhardin.com
                  kkefalas@schiffhardin.com

The case is Edward O'Bannon, et al. v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association; Electronic Arts, Inc.; and Collegiate
Licensing Company, Case No. 09-CV-3329-CW, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District Of California, Oakland
Division.


NEW YORK, NY: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Protesters Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 700 Occupy Wall Street activists who were arrested on
the Brooklyn Bridge can pursue a civil rights class action, Adam
Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a 2nd Circuit ruling
entered on August 21, 2014.

On Oct. 1, 2011, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in
support of the Occupy Wall Street movement in lower Manhattan, and
the court's 56-page opinion recounts much of what was said and
heard on that day.

A group of these protesters chanted "Take the bridge!" and "Whose
streets?  Our streets!" as they approached the vehicular entrance
of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Video footage of the demonstration shows an officer warning
through his bullhorn that police will arrest those who enter, but
the protesters have since said that the announcement was
inaudible, and that the police understood this.

Several protesters reported that they believed authorities had
"led the march across the bridge."

After 10 arrestees claimed in a class action that they never
received "fair warning" that crossing the bridge would cause their
arrest, a divided three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit affirmed on
August 21, 2014, that the lawsuit can advance.

"Any driver knows that he may not ordinarily cross an intersection
against a red light, but that an officer directing traffic can
lawfully order him to ignore the red light and proceed," Judge
Gerard Lynch wrote for the majority.

The facts of the case that may be uncovered during discovery could
be "far more complicated" than this example, he added.

"Although we have recounted the facts by referring to 'the police'
and 'the demonstrators,' we have done so only because the record
is so undeveloped that we cannot specify the conduct or knowledge
of particular named defendants," the 28-page opinion, joined by
Judge Guido Calabresi, states.

In a bitter dissent, Judge Debra Ann Livingston denied that the
arrested protesters experienced "any indignity, that is, apart
from the fact of arrest while obstructing all traffic on the
Brooklyn Bridge."

Advancing a class action against the arresting officers "threatens
the ability of police departments in this circuit lawfully and
reasonably to police large-scale demonstrations and to make the
necessary on-the-spot judgments about whether arrests are required
in the face of unlawful conduct threatening public safety,"
Livingston added.

While Livingston mocked the notion of faulting police for failing
to use "sound-amplifying equipment adequate to the majority's
taste," the majority chided Livingston's focus on "various
inflammatory facts gleaned from a viewing of the videotapes."

In particular, the dissent repeatedly draws attention to "a
shirtless protester with a large red star on his back" standing
with a raised fist.  Livingston also referred to the demonstrators
as an "assembled throng" that can be seen "loudly and vigorously
screaming."

For the majority, the competing interpretations of the footage
highlight the "Rashomon-like quality of this case."

But Livingston ridiculed her colleagues' "attempts to weave
'Rashomon-like' complexity into the question whether police
officers had probable cause to arrest unpermitted demonstrators
who were wholly obstructing traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge."

As the majority found that questions remain, the protesters will
be able to gather evidence to support their allegations.

"It may well be that no police officer, including those who made
the critical tactical decisions in this case, was aware of the
relevant facts," Lynch wrote.  "It is impossible, however, to know
that at this stage."

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Esq.
          Andrea Hope Costello, Esq.
          Carl Messineo, Esq.
          PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND
          617 Florida Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 232-1180

The Defendants-Appellants

          Ronald E. Sternberg, Esq.
          Leonard Koerner, Esq.
          Arthur G. Larkin, Esq.
          Michael A. Cardozo, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          New York, NY

The case is Karina Garcia v. Jane and John Does 1-40, individually
and in their official capacities v. Raymond W. Kelly, individually
and in his official capacity, City of New York, Michael R.
Bloomberg, in his official capacity and individually, Case No. 12-
2634-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Frechter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, William C. Erbey, Ronald
M. Faris and John V. Britti, Case No. 9:14-cv-81076 (S.D. Fla.,
August 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Securities Exchange Act.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
focuses on residential mortgages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Lester Rene Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE PA
      Boca Center, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: 394-3382
      E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              lhooker@saxenawhite.com

         - and -

      Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 759-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
      E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
              fqian@wolfpopper.com
              minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com


OEUF: Recalls Sparrow Cribs Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 13, 2014
Posting date:             August 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41029

Affected products: Sparrow Cribs

The recall involves four models of Oeuf Sparrow cribs.  The cribs
were sold in the colours birch, grey, walnut and white.

The recalled cribs were manufactured between July 2007 and Jan.
2014 and have one of the following model numbers:

The manufacture date is in MM-YYYY format, and the model numbers
are located on the warning label attached to the crib's mattress
support.

The slats/spindles and top rail can detach from the cribs and pose
a strangulation, entrapment and fall hazard to a child.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries in Canada related to the use of these products.

Oeuf has received four reports of the slats/spindles and the top
rail detaching from the crib.  No injuries have been reported.

A total of 673 were sold in Canada at various speciality stores.

The recalled product was manufactured in Latvia and sold in Canada
between Feb 2009 and July 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Oeuf LLC
                   Brooklyn
                   New York
                   United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Oeuf toll-free at 1-844-653-8527 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. ET Monday through Friday or by email to obtain a free repair
kit.  Consumers can also visit Oeuf's website and click on Sparrow
Recall.


ONEWEST BANK: 9th Cir. Remanded "Doyle" Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated
an order entered by the United States District Court for the
Central District of California remanding a class action lawsuit
initiated by Geraldine Doyle to California Superior Court.

The Panel remanded the lawsuit to the District Court to allow the
District Court to determine whether, considering the Plaintiff
Class as pleaded at the time of removal, any of the exceptions to
Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction applied.

The Panel held that the District Court erred in determining the
citizenship of the Plaintiff Class by considering the class as
pleaded in the second amended complaint, which was filed in the
District Court after the action had been removed from state court.
The Panel held that for the purpose of considering the
applicability of the exceptions to Class Action Fairness
Act jurisdiction, the District Court should have determined the
citizenship of the proposed Plaintiff Class based on the complaint
as of the date the case became removable.

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Michael C. Eyerly, Esq.
          DEBLASE BROWN EYERLY LLP
          680 South Santa Fe Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (310) 575-9955
          Facsimile: (310) 575-9919
          E-mail: eyerly@dbelegal.com

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Elizabeth L. McKeen, Esq.
          Danielle N. Oakley, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 823-7150
          Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
          E-mail: emckeen@omm.com
                  doakley@omm.com

The appellate case is Geraldine Doyle v. OneWest Bank, FSB, Case
No. 14-56075, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The District Court case is Geraldine Doyle v. OneWest
Bank, FSB, Case No. 2:13-cv-05951-SJO-JEM, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.


PACIFIC BELL: Removed "Lefevre" Class Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Justin Lefevre v. Pacific Bell
Directory, et al., Case No. CGC-14-539958, was removed from the
San Francisco County Superior Court to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-
03803-KAW to the proceeding.

The Complaint includes eight causes of action, including alleged
failure to pay overtime, to provide meal periods and to provide
accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Anthony Baird, Esq.
          Stanley Donald Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hilla, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Robert Ira Spiro, Esq.
          SPIRO LAW CORP.
          11377 W. Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 235-2350
          Facsimile: (310) 235-2351
          E-mail: ira@spirolawcorp.com

Defendants YP Western Directory LLC, formerly known as Pacific
Bell Directory, and YP Holdings LLC are represented by:

          Julie A. Totten, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 329-4908
          Facsimile: (916) 329-4900
          E-mail: jatotten@orrick.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq.
          R. Keith Chapman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: jkienitz@littler.com
                  kchapman@littler.com


PAN ASIA: Recalls Wang Korepab Seaweed Crackers
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Pan Asia Food Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9145

The food recall warning issued on June 27, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Pan Asia Food Company Ltd. is recalling Wang Korepab - Seaweed
crackers from the marketplace because they contain milk, which is
not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk, should
not consume the recalled product described.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results.  The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: 56 g. Wang Korepab - Seaweed with all products
where milk is not declared on the label


PELLA CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Window Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique and K. Renee Palacios, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pella Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01886 (E.D. La.,
August 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
disclose the design and manufacturing defects of aluminum wood
clad Windows.

Pella Corporation is an Iowa Corporation that sells and
manufactures aluminum wood clad Windows.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
      Irma L. Netting, Esq.
      LEMMON LAW FIRM
      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

         - and -

      Val Patrick Exnicios, Esq.
      LISKA, EXNICIOS & NUNGESSER
      1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Telephone: (504) 410-9611
      Facsimile: (504) 410-9937
      E-mail: vpexnicios@exnicioslaw.com


PFIZER INC: 300 Canadian Women to Join Premplus Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that three-hundred Canadian women will face a
pharmaceutical giant arguing the company never disclosed the risks
associated with their hormone therapy.  They hope more women in
Atlantic Canada will join their class action lawsuit against
Pfizer.

Between 1977 and 2003, all of the women were prescribed Premplus,
or Premarin in combination with progestin, to treat symptoms of
menopause.  All of the 300 women were later diagnosed with breast
cancer.

A lawyer representing the women says it was announced in 2002 that
those drugs caused breast cancer.

"The complaint that our clients have is that the drug company knew
or ought to have known many years before that and they should have
given Canadians a proper warning," said Doug Lennox, a lawyer for
Klein Lyons.

The drug Premplus was made by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, now owned by
Pfizer, one of the world's biggest drug companies.

Lawyers of the women believe there are more victims in this
province but time is running out to join the case.

"We think based on statistical information on the Canadian Cancer
Registry that this drug was responsible for as many as 12,000
cancer cases in Canada and as many as a thousand in Atlantic
Canada," said Lennox.

But only nine women from the region have registered and the
deadline to opt in was Aug. 25.

In the U.S. Pfizer settled and paid more than a billion dollars to
close to 10,000 women who had taken these drugs and suffered
because of it.   The lawyers at Klein Lyons don't see why it
should be different in Canada.  For women going through menopause
now, hormone replacement therapy has changed dramatically.

"In the past, the hormones were more synthetic hormones and today
there are more hormones that are closer to our natural bodies
hormones," said pharmacist Anastasia Hanias.

She says women now have access to bio-identical hormones, patches
and cream, less invasive treatments and natural options.


PIONEER CORPORATION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over ODD Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
JLK Systems Group, Inc., Jeff Kozik, Meijer, Inc., Meijer
Distribution, Inc., Paul Nordine, Seneca Data Distributors, Inc.,
Ashley Tremblay, and Gregory Starrett, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer North
America, Inc, Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., and Pioneer High
Fidelity Taiwan Co., Ltd., Case No. 3:14-cv-03748 (N.D. Cal.,
August 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendants agreed among
themselves to coordinate the prices of Optical Disk Drives sold in
the United States with the objective of stabilizing the prices.

The Defendants manufacture, sell, and distribute Optical Disk
Drives throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Alexander Saveri, Esq.
      Cadio R. Zirpoli, Esq.
      Guido Saveri, Esq.
      SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
      706 Sansome Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 217-6810
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      E-mail: rick@saveri.com
              zirpoli@saveri.com
              guido@saveri.com


PIZZA HUT: Franchisees File Class Action Over Price War
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cowie, writing for The Age, reports that a class action has
erupted between angry Pizza Hut franchisees and the chain's head
company in the wake of a fierce price war with competitor
Domino's.

The Pizza Hut franchisees say they will struggle to cover costs
and earn profits after parent company Yum! Restaurants Australia
ordered the chain's cheapest pizzas sell for $4.95 and its most
expensive for $8.95.

The move represents a price cut of as much as 50 per cent for some
pizzas and signals a discounting battle with market leader
Domino's, as the two takeaway giants fight for a bigger slice of
Australia's $3.5 billion pizza industry.

The class action comes after a group of 80 franchisees failed to
get an injunction in the Federal Court in June to stop the price
cuts, claiming the move could put some of them out of business.

Since both Pizza Hut and Domino's lowered their prices on July 1,
the companies have launched an advertising blitz to promote the
low-cost pizzas and attract customers away from other cheap fast
food options.

According to an originating application filed with the Federal
Court, the franchisees are seeking to find out if Yum! breached
their franchise agreement and engaged in "unconscionable conduct"
by cutting its prices.

There are also claims over whether Yum! owed a duty of care to its
franchisees when setting the reduced prices. The group is seeking
damages from Yum! to cover the lost profits since the discounts
were introduced.

One Pizza Hut franchisee, who did not want to be named, has
struggled to stay afloat and hoped the class action would get Yum!
to "just listen to us for once".

"Everyone's struggling, it's a financial nightmare," the
franchisee said.  "It's been ongoing since before the price cuts,
this just puts the final nail in the coffin."

The applicant of the class action is a company run by Sydney
businessman Danny Diab, regarded as one of the leading Pizza Hut
franchisees in Australia.

The class action launched in the Federal Court is an opt-out,
meaning it could engage hundreds of Pizza Hut franchises around
the country in action against its own parent company.

Australasian Pizza Association president Jim Kartsounis is acting
as solicitor for the franchisees, however he and Yum! declined to
comment on the action while it is before the courts.

Last month, Pizza Hut general manager Graeme Houston said the
court action was "not ideal" but hoped increased sales would
prompt a change of heart from the franchisees.

"Results will always be the ultimate scorecard," he said.
Mr. Kartsounis argued in the previous injunction hearing that,
while the discounted pizzas might increase sales, it would not
increase profitability due to the reduction in sale price and
increase in cost of sales.

The franchises are not an insignificant investment.  According to
the Pizza Hut website, franchisees are required to invest as much
as $300,000 to open a new store, plus a start-up fee.

Franchisees are also required to pay a monthly royalty,
advertising contribution and purchasing contribution to Yum!,
which are based on a percentage of a store's sales.

It's not the first time a major fast food company has found itself
in a battle with its own franchisees over pricing strategies.

In the United States, hundreds of Burger King franchisees took
their head company to court over a requirement to sell a double
cheeseburger for $1.

A directions hearing has been set in the Federal Court for
October.


RAMA AUTOMOTIVE: "Shaw" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Shaw, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Rama Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Any-Part Auto Stores, and
Allen Vogel, Case No. 2:14-cv-04909 (E.D.N.Y., August 18, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interest and costs, and attorney's fees in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws.

The Defendants own and operate Any-Part Auto Stores and maintains
its principal place of business at 35 Bay Shore Road, Bay Shore,
NY, 11706.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


RELIANT CAPITAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC, an Ohio limited
liability company, and Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-01378-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., August 21, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS AND PHLIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60467
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: angiekrobertson@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  davephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Steven James Halbert, Esq.
          11805 N. Pennsylvania Street
          Americenters Building
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 706-6762
          Facsimile: (317) 706-6763
          E-mail: shalbertlaw@aol.com


ROY POPE: Recalls Belleisle Farms Cole Slaw Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Roy Pope and Sons
Distribution:             Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick,
                          Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Roy Pope and Sons is recalling Belleisle Farms brand cole slaw
from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled product
described.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
test results.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation,
which may lead to the recall of other products.  If other high-
risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public
through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: 227 g. Belleisle Farms Garden Fresh Cole Slaw
with best before date of 2014-08-19


SALEM BROTHERS: Recalls Kaak Crispy Baked Bread
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Salem Brothers
Distribution:             Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9158


SOLARWORLD: Recalls Solar Systems With Copper Grounding Lugs
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 21, 2014
Posting date:             August 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Specialized Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Electrical Hazard, Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41103

Affected products: Solar Systems with copper grounding lugs

The recall includes SolarWorld solar systems installed with bare-
copper grounding lugs installed after June 1, 2010.  These solar
systems use energy from the sun to generate electricity within a
system circuit.  The installation instructions for SolarWorld
solar systems sold after June 1, 2010 called for the use of GBL-
4DB lugs for grounding.  SolarWorld has revised these installation
instructions to explicitly call for tin-coated lugs, specifically
Ilsco part number GBL-4DBT.  "T" is for tin-coated and indicated
by the silver color of the lug.

SolarWorld solar panels installed with bare-copper grounding lugs
can corrode which could result in a faulty ground circuit, posing
an electric shock, electrocution or fire hazard.

SolarWorld has received one report of corrosion related to the
bare-copper lugs in the United States.  No injuries have been
reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these solar panel lugs.

Approximately 210,000 units of the product were sold in Canada and
approximately 1.3 million units in the United States through
SolarWorld installers and distributors or other distribution
companies.

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold from June 2010 through June 2014 in Canada and the United
States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     SolarWorld Americas LLC
                    Hillsboro
                    Oregon
                    United States

Customers may be able to identify from the ground whether a tin-
coated lug (silver) or a bare-copper lug (brown) has been used on
their solar panels.  Consumers who can identify the improper lugs
should contact SolarWorld for replacement. If customers cannot
determine which grounding lugs were used, they should contact
SolarWorld to have an authorized SolarWorld agent inspect the
installation and replace the lugs with tin-coated grounding lugs
or equally safe alternative remedy at no cost to consumers.
SolarWorld is requesting that distributors and others remove
SolarWorld's installation instructions dated before June 2014 from
their websites or other commercial information sources.


SCOOP CAFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maximo Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. John Dadourian d/b/a Scoop Cafe, Case No. 1:14-cv-06641
(S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

John Dadourian owns and operates a food and beverage establishment
called Scoop Cafe located at 659 W. 181st Street, New York, NY
10033.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Kraselnik(RK 0684)
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
      271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 576-1857
      Facsimile: (212) 576-1888


SCOTT SPORTS: Recalls Bicycles with SR Suntour Front Forks
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 13, 2014
Posting date:             August 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40959

Affected products: SR Suntour Suspension Front Fork on SCOTT brand
bicycles

The recall involves SR Suntour front forks equipped on certain
SCOTT Sportsterbikes of model year 2011 through 2013.

Recalled SCOTT Sportster bicycles have 700cc wheels, disc brakes
and a Suntour NEX or NCX front suspension fork.  Bicycle model
names and numbers can be found on the top tube near the head tube.
The front fork's model name is printed on the outer sides of the
fork.

These are the SCOTT bicycles that are affected by the recall:

  Model Name                  Model Year         SR Suntour Fork
  ----------                  ----------         ---------------
  Sportster 10                 2012               NCX
  Sportster 10 Men/Solution    2011               NCX
  Sportster 20 Men/Solution    2012               NCX
  Sportster 25 Men/Solution    2011               NCX
  Sportster 30 Men/Solution    2011 and 2012      NEX
  Sportster 55 Men/Lady        2011 and 2012      NEX
  Sportster X10                2013               NCX
  Sportster X20 Men/Solution   2013               NCX
  Sportster X30 Men/Solution   2013               NEX
  Sportster X40 Men/Lady       2013               NEX
  Sportster X50 Men/Lady       2013               NEX

The front fork can break, posing a crash hazard.

SCOTT has not received any reports of broken forks in Canada.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of the forks.

Approximately 1,316 of the SR Suntour front forks were sold in
Canada on SCOTT bicycles at specialty bicycle retailers.

The recalled bicycles were manufactured in Taiwan and China and
sold from approximately Sept. 2010 to Nov. 2013.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     SCOTT Sports SA
                   Givisiez
                   Switzerland

  Manufacturer     SR Suntour Inc.
                   Chang Hua
                   Taiwan, Province Of China

  Importer         Mica Sports Canada Inc.
                   Bracebridge
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
take them to an authorized SCOTT dealer for a free repair of
affected NEX model front forks or a free replacement of the NCX
model front fork.


SON-KWAN GROCERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Corrales Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Son-Kwan Grocery Inc. d/b/a Blue Valley Deli & Grocery
and Son Kyu Kim, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06638
(S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2014), seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime pay and statutory penalties for notice-and-recordkeeping
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Son-Kwan Grocery Inc. and Son Kyu Kim own and operate a deli and
grocery store located at 570 Avenue of the Americas, County of New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STRICK CORP: Recalls Trailer Model Due to Rear Impact Guards
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Heavy Trailer
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Structure
Units affected:           1
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014344
TC ID number:             2014344

Certain trailers may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 223 - Rear Impact Guards.  The rear impact guard may not
meet the requirements of the standard.  This could increase the
risk of injury and/or damage to property in a crash.

The correction is to be determined.

Affected products: 2014 Strick Trailer


SURVEY SAMPLING: Faces Suit Brought Under Telecommunications Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated v. Survey Sampling International,
LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01214-JCH (D. Conn., August 21, 2014) is
brought under the Telecommunications Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian V. Altieri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BALZANO & TROPIANO, P.C.
          321 Whitney Avenue
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (203) 891-6336
          Facsimile: (203) 891-6136
          E-mail: BrianAltieri@gmail.com


SUTTON PLACE: "Mourabity" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ali El Mourabity, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Sutton Place Restaurant & Bar Inc. d/b/a Sutton Place,
and Richard Kassis, Case No. 1:14-cv-06640 (S.D.N.Y., August 19,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a food and beverage establishment
located at 1015 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TD AMERITRADE: Violated Promises and Took Kickbacks, Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that TD Ameritrade violated
promises to its customers and made $236 million last year from
sending customers' trades to whichever exchange paid it the most
kickbacks for the orders, a class action claims in court.

Lead plaintiff Jay Zola sued TD Ameritrade and TD Ameritrade
Clearing, on August 21, 2014, in Douglas County Court.

In its uniform agreement with clients, TD Ameritrade "promises to
'consider a wide variety of factors in determining where to direct
[client] orders, such as execution price, opportunities for price
improvement (which is when an order is executed at a price that is
more favorable than the displayed national best bid or offer),
market depth, order size and trading characteristics of the
security, efficient and reliable order handling systems and market
center service levels, speed, efficiency, accuracy of executions,
and the cost of executing orders at a market,'" the lawsuit
states.  (Brackets and parentheses in complaint.)

But that's not what happens, Zola says: "TD Ameritrade neither
'consider[s] a wide variety of factors' in order-routing nor
routes its orders in the manner that is best for its customers.
Rather, as one of its own executives admitted in testimony before
the United States Senate, TD Ameritrade routes 'virtually all' of
its orders based on a single factor: what's best for TD
Ameritrade.  That is, the TD Ameritrade executive admitted (and
the data confirms) that TD Ameritrade has been routing virtually
all of its customers' orders through whichever order internalizer
or exchange is willing to pay TD Ameritrade the most money to
receive its order flow.  In turn, those order internalizers and
exchanges expose TD Ameritrade's customers to toxic trading.

"TD Ameritrade calls the kickbacks that it receives from order
internalizers and exchanges 'payment for order flow.'  In 2013,
the company earned $236 million from this practice."

In a footnote, the complaint states: "Order internalizers are
market makers who match some orders internally (either for their
own book or for other market participants) before directing orders
to public exchanges.  As set forth in greater detail below, the
primary order internalizers to whom TD Ameritrade directs its
order flow are Citadel Execution Services and Citi Global Markets,
a subsidiary of Citigroup."

The lawsuit begins with a quotation from Michael Lewis's book
"Flash Boys," which alerted the world to the practices of high-
frequency traders.

Zola seeks class certification, disgorgement of unjust profits,
costs and damages for brief of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew A. Lathrop, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW A. LATHROP, P.C.
          2215 Harney St., Suite 200
          Omaha, NE 68102
          Telephone: (402) 614-7744
          Facsimile: (402) 614-6960
          E-mail: Matt@LathropLawOmaha.com


TD BANK: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
TD Bank withholds wages and denies overtime to employees who work
more than 40 hours a week, a class claims, according to Courthouse
News Service.

The case is Nneka George and Brian Conzelman v. TD Bank NA; TD
Auto Finance LLC; and TD Bank US Holding Co., Case No. 9259/2014,
in the New York Civil Supreme Court, Monroe County.


TD BANK: Settles Store Managers' OT Class Action for $9.9 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that TD Bank NA has
agreed to pay $9.9 million to settle a class and collective action
alleging that the bank has failed to pay assistant store managers
overtime wages, according to court documents filed on Aug. 22 in
New York federal court.

Counsel for the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a judge's
preliminary approval for the deal, which would resolve the class
members' claims that TD Bank had improperly classified them as
exempt from federal and state overtime requirements.

The maximum $9.9 million settlement amount includes service
payments, attorneys' fees and costs and other expenses, according
to settlement documents.  About 2,600 class members have been
identified, court papers show.

"Weighing the benefits of the settlement against the available
evidence and the risks associated with proceeding in the
litigation, the settlement amount is reasonable," the brief said.

The plaintiffs filed suit against TD Bank in February 2013 and
subsequently filed two amended complaints, the most recent of
which asserted claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania wage-and-hour laws.
According to the suit, despite the class members' managerial job
titles, they perform nonexempt, nonmanagerial duties, such as
serving as bank tellers, counting money in the vault and opening
and closing branches.

In February, a magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification as a collective action.  After deciding
to mediate, the parties reached an agreement in May on the
settlement amount and other key terms and spent the next several
months hammering out the remaining terms, according to court
documents.

Eligible employees include two groups: the Rule 23 class -- which
consists of three subclasses of current and former TD Bank
assistant store managers employed by the bank in New York,
New Jersey and Pennsylvania during the period spanning from
Feb. 4, 2007, to the court's entry of the preliminary approval
order -- and the FLSA class, which includes all current and former
assistant store managers who have worked for TD Bank from
March 14, 2011, until the entry of the order, according to court
documents.

The class members will be paid according to an allocation formula
based on the number of weeks for which they were employed during
the relevant periods, and the estimated recovery for each member
is about $2,791, settlement papers said.  The settlement amount
represents about 86 percent of the class's lost wages, according
to court documents.

A dozen plaintiffs will seek approval for service awards ranging
from $7,000 to $15,000, according to court papers.  Counsel for
the plaintiffs will apply for up to a third of the settlement
amount as attorneys' fees, court documents said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Justin M. Swartz, Deirdre Aaron
and Jennifer L. Liu of Outten & Golden LLP, Gregg I. Shavitz,
Susan H. Stern and Keith M. Stern -- kstern@shavitzlaw.com -- of
Shavitz Law Group PA, Troy L. Kessler and Marijana F. Matura of
Shulman Kessler LLP and Peter Winebrake of Winebrake & Santillo
LLC.

TD Bank is represented by Kathleen McLeod Caminiti --
kcaminiti@laborlawyers.com -- Jason Alex Storipan, Steven Siegel
and Jonathan Shapiro -- jshapiro@laborlawyers.com -- of Fisher &
Phillips LLP.

The case is Michael Puglisi et al. v. TD Bank NA, case number
2:13-cv-00637, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.


TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles with SR Suntour Front Forks
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 13, 2014
Posting date:             August 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40963

Affected products: SR Suntour Suspension Front Fork on Trek brand
bicycles

The recall involves SR Suntour front forks equipped on certain
2011 through 2013 model year Trek bicycles.

Recalled Trek bicycles have disc brakes and one of the following
Suntour front fork models: NEX, NRX (with IS mounts), XCM (on
bicycles with 29-inch wheels) or XCT (on bicycles with 29-inch
wheels).  Bicycle model names and numbers can be found on the top
tube near the seat tube or near the head tube.  The recalled
bicycles will also have a serial number ending in F, G or H.  The
serial number is on the frame of the bicycle under the bottom
bracket.  The front fork's model name is printed on the outer
sides of the fork.

The front fork can break, posing a crash hazard.

Trek has received 28 reports of broken forks, including three
reports in Canada.  One of the incidents in Canada reportedly
resulted in a fractured arm.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of the forks.

Approximately 12,165 of the SR Suntour front forks were sold in
Canada on Trek bicycles at specialty bicycle retailers.

The recalled bicycles were manufactured in Taiwan and China and
sold from approximately May 2010 to June 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     SR Suntour Inc.
                    Chang Hua
                    Taiwan, Province of China

   Importer         Trek Bicycle Corporation
                    Waterloo
                    Wisconsin
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
take them to an authorized Trek dealer for a free repair of
affected NEX, XCM (29-inch) and XCT (29-inch) model front forks or
a free replacement of the NRX (IS mount only) model front fork.


TYSON FOODS: 10th Cir. Affirmed $4-Mil. Verdict and Counsel Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods cannot wriggle out of a $4 million verdict and
attorneys' fee award for underpaying employees for time spent
donning and doffing protective clothes before and after their
shifts, reports David Lee at Courthouse News Service, citing a
10th Circuit ruling.

Lead plaintiff Adelina Garcia and several hundred other employees
from a Tyson facility in Finney, County, Kansas, filed a proposed
class action in Kansas federal court in 2006.  They alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kansas Wage
Protection Act for being underpaid for the putting on and taking
off of shin guards, mesh aprons, belly guards, plexiglass arm
guards and knocker vests, among other things.

The jury awarded approximately $500,000 in actual damages and the
trial court later awarded over $3.3 million in attorneys' fees
under the FLSA.

The trial court also denied Tyson's motion for judgment as a
matter of law.  The company then appealed the ruling and argued
the fee award was excessive.  Tyson said there was not enough
evidence to support the verdict because the employees did not
prove unpaid time on a class-wide basis.

A three-judge panel with the 10th Circuit affirmed on August 19,
2014, concluding "a jury could have reasonably inferred class-wide
liability based on the trial evidence."

"We reject Tyson's contentions," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Robert
E. Bacharach.  "The plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of
undercompensation and the district court acted within its
discretion in setting the fee award."

Tyson acknowledged its separate, K-Code category of pay was
intended to compensate workers for donning and doffing activities,
the 27-page opinion stated.

"Thus, the jury could have inferred recognition by Tyson that
until 2010, it had underestimated the time required to get in and
out of the protective clothing and equipment and to walk to and
from the work stations," Bacharach wrote.  "We do not know how the
jury ultimately decided to find class-wide liability.  But we do
know that there was a reasonable basis for the jury's finding of
systematic undercompensation.  Thus, the evidence was sufficient
for the finding of class-wide liability."

The appeals court also disagreed with Tyson's argument that the
jury must have assessed liability for class members who were not
underpaid because the jury awarded less than what the plaintiffs
asked for.

"We disagree because: (1) the evidence supported a finding of
undercompensation for every class member, and (2) Tyson's argument
rests on speculation about how the jury calculated damages," the
opinion stated.

The appeals court concluded the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in allowing recovery of attorneys' fees for time spent
on the state claims and unsuccessful federal claims.

"Though the claims had some factual and legal differences, the
court could reasonably conclude that the similarities justified an
award for the time spent in meals and breaks," Bacharach wrote.
"The court could reasonably conclude that a relation existed
between: (1) the federal claims for pre- and post-shift
activities, and (2) the state claims and the federal claims for
underpayment involving meals and breaks."

Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said the company will explore its
legal options.

"We're disappointed by the ruling and disagree with it, especially
since most of the award is for attorneys' fees, not for the plant
workers," Mickelson said on August 21, 2014.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Todd M. McGuire, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  mcguire@stuevesiegel.com

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Michael J. Mueller, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 955-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 778-2201
          E-mail: mmueller@hunton.com

               - and -

          Craig S. O'Dear, Esq.
          Terence J. Thum, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          One Kansas City Place
          1200 Main Street, Suite 3800
          Kansas City, MO 64105-2122
          Telephone: (816) 374-3200
          Facsimile: (816) 374-3300
          E-mail: csodear@bryancave.com
                  tjthum@bryancave.com

The appellate case is Adelina Garcia, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.;
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Case No. 12-3346, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  The original case is
Adelina Garcia, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.; Tyson Fresh Meats,
Inc., Case No. 2:06-CV-02198-JTM, in the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas.


UNITED STATES: Denied Due Process to Refugees, D.C. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ten mothers and children sued the United States on constitutional
grounds on August 22, 2014, claiming their imprisonment in the
government's new immigration center in Artesia, N.M., 200 miles
from the nearest large city, denies them due process,
intentionally denies them access to legal counsel, and that the
Obama administration's "detain and deport" policy violates the
Convention Against Torture.

Major immigration law offices across the country signed the 60-
page federal lawsuit, representing Honduran and Salvadoran mothers
and children who are imprisoned at Artesia.

Attorneys for the refuge-seekers claim that the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement deliberately chose the remote site to imprison
immigrant mothers and children to deny them access to counsel, in
violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Convention
Against Torture, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth
Amendment.

The Obama administration opened up the remote prison in response
to a perceived influx of immigrant children, particularly at the
Texas-Mexico border.

Border Patrol statistics show that undocumented immigration
actually is at a 40-year low; the only increase this year has been
in the percentage of immigrants who are children, and/or from
Honduras.

Lack of prisons to hold children, and political protests against
immigrants, led the Obama administration to open the Artesia
center to hold children and mothers, and speed up adjudications on
their requests for refugee status.

Attorneys for the American Immigration Council, one of the law
offices representing the mothers and children, said in a statement
on August 22, 2014, that the Obama administration is
systematically violating laws by policies that have:

   "Categorically prejudged asylum cases with a 'detain-and-
    deport' policy, regardless of individual circumstances.

   "Drastically restricted communication with the outside world
    for the women and children held at the remote detention
    center, including communication with attorneys.  If women got
    to make phone calls at all, they were cut off after three
    minutes when consulting with their attorneys.  This makes it
    impossible to prepare for a hearing or get legal help.

   "Given virtually no notice to detainees of critically
    important interviews used to determine the outcome of asylum
    requests.  Mothers have no time to prepare, are rushed
    through their interviews, are cut off by officials throughout
    the process, and are forced to answer traumatic questions,
    including detailing instances of rape, while their children
    are listening.

   "Led to the intimidation and coercion of the women and
    children by immigration officers, including being screamed at
    for wanting to see a lawyer."

American Immigration Council attorney Melissa Crow called it "an
assault on due process."

The 10 plaintiffs in the lawsuit, some of them widows, describe
death threats from violent drug gangs who control neighborhoods in
Honduras and El Salvador, whose notoriously corrupt police
agencies allegedly told the mothers they could do nothing to
protect them.

The lawsuit states: "This is an immigration case involving life
and death stakes.

"Plaintiffs are mothers and children from El Salvador and Honduras
who, like many other Central Americans, have fled persecution in
their countries of origin.

"The United States government arrested plaintiff mothers and
children shortly after they crossed into the United States near
the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, and brought them to a makeshift
detention facility in Artesia, New Mexico.  The detention facility
is profoundly isolated, miles away from any major cities and
lawyers.  The closest major metropolitan area is El Paso, Texas,
which is close to 200 miles away.

"Under the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA') and its
implementing regulations- as well as under the Due Process Clause
-- plaintiffs have an indisputable right to seek asylum and
related relief, and to a fair hearing to present their claims.
But that process at Artesia has been anything but fair, and falls
far short of the government's obligations under existing law.
Instead, the government has created what can only be described as
a 'deportation mill' that is sending mothers and children back to
their home countries to face serious harm without ever having
given them a meaningful opportunity to present their claims."

In response to the perceived "crisis," the administration "imposed
a more stringent -- and unlawful -- standard to deny meritorious
claims presented by mothers and children detained at Artesia," the
complaint states.

It continues: "Further, the government has instituted various
procedural changes to the process, which are designed to limit the
number of successful claims.  The government's new policies make
it much more difficult for detained women and children to present
and substantiate their claims to asylum or other forms of
immigration relief, and to seek the assistance of counsel in doing
so.  Under these new policies, families detained at Artesia are
almost completely cut off from communications with the outside
world, provided insufficient information and in some cases no
information about their rights under the INA, affirmatively
precluded from effectively contacting and receiving assistance
from attorneys, and ultimately forced to navigate pro se a complex
immigration process that is heavily weighted against them.
Detained mothers are subjected to a highly truncated process in
which they are provided virtually no notice of when critical
proceedings are scheduled to occur; asylum officers and
immigration judges rush them to answer questions regarding the
violence, death threats, and sexual abuse they fear -- all while
their children are listening; their children are ordered removed
without being individually screened to determine whether they have
a separate basis for fearing persecution; and their claims are
denied for failing to properly respond to questions about their
asylum claims phrased in complicated legal terminology.

"The asylum process at Artesia and its consequence -- a dramatic
drop in the number of families who are found eligible to apply for
asylum -- is the direct result of policies announced at the
highest levels of our government.  As Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has stated: '[O]ur message to this
group is simple: we will send you back.'  That sentiment has been
echoed publicly by others in the administration, who have stated
that the overwhelming majority of these Central American women and
children do not have meritorious asylum claims -- a political and
policy-level judgment they reached before the detainees had an
opportunity to present their individual cases.  Thus, rather than
adjudicate these cases individually based on the actual facts
presented at a fair asylum interview, the government has
categorically prejudged the claims of these Central American women
and children, and decided -- in advance -- that these cases are
not meritorious and that these women and children must be
deported.  That message has been heard loud and clear in Artesia.
As a result, plaintiffs and numerous other women and children with
obviously credible claims have been ordered removed to countries
where they face danger.  Indeed, the passage rate for the Artesia
families is 37.8 percent, compared with the nationwide average
grant rate of 77 percent under the preexisting procedures.

"The government's new asylum process at Artesia patently violates
the INA and its implementing regulations, as well as the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

The lawsuit recapitulates major class actions filed 30 years ago,
under the Reagan administration, which also built or contracted
out immigration prisons to hold people fleeing the wars in Central
America.  One of those lawsuits -- American Baptist Churches v.
Thornburgh -- overturned more judicial decisions than any other
ruling in U.S. history.

Then, as now, the Justice Department was accused of isolating
refuge-seekers in remote prisons and using abusive processes to
deny them legal counsel and speed up their deportation.

Then, as now, attorneys who shuttled to the isolated prison to try
to represent refugees on an emergency basis, described systematic
abuses of due process.

The Obama administration has barred reporters from court
proceedings at Artesia, claiming that such a bar is standard
procedure, though it is not.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the "system of
expedited removal" at Artesia is illegal, an injunction
prohibiting it and demanding corrective action, and an order
directing the defendants to give the mothers and children "a
meaningful opportunity to apply for asylum," with "a reasonable
amount of advance time to obtain and meet with counsel" to prepare
for their removal hearings, and an order that the government
"return any deported plaintiff to the United States for new
proceedings that comply with the law."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Price, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 639-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 639-6066
          E-mail: mprice@jenner.com

               - and -

          Gabriel A. Fuentes, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 923-2808
          E-mail: gfuentes@jenner.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Chang Newell, Esq.
          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          Kate Desormeau, Esq.
          Stephen B. Kang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION,
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0774
          E-mail: stephenbkang@gmail.com

               - and -

          Lee Gelernt, Esq.
          Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.
          Andre Segura, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION,
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2600

               - and -

          Alexandra Smith, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW MEXICO
          1410 Coal Avenue, SW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 266-5915

               - and -

          Mitra Ebadolahi, Esq.
          Gabriela Rivera, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SAN DIEGO
          & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
          PO Box 92138-7131
          San Diego, CA 92138-7131
          Telephone: (619) 232-2121
          Facsimile: (619) 232-0036
          E-mail: mitra@nyu.edu
                  grivera@aclusandiego.org

               - and -

          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL
          4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 434
          Washington, D.C. 20008
          Telephone: (202) 457-0800

               - and -

          Trina Realmuto, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE
          NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
          14 Beacon Street, Suite 602
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 227-9727

               - and -

          Linton Joaquin, Esq.
          Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
          Melissa Keaney, Esq.
          Alvaro Huerta, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 639-3900
          E-mail: tumlin@nilc.org
                  keaney@nilc.org
                  huerta@nilc.org

               - and -

          Melissa Crow, Esq.
          Beth Werlin, Esq.
          Emily Creighton, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 507-7523

               - and -

          Zachary Nightingale, Esq.
          Lisa Knox, Esq.
          VAN DER HOUT, BRIGAGLIANO & NIGHTINGALE, LLP
          180 Sutter Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-3000
          E-mail: zn@vblaw.com
                  lkno@vblaw.com

The case is M.S.P.C., et al. v. Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01437, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.


VISA INC: MDL Panel Agrees to Sever Claims in Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney and Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, report
that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has agreed to
sever claims against Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. in one of a
group of class actions arising from Target Corp.'s disastrous 2013
data breach, saying the claims against the credit card companies
and the retailer were sufficiently different.

The panel agreed to sever claims against the credit card companies
and transfer them back to the District of Utah, according to an
Aug. 13 order.  The claims had been transferred from a federal
case in which Target and the credit card companies had both been
defendants.

The panel said there may be some "negligible overlap in discovery"
but that the claims against the credit card companies do not share
sufficient questions of fact to be joined to the MDL against
Target.

"The claims against Target will relate solely to the data security
breach that occurred in 2013," the panel explained.

"In contrast, the claims against Visa and MasterCard will focus on
their development of chip and PIN technology, why they have
declined to implement that technology in the U.S., and whether the
technology would have prevented harm to plaintiffs and class
members -- not just from the Target data breach, but from any
number of data breaches in the last two decades," the panel said.

Target announced the security breach in December, saying hackers
had stolen information contained on customers' payment cards --
referred to as "track data" -- as cards were being swiped in its
stores.  It is believed that the personal information of up to 70
million Target customers may have been stolen, and as many as 40
million customers may have had their credit and debit card
information stolen.

The breach occurred between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15 and was disclosed
by the company on Dec. 19. Target was the largest in a series of
breaches that recently struck prominent U.S. retailers, including
Neiman Marcus Group Ltd. Inc. and Michaels Stores Inc.

In May, Target disclosed in regulatory filing that it had already
incurred $35 million in direct expenses as a result of the breach.
Target interim CEO John Mulligan has suggested that the company's
liability stemming from the incident could continue to increase.

Visa is represented by Robert L. Stolebarger --
robert.stolebarger@bryancave.com -- and Andres L. Carrillo --
andres.carrillo@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave LLP and by James
Jardine -- jjardine@rqn.com -- and Adam Richards --
arichards@rqn.com -- of Ray Quinney & Nebeker.

MasterCard is represented Kenneth A. Gallo --
kgallo@paulweiss.com -- Jacqueline V. Lueptow, Gary R. Carney --
gcarney@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP, and by George M. Haley and Stephen M. Sansom of Holland &
Hart LLP.

Target is represented by Wendy J. Wildung --
wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- and Michael A. Ponto --
michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, and
Harold J. McElhinny -- hmcelhinny@mofo.com -- Jack W. Londen,
Michael J. Agoglia, Rebekah Kaufman and David F. McDowell --
dmcdowell@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The Utah case is Christensen et al. v. Target, case number 2:13-
01136, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

The MDL case is In re: Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, case number 0:14-md-02522, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.


WALGREEN CO: Faces "Short" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Short, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated
v. Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation, Walgreen National
Corporation, an Illinois corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 3:14-cv-03747 (N.D. Cal., August 18, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Walgreen Co. and Walgreen National Corporation are Illinois
corporation that do pharmacy business in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 711
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com


WEISS-ROHLIG: "Pereira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Pereira and all others similarly situated under 29 USC
216(b) v. Weiss-Rohlig USA, LLC, A Foreign Corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-23040 (S.D. Fla., August 19, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages due as a result of violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Weiss-Rohlig USA, LLC is a foreign corporation that provides air
and sea freight services, which is authorized to transact and
conduct business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Thomas Brady Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM BRADY, P.A.
      800 Brickell Avenue, Penthouse 2
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-7688
      Facsimile: (305) 358-4010
      E-mail: wbrady@wbradylaw.com


YAHYA TRADING: "Rivas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Mendoza Rivas and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Yahya Trading Corp. and Noor Mohamed, Case No.
1:14-cv-23063 (S.D. Fla., August 19, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Yahya Trading Corp. and Noor Mohamed own and operate a grocery
store in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* Two Rulings Limit Scope of Stay on Discovery in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared L. Kopel, writing for The Recorder, reports that two recent
decisions -- one by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and the other by a federal district court -- have narrowed
the scope of the automatic stay on discovery at the pleading stage
in securities fraud actions.

Both decisions held that information or documents lawfully
provided by third parties and used to support a securities fraud
complaint do not violate the discovery stay imposed by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).  These
decisions, if not quite prying open the door for plaintiffs to
conduct discovery at the pleading stage, at least leave it
slightly ajar.

In Petrie v. Electronic Game Card Inc., No. 12-55620 (9th Cir.
July 2014), investors filed a securities fraud action against the
company, which engaged in electronic gaming; the company's former
chief executive and chief financial officers; and other
individuals, called the "control persons," who served as officers,
directors or both.

The plaintiffs asserted that the company's financial statements
were fraudulent and defendants concealed the fact that the company
might lose control of a profitable European subsidiary.
Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

When the control persons moved to dismiss plaintiffs' first
amended complaint, the district court dismissed the Section 10(b)
claim but not the claim under Section 20(a), which makes "control
persons" liable for primary securities violations.  The former CEO
and CFO apparently lived abroad and were not served with the first
amended complaint.  Plaintiffs then filed a second amended
complaint, containing similar allegations as the first amended
complaint.

After ruling on the motion to dismiss by one of the control
persons, the district court entered a scheduling order for
discovery.  Plaintiffs served a third-party subpoena on the
company's outside auditors.  At some point, plaintiffs' attorneys
contacted the former CEO, whose counsel advised that he intended
to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Counsel also
asserted that this notice gave rise to a discovery stay under the
PSLRA, which plaintiffs disputed.

Subsequently, plaintiffs received materials from the outside
auditors pursuant to the subpoena.  The former CEO filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings and the former CFO filed a motion to
dismiss, which were both granted without prejudice.

Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint that was much more
detailed and relied extensively on the documents produced by the
auditors.  These materials, some of which were attached as
exhibits, purportedly laid bare the fraudulent scheme of the
former CEO and CFO.  However, the district court held that the
former CEO's announced intent to file a motion for judgment on the
pleadings triggered the PSLRA's discovery stay.  It invoked Rule
12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike all
portions of the third amended complaint referring to or relying on
the auditor's materials.  The court also ruled that without the
stricken materials, plaintiffs failed to state a claim for any
violations of Sections 10(b) or 20(a), dismissed the third amended
complaint with prejudice, and entered final judgment for
defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.

The PSLRA provides that in any private securities action, "all
discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the
pendency of any motion to dismiss," unless the court finds upon
the motion of a party that particularized discovery is necessary
to preserve evidence or prevent undue prejudice to that party (15
U.S.C. Sec. 78(u)-4(b)(3)(B); Section 21D(b)(3)(B) of the Exchange
Act).

As the Ninth Circuit previously observed, the discovery stay was
intended to avoid the "unnecessary imposition of discovery costs
on defendants." (SG Cowen Sec. Corp. v. U.S. District Court for N.
Dist. of Cal., 189 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 1999)).

In Petrie, the Ninth Circuit noted that the filing of a motion to
dismiss also triggers the discovery stay as to an amended
complaint.  The court also assumed the discovery stay is triggered
by a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the same manner as a
motion to dismiss.  But the court held that the PSLRA does not
prohibit a plaintiff from accepting and using third-party
responses to discovery requests that were permitted at the time
they were served.

After upholding part of the first amended complaint, the district
court issued a scheduling order allowing the parties to proceed
with discovery.  None of the defendants objected to the discovery
order or argued on appeal that the order was improperly entered.
The parties, except for one defendant, exchanged the required
initial disclosures consistent with the scheduling order.  It was
undisputed that there was no dispositive motion pending or any
notice of intent to file such a motion when plaintiffs subpoenaed
records from the auditors, and no defendant or the auditors
objected to the subpoena.

While the discovery stay is intended to protect defendants and
third parties from the burden of discovery before the legal
sufficiency of the complaint is determined, the district court
here had upheld allegations in the first amended complaint and
permitted discovery.  The fact that the district court had not
upheld every part of the complaint as to all parties was not
relevant.  Further, if the receipt of discovery did not violate
the discovery stay, the use of the auditor's materials also could
not be illegal.

Reversing the district court's order striking portions of the
third amended complaint that relied upon the discovery materials,
the Ninth Circuit stated: "We hold that a party does not violate
the PSLRA discovery stay by relying on materials provided by a
third-party pursuant to a valid subpoena issued when no PSLRA
discovery stay was in effect."

Based on these materials, it was clear the third amended complaint
plead sufficient allegations against the former CEO and CFO.
Accordingly, the dismissal of these claims was reversed and the
action remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
It's interesting to note that in striking portions of the third
amended complaint, the district court relied on Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f), permitting a court to strike from a pleading any
"redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."  The
district court suggested that the auditor's discovery was rendered
"immaterial" by plaintiffs' supposed violation of the discovery
stay.  The Ninth Circuit held that while a district court clearly
could sanction a violation of a discovery stay, there was no need
here to define the lower court's authority to strike pleadings
because the discovery stay was not violated.

On the same day as the Petrie decision, Judge Edward Chen of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California also
addressed the scope of the PSLRA's discovery stay in Brado v.
Vocera Communications Inc., No. C-13-3567 EMC (N.D. Cal. July 30,
2014), in which plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the
securities laws by overstating Vocera's profitability.  In
connection with the initial fact-finding effort, an investigator
for plaintiffs' counsel interviewed and obtained documents from
Vocera's former senior director of internal audit, finance and
administration.  The documents were provided to Vocera, prior to
any examination by plaintiffs' counsel, for review to determine if
any of the documents were privileged.  Vocera asserted that the
former employee misappropriated the documents and violated a
confidentiality agreement with Vocera by providing the documents
to the investigator.

Vocera sought the return of the documents and objected to their
use by plaintiffs in opposing any motion to dismiss as violating
the PSLRA's discovery stay.  Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
the district court to invalidate the confidentiality agreement to
the extent it prevented the former employee from cooperating with
plaintiffs and to permit plaintiffs to use the documents at the
pleading stage.

Judge Chen denied the request to limit the confidentiality order,
but granted permission for plaintiffs to use the documents,
subject to any privilege claims and a protective order.  Judge
Chen held that the former employee's alleged misappropriation of
the documents did not bar plaintiffs' use of them because there
was no improper conduct by plaintiffs' counsel in obtaining the
documents; there was no direct benefit provided to the former
employee; and there was no prejudice to Vocera.

The court rejected Vocera's argument that the use of the documents
at the pleading stage constituted "discovery" under the PSLRA
because the company incurred "discovery costs" in opposing
plaintiffs' motion.  Rather, Judge Chen ruled, Vocera had not
provided the documents in response to a document request; they
were already in the possession of the former employee.

Vocera's costs in opposing plaintiffs' motion and negotiating a
protective order were "different in quantity and quality from the
burdensome discovery costs Congress had in mind" in enacting the
discovery stay.  While Vocera would be placed at a disadvantage by
plaintiffs' acquisition of the documents, the "truth-seeking value
of [the] documents is not countervailed by any statutorily
recognized interest" since the PSLRA was not violated.

So what do Petrie and Brado teach? First, the PSLRA's discovery
stay no longer applies when a district court upholds any part of a
complaint as to any defendant even if the court does not expressly
uphold every part of the complaint as to all parties.

Second, the discovery stay is triggered by a motion for judgment
on the pleadings as well as a motion to dismiss.  But if after a
court has upheld a portion of a complaint, a defendant intends to
file a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion to dismiss
an amended complaint, the defendant should: declare an intent to
file such a motion prior to the entry of any scheduling order and
the commencement of discovery; object to entry of a discovery
scheduling order and the issuance of any discovery requests,
including to third parties; and avoid engaging in discovery
itself, such as exchanging initial disclosures.

Finally, companies must realize that once departing employees take
corporate documents with them, efforts to prevent non-privileged
documents from being used by plaintiffs' counsel at the pleading
stage may be futile -- assuming there is no wrongdoing by
plaintiffs' counsel or its investigator.

Thus companies must exercise every effort to ensure that employees
do not misappropriate documents at or even before employment is
terminated.


                              *********

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  * * *